Summary

JUDGE JOHN ROBERTS HEARING The Senate Judiciary Committee continues its 4th day of hearings on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roberts Hearing / Outside witnesses Senate Judiciary continues with Roberts hearing--- begins with twenty minutes from Senator Patrick Leahy, then Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Russell Feingold, Senator Charles Schumer, Senator Richard Durbin, then a closed session from 11a-11:30am Roberts is excused and the hearing reconvenes at 11:30am for 6 panels of outside witnesses (1p-2p break scheduled) 18:00:028 title ix guidelines aren't for judges but members of congress it is members of congress bo who decide on the law and give the executive branch the authority implement he regulations 18:00:176 should he be confirmed as chief justice, judge roberts' role would be the interpret the law and aused indicate disputes containing the laws that you are going to pass thank you very much >> mr specter: thank you our next witness is professor robert reich 18:00:374 had been prove of social and economic policy at brandeis until he joined the university of california he served as secretary of labor during president clinton's first administration subsequently published a book 18:00:536 entitled locked in the cabinet before taking office during the clinton administration was a member of the faculty of harvard's kennedy school of government ba from dartmouth, master's tram from -- law degree from 18:01:127 yale law school name pleased to see you again, professor lish, i have -- i have questions left over which you didn't answer when i questioned you when you were secretary of health and human 18:01:272 services which we will get to promptly mike mike that's because i was secretary of labor mr chairman and members of the committee >> mr specter: no one der i couldn't understand what you were doing >> mr reich: i have prepared 18:01:420 testimony with permission i'll submit it for the record there's been much discussion in these hearings about social values, and i want to put on the table something that maybe has not received quite the attention it should, and that is economic values 18:02:001 and i don't think i have to tell the committee what almost 18:02:038 everybody knows, and that is that wealth and income and the power that come from wealth and income are more concentrated in fewer hands as proportion of the population today than we have seen since them 1920s by some measures since the 18:02:199 guilded age of the 1890s now if this doesn't present issues of economic morality, i don't know what does and it comes to the forewith regard to congress and the supreme court and a whole series of protections 18:02:343 some of them very old, some of them going back to the 1920s and 30s and 40s having to do with workplace protections unemployment insurance, interpretations of social security, interpretations of minimum wage 18:02:513 the ways in which we treat our working people in this country now, i heard, judge roberts, at least to the best of my memory, in the last couple of days, tell this committee that he would rule on the side of the 18:03:079 little guy when the constitution told him to and he would rule on the side of the big guy when the constitution was on the side of the big guy now i assume he's talking about little guy and big guy in figurative terms, in terms of economic power and wealth and 18:03:229 status in society but last time i looked at my constitution, it doesn't say anything about average working people or big guys or little guys at all in fact there have been times in our history where the supreme court came down consistently on the side of 18:03:395 wealth and power and against little guys against average working people up until 1937, for example, the supreme court threw out a lot of state and federal regulation that was intended to help average working people 18:03:597 judge roberts has a record, not much of a record, something of a gamble for all of us, but let me reveal a little bit of auto by graph cal detail we didn't 18:04:153 know, but do i not to burnish my republican credentials, but to tell you that i know something about a particular institution i started out my life in government as assistant to the solicitor general, i had a chance to brief and argue supreme court cases 18:04:292 and my first boss was robert bork and in those days, the solicitor general's office regarded its primary client as the supreme court, not the administration 18:04:442 it wasn't until the mid-1980s that there was a new position created in the solicitor general's office called the special deputy it was a political position, political deputy and it was about values that political deputy was there for a very simple reason, to 18:05:007 make sure that the solicitor general's office had briefs and argues before the supreme court were in consistent the values of the president in terms of social values, economic values, whatever have you i read justice -- judge 18:05:201 roberts' memoranda and there's no question in my mind, having had that experience in the solicitor general's office, that he came down consistently, uniformly on the side of very 18:05:337 conservative economic and social values i'm not criticizing him for it, but i think it's very important you know that here in this hearing he said for example he refused to affirm wickert against fill 18:05:528 ore you know as well as do i over the last ten years, more than 30 times the supreme court has stuck down in whole or in part 18:06:037 laws of this congress ten of those, at least, have been based on the commerce clause wickert against fillborn in my knowledge and experience is a cornerstone of building the protections of a strong federal 18:06:190 government for average working people his refusal to affirm that, i find, personally, quite troubling there has been reference also to the hap hapless toad well, we know he was looking 18:06:358 for other ways to find perhaps that endangered species act constitutional, but look at that logic in that particular case when he says congress didn't really have authority under the commerce clause to protect the 18:06:524 life of a hapless toad that for reasons of its own lives its entire life in california, obviously people are not toads, at least the last time i looked, but what about 18:07:059 protecting the job safety of a hapless retail worker who for reasons of her own lives her entire life in pennsylvania or a hapless coal miner who lives his entire life in west 