Quote

I realize the voters elected President Obama in 2012, but they also, in 2014, elected enough Republican senators to gain a majority in the Senate, so we control the confirmation process. And these are two supposedly coequal branches of government involved in this filling of a Supreme Court vacancy.

Just because a majority of the Supreme Court declares something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.

Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.

The fairest and most democratic process in terms of Supreme Court nominees is let the American people have a voice.

Separation of power says the judiciary committee is supposed to confirm qualified judges and then what the Supreme Court does, that is their function, not my function.

You wouldn't run for the United States Senate or for governor or for anything else without answering people's questions about what you believe. And I think the Supreme Court is no different.

While I have the greatest respect for the Supreme Court's members, I cannot claim familiarity with any particular judicial philosophies the justices might possess.

The Supreme Court is not elected, and it is therefore not a proper arbiter of social policy.

The Supreme Court is not the impetus for constitutional change - we are.

Many voters think about the makeup of the Supreme Court when they are choosing a president. The justices deal not only with constitutional issues but also with social issues that were unknown to the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution more than 200 years ago.