Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
SCOTUS Nominee Garners Key Endorsements; Unocal Takes Chevron Offer; CNOOC to Persist in Hostile Bid; La Raza and Illegal Immigration
Aired July 20, 2005 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, everybody.
Tonight, three senators, all members of the Judiciary Committee, join me to give us their assessment of the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court.
And the Bush White House opposes a federal shield law for journalists, even though 31 states and the District of Columbia already have such protection for your right to know. We'll have a report from Capitol Hill.
China declares its hostile bid for Unocal will continue despite Unocal's acceptance of the Chevron bid. We'll have a special report.
And border security and immigration reform: a racially motivated political battle? Who are the racists in this fight, if any? I'll be talking with the president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza.
We begin tonight with the president's nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court. President Bush today urged the Senate to be fair and civil during the confirmation process. Senate Republicans are confident Judge Roberts will be confirmed, but Judge Roberts is likely to face tough questions from Democrats on a wide range of issues, particularly his views on abortion.
Ed Henry tonight reports from Capitol Hill. Dana Bash from the White House. Bill Schneider on the ideological battle ahead over the Roberts nomination.
We begin with Ed Henry on Capitol Hill -- Ed.
ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Lou, it's been less than 24 hours, but John Roberts has already racked up key endorsements from pivotal senators. It may not be a cakewalk, but it's close.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HENRY (voice-over): Mr. Roberts came to Capitol Hill and was welcomed with open arms by beaming Republican leaders.
SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: He is the best of the best legal minds in America.
HENRY: More importantly, two key swing senators who helped divert a nuclear showdown over lower court judges flatly declared Roberts should not be filibustered.
JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I am a member -- a card-carrying member of the Gang of 14. And one of the criteria of the Gang of 14 is that we would not filibuster a nominee to a court or the Supreme Court if -- unless it was quote, "extraordinary circumstances."
I think that Judge Roberts deserves an up-or-down vote, and I hope that the other members of that group would also agree with me. So I think this is a good day for America.
SEN. JOHN WARNER (R), VIRGINIA: But in the end, I repeat, I do not think there will be any body of fact that will give rise to invoking the extraordinary circumstance clause. This man has the right stuff, and will do the right thing for America.
HENRY: More good news for Roberts from the Democratic leader of the gang, Ben Nelson, who doesn't see a filibuster coming either.
SEN. BEN NELSON (D), NEBRASKA: Well, I'm certainly not thinking about it right now. And I'm not hearing anybody. Sometimes there's hallway whisper. None of that today. It's still new. But I'm not hearing it.
HENRY: Democratic leaders vow they won't be a rubber stamp.
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D), VERMONT: Presidents come and go. Senators come and go. Supreme Court justices tend to be there a lot longer than all of us. I want to make sure we do our job the right way.
HENRY: But far from demonizing Roberts, top Democrats are heaping praise on him.
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: There's no question about this man's legal skill, none at all. Nor has there been a serious question of any kind raised about his integrity, his honesty.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HENRY: Senate Democrats admit privately that barring some sort of political cataclysm, John Roberts will be confirmed easily -- Lou.
DOBBS: Ed Henry, thank you. President Bush today called on senators to confirm Judge Roberts before the next session of the Supreme Court, which begins October 3rd. President Bush met with Judge Roberts at the White House this morning.
Dana Bash has the report from the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He drove himself, looking like your average commuter. Never mind there's nothing average about having coffee with the president when he's just picked you for the Supreme Court.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He's highly qualified for the job.
BASH: All these images, the Rose Garden to the Capitol, part of a long-planned, meticulously choreographed rollout for any nominee. But why did the president choose him?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How are you, judge?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on over here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How are you, sir?
BASH: First, to conservatives, he's a known quantity, worked for the Reagan legal team, argued cases for the first Bush White House under Ken Starr, and unlike David Souter, an unknown from New Hampshire whom conservatives call his father's mistake, John Roberts is Washington establishment.
But like Souter, his paper trail of writings and rulings is thin, harder for Democrats to use against him. Another reason tapping Roberts disarms Democrats preparing so long for battle, many know him and respect him.
Jack Keeney worked with Roberts his entire 13 years at Hogan & Hartson law firm, and always asked Roberts for help on appeals cases, many on civil rights.
JACK KEENEY JR., FORMER ROBERTS LAW PARTNER: He's a conservative politically, but he is an incredible legal intellect.
BASH: This is the president and this is the candidate Keeney supported.
KEENEY: I'm telling my friends in the Democratic Party, and my friends in the interest groups who are opposing him, that they have created a caricature, and they're opposing a caricature rather than an actual person, and the actual person would be a very good justice.
BASH: But does Roberts meet the president's own standards, a strict constructionist, someone like Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia?
BUSH: He will strictly apply the Constitution and laws. He will not legislate from the bench.
