tv Role of Vice President CSPAN April 10, 2016 1:50pm-2:52pm EDT
higher education. senator ted cruz and senator -- president obama is on fox news sunday this morning. it was his first appearance on a network in more than two years and his first time on the sunday show since becoming president. also asked about the controversy over the hillary clinton e-mails and the ongoing investigation. president obama: here is what i know. hillary clinton was an thetanding secretary of stated she would never put america in any kind of jeopardy. what i also know because i handled a lot of classified is there is classified and then there is classified. there is stuff that is really top secret, and there is enough -- stuff that is presented to the president of united states
goingou might not want but basicallyire, stuff you could get on open source. >> she has not jeopardized, and the question is, can you still say that? president obama: i continue to believe she did not jeopardize america's national security. i also believe that she has acknowledged that there is a carelessness in terms of managing e-mails that she has owned and she recognizes. but i also think it is important to keep this in perspective. this is somebody who has served her country for four years as secretary of state and did an outstanding job and no one has suggested that in some ways, as a consequence of how she has handled e-mails, that that detracted from her excellent
ability to carry out. the justiceirect department to say hillary -- not will be treated in any way protected? president obama: i can guarantee i giveot because attorney general lynch a directive, that is institutionally how we have always operated. talk to the attorney general about impending investigations. i do not talk to fbi directors about impending investigations. we have a strict line and always have maintained it. i guarantee it. announcer: hillary clinton remains the front runner in the race for the democratic nomination, even with the declared win for bernie sanders in the wyoming primary. of sixs a difference hundred 88 delegates between him
and the former secretary of state. 600 30currently about delegates short of securing the nomination. the next primary for both parties is april 19 in new york. donald trump currently leads the gop with 743 delegates. senatorest competitor, ted cruz, who had a win last night in the colorado caucuses, his number of delegates is now at 545. after him, governor john kasich has 143 delegates. you can follow these and any updates at c-span.org. now, a conversation with someone familiar with the campaign trail, former vice president whose book this month about the history of the vice presidency and also talked about the current presidential race and a process for choosing a running mate. this is one hour. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [applause] >> thank you ladies and gentlemen.
let's get right to it. we heard a presentation from dr. larson that suggests your role as vice president was a political expediency, that it was a prize that could be given away to earn political present -- political credit for the president. we saw interesting proliferation's in the electoral college, where people were casting their ballots in a way where so many people would cost ballets, and an unexpected presidential candidate would emerge. they were undesignated orig inally. what do you make of that history?
is it a history you are comfortable with? or do you find yourself dissenting from it? i thought it was right on. my wife has written a book on james madison. the impression that dr. larson presented is very much in tune with my wife's interpretation. it was an afterthought. partly an effort to deal with so many problems as they arose in the electoral college. the fact that you have a couple prominent members of the
constitutional convention, it hadn't been addressed into the creation of the vice presidency. it felt it was a band-aid. an effort to deal with a short-term problem at a time. >> when we get into this, you quickly discover how much the vice presidency is tied up with the perception of the electoral college and the the changes that take place in it. one also discovers a supposition from our first president, who receives treatment as the saint of the republic. he viewed the operation of government in a nonpartisan way. he said in his farewell address, he wanted to warn us about the
dangerous effects of party. when you ask washington for his conception of the presidency, it's much different than the role that we associate with the president now. we associate him being the head of his party, the international leader in terms of laying out policy programs that congress will follow on behalf of the constituents that elected him. washington's conception of the presidency was march narrow or, it was much -- was much nar rower, it was more managerial and executive. members of congress would ask the executive branch for their opinion on certain matters. he worked assiduously to prevent members of his administration from answering those. we have to the reasons from not
answering letters from congress. but the madison supposition is that it confuses the role of president. that he was to take what was delivered to him and to take care of the loss faithfully executed. -- the laws faithfully executed. if you assume that as the nature of the presidency, does it make sense to think of the vice presidency as where there is more going on than a juror to be added to someone's political treasure box? v.p. cheney: one thing i remember, there was confusion on what the executive role would be. you look at washington's first address in congress, he had-- [indiscernible] it was submitted by the president to congress.
madison wrote the congressional response, the executive's message, which he had written himself. again, washington used him to respond. there was confusion about who was writing whom. imagine that the president of the united states called on a congressional leader to write his -- [indiscernible] they were making it up as they went along. >> a strong executive was a concern they had in terms of too much power.
