Leahy and Schumer Address the Press

After President Bush announced Judge John G. Roberts as his Supreme Court nominee, Patrick Leahy and Chuck Schumer gave the Democrats' response at a press conference.

Transcript excerpts

LEAHY: No one is entitled to a free pass to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Someone confirmed today can be expected to serve on the court until the year 2030 or later.

How the nominee views precedent, whether he regards (inaudible) law, how he will exercise the incredible power of a Supreme Court justice to be the final arbiter of our rights and the meaning of the Constitution, all of these raise very different considerations than in the lower court.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom I voted for for the Supreme Court, is a model justice. She brought a fair and open mind to the bench; she decided cases without a political agenda; she's widely respected as a jurist of common sense and practical values. She didn't prejudge cases.

And I regret that the extreme right has been so critical of her and was so adamantly opposed to her successor sharing her judicial philosophy.

The Constitution calls on us in the Senate to examine nominations to the court, not to rubberstamp them.

I wonder if Leahy has any regrets about the extreme left being so critical of Thomas or Scalia.

Does it trouble Leahy that when President Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork to the Supreme Court Ted Kennedy said, "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids..."?

I doubt it. Only the "extreme right" bothers Leahy. Hypocrite.

.....

SCHUMER: The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove that he is unworthy.

I voted against Judge Roberts for the D.C. Court of Appeals because he didn't answer questions fully and openly when he appeared before the committee.

For instance, when I asked him a question that others have answered, to identify three Supreme Court cases of which he was critical, he refused.

But now it's a whole new ball game for those of us who voted against him, for those of us who voted for him and for Judge Roberts.

I hope Judge Roberts, understanding how important this nomination is — particularly when replacing a swing vote on the court — will decide to answer questions about his views.

Now that he is nominated for a position where he can overturn precedent and make law, it is even more important that he fully answers a broad range of questions.

I hope, for the sake of the country, that Judge Roberts understands this and opens questions — sorry, and answers questions — openly, honestly and thoroughly.

Chuckie is full of...threats.

.....

LEAHY: There's one Supreme Court. Only 101 people get a say in who's going to be there; first and foremost, primarily, the president, because he nominates.

But then the 100 members of the Supreme Court are supposed to stand in the shoes of all Americans to say: Is this person going to protect our rights? Is this person going to uphold the Constitution? Is this person going to give equal justice to everybody, no matter who you are, no matter what your political affiliation, no matter what your cause is?

Did Leahy really say that there are 100 members on the Supreme Court or is this a transcript error?

Of course, if he actually did say it, we know he meant to say "100 members of the Senate." It was a slip of the tongue. However, if Bush made a similar mistake, he would be blasted for his stupidity by every lib from here to eternity.

.....

SCHUMER: The one thing I would say is, to the best of my knowledge, at least no one on our side was offered names and asked to give an opinion. It would have moved the process forward more quickly, because if a few days ago someone said, "What do you think of Judge Roberts or this one or that one?" we could have done some initial research and given some preliminary views.

But be that as it may, consultation is over now. And we have a nominee and we have to begin the process.

So the fact that consultation wasn't as full as some of us would have liked, I don't think is going to jaundice any of our views in terms of judging Roberts as a potential Supreme Court nominee.

President Bush has been incredibly accommodating to the Dems, far more than he needed to be; yet Chuckie still is whining. Nothing Bush does will satisfy him. He's like a spoiled, ungrateful child.

.....

QUESTION: Has the word "filibuster" crossed your mind?

SCHUMER: It's much too early to cross any bridge like that.

What a load! He's not fooling anyone. Filibuster is part of the Dem game plan.

However, Schumer's right about it being too early to cross that bridge. That can't happen until the Roberts nomination goes to the full Senate. Then, the filibuster can begin.

.....

QUESTION: Senator, you pointed out the difference between appellate courts and the Supreme Court, but, still, just two years ago, this nominee — there wasn't even a roll call vote (OFF-MIKE).

Is it realistic to think that that nominee in just two years would be so controversial that there would be an honest-to-God, all- out fight over that nomination?

LEAHY: I'm not going to compare him — something I want to mention. Judge Bork got 99-0 vote for Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Oh, no. Bringing up Bork is not a good omen for Roberts.

.....

SCHUMER: This, the Supreme Court, is far different than the court of appeals. The Supreme Court makes law. We hope they do it by interpreting precedent and following the legislature.

But they make law.

And, therefore, you cannot extrapolate — someone who might make a good D.C. Court of Appeals judge might not make a good Supreme Court justice and vice versa.

Schumer thinks the Supreme Court MAKES law???

Chuckie is terribly confused. The Judicial Branch INTERPRETS law. It does not MAKE law. The Legislative Branch does.

Someone get a copy of the Constitution to Chuckie...Quickly!