Return to Transcripts main page
Live From...
Roberts Meets with Congressional Leaders; Upcoming Supreme Court Docket Addresses Some Key Issues; 9/11 Hijacker's Father Supports London Bombings
Aired July 20, 2005 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, HOST: The president makes his pick. Now the grilling begins for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. We're live from Capitol Hill.
CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Chris Lawrence live in South Padres Island, Texas. And I'll tell you why residents here feel like they dodged a bullet even as the wind and the rain keeps pounding the island.
JACQUI JERAS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: I'm Jacqui Jeras in the CNN Weather Center. We'll have the latest on where Emily is going and look at all these tornado warnings. We'll bring them to you, coming up.
PHILLIPS: From the CNN Center in Atlanta, I'm Kyra Phillips. CNN's LIVE FROM starts right now.
With his nomination secured, the president's pick to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court is hard at work courting senators for support. Judge John Roberts is due on Capitol Hill any moment to meet with top lawmakers who ultimately will decide whether he's the man who will replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
President Bush today reiterated that Roberts is more than qualified for the job and urged senators to act quickly on his nomination.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He will strictly apply the Constitution and laws. He will not legislate from the bench. I urge the Senate to rise to the occasion to provide a fair and civil process and to have Judge Roberts in place before the next court session begins on October the 3rd.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: Let's get the latest reaction from Capitol Hill. For that, of course, we turn to our congressional correspondent, Joe Johns, who I know has been tracking every move that John Roberts is making right now on the Hill.
Hi, Joe.
JOE JOHNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Kyra. That's for sure. We are tracking him and be glad to see him, too.
A lot of things, obviously, going on here on Capitol Hill today. Among them, Judge Roberts is expected to meet with some top members of the United States Senate, Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democrat, among them. He's the ranking Democrat on the judicial committee, which will get a first crack at this nomination.
We do expect these to be pretty much cordial meetings. Don't expect a whole lot of substance in the weeks ahead, though. That's when, behind the scenes, the staff really starts digging things up, which will be presented in form of questions to the nominee, either in a nomination hearing or perhaps in a letter of some sort that he can reply in writing.
So this is a long process, with a view toward trying to get him on the bench by October 3rd, Kyra.
PHILLIPS: All right. Let's sort of take our viewers, Joe, through the process from this point to the actual hearings. Of course, we know who his sponsor is now, Fred Thompson.
JOHNS: That's right, Fred Thompson, a movie star, very well known on "Law & Order" on NBC, among other places. Also, a United States senator before all of that. He is going to be the person who essentially shepherds through or tries to shepherd through the nominee.
He's an individual who is well known to members of the United States Senate and can get them on the phone. He can do the face-to- face contact with the elected officials on Capitol Hill regarding the nomination, Kyra.
PHILLIPS: And the bar weighs in also.
JOHNS: Say that again?
PHILLIPS: And the bar weighs in, also.
JOHNS: Right. The American Bar Association weighs in. They certainly have a big say. They create, of course, a number of judicial standards. Also, standards for lawyers in general, model standards that are followed around the country. And their recommendation is generally taken very seriously on Capitol Hill, although it is not a bar to a judge getting on the bench.
PHILLIPS: And then the interest groups, that plays in also at the same time, right?
JOHNS: Yes. Interest groups have already weighed in on both sides. Of course, a number of liberal interest groups are already questioning whether he is the right man for the job, some comparing him, of course, to Scalia, who was not well liked among liberals.
Meanwhile, conservatives are bringing the push back, saying this is a nominee who ought to get a fair hearing. Of course, there you see one example. I believe that's NARAL America, a big demonstration outside the Supreme Court today. They, of course, have put out a statement partially critical of this nominee. A lot of people say it's too soon to judge about him, Kyra.
PHILLIPS: All right. And of course we'll be monitoring all the various issues that come up and the battles among senators during these hearings. But after the hearings, the judiciary committee votes. And then the nomination is sent to the full Senate, right?
JOHNS: Well, generally that's what happens. But the fact of the matter is, you can have a vote to recommend the nomination to the full Senate. You can also have a recommendation, essentially a negative recommendation, if you will. And you can have no recommendation at all.
There are other ways, of course, that this nominee can be brought up on the floor of the United States Senate, even if, for some reason, the committee is not able to decide.
But it's also important to note that this nominee has made it through the United States Senate before and fairly recently. Only within the last two or three years he was confirmed for the second highest court in the United States. That's the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, where he's been serving now for the past couple of years.
PHILLIPS: And he basically got through that unscathed, right? I mean, he cleared the FBI checks, all the various background checks. So the chances of problems rising within a couple of years are pretty slim, right?
