Supreme Court

facebook_page
twitter_page

Last quote about Supreme Court

Angela A. Allen-Bell
The Supreme Court has a chance to end non-unanimous juries in Louisiana and Oregon.feedback
share this quote
Sep 22 2017
You can find on this page a variety of quotes, by one or many people, on what they said about Supreme Court. 341 people are quoted and you can read 485 citations of them about Supreme Court. Neil Gorsuch, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell and Jennifer Rubin, are those who have spoken the most about this topic. Neil Gorsuch said: “Even if you can't stand Donald Trump, you think Donald Trump is the worst, you're going to vote for me. You know why? Justices of the Supreme Court.”.
Automatically powered by Storyzy
Take our quote verification challenge and find out !

All quotes about Supreme Court

Amy Coney Barrett

I would commit, if confirmed, to follow unflinchingly all Supreme Court precedent. I would not want to leave the impression that I would give some precedents more weight than others because of some sort of academic disagreement.feedback

Carrie Severino

In addition to being an exceptionally well-qualified nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court, Greg Katsas is one of the kindest and most humble people I know. As a widely-respected Supreme Court advocate with more than twenty years of experience in government and private practice, Katsas has shown he will honor the Constitution and fairly apply the law.feedback

Andrew Limo - Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission

If you want to punish people, you must have a basis for it. But the only basis is the full judgement of the Supreme Court, which will not be out until 21 days. Otherwise the commission could get into a position of defending itself in court from people who were dismissed.feedback

Manoah Esipisu

The Supreme Court gave clear guidance on who will hold the repeat election. You cannot accept one half of the verdict of the Supreme Court and not the other.feedback

M. Patricia Smith - Labor Department

What's pretty unprecedented is that they came to a different conclusion in the Supreme Court case.feedback

Greg Abbott

Today's decision makes Texas' communities less safe. Because of this ruling, gang members and dangerous criminals, like those who have been released by the Travis County Sheriff, will be set free to prey upon our communities. U.S. Supreme Court precedent for laws similar to Texas' law are firmly on our side. This decision will be appealed immediately and I am confident Texas' law will be found constitutional and ultimately be upheld.feedback

Dianne Feinstein

Women today are so lucky. They are accepted all across this land... as surgeons, farmers, in the Supreme Court. I applied for my first job in 1955 and I can tell you, it was 'women need not apply.' It's a great time to be a woman.feedback

Udayaditya Banerjee

We always believed we had a right to privacy and today the Supreme Court unequivocally stated that.feedback

Theresa May

What is absolutely clear, as I made clear in that speech I've made when we leave the European Union, we will leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. What we will be able to do is to make our own laws, parliament will make our laws, it is British judges who will interpret those laws and the British Supreme Court that will be the ultimate arbiter of those laws. We will take back control of our laws.feedback

Theresa May

When we leave the European Union we will be leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. What we will be able to do is make our own laws, Parliament will make our laws, it is British judges that will interpret those laws and it will be the British Supreme Court that will be the ultimate arbiter of those laws. We will take back control of our laws.feedback

Jonathan Adler

Next month, Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch is scheduled to speak at a luncheon sponsored by The Fund for American Studies, honoring the organization’s 50th anniversary.feedback

Deidre Duncan - Hunton & Williams

If not changed on rehearing or ultimately by the Supreme Court, this case has broad implications for multiple industries and agencies in various contexts.feedback

Sam Spital

The Supreme Court has emphasized over and over that because death is a unique punishment there is need for heightened reliability before it's imposed. One of the really significant questions raised by Mr. Williams's case is, what does it mean when you have issues of innocence?feedback

Maneka Gandhi

The Supreme Court has a right to interfere in the personal space and they have done so.feedback

Kamal Faruqui

It upholds the rights of Muslims and other minorities to follow their own personal laws. There were some voices in the country that wanted to bring in a uniform civil code for all religious faiths, but the supreme court judges said a few weeks ago that they would look only at triple talaq, not at other customs. So Muslim personal law has been protected by the ruling.feedback

Arshiya Ismail

It's wonderful news, I'm so emotional about it. Basically my marriage still stands as per the supreme court. I was hoping for it but I still had my doubts.feedback

Raila Odinga

We have now decided to move to the Supreme Court, he told reporters in the capital Nairobi.feedback

Tamara Taraciuk - Human Rights Watch

The question is whether this is the peace he's looking for: creating a law that gives him and his obedient supreme court judiciary powers to lock up dissidents for 25 years. The proposal includes incredibly vague language that would allow them to jail anyone for almost anything.feedback

Madonna

If you know me, you can imagine how I received this information. It's true, I am a freedom fighter. I am a feminist. I am a rebel heart. But I am also a compassionate and intelligent human being. And if you cannot give me a logical reason for the word 'no,' then I will not accept the word 'no.' I hired a team of lawyers, and I took my case to the supreme court, and it was not an easy battle.feedback

Miguel Angel Martin

I never imagined that they would have such an aggressive reaction, I think no one imagined it. The government has crossed the line between good and evil. All the rulings that the Supreme Court produces without our signature are invalid. For the transition in Venezuela, we already have a Supreme Court.feedback

Jean Galbraith

When you're operating in these separation-of-powers areas generally, and where the Supreme Court has stayed out of these issues, there is a considerable zone of uncertainty.feedback

Jon Husted

This case is about maintaining the integrity of our elections, something that will be harder to do if elections officials are not be able to properly maintain the voter rolls. I welcome the support of these federal officials, state officials, and advocacy groups who filed with the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Ohio's process – a process that has been in place for more than two decades and administered the same way by both Republican and Democrat secretaries of state.feedback

Bobby Friedman

The government must offer some clarity on the judiciary’s relationship to the ECJ – because the Brexit bill itself is ambiguous, and will lead to uncertainty all round. What happens when a judge gets demob-happy? The answer can be seen in the intervention by the imminently departing president of the supreme court, Lord Neuberger, in the debate over the role of the European court of justice – better known as the ECJ – once Britain leaves the EU. The government will doubtless be less than delighted at another dissenting voice in the Brexit process.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

Even if you can't stand Donald Trump, you think Donald Trump is the worst, you're going to vote for me. You know why? Justices of the Supreme Court.feedback

Tom Tancredo

There were two reasons I voted for him: one was he wasn't Hillary Clinton; second was the supreme court. All else is forgiven.feedback

Peter Schmidt

Such policies simply have too much past U.S. Supreme Court backing for their legality to be easily challenged.feedback

Rachael Dane

To become leaders in our diverse society, students must have the ability to work with people from different backgrounds, life experiences, and perspectives. Harvard remains committed to enrolling diverse classes of students. Harvard's admissions process considers each applicant as a whole person, and we review many factors, consistent with the legal standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court.feedback