when they did that, they were not fond of state executives. they were appointees of the crown. they were very much resented and resisted. they were trying to use the andtitutional model when they did that, they were not fond of state executives. they were appointees of the crown. they were very much resented and resisted. post declaration of independence it became different, because you , have popular sovereignty and some portion of the population
selecting the governor. you qualified that there was a profound concern with abuse of power and unity of power. which brings us to what i mentioned in the introduction, a perception out there in the land explaining the vote in the primary, because something has to explain the votes we have seen in the primary. there is a certain rage among the people that the government is simply not on the job. i don't mean this to be in any way partisan. i think it is a bipartisan exercise. key appointments in both administrations, especially judicial appointments, i remember the slow process of
confirmation proceedings in the senate, handling those matters. now that the shoe is on the other foot, obama is making the same complaint. these things can be troubling from the general public perspective, why isn't the government delivering what those guys promised to me when they ran on the stump 4 years ago? from a more intellectual -- intellectual, do today perspective, it is threatening to the separation of powers, is it not? if you have key appointments not being made, legislation not being addressed, there is a tendency on part of the presidency to go around the problem with executive orders that you don't have authority for without legislation. recess appointments that you don't have authority for, and so forth. the separation of powers itself becomes the victim.
is this dysfunction issue a service one, or would you describe it in a different way? v.p. cheney: i am not sure how much it has to do with the role of the vice president. [laughter] i think there is great frustration out there, that is being tapped into for political reasons by candidate donald trump. he is i'm not the only one. -- he is not the only one. we ended up on the republican side with candidates running in a rich field of new talent. what we're left with at this stage, all those supposedly establishment candidates aren't really a factor anymore. it's taken on a different tone and style than i have seen before. >> i would argue it has something to do with the vice presidency.
as you mentioned, even on the issue of the presidency, there is uncertainty about that. this was a new office. they did not want a king. they wanted leadership and management, but they did not know how much. the problems get even more confused with the vice presidency. one of the things that i think brought worry was how does the problem of reuniting the powers into an effective government, this saysition where he powerful man, not just to be divided and separated, but interspersed and integrated when necessary to build a working government.
if the vice president, who has this unique role is in both the legislative offices and potential executive function, this is the place where these two interests have to meet. what substitute is there for getting agreement to move the government forward in a positive way? v.p. cheney: the way i look at it, based on my own experience, i was reputed by some to have an especially powerful position. said whene president
you hear dick cheney's forthcoming you hear mine, that was a powerful endorsement. v.p. cheney: i wondered why it did on my watch. i think there are a lot of reasons not related to the constitution. >> more of a personal dynamic? v.p. cheney: personal. very much personnel. my ability to work with congress. i had been a number of the house -- a member of the house for 10 years. shortly after i was elected vice president, i was visited by the speaker of the house. and the chairman of the ways and means committee. the speaker of the house was a good friend. i helped him when he first came into congress. bill collins was a appointed as the chairman of the ways and means committee. they came to me and say we know you're going to appointed president of the senate. we think of you as the man of the house.
we want you to have an office on the house side. the ways and means chairman at that point had 2 very nice offices. one facing the west front, where you could look out the windows to the lincoln memorial, huge office, table and cabinet. washe other when you had off the house floor. they gave me my choice. said i could have either one of those offices. even though i was president of the senate, because of my background in the house and my relationships, i could have an would aggravate my democratic colleagues. [laughter] for six years that we controlled the house, i had an office not only on the senate side, but i
went down in the west wing in the house side. and i was able to work from the on tax legislation and so forth. i had a significant legislative impact. that was all based on personal relationships and background with the house and senate. >> not meeting to understate that, i think that is a great story. i think that is an illustrative story as to the significance of the vice president. i want to give some credit to the framers. this after that that they created got to that office to some degree because it opened the door that you would be president of the senate. and yet it was dick cheney that took the presidency of the senate and found the most aggravating office to occupy,
and found ways to have conversations on important legislation. isn't that interesting, that this office they created awful foreen called people who are looking for some political reward, has been so instrumental in terms of what you would point out to be your success as vice president. i think the framers get a little tip of the hat for that. [laughter] >> in the white house, you have the office in the white house west wing, as well as the office in the office building, so they could never find you. [laughter] >> good point. [laughter] >> looking at the vice
presidency through the years, as recently as calvin coolidge, i don't think there's much thought of the vice president as a big role in the executive branch. if i remember my history correctly. when eisenhower came in, he was used to a military structure. he talked about the sin -- about richard nixon being an executive vice president. that the vice president would have more of a role in the executive branch than it had up to that. is that your recollection of how the office changed? it has been more involved really with the executive since that time. v.p. cheney: i think so. clearly it has evolved over time. by the time i got the job, one of the reasons i said no when it was first offered was because i had never met a vice president who was happy. [laughter]
there had been those who ultimately succeeded to the president, harry truman and others who went on to distinguish careers. when i was ford's chief of staff and nelson rockefeller was vice president. he was very unhappy. he had plans for operating his vice presidency, big projects, lots of money, and we were at a we were in a policy of restatement. he eventually left and was never , happy. allegedly there is a report that the only waythat to do things as vice president is to be white house chief of staff to get things done.