BASH: The president hopes so, but the limited number of rulings and writings leaves that question murky. What aides say Mr. Bush is sure of, he picked someone he's personally comfortable with, something his father's friends encouraged.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BASH: Now there is some irony in somebody who tries to call himself an outsider turning to a consummate Washington insider, but Bush aides say personal comfort here was key. In many ways Roberts is like the president, a conservative, an Ivy Leaguer, and somebody who is affable, some consider down home. Lou.
DOBBS: Dana, thank you very much. As down home as a Harvard summa cum laude can be, I suppose. Dana Bash from the White House, thank you.
Judge Roberts has, as Dana just reported, a solid conservative background, which appeals to Republican members of Congress. But Judge Roberts is already facing vocal opposition from many women's groups, environmentalists, and other liberal activists.
Bill Schneider, what is the main issue that Roberts will be asked to address in his confirmation hearings?
(AUDIO GAP)
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: ... it's that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. Now more than two- thirds of Americans believe that they disagree with that. They say Roe should not be overruled. So a lot of pro-choice activists, women's rights groups, liberals say we've got him on that.
But he explained a few years later in 2003 in his confirmation hearings -- that's the quote I just made-- he said: "The statement in that brief was my position as an advocate for my client." His client was the first Bush administration. So maybe that wasn't his true belief.
He said in that same confirmation hearing: "Roe versus Wade is the settled law of the land." And that's got some Christian conservatives saying, what? The settled law of the land? This isn't the guy we hope to support for the nomination. Well, he then explained in his hearing, "The judge" -- remember, he was up for a district appeals court. He said: "The judge is bound to follow the Supreme Court precedent whether he agrees with it or disagrees with it."
So a lot of conservatives are saying, well, all he was doing was saying that's his job as a circuit court judge or an appeals court judge. If he gets on the Supreme Court, he doesn't have to follow precedent, he can change precedent.
So what's his real view? That's what he's going to be asked in the Senate. And you know what? He probably won't answer, because I have another quote here from Abraham Lincoln who said the following: "We cannot ask a man what he will do on the court, and if we should, and he should answer us, we should despise him for it." He may use that quote.
DOBBS: And it won't dissuade a single senator, I suspect, on the Judiciary Committee, from asking. And with Judge Roberts' intellect as advertised, it's unthinkable that he would respond. Bill Schneider, thank you.
SCHNEIDER: Sure.
DOBBS: Joining me now for more on Judge Roberts, his record, our senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
Jeffrey, on your short list was Judge Roberts. And the fact is that this White House did a great job of maintaining the security of his nomination right up until last evening.
You've heard the reaction from the Senate, from Congress. How about the legal profession, what's their reaction?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, you know, in Washington there is a relatively small group of lawyers who are regular advocates before the Supreme Court. And John Roberts, before he was on the bench -- he went on the bench two years ago -- was at the absolute top of the most elite community in the Washington legal establishment. These are the best lawyers in Washington. And he was at the top of that group. So the respect for John Roberts is really extraordinary across the board.
DOBBS: It's certainly, one would assume, part of the White House strategy here to put forward the most conservative possible nominee with the most extraordinary background. Talk about a resume. This guy has it. This resume is all but, I would guess, irresistible for even many of the Democrats who will have to make a vote here.
TOOBIN: It's going to be very tough to oppose him, period. I mean, there just is not any spaces, any statement that he has made, any position he has taken that seems likely to generate opposition.
What I'm a little curious about is how President Bush and the Republican Party are so sure he's so conservative. I mean, yes, he worked for Republican presidents. But, you know, that doesn't necessarily guarantee how he's going to vote on Roe v. Wade. They seem very confident. But I don't really understand based on what.
DOBBS: It is, to me at least -- and I'd like to hear your thoughts -- it is rare to hear a man with this kind of resume, this kind of -- a life of accomplishment, and in terms of the Supreme Court, he is a young man, 50 years of age, he is absolutely impeccable in his intellectual credentials, his experience. The personal statements about his character, his attributes -- I can't remember a candidate coming forward with this kind of broad acclaim.
TOOBIN: Yes. I mean, this is a guy who when literally he was a kid, people would say, you know, he's the kind of guy who's going to be on the Supreme Court. He appears to have been born to this job. People have been talking about it for him for years.
One reason he was stopped by the Democrats in 1992 from being on the D.C. Circuit is that they saw him as -- on a pipeline to the Supreme Court. So all they managed to do was delay his appointment for 11 years, let him make a lot of money in the private sector, and deprive him of a paper trail that they might have attracted. So it's all worked out well for him.
DOBBS: And he clerked for Justice Rehnquist. So he's even familiar intimately with some of the justices that he would work with. TOOBIN: He will serve, it looks like, with the judge he clerked for. And I believe that has never happened in Supreme Court history, a judge and his law clerk serving together.