Dennis Parker

The idea that the Justice Department would sue colleges over their inclusive policies is an affront to fairness and sends a dangerous signal that it will no longer work to protect the most vulnerable. It would mark an alarming shift in direction that threatens the hard-fought progress made by civil rights advocates and the department itself over the past decades. The Supreme Court has made it clear that it is constitutional to appropriately consider race as one of many factors in college admissions. We will be monitoring closely.feedback

Vanita Gupta

Yet again, the [Jeff] Sessions Justice Department, led by the political leadership and marginalizing the career employees, is changing course on a key civil rights issue. Longstanding Supreme Court precedent has upheld the constitutionality and compelling state interest of these policies, and generations of Americans have benefited from richer, more inclusive institutions of higher education.feedback

Shahid Khaqan Abbasi

I am grateful to all, for following the democratic process – whether you voted for or against me. An unprecedented decision was taken in Pakistan. We readily accepted and implemented the Supreme Court decision and did not challenge the courts. Whether I am in power for 45 days or 45 hours, I will work as the prime minister of the country to bring prosperity.feedback

Jill Stone

We started the action July 6 in Nassau County Supreme Court. She did have a baby on Monday, his name is James. I can report that he's doing very, very well.feedback

Imran Khan

The Supreme Court verdict gave us a hope. It has done the job I dreamed for, it have laid the foundation for a new Pakistan.feedback

Corey Lewandowski

What the president decided when he was president-elect and [made the decision] to bring Reince on board was to bring someone in who understood Washington and to help him staff his team in order to achieve his legislative agenda, and unfortunately where we are right now – if you look at the ups and downs of the presidency so far – the single most important thing the president has been able to achieve was getting Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.feedback

Thomas Griffith

Constitutional challenges to gun laws create peculiar puzzles for courts. The Supreme Court, has offered little guidance.feedback

Imran Khan

How can I be disqualified? I was never a public office holder. The whole world knew I was playing cricket. I have given my whole money trail to the Supreme Court. It is just blackmail.feedback

Observer editorial

Its judges are willing to stand up for the people and the rule of law. “We will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.” So says Magna Carta, thus establishing a guarantee of access to prompt and fair justice that has been enshrined in English law since 1297. It was this clause that the supreme court cited in its landmark judgment, ruling employment tribunal fees illegal last week. It represents a huge victory for defenders of employment rights such as the union Unison, which brought the case, but its significance extends far beyond the realm of employment law.feedback

Miftah Ismail

As long as the Supreme Court stays within the law, we feel very good and confident that nothing negative will happen to the prime minister. If the Supreme Court takes a flight away from strict interpretation of the law, then anything can happen.feedback

David Davis

When, for example, we strike a deal, let's say, with the United States we don't give the United States' Supreme Court rights in Britain to enforce that. And the same with any other foreign power. Any future arrangements will be subject ... to U.K. Parliament's approval.feedback

Frans Timmermans - European Commission

In the past week, some things have changed in Poland and some things have not. The commission's recommendation asks the Polish authorities not to take any measure to dismiss or force the retirement of Supreme Court judges.feedback

Jason Moyer-Lee - Independent Workers Union of Great Britain

The Tories’ vicious fees have been a disaster for working people. Today’s supreme court ruling that they are unlawful is a cause for joy• Jason Moyer-Lee is the general secretary of the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain.feedback

Lindsey Graham

We've got one. We've got a couple of conservatives who may decide to step down and let a younger conservative take their job. All I can say is the Supreme Court vacancies that are to come in the next two or three years – maybe there won't be any, but there could be three or four. So this is a big deal. I was telling those young Republicans that our party needs to deliver on health care. A better way of doing health care is to let your state do it, not Washington, cut your taxes, rebuild your roads and bridges, and give us a strong military. President Trump has a really good agenda.feedback

John McCain

It is our responsibility to preserve that, even when it requires us to do something less satisfying than winning, even when we must give a little to get a little. Even when our efforts manage just three yards and a cloud of dust, while critics on both sides denounce us for timidity, for our failure to 'triumph'. We're getting nothing done, my friends. We're getting nothing done. All we've really done this year is confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Our health-care-insurance system is a mess.feedback

David Davis

We are intent that this should be put in an act in of parliament enforced by British courts ... and most importantly backed up by a treaty. When we, for example, sign a deal, let's say with the United States, we don't give the United States Supreme Court the right to enforce that.feedback

Andrzej Duda

These laws must be amended. It should not be part of our tradition that the attorney general can interfere in the work of the Supreme Court.feedback

Andrzej Duda

I have decided that I will send back to the Sejm (lower house of parliament) - which means I will veto - the bill on the Supreme Court, as well as the one on the National Council of the Judiciary. As president, I feel deep inside my soul that this reform in this form will not increase the sense of security and justice.feedback

Jay Sekulow - ABC

From a constitutional, legal perspective, you can't dismiss it one way or the other. I think it's a question that would ultimately, if put in place, would probably have to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court to determine constitutionality.feedback

Lilian Tintori

There is no peace without justice, that's what we say to the Supreme Court president. That's why we're going to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, has to ensure the law is respected and the Supreme Court, for a long time has been working for the dictatorship.feedback

Erika Rackley

Brenda Hale’s appointment as president of the UK supreme court is a landmark. But the highest echelons of the legal profession still need change. Occurring just two years shy of the centenary of women entering the legal profession, Lady Hale’s appointment as president of the UK supreme court is a landmark for women lawyers and judges and for women in public life more generally. Another first ticked off a list that remains disappointingly long.feedback

Glenn Cohen

The approach of this judge is constitutionally questionable. In Skinner v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court indicated it violated the Constitution to impose sterilization as a punishment for a criminal. This case is slightly different, though, in that it involves sentencing.feedback

Brenda Hale

I look forward to building upon his pioneering achievements, including developing closer links with each part of the United Kingdom, for example by sitting outside London, and improving the ways in which we communicate our work to the public. Recent high-profile cases mean that more people than ever before have heard of the Supreme Court, and we hope that this will help to create a broader understanding of how the judiciary serves society.feedback

P.S. Ruckman

The conventional wisdom or the Supreme Court jargon to-date suggests that a president can pardon someone before, during or after conviction. Is it possible Trump could pardon for crimes he may have committed in some period of time? Absolutely, yes.feedback

Marek Chmaj

The act means the abolishment of the Supreme Court in its current shape, creating a substitute court composed of completely new judges. Moreover, a disciplinary chamber is being created to watch the obedience of judges and representatives of legal professions. It is already the end.feedback

Salman Akram Raja

The Supreme Court today concluded the hearing of this case and it will set a date for announcing the judgment later.feedback

Joe Manchin

I hold no illusions that I will agree with every decision Judge Gorsuch may issue in the future, but I have not found any reasons why this jurist should not be a Supreme Court Justice.feedback