18:07:200 virginia let me finally say this one justice can make all the difference to our entire system of federal protections one justice the court did change its mind in 1937, as i said before, and it stopped striking down laws 18:07:364 that protected people, average working people, not because as popularly understood fdr threatened to pack the court the court made that switch before it even new fdr had a court packing scheme >> mr specter: could you 18:07:519 summarize your testimony in at this point >> mr reich: the justice who made that switch was justice roberts just owen roberts it would be a cruel joke of history if a namesake almost 60 years later turned the court 18:08:121 backward thank you >> mr specter: thank you very much, professor reich our next witness is ran a dale polakoff, president of the rabb inickal council of america 18:08:275 whose membership consists of more than 1,000 ordained rabbis faculty member of the northshore hebrew academy, graduate of yeshiva where he majored in psychology 18:08:410 testimony >> mr polakoff: thank you mr chairman and other distinguished members of the committee good afternoon or perhaps good evening thank you for inviting me to participate in these hearings rabin cal council of america includes congressional ran 18:09:001 buys, teachers, military chaplains, some of whom serve today in iraq, afghanistan and other areas of the world, health care chaplains, organizational professionals and others i'm here this afternoon to offer a statement of support 18:09:148 for the nomination of judge roberts to be chief justice of the united states my remarks about judge roberts begin this afternoon with broad brush strokes because the desired qualities of judges within the jewish tradition are defined in just such broad 18:09:325 brush strokes we are enenjoined to use principled judges who refrain from showing favoritism to individuals and causes we seek judges who are people of truth, whose words and decisions inspire confidence in 18:09:481 those who rely upon them our tradition recognizes the tremendous responsibility born by those who judge others and season their dispensing of truth and justice a divine partnership enjoying the 18:10:052 continuation of a moral society at a time when many in our society seek spiritual strength, i am certain these broad values are also the values embraced by this great country in which we are privileged to live values principle, values of 18:10:228 truth and values of responsibility are part of the foundation of religious ethics upon which our nation has been built and i am confident judge roberts represents the embodiment of such values within these broad brush strokes, though are many hues 18:10:422 of color it is the responsibility of this committee to try to determine how judge roberts sees those colors as a represent of of the clergy of a minority faith community, i and my colleagues are also interested in an area of 18:10:576 sellinal importance to us, namely the relationship between religion and state in society in an effort to gain insight into junction' understanding of that relationship as defined by the free exercise and first 18:11:140 amendment, we were encouraged by a men randa written to fred fielding on august 20, 1984 regarding remarks to be made by president reagan to a prayer breakfast then counsel roberts 18:11:310 suggested that the references to church or churches be changed to references to religion or religions he noted that, and i quote, many of our citizens do not worship in churches, but in 18:11:462 temples and mosques, end quote we believe that this comment demonstrates a sensitivity and appreciation for the diversity of religious faith in america, and we hope is a harbinger such judge roberts view in this crucial area 18:12:010 there are those who suggest 18:12:028 that mr roberts subsequent participation in presenting the view of the united states in several religion clauses cases should be of concern in this matter, we rely on the guidance of the institute of public affairs of the union of orthodox jewish congregations 18:12:189 of america a sister nonpartisan organization their research indicates in each of the cases the positions advocated by united states were neither extreme nor even unreasonable interpretations of the religion clause's requirements 18:12:350 as members of this committee are well aware, the contours of religious liberty in this nation are still being shaped by the supreme court should the senate confirm judge roberts, it will be on the court this term when the case of gonzalez, it will again 18:12:541 examine the extent to which minority religions will have their religious liberty protected against government interference, and congress' ability to protect that liberty through laws like the religious 18:13:076 freedom restoration act which many of you championed a decade ago while we cannot be certain we are optimistic a justice roberts will be supportive and solicitous of religious liberty in america his answers this week to 18:13:213 questions you and your colleagues have asked him about the constitution's religion clauses were indeed reassuring the rabbinical council of america has taken the public position of support for judge roberts in the spirit of this 18:13:390 year's celebration of 350 years of american jewish history the jewish community like so many other faith communities has greatly benefitted from the religious liberty guaranteed by our constitution we have been able to build houses of worship and study and 18:13:559 to create communities reflective of our values and traditions we believe it thus appropriate through our active participate in this process that we acknowledge our debt of gratitude to america to a 18:14:092 nation that has pledged to uphold the conviction that liberty and equal justice under law are for all thank you very much >> mr specter: thank you very much, rabbi our next witness is dr suess anthesel this wait, president 18:14:246 of the chicago theological seminary phd from duke university master's divinity summa cum laud a the author of several books and op ed pieces in various 18:14:458 newspapers thank you for joining us, and we look forward to your testimony >> ms thistlethwaite: thank you, chairman specter and members of the committee i'm susan thistlethwaite i'm professor of theology at chicago theological seminary 18:15:018 my academic training is in historical theology my teaching and writing has emphasized religious life it's an honor to be asked to give testimony