Charles E. Schumer

But what you are saying here is in Sandoval your arguments were simply related to the disparate impact regulations, not a general view that individuals didn't have the right to sue?

So did they contact you and say, 'We want to argue this case'?

I just wanted to go back to City of Berne again.

Did you just argue that they could not sue for disparate impact, or did you argue that they couldn't sue for a broader range of issues under Title VI? I don't know the answer. I am just asking.

I am not following you. What I was focusing on is that the brief went beyond what the Federal Government can do and talked about individual citizens' rights to deal with disparate impact, not the disparate impact itself, not the argument…

Five Justices on the Court have basically bought into the States' rights jurisprudence that you have been one of the leading advocates of and creators of, really.

I am going to submit that question in writing.

I want to talk a little bit about Sandoval because this one I think had really far-reaching opinions--a far-reaching effect.

But you would--okay. Any others you want to mention?

Well, that is a different issue. It is a different issue to say at the time I would have ruled differently, then times have changed and things have changed, and I would now disagree with that holding, right?

I think that is a good question to ask.

I mean, anyone who's read Korematsu would obviously be very uncomfortable with the result.

I mean, I am sure you would disagree with Plessy v. Ferguson, right?

You haven't shied away from being critical of all Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Hopefully we won't have to have meetings like this on into the night into the future.

You did mention, for instance, earlier in our dialogue that you disagreed with the Kiryas Joel case.

I asked Mr. Estrada: Name a past case--because he kept saying, well, it might come before him in the future.

This is a lifetime appointment, a very important court--

I just do not think it is the fair way to run this committee.

I appeal the ruling of the chair and ask for a vote.

We do not even have rules in this Committee yet.

This is just not right.

I do not think it is right. I do not think it is fair.

In all due respect, we are having a third hearing on Pickering, we are having a second hearing on Owens.

These questions are not frivolous.