Mike Lee

Back in May I encouraged the Department of Justice to review its policies on civil asset forfeiture in light of increasing indications from the Supreme Court that this practice is constitutionally suspect. Instead of revising forfeiture practices in a manner to better protect Americans' due process rights, the DOJ seems determined to lose in court before it changes its policies for the better.feedback

Ryszard Petru

We will try to stall the proceedings on the bill on the Supreme Court as long as possible. Then perhaps, we will move to nonparliamentary methods.feedback

Mitch McConnell

Well, we have a new Supreme Court justice. And we're only six months into this. Last time I looked, Congress goes on for two years, and we'll be moving onto comprehensive tax reform, infrastructure. There's much work left to be done.feedback

Mitch McConnell

Well, we have a new Supreme Court justice. We have 14 repeals of regulation and we're only six months into it – the last time I looked, Congress goes on for two years. We'll be moving on to comprehensive tax reform and infrastructure. There is much work left to be done for the American people and we're ready to tackle it.feedback

Joshua Matz

The odds that the Supreme Court grants review of this question in the near future are high. It is no exaggeration to say that Title VII's application to gays and lesbians now ranks among the most important open questions in U.S. civil rights law.feedback

Imran Khan

I think he is gone. The long, dark night is finally over. We have confidence in the Supreme Court. The so-called evidences gathered by the investigative team are based on 'sourced reports' and don't have evidentiary value. It is a political case. The opposition parties are using the shoulder of the courts to have a judicial coup.feedback

Jeff Sessions

Once again, we are faced with a situation in which a single federal district court has undertaken by a nationwide injunction to micromanage decisions of the co-equal Executive Branch related to our national security. By this decision, the district court has improperly substituted its policy preferences for the national security judgments of the Executive branch in a time of grave threats, defying both the lawful prerogatives of the Executive Branch and the directive of the Supreme Court.feedback

Karen Tumlin

While a partial ban remains in effect as a result of last month's Supreme Court ruling, this decision limits its application to ensure that fewer refugees, families, and loved ones are discriminated against based solely on their religion or country of origin.feedback

Chris Ulrich

Again, we see the president pull the Supreme Court nominee off his feet, literally. He will open his hand in beggar's pose, toward the candidate, and then pull him in toward his body. It literally takes a moment for Gorsuch to recover. Gorsuch is not ready at all for it.feedback

Jose Cabranes

We recognize that many would view the facts adduced at Silver's trial with distaste. The question presented to us, however, is not how a jury would likely view the evidence presented by the Government. Rather, it is whether it is clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a rational jury, properly instructed, would have found Silver guilty. Given the teachings of the Supreme Court in McDonnell, and the particular circumstances of this case, we simply cannot reach that conclusion.feedback

Jose Cabranes

Given the teachings of the Supreme Court in McDonnell, and the particular circumstances of this case, we simply cannot reach that conclusion. Like the improper instruction in McDonnell, the plain language of the instruction at Silver's trial captured lawful conduct, such as arranging meetings or hosting events with constituents. We cannot conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a rational jury would have found Silver guilty if it had been properly instructed on the definition of an official act.feedback

Donald J. Trump

If you look at Iraq and if you look at Syria and you see the progress we've made with ISIS, it's been almost complete. The White House is functioning beautifully. The stock market has hit a new high. Job numbers are the best they've been in 16 years. We have a Supreme Court judge already confirmed. Energy is doing levels that we've never done before. Our military is doing well. We're knocking the hell out of ISIS, which Obama wasn't. There's not a thing that we're not doing well in.feedback

Lilian Tintori

Until now, we don't know the content of the restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court. In any case, we're going to respect them. The request by Leopoldo Lopez's defence to Mr. Lopez and his family is to maintain total and absolute caution with regards to words used by Mr. Lopez.feedback

Bekah Brunstetter

The timing could not have been crazier. My friends were texting me: The Echo Theater has really good P.R. people. It's like, their press release went right to the Supreme Court. I will never forget that.feedback

Benjamin Wittes - The Brookings Institution

I hope someday someone the President defames in this way makes the Supreme Court answer this question.feedback

Roy S. Moore

I stood up to same-sex marriage legally by pointing out active injunctions. They didn't like that. I opposed the agenda of the Supreme Court, and they came after me.feedback

Douglas Chin

The scope of the travel and refugee bans badly needs to be resolved and not just according to the Trump Administration's interpretation. While we understand Judge Watson's direction to address our request to the United States Supreme Court, we must evaluate that against the normal course of order as it relates to appeals and the clarification of injunctions.feedback

Derrick Watson

To be clear, the standard Plaintiffs ask this Court to clarify–i.e., a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,'–is not set forth in any order of this Court. Because Plaintiffs seek clarification of the June 26, 2017 injunction modifications authored by the Supreme Court, clarification should be sought there, not here.feedback

Derrick Watson

This court declines to usurp the prerogative of the Supreme Court to interpret its own order.feedback

Joe Brezny

I used to smoke a joint on the steps of the Supreme Court everyday when I was Bill Raggio's chief of staff. The guards were so old, I don't think they knew what pot smelled like.feedback

Adam Chilton

The Supreme Court finally has a chance to change precedent on immigration law.feedback

Ernesto Abella

With the Supreme Court decision, the whole government now stands together as one against a common enemy. We ask the public to give their full support and cooperation to local authorities. After all, securing communities is a responsibility that must be shared by everyone.feedback

Richard Javad Heydarian

Clearly, the Supreme Court is making decisions not irrespective of the broader political atmosphere.feedback

Rodrigo Duterte

It's not dependent on the whim of the Supreme Court. Should I believe them? When I see the situation is still chaotic and you ask me to lift it? I will arrest you and put you behind bars. We can talk of anything else and make compromises maybe, but not when the interest of my country is at stake.feedback

Mitch McConnell

One of my proudest moments was when I looked at Barack Obama in the eye and I said, Mr. President, you will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy.feedback

Justine Greening - Treasury

At present women from Northern Ireland are asked for payment, and from now on it is our proposal that this will no longer happen. This is clearly a sensitive issue and one which has direct implications for equality in treatment of women from Northern Ireland. The Supreme Court judgment made clear that we have the power to make these arrangements. The Government's position continues to be that we want to see safe abortion services provided for women who may need them - within the bounds of the law.feedback

Mark Doss

Anywhere there are international flights coming into the United States, we've been working with attorneys to make sure they're on call and prepped in case there are illegal detentions at that airport in violation of the Supreme Court order.feedback

Penny Kozakos - Airlines for America

Airlines carrying inbound passengers to the U.S. are required to ensure that those passengers are properly documented for entry – this includes a passport and a visa, if required. The Supreme Court decision this week has not changed any U.S. government procedures that airlines follow for inbound international flights.feedback