DOBBS: In the same court. Jeffrey Toobin, thank you.
We'd like to know what you think about the nomination of Judge Roberts. Do you believe he is a good choice for the Supreme Court based on what you now know? Yes or no. Cast your vote at LOUDOBBS.com.
And coming up next, more on the Senate battle over Judge Roberts' nomination. I'll be talking with three leading members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
And "Red Storm". The Bush administration downplaying the military threat from China -- in fact, denying any threat at all -- just a day after the Pentagon report on China's massive military buildup and potential threat.
And your right to know under threat. The Justice Department opposing outright a federal shield law to protect journalists who refuse to disclose confidential sources, even though most states in the Union already provide such protection.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The Bush administration today made a concerted effort to downplay the military threat presented by China, just a day after the Pentagon report on China's rising military power and its challenge to the United States. The White House even said China is not a threat.
China for its part declared the Pentagon is interfering in its internal affairs by publishing that report.
Jamie McIntyre reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The congressionally-mandated assessment of China's military strength concluded that even though China has only a limited ability to project power far from its shores, the military balance is tipping against Taiwan, just 150 miles off the coast.
But a day after issuing the ominous warning, the Pentagon insisted that did not mean China was a growing threat to the U.S.
GEN. PETER PACE, VICE CHMN., JOINT CHIEFS: There's lots of countries in the world that have the capacity to wage war. Very few have the intent to do so. And clearly we have a complex but good relationship with China. So there's absolutely no reason for us to believe there's any intent on their part.
MCINTYRE: The report shows China's edge over Taiwan growing rapidly, with an army eight times as large, more than twice as many ships, six times as many aircraft and up to 730 Chinese missiles aimed at the tiny island. China's strategy, the report concludes, is to intimidate Taiwan's leaders while convincing the U.S. that fulfilling its pledge to defend Taiwan will be too costly.
The Pentagon insists the U.S. military could still defeat any Chinese invasion, and argues China's desire for economic power will eventually force it to soften its stance.
DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Our view is that whatever changes are to be made in that connection should be made on a peaceful basis by both countries. And that's where we have been. That's where we are today. And I think that the general behavior that we've seen in that part of the world suggests that that's, over time, very likely how it will all work out.
MCINTYRE: China, for its part, accused the Pentagon of fomenting discord by portraying its defense spending as something sinister. In a statement, China's vice foreign minister said -- quote -- "The report unreasonably attacks the modernization of Chinese national defense and rudely castigates China's normal national defense constructions and military deployment."
The temperate tone from the Bush administration appears to be aimed at not adding to the bellicose rhetoric that's been coming from the Chinese side, including the recent threat from one Chinese general that war with the U.S could force China to resort to nuclear weapons.
But the Pentagon says that doesn't mean it isn't keeping close tabs on the size and pace of the Chinese military buildup -- Lou.
DOBBS: Thank you very much. Jamie McIntyre from the Pentagon.
Turning from China's military strategy and its strategic potential threat to its economic ambitions, the Chinese firm Haier dropped its bid to buy the U.S. appliance-maker Maytag. And Unocal's board of directors has rejected China's $18 billion bid, saying instead it prefers a $17 billion offer from Chevron. But China insists its hostile bidding for Unocal isn't over.
Christine Romans has our report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): China has abandoned its bid for Maytag, but it's not giving up on energy company Unocal.
Unocal's board of directors backed a sweetened offer from Chevron, and three weeks from today Unocal shareholders will vote on it. Chevron's CEO says he is pleased to have the continued support of Unocal's board and looks forward to closing the transaction in just three weeks.
In fact, Unocal and Chevron tell us integration teams are already hard at work, and senior Unocal staffers are already accepting Chevron jobs. But CNOOC proclaims it is still in the game, and China observers are not surprised.
ED GRESSER, PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE: China is buying a lot of oil assets around the world. I think this is probably one aspect of that. So I think they probably feel more of a national and strategic stake in this issue than there might have been in the Haier case.
ROMANS: CNOOC said its offer has not been changed and remains in effect -- quote -- "We regret that they have not yet embraced our offer. We will continue to monitor the situation actively."
Also monitoring the situation, the House Energy and Commerce Committee. It invited CNOOC to appear for hearings Friday, titled "China's Bid for U.S. Energy Assets." But CNOOC declined.
Mark Palmer of Public Strategies is advising CNOOC and says CNOOC executives are too busy with the negotiations to appear. A source close to CNOOC says the company would have no problem raising its bid, but critics say money doesn't seem to be the driving issue, national security is.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS: CNOOC will not appear before Congress or before our cameras. In fact, there are some very high stakes games being played in this deal, Lou, all of it playing out in a lot of on-background and off-the-record discussions. A lot of spinning on this one.
DOBBS: And without seeking attribution, or at least wanting to be identified, that tells us just how serious the political stakes are.