JOHNS: Well, you would think so, but a lot of people on Capitol Hill have said over the past 12, 14 hours or so, that there's a completely different standard for a judge going to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and a United States Supreme Court justice.
He's going to get closer scrutiny, closer review. They're going to go into his record to a much greater extent, perhaps, than they did during the confirmation process a couple years ago.
PHILLIPS: All right. Our Joe Johns, congressional correspondent. Also has his law degree. He knows this like the back of his hand. We'll be talking to you more, Joe. Thank you.
JOHNS: Thanks, Kyra.
PHILLIPS: The stakes in the selection process couldn't be higher. If confirmed, Judge Roberts would have a voice on some of the most contentious issues facing America.
CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley takes a look now at what the nomination could mean for the upcoming court term.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Despite the pre- nomination hype and hoopla and no matter what you heard, Roe v. Wade is not on the Supreme Court docket this fall. Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood is, a New Hampshire case dealing with parental notification when a minor plans an abortion.
The right to die is not on the Supreme Court docket this fall. But Gonzales v. Oregon is, a case involving Oregon doctors assisting suicides with federally controlled drugs.
Both cases move around the edges of the most heated issues of our time, life and death. The right to an abortion. The right to die.
Should John Roberts be confirmed, both cases will be watched for what they signal about him and what they bode for the country.
Certainly, Roberts is not what liberals had hoped for. They set Sandra Day O'Connor as the bar, a moderate whose vote was pivotal in an otherwise evenly divided court.
Friends indicate Roberts is a conservative. His political contributions indicate he's Republican, but there is little in his two years on the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that hints at how he would vote on either the New Hampshire or Oregon cases.
The paper trail is bits of confetti. A brief Roberts co-authored while serving as deputy solicitor general. "We continue to believe," it reads, "that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."
During his 2003 confirmation hearings for the appellate court, Roberts explained those words were that of a lawyer advocating for his client. He went on to say, "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
Interesting but not definitive. As an appellate court judge, Roberts' job is to uphold law. The Supreme Court can reconsider law.
Candy Crowley, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIPS: With a view of Judge Roberts' positions on paper, we know relatively little about where he stands on those issues, but we can gain some valuable insight from when Roberts stood before the Senate just two years ago ahead of his confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Here's how Roberts responded when asked if he could comment -- or commit, rather, to a new role and make impartial decisions required of a judge.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN ROBERTS, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: 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, whether he agrees with it or disagrees with it, and bound to apply the rule of law in cases, whether there's applicable Supreme Court precedent or not. Personal views, personal ideology, those have no role to play whatever.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: Well, what questions should senators ask Judge Roberts about this time around? Will it all hinge on Roe v. Wade or are other issues worth exploring? We're going to get ideas from some insiders later this hour, so stay tuned.
Now turning to our other big story, Hurricane Emily. The storm roared ashore in southern Texas and northern Mexico earlier today. The Category 3 hurricane blew ashore near San Fernando, Mexico, bringing heavy wind and gusty winds to south Texas.
CNN's Chris Lawrence rode out the storm there on South Padre Island.
What's it like now, Chris?
LAWRENCE: Kyra, we're still getting some of the gust, bringing a lot of rain, almost raining sideways at times. But the gusts aren't nearly as strong as they were a few hours ago, which is good news for a lot of folks here.
At one point there were nearly 30,000 people without power across the Rio Grande Valley. They've cut -- they've knocked that down about 6,000 people. The crews have been out working.
We just took a ride the street. There are several power lines down right here on South Padre Island, as well as some broken windows, a few things torn off of signs and smashed into the front of buildings but overall, no major, major structural damage, very good news for a lot of the people living here.
Take you out here. We can show you a little bit of what the ocean looks like. Really still churning up a lot out there. Not quite the waves we saw early crashing almost right up against us but you can kind of look out in the distance and see that buoy that's out there. That started about four miles away. It was two miles south and two miles out to sea. The ships use it to navigate in. The storm was so powerful at one point it literally dragged that buoy, you can see, almost close to shore.
The storm has been bringing in some rain. This area has been under a drought condition for some time. So a lot of residents are telling us, well, if the storm brings three to four inches, that will a good thing. If it brings seven, eight inches of rain, then they're going to be very worried about flooding.
And my colleague, meteorologist Jacqui Jeras has been tracking this storm for more than a week now. And Jacqui, a lot of the folks here kind of wondering, you know, how many longer will the storm sit on top of us? How much longer will we still see these bands? JERAS: Well, 24 hours or less, Chris. And that's at best. And all that heavy rain as well on down to your south for the most part. So that's the good news. At least that's where the worst of the wet weather is.
