during the senate's considerations of both the roberts and alito nominations, we her a lot from our democratic colleagues about how the senate was not a rubber stamp. not a rubber stamp. and about how it was more important to do it right than to do it fast. now, if that a standard, i would suggest to our colleagues just a few years ago, why would it not be a go standard today? if that was the standard when the republicans were in the majority in the senate why would it not be a standard weapon thee democrats are in the majority. we're talking about the same supreme court, we're talking about the same lifetime appointments that senator sessions was referring to. the chairman of the judiciary committee today said back then we need to consider this nop nation anomination as thoroughld carefully as the american people deserve. it's going to take time. that was senator leahy then. he also said it makes sense that we take time to do it right. i think the american people deserve nothing less. and he also said we want to do it right and we don't want to do it fast of thit fast. if that was the standar

and i would ask if the senator remembers saying with regard to the alito nomination when our democratic nominees asked that it be held over past christmas and at their request it was done so, he said -- quote -- "it is more important to do it right than to do it quickly. and now we have a bipartisan agreement to do that." so we just simply ask for a bipartisan agreement to do it right and not too fast. and i don't know how we can work it out but i think this isable arbitrary date designed to move this thing forward by a certain end game faster than we need to. the vacancy, as the senator knows, does not occur until october when justice souter steps down, and so we do need to complete it by then. and i've told the president i will work to make sure that occurs. i thank you. mr. schumer: i thank my colleague. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: if i might just respond again with nominee alito, now justice alee together, theralito, therewas ti understand it. according to chairman leahy, it was the republicans that asked that we go to that christmas

on the alito nomination, for instance, senators had 70 days to prepare for a hearing on a nominee who senator leahy noted at the time had handled some 3,500 cases on the federal bench. judge sotomayor has handled over 3,600 cases. so it stands to reason we would have as much time to review her record as judge alito's. for some reason the old standard has been thrown out just as the new reasons emerged as we rush the process on this particular new nominee. as senator sessions informed us, the questionnaire that judge sotomayor filled out suffers from significant omissions. for example, she failed to produce numerous opinions from cases in which she was involved as a district attorney. in addition, she failed to produce a memorandum from her time with the por puerto rican defense fund. when this omission was brought to the judge's attention, i understand that the white house then provideded this memorandum saying it was an oversight. in the rush to complete the questionnaire in order to garner a talking point, you're prone to these sorts of mistakes. this counsels the senate to have a t

nominations. that was the time when two very young lawyers join the team, john roberts and samuel alito. you had the first george bush, two nominations, one of whom will step down this summer, and bill clinton put two moderate liberals on the court. but there was a long time, 11 years, in which there were no vacancies on the court, quite historic. during that time, if you were to some of the rehnquist court, you would have to say that there were some extraordinary movements. i mentioned several of them. but there was not a solid phalanx of conservatives. this was a time when the center held. justice o'connor's vote mattered a great deal. then came 2005. this extraordinary sequence of events where and president bush had rehnquist, and samuel alito was nominated for o'connor', so you had two bush appointees on the court. so that was the conclusion of the rehnquist court and the beginning of the roberts court. what i thought i would do is give you a glimpse. what a profoundly different court it is from the court it was in 1969 in terms of who is on the court and how they do their business. i

nomination. the timetable on justice alito, almost the same, from the day he was nominated by president bush until the date that we voted here in the senate -- or at least the majority of our colleagues did -- almost the name number of days. i realize some of our colleagues are unhappy that we're providing the same kind of timetable for judge sotomayor that we provided for justice alito and chief justice roberts. i for the life of me -- i don't see what the beef is. just as i feel that we're fortunate to have someone with dr. grove's credentials to serve as our census bureau, i think we're lucky to have someone with judge sotomayor's credentials to serve on the supreme court. i had the opportunity to meet with her. i know a number of my colleagues have, too. and i must say, among the things i most like and respect about her, she grew up from nothing. she was a kid broken in the bronx, raised in -- she was a kid born in the bronx, raised in the bronx, a very humble beginning. and she was -- she worked hard, won herself a scholarship to princeton, went there, excelled, and later went off to law scho