ROMANS: Absolutely.
DOBBS: Certainly it's clear what the national security stakes are. Christine Romans, thank you.
In our "Quote of the Day," the vice chairman of the China Iron and Steel Association, responding to the issue of whether foreigners could take over Chinese companies, said -- quote -- "The steel industry is an important basic industry for the country's national economy," that is China's national economy, "how can we put such an industry in the hands of foreigners?"
The communist Chinese have not only been aggressive in their bids for U.S. companies, but they are hypocritical, without shame in demanding no foreign interference in Chinese companies while a Chinese government-owned company with a hostile bid tries to buy one of this country's most important energy assets.
According to a Beijing news report, China's central bank says it is not going to move forward toward a more flexible currency exchange rate, at least not this year. The announcement contradicts what U.S. officials have been saying for weeks, that China is on the brink of adopting a more flexible exchange rate and dropping the peg to the dollar.
Today's announcement also comes less than a month after Treasury Secretary John Snow convinced U.S. Senators Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham to stop pressing China to revalue its currency.
On the 30th of June, Secretary Snow wrote -- quote -- "I appreciate the accommodation shown by Senators Graham and Schumer in agreeing to postpone a vote on the China tariff legislation." Secretary Snow declared the Chinese have agreed that it is in their interest to adopt greater exchange rate flexibility. Tonight, Secretary Snow's spokesmen told us he had not yet seen the Chinese news report.
Still ahead here, two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee join me, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Jeff Sessions, to talk about the nomination of Judge Roberts to the Supreme Court.
Also tonight, dangerous heat is gripping much of our nation tonight. The death toll is rising in the Southwest. We'll have the latest for you on this deadly heat wave.
Also tonight, "New York Times" reporter Judith Miller behind bars for refusing to reveal her confidential sources. Congress now moving to pass a reporter shield bill. Will the Bush administration block it? We'll have that story next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: President Bush's nomination of Judge Roberts to the Supreme Court has effectively changed the subject from the White House leak scandal in the national media. The White House is still silent about Karl Rove's role in the case, and "New York Times" reporter Judith Miller is still in jail.
Lisa Sylvester has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORREPONDENT (voice-over): Two weeks ago, "New York Times" reporter Judith Miller was sent to jail. Her cell is one floor away from that suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui. Her crime? Refusing to give up a source for a story that she never wrote.
The Senate is now considering a shield law that would require a reporter reveal a source only in cases where it's necessary to prevent imminent and actual harm to national security.
WILLIAM SAFIRE, POLITICAL COLUMNIST: We have the power of trust. We have the ability to say to a source, you can trust us. We won't reveal who you are. You won't be involved. What's the truth?
Now, that's a -- that's our power. That's our weapon. And it's being seized and taken away from us.
SYLVESTER: Forty-nine states offer some type of reporter privilege. The legislation would extend the protection to federal cases.
SEN. CHRIS DODD (D), CONNECTICUT: We would never have learned about the crimes known as Watergate or the massive fraud called Enron but for the willingness of sources to speak in confidence with reporters.
SYLVESTER: The Justice Department calls the proposed legislation bad public policy. The bill would create serious impediments to the department's ability to effectively enforce the law and fight terrorism. Nonsense, says the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
LUCY DALGISH, REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: We've not seen any evidence that states that have shield laws have had their criminal justice systems come crashing to a halt.
SYLVESTER: But there has been a surge in subpoenas. In 2001, there were only two. Within the last 18 months, two dozen reporters and news outlets have been subpoenaed.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: Watchdog groups say the increase is due to greater secrecy in the federal government since 9/11, and a more aggressive use of special prosecutors. Even more reason why news organizations say they need a federal shield law to effectively do their job and serve the public interest.
Lou.
DOBBS: Is there any suggestion at this early stage that the shield law can pass Congress?
SYLVESTER: Well, there certainly seems to be momentum, given Judith Miller's case. But right now, the Senate, as you well know, is going to be bogged down in the Supreme Court nominations. So that will probably push things back. But watchdog groups are very hopeful that we will see something next year.
DOBBS: As indeed most of the public, according to the most recent surveys. Thank you very much, Lisa Sylvester from Washington.
Up next, here, three key members of the Senate Judiciary Committee will be here to assess President Bush's nomination for the Supreme Court. One of them once voted against Judge John Roberts and he'll tell us why.
And swelling temperatures all across the nation, particularly in the Southwest. Forecasters now predicting the deadly heat will continue. We'll have the latest for you.
And one of the country's largest fake ID rings busted, dozens of people arrested, many of them illegal aliens. Our special report just ahead.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: My next guests are members of the Senate Judiciary Committee which held today's hearing on the federal shield law. The same committee, of course, plays a critical role in deciding the fate of the president's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge John Roberts.
