Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Special Edition: Judge John Roberts
Aired July 19, 2005 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, everybody.
Judge John Roberts. Who is he? What does he stand for, and can he be confirmed? It's 11 p.m. on the East Coast, 8 p.m. in the West. A special edition of 360 starts now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS (voice-over): Tonight, the president picks his man -- a circuit court judge nominated to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Will John Roberts be a justice for all?
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I look forward to the Senate voting to confirm Judge John Roberts.
Judge Roberts, thank you for agreeing to serve, and congratulations.
COLLINS: Who is John Roberts, and what obstacles could stand in his way? What about his record on Roe v. Wade?
Tonight, a special edition of ANDERSON COOPER 360.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: Good evening everybody. Once again, I'm Heidi Collins. Anderson is off tonight.
We have set ourselves some questions to answer tonight, if we can.
First, who exactly is John Robert (sic), the 50-year-old Circuit Court of Appeals judge President Bush tonight announced he would like to see succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the bench of the Supreme Court? Does it matter?
Consider this is a lifetime appointment. If John Roberts is confirmed and lives as long as Chief Justice William Rehnquist already has, he would be on the court for 30 years, an entire generation. Or perhaps even longer.
Second, will he be confirmed? We know the president is on his side, of course. But who's already lined up against Judge Roberts and why?
Finally, if Judge Roberts becomes Justice Roberts, how will that affect that most important legal issues of our time, Roe versus Wade not least among them.
All right. So now the nation knows. The man President Bush would like to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States is...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: In my meetings with Judge Roberts, I have been deeply impressed. He's a man of extraordinary accomplishment and ability. He has a good heart. He has the qualities Americans expect in a judge: experience, wisdom, fairness and civility. He has profound respect for the rule of law and for the liberties guaranteed to every citizen. He will strictly apply the Constitution and laws, not legislate from the bench.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUDGE JOHN ROBERTS, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Before I became a judge, my law practice consisted largely of arguing cases before the court. That experience left me with a profound appreciation for the role of the court in our constitutional democracy and a deep regard for the court as an institution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: So far, so good. One thing though, who exactly is John Roberts?
A portrait of the nominee from CNN's Brian Todd.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): John Roberts is a conservative heavyweight in Washington who should be ready for a tough confirmation fight. For his current position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, he endured three rounds of bruising confirmation hearings over 11 years.
The first, in 1992, never got to a Senate vote. The second, in 2001, stalled when the Democrats took control of the Senate. By his third nomination in 2003, Roberts had strong feelings about the injection of politics into the selection of judges.
J. ROBERTS: If it all came down to just politics in the judicial branch, that would be very frustrating for lawyers who work very hard to try to advocate their position and present the precedents and present the arguments.
TODD: John Roberts can't avoid judicial politics now. But because he's only been on the Court of Appeals for two years, in the view of one expert, Democrats won't have a lot to shoot at regarding Roberts' record as a judge.
There's nothing tangible to indicate his position on the death penalty, but he does seem to have sent strong signals on abortion rights, signing off on a 1990 Supreme Court brief that said -- quote -- "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."
But he later made clear that he argued that case on behalf of President George H.W. Bush, while serving as deputy solicitor general.
And at his 2003 confirmation, Roberts stressed the importance of following previous court rulings.
J. ROBERTS: There's no role for advocacy with respect to personal beliefs or views on the part of a judge. The judge is bound to follow the Supreme Court precedent.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TODD: Even with impeccable legal credentials, including nearly 40 cases where, as an attorney, he argued before the Supreme Court, John Glover Roberts' nomination may be influenced by the ideological battle that now looms over abortion rights. Or maybe even a bit of political payback, as Democrats and Republicans are reminded that Roberts played a key behind-the-scenes role in the legal battle over the 2000 Florida recount.
Heidi.
COLLINS: All right. Brian, thank you.
For the latest now on the mood at the White House, which was responsible for the expert choreography of tonight's very important announcement -- the president' first nomination to the Supreme Court -- we turn live now to Suzanne Malveaux.
Suzanne, what -- what does the White House do now to support their nominee?
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Heidi, actually the mood is really quite upbeat. They are very confident that they're going to be able to push this through. But, of course, they know that they have a battle.
There is something called a Sherpa -- really, someone who walks him through the process here, through some of those pitfalls and minelands (ph), if you will. He is the former Senator Fred Thompson. He has been selected just a couple of weeks ago to guide him through that process, to answer those questions, to meet as kind of a go- between between the White House and the Senate as well -- Republican and Democratic senators.
COLLINS: Suzanne, pardon me for the interruption there.
So you're saying that the mood overall is very good. This is certainly not a surprise. This is the person that they wanted to put in, correct?
MALVEAUX: Well, yes. I mean, he had a very short list. How this all unfolded was when he went to the G-8 Summit -- this was some weeks ago -- he started off with a list of 11. That whittled down to about five candidates who ended up interviewing in person. It was just last Friday, however -- that is when he met with John Roberts at the White House, we're told, at the residence. Very casual meeting. We're told the president had his dogs by their side as they talked one on one for about an hour or so. That the president made his decision, we're told, last night. His final decision early this morning.