Chris Christie

The fact that the Supreme Court granted cert in this case is a very good sign for sports betting having a future in New Jersey. I'm encouraged by it. We're not declaring victory, but at least we're in the game and that's what we want to be.feedback

Frank Pallone

The citizens of New Jersey overwhelmingly support legalized sports betting and acted in a referendum to show that support. Both Congress and the Supreme Court should respect these actions. Rather than continuing to allow criminal and offshore entities to reap the benefits of illegal gaming, there is now an opportunity for the Supreme Court to allow the democratic process in New Jersey to appropriately regulate sports gaming.feedback

Jason Rapert

If it's good enough for the United States Supreme Court, it is good enough for the state Capitol of Arkansas.feedback

Jerry Brown

With this Supreme Court victory, now it's up to us to take action extending California's cap-and-trade system on a more permanent basis.feedback

Heather Nauert

Beyond July the 6th, we are not totally certain how that will work because, again, this is in flux, this is in progress, this is a new development as the Supreme Court just spoke to this yesterday.feedback

Luis Vicente Leon

While everyone talks about the helicopter, the supreme court just gave the ombudsman powers exclusive to the chief prosecutor.feedback

Hugh Hewitt

If Republicans fail to compromise, they will also lose the Supreme Court.feedback

Michael Bindas

This is a tremendous development for school choice. It shows the court takes the principle of neutrality toward religion in public benefits programs very seriously. We're very confident that the Colorado Supreme Court may come to the correct decision.feedback

Geoff Freeman

We are pleased the Supreme Court appears to have responded favorably to our arguments as to why they should hear this important case. And we are hopeful their engagement will provide further encouragement for Congress to take the steps necessary to create a regulated sports betting marketplace in the United States.feedback

Pete Williams

The U.S. Supreme Court heads into Monday, its last day of the current term, with two important questions so far unanswered: What's to become of President Donald Trump's travel ban and will 80-year-old Justice Anthony Kennedy retire?feedback

Kari Hong

This decision is a true compromise. It is true that the travel ban is allowed to go into effect, but the Supreme Court substantially narrowed who could be denied entry.feedback

Rick Jacobs

The decision cannot be seen as anything other than a betrayal, and I see no point to a meeting at this time. We will make our arguments in the Supreme Court.feedback

Johnny Koremenos - Department of Justice

We are evaluating the 2-1 decision from the court. We anticipate seeking review by the entire 7th Circuit or the United States Supreme Court and hope that today's erroneous decision will be reversed. We continue to send our condolences to the Halbach family as they have to suffer through another attempt by Mr. Dassey to re-litigate his guilty verdict and sentence.feedback

Ted Meadows

It's very disappointing to mis-try a case because the Supreme Court changed the rules on us.feedback

Ralph Norman

Trump is still very popular in our area. His first big decision in putting Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court excited the people we're coming into contact with. He proved his mettle.feedback

Simon Tam

It was thrilling. Even though it was really weird hearing them make these really outlandish arguments and having it loosely based on my case. But with the Supreme Court, you're arguing about very big theories about where the Constitution lays and where the law lays. Our case is the basic framework, and they were trying to figure out much more complex and challenging situations.feedback

Tim Cullen

The Supreme Court is right to review our home state’s unfair districting.feedback

Isabel Saint Malo

I believe it's almost 10 cases that are in the Supreme Court regarding Mr. Martinelli right now. And most of them are a lot more serious than listening in to conversations, which is serious enough.feedback

Paul Michel

The patent system has been weakened, and as far as I'm concerned the Supreme Court is unaware of that.feedback

Josh Schiller

What the Supreme Court has said is you don't have to change your name if you don't want to, because you can protect it with a federally protected trademark. But culturally, it is important to consider whether the name still offends people, and whether it will build good will around the mark.feedback

Peter Barca

Voters should be able to choose their representatives, not the other way around, and I have faith that the Supreme Court will do the right thing to help end the terrible polarization we see in both Wisconsin and across America.feedback

Brad Schimel

I am thrilled the Supreme Court has granted our request to review the redistricting decision and that Wisconsin will have an opportunity to defend its redistricting process. As I have said before, our redistricting process was entirely lawful and constitutional, and the district court should be reversed. ... The stay is particularly important because it preserves the Legislature's time, effort, and resources while this case is pending.feedback

Justin Levitt

The Supreme Court is a pretty big planet, and its gravitational pull is pretty strong.feedback

Lisa S. Blatt

The team is thrilled with today's unanimous decision as it resolves the Redskins' long-standing dispute with the government. The Supreme Court vindicated the team's position that the First Amendment blocks the government from denying or canceling a trademark registration based on the government's opinion.feedback

Simon Tam

After an excruciating legal battle that has spanned nearly eight years, we're beyond humbled and thrilled to have won this case at the Supreme Court. This journey has always been much bigger than our band: it's been about the rights of all marginalised communities to determine what's best for ourselves. We found the Trademark Office justifying the denial of rights to people based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, and political views, simply because they disagreed with the message of these groups.feedback

Joseph Uscinski

But if you control the Supreme Court, the Senate, the House, and the White House, you can't pull that. Just like how Hillary Clinton can't, in 1998, say her husband's troubles are due to a vast right-wing conspiracy.feedback

Zeke Williams

Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent he should apply the traditional injunction test to determine exactly what may occur - or not - during additional environmental analysis.feedback

Brian Coy

We are pleased to put Mr. Plowman's needless, wasteful and currently moot lawsuit to rest. Nothing about the old database relates to the governor's current individualized process, which the Virginia Supreme Court has upheld, and which has successfully restored over 156,000 ex-felons' rights. The governor remains committed to restoration of civil rights and hopes that Republicans will finally accept that giving people who have served their time a voice in their society is the right thing to do.feedback

Sarah Isgur Flores

We have asked the Supreme Court to hear this important case and are confident that President Trump's executive order is well within his lawful authority to keep the nation safe and protect our communities from terrorism.feedback

Sean Spicer

I think we can all attest that these are very dangerous times and we need every available tool at our disposal to prevent terrorists from entering the United States and committing acts of bloodshed and violence. We continue to be confident that the president's executive order to protect this country is fully lawful and ultimately will be upheld by the Supreme Court.feedback

Kate Shaw

It's a genuinely difficult question. This is not a question that the Supreme Court has resolved.feedback

Leonie Brinkema

Just as the Supreme Court has held that 'the world is not made brand new every morning,' a person is not made brand new simply by taking the oath of office.feedback

Lee Saunders - AFL-CIO

The corporate C.E.O.s behind this case want to take away the freedom of working people to join together in a strong union and negotiate a fair return on their work. The rich and powerful interests behind this case are asking the Supreme Court to further rig the rules against working people and deny them the freedom to join together in a strong union to provide for their families, protect their communities and lift up the concerns of all working families.feedback

