Charles E. Schumer

The public needs to understand that federalism is ultimately a neutral principle.

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?

These questions are not frivolous.

Excuse me. Who came up with the idea to file the brief, the amicus brief, and however far--we can dispute how far it goes--

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

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

Where did it come from? Where in the Constitution did it come from?

It has been a long time, and we want to fill them, but it would work a lot better if the White House consulted with some of the Senators in the area involved, such as Senators Levin and Stabenow, who had nominated people for years.

I want to know his views, not what his client's views are and not how persuasive an advocate he is.

But sovereign immunity is not--

It seems kind of blatant here.

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

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

Did they tell you to make this argument or did you come up with it? Answer that yes or no if you could.

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

Excellence, legal excellence. These are such vital positions that you do not want some political hack or somebody who is somebody's friend to occupy them.

I find it troubling that legal principles constrain you in this case, where you are vindicating an employer.

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 worry about it from a constitutional perspective because there should be real advise and consent.

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?

I feel very strongly that it is my obligation and your responsibility to let people know your views because they will influence how you are as a judge.

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

As Senator Schumer said earlier, you can represent a lot of individual defendants before you make up for the loss of rights to a class of individuals, disabled individuals, because of that decision.

So where does this one come from?

So, wait, can I just, again, because there is a lot of sophistry here, do you believe that unexamined deference to VAWA would give any Congressional staffer with a laptop the ultimate Marbury power?