and he left the vice presidency. he went on to other things. he was not even the candidate for vice president. was not candidate until george bush nominated me after he persuaded me i should go on the ticket. administrations, back to the carter, mondale relationship, there was a step up in terms of the way they worked closely together. mondale played a more prominent role. i think that continued in my case and with respect to joe biden, i do not know enough yet the details about how he has functions.
but clearly in recent decades there has been a switch to a dancing power, responsibly and influence of the position. -- enhancing power, responsibility, and influence of the position. >> there is a story of the meeting vice president quayle. he said it prepared to do a lot duties, raising a lot of money for the president. i think your response was i have a different conception of the office. >> a different understanding. than that understanding is going to run into a little headwind, because we have those 15 words from the constitution, that the executive power is vested in me government of the united states.
and justice scalia said that meant all the executive power was vested in the president of the united states. not that you should lose a lot of sleep over these legal nuances, but during your vice presidential service did you think you were stepping outside of your constitutional role? >> he was also a duckhunting buddy. [laughter] obviously, there were times when i played a significant role, but the thing to remember is the reason it worked as well as it did for the two of us, he had spent an amazing amount of time presidentn any other thinking about the united , states. i discovered years later, after he left office, that in 1992, when i was secretary of defense, and his dad was running for
reelection, that he had gone to his dad and suggested to him that he make a change in his running mate and replace dan quayle with me. this is a years before he himself sought the presidency. or -- a years before he had been thinking about this. he had a very carefully thought out plan of what it was he wanted. i got involved, when he first approached me about being vice president, i said no. but then he asked me to help him
find somebody. we worked through a tour -- two for process three-month process in this candidate search. he never took the first no for an answer. ,e thought he got me involved and working with him as he talked about what he was looking for, as he conveyed to me what i should be looking for in a candidate. i absorbed his perception. when we got through the search and i had i offered up everybody i could think of, i was a failure as a headhunter, he turned to me and said, you are the solution to my problem. that i wasuaded me what he needed. there was never a contract or even a handshake.
whilet talked about it doing this search, so i had a good understanding of what he was looking for. yet obviously decided sometime before. no other vice president have had the experience you had in both branches. presidentf the vice was you were kind of the model, whether he mentioned it directly or not. he finally became not just the model, but the candidate. , and you don't identify the criteria the set of experiences. a legislative experience that is unique. the other people that are pointed out are those with legislative experience.
even if they did not have the additional executive experience. like lyndon johnson for example, his effectiveness as president, drawing upon legislative talents. although we heard from the professor that when adams tried to throw himself into his work, it was too much for the senate to have him there on a day-to-day basis. i will say that obviously george w. bush was persuasive when he -- more persuasive than zachary taylor when he tried to get daniel webster to take the vice presidency. his answer was, "no sir, i wouldn't like to be vice president, i would rather be dead before i get buried." [laughter] >> putting aside for the moment the legal niceties of your
particular president, you did do something that other vice presidents haven't done, which is submit a letter of resignation. that is an interesting thing to do because one of the things you were still be recognizing is for the president to be able to be serene in the understanding that he had control in the executive sense, he needs the ability to dismiss someone if necessary. of course, vice presidents who disagree with their presidents cannot usually be dismissed unless they are as thoughtful as you were, to submit a letter of resignation. to you have occasion disagree with the president from time to time? >> sure we had our differences. ,>> can you give us an example?