He interrupted a lunch that he had with the Australian prime minister at the residence to make that phone call about 12:30 or so to Roberts to tell him that he, in fact, had the job, that he was very pleased. As a matter of fact, we're told that he went back into the residence, told the first lady as well as Howard -- Prime Minister Howard, who was with them. I'm quoting here -- he said, "I just offered the job to a great, smart 50-year-old lawyer who agreed to serve on the bench".
Heidi.
COLLINS: Obviously -- we certainly hope the Australian prime minister was OK with that interruption.
Suzanne Malveaux, thanks so much.
Democrats were quick to respond to the president's nomination, setting up what may be a bitter confirmation battle.
CNN's congressional correspondent Ed Henry has a reaction from Capitol Hill.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Top Republicans believe the president hit a home run with John Roberts, who won cautious praise from the Senate Judiciary chairman, who's considered more moderate than the nominee.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: It would be hard to find someone with better credentials than Judge Roberts. When you ask a question about whether it's a safe nomination, I don't know that anything in Washington, D.C., is safe if it's a nomination. But it -- when you review his -- his resume, not many around -- I don't know that there's one in the Senate that can match it.
HENRY: Top Democrats who voted against Roberts for a lower court nomination seemed to be keeping their powder dry.
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: But with some nominees you might have said well, there's a darn good shot that's going to be a consensus nominee. With others you'd say there's a darn good shot that's not going to be a consensus nominee. He's in the middle.
HENRY: Still, Democrats said they want Roberts, who could be a pivotal vote on key social issues, to answer tough questions about his views. SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D), VERMONT: No one is entitled to a free pass to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Someone confirmed today can be expected to serve on the court until the year 2030 or later.
HENRY: But leading conservatives believe Roberts will win easy confirmation.
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: He was one of the most fabulous witnesses we've ever seen before the Judiciary Committee. He's argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Virtually no lawyer in America -- only a handful would ever have argued that many.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HENRY: Looks like smooth sailing. But a lot of these confirmation fights feature big surprises. We'll find out when the hearings start, probably right after Labor Day -- Heidi.
COLLINS: All right, Ed. Thanks so much.
Next on this special edition of 360, the politics of the pick. Why did President Bush choose Judge John Roberts to replace Sandra Day O'Connor? And why did he decide to make his decision public the way he did?
Plus, inside of the grueling confirmation process from a man who knows it all too well -- Judge Robert Bork, who was denied a seat on the highest court in America.
Also ahead, what's at stake with Judge Roberts' nomination? Could he have an impact on Roe versus Wade and other big cases?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight in a prime-time speech, President Bush spelled out his reasons why Judge John Roberts Jr. should be the next justice on the Supreme Court. And not once did he mention the word politics, even though it may have played a big role in today's decision.
CNN's chief national correspondent, John King, live now from Washington with more.
Hi, John.
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hello to you, Heidi.
From what we're learning tonight, certainly what the president believes are Judge Roberts' political skills were one factor in this decision.
You've heard from Ed and Suzanne about what many predict will be a tough confirmation battle ahead. One of the things the White House looked at is how Judge Roberts handled himself back in 2003, when he had a few quite feisty exchanges with Democrats over issues like abortion, the hot-button issues that will dominate, or at least will be serious issues in the confirmation fight to come. And the White House was incredibly impressed at how well Judge Roberts handled himself in those hearings.
They also note, of course, he has argued thirty-something cases before the Supreme Court. That is not an easy task.
So they believe in this judge. Yes, they believe they have someone the conservative base of the Republican Party will very much like. They believe he is a conservative, like President Bush. They believe he will tip the ideological balance of the court a bit to the right, because Sandra Day O'Connor was more of a moderate swing vote.
But they think in the short term he has the poise, the personal communication and the political skills to get through that tough confirmation battle. And then, Heidi, if he is confirmed, they believe he will emerge, because of those skills, as an influential and conservative voice on the court for a quarter century or more. He's just 50 years old.
COLLINS: Yes, it's a long time.
John, tell me though, why did the president choose to make his announcement in prime-time?
KING: Because he wanted to get out first.
This is a president who understands going on the offense in a political fight. So the president had the stage to himself. He has the splendor of the White House with him for a platform. He walks in with his nominee. The president introduces him to the American people and tries to frame the debate to come. The nominee himself gets to speak -- if you will, his first "hello" to Americans sitting in their living rooms or at their kitchen table around the country watching this.
So the president gets out first. You have the magical, the majestical surrounding of the White House behind you. And, from the White House perspective, when those Democrats came quickly out on Capitol Hill afterwards, they were a little bit grumpy. The president's in this upbeat mood; you have this man at the White House with his wife and these two adorable little kids.
Everything matters in politics. And if you can land the first punch -- even if it's a very gentle punch, if you will -- the White House thinks it's a good start.
COLLINS: What about the Karl Rove case, though, John? Is it possible that this announcement was made to sort of distract from that a bit?
KING: Well, White House officials say it's ridiculous to think the president would rush a decision to do that, because however the Karl Rove case turns out, whether it damages the president long term or not, this is something that will be very influential in this president's short-term political standing over the next few months, and then his political legacy over the next quarter century or more. So they say they would never rush a decision, rush out and find somebody, and rush a decision. But of course, once the president was comfortable in his choice -- if he's ready to go, and he believes it is advantageous to him politically to go -- whether it is to get Judge Roberts out there, and maybe at the same time, bump Karl Rove back to page two or three, sure.
