[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 60 (Tuesday, May 10, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4801-S4805]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RULES OF THE SENATE
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As the Senate convenes this week, we stand on the edge of dramatic
change. Change is usually a good thing, but the change that the other
side is trying to invoke is not a good thing. We all know it. Most
Americans know it. Most Democrats know it. Most Republicans
[[Page S4802]]
know it. Even most Senators on the other side know it. Yet they are
torn because of a small group way out of the mainstream. The same
people who believe their message, which may come from the heavens,
dictates to them what is right for everybody else seem to be in
control. It is a crucial time for America. The age-old checks and
balances that are at the center of this Republic, at the center of our
Constitution, are hanging at the precipice.
It is the Senate where the Founding Fathers established a repository
of checks and balances. It is not like the House of Representatives
where the majority leader or the Speaker can snap his fingers and get
what he wants. Here we work many times by unanimous consent where you
need all 100 Senators to go along. In some instances, we work where 67
votes are needed, in some with 60, and in most with 51. But the reason
we don't always work by majority rule is very simple. On important
issues, the Founding Fathers wanted--and they were correct in my
judgment--that the slimmest majority should not always govern. When it
comes to vital issues, that is what they wanted.
The Senate is not a majoritarian body. My good friend from Utah
spoke. He represents about two million people in Utah. I represent 19
million in New York State. We have the same vote. You could have 51
votes for a judge on this floor that represents 21 percent of the
American people. So the bottom line is very simple. This has not always
been a 50.1 to 49.9 body. It has been a body that has had to work by
its rules and by the Founding Fathers' intent. Even when you are in the
majority, you have to reach out and meet not all, not most, but some of
the concerns of the minority.
I understand why my colleague from Utah would get up and make such
ridiculous arguments. He is torn. He knows this is wrong. Most of the
Members on the other side of the aisle know it is wrong. Some have had
the guts--a handful--to say no. Some have had the strength to resist
the calls of that extreme group or groups. Some are true believers. But
some, and my guess is my friend from Utah is one of those, know it is
wrong but decide: I am going along anyway.
When my friend from Utah lists the 10 most ridiculous arguments
against keeping the filibuster and says checks and balances is a
ridiculous argument, please. I care a great deal about my friend from
Utah. He is a fine man. We are friends. We have worked together on many
things. But he has more respect for the Constitution than to say checks
and balances is a ridiculous argument. He knows darn well that a 51-to-
49 vote does away with certain kinds of checks and balances.
When my friend from Utah talks about no extremists, it seems to me
the very same people who are calling the shots are the people who said
that judges are worse than terrorists. That seems pretty extreme to me.
That is the type of person importuning my friend from Utah.
Another one said: Judges, in their black robes, are like the Ku Klux
Klan in their white robes. These are officials of the American
Government, most of whom now are Republicans. Sixty percent of the
court of appeals are Republican appointees. Seven of the nine Supreme
Court members are Republican appointees.
When my friend from Utah doesn't think those statements are extreme
and listens to the solution that people who make those statements
prescribe, what else can one conclude than that he is sort of tying
himself in a pretzel to try and make an argument that he must know in
his heart is wrong.
Unprecedented? Well, it was my good friend from Utah who played a
leading role in blocking a large number of the Clinton judges. He will
say it wasn't by filibuster. The American people are a lot smarter than
that. Whether it is by not bringing them up for a vote in committee or
by requiring that they get 60 votes to choke off debate on the floor,
the effect is the same. The President, the incumbent, is denied his
choice. By the way, that is how our Senate has functioned.
The President, when he gets 51.5 percent, as George Bush did, or even
when he gets over 65 percent, as Franklin Roosevelt did in 1936,
shouldn't always get his way with every single judge.
He says that this will not doom the legislative filibuster, that that
is an absurd argument. A year ago, if we would have heard that the
Republican majority was considering having the Vice President sit in
the chair and rule by fiat his own interpretation of the Constitution,
coming out of nowhere because the Constitution doesn't mention any of
this, certainly a narrow reading wouldn't allow us to address this
issue from the Constitution, and he says that we will rule by fiat from
the Chair and there should be no more filibusters of judges, even
though that has been allowed for 200 years, even though it was done in
2000 by our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle for Ms.
Berzon and Mr. Paez, and then he is saying, well, it is absurd that we
do it for other things. I say this: Allow them to do it for judges
today, they will do it for Social Security tomorrow. The same exact
procedure could be used to block filibusters of legislation and of
every single other thing that comes before this body. There is no
difference. The Constitution doesn't mention the word ``filibuster.''
I don't know where it is divined in the heads of some of my
colleagues from the other side of the aisle: It says it is for judges,
but not for legislation. That is an activist reading of the
Constitution if you ever heard one.
