‘This Week’ Exclusive: Sens. Chuck Schumer and John Cornyn
EmailOur exclusive headliners on ‘This Week’ Sunday: Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and John Cornyn, R-Tex., of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Both senators will play an important role in the upcoming confirmation hearings of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor. When Sotomayor makes the rounds on Capitol Hill on Monday, Sen. Schumer will escort her and will shepherd her through the confirmation process.
We’ll discuss the pitched political battle that has already begun over Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination … a preview of the Senate confirmation hearings to come.
Plus, with me to discuss the Sotomayor hearings, the impact of any potential GM bankruptcy, the North Korean nuclear threat and all the week’s politics … an expanded version of the Roundtable this week: ABC contributor George Will, ABC’s Supreme Court correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg, New York Times columnist, economist and ABC contributor Paul Krugman, PBS’ Gwen Ifill and former Bush adviser Ed Gillespie.
Email or Twitter me any questions you have for our guests.
You don’t want to miss this show. See you Sunday morning.
–George Stephanopoulos
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
Geroge,
A question for your panel this week-
“If your house was on fire and your family was inside, who would you rather have come to your house- a team of the most competent firefighters,or, one that is most ethnically diverse?”
Posted by: J House | May 28, 2009, 10:11 am 10:11 am
A question for your panel this week-
“If your house was on fire and your family was inside, who would you rather have come to your house- a team of the most competent firefighters,or, one that is most ethnically diverse?”
BOGUS republi-con argument…it will probably be volunteers from all ethnic and inter-racial ethnic Americans
Posted by: getoveryourself | May 28, 2009, 10:49 am 10:49 am
George,
thank you for keeping this about both sides, I look forward to the show.
Posted by: gasyusblast | May 28, 2009, 12:20 pm 12:20 pm
J House- You are aware it was a panel of 3 judges that let the decision stand…2 who happen to be white males, the decision 3-0.
Posted by: Try the truth | May 28, 2009, 12:21 pm 12:21 pm
Try,
You are correct…what is your point? The judges were wrong, and they will be overturned by the USSC.
When will they start judging Americans by the content of their character and merit, not by the color of their skin?
By the way, I’m not a republican.
Posted by: J House | May 28, 2009, 1:32 pm 1:32 pm
Ty,
Were you pointing out that 2 white men of privilege can think just like a Hispanic woman with a humble, ‘enriched’ upbringing?
No kidding…they think just like our President.
Isn’t that the point the esteemed SC candidate argued in disfavor in her speech?
It is interesting our President noted the fact that ‘resentment’ may build in those that are disenfranchised, based on their race.
Yet, promotes a candidate who believes in disenfranchisement to ‘level the playing field’.
Posted by: J House | May 28, 2009, 2:02 pm 2:02 pm
“A question for your panel this week-
“If your house was on fire and your family was inside, who would you rather have come to your house- a team of the most competent firefighters,or, one that is most ethnically diverse?”
BOGUS republi-con argument…it will probably be volunteers from all ethnic and inter-racial ethnic Americans”
=================================
getoveryourself,
Good name for yourself! By the way, before you act as stupidly as you sound, perhaps you need to go back and check the statements made by Robert Reich about white construction workers!
“I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers,” he said.
Seems to me that pretty straight forward talk!
Seems like Liberals are still all about Social engineering instead of the best person for the job!
Posted by: Mike_C | May 28, 2009, 4:28 pm 4:28 pm
The brouhaha that the Goobers Only Party is trying to make over Sotomayer would be worrisome if they were relevant, but they’re like my neighbors barking dog, when he starts to annoy me, I just close the window and he’s no longer relevant, just like the republicans.
Posted by: JR | May 28, 2009, 6:21 pm 6:21 pm
“george”, firstly a minority cannot be racist. Because the USA is an exploitative racist, capitalist system controlled by white people of European ancestry, mainly men, there is no possible way a minority can be racist. Furthermore until the capitalist, racist hegomonic system is destroyed; through populist revolution controlled by a vanguard of prolitariat and a central strong leader, it is not possible for any minority to be racist or exploitative excepting in rare cases of revanchism and counter-revolutionarianism. Like Thomas, Rice, or Powell, who thankfully, has recovered his roots.
Or so I learned from Kamrade Obamski and in my local University!
Posted by: Ed | May 28, 2009, 11:51 pm 11:51 pm
J House:
Two points. Even if the SC overturns the decision, it will be 5-4; hardly a ringing endorsement.
Second, I wholeheartedly agree that we should judge others by their character and merit, not the color of their skin. The only problem is that for more than 200 years, white folks often got the jobs even though they others of color were more qualified. Have you been to Wall Street lately? Any of the blue blood law firms. You are denying reality, pal.
Posted by: David Jones | May 29, 2009, 11:58 am 11:58 am
But david,
Read the case…if the test was unfair (by race,ethnic, etc.) I say by all means, throw the results out (or, better yet, evaluate it before giving it to firefighters when their promotions are on the line).