before the senate judiciary committee and with your permission, i would submit it for the record 18:15:180 our constitution's promises such as the right to live free of tyranny and be able to worship freely are generous, even extravagant promises they are promises made after freedom had been won from tyranny, a tyranny both 18:15:353 political and ecleesey asty cal promises made to the best of the human spirit as created by god in the limited documents available to discern jobs' 18:15:504 views, that his judicial posture is more toward permissiveness in religious establishment and less than vigorous in the defense of religious minorities he refers to the so-called right to privacy as objected to affirmative 18:16:058 action, but has favored expanding both the authority of law law enforcement and presidential authority very disturbing to me is the view, and i quote, the geneva convention is unenforceable in us courts and does not apply 18:16:206 to detainees labeled enemy combat apts i submit to you the threat to the moral health of the nation of this view is extremely grave a supreme court justice entrusted to interpret the constitution must embrace the fundamental element of our 18:16:360 democracy, we will strife to be a body politic rooted in justice and fairness to all citizens a justice trusted to interpret the constitution must understand that the protection of the free exercise of religion is a prohibition of any establishment of religion 18:16:521 are particularly critdal to the way this constitution promises to establish justice few americans have understood the promises in our 18:17:020 constitution better than dr martin looferter king junior dr king in his i have a dream speech was able as few before or since to reach into our constitutional past and proclaim the deep sense of the words that the constitution was a promissory note to which 18:17:176 every american was to fall heir king argued that so far this promise sorry note to african-americans had been returned, insufficient funds, but the promise held, the promise for king was a dream, but not a fantasy dr king's vision is well known 18:17:350 was a deeply theological vision it is probably less well known that the framers of the constitution also drew on a theological vision and that their prohibition of the establishment of any religion and their insistence on the protection of the free exercise of religion was made for 18:17:506 religious reasons the thought of john lott ons who work the founding fathers such as thomas jefferson drew is instructive locke, like others in the 17th century had seen a terrible result of religious wars, as catholics and 18:18:057 protestants struggled for power in england his own faith finally led him to believe that it is only in the absolute protection of human civil society from any control by religious authorities that people are enabled to come to have faith in god 18:18:203 it was for theological reason, not a secular one that both locke and thomas jefferson separated church and state and prohibited establishing one religion over any other in that way they protected religious freedom in jefferson's bill for establishing religious freedom, 18:18:365 he argues the plan of our holy author of our religion is not to prop gate it by coercion, they made the simple point, god does not need the help of the state for there to be faith from our vantage point in the 21st century, we can see the framers were right 18:18:532 they did not just protect political freedom, they protected religious freedom it is no accident the united states through all of its history so far has been free from the terrible effects of religious war the framers of the constitution knew what they were about, as 18:19:094 retiring justice sandra day o'connor wrote in an opinion last term, those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question, why would we trade assistance that has served us so well from one that has served us so poorly 18:19:261 would it become evident in the last half of the 21st century century is our society is becoming more genuinely religiously diverse the harvard plural improject has documented the united states is rapidly becoming the most religiously diverse nation 18:19:413 in the world such increasing religious plural imcalls for even greater vigilance both in protecting religious minorities and clearly avoiding even the appearance of the establishment of any particular religion the constitution is a document 18:19:566 that seeks implement a vision of fundamental human rights, just a vision of the society such as none in history has seen before a vision that would establish justice, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty i have been impressed with the 18:20:134 insizive mind of john roberts that a necessary but not a sufficient credential for chief justice i am not as insided that he believes in the dream that is the united states of america thank you >> mr specter: thank you very 18:20:283 much, dr thistlethwaite we now turn to governor john engler, president of the national association of manufacturers the largest trade group, industry trade group in the united states 18:20:451 served ads governor of michigan for three terms and before that had extensive experience in the michigan state legislature chairman of the national governors association, a graduate of michigan state, and a law degree from the cooley school of law 18:20:598 thank you for coming in today, governor engler and the floor is yours >> mr engler: i am pleased to be here today to testify in support of the nomination of judge roberts for the next chief justice of the united 18:21:175 states supreme court this is an important moment for the national association of manufacturers because it is the first time that we participated in a proceeding of this type i would like to take a minute just to explain why we have taken this historic step when i joined the nam on 18:21:332 october 1 of last year, i did bring that experience you referenced, 20 years in the michigan legislature, 12 years as governor of michigan from '91 to 2003 during that time as governor, i found michigan businesses were facing crushing legal costs and 18:21:492 barriers, i also learned and saw firsthand laws that i had helped write in the state senate signed as a governor were in many instance's ignored, rewritten or set aside by judges unclear about or 18:22:011 dismissive of their sworn duties in part because of this, the legal environment for doing business in michigan has