In fact, this band right you can see right along the Rio River, that's dumping about two to three inches of rain per hour. And there you can see Brownsville. We're talking maybe a couple of inches of rainfall total. I think it should be around five inches or less. So that's some great news. As you mentioned, this area already in drought conditions, so the rainfall is actually welcome.
What's not so welcome are the tornadoes. And we have had a plethora of tornado reports all throughout the morning. Several of them have touched down and caused some damage, as well.
We're going to zoom in and show you where we have the watch in effect. Includes much of southern Texas, just north of Corpus Christi all the way down to Brownsville and then over towards Laredo.
And look at all the red highlighted counties. Those are all the tornado warnings which are in effect right now. Duval and Jim Wells County under tornado warnings. And local law enforcement reported a tornado over west central Jim Wells County about near Highway 281. That's moving northwest at 25 miles per hour.
Also, a possible tornado being reported in Bee, Live Oak, in San Patricio County. That was six miles south of Skidmore, also reported by a local law enforcement.
And then warnings for Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, Brooks, DeWitt, and Kennedy counties. And those are all radar indicated tornadoes.
Forecast track, as it continues to weaken as it moves inland. In fact, I think we'll see very little left of Emily in about 24 to 36 hours.
CNN LIVE FROM continues right after a break.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS (voice-over): Next on LIVE FROM, like father, like son. Mohamed Atta flew a plane into the World Trade Center on September 11. Wait until you hear what his father told CNN about recent and future terror attacks.
Later on LIVE FROM, listen closely. Capturing the sound of one of the most destructive earthquakes the world has ever seen.
Also ahead, the president's supreme choice. A former federal judge reveals the sort of personal probing John Roberts will be subjected to in the weeks ahead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) PHILLIPS: Calls for much stricter security measures in Britain even as that country continues to reel from the deadly train bombings. Pictures now of an eerie echo of those attacks as a mangled subway car, shrouded in plastic sheeting is hoisted from the London Underground. Seven people died aboard this car in the blast near Edgware and investigators will now search for more evidence.
Today in parliament members discussed anti-terror measures and renewed a push for some proposals made before the attacks. Prime Minister Tony Blair also calling for an international conference to tackle Muslim radicalism around the world.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: I do think that we need to be very, very clear about this. Though the terrorists will use all sorts of issues to justify what they do, the roots of it do go deep. They're often not to be found in this country alone. And therefore, international action is also necessary.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: In Pakistan, President Pervez Musharraf orders a nationwide crackdown on banned jihadi and extremist groups. And now more than 200 people have been arrested.
One official at the Pakistani government says the arrests have nothing to do with the July 7 attacks. Another official says British investigators have asked the government to pick up an undisclosed number of men for questioning in the bombings and have also turned over cell phone and hard line numbers to be checked out.
Now no Egypt where the phrase "like father like son" is taking on new and chilling meaning. The father of 9/11 mastermind Mohamed Atta says he supported the attacks on London and he predicts more.
CNN's Chris Burns reports from Cairo.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRIS BURNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was in a Cairo neighborhood not far from the Great Pyramids that September 11 ringleader and pilot Mohamed Atta grew up.
Today we come here to the building where Atta lived with his family, not in poverty but in a relatively middle class surrounding, his father an attorney. However, when CNN spoke to his father, Mohamed El-Amir, his reaction to the attacks in London was as extreme as against. He praised the bombings.
(on camera) Atta's father told CNN that the 9/11 and London attacks were only the beginning. He refused an on-camera interview unless we paid him $5,000. That, he said, would be enough to pay for another bombing in London.
(voice-over) CNN declined to pay and left. It's hard to know how many people here share Atta's father's views. A couple of students we spoke to near their Cairo campus did not express hostility.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It gives us a bad figure. We don't need to have another negative stereotypes about the Arabs.
BURNS: Some here see extremism as an outgrowth of anger over hardline one-party rule here and high unemployment, estimated at 25 percent.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's social problems reflects on the society. Some people don't have work, don't have jobs. They have -- their minds are empty. Nothing to do. They begin to go for religion. They think of religion wrongs.
BURNS (on camera): How do you stop this from continuing?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Education. First, first, education.
BURNS (voice-over): Mohamed Atta's father told us there will be many more Mohamed Attas. It may take a lot of education to fight the breakdown of civil society here in one of the cradles of civilization.
Chris Burns, CNN, Cairo.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIPS: Straight now to the White House briefing room, Scott McClellan talking to reporters about Judge John Roberts, the president's pick to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.
SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president has nominated a judge that the American people can be proud of. And it's important that we continue to move forward in a timely manner and that he receives fair treatment and a reasonable timetable for action so that he can be in place when the court reconvenes in October.