But that isn’t what happened in this case. Every single question on the test was in the study material!No one has proved it is racially biased, and the plaintiff even overcame his handicap to score high by studying hard.
The only reason they discriminated against the best scorers is because the results came out in favor of 2 races over 3, and the city feared a lawsuit.
That is just plain wrong, unless the test proves bias.
Can’t we just reward merit and stop discrimination in all forms?
Don’t we want the best firefighters, and not hand pick them by color?
MLK said it best.I repeated it earlier.
Posted by: J House | May 29, 2009, 12:51 pm 12:51 pm
And David,
You want the US Supreme Court to discriminate against these firefighters because Wall St. does it?
That is fair?
Let me tell you something.I live part time in a country where the majority discriminates against the minority races (Malaysia), a sort of ‘reverse affirmative action’ policy, to try and ‘level the playing field’.
It doesn’t work…it builds more resentment between the races and it promotes mediocrity.
Many will disagree with me about that.
But either way, it isn’t fair in my view.
Posted by: J House | May 29, 2009, 12:58 pm 12:58 pm
David,
You should also point out that your ‘Wall St.’ example relates to a job interview, not a test, and yes, that is where plenty of discrimination happens, in all forms.
I’m also sure plenty of tests are biased in one way or another. Most reward rote memorization, above other skills, which doesn’t mean someone is more competent than another.
If they proved it in this case, I’m all for throwing it out.
I just want to see America reach the promised land.It is clear we aren’t there yet when we promote candidates that seem to believe in ‘identity politics’.
That is fine for politicians, they are elected…but should we have judges like that as well?
I’ll ask…suppose all the white men had scored too low and filed a discrimination lawsuit, would the court rule that the test should be thrown out?
Would the city had feared a lawsuit in the first place?
Would you assume the test is biased against white men?
Posted by: J House | May 29, 2009, 2:00 pm 2:00 pm
Geroge,
A question for your panel this week-
“If your house was on fire and your family was inside, who would you rather have come to your house- a team of the most competent firefighters,or, one that is most ethnically diverse?”
Posted by: J House | May 28, 2009 10:11:17 AM
**************************
this is more accurate:
..who would you rather have come to your house – a team of the most competent skilled firefighters, or, one that can just give you the correct answers on a test?
Posted by: Padma | May 29, 2009, 3:21 pm 3:21 pm
Sotomayor has shown her true colors. It’s amazing to me that she forgot the constitution was written by at 39 white men who signed on to it. Not to mention the 56 white men who signed the declaration of Independence(11 of them had their home destroyed by the war, and 5 were captured by the British – talk about sacrifice !!).
She is going to make judgments on laws that was written by white men ? I’m sure she’ll have something to say on that too. She belong to La Raza, isn’t their charter to take over the southwest of the USA. If a white man belonged to the KKK and was put up for confirmation, would that be OK as well ?
With Democrats it’s always a double standard, they’ll confirm her for her ethnic background and gender…not for anything else.
Posted by: Paul | May 30, 2009, 11:52 am 11:52 am
George:
Some time, what happens and what is picked up is not what we planned. That’s the beauty and the challenge of your work and that’s why we watch you. This morning, the heavyweight Cornyn vs Schumer over Sotomayor bout never materialized from my perspective. What jumps out from where I sit with my tea and oatmeal is the unannounced bout between Will and Krugman over the economy. What I saw play out is the knowledge and humor of a fresh face against the jaded and overworn punditry of someone who should have left or been pushed into retirement. It’s time to bring back Sam and Cokey; it’s time that George shows some reflective wisdom and steps down. He has been listening to his own voice for too long, and from a viewer, he is starting to come off as a lightweight with his economic pronouncements in contrast to someone like Paul Krugman who knows what he’s talking about and does not take himself with the same overbearing fake certitude.
Posted by: Quan | May 31, 2009, 10:24 am 10:24 am
Quan, if you are referring to George Will, then I want to defend George here. He is thoughtful in his words, unlike Sam. I disagree with you, he makes more sense to me than Krugman, and has far more realistic approach than anyone at that roundtable. He does not base his opinions on sensationalism, nor on appeasement to the masses. No, your wrong, the show would be worthless to (say the least) without George Will.
Posted by: Paul | June 1, 2009, 1:42 pm 1:42 pm
Alprazolam no prescription.
Alprazolam.
Posted by: Alprazolam online. | August 30, 2009, 9:47 am 9:47 am
Alprazolam.
Alprazolam-ratiopharm. Alprazolam.
Posted by: Alprazolam. | September 3, 2009, 12:00 pm 12:00 pm
Zoloft side effects with alchohol.
Do most take zoloft in evening or morning. Diarrahea from zoloft.
Posted by: Zoloft. | September 8, 2009, 1:33 pm 1:33 pm
Adipex results.
Adipex hurt me. Adipex reviews. Adipex. Adipex p phentermine vs.
Posted by: Adipex-p. | September 18, 2009, 11:32 am 11:32 am