It seems to me that--well, I could see that that would be a theory. Is that the theory that Marshall and Brennan used when they consistently dissented in every death penalty case, asserting that the death penalty violates the Eighth…

I think the nominee raises a lot of important philosophical questions about law and the Constitution.

I do think that's unfair to him. I think he's a mainstream justice.

I think good judges can differ on whether they believe in a death penalty or not, and the critical thing is, I guess, will you follow the law.

faithfulness is following it as written even if you don't like it.

There is no doubt Roberts had a brilliant legal mind, but a Supreme Court nominee must be evaluated on more than legal intellect.

Why am I faced with placing children in jail longer than they've been alive?

its mission is to promote, among other things, free enterprise, private ownership of property, and limited government. These are code words for an ideological agenda hostile to the environmental, workplace, and consumer protections.

judges cannot create welfare rights in the Constitution.

For many years our ability to enforce the law and protect the citizens of our jurisdiction has been hampered by erroneous decisions of U.S.

I think it has been helpful.

if there are going to be welfare rights in society they must come from the legislature, they must come from Congress.

I think you've noted that revenue bills must arise in the House. That's unequivocal.

Senator Burr also gave me that statement and did express his regret that he couldn't be here, but expressed his strong support for the nominee as a person that is scrupulously fair and has the intellect and integrity to be a fine judge.

I remain uneasy about some of the--not so much the answers you give, but how they square with what you've written before.

the courts have no role at all in questioning that judgment by Congress.

I love this Constitution, the great republic that we've been given. It is something that we should cherish and pass on to our children.

You've written, arguing that the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment creates a positive right...

When you try a person in civilian court, you have to give the Miranda warning upon taking them into custody.

We then began to establish a military commission framework consistent with history for the detention, interrogation, and trial of captured al Qaeda terrorists.

Why wouldn't that be the right way to start the case and have a policy for every FBI agent, every police officer, every TSA airport official to begin--to not give Miranda warnings and not provide free attorneys to people who are attacking…

The record of the Article III courts in the conviction of terrorists in this country is unparalleled, and that is absolute fact.

You take them into military custody, and then you can try them at your option in civilian courts.

You had a commission, you co-chaired the commission to decide what to do, and you concluded that even those who had already been arrested and already are detained at Guantanamo, there would be a presumption that they would be tried in…

Isn't it true and isn't it appropriate that after they have been taken into military custody, if you chose to try them in civilian court, you could still do so?