This is untenable. It cannot be the case that a state can evade federal judicial scrutiny by outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry.

the court should not be so content to ignore its constitutional obligation to protect not only the rights of women but also the sanctity of its precedent, and the rule of law, period. I dissent, period.

Flagrantly unconstitutional, that’s what Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor calls this Texas abortion ban, which is now law.

If you just can’t vote for those reasons and your vote is not being counted, you’ve been denied the right to vote, haven’t you?

the government gives no compelling reason why it suddenly cannot wait a few weeks. This is not justice. There could be no justice on the fly in matters of life and death.

it has effectively become an entity that no one can control.

In Korematsu the Court gave a pass to an odious, gravely injurious racial classification authored by an Executive order and basically the Court invoked an ill-defined national security threat to justify an exclusionary policy in sweeping…

What you want is for us to tell you how, as a judicial nominee, we are going to rule on the important issues you find vexing. Any self-respecting judge who comes in with an agenda that would permit that judge to tell you how they will vote…

To cast serious doubt on longstanding precedent is a step we historically take only with the greatest caution and reticence.

In addition to being near instant, death by shooting may also be comparatively painless.

My mom worked six days a week most of her adult life to be able to afford to come here. And if it hadn't been for the generosity of the church, we would not have been able to afford this.

Doubtful. Would I and my brother and I have been able to resist the war of drugs in the surrounding schools? Who knows.