But the idea that they said, oh my God, we're in trouble because of Karl Rover; we need to rush this -- I think that's a bit of a stretch.
COLLINS: John King, thanks so much.
KING: Thank you.
COLLINS: Want to get to Thomas Roberts from HEADLINE NEWS He's joining us with some of the other stories we're following tonight.
Hi, Thomas.
THOMAS ROBERTS, HEADLINE NEWS ANCHOR: Heidi, great to see you.
We get to the other headlines now, starting with something of a medical concern. There are some new health concerns about the abortion pill RU486. The Food and Drug Administration investigating reports of rare but potentially deadly side effects, including four deaths in the past two years. The FDA is warning doctors to be aware of the risk of infection.
In London, crews have removed a wrecked subway car from the scene of one of the bombings. It was at the Edgware Road station where six people plus a bomber died. The car was taken to an undisclosed, secure location for more forensic testing.
Richmond, Virginia, now. A federal appeals court heard arguments on whether the government can continue to hold Jose Padilla, who was once accused of plotting to set off a radioactive dirty bomb in the U.S. The Padilla case has become a test of the anti-terrorism laws that allow people designated as enemy combatants to be held until the end of hostilities in the war on terror.
Computer and printer maker Hewlett Packard plans to lay off 14,500 workers. Now, HP won't say where the job cuts are coming from. Now it's also going to overhaul its retirement plan apparently. Now this company, which was once known for treating its employees like family, hopes to save nearly $2 billion.
So Heidi, not good news for the HP workers tonight.
COLLINS: It certainly isn't.
All right. Thomas, thanks for that. See you again in about 30 minutes.
T. ROBERTS: OK. COLLINS: As tough as it may have been for the president, nominating Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court is the easy part. Now comes the tough job: the confirmation process. Here to take us through it step by step is senior political correspondent Candy Crowley, who joins us from Washington.
Hi, Candy.
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Heidi.
Actually, what comes next now is just a curtain of silence. That two, three minutes you just heard from Judge Roberts is about the last thing of substance you're going to hear from him until some time in September.
This is how it goes. Tomorrow, it's a sort of a getting to know you. We'll have lots of pictures. The judge up on Capitol Hill, in the offices of senators, both Republicans and Democrats. We may get to hear him say, it's nice to be here. Reporters will shout questions and he won't answer them.
In the meantime, people like the ABA, the American Bar Association, will be looking at his credentials with an eye toward putting out, you know, does he pass, does he not pass muster. You will see the various interest groups duke it out on television ads, e- mails, all of what you've already seen happen ever since Justice O'Connor said that she'd be stepping down.
The hearings we expect to begin sometime in September. And between now and then, I think what you will see is a dissection of what record there is to go over with Judge Roberts. And you will see people sort of beginning to position themselves. August is a recess time here in Washington, D.C. You could pretty much roll down Pennsylvania Avenue at different points during the summer because everybody kind of vacates.
So there will be a lot of, you know, behind-the-scenes positioning by both Republicans and those who want to oppose Judge Roberts. But beyond that, it's going to be very, very quiet now, other than some pictures we'll see between now and September, when those -- when the Senate Judiciary Committee begins its hearings, followed by, of course, a full vote in the Senate.
COLLINS: Candy, any idea though how long that confirmation process could last? Are we talking about -- I know that the average is something like 72 days for the others -- from the announcement of the nominee to the actual Senate confirmation.
CROWLEY: Yes, it really depends. I mean, you know, there have been confirmation hearings that have gone on for more than a week. There have been others that have been done in three or four days. And then, you know, you have to schedule on the floor, you have to see if there's going to be a filibuster -- the Gang of 14 that we've heard so much about, those senators, both Democratic and Republican -- sort of the moderates in the Senate that will determine whether or not they'd allow a filibuster is pretty much how to put that -- will be very vital here. But they will have -- all they really want at the White House is to have his man sitting on the bench when it opens in October. Pretty much everybody believes that will happen. So whether it's 60 days or 73 days, long as he's sitting on the bench when that first Monday in October comes, they'll be happy at the White House.
COLLINS: Yes, I bet they will. All right. Candy Crowley, thanks.
CROWLEY: Sure.
COLLINS: If you think 50-year-old John Roberts, Jr., is young for the Supreme Court, think again.
Here's a " Download". When Clarence Thomas was appointed to the bench, he was just 43 years old. Antonin Scalia was only 50 when he was sworn in. David Souter and Anthony Kennedy were both 51. And for trivial buffs, the youngest justice ever to serve on the Supreme Court was Joseph Story. He was only 32.
And by the way, the salary of a Supreme Court justice is $194,000. For the chief justice, it's $202,000.
Next, on this special edition of 360, the left and the right. What's in their arsenal, as they get ready to battle it out over the nomination of Judge John Roberts?
Also tonight, Americans voice their thoughts: the feedback on the president's pick and the Supreme Court.
And more on the confirmation fight. Feedback from Judge John Bork (sic), who was blocked from becoming a justice two decades ago.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Judge John Roberts, Jr., will no doubt face a battle to get on to the Supreme Court. But if we go by history, his chances of getting in are fairly good.
