Skip to main content

tv
Charles Schumer
Archive
  U.S. Senate Sen. Schumer on SCOTUS  CSPAN  July 9, 2018 6:58pm-7:09pm EDT

6:58 pm
with the respect and dignity that it deserves. the judiciary committee under the able leadership of senator grassley will hold hearings, and then the nomination will come to the full senate for our consideration. one more round of 40-year-old scare tactics will not stop us from doing the right thing. >> now, mr. president, as everyone knows, later tonight, president trump will announce his nomination for the up coming vacancy on the supreme court. whoever fills justice kennedy's seat will join an otherwise evenly divided court and immediately obtain the ability to affect the laws of the united states and the rights of its citizens for generations to come. enormously important issues hang in the balance, the right of
6:59 pm
workers to organize, the influence of dark money in our politics, the right of americans to marry whom they love, the right to vote. two issues of similar and profound consequence are the fate of the affordable healthcare and a woman's freedom to make the most sensitive medical decisions about her body. these two rights, affordable healthcare and a woman's freedom to make sensitive healthcare decisions hang in the balance with this nominee. the views of president trump's next court nominee could very well determine whether the senate approves or rejects this nomination. now, president trump has already made up his mind. president trump has repeatedly said that he believes roe was wrongly decided. he has promised in his own words
7:00 pm
to nominate only pro-life judges, whose selection will result in the automatic overturning of roe v. wade. those are his words. pro-life judges, automatic. he also said that chief justice roberts has been an absolute disaster, his words, for voting to uphold the healthcare law and said his judicial appointments will, quote, do the right thing, unlike bush's appointee john roberts on obama care, unquote. it is near impossible to imagine that president trump would select a nominee who isn't hostile to our healthcare law and healthcare for millions and millions and millions of americans, who isn't hostile to a woman's freedom to make her own healthcare decisions. ::
7:01 pm
that would reverse trophy way. he, himself, bent his career in pursuit of it and that is not just my view. according to edward weiland, one of the most prominent legal conservative activists and scholars and bloggers said quote, no one has been more dedicated to the enterprise of building a supreme court that will overturn roe v wade than the federalist society asked leonard leo. no one has been more dedicated to overturning roe persuade than the very man who chose the list of 25 and that is what we're up
7:02 pm
against here. that is why america is on tenterhooks so worried about any choice from this list. let me repeat again. mr. leonard leo is the man who assembled trumps list of supreme court nominees and no one, no one, has been more dedicated to overturning roe v. wade then leonard leo. normally in the senate we have a process of advising consent on the supreme court. in the old days the president would consult with their publicans and democrats in the senate on a qualified judge and then after careful deliberation nominate a jurors they could get bipartisan support. what we have here is the exact opposite. the president has gone to too
7:03 pm
far out of the mainstream right groups, the heritage foundation and the federalist society and is them, not the senate , too advise and consent on the supreme court nomination. whomever the president looks tonight that nominee is from the preapproved list selected by leo and the heritage foundation everyone ought to understand what it means for the freedom of women to make their own health care decisions and for the protection for americans, the pre-existing conditions, those rights will be gravely threatened. mr. president, now we will hear a lot this summer about precedence. the traditional question on these matters has been, will the nominee defer to the president? nominees will be asked if they respect for the law. this is known as the principle
7:04 pm
of [inaudible], the nominee always answers that yes, he or she will respect and defer to president. senators now their heads having received this rickety, vague assurance that the nominee will not drop the dude to showboat and turn the clock back decades. but for two reasons the standard, settled law, is no longer an adequate standard by which to judge nominees. why? first, we have ample examples from the past several years of judges who have sworn in their confirmation hearings to respect president and reversed their stand once on the court. for example, in his confirmation hearings judge gorsuch said that quote, president is like our shared family history of judges; it deserves our respect. last week, just last week, just
7:05 pm
discourse which voted to overturn 41 years of president in the decision relying on flimsy and fabricated legal theory. it was so flimsy, in fact, the judge kagan wrote in dissent that the majority over president quote, but not exceptional or special reasons but because it never liked the decision subverting all known principles of settled decision. justice roberts who said he would obey president calls balls and strikes as he saw them rather than interpret the law. sorry, justice roberts said he would call balls and strikes as he saw them and that he would interpret law rather than make it and of course it was justice roberts who is then responsible for her overturning 40 years of
7:06 pm
precedent in the citizens united decision. that setback of politics. that's so deep in the swamp that so many americans despise by allowing huge amounts of dark money, unreported , too cascade into our political system. on two of the most important rulings in the history of the roberts court, a cumulative 81 years president were thrown out the window despite the honest promises of justice roberts and justice gorsuch. at their hearings. so, when they say they will obey the law you cannot believe it. you can't believe it because it just hasn't happened in this new conservative court.
7:07 pm
they are so eager to make law, not interpret it. the second reason and maybe the more important, why the principle of quote, i will follow federal law no longer works. that is president trumps. we already know the president trump nominee will be prepared to overturn the precedents of roe v. wade. we know that because president trump has said so. when the president has a litmus test for his nominees and only chooses from a preapproved list of nominees designed to satisfy that litmus test it is certainly not enough for a judge to pay his or her moderation by invoking settled case. the respect the president can become an almost meaningless bar to set for supreme court nominee. at this critical juncture with
7:08 pm
so many rights and liberties at stake us senators and the american people should expect an affirmative statement of support for the personal liberties of all americans from the next supreme court nominee. the american people deserve to know what kind of a justice president trump nominee would be. president trump is the one who made the litmus test for his nominee, not us. the onus is on his nominee to show where he or she might stand. considering the ample evidence that president trump will only select a nominee who will undermine protection for americans with pre-existing conditions and give great weight to corporate interest in the interest of our citizens no matter what president says and vote to overturn roe v wade, the next nominee has an