And with that, I will be glad to go to your questions.
QUESTION: Scott, in his consultations with senators, did the president discuss the issue of whether it was fair game for them to question a Supreme Court nominee on specific issues that might arise, sensitive issues like abortion and affirmative action?
MCCLELLAN: In terms of the role of the Senate, the Senate has a very important role to play.
The president has fulfilled his constitutional responsibility of nominating someone to the bench that represents mainstream American values and represents the mainstream of American laws.
He is someone who has served with distinction on the court over the past two years -- what many people refer to as the second-highest court our land -- and he is someone who has a very long and praiseworthy record as an appellate lawyer. He is someone that brings great intellect and legal ability to the position. He is someone of unquestioned integrity. That's why the president pointed out in his remarks last night that more than 150 bipartisan members of the D.C. bar praised him when he was appointed to the D.C. Circuit.
MCCLELLAN: Back in 2002 I believe was when that letter went to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Now, in terms of -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. You were going to...
QUESTION: The question was does the president feel that there are issues that are off-limits or can senators ask any question they want?
MCCLELLAN: Senators have the right and a responsibility to ask questions and ask tough questions. That's their role.
Now, I think that people recognize that someone who is serving on our nation's highest court or any court ought to be impartial and open-minded.
That's the type of individual that Judge Roberts is. He is someone who has shown that he's impartial and fair. He wants to give people a fair hearing and let the case be heard.
So I don't think anyone expects people to prejudge cases that could come before them.
The role of a judge is to listen to the facts and make decisions based on the law, and that's exactly the type of person that Judge Roberts is. He is someone who believes in interpreting the law and not legislating from the bench.
And I think if you look back, there has been a tradition in the Senate where other nominees to our nation's highest court have not gotten into discussing issues that may come before the court that they may have to decide. That would be prejudging cases before they have heard them.
And I think the American people want to see someone who is impartial and fair and that will faithfully interpret our Constitution and our laws.
QUESTION: Isn't that overly limiting?
For instance, if a judge, like Judge Roberts, who in his previous confirmation hearing indicated that he felt Roe v. Wade was settled law, as an appellate judge he's limited by what is the Supreme Court decision.
But as a justice, he would wield so much more power and have the authority to reverse settled law, essentially. So why shouldn't, on matters like abortion, Judge Roberts be more forthcoming? And why is it unreasonable to expect people to try to understand what his views may be? MCCLELLAN: I think the American people want people on our court that are going to faithfully interpret our Constitution and our laws; people that are going to be impartial and open-minded and listen to the facts and then apply the law based on those facts; someone that will decide cases based on law and based on the merits.
QUESTION: Fine, that may be future cases.
QUESTION: But why shouldn't the candidate or nominee not comment on the Supreme Court's holding in a particular case that is past law and be willing to explain his philosophy and, you know, his views on a law as it was applied previously?
MCCLELLAN: Because judges have an obligation to apply the law, not their personal views. They are there to interpret laws and not try to legislate from the bench. A judge should decide cases based on the law and based on the facts, and that's the type of individual that I think the American people want.
Now, in terms of questions about specific case that may come before the court, I think everybody recognizes that there's been a precedent set over the years in the United States Senate.
If you go back and look at the two most recent nominees to the Supreme Court, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, they were nominated by President Clinton, and there were many in the United States Senate that did not share some of their political views that they had held over the years. They recognized, though, that they were qualified individuals. They moved forward in a thoughtful and timely manner to approve those nominations.
And I think that if you look back at those hearings, and hearings even before that, that there are a number of instances where individuals had been asked their views on cases that might come before them but they have said, "We're not going to prejudge cases before we have heard them. We will listen to the facts. We will apply the law. We will look at precedent." And I think that's an important precedent to keep in mind.
QUESTION: One more on this: When the president met with Judge Roberts, did he discuss any issues in particular, any hot-button social issues with him to understand his views on them?
MCCLELLAN: The president is not the one that has the litmus test. The president has always made clear that he doesn't have a litmus test and he's not someone who tends to get into questions with potential nominees to the bench about issues of those nature.
What he looks at is their judicial temperament and how they apply the law. Do they apply the law by faithfully interpreting our Constitution and...
QUESTION: You're not saying yes or no, he did or he didn't.
MCCLELLAN: I said the president has made very clear that he doesn't give a litmus test. QUESTION: I'm not asking whether they had a litmus test, I'm asking if they discussed issues.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: So you don't know or you won't say?
MCCLELLAN: I don't think the president has made his views very clear publicly that he's not the one that has a litmus test. And those are not questions that he gets into with nominees. He stated that before publicly.