become unpredictable, unfavorable, and unacceptable as governor, i set out to change this by recruiting to 18:22:164 the judiciary individuals who were committed to uphold the law and not legislate from the bench during 12 years as a governor i appointed more than 200 judges to the michigan courts and that included three state supreme court justices each of whom has a record of 18:22:332 faithfully interpreting and applying the law now, as a result of these appointments, coupled with equally needed and important tort reform legislation, cases filed in the michigan circuit courts dropped by some 17 percent between 1997 and 18:22:508 2004 the legal costs of doing business in michigan declined people of michigan through this debate and period of time came to understand the certainty and predictability the judges help 18:23:033 foster when they follow the law not only can lead to a better business climate, but they are key to jobs and prosperity the same can be true at the national level nationally our legal system today consumes some 23 percent of gdp 18:23:208 its cost is actually about 7 1/2 times as high of that of any of our key trading partners the high cost of lawsuit abuse continues to be an impediment to our ability to compete in the global economy now, of course, much of this 18:23:360 solution to this doesn't lie with the federal courts but state legislatures, the congress, which must write clear laws that recognize these realities and that's why the nam continues to advocate asbestos reform that's been the 18:23:516 subject of much hard work by this very committee and further tort reform in areas like products liability now, that said, to achieve a business environment that is fair and predictable, and where the rooms are clearly spelled out and adhered to, it's essential to have judgees who 18:24:086 will apply the rules, the legislature or the congress establishes in a fair and predictable manner the united states supreme court must set the example the need for this fundamental fairness and predictability is why the nam decided the time 18:24:252 had come to take positions on judicial nominations after reviewing judge roberts' record, we are insided he's eminently qualified to lead the court judge roberts has the intellect and the experience needed to understood and address 18:24:401 complicated transactions and difficult legal problems the same time, he's committed to applying the law rather than applying his own personal views this philosophy is essential if we are to remain a nation guided by the rule of law 18:24:564 john roberts understands the importance of clarity when deciding cases and practical conconvention for businesses really none of the current members of the court come from a recent private sector kind of 18:25:122 background, judge roberts does he brings that accordingly, if confirmed, justice roberts will add an important voice the the court's deliberations because of his strong experience in commercial 18:25:263 transaction it will allow though court to assist the court ral to identify cases that present business issues of national importance and also in understanding the practical ramifications of rules set out through its decisions as i close, let me make it clear the nam also didn't seek 18:25:425 to determine if judge roberts will reach or is likely to reach a particular outcome favorable to business the principle difficulty with an outcome-based approach, which the outcome the justice should reach ought to depend on what the law is 18:25:588 in many areas, different companies and businesses will disagree on what though pro business result actually is therefore, the national association of manufacturers is not looking for justice in favor of or against business or whose decisions reflect or are likely to reflect a pro 18:26:156 business outlook, but rather for a justice who will properly and impartially apply the law we are convinced judge roberts is such a justice, and i respectfully urge this committee to confirm his nomination before the full senate 123-4689 thank you very 18:26:318 much our final witness is miss karen pearl interim president of planned parenthood federation of america, for ten years prior to becoming the interim president, she was the president and ceo of planned parenthood of nassau county 18:26:479 she has been a preschoolteacher, working with children, with disabilities and has a master's degree in counselling from new york university thank you for coming in today, miss pearl, and the floor is 18:27:018 yours >> ms pearl: mr chairman and distinguished members of the committee, i am karen pearl, interim president of planned parenthood federation of america i am honored to be here today to express the concerns and hopes of our patients and america's pro-choice majority 18:27:164 i come before you not as an individual but as a representative of millions, through planned parenthood's 850 health centers, we provide health services to nearly 5 million women, men and young people every year 18:27:336 one in four american women will visit a planned parenthood center in her lifetime these women represent americans from every walk of life and from every part of the country what is at stake in these hearings is nothing less than 18:27:489 women's lives and women's health americans deserve a supreme court that will, not take away our basic freedoms the record of john roberts reveals a nominee who as chief 18:28:042 justice is not likely to uphold constitutional protections for the right to choose abortions and while we have fought hard for that right, and will fight just as hard to protect it, planned parenthood does everything in our power to reduce the need for abortions 18:28:202 yet there are forces at work in this nation who seek to restrict comprehensive sex education, contraception and emergency contraception the very things that would decrease the number of abortions in this country 18:28:364 in his response to questions from some of the members of this committee, judge roberts has refused to state that he accepts and will protect a woman's constitutional right to choose, a right that has been part of the fabric of our 18:28:505 society for nearly two generations we ask that you oppose his nomination to the lifetime position of chief justice of the united states supreme court five years ago, four of the nine justices made it clear 18:29:079 that they support either overturning roe v wade or significantly gutting it to do so would seriously threaten constitutional protections