>> certain disagreements. there were occasions when we had differences of view. part of the process that we had were weekly lunches, and that alwaysime that was strictly one-on-one with the president. we could talk about anything. we could discuss and disagree. it was important to have that and have the ability to have it privately. there were other occasions where we disagreed. i'm trying to think.
for example, we had discovered wethe spring of 2007, photographs that he started throwing down on the table. there were pictures taken inside a nuclear reactor in a syrian desert, built by the north koreans. that was quite a surprise, as the north koreans had detonated their first nuclear device, and then all of a sudden we find several month later that not only have they have been working on a nuclear device, but they have a
complete nuclear reactor in syria. there was a major concern in terms of proliferation. the place where it was located is now controlled by isis. the prospects there were pretty disturbing. the ultimately happened is israelis went in and took it out. the difference of opinion was, i wanted us to take it out. i thought it was important that the u.s. managed it, and backed up what we said witches we were on the only -- nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. and we had taken such a strong position that i felt we had to back it up. i was the only one. we had a meeting upstairs, and
we met with the national security council along me to -- and they allowed me to make my pitch. they urge me to deliver up the rationale for why i thought we should take up this reactor. then they asked for a show of hands how many councilmembers agreed with that, and nobody -- [laughter] i still think it is the right thing we should have done. it would have given meaning in to our strongce .tance about nonproliferation it would send a strong signal to the area. we would argue that i have the better policy option.
>> he made that argument entirely internally. >> i did not go publicly. although it got out eventually. it wasn't secret. but as it was for the time being , we did not talk about it. it was a month before we even acknowledged that they had a nuclear reactor. >> we know the history of the electoral college, and the way it changed from where you cast differentiated votes. votes, one for the president, one for the vice president. you want to attract men of equal stretcher -- stature, so that the man with the second-highest number of us, become vice president. the same range of talent, stature and maturity.
jefferson himself would point out from time to time. when the system changed so you ran on separate ballots, he created a second tier. the deal is you were creating a second tier of able who would be aiming at that second office only, and therefore you would attract a different quality of people. fact, he got a laugh when he said it was a perfect retirement spot. your example just now illustrates that you had enough substance and personal gumption to take on the president of the united states, even when you were the only voice in the cabinet. how does a presidential candidate find that quality that you would put high in the list of qualities for vice president? what other qualities would you hold out to us?
>> i think a lot of times the reasons people do things might have to do with gender or race or geography. i think there was only one that matters more than all the others put together. to work forcapacity the united states. i think if we look back in history you will find there been a number of selections were the vice president does it mean that. there are a lot of pressures. searches. for jerry ford, after
rockefeller stepped down in 1976, we had to have a replacement. i ran that search based on guidance from jerry ford. >> the qualities necessary to step in at any given moment. is a breath of experience? adherence to virtues? >> that is a lot of it. obviously a certain degree of compatibility. another thing that was important in terms of my role and my ability to operate was i took myself out of contention. it was very clear i was not using the vice presidency as a stepping stone to become the candidate itself. if you look back in 1993 after i left the defense department, i
considered running for president. the super pac did a campaign, they concluded after it was over with that i would not run for president. by the time i had gotten to that point i have had three heart attacks and a coronary bypass. i got into a campaign which was a long shot anyway. i lost. i knew i would immediately be -- labeled as the guy who lost because he had a bad heart and that would put a cramp on future prospects. i decided not to be a candidate . and that is one of the reasons that george bush was comfortable with me and give me as much latitude as he did was because he knew i was not worried about what my standing was going to be in the iowa caucuses. i would be taking myself out.
i think it was a very important part of building the degree of trust with me, the staff and the folks on capitol hill. it was not because i was trying to influence the outcome of the iowa caucuses. >> i want to remind the audience if they have questions they are welcome to interject with a question. i have an exhaustible supply in my head. [laughter] before turning to the cards we got this anomalous officer, this legislative branch person during this confidential discussions of the executive branch. we know that as a matter of law,
executive privilege depends upon maintaining that confidentiality and privilege so you cannot operate outside the perimeter of the second branch. -- executive branch. have you handle this difficulty when in the middle of it this person who is not part of the branch in an active sense, but only in a waiting sense, and more in the nature of a legislative officer. there is a serious constitutional fly in the ointment on that one. >> i think the idea that the separation of powers as two or three separations is the wrong concept. second is the idea that the power be dispersed among three bodies.
