In Citizens United, the Court listed at least 25 precedents dating back almost 75 years.

When President Obama announced your nomination he said that you believed that 'in a democracy powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.'

In short, the First Amendment does not belong to any definable category or persons or entities. It belongs to all who exercise its freedoms.

These are small companies that want the legal protections that incorporating provides.

the application of that statute to any kinds of classic electioneering materials was in fact constitutional.

Many folks have attacked the decision, saying it is a prime example of, quote, 'conservative judicial activism,' unquote.

All right. Well, there was no foreign corporation involved. That is one of the points I am trying to establish.

But by overruling that one precedent, was not the Court really reaffirming a much larger group of previous decisions?

I urge you to maintain that focus for the remainder of the hearings and refrain from further hyperbole questioning of Ms. Kagan's support for the men and women of the U.S. military.

Some of my colleagues and my friends on the other side are really taken aback by some of the arguments on Citizens United and some of the other cases.

I think those efforts fall short of even the most basic factual scrutiny.

We are talking about one of the most important positions in the world, one of nine, in the greatest court in the world.

So that's judicial restraint.

I know you have all sincerely given us the best you can.

As a Senator I have to say that this is the--after sending troops in harms way which is always the toughest decision for a Senator to make, how we vote on Supreme Court nominees is clearly the most important thing we have to do.

This is a particularly difficult thing for a lot of us, because you cannot help but like Elena Kagan.

I personally think that's wrong. And I think you've made a fairly decent case here today that it is wrong.

General Kagan told us yesterday that she characterized ACOG's original no circumstances language as a disaster, because it did not accurately reflect ACOG's own medical position.