I didn't listen to every conversation that they have, but if there's anything else to add, I will, but I think he's already publicly said that he does not get into litmus test questions with potential nominees.
QUESTION: Following quickly on that did Karl Rove or Dick Cheney or anybody else in the administration ask those hot-button questions?
MCCLELLAN: This is a decision made by the president. Obviously, there are a number of key advisers that have a role in the nomination process, but these were issues that the president addresses.
QUESTION: (inaudible) on those hot-button issues, like abortion...
MCCLELLAN: I haven't heard any discussion about that whatsoever, and I do not -- I have no knowledge of that whatsoever. It's not the way that the president has tended to approach nominations to the bench. He does not have a litmus test. Others may have litmus tests but the president said, "I don't have litmus tests." And he's publicly said before those are not questions that he gets into.
QUESTION: Justice O'Connor is quoted as saying that Roberts is, quote, "good in every way except he's not a woman."
QUESTION: What's the president's reaction to that comment?
MCCLELLAN: Who said that?
QUESTION: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
MCCLELLAN: Well, Justice O'Connor is someone that the president has the highest regard for. He has great respect for Justice O'Connor. And she has served with great distinction. We appreciate the job that she has done.
The president has a long record of nominating people to the bench and to other positions within government from all walks of life. And the president considered a diverse group of individuals for the court. The president made the decision that Judge Roberts was the best person for this position. And that's what he based his decision on.
QUESTION: So were there no qualified women?
MCCLELLAN: There were a number of qualified women that the president considered. He considered a diverse group of individuals.
The president believes that Judge Roberts is the best person to fill this position, and that's why he nominated him.
QUESTION: And what made him more ideal than the women the president...
MCCLELLAN: Well, I think you should look at the qualities that he possesses.
He is someone of unquestioned integrity who believes in faithfully interpreting our Constitution and our laws. He is someone of high intellect and great legal ability. And he is...
QUESTION: And there were not women who met that standard?
MCCLELLAN: No, I didn't say that at all.
He is someone who is exceptionally well qualified. He has impeccable credentials.
Go back and look at what he has accomplished over the course of his life. He's advocated, on 39 different occasions, before the United States Supreme Court.
He is one of our nation's top appellate lawyers. He's someone who clerked for Judge Rehnquist.
His academic credentials are unquestioned. His background at Harvard and then Harvard Law School, graduating in three years in undergraduate and then going on to graduate from Harvard Law School with high honors.
He is someone who has been recognized by Democrats and Republicans alike as someone who possesses, quote, "enormous skills, unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness."
MCCLELLAN: I think that's something people will look for in a judge: fair-mindedness.
In fact, those bipartisan members of the D.C. Bar who signed the letter said he is, quote, "one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers."
So I think all you have to do is look at his credentials to see how highly qualified he is for this position. And I think that if you look back at the comments from members on both sides of the aisle, they recognize that as well.
QUESTION: You now have a nominee for the Supreme Court up on the Hill at the same time that another key nominee has stagnated up there, John Bolton. So does this change the way that you try and move forward on the Bolton nomination?
Because if you guys do a recess appointment on Bolton, I mean, that would probably anger people on the Hill, which could affect the Supreme Court nomination.
MCCLELLAN: The president continues to believe that John Bolton ought to have an up-or-down vote. That remains our position.
QUESTION: But that's not happening. So how are you going to move forward on that?
MCCLELLAN: Again, we continue to believe he should have an up- or-down vote.
I wouldn't necessarily connect the two. We believe that all nominees should -- the Senate should move forward on all nominees.
QUESTION: What was the obligation, if there was any, for the White House to pick someone at least along the lines of Sandra Day O'Connor's judicial philosophy? Moderate conservative. She upheld Roe v. Wade. He is totally the opposite.
What was the obligation that the White House had at any point to try to fill that, not necessarily being a woman, but try to fill that judicial philosophy?
MCCLELLAN: I think the obligation the president has is to appoint someone who he believes is the best person for the position and someone who meets the criteria that he outlined.
The criteria that he outlined was someone who will faithfully interpret our Constitution and our laws, someone of integrity, someone who brings great legal ability to the position.
And I think all you have to do is look at Judge Roberts' lifetime of achievement to recognize that he meets all those criteria.
And the president has an obligation to the American people to consider a diverse group of individuals, and he did.
QUESTION: Some are concerned with this potential next pick the president has with the Supreme Court that the scales will definitely be tipped, the judicial scales will be tipped, to the conservative side more so instead of balancing the scales. Is that...
MCCLELLAN: I don't think that's ever been a standard for the Supreme Court. If you go back and look, I mean, look at when President Clinton nominated a replacement for Justice White; he nominated Justice Ginsburg. I think people would look at those as people with very different ideological views.