nominations. interestingly enough, that was the time that john roberts and samuel alito be began to cut their teeth in washington affairs at that time. you had, of course, the first george bush, two nominations to the court, one of whom will step down this summer, and then of course bill clinton put two moderate liberals on the court, but the turnover during that time -- then there was that long period. you are remember, 11 years went by in which there were no vacancies on the court? quite historic. during that time, if you were to sort of sum up the rehnquist court, you would have to say that there were some extraordinary movements, i mentioned some of them, but there wasn' a solid phalanx of conservative votes. this was a period in which the center held justice o'connor's vote matter add great deal, so roe vs. wade was not overturned. affirmative action survived, and substantive due process that i mentioned. then came 2005, the extraordinary sequence of events which seemed a few weeks in time in which president bush nominated john roberts to fill o'connor's seat and then justice rehnquist died an

well, i do not have a vote, and if i could nominate someone to the supreme court, i think i may have gone more with someone like john roberts or samuel alito my view of the world. i would like to see conservatives nominated to the supreme court. nothing personal to the nominee. the president has made his call. he won the election. there will be a debate in the senate over whether or not she ought to be confirmed, and i look forward to the hearings. just like a lot of other people do. it is not my nomination to make, but if it were, i think i would never nominated somewhat more conservative. >> the question on social issues. given iowa and elsewhere, is some form of legalized gay marriage inevitable in the united states? >> well, i think freedom means freedom for everyone. as many of you know, one of my daughters is gay, and that is something that we have lived with for a long time. . >> tonight on "q&a" indiana republican governor mitch daniels. later, prime minister gordon brown on the resignations of cabinet members.

-- nominee alito and nominee roberts, that a month, seems to me, to be ample time, and the chairman in his wisdom, which i will defer, gave more than a month before the day of the nomination. mr. sessions: will the senator yield for one question? mr. schumer: i will happy to yield to my colleague. mr. sessions: i know that the senator raised the question of doing for this nominee as for the others, if this goes forward as planned, it would be 48 day

nominations. interestingly enough that was the time it went to very young lawyers joined the team named john roberts and sam neill alito. they began to cut their teeth in washington affairs at that time. you had, of course, the first george bush, to nominations to the court, one of whom will step down this summer. and then, of course, bill clinton put to moderate liberals on the court, but turnover during that time then there was the longtime remember 11 years went by in which there were no vacancies on the court. quite historic. during that time if you were to sort of a some of the red wings scored you have to say that there were some extraordinary movements. i have mentioned several of them, but there wasn't a solid phalanx of conservative votes. this was a time during which in effect to the center held justice o'connor's a load mattered a great deal so roe vs. wade was not overturned, affirmative action survives from body to do cruder for example substantively process i've mentioned. and then in 2005 the extraordinary sequence of events within a few weeks in time where president bush nominated john roberts to phil o

alito and roberts. . the republicans are split over how to deal with this. democrats have the votes to clear her nomination. it is a battle on the right of how hard they should push the -- the republicans feel like they should fight and other issues like climate change and health-care reform. there are some on the right that are pushing hard for a filibuster and a thorough examination of her record. howhenwhen the votes come in, se will be confirmed. host: the chairman of the judiciary committee said the hearings will start monday, the 13th. is that the actual start date? republicans said they did not get a date. guest: he is pushing pretty hard on this. he wants her nomination cleared by the august recess. a lot of them say that is to quit. if she were to be confirmed, that would be in the ballpark. republicans were not too pleased with the lack of a heads-up. to some degree on this issue, republicans can only complain. host: based on those hearings for judge roberts and alito, how long will these last? callerguest: they usually go ina couple of weeks. some senators want more thorough answers. the nominee

