Chuck Schumer: “I thank my colleague for asking the question which, as usual, from his lawyer-like mind, is able to pierce through the…”

“I thank my colleague for asking the question which, as usual, from his lawyer-like mind, is able to pierce through the legalisms and reach the core of the debate that people can understand; it is an excellent question. This is not simply a clash of egos, or even two lawyers arguing a point for the sake of it. The bottom line here is that this is what our country is all about in terms of protecting the rights of average people. The bottom line is that the Founding Fathers, and then Congresses from the very beginning--from 1789--understood the power a Federal judge has over an individual. The power of the judge is much closer to the power of a king--who also has a lifetime appointment--by definition, than is the power of a President or a Senator or a Congressman, because that judge is appointed for life and can just make up his or her mind and decide that should be done. What we have had through the years of tradition is a very careful vetting of who should become a judge. The rules are simply a device to determine who those people are in terms of back-and-forth questioning, of hearings, of votes, et cetera. The Founding Fathers certainly shied away from the idea of the President simply appointing judges. They knew the awesome power judges had, and they wanted to make sure there would be a thorough airing of who this person was before that person ascended to this lifetime appointment to a powerful position.”