First we want to show you reaction from both ends of the political spectrum to Judge Roberts' nomination.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE ACTOR: Colleagues call him brilliant and praise his integrity and fair mindedness. Now President Bush has nominated Roberts for the Supreme Court.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: The conservative group Progress for America running this ad, calling, as you heard, Roberts brilliant. The ad will run across the country over the next week.
On the other side of the spectrum, the liberal group MoveOn.org released this statement -- quote -- "Instead of a mainstream jurist with a distinguished career as someone who protects the rights of the American people, Bush chose another right-wing crony."
Joining me now to give us their assessment from Capitol Hill, Senator Jeff Sessions and Senator Dianne Feinstein. Good to have you both here.
You both supported Judge Roberts to -- in his confirmation to the appellate court. Have you seen or know of any reason why you would not support him for the highest court in the land? Senator Feinstein?
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, (D) CALIFORNIA: Well, first of all, it hasn't begun yet. Everybody's jumping to conclusions. And we haven't had a chance to do our due diligence.
Obviously I have a lot of concerns. I'm going to have an opportunity in September. It's my understanding each member will have many rounds of questions. Each member will have a half hour. We will be able to develop our questions.
My question is, one of them, I want to know whether he will respect a woman's right to privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution -- whether he believes that Roe versus Wade is in fact settled law, and is willing to abide by it. I want to know what his views will be in terms of the encroachment that the courts have been making on the rights of Congress to enact certain laws: child labor, labor, environmental laws.
DOBBS: You sound, Senator Feinstein, as though you're saying, as I've heard both -- senators from both if you will, both conservatives and liberals say that they don't want a judicial activist on the court. Is that what you're saying?
FEINSTEIN: No, that's not what I'm saying. This isn't an appellate court, this is the court. And it's important to know where these men stand on the big constitutional issues.
Now, I think he's qualified, yes. I don't think he's an extremist. I think he's a very smart man. I've been reading the transcript over from the appellate hearing. But the process has to be allowed to move forward.
DOBBS: Senator Sessions, the resume of Judge Roberts is about as impressive as I've seen for anyone in public service in any one of the three branches. I suspect you're going to fully and vigorously support President Bush in his nomination?
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS, (R-AL) JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Well, I'm very, very high on Judge Roberts. He came through the committee, what, two years ago. He was questioned hard. People dug into his record at that time. And I think we had three votes against him in the Judiciary Committee. Senator Feinstein supported him, I think.
DOBBS: Right.
SESSIONS: But then he was unanimously confirmed on the floor of the Senate. He's done a good job on the bench. And I think he has all the qualities that you would expect in a great federal judge, including a lot of bipartisan support that I think is indicative of the president's desire to not be confrontational with the nominee, but to get the kind of nominee that shares his view that a judge should show restraint and not be an activist to impose personal political views, cultural views on people. So I think he's a great nominee. And I think he'll win confirmation.
DOBBS: Are you, Senator Sessions, worried that he might turn out to be another David Souter? Because as you know, a number of people on the right of the conservative movement are very nervous about Judge Roberts.
SESSIONS: Well, you know, it's a breathtaking thing to give something a certificate and a lifetime appointment. And they can do what they want to the rest of their life.
But no, I really have great confidence in Judge Roberts. I think he has demonstrated throughout his career a belief that we have been too activist, judges have been too political in their decision making. And he would be more moderate and modest in using the power of the robes. I have no doubt about that.
But who knows. You can be surprised, and we have been fairly often in the past.
DOBBS: I want to turn quickly to the federal shield law and get your sense as to whether or not you think it's appropriate that the public's right to know be protected with the ability of journalists to protect confidential sources and whether or not you think that can be moved to law? Senator Feinstein?
FEINSTEIN: I was there at the hearing this morning.
DOBBS: Right.
FEINSTEIN: I think the law as drafted is too broad. I think it does have some problems in it. I was able to discuss some of that. The panel offered to work with us.
What was absent is the Department of Justice. And I really regret that, because the written remarks from Justice indicated some serious concerns.
No question there should be a shield law. Dozens of states have shield laws. There is a necessity to have a federal law. But it has to be the right law. And particularly, when it comes to issues that relate to national security. I'm very concerned that the language be right.
DOBBS: Senator Sessions, your thoughts?
SESSIONS: I couldn't agree with Senator Feinstein more. I know there's a lot of pressure from the news media today to clarify this situation and get something done federally. And I think we will. And I think it will be appropriate.
But as a prosecutor, you know that this is an incredibly broad power to say that you can have access to information that may be life and death, whereas the average citizen would have to give it, a press person wouldn't.
But I think most states have decided it's good policy. We've decided it's good policy for a husband and wife, a priest/penitent. And I think we'll find something for the media, too.
DOBBS: It would be good, if I can offer my personal opinion, that the federal government provide the same protections as the majority of states do for journalists. And that's certainly, at least in my judgment, would be without question in the national interest.