Phil Telfeyan

The Supreme Court has spoken clearly, but ultimately it's a question of compliance around the country. Ultimately it's up to the judges.feedback

Phil Hirschkop

When a law is based on race, it is immediately suspect and the burden is shifted to the state to show there is a compelling interest to have that sort of racial differentiation. The country was ready, the Supreme Court was ready ... They were going to do the right thing.feedback

Steve Kohn

The constitutional right to go to the press with information on matters of public concern, as long as you're not doing it in a way that will bring out classified information, the reason why that is protected constitutionally is that the courts – including the U.S. Supreme Court – have ruled that the public has a constitutional right to hear this information.feedback

Neil Richards

And the outcome will be very unclear. Under the argument, they should not be excluded from a public forum and if they are that is suppression of speech. But just because you are protesting doesn't mean a government official has to listen. Arguably, and very arguably hurling expletives at the President could fall under manner restriction, but the Supreme Court has said that one man's profanity is another man's lyric. Perhaps there may be some additional power in a public forum to make this nice but that's really murky.feedback

Betsy DeVos

On areas where the law is unsettled, this department is not going to be issuing decrees. That is a matter for Congress and the courts to settle. On areas of unsettled law, Congress and the Supreme Court has to decide. Schools that recieve federal funds will follow federal law. Sir, that's now what I said. Discrimination in any way is wrong. I don't support such discrimination in any form.feedback

George Conway

These tweets may make some ppl feel better, but they certainly won't help OSG [Office of the Solicitor General] get 5 votes in SCOTUS [Supreme Court], which is what actually matters.feedback

Peter Margulies

To the extent that Trump is sort of a bull in a china shop, that might make the Supreme Court nervous.feedback

Donald J. Trump

The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C. The Justice Dept. should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court - & seek much tougher version! In any event, we are EXTREME VETTING people coming into the U.S. in order to help keep our country safe. The courts are slow and political! People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!feedback

Donald J. Trump

People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN! Pathetic excuse by London mayor Sadiq Khan, who had to think fast on his 'no reason to be alarmed' statement. [Mainsteam media] is working hard to sell it! The Justice Dept should have stayed with the original travel ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to [supreme court]. The Justice Dept should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down travel ban before the supreme court – and seek much tougher version.feedback

Nathan Freed Wessler - American Civil Liberties Union

Because cell phone location records can reveal countless private details of our lives, police should only be able to access them by getting a warrant based on probable cause. The time has come for the Supreme Court to make clear that the longstanding protections of the Fourth Amendment apply with undiminished force to these kinds of sensitive digital records.feedback

Donald J. Trump

The Justice Depart. should have stayed wth the original Travel ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to the S.C. The Justice Department should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court - & seek much tougher version! In any event we are EXTREME VETTING people coming into the U.S. in order to help keep our country safe. The courts are slow and political. People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!feedback

Omar Jadwat - American Civil Liberties Union

This is different from the kind of case you would expect the Supreme Court to grant the extraordinary relief of a stay, because of the lack of any demonstrable urgency or harm and because the law and the facts are on our side.feedback

Jake Schmidt - Natural Resources Defense Council

There's no Supreme Court of the world, so there's a limit to what you can do, and so the enforcement provisions of the Paris agreement are based upon reporting on progress toward their targets, scrutiny by an international body of experts, and peer pressure to play nice.feedback

Paul V. Niemeyer

The Supreme Court surely will shudder at the majority's adoption of this new rule that has no limits or bounds – one that transforms the majority's criticisms of a candidate's various campaign statements into a constitutional violation.feedback

Freda Levenson - American Civil Liberties Union

We are confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the correct decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and will ultimately ensure that eligible Ohio voters may not be stricken from the rolls.feedback

Shah Ahmad Shafi

It was not an issue whether Themis would be in front of the Supreme Court or at the back side of the Supreme Court. The issue was whether Themis would exist or not, whether this symbol would be removed from Bangladesh forever.feedback

Annie Laurie Gaylor

The Supreme Court has spoken directly on this type of public school indoctrination and has ruled that public schools may not engage in it. Religion in schools builds walls between children and leads to ostracism of minorities – as experienced by our plaintiff Elizabeth Deal, who had to remove her child from the school.feedback

Jeff Sessions

The Department of Justice strongly disagrees with the decision of the divided court, which blocks the president's efforts to strengthen this country's national security. This Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the power and duty of the executive branch to protect the people of this country from danger, and will seek review of this case in the U.S. Supreme Court.feedback

Roger Gregory

The question for this Court, distilled to its essential form, is whether the Constitution, as the Supreme Court declared in Ex parte Milligan, remains 'a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace'. And if so, whether it protects Plaintiffs' right to challenge an Executive Order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.feedback

Artur Yemelianov

The main goal was achieved - as soon as I was taken out of the running in the competition (for the Supreme Court). She's a wealthy woman, she has this money, she earns as she did before. In order to regularly fly to see my daughter, I need to have the necessary money. My salary is not enough for this. I can't tell you what kind of profits there were (at her businesses), but it's a fact that none of them had zero income.feedback

Roy Cooper

North Carolina voters deserve a level playing field and fair elections, and I'm glad the Supreme Court agrees. The North Carolina Republican legislature tried to rig Congressional elections by drawing unconstitutional districts that discriminated against African Americans, and that's wrong.feedback

Steven Mnuchin

The Venezuelan people are suffering from a collapsing economy brought about by their government's mismanagement and corruption. Members of the country's Supreme Court of Justice have exacerbated the situation by consistently interfering with the legislative branche's authority. By imposing these targeted sanctions, the United States is supporting the Venezuelan people in their efforts to protect and advance democratic governance in their country.feedback

William J. Howell

The clerk's actions were consistent with past practice under both Republican and Democrat speakers with both Republican and Democrat governors over the past 21 years. The (state) Supreme Court is abundantly clear about the limits of the governor's line-item veto authority and there is no doubt Governor McAuliffe exceeded that authority.feedback

Ann Durkin Keating

In 1916, the US supreme court, in Buchanan v Warley, ruled racial zoning was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, many real estate developers utilised restrictive covenants to maintain racial exclusion … Racial restrictive covenants excluded certain groups of people (most often African Americans, but also Jews, Catholics and other groups depending on the locale) from ever owning or renting the property.feedback

Kris Warner

I expect nothing short of someone beyond reproach and (it) will be exactly what the country needs. Look at his Supreme Court pick. Very impressed with that, and I would expect him to do the same with the FBI.feedback

Jameka Evans

It's very, very troubling with the levels of violence against the L.G.B.T. community to see the West Virginia Supreme Court foreclose this option for victims and prosecutors.feedback

