But when the courts decide to identify an unenumerated right and negate anything that conflicts with it, can't you see how they might just--might feel that this is illegitimate or a sort of policymaking that you--that you have disavowed by…

Obviously whether or not taxpayers should be required to provide lawyers for people who are not citizens of the United States and who are claiming asylum is a controversial matter.

Why in the world would you call Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and George W. Bush war criminals in a legal filing?

I think this is a teachable moment that will remind all of us about the wisdom of the founders who wrote a Constitution that made sure that our rights would be fixed and certain.

Do you share my concern that when the Court takes on the role of identifying an enumerated right... that they will be vilified as unwilling to assent to this new orthodoxy?

I`m a bit troubled by some of the positions you have taken in arguments that you have made, representing people who have committed terrorist acts against the United States.

And how do you--and how--because I believe the Court's legitimacy is very important.

It's appeared that the American Bar Association has taken sides, so to speak, in controversial nominations.

To me, one of the most important aspects of the confirmation hearings is the opportunity to revisit first principles about our Government, separation of powers, freedom of speech.

one of the most important questions under our constitutional form of government and the separation of powers is who decides

I think the authority comes from we, the people. That's the source of the legitimacy of government.

I know in times past, the ABA has appeared to be a, frankly, a partisan during some of the judicial confirmation proceedings that I participated in the past, and that's a cause for concern.