Here's a "Download". Not including Judge Roberts, there have been 145 Supreme Court nominees. Of those, only 29 have failed to be confirmed. That's an 80 percent success rate. In the 20th century alone, only seven nominees have failed to get on the bench.
One of those failed nominees is Judge Robert Bork, who was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987. Not too long ago, Bork sat down with CNN's senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who joins me now.
Jeff.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SR. LEGAL ANALYST: Here he is.
That's right. I talked with Robert Bork on July 5, just four days after Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement. And we discussed the confirmation process he knows so well.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) TOOBIN: Let's talk a little about the confirmation process itself. You're an expert, having gone through it.
What's it like? What's it like sitting up there in front of all those senators, some of who you know are out to get you?
JUDGE ROBERT BORK, FMR. SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: It's very wearing, because they keep you there for long answers. And typically your answers tend to get distorted and you're constantly trying to correct what you -- what's being said about you. It was very tiring. And it goes on for day after day after day.
TOOBIN: Some have said that the lesson of your confirmation hearing is that nominees should say as little as possible, not commit one way or the other.
Do you think that's true?
BORK: I think it's true if you can get away with it. The difficulty is that justice -- the senators more and more demand answers as to how you'll vote.
Now, I don't -- this ancient formula of, I can't answer that because that such a case might come before me when I'm on the court -- I don't think that formula's going to work anymore. They really want to know much more in detail how you're going to vote, which is terrible. It's a terrible way to confirm justices.
It -- what it does is recognize that the court is -- has become a political institution, not a legal institution. And you have to make campaign promises, and the -- the senators expect that.
TOOBIN: So let's say a senator asks -- as I expect a senator will ask -- do you think Roe v. Wade should be overturned? What's -- what's the appropriate answer?
BORK: Well, the appropriate answer is yes. The -- that may not be the most diplomatic answer. But, you know, you get these people saying, well, it was wrongly decided, but it's now the law of the land and so forth.
The truth is that precedent doesn't mean much in constitutional law. It can't mean much.
TOOBIN: You know, when you were up for confirmation, it was a Democratic Senate. Do you think it might be different now, with 55 Republicans in the Senate, that a nominee can say, look, I think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided? Vote -- vote accordingly.
Might they not get through anyway?
BORK: Well, you have -- it might. But you have the Northeastern Republicans, who -- who want to uphold Roe against Wade. So I'm not sure you have a Republican majority to confirm a candidate who does suggest that it ought to be overturned.
TOOBIN: There's a lot of...
BORK: You know, if you look at Maine -- (INAUDIBLE), if you look at Maine and the other Northeastern states -- Rhode Island and so forth -- and indeed Pennsylvania with Arlen Specter, you may get -- you may lose their votes if you don't swear to uphold Roe against Wade.
TOOBIN: Do you think, in retrospect, you were treated fairly in your confirmation hearing?
BORK: No. If you mean -- you know, Senator Kennedy opened up the whole thing before -- before the hearings, actually -- with a long list of what would it -- what would "Robert Bork's America" be like, if recall that.
TOOBIN: I -- back-alley abortions...
BORK: And every one of those...
TOOBIN: Back-alley abortions...
BORK: Oh, yes.
TOOBIN: ..segregated lunch counters...
BORK: Yes. Yes. Everything. Evolution couldn't be taught in the public schools, on and on and on. Every one of those allegations was untrue.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TOOBIN: But Heidi, judging from the response we've seen so far from the Democrats, it looks like John Roberts is going to have an easier time getting confirmed than Robert Bork did.
COLLINS: Yes. Sounds like it. All right.
TOOBIN: So far.
COLLINS: Jeff, thanks so much.
Next on this special edition of 360, you, the public, with your own thoughts on the Supreme Court and the fight ahead over Judge Roberts' nomination.
Plus, the battle lines from the left and the right -- how they'll duke it out.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: So now the Senate has a big task at hand. It must decide whether Judge John Roberts, Jr., would best represent this country through the Supreme Court.
But that begs the question, what do we want anyway? Should the court become more conservative or liberal? And what about hot-button issues like abortion?
Senior political analyst William Schneider, has some answers to that. He joins us now.
Hi there, Bill. You know, the...
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Hi.
COLLINS: The immediate focus has certainly been on Roberts' opinions on Roe versus Wade.
Where does the public stand on overturning it?
SCHNEIDER: Well, you know, there's a strong consensus on the issue of Roe versus Wade. Do Americans think the Supreme Court should overturn that issue? And the answer, by better than two to one, is no.
John Roberts has a mixed record on the issue of Roe versus Wade. And you can be sure that that record is going to be closely examined by the Senate.
COLLINS: All right. And also, Bill, there's been a lot of debate on how conservative the president's nomination should actually be. Where does the public stand in terms of making the court more liberal or conservative?
SCHNEIDER: Well, the CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup Poll asked Americans last month, do you want a new justice who would make the Supreme Court more conservative or more liberal?
And here's the answer. More conservative beats more liberal 41 to 30. But if you add in that 25 percent who want to keep the court just as it is now, you get a majority who don't want a more liberal court, and you get a majority who don't want a more conservative court.
So there's no consensus for any shift in the court, left or right.
