Sheldon Whitehouse

A President has to answer a subpoena applies equally to a trial court and a grand jury subpoena alike

I have known him for 25 years.

The separation between candidates and independent expenditures negates the possibility of corruption.

The First Amendment ends where efforts to corrupt begin, correct? You do not have a First Amendment right to corrupt your Government.

An episode that will forever stand as a dark chapter in American Presidential history.

A disgraceful effort to undermine the rule of law.

Presidentially approved smear campaign.

The President has tried to disgrace Starr and his office with a sustained propaganda campaign that would make Nixon blush, and he should be forced to account for that.

I am not willing to concede that there is any legitimacy to this entire committee confidential process in this hearing.

I do not accept its legitimacy. I do not accept its validity.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not accept the process of this committee confidential routine that we went through.

I think this is not an offshore storm. It has made landfall when you see polling that shows that 49 percent of Americans think a corporation will get a fairer shot in the United States Supreme Court than an individual.

The only thing the Supreme Court requires is to disclose who paid for the brief.

I argued against them in the Supreme Court at one point.

It has gotten a lot easier since now you can just get a huge special interest to set up a 501(c)(4) and drop tens of millions of dollars in.

The sad fact is that there is no consequence for telling the Committee fairy tales about stare decisis and then riding off with the Roberts Five, trampling across whatever precedent gets in the way of letting those big Republican interests…

Every time a big Republican corporate or partisan interest is involved, the big Republican interest wins.

The Roberts Five has gone on almost 80 of these partisan excursions since Roberts became Chief.

When does a pattern prove bias? I wish this were an idle question.

We've never seen anything like this. There is -- not that I've ever seen. I mean, when the five Republicans go off and change the law for the benefit of big Republican interests, that does leave four dismayed Democratic appointees saying…

I think there are two. One is to raise concerns about the way in which this was done and try to get more Americans interested in the fact that we're being so badly and so unprecedentedly rolled on this nominee. And the second is to lead…

Well, that seems a little bit exaggerated. I think we followed proper regular order throughout the whole committee process.

Specifically with respect to the U.S., there are models suggesting that should this happen, the U.S. would see a greater than 5-percent decline in GDP and millions of lost jobs.

Investments in fossil fuels and related technologies may take a huge hit.

Rising sea levels and spreading flood plains appear likely to destroy billions of dollars in property and to displace millions of people.