Charles E. Schumer

We should have an open and fair debate here, not just go through the motions and, as Senator Leahy said, rubber stamp whoever the administration puts forward.

Unexamined deference to VAWA--Violence Against Women Act--findings would have created another problem as well.

Federalism merely determines the allocation of power. It says nothing about what particular policies should be adopted by those who have power.

First, the public has to understand that the charges of judicial activism that have been raised, particularly in the most recent term, are simply inaccurate.

In a federalism case. . . there is invariably a battle between the States and the Federal Government over a legislative prerogative.

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

It doesn't just get me invited to cocktail parties. . . but I love these issues. I believe in this federalism stuff.

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

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.

We ought to have them. I mean, let us hope this is all on the level and certainly at least fair process would help give it at least the appearance that that is the case.

I do not like judges too far left or too far right.

I guess the point I want to make is having three substantial, controversial nominees to the court, to important Courts of Appeals is brand new.

There is a way to move things along, but it is not simply saying, 'This is who we pick after we blocked everybody you wanted. Now you must do those.'

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.

There is just a tremendous rush to judgment here that is just not fair.

We received notice of who the witnesses would be at 4:45 yesterday. That does not give anyone any chance to prepare.

So our intent was not to cut, and I do not think that we have cut.

It seems to me, again, of course you can coordinate better, you can be efficient, you can connect people to the VA.

Well, I do not think the only answer is more money, but the answer certainly involves money.

The policy could be backed up in Year One.

I am very worried that people will not endeavor to begin large new projects if they are worried...

For a week. It is not mandatory, but if you have some good idea, I would love to hear it.

Hunter says Gramm ignores free market.

I do not follow you. I do not understand.

Again, we are talking past each other. I am not worried about competition between the two.