Charles E. Schumer

I have a bunch of questions.

Despite this evidence, which was enough to convince a jury of age discrimination, you voted to overturn the jury's verdict for the employees.

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

So you are relying on res judicata.

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

I am troubled by your dissent.

I understand, but that is where we pass from strict constructionism to judicial activism in a certain way, and--

It seems kind of blatant here.

But sovereign immunity is not--

So where does this one come from?

Do either of the other two witnesses want to comment on that?

Only certain conditions.

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

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

I think it is the case that we do have a Federal system, that States have powers and responsibilities.

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

It's a healthy reminder that we're a country that was formed by States and that we still live under a Federal system.

The States, as co-equal sovereigns, have their own sovereign powers, and that includes, as everyone at the time of the Constitutional Convention understood, sovereign immunity.

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

Well, thank you. I will do it again if you would like to be more grateful to me.

How many of the cases where you argued on these significant cases--I mentioned four or five before.

You don't have to give me the whole--so in that one you reached out.

Did you contact them and say, 'I'd like to be involved in this, I'm an expert'? Or did they contact you?

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

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