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.

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.

We cannot let our respect for the FBI blind us from the fact the FBI has sometimes come up short of our expectations.

I believe in the separation of powers. If a judge crosses the line between interpreting and making the law, he has crossed the line supporting his legitimate authority from the legislative branch's authority. Now, to me that's a very serious matter if we believe, as America's founders, did that the separation of powers - not just in theory or in textbook but in practice in the actual functioning of government - is the linchpin of limited government and liberty.

The place where you got to get revenues has to come from the middle class. That's where the huge number of people that are there. So the system does need to be revamped [to tax the rich less and the middle class more.]

The only ones who will see an increase in pay are some of the trial lawyers who bring the cases.

I do know dumb-ass questions when I see dumb-ass questions.