John Kennedy

I'd like to take it from the angle of what's going to happen to Mr. Black, if anything can happen. We all know the circumstances surrounding Mr. Black's appointment to the Supreme Court.feedback

Bob Woodward

Indeed there are comparisons. This is a remarkable moment. It's not something to take lightly. The circumstances, in fairness, are also quite different. And eventually there were more tapes. The Supreme Court forced Nixon to turn those over and that ended the reign.feedback

Emilio Nieves Torres

Our biggest preoccupation is that all of this will be in the hands of a judge, named by the Supreme Court of the United States, and we don't know if she's going to take into account basic essentials of safety, health and education. Right now, that board has proposed cutting school two days a month. That's a month of classes. That impacts education.feedback

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Marty coached me through the birth of our son, he was the first reader and critic of articles, speeches and briefs I drafted, and he was at my side constantly, in and out of the hospital, during two long bouts with cancer. And I betray no secret in reporting that, without him, I would not have gained a seat on the Supreme Court.feedback

Ajit Pai - FCC

I have had a chance to see the clip now and so, as we get complaints – and we have gotten a number of them – we are going to take the facts that we find and we are going to apply the law as it's been set out by the Supreme Court and a number of other courts. We'll take the appropriate action. After 10 p.m., the amount of conduct that the indecency rules are applied to is relaxed. In previous years, these complaints would just sit on the shelf and we're committed to making sure we evaluate these cases and try to do it in a timely way.feedback

Badri Singh

The court heard our voice and gave justice. We are very happy that (the) Supreme Court has heard our voice, and that they understood Nirbhaya's pain in this matter, and that along with Nirbhaya the whole country has found justice. This is a historic decision and will set an example for the courts in dealing with criminals.feedback

Ajit Pai - FCC

We are going to take the facts that we find and we are going to apply the law as it's been set out by the Supreme Court and other courts and we'll take the appropriate action. Traditionally, the agency has to decide, if it does find a violation, what the appropriate remedy should be. A fine, of some sort, is typically what we do.feedback

A.P. Singh

This is not justice for the poor. The constitution of India and the Supreme Court says justice for all. We did not get justice for all and this is not justice (death penalty).feedback

Radley Balko

Louisiana Supreme Court upholds 18-year sentence for 18 grams of pot. But the chief justice writes a fiery dissent.feedback

James Bovard

The Justice Department is prosecuting a woman who laughed during a Senate hearing to confirm Jeff Sessions as attorney general. I can sympathize with her somewhat absurd plight, because I was once tossed out of the press box in the Supreme Court for laughing at the wrong time. Desiree Fairooz, a librarian in Arlington, Va., [].feedback

Andrew Schwartzman

The likelihood that Chairman Pai will seek to abandon the Commission's 2015 decision greatly diminishes the already low likelihood that the Supreme Court would want to hear the case.feedback

Daniel Berninger

I'm super excited. When we get to the Supreme Court, we want to be saying [to a largely conservative bench] this is a severe case of government overreach.feedback

Dennis Parker

With this decision, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the crucial role of municipal governments in protecting residents' rights. In housing and lending as in other areas, cities can and should serve as a bulwark against discrimination.feedback

Irin Carmon

You’ve heard the stories of the coat hanger and the back alley, those bloody days before Roe v. Wade. Sen. Patrick Leahy told one recently at the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Neil Gorsuch. As a state prosecutor in 1968, three years before the court struck down state abortion bans, cops woke him up [].feedback

Bram Fridhandler

Was it harder for the U.S. Supreme Court justices to dismiss the importance of confidentiality in psychotherapy while in the presence of someone who had gone to jail for it? We can only speculate. But we know that their decision has become the single most influential legal statement of the need for confidentiality to support effective psychotherapy, which they describe as a transcendent value for society.feedback

William Orrick

The Supreme Court concluded that the Affordable Care Act's threat of denying Medicaid funds, which constituted over 10 percent of the state's overall budget, was unconstitutionally coercive and represented a 'gun to the head'. The executive order threatens to deny sanctuary jurisdictions all federal grants, hundreds of millions of dollars on which the counties rely. The threat is unconstitutionally coercive.feedback

Sara Duke

A great sketch also shows how the legal system works. Aggie Kenny's drawing of the landmark Falwell v. Hustler shows Larry Flynt outside the main proceedings. It's not the wheelchair that segregates Flynt but an outburst during a previous Supreme Court appearance. That decision gave cartoonists, comedians and writers the right to parody. It protects editorial cartoonists, but it also protects television parodies.feedback

Steve Bullock

Our experience since Citizens United suggests that individuals lose our voices with all the dark money that's allowed in the system now. That's an area where I am concerned about what will come from this new Supreme Court.feedback

Benjy Sarlin - NBC News

[H]e has made no progress on major legislation, a development that's especially troubling for a White House with unified control of government. His one significant item on the Hill, health care reform, crashed and burned. Instead, the president's had to settle for more limited victories via executive orders, along with a successful Supreme Court pick that unified his party... But supporters say such judgments are premature, not to mention off base. They describe the White House as a work in progress that's made a number of less-heralded moves that could pay off down the line.feedback

Sean Spicer

This case is yet one more example of egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge. But we are confident we will ultimately prevail in the Supreme Court, just as we will prevail in our lawful efforts to impose immigration restrictions necessary to keep terrorists out of the United States. San Francisco, and cities like it, are putting the well-being of criminal aliens before the safety of our citizens, and those city officials who authored these policies have the blood of dead Americans on their hands.feedback

Jo Murkens

The supreme court said in no uncertain terms that a governmental veto was impermissible – a judicial decision, even one from a lowly tribunal, is binding on the government. If you apply that here you have on the one hand a political convention with no legal weight regulating restrictions during the purdah period, and on the other hand a legally binding decision of the high court. The government should not be able to use purdah to thwart an order from the high court.feedback

Richard Ratcliffe

I hadn't had great hopes for the supreme court appeal. Now, realising that that's it, that all options are gone … in the middle of an election cycle, it's hard to get attention on Nazanin's case.feedback

Nina Morrison

Because [Lee], like Stacey Johnson, has never gotten a hearing on his DNA petition, and has maintained his innocence for over two decades, we are hopeful that the Arkansas Supreme Court will also grant him a stay and give him a hearing on the DNA evidence.feedback

Rhonda K. Wood

With no explanation or instruction, this matter has been remanded to the trial court for another hearing. Today, our court gives uncertainty to any case ever truly being final in the Arkansas Supreme Court.feedback

Jeff Sessions

We are confident that the President will prevail on appeal and particularly in the Supreme Court, if not the Ninth Circuit.feedback

Scott Braden

You can be in the county court of a state in the morning, and by the afternoon, you're in the United States Supreme Court.feedback

