The First Amendment requires us to be vigilant in making these judgments, to guard against undue hindrances to political conversations and the exchange of ideas,

And I want this committee to understand that if we go down this road of putting people's hearts in play, and the only way you can have a good heart is, Adopt my value system, we're doing a great disservice to the judiciary.

I do not know of any case where we have impugned a state supreme court the way you are doing in this case. I mean, in case after case, we have said we owe the highest respect to what the ... state supreme court says is the state's law,

I assumed, albeit incorrectly, that anyone with a pulse who stood in opposition was a shoe-in. These polls, however, made me realize just how wrong my assumptions were.

In accord with long-standing norm, every member of the current Supreme Court declined to furnish such information. The line each justice drew in response to pre-confirmation questioning is crucial to the health of the federal judiciary.

that seems to me worlds away from what we're talking about here.

It's an extraordinary act, I think, to withdraw jurisdiction from this court in a pending case.

everyone on this court assumed that assisted suicide was a matter for the states.

descending that slope, because once you ask me about this case, then you will ask me about another case that is over and done, and another case.

It's almost like a trust that we are bound to preserve the institution and give it to our successors in the same good condition that we received it.