FEINSTEIN: Somehow we didn't think you would think anything other than that, Lou.
DOBBS: Well, I ask you -- Senator Feinstein, I thought I knew some of your answers, too. But I wanted to give you an opportunity to express them anyway.
FEINSTEIN: Good.
DOBBS: And thank you for giving me the opportunity.
FEINSTEIN: You're very welcome.
DOBBS: Thank you, Senators.
A reminder now to vote in our poll. Do you believe John Roberts is a good choice for the Supreme Court? Yes or no. Cast your vote at LOUDOBBS.com.
Still ahead here, Judging Roberts. Why my next guest voted against Judge Roberts the last time he appeared before the Judiciary Committee.
And identity crisis. How federal authorities busted one of the largest fake identification rings in U.S. history. So large, they were franchising the operation. The incredible story, a great deal more still ahead.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: My next guest is one of three Democrats who voted against Judge John Roberts during his nomination to the federal appellate court. That 16-3 vote came, of course, before the Senate Judiciary Committee two years ago.
Senator Dick Durbin joins us now from Capitol Hill. Senator, good to have you here.
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL) JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Good to be with you.
DOBBS: This nomination is receiving considerable applause from all quarters, also we're starting to hear some discussion from -- actually the left and the right that he may not be the perfect candidate. What is your view? And do you expect to vote against him again?
DURBIN: Oh, I'm not going to make that decision until after the hearing. And as far as I'm concerned, we start with a clean slate. I want to give Judge John Roberts an opportunity to come before us and answer the questions.
We can concede the obvious. He's legally skilled, a very bright man. He has no questions related to his honesty or ethics that I'm aware of. And a good temperament. So it really comes down to the fundamentals of the hearing where we will ask questions to try to understand his basic views of the issues that he'll face on the bench. And he may be on the bench for 20 to 30 years. So they're important questions.
DOBBS: Why did you vote against him?
DURBIN: He was evasive. He wouldn't answer the questions. We asked him the most basic things. On the question of Roe v. Wade, where he'd said he wanted to overturn the decision, he said, I only put that in a brief because that's what my client wanted. I was an advocate for my client.
So I said, well, what is your position on Roe v. Wade? Well, it's the settled law of the Supreme Court.
And I said, well where do you stand? Well as long as it's a settled law, that's where I stand.
That is an evasive answer for the Circuit Court. It's totally unacceptable for the Supreme Court. I think it's important for us to understand whether he's in the mainstream of American values when it comes to privacy, the rights of privacy and women's rights.
DOBBS: Admittedly, there's maybe influence by fundraising. But MoveOn.org has launched a national campaign saying Roberts has been associated with some of the most fringe and extreme views for the Republican Party for years.
You just described him in quite different terms. Do you think perhaps MoveOn.org is a little bit over its skis on this one?
DURBIN: Well you can count on groups from both sides to dramatize the most telling elements of a person's background in order to appeal to their base. But notwithstanding that, I think our obligation on the Judiciary Committee, both Democrats and Republicans, is really get down to basic questions of his values. Where does he stand on workers' rights? Where does he stand on civil rights? What will he say about the right of privacy that was behind so many important Supreme Court decisions?
DOBBS: And let me ask you, Senator, on the shield law, in hearings before the committee today, your judgment, should journalists -- as they have in dozens of states -- have federal shield law protection for their confidential sources?
DURBIN: There's a reason why freedom of the press is enshrined in our Bill of Rights. It's critical to America, and it's critical to having a check on the power of government, to find a way to ferret out corruption.
But what do you do in this circumstance? The situation involving Valerie Plame, where the very disclosure of information is in fact breaking the law. Where it wasn't done for a national public interest, but done for a selfish political mendacious reason.
And what do you say when the traditional privilege between attorney and client says it doesn't apply to the commission of a crime in this law, when it comes to reporters says, oh no, only if the crime relates to national security. There's some big questions to be answered here.
DOBBS: And I know you're doing so and amongst those questions, of course, why "New York Times" reporter Judy Miller is in jail, and a two-year investigation, longer than that of Watergate, is still not concluded into the White House CIA leak.
Senator Durbin, thanks for being here.
DURBIN: Thanks, Lou.
DOBBS: Just ahead, one of the biggest fake ID rings in American history has been busted. More than 50 people, including illegal aliens, have been arrested and will be prosecuted.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Federal authorities today announced the indictment of the leaders of one of the largest counterfeit identity organizations in American history. The group manufactured, among other things, fake Mexican matricula consular cards.
Casey Wian has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: These are the tools of a counterfeiting ring that began in Los Angeles in the late 1980s. Since then, federal authorities say the Castorena family organization was responsible for manufacturing and selling millions of fake identity documents, including Social Security cards, driver's licenses, green cards and work permits.
