Your constituents want you to stand up to big money, and your vote on this pivotal Supreme Court seat will be one of the best chances you will ever have to do so.

It remains to be seen if you will be a Justice for all or a Justice for some.

I do not buy that. I do not think that the decisions of courts are so robotic, so programmatic, that all you need to do is look at the facts and look at the law and there is an obvious conclusion.

We meet this week in the midst of a looming constitutional crisis.

Donald Trump knew this too when he set forth his very clear litmus test for a Supreme Court pick.

We need to know what you will do when you are called upon to stand up to this President or any President if he claims the power to ignore laws that protect fundamental human rights.

Yesterday, Judge Gorsuch declined to say whether Roe v. Wade was correctly decided, merely acknowledging that it is actually precedent of the Court.

But Judge Neil Gorsuch would have been with the majority in Citizens United.

What would happen if too much power were accumulated in the hands of the few.

The great genius of our Constitution is that it grows to match the challenges of different times.

You can ask Alphonse Maddin that question.

The Senate must get to the bottom of these questions because, sooner or later--and with this administration, it is likely to be sooner--the Supreme Court will be called on to protect fundamental rights, judicial independence, and…

I do not recall ever seeing a corporation in the pews of Old St. Patrick's Church in Chicago.

If the Supreme Court adopted that view, it could well compromise the few remaining campaign finance protections that are still on the books.

European states in the early 21st century move . . . into a trajectory of demographic and cultural decay . . . population transfer and replacement by a kind of reverse colonization.

This should not be a partisan issue. We all know that the powers abused today by a Republican President may be abused tomorrow by a Democratic one.

It is incumbent on any nominee to demonstrate that he or she will serve as an independent check or balance on the presidency.

America needs a Supreme Court Justice who will protect the Constitution, not one who will countenance the faith or fear of some as a justification for infringing the liberty of many.

The biggest corporate lobby of them all is winning better than two-to-one at the Court.

I need to know that you could be an independent check and balance on the administration.

When unlimited, undisclosed money floods our campaigns, it drowns out the people's voices.

When I consider the path to this historic hearing, this plea rings hollow.

The Supreme Court clearly decided that you were wrong, with Justice Kennedy's opinion that I read.

President Trump campaigned on putting in place a Muslim ban and has signed unlawful and discriminatory Executive orders to deliver on that promise.

Legislators are bad judges, and judges are bad legislators, just as you said.