nomination. it is a hearing within the same schedule of those who went before her like chief justice roberts or justice alito. so if she is given the same standard of fairness, that hearing will go forward. i certainly hope it does. and i think she will do well. >> and i'd seen -- >> the senator from alabama. >> such a fabulous lawyer and an excellent senator. and i think just would respectfully talk about some of the ideas that he suggested. one he raised a question of brown versus board of education, where the supreme court held separate was not equal. and that somehow this is a justification for a judge setting policy. they thought it wasn't good policy. but i would see it differently, mr. president. i would see brown versus board of education as the supreme court saying that the constitution of the united states guarantees every american equal protection of the laws and they found that in segregated schools, some people were told they must go to this school solely because of their race. some people must go to this school solely because of their race. and that, in fact, it wasn't equal. there were several

nomination of sonia sotomayor, our guest is dahlia lithwick of "slate magazine." george will points out that -- guest: one of the really interesting back stories in this case, and you see it. justice alito wrote a concurrence. he makes this same point. this was not a legal fight. this was not the city acting in good faith. this was the city belling to small-town politics. i think that's one of the threads that he is pulling from the alito concurrence. justice ginsburg -- justice kennedy wrote the main 5-4 decision. alito jump in because ginsburg had all the facts wrong. her dissent said i'm jumping and in the sense because they're not telling all of the facts. this is a strange situation where ginsburg and alito are really going at it. ginsburg's response was so what -- that is not a legal question. as a legal matter, the city had an obligation to toss the results of this exam if the disparate impact was such. that was just a lot. that was the affirmative mandate. her point was all the other stuff is very interesting and it makes for a good novel, but it is not the central legal issue. the central legal issue is that the law requires we tossed the big exam if it has a disparate impact o

justice sam alito who did not give us anywhere near as clear or complete a record but i don't recall a single republican saying we did not have a complete record before we considered their nominations. their nominations were by a republican president, for those two men, their nomination was by a republican president. those two men for the supreme court. this woman is nominated by a democratic president, even though she has given a more complete record, somehow that's not enough. it was more than enough the two men nominated by a republican president, not enough for this woman nominated by a democratic president. we have judge sotomayor's record for the federal bench. it is a public record we had even before she was designated by the president. as i said, we had her record from when she was first nominated to the federal bench by president george h.w. bush. we have her record when after she became a member of the federal court of appeals nominated by president bill clinton and that record is a mainstream record of judicial restraint and modesty, the best indication of her judicial philosophy. we don't have to imagine what kind of judge she will become. because we have seen what kind

nominated to be chief justice. a wonderful justice. on the supreme court who, then senator obama voted against. senator obama voted against the confirmation of john roberts, votes against the confirmation of samuel alito to the supreme court. based, i believe, primarily on judicial philosophy because they believed in strict constructionist that a court was to be a court and not a legislative body. then senator obama voted against both john roberts and against samuel alito. in our meeting, my meeting with judge roberts, he talked about baseball. and about the courts. in his analogy on baseball and gave a great anatural genuine he said -- quote -- "it's a bad thing when the umpire is the most watched person on the field o now, imagine that, watching a baseball game and the thing you're watching the most is the umpire because the umpire is a umpire and a player. how confusing. how difficult. and what a wrong way to have a going. he, of course, judge roberts, was alluding to the current situation where the legislature can pass a law, the executive sign it, but everybody waits holding their breath to see what the courts will do with it. unfortunately, judge sotomayor seems to me far too interested in being

nominations. let me focus on the process followed to consider the previous supreme court nominee, justice samuel alito. he had served on the u.s. court of appeals for the third circuit for more than 15 years when he was nominated to the supreme court. this was five years longer than judge sotomayor has served on the second circuit and nearly the same as judge sotomayor's combined judicial service on both the district and circuit courts. the other party demanded and was granted 70 days from the announcement of the nomination to the hearing to stu then-judge alito's record. the senator from pennsylvania, senator specter, was chairman at the time. he made no unilateral partisan announcements. he imposed no truncated, limited time frame. he consulted the ranking member, and they agreed that there would be 70 days to study that voluminous judicial record. oh, what a difference an election makes. with the unilateral partisan edict announced today by the chairman, we're being given only 48 days to study the same lengthy record. we are told that we must consider the largest judicial record in a century in the