Penny Nance - Concerned Women for America

A loss here at the Supreme Court could mean that religious nonprofits could be excluded from government programs meant to serve the community. This is like telling the fire department they couldn't put out a fire because it's at a church. I don't think this one decision's going to be the magic want that's going to make all my dreams come true. I think it does pave the way. This sets precedent. It makes it easier.feedback

Holly Hollman

Religion has a special place in our constitutional tradition, a place that is protected by separating the institutions of religion and government. The U.S. Supreme Court has never upheld direct government grants to churches, much less required a state to provide such funding. This case is about whether the state has to pay for the property improvements of a church, despite nearly 200 years of precedent and many practical considerations that argue otherwise.feedback

Shawn Womack

The families are entitled to closure and finality of the law. It is inconceivable that this court, with the facts and the law well established, stays these executions over speculation that the (U.S.) Supreme Court might change the law.feedback

Jessica Vaughan

This is going to have to be decided by the Supreme Court, and I think that the administration is ready to do that.feedback

Will Baude

Next week the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in BNSF Railway v. Tyrrell, a case that has not been at the top of most media coverage about the court, despite confronting the important question.feedback

Leslie Rutledge

It is heartbreaking that the family of Jane Daniel has once again seen justice delayed. Davis was convicted of his crimes in 1992, and my office took every action it could today to see that justice was carried out. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say and has decided not to lift the stay at this time. There are five scheduled executions remaining with nothing preventing them from occurring, but I will continue to respond to any and all legal challenges brought by the prisoners. The families have waited far too long to see justice, and I will continue to make that a priority.feedback

Scott Braden

The Arkansas Supreme Court recognized that executing either man, before the [U.S. Supreme] Court answers this question for Mr. McWilliams, would be profoundly arbitrary and unjust.feedback

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

People often ask me if, as the first woman on the Supreme Court, I had any special preferences for my robe. But honestly, I took whatever was available and put it on.feedback

Judd Deere

As a public opponent of capital punishment, Judge Griffen should have recused himself from this case. Attorney General [Leslie] Rutledge intends to file an emergency request with the Arkansas Supreme Court to vacate the order as soon as possible.feedback

Judd Deere

As a public opponent of capital punishment, Judge Griffen should have recused himself from this case. Attorney General Rutledge intends to file an emergency request with the Arkansas Supreme Court to vacate the order as soon as possible. Bruce Ward was convicted of capital murder in 1990 and the State Supreme Court has previously upheld his conviction. The Court granted a stay of Ward's scheduled execution today but offered no reason for doing so. Attorney General Rutledge is evaluating options on how to proceed.feedback

Jennifer Rubin

President Trump’s approval polling remains dreadful by historical standards. In the latest Marist poll, he draws only 39 percent approval, 49 disapproval (statistically insignificant from a month ago, when his numbers were 38 percent/51 percent). Gallup shows him with 40 percent approval, 54 percent disapproval (up, but not dramatically, from his low point). Overall, his RealClearPolitics average is 41.4 approval/51.6 percent disapproval. All this follows confirmation of his Supreme Court pick, now-Justice Neil Gorsuch, and a show of force against Syria. There are a few takeaways from this.feedback

Elizabeth Nash - Guttmacher Institute

One of these states are looking to be that state to enact the law that ends up at the Supreme Court and overturns Roe v. Wade. That's what we're watching for.feedback

Scott Braden

We are grateful that the Arkansas Supreme Court has issued a stay of execution for Bruce Ward so that they may consider the serious questions presented about his sanity. He deserves a day in court for that, but in Arkansas the rules do not permit that. Instead, they give the power to director of the department of corrections to decide whether the department can execute someone or not. That is both unfair and unconstitutional.feedback

Roy S. Moore

There are strong constitutional concerns with this legislation given that the U.S. Supreme Court has firmly ruled on the issue, therefore House Bill 780 will be referred to the House Rules Committee and will not be heard.feedback

Michael Gerhardt

It could pass, but it doesn't matter because it is plainly unconstitutional. It is directly contrary to what the United States Supreme Court has said on this subject. It violates the rights that the United States Supreme Court has recognized, so as a result, I think it would be struck down by any court in this country.feedback

Orin Kerr

In v. Jardines (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a front porch is a Fourth Amendment protected area but that there is an “implied license” allowing the police to walk up to the front door and knock in at least some cases. If the police are just coming to talk to the homeowner, the court concluded, that’s within the implied license and no Fourth Amendment search occurs. Homeowners implicitly consent to people coming to knock on the door and talk to them; that’s why they have doorbells. On the other hand, if the police are bringing a drug sniffing dog to smell for drugs, that is outside the implied license. People don’t implicitly consent to people coming to search them, and bringing a drug-sniffing dog to the front porch is a clear objective sign that the officers intend to search them. Coming to the front porch with a drug-sniffing dog is therefore a search, and the police ordinarily can’t do that without a warrant.feedback

Deborah Arnott - Action on Smoking and Health

The ruling by the Supreme Court finally puts paid to Big Tobacco's attempts to overturn the UK legislation on standardised packaging. This is the latest in a long line of crushing legal defeats for the tobacco industry. Over the years the industry has squandered many millions of pounds of its own money in futile legal challenges, but worse still it has wasted public time and money, which could have been much better spent improving public health.feedback

Lori A. Ringhand

It's not clear it would be to the electoral advantage to Republicans to have a hotly contested Supreme Court nomination right before the midterms that highlighted a nominee's extremely conservative positions on social issues that the majority of the public have actually accepted.feedback

John G. Roberts Jr.

I want to point out one thing – that throughout this whole process, the Supreme Court has been quietly going about its business of deciding the cases before it, according to the Constitution, in a completely nonpartisan way. We've done it for the past 14 months with one vacancy, and we'll do it going in the future now that we have a full complement.feedback

John G. Roberts Jr.

