If there is a nuclear tactic being used here, I submit it is the use of that obstruction where a willful minority blocks a bipartisan majority from voting on the President's judicial nominees.

There is no doubt where the founding fathers stood on this issue. They believed that people of faith should be permitted to express themselves in public. They believed that this country was big enough and free enough to allow expression of on enormous variety of views and beliefs.

Justices are not politicians. They don't run on a political platform, and senators should not ask them to do so.

I'm afraid, is that there are a number of groups who really don't want a fair-minded judge who has an openness to both sides of the argument. Rather, they want judges who will impose their liberal agenda on the American people; views so liberal that they cannot prevail at the ballot box.

Think for a moment about what Obamacare has done: The federal government has come up with its own (ever-evolving) definition of 'health insurance,' which now includes free access to sterilization, contraception, and certain abortifacients such as the morning-after pill.

Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife

I don't support an amnesty.(Cornyn) demands an ongoing focus on security and workplace enforcement before considering steps to grant legal status, let alone citizenship.