against government regulations that threaten women's health and safety to do so would send us back to 18:29:244 a pre-roe era where women did not have an equal place at life's table and when making child-bearing decisions was a perilous enterprise the american people deserve a chief justice who will uphold 18:29:403 roe and yet judge roberts coauthored a brief filed on behalf of the government that stated roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled it is hard for me to understand, senators, how a decision that for the past 18:29:556 three decades has helped women participate equally in society could have been wrongly decided it is hard for me to understand why a decision that allowed women to realize their dreams should be overruled we at planned parenthood are 18:30:133 faced with the prospect of violence and intimidation every day of our lives my first day on the job at planned parenthood, a sign was posted on the front door that threatened anyone who enters will be killed 18:30:295 and as i volunteer as a clinic escort, violent protestors hit us with their signs in the bray case, judge roberts is one of the authors of a brief arguening in support of veinspection of violent 18:30:455 clinical protestors no y in the brief d-c the government disavow the actions or tactics of the violent demonstrators, not even in a footnote when women's health centers in wichita, kansas, were being blockaded in 1991, a district court issued an injunction 18:31:042 against the protestors to protect women who were attempting to enter the centers judge roberts was involved in a highly unusual intervention that sought to lift the injunction even though the 18:31:183 injunction was preventing violence and safeguarding women this week, judge roberts repeatedly refused to answer whether he will protect the basic rights and freedoms of all americans, senator specter himself pointed out roe has been reaffirmed by the supreme 18:31:352 court multiple times notably, judge roberts has acknowledged there is a right to contraception he is comfortable making these statements, but he steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the same about the right to abortion as a legal matter, we believe 18:31:517 that the right to choose abortion is as settled a fundamental right as the right to contraception 18:31:594 no one should be confirmed to a lifetime position with the power to take away the right to choose who does not accept that proposition when judge roberts answers questions about griswold and isan stat and refuses when it 18:32:156 comes to roe and casey, judge roberts is drawing lines of convenience, not rules of law no matter how remarkable the personory impressive the resume, a nominee for chief justice ought to be able to 18:32:311 tell the american people whether the constitution allowed states to ban abortion judge roberts has refused to do so even when pressed by you we still do not know whether a roberts court would preside over the creation of two americas 18:32:474 one where women with means can obtain abortions even if they are not legal and one where women without resources cannot when our patients ' safety is at stake, when the ability of families >> mr specter: would you 18:33:047 summarize >> ms pearl: private decisions about their lives are at stake women's status in our society is at stake accepting anything less than clarity would simply be irresponsible you all know that justice harry blackmun wrote the majority 18:33:191 opinion in the roe v wade decision in the decades following that decision, as more justices on the court ruled to overturn roe, blackmun wrote a chill wind blows his words echo hauntingly today 18:33:346 senators, i urge you to not confirm judge john roberts as chief justice and i thank you so much for the honor and privilege of addressing you today >> mr specter: thank you very much, miss pearl just a few questions the hour is growing late miss pearl, the hearing has 18:33:540 dealt extensively with the concerns that you have addressed, a woman's right to choose, and it boiled down really to judge roberts' statement that he felt he could not speak to that issue as a 18:34:115 matter of judicial independence in the context where there are cases on the docket which raise the issue unlike griswold which has been pretty well established as a right to privacy, something i asked him about and others did 18:34:276 do you think that -- i know you'd like to have an answer, people who want to overrule roe would also like to have an answer, but do you think there's any basis for judge roberts' statement he simply 18:34:425 cannot prejudge the matter before it comes before him as a matter of independence, judicial independence and that he can't sell his vote to one way or another, there are people on this panel on both sides of the issue i think we 18:34:574 are divided among the 18, 9-9 doesn't he have a point that he can't prejudge the case >> ms pearl: thank you i don't think that is -- that is correct we are not asking him to prejudge any case 18:35:123 we have not presented him with any facts of any particular case >> mr specter: you are asking him to say he would sustain roe v wade >> ms pearl: we are asking him whether the precedent established and as you said reaffirmed 38 times, is settled law of this land, established rights 18:35:295 women have counted on that right for almost two generations for 32 years it's hard to believe that is not something that ought to be considered settled law it was the roe decision that was only one year after the isanstat decision 18:35:450 the time frame shouldn't matter it has been looked at so many more times the decision -- the question of whether and when to become a parent is such a fundamental right that it is hard to believe that it is even open for any kind of questions if judge roberts is willing to 18:36:017 talk about the right to privacy as it relates to contraception, he ought to have been able to talk about it as it relates to abortion reproductive rights are simply not to be negotiated >> mr specter: professor reich, going back to your jd from yale, what is your evaluation of the issue of 18:36:222 judicial independence and not soliciting votes on this committee or in the senate by a promise one way or the other on roe v wade when the issue is on the docket for the supreme court in the next term >> mr reich: i think it's 18:36:383 entirely dependent, mr chairman on how settled the case is if you have something that is a superprecedent, as you repeatedly