I, like most justices, would probably have lived a happier life if I had never been appointed to the Court, but that in time I’d come to find a value in being there that was at least worth everything the Court took from me in return.

There is a difference between what might be constitutional and what you can do politically...I think leaving a vacancy for up to four years is not why we are here.

These are responsibilities I take seriously, as should everyone. They’re bigger than any one party. They’re about our democracy.

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says '... except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic president.

The court looks the other way as yet another federal district judge casts aside state laws without making any effort to preserve the status quo pending the court’s resolution of a constitutional question it left open in United States v. Windsor…This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the court’s intended resolution of that question.

The advancement of the abortion industry’s bottom line shouldn’t take precedent over women’s health, and we look forward to demonstrating the validity of these important health and safety requirements in court.

And so I’m here before you this morning, with a seemingly impossible choice that I do not wish upon any of my fellow Americans: my conscience and my freedom.

People ask me, ‘when do you think there will be enough women on the court?’ And my answer is: when there are nine.

And while there are people of good conscience on both sides of this argument, one thing has become abundantly clear to me: the heavy hand of government must not make this decision for women and families.