Charles E. Schumer

I didn't ask you that. I asked you: Did they contact you initially?

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

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

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

Look, I have made that argument for a long time, as you know.

Let me say this, sir, just with the Sandoval case, you could do 10,000 pro bono cases for individuals and the Sandoval case takes away rights of individuals to pursue the rights you were pursuing in those pro bono cases in one fell swoop…

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

Only certain conditions.

But do you think we tried to address interstate commerce when we made the findings in terms of VAWA or not?

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

You argued that Congress has no power, under Section of the Fourteenth Amendment, to enact any law to enforce religious freedom.

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

Could you say that again. I did not--you are not familiar enough with what?

We do not even have rules in this Committee yet.

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

That letter is pretty timely, in terms of Senator Durbin's question. Did we get that letter this afternoon?

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.

It is an important question. You know the laws much better than I do.

Well, I think the three decisions taken as a group are a big deal.

I am going to submit that question in writing.

But your view of what the rule of law is, based on these quotes, is far different than what most American judges, lawyers, students of juris prudence believe it is.

Your involvement didn't come in until the highest level, right?

I am not upset at you. I mean, I am just upset at the situation.

Those, at one point, I do not know if they still are, are your views. Are they still?

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.'