QUESTION: You're not looking at balancing the scales; it's more about the conservative lean?
MCCLELLAN: The president is going to continue to appoint or nominate people to the bench that meet the criteria I just outlined. He believes that we ought to nominate people to the bench who...
PHILLIPS: White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan taking questions from reporters there. Of course the main topic of discussion, the nomination of Judge John Roberts, the president's pick to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court and replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Of course standing by the president's pick. And we're talking about just two years ago, too, that John Roberts faced confirmation hearings after his nomination to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. And many people wonder if he'll be asked similar questions after his nomination to the supreme court.
Now what might we see in Roberts' confirmation hearing? Let's ask CNN contributor and former Republican Congressman Bob Barr, who is a Judiciary Committee member, and former Democratic Congressman Tim Roemer, who served on the House Intelligence Committee. Both of them are in Washington, joining us live today.
Gentleman, thank you so much for being with me.
TIM ROEMER, FMR. U.S. REP.: Great to be here.
BOB BARR, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Always a pleasure, Kyra.
PHILLIPS: Always a pleasure.
All right, obviously we know Scott McClellan is going to come forward and say nothing but positive things about the president's pick. But let's get into what is next for this nominee.
Bob, why don't we start with you. You were on the Judiciary Committee, if you were an acting senator right now on that committee, what would be the first couple of questions you would fire off to this nominee?
BARR: Well, I would presume that he's a very, very nice individual, he's very affable, he's very bright, if not brilliant. And what I would want to do is sort of skip over all of that stuff, not focus on particular opinions, or even particular substantive matters for two reasons. One, he's not likely to answer a lot of that, and that's not really the purpose of having a hearing anyway. What I would really want to delve into is get into the weeds of his philosophy of what is the role of the court, what is the role of the executive branch, what is the role of the legislative branch to make sure that he really understands such basic concepts, the separation of powers, so that we don't wind up four or five or 10 years from now, if he's confirmed, to find out that he is a big government lawyer, for example, and wants to give the government all sorts of powers that it ought not to have under the way our government was initially set up and intended to run.
PHILLIPS: Congressman Roemer, how do you feel about that? And I guess maybe on that note, what Bob brings up, I was looking back at testimony from when Senator Patrick Leahy had asked Roberts about taking a political or ideological view when it comes to making a decision. He pretty much came forward in his answer and said the legal answer is always the right way to go, and not being political correct or showing a personal view. So would you ask the same question, congressman, that Bob Barr would ask?
ROEMER: I think I would ask some slightly different questions, Kyra. First of all, the American people take these kinds of appointments very seriously. They take seriously voting for a president that serves for four years or a senator that votes and represents them for six years. This may be an appointment of 20 or 30 years on the Supreme Court, something looking at the same kind of tenure John Marshall had in the 1800s. We know he had a huge impact. So what kind of questions I think might be fair to ask.
Certainly there will be questions asked about abortion. I think Judge Roberts has sat as an advocate for the Bush administration, that first of all, he would think that that should be overturned and overruled. And then in his confirmation hearing in 2003 for the court, he certainly sits on now, he says there was nothing in his personal opinion that would prevent him from upholding the law. There will be a Supreme Court decision on parental notification. How might he look at that? What are the personal foundations for his decision there? That might be a series of questions on a very important issues to the American people.
Another one, Kyra, would be on the O'Connor standard. And Many people are looking at how Judge O'Connor, Justice O'Connor worked with moderates on the liberal and conservative side. She was often the swing vote. How did Judge Roberts work on the circuit court with moderates on either side of this issue?
And, finally, as somebody very interested in national security issues, I think both civil liberties issues will be key to ask him about, how he might look at enforcing the Patriot Act, where Congress has overstepped its bounds or not overstepped its bounds, what triggers him as a Supreme Court justice for the Supreme Court to weigh in in some of these areas where Congress has either done something right or wrong.
PHILLIPS: Congressman Roemer, you bring up the Patriot Act. Bob Barr, this is something that you have very strong opinions on. As soon as you said that, I was waiting for Bob to pipe in. Yes, there you. Congressman Roemer is trying to get you going there, Bob.
BARR: Well, if there's one way to, he hit the hot button.
PHILLIPS: Well, should this be a hot button in addition to abortion? So many articles are coming out, and everybody is talking about Roe Versus Wade, and that abortion is going to be -- it's already a polarizing issue for lawmakers, but that this is going to be the central confirmation battle. So no doubt we will see that addressed. But if you had to say pick one or two other issues you definitely want to see addressed, Bob, would it be Patriot Act? Would it be Gitmo? Would it be civil rights?
