We are seeing States and localities put voting restrictions on the books that not only have a discriminatory effect.

During our meeting, I was encouraged when you said that the purpose of Article III of the Constitution was to protect the rights of the minority through access to the courts.

But by tilting the political playing field so heavily to toward corporations and against individuals, has the Court not impacted the composition of who is in Congress and made it, therefore, even harder for Congress to take meaningful…

Will the Court protect the right to vote for all Americans or allow States to use voter fraud as an excuse to disenfranchise vulnerable communities?

The Court struck down bipartisan laws limiting campaign contributions that went back more than a century and opened a flow of money and potential corruption that has dominated our politics.

The Court's legitimacy itself is at risk when it strays too far into the political thicket, such as by deciding an election such as it did in Bush v. Gore.

It matters a great deal for our rights what is the judicial philosophy or, as my colleague, Senator Blumenthal, would put it, core beliefs of the judges who serve on the Supreme Court.

You consistently choose corporations and powerful interests over people, ideology over common sense, and, indeed, the purpose of the law.

the Court adopted a narrow view that only quid pro quo corruption counts regarding campaign contributions and that appearance of corruption, basically, which had also been a concern, is out the window.

Some have even gone so far as to conflate the questions we are raising about your record in the course of our advise and consent responsibilities with Donald Trump's abhorrent attacks on Federal judges.

The real-life impact of the Shelby County decision was that 13 States passed laws that could be deemed voter suppression laws.

How do you change the culture when, for example, you have a Commander in Chief who exhibits certain attitudes toward women?