COLLINS: All right. Well, answer this then. How does the public feel about the Democrats fighting this nomination, possibly filibustering Roberts' nomination?
SCHNEIDER: Well, what do people think Democratic senators should do if they strongly disagree with the nominee on the issues?
Well, take a look. Most say they should work to defeat him. Forty percent say Democrats should vote to confirm the president's choice. It sounds like people think Democrats should show some fight, but only if they have legitimate disagreements with Roberts.
Now for a filibuster, the standard is higher. Democrats in the famous Gang of 14 senators agreed not to filibuster a nominee except in -- quote -- "extraordinary circumstances." Democrats would need to make the case not just that they disagree with Roberts, but that he's dangerous, so that these are extraordinary circumstances.
And Heidi, that could be a tough case to make.
COLLINS: All right. Very good. Bill Schneider, thank you.
SCHNEIDER: Sure.
COLLINS: You just heard a little bit of what's at stake in the confirmation process. But considering the relative youth of Judge Roberts, if confirmed, he could be making decisions for us for a long time to come.
For a closer look now at what that could mean, we're joined once again by CNN's senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin.
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: We can't shake you.
TOOBIN: You know, mostly what I'm happy about is hearing a 50- year-old man being referred to over and over again as young.
COLLINS: Young! Yes.
TOOBIN: It's made my night already.
COLLINS: Well -- tonight -- I like that, too.
But you know, I want to read you something that Roberts actually said during the confirmation hearings for his current post that he holds now. Take a listen to this: "Roe versus Wade is the settled law of the land. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision. There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent as well as Casey."
What do you make of that?
TOOBIN: That is a perfect answer for a lower-court nominee. He had no authority as a judge on the D.C. Circuit to overrule or even modify Roe v. Wade or even Casey. So he was obliged to follow it.
It's a very different story if he's on the Supreme Court, and he and his fellow justices have the chance to overturn it. So that's not going to work as an answer. He's going to have to explain a little bit more how he feels about the precedent, rather than just say, Well, I'm bound by it. Because he's not bound by it.
COLLINS: Well, a former presidential adviser, David Gergen, actually had a comment on "LARRY KING LIVE" tonight about this nomination of Judge Roberts.
Let's listen for a moment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID GERGEN, FMR. PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: This is a very important nomination because he is -- the president is now replacing Justice O'Connor, who has been a swing vote -- vote on many abortion cases -- he's replacing a moderate conservative with a strong conservative. And Sandra Day O'Connor has been the fifth justice in many 5-4 decisions that have pushed back the effort to restrict the rights to abortion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: If he's confirmed, how much of a difference could Judge Roberts really make on this issue?
TOOBIN: Big difference.
You know, the Casey decision, which is the last time the court really squarely took on Roe v. Wade, was 6 to 3, with O'Connor in the majority. So single-handedly, he couldn't overturn with Roe v. Wade because that would only make it 5 to 4.
But next year, they have a case on parental notification on abortion. They're very likely to have a case on late-term abortions, narrowing the rights. Those have been 5-4 decisions in the past, with O'Connor in the majority. So immediately, next year, Judge Roberts, if he's so inclined, could start narrowing the right to abortion.
COLLINS: Well, if he does become confirmed -- I know that Sandra Day O'Connor was the actual swing vote, as we've heard her be (ph) in so many different cases in the 5-4 University of Michigan decision, which upheld affirmative action.
What would happen if now Roberts sat in that seat?
TOOBIN: Well, if they got a case to reconsider the issue of any sort of racial preferences -- I mean basically -- what the Michigan case held was that quotas -- racial quotas were illegal, but admission officers could consider race as one factor among many.
Judge Roberts could come in and say, no, race may not be considered at all, period. And affirmative action could be gone forever in the United States, which is what many conservatives would prefer. That's the kind of immediate impact that Judge Roberts could have on this court.
COLLINS: Again, if he is confirmed.
What about an impact on the separation of church and state?
TOOBIN: Well, you know, we just had the famous Ten Commandments cases at the end of this past term, where the court split on the two kinds of Ten Commandments cases.
But basically what the majority held was, if you have religious intent in putting up the Ten Commandments, as they did in Kentucky in that courthouse, then you can't out up the Ten Commandments. And Justice O'Connor again was the swing vote there.
Judge Roberts could say, you know what? Ten Commandments are fine. And they could go up all over the country quickly again. That's the kind of case, could have a big impact right away as well. COLLINS: All right. Jeffrey Toobin, thanks so much for that, as always.
TOOBIN: All right.
COLLINS: Apparently, Americans do what to see something different from this court.
Here's a "Download" now. A recent CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup Poll shows sinking approval ratings. Only 42 percent of those asked in June said they approve of how the Supreme Court is handling its job.
Now, it may not be the reason for the low marks, but one of the main criticisms we've heard about this court is that it has been an advocacy court.
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts has spoken about this before. In fact, two years ago he said -- quote -- "There is no role for advocacy with respect to personal beliefs or views on the part of a judge."
Next, on this special edition of 360, tracking Hurricane Emily. Where the storm is now and where it will leave its mark.
Also tonight, inside the Beltway, taking sides over the nomination of Judge John Roberts. The fight ahead.
