| In a telling, rather honest reaction to the questioning
by Chris Matthews on Hardball (MSNBC, September 29,
2005), Senator Charles Grassley (R) (generally considered to
be one of the 'good guys' by Christians) and Senator Barbara
Boxer (D) (one of the worst), the following was said.
MATTHEWS: ... David Gregory for
NBC.
I'm joined
right now by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who
voted in favor or Roberts today—he's also a member of the
Judiciary Committee—and by Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer
of California, who voted against Roberts.
Senator
Grassley, do you advise, if the president were listening to
you right now, for him to go a bit to the right or to stay
right on the mark he was with Roberts?
SEN.
CHARLES GRASSLEY ®, IOWA: Well, I think the answer to your
question is, stay on the mark with Roberts, but I think that
that's also to the right, in the sense that at least it's in
the same vein as Rehnquist being right.
MATTHEWS:
So, you believe that—the Judge
Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts, is as conservative as the
late Chief Justice Rehnquist?
GRASSLEY:
Oh, I don't know. But I know
that he handled himself very well and he—and when somebody
tells me that he's going to take no personal agenda to the
bench and that he's going to see everything within the four
corners of the law and the four corners of the facts of the
case and make his judgment just on those things and
consulting with other people on the bench, that's the sort
of justice I think we ought to have, whether it's exactly
like Rehnquist or not.
MATTHEWS:
Let me go to Senator Barbara Boxer of California.
Senator
Boxer, thanks for coming on the program.
You know,
I looked at all the potential candidates for president. Who
knows who is going to announce when it comes down to it.
But you have got four of the five of the Democratic
presidential hopefuls for 2008 voted against Roberts. Biden,
Senator Clinton of New York, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts,
and Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana all voted against him,
while Senator Feingold voted for him. Is this a litmus-test
issue for the Democratic presidential nomination? You have
to be against a guy who's pro-life?
SEN.
BARBARA BOXER (D), CALIFORNIA: Oh, no.
Let me
tell you what is a test for us, and I think a very important
test. And that is, that the Democrats are willing to fight
for the people, fight for their rights, their right to
privacy, their right to be treated equally, their right to
be protected from polluted air and Superfund sites that harm
their kids. That's what we're interested in.
It's not
about how you try to phrase it, you know, liberal, left,
right. It's about...
MATTHEWS:
No, pro-choice or pro-life on abortion rights is how I
phrased it.
BOXER:
... rights and freedoms.
Well,
here's what I believe. You and I don't agree on this issue,
but the bottom line of it is, whether you trust individuals
and families to make decisions or whether you want state
legislatures, you know, getting into your private life. And
the vast majority of the American people trust our
families. And most Democrats do, although some take the
other side.
MATTHEWS:
Well, the reason I asked it is, do you believe that someone
who's pro-life, in other words, opposed to abortion rights,
could be the nominee of the Democratic Party?
BOXER:
Well, wait a minute. I thought we were talking about
Roberts.
Now we are
talking about who could be the nominee.
MATTHEWS:
No, I'm just asking about the voting pattern today. What's
interesting...
BOXER:
Oh, I don't think—I don't think the people would—I think
it's possible, but I think that the voters in the Democratic
Party and, frankly, voters nationwide are pro-choice.
They don't
want to see Roe overturned. Roe was a very modest decision
that gives the woman the right to choose in the very early
stages of the pregnancy. And, thereafter, it balances the
various rights and gives the states the right to interfere
in that decision. But Roe is something that's broadly
supported.
And so I
do think that a Democratic candidates will more than likely
be supportive of Roe.
MATTHEWS:
Let me go to Senator Grassley.
Let me ask
you about this nomination; 22 Democrats voted against it.
Is that what you're going to face automatically against any
nominee? It won't get any smaller than that?
GRASSLEY: Well, not—not just because
of that.
I think that there's a difference
between Republicans and Democrats on this point. Remember
that all but three Republicans voted for Ginsburg, even
though, politically, she was involved in so many things
before she became a judge. We just could not agree with
her. But she was totally qualified.
But we had
a lot of fringe groups on the right
of us who urged us to vote
against her, because maybe one of them would have been that
she was pro-choice, let's say.
We don't have the loyalty to our
fringe groups that I think Democrats have to their fringe
groups, the ACLU and the
consumers union and the environmentalists, etcetera,
etcetera.
MATTHEWS:
Well, why was your vote unanimous today, then?
GRASSLEY:
Well, because of the loyalty of the Democrats to their
fringe groups, as opposed to Republicans, vis-a-vis
Ginsburg, not having that same loyalty to Republican fringe
groups.
MATTHEWS:
But if most people watching this or reading about it in the
papers tomorrow may look and see, well, the Democratic Party
was split 22-22. And the Republican Party was unanimous,
slam-bang, slam-dunk, 55 votes to zero. They would say one
party was regimented and the other party was more
independent-minded.
GRASSLEY:
No, not if you compare Republicans, how we all voted for
Ginsburg, and we were doing it based upon her qualifications
to be a very good judge, even though we disagreed with her
philosophy.
And we
found Judge Roberts to be fully qualified and we voted for
him based upon qualification, as opposed to his personal
philosophy, to which we didn't really find much about, to be
honest with you.
MATTHEWS:
Senator Boxer, you voted against the nomination today. But
many Democrats who are usually very concerned about rights
and the issues you are concerned about voted for him today.
But they
seemed to leave a kind of a message, which was, be careful
the next time, Mr. President.
How do you
read those votes, those 22, some of them very liberal
members, who are concerned about the rights issues you have
raised...
BOXER:
Yes.
MATTHEWS:
... who did vote for him, Senator Leahy, for example,
ranking member?
BOXER:
Absolutely.
And I do
agree that the Democrats, if you look at us in this
particular vote, you see that we went with our conscience.
We went with the bar that we set. Now, I set a certain bar,
and others set a different bar. My bar was, I have to look
into the eyes of my constituents and tell them that I am
positive that their rights and freedoms and liberties will
be protected.
I couldn't
do it, because as Senator Grassley said, we didn't know much
about this nominee. Judge Ginsburg was really an open
book. I mean, it's true that she didn't answer every
question, but her writings were prolific. We knew a lot
more about her.
My
colleagues you asked on the other side had a little bit of a
different bar. Once this became the replacement for
Rehnquist, it was kind of a swap. Probably, Roberts is
going to be like Rehnquist. But this next seat is Sandra
Day O'Connor. So, rather than have the president put up
someone like Roberts, I want him—I hope he does this—if we
want to get America together on the same page, he should
make a nomination of someone just like Sandra Day O'Connor,
someone very mainstream.
MATTHEWS:
Do you expect that will happen?
GRASSLEY:
I would suggest...
BOXER: I
hope so.
And, I
will tell you, Senator Specter suggested to President Bush
that he ask Justice O'Connor to stay on the bench through
this term, and that she would be willing to do so.
MATTHEWS:
Right.
BOXER: If
we really want to bring ourselves together, wow, this would
be so good for our country right now, as we battle on so
many other fronts.
MATTHEWS:
Do you think that will happen?
BOXER: I
wish it would. I don't think so. But I wish it would.
MATTHEWS:
I wonder. I don't think the president is too happy with
Sandra Day O'Connor's voting record.
Anyway,
thank you very much, Senators.
BOXER:
Well...
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS:
Senator Charles Grassley and Senator Barbara Boxer.
Coming up,
one—one more vacancy to fill on the Supreme Court. Who
might President Bush choose to replace Justice O'Connor? We
will preview that fight in a moment with Pat Buchanan and
David Gergen.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9542323/ |