BARR: Well, and those are all sort of intertwined, Kyra, as you and I have talked about on many occasions.
I'm somewhat distressed with this narrow focus by so many people on the abortion issue. To me, there are much more fundamental issues of judicial philosophy, and they go directly to the point that both you and Tim just made, and that is, what is the role of government in enforcing and upholding the Bill of Rights and all of its parts? Whether it's the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Whether it's the Fourth Amendment right to be free from the government unreasonably intruding on our own privacy. And this is, to me, and I think to many Americans, if they stop and think about it, a very, very very fundamental issue, and there are a lot of ways that you can probe this without committing or trying to get a justice nominee to commit to a particular point of view.
Tim and I, I'm sure, would ask a very similar question to probe the role of government. What does the bill of rights mean? What is the proper standard when you look at the government trying to gather evidence on people?
PHILLIPS: Well, looking at that background and the understanding of the law, I'm just thinking about Senator Tom Harkin, I heard him last night say something when the name was announced, John Roberts, he said, who is this guy? I don't know who this is.
So I'm curious, Congressman Roemer, you know, he's only been serving for a couple of years on this court and hasn't written very much. Are you -- even though he's got incredible credentials and a background and education, are you a little concerned about his life experience?
ROEMER: Well, there's a lot to like about his life experience. He's from my home state of Indiana. Actually, Long Beach, Indiana. He's Catholic. I share that religious affiliation with him. He's got two young children he adopted.
PHILLIPS: Let me ask you...
ROEMER: But this isn't about those things, Kyra. This is about a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court...
PHILLIPS: OK, you just mentioned something interesting.
ROEMER: .. and likability and lifetime appointment should be separated.
PHILLIPS: OK. All right. Point well made. We'll go back there. But you just mentioned something interesting. You said, he's Catholic and your Catholic. Faith. Religious beliefs. Should that -- should he be questioned about that? I mean, this is someone that says, look, I make decisions by the law, not personal views. I haven't heard him say not religious beliefs, but I'm assuming that's going to tie into personal views. I think there would be a lot of people concerned if that was something that was a lot of rallying -- I guess, if a lot of people came forward and said, OK, he's a strong Catholic, so we've got to rally around that and make sure that this happens.
ROEMER: I certainly saw both people rallying around a Catholic candidate in the history books of John F. Kennedy and some people having qualms about that. I think that's a good thing, but I don't think it should be taken for granted or assumed, Kyra, that he shouldn't have tough questions asked. After all, the Supreme Court just had two rulings on where is it appropriate for the Ten Commandments to be displayed in a -- on a courthouse grass area or in a courtroom? What's the intent behind those things, and does intention matter more?
I think senators on both sides of the aisle should ask him this. This goes to the very heart of where is religious life appropriate and expressed in our life today, in the common public square? How is that done? What is his political philosophy on this? He doesn't have to answer specific questions about ruling, but talking about his philosophy, his religion, how that impacts decisions, whether it be abortion or the right to die, the right to life, those are very important questions for him.
PHILLIPS: What do you think about that, Bob?
BARR: There's one word that -- or one phrase that we haven't mentioned here that I think is extremely important, particularly with regard to some of the decisions that Tim just mentioned. Parsing the purpose and the language and the placement of Ten Commandments, for example. And that phrase is common sense.
What I would want to see and what I would probe is to see if this man, who by all accounts is absolutely brilliant and second to none probably in his understanding of the constitution and the legal system and legal process, does he have a grounding in common sense? If he does, then I will feel very comfortable and much more comfortable than if we see somebody who is so concerned about process, who is so concerned about precedent, who is so concerned about language, that he forgets common sense.
PHILLIPS: All right. Tim Roemer, next time we talk, we're going to talk about filibuster. We didn't get to get -- we didn't get that far. But, of course, that question is being asked. Congressman Tim Roemer and also former Republican Congressman Bob Barr, gentlemen, thank you so much.
ROEMER: Look forward to it. Thank you, Kyra.
PHILLIPS: Thank you.
BARR: Thank you.
PHILLIPS: All right. We are expecting -- actually a live picture any moment now with the president's pick to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge John Roberts, along with Senate Majority Leader Senator Bill Frist. We will take that live as soon as they step into Frist's office and sit in those two blue chairs. We're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: Want to take you live now to Senator Bill Frist's office, Senate majority leader. As you can see, by his side -- well, two of his fellow senators, in addition to the president's nominee for the Supreme Court. Let's listen in.
SEN. BILL FIRST (R-TN), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: Good afternoon. I want to formally welcome Judge Roberts to the United States Senate today.