Plus, the battle over public opinion. Get ready. TV ads are in the works.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: It is already clear there are two very distinct points of view on Judge John Roberts, the man President Bush would like to see elevated to the bench of the Supreme Court to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor.
We could tell you what those points of view are, or we could let them speak eloquently for themselves. So, to do that, we welcome Paul Begala and Robert Novak in Washington.
Gentlemen, no pressure.
Paul, we're going to start with you.
Senator John Kerry released a statement saying this today: "We know Judge Roberts is no Sandra Day O'Connor, and the White House has sent a clear signal. There are serious questions that must be answered involving Judge Roberts' judicial philosophy."
How hard do you expect Democrats to actually fight this nomination?
PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think they have a right to know about this fellow's philosophy. After all, this is a lifetime appointment. And he is, for a judge, spectacularly young. He's 50 years old. All the other -- I think all the members of the court today are over 100. Some are 130, 140. He's extraordinarily young. And so we're going to want to know.
And it's really interesting heading Bill Schneider earlier in the program telling us that the majority of Americans don't want to overturn Roe versus Wade. Plainly, Judge Roberts does. That they don't want to repeal affirmative action, I believe. Plainly, Judge Roberts does.
These issues ought to be debated. But instead, what we'll get is this kabuki theater, this phoniness, this -- these -- this parade of fabrications, where these nominees come forward and say, oh I can't talk about that issue. Well, what are we supposed to ask them? How they feel about the Nationals trading Zack Day?
You know, it's -- they ought to ask about his views and he ought to be candid about them.
COLLINS: All right.
Bob, do we really know that Judge Roberts does want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
ROBERT NOVAK, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I'm sure he does. He's a devout Catholic. I think he's pro-life. His wife is a pro-life activist.
But that -- the -- this is a disaster for the Democrats, Heidi, because they had thought all along that the first vacancy would be the retirement of Chief Justice Rehnquist, and you would get a conservative for a conservative, no big deal.
But Justice O'Connor was a -- was on social issues -- almost all the issues, a liberal. She was a disastrous appointment by Ronald Reagan, his first appointment.
And this appointment is going to change the court. That's what all this nervousness about Alberto Gonzales was, that he would not really change the court that much if he were named.
But almost anybody I felt that the president was going to name would change the court, and Judge Roberts definitely does.
The problem is, it's very hard for the Democrats to defeat him. It's hard for them to say it's extraordinary circumstances that require a filibuster. They're not going to beat them on a straight vote, as they defeated Robert Bork.
So this is a historic appointment by President Bush that I think is going to rebound well into the future.
COLLINS: Paul, do you think with this nomination the president has made good on his promise to conservatives?
BEGALA: I do. I think he has.
And he should be respected for that. The president was re-elected despite being relatively unpopular, and despite having a soft economy and an unpopular war. He was re-elected because he got social conservatives, 10 or 11 million of them, who hadn't voted to come out and vote. And he reached them by what their strategists called anger points. Those anger points were principally attacking gay rights and abortion rights.
My guess is that he has now given their -- their compensation, their recompense. And that's legitimate in American politics. But I -- my hope in going into this that everybody is honest about it. And I -- it's a fool's hope, because they're not going to be. I just wish the president would stand up and say, look -- hey, I think abortion is murder; it ought to be outlawed. I don't like gay rights; I want to stop it. Why not just tell the truth, Mr. President?
The reason he won't is because those views are very unpopular. And so he's going to pretend that Judge Roberts doesn't have these views, or that he doesn't have those views. But those -- those are their actual views, and those are the views of many Americans. I don't know why he has to hide it.
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: All right.
Bob, other than abortion, where is Roberts most vulnerable to the Democratic attack?
NOVAK: I don't think he's vulnerable at all to the Democratic attack, because he's not going to do the things that Paul wants him to do. He's not going to commit suicide, and nobody expects him to.
It's just like the last two Democratic appointments and nominations, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, of President Clinton. They didn't get out there and predict how liberal they were going to be. They're very liberal judges. But -- and we knew they were going to be.
So this is a little bit of a kabuki theater. And the -- and the -- I don't believe the -- Judge Roberts is going to be vulnerable at all. Keep your eye on Joe Lieberman. When -- Joe Lieberman has gone along on all these others -- on these judges, on these filibusters. He's not going along on this one. And I don't believe you're going to find more than 30 votes against Judge Roberts.
And you say, 30 votes, that's a lot of votes. But it isn't enough to stop him.
COLLINS: No, it's not.
All right Robert Novak, Paul Begala, nice to see you gentleman. Thank you.
BEGALA: Thanks, Heidi. Good to see you. NOVAK: Thank you.
COLLINS: Thomas Roberts from HEADLINE NEWS joining us now once again to update some of tonight's other top stories.
Hi, Thomas.
T. ROBERTS: Hi, Heidi.
We want to begin with a standoff between the Israeli government and pro-settlement demonstrators. Some 20,000 soldiers and police are blocking about 10,000 protesters who bedded down for the night. The protesters oppose Israel's plan to withdraw Jewish settlers and Israeli troops from Gaza and four small areas of the West Bank.
