Lindsey Graham

So all of us could vote because five people have said liberty means right to--the State has no interest here, compelling interest before medical viability, that we could pass all the laws we want, it does not matter because they fall.

The only real check and balance is a constitutional amendment to change the ruling.

Well, here is the concern I have. You got one word that has opened up the ability for five people to tell everybody elected in the country you cannot go there, that this is an 'off limits' in the democratic process.

It is okay to vote 'no,' but it is not okay to take legal concepts and flip them upside down.

Most Americans after this hearing will have a dimmer view of the Senate. Rightly so.

The Department of Justice for the last 45 years has taken the consistent position through Republican and Democratic administrations that a sitting President may not be indicted while in office.

United States v. Nixon is the law of the land.

The Nixon holding said that in the context of the specific regulations there, that a criminal trial subpoena to the President for information--in that case the tapes--could be enforced, notwithstanding the executive privilege that was…

If you want to be President, which I can understand that, it is hard.

This hearing is neither entertaining, nor appropriate for young people.

You do not always get what you want, but you try to work with your colleagues, and many times, you can succeed.

I would like to introduce into the record an op-ed from the L.A. Times editorial board entitled 'Can the Supreme Court Confirmation Process Ever Be Repaired?'

Thanks, Dianne. You helped him a lot.

If you are confirmed--and I believe you will be--what is your hope when all of this is said and done and your time is up, how would you like to be remembered?

You have constitutional rights, but you do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy.

You do not have a constitutional right to turn on your own Government and collaborate with the enemy of the Nation.

Right, that American citizens who collaborate with the enemy are considered enemy combatants?

If you are an American in Afghanistan, you have constitutional rights as against the U.S. Government. That is long-settled law.

From an American citizen's point of view, do your constitutional rights follow you?

So when somebody says post-9/11, that we have been at war and it is called the 'War on Terrorism,' do you generally agree with that concept?

If there was such an action by a State or a local government challenging Roe and it came before the Supreme Court, would you listen to both sides?

So there is a process in place that the Court has followed for a very long time. Is that correct?

Citizens United, if somebody said Citizens United has been harmful to the country and made a record that the effects of Citizens United has empowered about 20 or 30 people in the country to run all the elections, and some State or locality…

You should celebrate, even though you do not vote for him--and I do not know why you would not--the quality of the man chosen by President Obama.

I promise you that when Strom Thurmond voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he did not agree with her legal philosophy.