You know, we should not be giving cash to people who basically are just going to blow it on drugsand not take care of their own children.

The debate over judicial nominations is a debate over the judiciary itself. It is a debate over how much power unelected judges should have in our system of government, how much control judges should have over a written constitution that belongs to the people.

The fact is... our doors have not exactly been knocked down by companies willing to defend Microsofts business practices.

This principle that judges are not politicians lies at the very heart of a judicial job - of the judicial job description.

However, FDA attempted to reverse this clear congressional intent in March, 1979, by proposing to regulate vitamins and minerals as 'Over-The-Counter' drugs.

We should evaluate judges and judicial nominees based on the general process for applying the law to any legal disputes, not on the specific result in a particular case or dispute.

Scorecards are common in the political process, but they are inappropriate in the judicial process. The most important tools in the judicial confirmation process are not litmus paper and a calculator.