It was the role of the courts in interpreting the Constitution to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government.

So let me start by asking you the standard for judges in approaching cases that we talked about, starting with the President's idea.

for once on the side of the angels.

Judges should have a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people and know that in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.

Well, the stats are 80 percent. So that is a pretty good percentage, when you ask them to take a case and they do.

In Justice Marshall's view, constitutional interpretation demanded above all else that the courts show a special solicitude for the despised and disadvantaged.

I only regret that none of my democratic colleagues except Senator Kaufman are here to be instructed in the error of their ways.

the whole point of the Court's rule is to interpret what is permitted under the Constitution

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina…

Unfortunately the Graham Amendment would prohibit challenges to detention practices, treatment of prisoners, adjudications of their guilt and their punishment.

I think that there wouldn't be anything wrong with the Committee understanding whether or not your decision was based on considerations other than purely legal.