IS EXPIRING AND I HOPE THAT YOU'RE VERY INSPIRING STORY WILL MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR A LOT OF OTHERS TO THINK IT, NOT SECRETLY, BUT SAY IT OUT LOUD AND ASPIRE TO IT. IT IS WHAT THIS COUNTRY NEEDS. FORTUNATELY, PRESIDENT BIDEN HAS RECOGNIZED THE NOMINEES HE PUT BEFORE US AND WE HAVE TRIED TO WORK WITH THE GREAT LEADERSHIP TO CONFIRM PEOPLE OF REAL MERIT THE KIND OF QUALIFICATIONS AND INTELLECT AND CHARACTER AND DEPTH AND WARMTH THAT YOU BRING TO US TODAY. I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE ABOUT VOTING RIGHTS. PART OF THE REASONS WHY THOSE DREAMS NOW OUR REALITY IS THAT MORE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE. AT LEAST UNTIL RECENTLY. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF BACKSLIDING. TURNING BACK THE CLOCK ON VOTING RIGHTS. THE GENTLEMAN SITTING BEHIND YOU , OUR FORMER COLLEAGUE WHO WE VERY MUCH ADMIRE AND RESPECT WROTE A TRIBUTE. WHO SUCCEEDED JOHN LEWIS. HE SAID IN A SPEECH THAT -- JONES WROTE, "WE CAN BEST HONOR HER BY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WHILE MOST DOORS ARE CLOSED TO HER TODAY, THEY ARE STILL HEAVY AND SO HARD TO OPEN FOR SO MANY PEOPLE. IN ALABAMA AND THE REST OF THE NATION LET US COMMIT OURSELVES TO DO OUR PART TO OPEN THESE DOORS AS WIDE AS POSSIBLE SO THAT EVERYONE CAN TAKE THE WALK THAT VIVIAN TOOK." I AM GOING TO ASK THAT FORMER SENATOR JONES FOOL SPEECH BE ENTERED IN IT OPENED THE BALLOT BOX TO MILLIONS OF AMERICANS AND IT BECAME REGARDED AS THE CROWN JEWEL OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT. THEN IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, THE SUPREME COURT HAS HACKED AWAY AT IT IN AN EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM THAT HAS BEEN HISTORIC IN MAGNITUDE. JUDGES SUPPLANTING THEIR VIEWS FOR THE POLICY PREFERENCES AND OFFICIAL ACTS OF LEGISLATURE. AND OPINIONS THAT WERE WRITTEN BY ONLY CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES, THESE DECISIONS WERE IS FAR FROM JUDICIAL RESTRAINT AS THEY COULD POSSIBLY BE, NOT EVEN CLOSE. THEY REWROTE THE RULES OF OUR MOST CHERISHED AND MOST BIPARTISAN CIVIL RIGHTS LAW. YOU KNOW THE CASES. SHELBY COUNTY. IN EFFECT, THEIR OPINIONS INCLUDING JUSTICE ALITO'S DECISION ARE COMPLETELY UNTETHERED FROM THE CLEAR STATUTORY TEXT AND THEY IMPOSE A SERIES OF SO-CALLED GUIDEPOSTS ON SECTION TWO THAT CREATE UNREASONABLY HIGH HURDLES TO THE EXERCISE OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT. I HOPE THAT YOU WILL BRING TO THE COURT THAT DELIBERATE CAREFUL MEDICAL -- METHODOLOGY THAT YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER. IT IS PART OF YOUR JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS YOUR APPROACH TO CASES. IT HAS BEEN VERY PERSUASIVELY AND CLEARLY ARTICULATED AND I THINK IT IS THAT KIND OF DELIBERATE -- IF THAT KIND OF DELIBERATE AND CAREFUL METHODOLOGY HAD PREVAILED ON THE SUPREME COURT, WE WOULD STILL HAVE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IN FULL RIGHT NOW. I