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

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.

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.

Taken together, these two decisions, Citizens United and Shelby County, have made it harder for millions of Americans to have their voices heard in our elections process.

Well, clearly, elections have an impact on the composition of the Court because we have you. We do not have Judge Merrick Garland.

We have seen the tremendous, in my view, damage the Court can do to our political process when it tilts the electoral process so heavily against ordinary Americans.

The Roberts court, in another narrow 5-4 decision in Shelby County, substituted its conclusions for that of Congress and gutted core protections of the Voting Rights Act.

So given your clear understanding of the relationship between the political process and the courts, would you acknowledge that these decisions, Shelby County and Citizens United, have had an impact on our elections?

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…

Apples and oranges do not begin to describe the differences between what Donald Trump said and what we are seeking to do here.

And after the obstacles to voting we have seen since Shelby County, we now know that Congress got it right, that the evidence showed a continuing need for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and the Supreme Court got it wrong when it…