That was Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Specter's nonwitticism in response to Brit Hume (on Fox News Sunday), who was pressuring him about what would happen if the new Supreme Court nominee followed the pattern of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and declined to answer many questions on substantive issues. Hume's question was clear, and Specter wouldn't answer it directly. Specter kept saying that he accepted a nominee's not answering questions about how a specific case should be decided, but Hume's question was about rejecting a much broader category of questions, the way Justice Ginsburg did.
I think Specter said whatever he could think of to run out the time until Hume gave up on trying to nail down a point. Hume wanted Specter to commit in advance to the proposition that a nominee's being only as uncommunicative as Ginsburg cannot justify a filibuster or even a "no" vote.
But why bring up Scalia (and exaggerate his evasiveness)? It seems like something a Democrat would do. It makes me wonder which side Specter is on. Later in the interview, Specter made it clear that he supported "judicial restraint" -- but only when it comes to judging the work of Congress. This might make some viewers and seemed to make Brit Hume think he was expressing favor for conservative judges. But it seemed rather clear to me that he was rejecting the sort of judge that enforces federalism-based limits on Congress's power. In which case, he was revealing that he would like to see more justices like Ginburg (and Breyer).