Schumer on Newshour: He has it right

[Armstead]

PBS Newshour
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/july-dec05/schumer_7-20.html

GWEN IFILL: Based on your examination of his record then in 2003 and now, what would you say are his strongest and his weakest qualities?

Schumer:Well, clearly his strongest qualities are his resume and his history. And that's, of course, what the president and others have stressed. And it's an excellent resume and it's an excellent history. He's one of the leading lawyers here in Washington. But that's not enough.

I think most people would rather have a nominee who didn't have such an illustrious history, who would understand that the court's job is to preserve the rights of individuals, women's rights, civil rights, workers' rights, than somebody who went to Harvard Law School or Yale Law School who was going to take away those rights and not defend those rights.

<Cut>

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: Well, I think a good number of Judge Roberts' advocates seem to want to make sure that he's not asked the hard questions. And that's really wrong. And you wonder why.

The laws -- the rules are quite clear. You cannot ask someone a question about a specific case they might hear. If I were to say, Judge Roberts, how would you rule on Exxon - I mean, on Enron if it came before you, he should not answer that question, shouldn't be asked that question.

But if I were to ask him, Judge Roberts, what's your view on corporate ethics; how far do you think the Supreme Court can go in own forcing the rights of shareholders, for instance, and what's the balance between state and federal law here, he'd have an obligation to answer that question.

So you can't ask about a specific fact situation, but you can ask just about everything else. And, you know, Judge Miguel Estrada, unfortunately, was so disingenuous with the court when you said, what's your general view of the First Amendment, he said that might prejudice me when I had to rule on a case in the future.

And, justifiably, I think, we did not support his nomination because when you go to these courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, so important, you have an obligation. And I say to average folks, you know, if you applied for a job and the employer said fill out this questionnaire and answer these questions, and you said no, do you think you'd get the job?

GWEN IFILL: If you wanted to decide, if you wanted to guess whether extraordinary circumstances would apply to those colleagues of yours who believe that that is what it would take to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, can you imagine Judge Roberts fitting that criteria?

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: Well, of course you can imagine it. Either one of two large ways -- one is he refuses to answer questions in really a straightforward and honest manner tell us his views of the major issues that will be facing the court in the upcoming decade or two; and second, if when he expresses those views they are so far out of the mainstream, that people have the view, senators and the American people have the view that this is somebody who wants to make law, not interpret law, but wants to impose his own system of values or whatever else on all of America.

[aquart]

1. Framing him as an activist judge. Go Chuck!

[Armstead]

3. Exactamente

Turn the tables on them.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. I think the questioning period is gonna be realllyyyyy interesting

[realFedUp]

4. and Gwen Awful kinda verbally smirked him at the end

she's such a conservative shill.

[Talismom]

5. Schumer's been something of a dissappointment to me a times,

but he really kicked it tonight!
:kick:

[aquart]

6. I know what you mean.