HOPE THAT WE CAN ONCE AGAIN RETURN TO BIPARTISAN SUPPORT OF THOSE RIGHTS. THE MOST RECENT EXERCISE OF UNFORTUNATE DECISION-MAKING IN THE VOTING RIGHTS AREA CAME JUST HOURS AGO WHEN THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN THE DECISION OF THE WISCONSIN STATE SUPREME COURT IN WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE VERSUS WISCONSIN ELECTION COMMISSION. WHAT IS STRIKING IS NOT JUST THE RESULT, BUT WHAT WAS DONE AS PART OF THE SHADOW DOCKET. WE HAVE TALKED A LOT ABOUT HERE AND WHAT THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA SHOULD KNOW IS THERE IS NO ORAL ARGUMENT. THERE IS ONLY MINIMAL BRIEFING. THERE ARE NO FULL OPINIONS OF THE COURT IN FACT, I AM HOLDING UP AN OPINION THAT IS ABOUT 12 PAGES IN LENGTH FROM THE COURT WHICH MEANS YOU DON'T KNOW WHO WROTE. THERE IS A POWERFUL DISSENT. I RECOMMEND THAT EVERYONE READ IT. AGAIN, USE OF THE SHADOW DOCKET HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY PREVALENT SINCE 2017. IN EFFECT, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IS SHIRKING ITS DUTY. I HOPE YOU WILL BRING TO THE COURT THE KIND OF RESPONSIBLE AND METHODICAL APPROACH TO DECISION-MAKING THAT WILL LEAD TO AN AVOIDANCE OF THE SHADOW DOCKET AS WELL AS THE RETURN TO THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT. IF I COULD OFFER ONE MORE PIECE OF ADVICE ON THE COURTS WORKLOAD , I HAVE A CHART. I KNOW WE ARE GOING BY THE RULES OF EVIDENCE. THIS CHART INDICATES THE SIGNED DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OVER A GOOD PART OF ITS HISTORY. I THINK THE PATTERN IS PRETTY CLEAR. THE COURT ISSUES FEWER SIGNED OPINIONS IN FACT, IT HAS DECLINED PRECIPITOUSLY SINCE 1972. THIS LITTLE CLIP AT THE END IS AN INCREASE FROM 53 TO 57, BUT YOU CAN SEE IT'S ONLY A FRACTION OF WHAT THE COURT USED TO DO IN SIGNED OPINIONS EVEN FROM THE TIME I WAS A LAW CLERK, IT HAS DIMINISHED PROFOUNDLY. THE SUPREME COURT NEEDS TO DO ITS JOB. IT NEEDS TO ISSUE SIGNED OPINIONS, NOT THE SHADOW DOCKET. IT NEEDS TO TAKE CASES AND RESOLVE REAL FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANT ISSUES. AND TAKING YOUR RECORD, 573 OPINIONS OVER NINE YEARS, I'M NOT A MATH MAJOR, BUT THAT'S ABOUT 64 OPINIONS PER YEAR. THAT'S MORE THAN THEY DO, ALL NINE OF THEM. I HOPE YOU WILL BRING THE ENERGY THAT YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED IN THIS ROOM, THE ENERGY AND WORK ETHIC TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT BECAUSE CLEARLY, YOU HAVE BOTH AND THE COURT IS VERY MUCH IN NEED OF IT AS ARE SOME OF THE GREAT QUALITIES, INTELLECT, CHARACTER YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED HERE. JUST A COUPLE MORE POINTS. YOU WERE ASKED EARLIER ABOUT DEFENSE. I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT ONE IN PARTICULAR. THE DISSENT OF YOUR MENTOR AND YOUR PREDECESSOR ON THE COURT, JUSTICE BREYER. I AM TOLD AND I THINK I HAVE READ THAT THERE IS ONE OPINION HE IS PROUDEST OF. COULD YOU TELL US WHAT YOU RECALL IT BEING IF YOU KNOW?