My first reaction is a simple one: It could have been a lot worst. ... The president has not sent us a nominee that we've rejected already.
We need to be careful here. This is a nominee who could shift the balance of the court, and thus the laws of the nation, for decades to come.
Here, unfortunately, the memo itself creates the perception of bias and it will be crucial for this nominee to address the issue head on,
Roberts set an awfully high bar in terms of intellect and ability to answer questions, which is going to be awfully hard for the next nominee to match,
The president has not sent us a nominee who has already hewed to the extreme wing of his party, ... that the views of the extreme right wing of his party aren't the views of the American people, or even close to it.
The time in history, and Sandra Day O'Connor's removal, means the focus on real questions will be greater than it has ever been, because she was a swing nominee at a time of a divided court and a divided country.
While this nomination did not warrant an attempt to block the nominee on the floor of the Senate, the next one might.
If the president sends us a nominee who is committed to an agenda of turning back the clock on civil rights, workers' rights, individual autonomy or other vital constitutional protections, there will likely be a fight.
You've being less forthcoming with this Committee than any nominee who has ever come before us,
The idea that Americans shouldn't know what the judicial philosophy of the nominee to this powerful, powerful position is, is wearing thin with the American people, whether they be liberal, conservative or moderate,
You can't have a campaign for a nominee based on whispers and winks.
This is the time for a consensus nominee. I know that there will be people who will pressure the president from one side to have a nominee who is way over to that side, but I don't think that serves the president or America well.