talk about, it would seem to me entirely appropriate for a candidate to 18:36:536 say i would follow a super-duper precedent 18:36:579 on the other hand, if it's up in the air, if it really is up in the air, there are a lot of 5-4 decisions, he doesn't want to reveal his cards right now because it would be inappropriate, then it's a different story in this case, it seems to me that roe v wade is the law of 18:37:140 the land, it's been there for many years, why can't a nominee say clearly, i support roe v wade as the law of the land >> mr specter: unlike me right to privacy or craexceptsives for marriage, single people, there is a great debate, i 18:37:312 don't have to describe it for you, a great debate in this country about the subject if the definition -- if it's up in the air or settled, i don't think, as you heard me say, that we could ask him about his decision 18:37:470 but on the factors which miss pearl articulates, he testified he would give them great weight it's really unpredictable as to what any nominee is going to do who would have predicted justice kennedy would have 18:38:031 supported roe v wade the cases are legion in the history of the court the only consistency is one of surprise rabbi polakoff, has your organization taken a position on any supreme court nominees 18:38:195 in the past? >> mr polakoff: we haven't but we feel in a generation and certainly in today's society, with traditional values and religious ethics threatened there is important for there to 18:38:343 be a spiritual voice added to the hearings by this distinguished group that's why we are here today >> mr specter: my time's almost expired but i have time for a question does this mean the national association for manufacturers is going to become more politically active like 18:38:508 supporting asbestos reform? >> mr engler: you can count on that, senator >> mr specter: thank you very much thank you very -- very much thank you super-duper much >> mr engler: i'm hoping the expedition conclusion of this 18:39:081 matter will allow for a little bit of glory time for that topic >> mr specter: this committee has done its job now it's up to the floor time of the leader senator leahy >> mr leahy: i am so tempted, 18:39:240 but i will with hold >> mr specter: senator hatch >> mr hatch: let me ask miss pearl, let me ask you the same question i asked marcia greenberger, for whom i have 18:39:422 great respect as well since justice rehnquist or even before has planned parenthood has ever approved or endorsed or accepted or been favorably disposed towards any republican nominee to the united states 18:39:577 supreme court? >> ms pearl: thank you, senator i would like to start by saying that planned parenthood does not make these kinds of decisions on any kind of partisan basis, it's not that we approve or disapprove of republican nominees, approve or disapprove of democratic 18:40:145 nominees to your specific point, however, i am mostly certain, and i am very happy to go back and check and send you a letter to confirm, that planned parenthood did not take a position on justice sandra day o'connor's nomination to the 18:40:306 supreme court >> mr hatch: that's the only one yeah can recall >> ms pearl: em >> mr hatch: i know your group is a close ally of the national organization for women who has -- they have testified in almost every one except this one, both of your groups, for 18:40:457 example, i think are members of the leadership conference on civil rights >> ms pearl: we are not we actually have an application pending >> mr hatch: now oppose justice john paul stevens nomination in 1975 18:41:026 saying his records show he would bend over backwards to limit the right to abortion we all know that didn't happen now opposed justice anthony kennedy's nomination saying his record shows a, quote, total lack of commitment to equality 18:41:178 and justice under law, unquote i had a flyer that i saw circulated in 1990 by the national organization for women opposing the nomination of david souter it says stop souter or women will die 18:41:350 now, the reason i raise this is because as we all know, these justices have supported abortion rights issue, and i don't think you do, nor do i think anybody else does because he has never 18:41:513 really opined on it you cite cases where he was working for the reagan 18:41:591 administration which clearly was against roe v wade but he was a staff attorney making the legal arguments that they wanted him to make, which 18:42:124 is quite a bit different from settling -- saddling him with that particular philosophy now it turns out the absolute and cat goral certainties positions of those against stevens, kennedy and souter were just plain wrong, and 18:42:293 that's where i'm having some difficulty here, did your group participate in the stop souter rally that advertised on that flyer that went out, did you participate in that? >> ms pearl: i do not know the 18:42:446 answer that >> mr hatch: i don't either i seem to recall planned parenthood did they had a right to that was wrong and so what i'm saying, it's one thing to say they think a 18:43:015 person may vote one way on the court, but you don't know how justice roberts will vote i don't know how he will vote you may be right you may be wrong, as planned parenthood -- i think planned 18:43:160 parenthood was part of it now the alliance for justice, naral, the leadership conference on civil rights, they were all wrong, on those three justices now, if we -- if we make these decisions solely because 18:43:311 somebody thinks somebody might not live up to what they think is the -- the law should be, there would be very few people ever privileged to serve on the united states supreme court if both sides started to play that game 18:43:462 so all i can say is this your organization is a great organization, i don't agree with some of the policies, but i've supported you with regard to some aspects of the work that you're trying to do, but not on the abortion side of it but it seems to me that there's 18:44:029 a responsibility to not prejudge people who have the eminent qualifications that judge roberts has and that's -- that worries me just a wee bit, but i've been interested in your testimony 18:44:177 and certainly have listened to it, and as i have to all of you i welcome my old friend robert reich here he's a controversial person that makes us all think more all the time 18:44:324 you have done it here today deliberately, i know do i respect you and appreciate you, but -- and i like alternative points of view, i think that's a good thing for our society you certainly present plenty of them for us to think about up here, both democrats and 18:44:489 republicans thank you, mr chairman 124-6789 thank you senator kennedy >> mr kennedy: thank you, mr chairman welcome the panel and particularly welcome bob reich a long time friend, i've been a great admirer to his commitment 18:45:056 to public policy and public life generally it's been an extraordinary career for he and his wife as well who shared a strong commitment to public service dr reich, let me ask you 18:45:252 the -- judge roberts in one of his statements said the courts are passive institutions is that -- how do you react to that as a concept 18:45:369 is that your view about where -- what the courts are, what the courts can be, what the courts should be in trying -- in particular to help the country respond to this extraordinary challenge which 18:45:521 all americans are reminded of, this past couple of weeks with katrina when we sort of tore back the fabric of america in the gulf states, and saw so many people that have been left out and left behind we are not talking about 18:46:108 handouts, but talking about a hand up and shouldn't the courts be a part of a process where the executive and the congress and the courts are moving in harmony to try to make this a fairer country and more equitable land and if that is 18:46:272 so, what's your reaction to the comment that the courts are passive institutions? >> mr reich: senator, the courts are not passive anybody who watches carefully, reads supreme court opinions, looks at the history of the 18:46:428 supreme court, understands they are far from passive institutions interpretations of the 14th amendment, equal protection clause, have historically changed the face of this nation in terms of bringing minorities and women 18:46:567 into the mainstream when i was secretary of labor, one of my duties was implement the family medical leave act that was hard-fought piece of legislation you were actively involved, first piece of legislation passed by the clinton administration we got through, 18:47:119 at least signed into law by bill clinton well, we did some regulations pursuant to that some common-sense regulations struck down by this supreme court in a very close 5-4 decision, i believe i'm right, said that particular regulation 18:47:286 simply required that an employer notify an employee of his or her family medical leave rights, was inconsistent with the purpose of the act well, a judgment that a 18:47:433 particular regulation is inconsistent with the purpose of an act is not a neutral, passive decision the court is an active instrument of public policy it has values, social policy, economic policy, and look at -- senator, all of you, i 18:48:008 understand this is of ton woman there's not a lot -- there are not a lot of decisions, court decisions, there's memoranda, had difficulty getting from the administration, lot of pieces of information, but, and it's presumptuous of me to tell you 18:48:161 what to do, but the stakes are so huge here for the country, i don't -- i don't see how you can in good faith, given that the court is not a passive institution, turn the country over to a court, and it will be 18:48:324 turning the country over to a court where you don't know what's going to happen >> mr kennedy: i was somewhat disappointed that in the various areas of public policy where judge roberts had been so 18:48:476 active, i mean he had obviously solicited the job to serve in the administration, selected by the administration, do serve in the justice department and felt very comfortable, idea 18:49:050 logically being there his commitment to public service, he wanted to be in there and felt very comfortable and was promoted all the way through there he had the series of memorandas, stating administration position, and it 18:49:195 was always a question whether this was just stating a position or what percent of this was his own views the point that i thought was somewhat disappointing was when asked given that was 20 years ago, would you -- what was your 18:49:361 position today on these issues it seemed to me to be pretty ordinary that people would say, look, those are my views then, those are the administration today, i look at x, y and z, whether it is on the issues of 18:49:510 civil rights, whether it is on women's rights, whether it was on the issues and grove city which is always amazing to me after we had thought through all of the civil rights act, that an individual could feel 18:50:058 and with all the money that was going to universities with tuition, which was keeping them running that you would have an individual that would say, well, we wanted just program specific, so if they don't discriminate in the admissions -- the financial 18:50:224 office, admissions office, they can discriminate wherever they want at the university i mean, after we had gone through so much in terms of the battle to end discrimination, and the american people were t 18:50:378 a position where they felt we shouldn't permit taxpayers to be funded for discriminatory purposes i think my time is over i think the chairman might give you 15 seconds or something to respond, if you can >> mr reich: what's come out 18:50:553 so far, this man is a nice fellow, people like him, he's a very, very bright if not brilliant jurist and extremely thoughtful lawyer, but he has certain idealogical predispositions 18:51:116 he has values, those values are way to the right of the mainstream in america i don't think there's any question about it and so it is up to all of you to decide whether you want to put somebody in as chief justice who is that far the right 18:51:283 i think it's as simple and direct as that >> mr specter: thank you, senator kennedy senator sessions >> mr sessions: senator hatch left, but here's the stop souter or women will die i just found, i guess that did not prove to be a good prediction except a lot of women partially 18:51:463 born have died since justice souter went on the court >> mr specter: make that part of the record >> mr sessions: i would offer that for the record 18:51:563 i think, mr reich, that judge roberts has a value that he's expressed articulately, beautifully, repeatedly that he loves the law he loves the court 18:52:120 and he believes a court has a rule, has a role to be a neutral arbiter, and not to impose his personal views, and i don't think that's a -- i don't think