but not the two bodies could require further limitation of power. they would have to agree to have something. the whole concept behind the founders was to limit power. they found the key to having they found the key to having executive ability to do things, and at the same time not at the expense of the liberty of the people. they key was -- when they limited the power between the three branches and further limited each branch to operate individually on some things, legislation requiring two branches to cooperate right here and allow the president to determine what powers it think the vice president had. that's what it says an article to. -- article 2. with the vice president has been
saying is his power as vice president in an executive nature depended on what the president said needed to be done. i think of anything the thoughts of the founders were exactly in line with what they intended to do and i was limit power. >> the branches are not hermetic resealed as we would say. >> there are no firewalls today in that sense. >> in that sense the vice presidency, if you want to call it an afterthought or fortuitous circumstances, by uniting those two goals encourages cooperation. >> it may have been an accident. the manipulations of the college.
if we do not have the vice president, what would you do? there have been numerous incidents or something happen to the president for one reason or another and he did not have a vice president. what would you do? would you turn to the totally unelected secretary of state as the primary -- first among equals? have you fill that gap? >> that in and of itself has been the line of succession as we know it thank the outstanding hagel -- alexander hagel. it has changed several times. >> he was wrong. the speaker of the house is next
in line after the vice president. no vice president would be the speaker of the house. did you have a person was elected by at most the citizens of one congressional district becoming the president. probably the lowest electoral majority anybody has had to lead a country. >> there are cabinet officers not elected by anyone. a question from the audience with a think is a good one is since 1940 presidential candidates have chosen a vice president of candidate on their own or sometimes in consultation as you described with close political advisers.
what is your thoughts on the accountability in the selection of the vice president? >> i wouldn't consider the ability of vice president to be active on the terms of the president wants. look at lyndon johnson. this cap is a legislative genius. -- this guy was a legislative genius. if you remember about his vice presidency [indiscernible] everybody here today wasn't born then. it was a classic case with a confident or experienced man image in running the senate effectively became vice president and then he had almost nothing to do.
we start tackling the process of the invention on a choose, ultimately for him to be effective it has to be with the approval and support of the president. it does not matter how he is selected. i'm not sure if you're going to get something to make enough difference. you may say the president did not take well his vice president , but if he's not satisfied with that choice, that individual will be relegated to duties -- [indiscernible] >> how your lovely wife spoke. a number of times vice president weather away from the president. i was surprised when i got into the history to find all these examples of vice president's casting a vote against the presidential nominee, casting a vote against presidential programs. most of that happened in the 19th century.
some of it was closer to today. is that part of the vice presidency, the ability to not necessarily count on that vote when you send them over there? >> that certainly would put a strain on the relationship. [laughter] ever member nelson rockefeller and a debate in the senate. reducing the number of senators give-and-take to break a filibuster. rockefeller got actively involved as a vice president in the chair taking the position and didn't really want to be involved in. rockefeller got actively involved in addressed the chamber. in the final analysis he ended up having to go back and apologize. it can happen. you have to be wise enough to know when to be a little more aggressive. and in the final analysis you can go over and jump off the boat.
head in a totally different direction but it's probably not a good idea. in the end is the president's administration. >> as far as the countries concerned is with the president does not take the vice president into his confidence. there was a story that truman did not know about the atomic bomb until he became president. it seems to me in terms of lack of preparation, that's a rather extreme case of the president not advising the price president -- vice president what was going on. fortunately there are a few situations where the president and the vice president have not had close -- >> the recently published remarks by bush 41 about your role in mr. rumsfeld role. we will use this as the way to
describe the characterization -- thank you very much. [laughter] i know you think very highly of president bush. i am not looking for your reaction necessarily to that particular comment other than to ask you as you reflect on your own vice presidency are the things you would of done differently? >> [indiscernible] [laughter] john matrons book -- biography of george h.w. bush.
in the conversation president bush senior made the comment that i had undergone a change from defense secretary to vice president. >> about 9/11? i attribute it to 9/11. i became much more aggressive and hard-nosed. whatever you want to call it. in the aftermath of 9/11. it was not a law enforcement problem as it had always been treated. it was an act of war. i spent a good part of my time is vice president doing everything i could think of to make sure it didn't happen again . established procedures. i admit he was right. he then went on to say something that -- say some nice things. it's been in business for over 100 years in washington. we meet once a year.