The new justice is not a Republican, not a Democrat, he is a member of the Supreme Court. But it is hard for people to understand that when they see the process that leads up to it. We might end up talking like they do in Congress. As it turns out, there are very few.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

I've always heard that the most important thing that a president of the United States does is appoint people – hopefully great people like this appointment – to the United States Supreme Court. And I can say this is a great honor. And I got it done in the first 100 days – that's even nice. You think that's easy?feedback

Sarah Huckabee Sanders

Once again this is a completely false story driven by people who want to distract from the success taking place in this administration. The President's pick for the Supreme Court (a decision that has generational impact) was confirmed today, we hosted multiple foreign leaders this week and the President took bold and decisive military action against Syria last night. The only thing we are shaking up is the way Washington operates as we push the President's aggressive agenda forward.feedback

Jennifer Rubin

President Trump and his fans are badly mistaken if they think a single show of force on Syria (followed by a declaration that nothing has changed) and the elevation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court are going to plug the hole in his sinking ship. By his own declaration, Trump seems bent on returning to President Barack Obama’s Syria policy, doing nothing to steer the ship of state in a different direction. There seems to be nothing much new that would accelerate “eradication” of the Islamic State, as Trump promised. Likewise, activists are glad that a conservative jurist is replacing Antonin Scalia, but Gorsuch’s confirmation merely defends a conservative seat. Until there are other replacements on the court, Gorsuch won’t be able to deliver on Trump’s and right-wing lawyers’ exaggerated promises of reversing liberal precedent. If the Syria strikes are not repeated or other Supreme Court openings don’t materialize, these two accomplishments will fade from the headlines.feedback

Marc Short

I think when you look back and you say in the first 100 days we will confirm a Supreme Court Justice, I consider that a pretty significant achievement.feedback

Jennifer Rubin

Eighty days into President Trump’s term, he arguably has only two successes - getting confirmed a Supreme Court judge pre-vetted by conservative lawyers and returning to mainstream Republican foreign policy, even if temporarily, in launching strikes on Syria. The unpredictable president sent to shake up Washington succeeds when he at his most conventional.feedback

Leonard Leo

Supreme Court confirmations have become full-blown political campaigns.feedback

Ed Rogers

I don’t want to jinx anything, but President Trump may be experiencing the best sequence of events since he became president. Just this week, he received bipartisan support for his military strike in Syria, secured Judge Neil Gorsuch’s Senate confirmation to the Supreme Court, had impressive meetings with both King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi of Egypt, caught a break with the Susan Rice scandal, and it appears he has walked away from a successful encounter with Chinese President Xi Jinping - all without knocking it off the rails with a wayward tweet. And it’s not just me saying that, no less than Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass wrote that this was “arguably [the] best of Donald Trump’s still young presidency, from [a] successful strike in Syria to confirmation of his Supreme Court nominee.” Imagine that, decisive and poised presidential action from the president himself.feedback

Ross Garber - Bentley

It's disappointing to hear the committee will plow forward while the Supreme Court is considering the case. We have no idea what the committee has planned for Monday or who its witnesses will be.feedback

Daniel Berninger

All eyes are on Pai to make a first move, but I promise he will wait for the Supreme Court outcome -- which no one has admitted remains in play.feedback

Chuck Schumer

I hope Judge Gorsuch has listened to our debate here in the Senate, particularly about our concerns about the Supreme Court increasingly drifting towards becoming a more pro-corporate court that favors employers, corporations and special interests over working Americans. So we are charging Judge Gorsuch to be the independent and fair-minded justice that America badly needs. If he is instead a justice for the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, that will spell trouble for America.feedback

Chuck Schumer

I believe it will make this body a more partisan place. It will make the cooling saucer of the Senate considerably hotter, and I believe it will make the Supreme Court a more partisan place.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

Senator, he has no idea how I'd rule in that case. And, Senator, I'm not going to say anything here that would give anybody any idea how I'd rule in any case like that that could come before the supreme court.feedback

Lindsay Walters - Republican National Committee

Once again this is a completely false story driven by people who want to distract from the success taking place in this administration. The president's pick for Supreme Court…was confirmed today, we hosted multiple foreign leaders this week and the president took bold and decisive military action against Syria last night. The only thing we are shaking up is the way Washington operates as we push the president's aggressive agenda forward.feedback

Sarah Sanders

Once again this is a completely false story driven by people who want to distract from the success taking place in this administration. The president's pick for the Supreme Court (a decision that has generational impact) was confirmed today, we hosted multiple foreign leaders this week and the president took bold and decisive military action against Syria last night.feedback

Mitch McConnell

This is a person of extraordinary credentials who will bring honor to the Supreme Court for many, many years to come. So it is indeed a proud day.feedback

Samuel A. Alito

It was unreal. It was sort of surreal. I've had many times during those periods where I've had to pinch myself to say, Yeah, you're really here. You're on the Supreme Court. This is really happening.feedback

Mitch McConnell

As I look back on my career, I think the most consequential decision I've ever been involved in was the decision to let the president being elected last year pick the Supreme Court nominee.feedback

Mitch McConnell

This will be the first and last partisan filibuster of the Supreme Court. This threatened filibuster cannot be allowed to succeed or to continue for the sake of the Senate, for the sake of the court and for the sake our country. The opposition to this particular nominee is more about the man that nominated him and the party he represents than the nominee himself.feedback

Mitch McConnell

This will be the first, and last, partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. This is the latest escalation in the left's never-ending judicial war, the most audacious yet, and it cannot and will not stand.feedback

Bernie Sanders

I don't think there was a speech I gave where I didn't talk about the importance of the Supreme Court. The message, I think, is: We don't change America unless we increase voter turnout, and we get greater public consciousness. It'll be difficult to do that with Citizens United still standing, and with voter suppression taking place. And those are issues that come right before the Supreme Court. I think a lot of people are not fully aware of the impact of the Supreme Court on workers' rights, on the environment, on women's rights, and we've got to do better at communicating that.feedback

Bernie Sanders

Four years ago, Democrats, facing incredible, unprecedented obstructionism, decided to change the rules. But with the Democrats in control, what they also said – I was in the room, and there was a debate – was no, not the Supreme Court. It's so important that it does not become a place where you can just ram someone in.feedback

Chuck Schumer

We believe that what Republicans did to Merrick Garland was worse than a filibuster. The nuclear option means the end of a long history of consensus on Supreme Court nominations, it weakens the standing of the Senate as a whole.feedback

Molly Reynolds

If the Senate changes its precedents for the consideration of Supreme Court nominees, it could be reversed. The most likely (but not only avenue) would be to use the same process by which Republicans are likely to change the precedent today, but in reverse.feedback

Jennifer Rubin

Senators voted on Thursday to advance Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, setting up a final confirmation vote on Friday.feedback

Chuck Schumer

While I'm sure we will continue to debate what got us here, I know that in 20, 30, or 40 years, we will sadly point to today as a turning point in the history of the Senate and the Supreme Court. This is a day when we irrevocably move away from the principles our Founders intended for these institutions: principles of bipartisanship, moderation, and consensus.feedback

Daniel W. Drezner

There’s a lot of talk about the erosion of political norms going around in 2017. Today might be the day that the GOP majority ends the Senate filibuster to ensure the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. This is the inevitable endpoint to the “parliamentary arms race” caused by increased polarization. Of course, [].feedback

Chuck Schumer

The consequences for the Senate and for the future of the Supreme Court will be far-reaching. Democrats "have principled reasons to vote against this nominee.feedback

Chuck Schumer

We will sadly point to today as a turning point in the history of the Senate and the Supreme Court. A day when we irrevocably moved further away from the principles our founders intended for these institutions. Each side comes here today in full confidence that their side is in the right.feedback