The father of one of the 9/11 hijackers is praising the London terror bombings and hopes there will be more attacks. Mohamed El- Amir's son Mohamed Atta, flew one of the hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center. El-Amir, who leaves in Egypt, predicts we're just at the beginning of a 50-year religious war between Muslims and the West.
Iraqi officials have announced that first draft of their country's new constitution will be ready by the end of July or early August. That's ahead of schedule. The constitution is supposed to be ready for a nationwide vote coming up in October.
All right, and listen up here. If you own an Acura Integra, lock your car, because somebody wants it pretty badly enough to steal it. An insurance-industry report says the '99 Integra Coupe was the most stolen vehicle in the U.S. last year. Now one in every 200 drove off into the sunset with the wrong person behind the wheel. The 2002 BMW M Roadster is second on the most-stolen list, followed by yet another Integra, a 1998 model.
So Heidi, Integra not on a list here that they really want to be on. And I did a little research on this. Apparently the insurance- industry report says that they want these cars -- the crooks -- for parts, which we get, but also for street racing.
So the fast cars are ended up being raced.
COLLINS: I'm shocked. All right. They got to get The Club. That's what they need.
Thomas Roberts, thanks so much.
T. ROBERTS: Bye Heidi.
COLLINS: 360 next: it's not just hurricanes; this is also a scorching summer with deadly consequences.
Plus, the campaign for the court. Why lobbyists for both sides plan to spend big bucks in the nomination battle over John Roberts.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COLLINS: Rob Marciano joining us now to give us the very latest on Hurricane Emily.
Hi, Rob. Where's this thing headed now?
ROB MARCIANO, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Emily, still heading -- Heidi, Emily is still heading to the west northwest at about 7 miles an hour. Still on track to head into northern Mexico and likely miss southern Texas, although they could very well see some hurricane conditions.
Sustained winds at 125 miles an hour. We have the latest numbers now out of that National Hurricane Center. And you can see a very well-defined eye -- look at that on the satellite picture. Really expanding out to about 17 nautical miles wide.
So a very well-defined eye. And it continues its trek towards the west-northwest. And eventually, according to the National Hurricane Center's latest forecast, we are looking at it to turn a little bit farther to the south. So that would be good news for Texas. Hopefully that will happen.
Category 3 storm at 125-mile-an-hour sustained winds. And this is the forecast track, which would bring it -- we'll have the eye wall on shore right around 5, 6 a.m. -- in a few hours.
All right. Here's our Titan Radar, and you can really see the eye wall winding itself up. These are all the rain bands that are swirling in, even into South Texas and northern Mexico.
As far as how -- how far away this thing is from the coast and from, say, Brownsville -- 50 miles about from the coast. A little bit more than 50 miles to that point. So, on this track, we're looking at, again, 5, 6 a.m. for a landfall time.
What's that going to mean for Texas? Well, we already have a tornado watch out through tomorrow morning, because the northern right-hand quadrant of these storms typically will have the threat for tornadoes.
The windfield with this system -- watch as we put our computer into motion. And this model tracks a little bit farther to the north than the official forecast, but it does say that, you know what? They could see hurricane-force conditions in Corpus -- not Corpus Christi, but Brownsville and through the mouth of the Rio Grande. And then through tomorrow, it'll begin to quickly weaken, and hopefully take most of the rainfall with it to the south, and there won't be a tremendous amount of flooding in Texas. That would be good news.
Category 3 storm when it comes onshore in Texas (sic). We'll see winds of 111 to approximately 130 miles an hour. The impact of Emily on south Texas -- you'll see winds 35 to 75 miles an hour; rain falling anywhere from four to eight inches; a storm surge from four to eight feet anywhere south of Corpus Christi, Texas. And again, that threat for isolated tornadoes will be in the forecast really through tomorrow. If there's any good news from this, is that south Texas could use some rainfall. So they'll take any that they get. Hopefully not enough to cause flooding, but certainly a major storm with a well-defined eye. And it's not going to lose strength when it makes landfall here in the next five to six hours.
That's the latest from here, Heidi. Back over to you.
COLLINS: All right. Rob Marciano, thank you.
Hurricane Emily may not directly hit the U.S., but that doesn't mean we're getting a break from dangerous weather. Coast to coast, the country is caught in a sizzling heat wave that has scorched the earth and taken a deadly toll.
CNN's Rick Sanchez now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): We found ourselves rolling out the hay to help farmers and ranchers beat the rains, which they fear will weigh it down, making it too difficult to move. It's something they haven't had to do here in quite some time.
Even the cattle seemed to sense something different is about to happen.
As the Rio Grande region braces for a hurricane, many in these parts say their real concern is a drought. So serious, some are comparing it to the one that hit this area in the late 1940s.
This region usually gets anywhere between 18 and 25 inches a year. So far this year, they haven't even gotten a fraction of that.
DR. RANDALL CERVENY, CLIMATOLOGIST: We in the Southwest are used to having triple-digit temperatures. It's just -- we'd like to have some clouds every so often to get away from those. And that's why Emily here is going to be kind of our -- our ace card. We're hoping that's going to bring enough moisture to give us some clouds.
SANCHEZ: It's not just here. So far this summer, high temperatures have turned part of Arizona into a dustbowl.
In New York, city dwellers are dealing with a most uncomfortable summer.
In Boston, residents are heading to the beaches to get away from the heat.