lots of laughs, jokes and so forth. he came this year even though he is in a wheelchair. i got the invitation to sit next to him. i like this move over the relationship. no hard feelings on either side. >> there are a few questions that go a little bit young the vice presidential topic. it's an opportunity to have your thoughts and i think it would be good to do that. would either of you like to reflect on the recent passing of anti-reagan and what she meant -- passing of nancy reagan and what she meant?
fired. they did not get along well. [laughter] the president decided it would be better to keep him. she was devoted to her husband. a tremendous source of strength to him. in eight years of being an advisor and chief of staff in california and eight years at the presidency i can't think of an instance where she try to interfere in policy or anything, or in any improper way try to influence and whatsoever. there is no doubt she had ideas and he probably talked to him at night about some of the things. she was very alert to people she did not think were serving him well and let him know that. the main thing she was concerned about quite frankly was as the oldest living president at that time that he did not get overtired or do other things for travel too much or kept him from being a confident president. at one time she would call over to the white house office and talk about scheduling. overall she was written important to him and i think very important to the country. and the things she did such as taking on the drug campaign, in
terms of talking with kids on education, it reinforced what he was trying to do. most of that came out at the funeral. tom brokaw spoke. the former prime minister of canada and people like that. but the general buzz through the crowd was that she had been a real asset not only to him but to the country. >> speaking of someone who did everything i could to keep up with reagan in 1976, she was always -- she could not have been nicer to me personally. my family, social invitations. there was never any sign of retribution or anything like that. >> the person i want to ask you about is to reflect on fellow duck under scalia and what he brought to the constitutional understanding.
>> justice scalia was a giant. the history of the court, american jurisprudence, a major, major role. he will sadly be missed. our careers began around the same time. we got to know each other over the years. we were good friends and we spent a lot of time together. a moment when things sort of came together, there was a suit before the supreme court. minas chairman of the president's energy task force met i put together an energy policy. i refused to do that. congress would ask -- >> and advisory committee act?
>> yes, the advisory committee. i argued the president and the vice president don't have to tell numbers of congress or anybody else. it went to the supreme court. ultimately they ruled in our favor. during the course of this justice scalia and i went on a got kind -- duck hunt with the sierra club. i mentioned there was something improper about the two of us going hunting while this case was going on. >> from the duck's perspective.
[laughter] >> the speaker was demanding that scalia withdraw. justice scalia wrote a beautiful 20 page elegant document telling him to stick it where the sun don't shine. [laughter] just a good guy. always tremendously impressed with his friendship. >> i think it's interesting that even with the ability to separate policy differences from the personal relationships. i think the fact he in justice ginsburg are probably the closest people on the court of any of the two justices. it's an indication of that fact. >> i was just thinking that myself.
there was a ceremony a little while ago. a bust was unveiled of the vice president as is tradition in the capital. interesting he is in the capital and not in the white house or the old executive office building. in terms of that kind of friendship, vice president biden came and had some nice remarks that afternoon. we started our discussion about the concern that mr. biden has raised about his function. since we have been talking about the supreme court vacancy occasioned by the responsibility to find someone to replace justice scalia. is it in your judgment the appropriate thing to do to leave the vacancy until the next election?
>> i agree with the position that the majority leader of congress. they will not consider a nomination until after the election. they have obviously -- there have afford for the senators rejected a nominee. i think it is probably a tactical move by the senate leadership. if you start down that have and will hold hearings or bring the vote to the floor at this stage, there can be a lot of difficult political pressure on members who are going to have to protect them from taking that position here. it so important in terms of the future of the court. scalia was a conservative justice, replacing him with
somebody very different. it will shape the court for the next 30 years. it's bound to be the debate and the argument on both sides. obama will argue his point of view. the republicans will argue their point of view. i'm not surprised there is controversy there. >> it's interesting to notice that this issue first came up in my recollection during the george w. bush's last term. chuck schumer, joe biden, and harry reid all are very vociferous that should there be a vacancy on the supreme court they would never confirm anyone during that last year when he was in office. i think we just look at this as the schumer ruled that the republicans are now following. >> i suspect that are folks out there that would call it a bipartisan direction that they