Chuck Schumer: “Let me finish--the one difference--and then I will be happy to yield for a question--is this. We succeeded. Do you know…”

“Let me finish--the one difference--and then I will be happy to yield for a question--is this. We succeeded. Do you know why we succeeded? I will tell you why. Because President Clinton made an effort to nominate moderate judges, by and large; because President Clinton did far more of the advise-and-consent process than President Bush, and President Clinton was able to persuade 15 or 20 Members from the other side to finally vote for these judges. We have had no advice, meaning consultation. I am consulted in New York, and we have filled every vacancy. On the main court of appeals nominees, there is no advise, and that means there isn't consent. I would argue this to my good friend from Texas: No President has chosen judges through an ideological prism more than President Bush. He said it when he ran, to his credit. He was going to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, two of the most conservative judges we have. Some of them are to the right of Scalia and Thomas. Clearly, Justice Brown is. I believe Miguel Estrada was. He has appointed judges ideologically. Then we are supposed to not challenge that ideology? It is two-faced. It is hypocritical. Most of President Clinton's nominees--not all, but most--were not legal aid lawyers or ACLU attorneys. They were partners in law firms; they were prosecutors. Anyone who has followed this knows President Clinton decided to nominate, by and large, decidedly moderate judges. That is why the filibusters were not successful.”