My understanding is that the Russians have absolutely no vision that nuclear weapons will be eliminated from the world.

You know, we want to be fair to you and we're going to do that.

I have a strong feeling that our Federal courts have forgotten their role in these cases.

I just have to tell you, I've seen the transcript and I didn't--not so much--I think it evidenced a lack of a proper understanding of your role in the matter.

These are important positions and teams of staffers and lawyers have checked into the backgrounds of the nominees.

I do not know how anybody in your position could be accepting of this responsibility and proceed in the face of this record to be the proximate cause of this man's death.

I do worry that if we draw our numbers too low, a lot of nations might well consider that they could, with a little investment and a period of years, be a peer-competitor of us with nuclear weapons.

It seems to me that proliferation the danger of a terrorist obtaining a nuclear weapon would be at least as great, if not greater, with regard to a tactical weapon than one that's in a strategic situation.

Well, the judges of the court somehow decided to let these wrongdoers go and change established law, is that your testimony?

How would this make him the 'least culpable of people on death row'?

These are important issues. There has been a lot of public policy discussion about these kind of class action lawsuits.

A very important distinction, is it not?

I do not dismiss it lightly. But you are entitled to a fair day to get your side out.

When you said in your sentence--you said he shouldn't have been sentenced--'shouldn't have been convicted', then you said 'he shouldn't have been sentenced to death because sexual sadism is a mitigating factor--clearly, a mitigating…

I think the kind of experience you bring to the bench is valuable and it should stand you in good stead.

I have had the personal experience to see the damage that criminals can do to human beings and to society.

And apparently, is it not true, that the client, Mr. Ross, the murderer, had decided he didn't want to appeal anymore?

Looking at the record in light most favorable to Mr. Ross, he never should have been convicted.

The guidelines are a first reference point. They are not binding, however...

Which is consistent with what the competency hearing in the State had found, and consistent with what the appellate courts and the Supreme Court of Connecticut had found.

I don't think we should overstate that.

You accused the court of letting, quote, 'wrongdoers off the hook.'

I think it is a free country.

I have been a prosecutor and I have seen judges go beyond their proper role in hearings.

Well, it is a great legal system we have.