And in California, record temperatures have peaked at near 100 degrees.
(on camera): It's not often that a hurricane is actually welcomed by a region. But that seems to be what's going on here in the Rio Grande Valley, a region that supplies our nation with much of its corn, cotton and sorghum. It's a yield, we're being told, that right now because of the drought, is down by 25 percent.
(voice-over): Jose Alfredo's family has been farming and ranching here for generations. He says he can't remember it being this bad.
(on camera): (SPEAKING SPANISH). And this is the worst that you've seen it in years?
JOSE ALFREDO, FARMER: Yes.
SANCHEZ: (SPEAKING SPANISH). This would be the worst?
ALFREDO: Yes. Right.
SANCHEZ: (SPEAKING SPANISH). Without a doubt?
ALFREDO: (SPEAKING SPANISH)
SANCHEZ (voice-over): As for the drought and its cause, experts say they're studying it, but they can't pin it down.
In the meantime, they say all we can do is try and cool off and take it one steamy, hot day at a time.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: You know what's interesting? We came here to cover a hurricane. We ended up with everyone here not talking about the hurricane, but instead wanting to talk to us about this drought that they've been complaining for quite some time.
Probably no place illustrates it better than where we are right now. This is a dry lake bed that I'm standing on right now. Were it not for the drought conditions, the water would probably be over my head. Instead, look at it: dry as a bone. You can actually even see the cracks on the surface of the bed right here.
Like we'd said, some experts are saying they're getting only about three inches. We just heard Rob Marciano say just a little while ago that we might get something like seven or eight inches. That is welcome news for the people in this region, who will be waiting in the next two or three hours. They may be getting what they wish for. Hopefully, it won't be more.
Heidi, back over to you.
COLLINS: All right, Rick. Thank you.
Next on this special edition of 360, in the fight over the Supreme Court, they plan to be on the front lines. Meet two people from opposite sides of the political aisle who have been building up their treasure chests, waiting for this moment to happen.
They'll give us a preview of what's to come.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COLLINS: It's late at night in Washington now. But for some partisans, there won't be any bedtime at all tonight. They're up getting their attack plans together, ready to fight for or against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts Jr.
And joining me now, two people who have been gearing up just for this moment: Ben Ginsberg, adviser for the advocacy group Progress for America; and Nan Aron, president of the advocacy group Alliance for Justice.
Mr. Ginsberg, I want to ask you: back in June, Progress for American launched a $700,000 ad campaign warning that -- quote -- "liberals and some Democrats will unleash a disinformation campaign with distorted attacks against any judicial nominee."
What kind of attack are you expecting to see against John -- Judge Roberts?
BEN GINSBERG, PROGRESS FOR AMERICA: Well, regrettably, I think we've already started to -- to see it a little bit tonight.
But the truth of the matter is, John Roberts is the left's worst nightmare. He's a reasonable justice with a solid record of judicial achievement, the right temperament for the court. And while I fear that my friends on the left were looking for a fire-breathing reticent and conservative, they got a reasonable man, a good, solid conservative, but one who's going to be very difficult for them to battle in the way that I think they wished.
COLLINS: Ms. Aron, Alliance for Justice immediately released this statement regarding John Roberts: "An initial review has led to serious concerns about whether he will be fair and independent and will protect the rights of freedoms of all Americans."
Even the Democrats don't appear to be reacting that negatively to Judge Roberts. What are your concerns?
NAN ARON, ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE: Well, we have several concerns, although I think it's important to note that we have note opposed Judge Roberts' elevation at this point to the Supreme Court.
We're concerned about some of his dissents on the D.C. Circuit that would curb Congress's authority to address national problems, such as environmental pollution, discrimination, unsafe workplace conditions.
In addition, while he worked for the Reagan and Bush administration -- that is George Bush's father's administration -- he advanced legal policies that would limit voting rights for African Americans, reproductive rights for women, church-state separation, environmental protection -- it's a whole host of major concerns.
COLLINS: Well, Mr. Ginsberg, Progress for America has already run a series of ads, in fact, calling for an up-or-down vote on Judge Roberts.
Considering the concerns groups like the Alliance for Justice have about some of his decisions, why try to stop the debate?
GINSBERG: Well, every justice, every person who is nominated for office, deserves a fair up-and-down vote. What we're objecting to is the unfortunate tactic that we've seen in other situations of filibusters. And what we believe is the fair process is to have all the debate that the senators want to have, but to allow an up-or-down vote and not to stall it. That's the fair thing to do.
COLLINS: Ms. Aron, last question for you. Now, your group raising funds, you say to fight for a fair and independent judiciary.
What do you want to see happen now that John Roberts has officially been declared the nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy?
ARON: We are calling for the United States Senate to conduct a thorough, independent hearing, and to look into his record and to gain a sense, an understanding of how he thinks and what his views are on the environment, worker protections, consumer protections, choice, civil rights, women's rights.
And we're also expecting that he and the administration will be forthcoming with information, with documents that shed light on his views. Thank you.
COLLINS: Ann (ph) -- Nan, that's all that we have time for tonight. Nan Aron, Ben Ginsberg, thank you so much.
I'm Heidi Collins, everybody. Thanks for joining us for this special edition of 360.
The news continues on CNN.
END
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