MARCY FORMAN, ICE: The manufacture and distribution of counterfeit identity documents pose serious homeland security risks. The ramifications go far beyond an illegal alien using false identity papers to get a job in this country. Counterfeit identity documents can be provided to terrorists and other criminals, enabling them to operate with ease in the U.S.
WIAN: Investigators say the group spread to several other U.S. cities, including New York, Chicago, Las Vegas, Denver, Atlanta and Albuquerque.
At a news conference in Denver, ICE linked the organization to more than 400 other criminal cases in 50 cities, all tied to a group headed by a former illegal alien now operating from Mexico.
BILL LEONI, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY/COLORADO: The tentacles of this organization reach across the nation. The document forgery operation involves a wide range of potentially important tools of criminal enterprise.
WIAN: Investigators say the documents appeared so real, it took sophisticated laboratory analysis to determine they were counterfeit. The alleged leader of the organization, Pedro Castorena-Ibarra, was previously indicted for counterfeiting, but avoided prosecution by fleeing to Mexico, where he remains a fugitive to this day.
More than 50 others, including Castorena family members, and leaders of a rival counterfeiting gang, have been arrested and prosecuted. Investigators also seized 20 counterfeit ID manufacturing laboratories and tens of thousands of blank ID documents.
Besides phony U.S. IDs, the ring also manufactured fake Mexican matricula consular cards, which are widely used by illegal aliens in this country and widely accepted by banks and law enforcement agencies. According to ICE, "The counterfeiting activity certainly harms the Mexican government's recent attempts to have the consular ID card accepted in various U.S. communities as a mainstream identity document for its citizens living in the United States."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WIAN (on camera): Now we called the Treasury Department, which allows banks to accept the matricula consular cards, to ask if they're considering changing that policy in light of this new information. A spokeswoman said it is the bank's responsibility, according to the Treasury Department, to verify the identity of its customers. We also called several large banks. They would not comment. And the Mexican Embassy did not return our call.
Lou?
DOBBS: The FDIC, the comptroller of the currency and indeed the Federal Reserve, all have a serious issue on their hands, including the Internal Revenue Service, with this conundrum. We thank you very much, Casey Wian.
Forecasters say a break on our nation's punishing heat wave won't come until this weekend at the very earliest. Virtually the entire United States today experiencing temperatures soaring into the 90s or above. Ninety-degree heat is hitting cities as far north as Concord, New Hampshire, Traverse City, Michigan, Yakima, Washington.
The worst of this heat wave, of course, is hitting the Southwest, where temperatures are soaring well over 100 degrees. Las Vegas deposed readings of 114 degrees today. In parts of Nevada, temperatures have hit 100 degrees or higher for nine days straight. That breaks the previous record. Households are being ordered to cut back on their power usage. And in Phoenix, Arizona, hard hit in a deadly heat wave in that city -- temperatures hitting 110 degrees today.
Thirteen people there died in the heat wave so far, most of them homeless people in Phoenix. Residents are being asked to donate ice and water to people who don't have air conditioning in their homes.
Border Patrol agents are launching search and rescue missions trying to help illegal aliens and prevent them from dying in the arid, hot Arizona desert. More than 20 illegal aliens have been found dead from heatstroke on the Arizona border with Mexico this month alone.
The hottest place in the country today: Bakersfield, California. Temperatures approaching 130 degrees. The record heat is sparking fierce wildfires across California, Arizona, and as far east as Colorado. Tens of thousands of acres have been destroyed.
Meanwhile, dangerous extreme weather is also spreading across much of Europe. Europe being hit by sustained heat and droughts and temperatures well in the 90s as well. In Rome, authorities are trying to contain what they declare to be an outright health emergency. Ten people died in Italy this week from heat. Rome is being hit by power outages as well.
The worst of the European heat wave, however, is being felt in Greece. Temperatures there are hitting 100 degrees; power usage at record levels. Officials are worried that the national power grid there will collapse altogether.
In part of central Spain, a massive forest fire is burning out of control. That fire has already killed 11 volunteer firefighters. Officials say that fire began when someone lit a barbecue. Spain is now being hit with its worst drought ever. And in southern France, a plague of a different sort: Locusts. Locusts -- farms around Aveyron are being hit by fierce locust swarms. The insects devouring crops, causing billions of dollars in damages.
Still ahead here, we'll bring you the results of tonight's poll, a preview of what's ahead tomorrow.
And the Hispanic vote is being sought. It's critical for any national political candidate, Democrat or Republican. Next, why the head of La Raza says no political party in this country -- or ideology, owns the Hispanic vote. She's our guest, next.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Our nation's broken borders -- an immigration crisis. It's become a number one concern for many Americans. Do our nation's Hispanic leaders share that urgency? A new Gallup poll shows only 10 percent of Hispanics surveyed say immigration policy is this country's most important concern to them, ranking well behind the economy and the war in Iraq.