He is obviously an outstanding Supreme Court nominee. He is the best of the best legal minds in America.
We in the United States Senate are beginning on a process that is among our most consequential constitutional responsibilities, of giving advice and consent.
So, Judge Roberts, I do want to welcome you. The United States Senate is ready to go. We look forward to a dignified process, a fair process, a process that treats you, our nominee, with respect.
Let me turn to Mitch and then Arlen for a few opening comments, and then we'd love to have the judge comment as well.
SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Well, as the majority leader indicated, we're very pleased to have Judge Roberts here today. We think this is an outstanding choice on the part of the president.
I noted with interest that you spent some formative years in Indiana, where Kentucky and Indiana squared off in basketball a few times over the years. Obviously, a unique qualification for the Supreme Court; I can see why you were nominated.
We intend to have a respectful process here and confirm you before the first Monday in October. And we welcome you here to the Senate today.
FRIST: Chairman Specter?
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R), PENNSYLVANIA: I was delighted to see the president nominate someone who had the outstanding professional qualifications. Summa cum laude from Harvard College does not come easily, nor does magna cum laude from the law school or being an officer on the review.
SPECTER: And 39 cases argued before the Supreme Court of the United States is exemplary.
The Judiciary Committee is ready to go, flexibly, in August or September. September might be somewhat easier, but whenever the call comes, we are prepared.
I've gone over the matter in detail with the ranking member, Senator Leahy, working out a schedule.
I concur we'll have dignified hearings.
I think that they will be extensive hearings, because there will be many questions which will be raised.
But based on Judge Roberts' qualifications, my instinct is that he'll have the answers.
Welcome.
FRIST: Judge Roberts, again, welcome. And would love for you to say a few comments.
JOHN G. ROBERTS, U.S. SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Thank you. Thank you very much.
I appreciate and respect the constitutional role of the Senate in the appointment process.
And I'm very grateful to the senators for accommodating me and having me over here today just the day after the announcement of the nomination. I'm very grateful for that. Thank you.
FRIST: Thank you. Thank you very much, Judge Roberts.
Thank you all. Appreciate it.
PHILLIPS: Basically, a little formal meet and greet, as we've been telling you, with his nomination secured. The president's pick, as you see here, on the Supreme Court is hard at work courting senators, of course, for support. Judge John Roberts there on Capitol Hill meeting with a lot of top lawmakers. You saw there of course they were in Senator Bill Frist's office, senate majority leader, also next to him Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. You know that that is the committee that of course of course conduct the hearings and be questioning Judge John Roberts when those hearings begin. And also Senator Mitch McConnell there in the room. All positive feedback of course as they are supporting Judge John Roberts as the president's pick.
We're going to take a quick break. We're also monitoring what's happening at the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. We'll take that. We're monitoring that. We'll take that if indeed something arises that we've been talking about today.
(STOCK MARKET REPORT)
PHILLIPS: Fears that the human toll from West Nile Virus might be worse than last year, and one sign is a rapid increase in the number of chickens testing positive for West Nile.
CNN's Casey Wian looks at the problem in California.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: These chickens in Corona, California, are known as sentinels, scattered throughout the area and periodically tested for West Nile virus. During the first six months of this year, local mosquito control officials found just one positive test. But in the latest two-week period, seven chickens tested positive for the potentially deadly virus.
DR. JOANNA ROSALES, N.W. MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONT. DIST.: We are preparing for the worst, because we are underestimating the virus.
WIAN: Last year West Nile killed seven people in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. There were more than 300 non-fatal human cases here and 800 statewide. Now, local officials are worried this year could be even worse, and they're warning the public to take precautions. Those include eliminating standing water in back yards, using mosquito repellent and wearing long sleeved shirts and long pants at dawn and dusk. An abnormally wet winter and hot summer may be contributing to the rapid spread of West Nile.
DR. VICKI KRAMER, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES: The wet winter and spring certainly has created ample habitat for mosquitoes. Now that we have the hot temperatures here, we really have a good mix in terms of West Nile virus transmission.
WIAN: West Nile is spreading rapidly in other California counties as well. And mosquito control officials are beginning to find the virus in more species of animals. Health officials say they're doing everything they can to slow the spread. Now they're calling on the public to do its part. West Nile virus first appeared in the United States in 1999, in New York. It spread rapidly and by 2003, there were nearly 10,000 cases and 264 deaths.
WIAN (on camera): To date, 650 people have been killed by West Nile virus nationally. But since 2003, aggressive mosquito eradication efforts have dramatically reduced the yearly numbers in most parts of the country. However here in the West, officials fear West Nile Virus may still be on the rise.
Casey Wian, CNN, Corona, California.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
