Mike Lee

Would that, under that hypothetical scenario, not be tantamount to a usurpation of the legislative role that belongs to the legislative branch?

It ends it but subjects it to some very large loopholes.

We really ought to find ways to stop Federal law enforcement agencies from helping State governments to circumvent their own State law restrictions on civil forfeiture?

This order, while purporting to end this adoption program, as you say, is riddled with loopholes.

A lot of Americans do not believe that that is fundamentally fair.

So you are guilty, in essence, until proven innocent, at least guilty in the sense that your property is gone.

Do you think it is fundamentally just and fair for the Government to be able to seize property from a citizen without having to prove that the citizen was guilty of any crime?

Should you be confirmed, you will work with me to make sure that legitimate law-abiding Americans are not targeted for their exercise of their Second Amendment rights.

Are you aware that there is a program called Operation Choke Point within the Department of Justice?

I also appreciated our visit recently when you came to my office.

I appreciate your views on that as well.

It has been my view, or, at least, a fear of mine, that there might be a natural tendency in any trial court for a judge to engage in what I sometimes refer to as trial by attrition.

This is a good day for Utah, a good day for the Federal judiciary.

Yes, I believe that there can, and should, be additional improvements to our legislation--to our patent system through legislation.

The President has stated a need to pass additional legislative reform, and I support that.

I strongly recommend her swift and unanimous confirmation and I just want her to know that we are extremely proud of her.

I do believe that we still need legislative reform.

You appeared to be aware about an order that Attorney General Holder issued just about a week and a half or two weeks ago--I believe it was on January 16--restricting that.

So the Chairman does not want a second round of questions. Is that correct?

The problem with what the President did, of course, is it defied what common sense tells us is going to be required for sustainability of any change to our immigration system and that is consensus.

I hope that we can move meaningful legislation to deal with this issue because it is not going away.

I hope even this Administration would recognize that is not grounds for admission to the United States and would turn the individual around.

The Administration is doing this deliberately, conscious of the implications and deliberately concealing the fact that they are setting forth a path to citizenship for most of these 5 million.

The lawmaking power that we the people delegated to the Federal Government is vested in this body, in the Congress of the United States, not in the Executive.

And yet this program that we are dealing with here would allow an alien to get 'advance parole' and ultimately a green card, ultimately potentially citizenship so long as that person has a meeting with a client in Toronto, rather than…