As Hispanics gain political clout in this country, are they committed to dealing with the illegal alien crisis, border security?
Janet Murguia, the president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza, is my guest tonight, coming to us from Philadelphia, where her group just wrapped up its annual conference yesterday.
Janet, good to have you with us.
JANET MURGUIA, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA: Nice to see you there, Lou.
DOBBS: You -- your voice sounds a little husky. It sounds like you might have been doing a little talking over the last few days.
MURGUIA: Just a little bit, yes.
DOBBS: Well, we thank you for straining it even further and it's great to have you here. You heard from the heads of the Democratic National Committee, the Republican National Committee and I thought it was interesting that -- your quote that no one party owns the Hispanic vote in this country.
Why did you say that?
MURGUIA: Well, I just think it's true and it's one of the things that we're seeing increasingly as Hispanics gain political influence. As they're more and more are going to the polls, we're seeing that they look at the issues and the substance and record of candidates. And I think any stereotypes or labels about where Hispanics have been in the past, just don't -- no longer apply.
DOBBS: It's a new world and -- in so many ways. And if there are stereotypes of any kind for any group of people in this country, those stereotypes have survived what is now ancient history.
I want to talk to you about something that Democratic National Committee Howard Dean said and if I could, show you and read this as well to our viewers.
"It is not a moral value to scapegoat undocumented immigrants. President Bush won't stand up to the anti- immigrant forces in his own party... the president's absolute lack of leadership on this issue has caused an atmosphere of hostility and fear."
What was the reaction at your conference to that kind of statement from Howard Dean?
MURGUIA: Well, I think there are individuals, there's a lot of folks in the community who are worried about all Hispanics being painted in a picture of illegal immigration. And the fact of the matter is, we very much are proud of the roots that we have as immigrants, many in our community; many over several generations; many recent generations.
DOBBS: Sure.
MURGUIA: And I think we don't like to see Hispanics painted in a broad picture in a negative way, tied to illegal immigration.
DOBBS: Yes.
MURGUIA: We recognize that there's a problem there and we want comprehensive immigration reform. I saw your poll earlier said that only 10 percent of the Hispanic community is concerned about immigration.
What we see in poll after poll after poll, is that immigration, while not at the top of everyone's list, it cuts across everyone's list and is consistently a factor, an indicator when they're looking at elected officials or candidates.
DOBBS: Absolutely. And the fact is, we've seen now just a number of -- well, I'll asked you what the reaction was in your conference. Did you -- did your group find those remarks to be -- is that something you applauded, or something you thought was off base, or just about right?
DOBBS: No. No, I think there are people who do not want to see immigrants seen as scapegoats. And I think people -- it had some resonance there. I'm not sure if that is the path that the -- Howard Dean accused the Republicans taking that path. He's said that in the year 2008 (ph) he thought they may try to use immigrants as scapegoats. I don't think that would be a very smart strategy for the Republicans.
I do know that the Republican Party is divided right now in how they're going to deal with immigration. There are some on the right...
DOBBS: So's the Democratic Party, Janet. MURGUIA: Well, I think so, but I think the question is are they going to make immigrants scapegoats? And if that's the case, I think that would be a very, very bad way to go, because I think it could have a negative backlash.
DOBBS: We're going to have to wrap it up here, Janet, but I can't do so without saying: Now there you go again. You started saying immigrants. And the only issue here is, as far as I know, is illegal immigrants -- right? You and I agree on that don't we?
MURGUIA: Well -- I mean, I know that we want to deal with the immigration system and we know it's broken and we want to fix it and we should get comprehensive immigration reform.
DOBBS: I'm with you. It's just about how we get there.
MURGUIA: That's right.
DOBBS: Janet, come back and we'll talk some more about how to get there.
MURGUIA: OK. Thanks.
DOBBS: Janet Murguia, thank you.
The results of our poll tonight: 40 percent of you say John Roberts is a good choice for the Supreme Court. Now interestingly, 60 percent say you do not. Interesting results.
Now our daily check on how long Judith Miller has been in jail. The Pulitzer-prize-winning "New York Times" reporter has now spent two full weeks, 14 days in prison. There because she refused to reveal her confidential sources in the White House CIA leak case, a story that she never wrote.
Thanks for being with us tonight. Please join us here tomorrow.
The Senate preparing to consider its -- the nomination of Judge Roberts to the Supreme Court. One of the highly influential Gang of 14, Senator Susan Collins, will be my guest.
Attorney David Boies, who represented Al Gore in the 2000 recount, calls Roberts brilliant. He's pretty smart himself. He'll be with us. Please join us.
That's it for us from New York. We thank you for being with us. Good night from New York.
ANDERSON COOPER 360 starts right now. Heidi Collins is there to lead the way -- Heidi?
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