he brings that because he may be politically conservative and believes in 18:52:277 lower taxes and whatever he believes in politically i think that's his deepest and highest value that was repeatedly stated here many times i think that's exactly what we need in the courts of america today i think the people of this country will be mores areful of 18:52:458 the court --ful of the court if they return to that role >> ms thistlethwaite: el this wait, i've tried to think over the years about appropriate approaches to the church/state issue i'm methodist myself and 18:53:020 been involved in these things i see you're liberation theologist let me say this, you've expressed some pretty strong views about the need for a wall between church and state and just yesterday, the supreme 18:53:200 court -- a district court, following what it thought was the command of the 9th circuit ruled that the pledge of allegiance which has under god in it, is unconstitutional do you have an opinion about 18:53:347 that >> ms thistlethwaite: -- exception session i think it's in which ways consistent with some rulings in the supreme court as i schaefered with judge roberts and i think it's perhaps inconsistent with others how do you feel about the wisdom of having those words in the pledge of allegiance 18:53:489 >> ms thistlethwaite: i'm very interested, senator sessions to know whether you think people will be increased in their faith if they just say those words repetitively i don't know what the goal is if it is not to establish a 18:54:070 theistic religion if it is to include the words so that they can be historical, as i'm citing from the founders, god doesn't need your help so if it's historical, that was 18:54:218 added to the pledge of allegiance it was not even original in the pledge i look at the people out on the street demonstrating they seem to feel the people in favor after the -- after the press show us the pictures of 18:54:391 people demonstrating after this decision was made, and the people seemed to feel it is prayer, and if it is prayer, then i think it's unconstitutional >> mr sessions: well, what about i guess you would 18:54:532 share -- you would further say that we should take in god we trust off the coins >> ms thistlethwaite: do i think it's a good idea to confuse caesar and god? no, i don't render unto caesar what is 18:55:110 caesar's and what is god >> mr sessions: you would oppose the chaplain of the united states senate would you oppose the position of chaplain in the united states senate? >> ms thistlethwaite: do i think you all need spiritual guidance? 18:55:292 >> mr sessions: that's part of it, perhaps >> ms thistlethwaite: i think it's okay if you rotate it around but i'm not the constitutional lawyer i'm a pastor i'm kind of in favor of pastoral care >> mr sessions: i would say this, i think that it is an 18:55:469 absolute truth that our government was founded on a principle that we are created beings with certain inalienable rights, and when you get in a secular like the marxist 18:56:041 ideologies that they have no respect for life, not the same degree of it, i think it's a unique portion of our great american spirit that every human being is respected specially because we believe they were created and such 18:56:205 words as under god or in god we trust, i think are not sectarian, i do not believe they establish a religion, but it's simply reflects a consensus view of probably 18:56:332 90 percent of americans that there is a higher being and i think that the supreme court authorities on these matters are somewhat strained and confusing and perhaps judge roberts can improve that 18:56:485 i certainly hope so i think my time is up thank you, mr chairman >> mr specter: senator coburn, 18:56:556 you have the last word >> mr coburn: thank you, mr chairman since i do, i would just like to compliment you and senator leahy >> mr specter: we can't hear you >> mr coburn: i'll say it again and again if my budget's increased 18:57:106 i'd be happy to say it but as a freshman senator, the way this hearing's been conducted, the leadership that you, mr chairman and you, mr leahy, have conducted it under, i think is reflective of good qualities of the united 18:57:291 states senate and the country and it kind of leads me to the questions that i had especially for dr thistlethwaite, the last statement you said, you're not convinced that john roberts believes in the dream of 18:57:453 america and i'm just wondering could anybody of conservative values believe in that dream? is it possible because -- i don't know john roberts' actual i go to bed at night worrying if he is on the supreme court, 18:58:024 i have completely opposite views about reproduction and other issues, but the question is, can somebody have values different conservative values and believe in the dream of america, be a good judge is that possible 18:58:176 >> ms thistlethwaite: i was very impressed by the gentleman who spoke last on the left panel who was testifying to the fact that the definition of the word conservative has changed >> ms thistlethwaite: -- 18:58:348 >> mr coburn: i'm a known quantity, all right i'm a known quantity people know my opinions, i'm not very quiet about them, sometimes to my own ill benefit but the fact is, is it talks about what senator kennedy talked about, and senator feinstein, do they have a heart 18:58:521 and the question is, can somebody have a set of values that are different than what you perceive to be okay for the american dream and still have the heart of a senator kennedy and make a good judge? i'm very confused about what i 18:59:088 consider a very inflammatory statement about judge roberts in your closing because what it does, it castigates people into categories, the very thing jesus said we don't do and to me, it's concerning that 18:59:264 we have this decision that we have already decided how he's going to decide i spent two hours with him, and i'm as pro life as they come and i can't tell you where he's going to be, and i tried to 18:59:400 find out, and if i spent two hours with him, how do you all know he's not going to be and how do you know based on the history of the judges that have come before this committee before who the same claims were made about and the opposite 18:59:560 results came about and i think it undermines the testimony, and i think it lends for us to go back and reconsider as a nation, all of us, the people i represent, the viewpoints i represent, and the viewpoints you represent, that