The bottom line is simple: We are appealing to those Members of the
other side of the aisle who, unlike my friend from Utah, have thus far
resisted the entreaties of the hard, hard, hard right, who have
resisted the entreaties of the narrow few who are way out there and say
to them: Have strength, have courage.
The basic makeup of our Senate is at stake. The checks and balances
that Americans prize are at stake. The idea of bipartisanship, where
you have to come together and can't just ram everything through because
you have a narrow majority, is at stake. The very things we treasure
and love about this grand Republic are at stake.
I, for one, am saddened by what is happening. I, for one, am
surprised at what is happening. I, for one, hope and pray that it will
not come to this. But I assure my colleagues, at least speaking for
this Senator from New York, I will do everything I can to prevent the
nuclear option from being invoked not for the sake of myself or my
party but for the sake of this great Republic and its traditions.
I yield the remaining time to my colleague from Illinois, our great
whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time remains in morning business?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 19 minutes 30 seconds.
Mr. DURBIN. If I might make an inquiry of my colleague from New
Jersey, if he is going to seek recognition, I want to be sure and leave
enough time for him to speak.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I believe 10 minutes, maybe a little bit
less.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Chair would advise me when there are 10 minutes
remaining, I will yield the remaining time to the Senator from New
Jersey.
Let me first thank my colleague from New York for his excellent
statement. Senator Schumer and I serve on the Senate Judiciary
Committee. It is a committee where judges are initially considered. It
is a tough assignment. When I came to the Senate from the House, I knew
I would be voting on legislation, but more so in the Senate, you vote
on people. That is a tougher call because it isn't in black and white.
It isn't a matter of compromising, taking half of this and a quarter of
the other. It is a question of making a judgment about a person. I find
that a little more difficult--a lot more difficult, to be honest--and
when it comes to judges, even more complicated because you aren't just
putting a person in a temporary position. You are saying: Based on your
life to this point, we are prepared to put you on the Federal bench for
the rest of your natural life and trust your judgment that you will do
the right thing by the Constitution and the American people.
Overwhelmingly, we find whether the President is a Democrat or
Republican, the Senate says: Fine, we approve. The nominee is a good
person. We will go forward.
What has happened here is interesting. We have, so far with President
Bush in the White House, considered on
[[Page S4803]]
the floor of the Senate 218 nominees by President Bush for the Federal
judiciary. The President has that power. The Senate has the power to
advise--that is, review and consider--and consent, if it chooses. Out
of the 218 names sent by President Bush to the floor of the Senate, we
have approved 208 of those names. So we are at a point now where we
have 10 out of those 218 who have not been approved. More than 95
percent of the President's nominees have been approved.
You would say to yourself: This President is doing well. Whether he
sends us conservatives of one stripe or the other, the Senate has
approved them. We have sent them to the bench to lifetime appointments.
The President, after his reelection, comes to the Congress and says:
That is not good enough. I want them all. I want every single one of
them. I don't believe I should be held to the standard that every other
President has been held to.
What is that standard? It is not just a simple majority vote. The
Senate is a different place. It was created by the Constitution as a
different institution. States large and small have the same number of
Senators. States large and small send Senators to the Chamber, men and
women who have the authority under our rules to demand an extraordinary
vote.
People on the outside say: When I go to the city council meeting, it
is a majority vote. When I go to the garden club, it is a majority
vote. Why isn't it a majority vote in the Senate?
Because the Senate is a different place. When the Founding Fathers
wrote the Constitution, they said the Senate, more than any institution
in the Government of America, will be a place that respects and
recognizes the rights of a minority.
For those who follow classic movies, Jimmy Stewart in ``Mr. Smith
Goes to Washington,'' one Senator, idealistic and determined, took to
the floor of the Senate and started a speech and, frankly, finally
crumbled because he was so tired and had to end his speech. But he
demonstrated the reality of the Senate, that one Senator, regardless of
where they are from, a State large or small, regardless if they are the
only Senator who holds that point of view, can stand up and argue that
point of view. That was built into our Constitution, certainly into the
tradition of the Senate. That is why 10 of President Bush's nominees
have not been approved because, in this situation, they couldn't find
60 Senators who would stand up and say: Stop the debate, vote on that
nominee. That is the rule of the Senate.
President Bush has said: I want to change it, to change the rules of
the Senate in the middle of the game. I want to go after this whole
concept of the power of the Senate, the power of checks and balances, I
want more power in the White House, I want more power in the
Presidency. That is not new. Presidents throughout history have always
said they wanted more power than they had. Usually, the Congress stood
up to them and said no.
The Constitution is more important than any single President. Thomas
Jefferson, when he was elected to his second term, came to the Senate
and said: I want the power to remove those Federalist judges from the
Supreme Court; They disagree with my political philosophy; I want to
get rid of them.
His own party said: No, President Jefferson. As important as you are,
as much as we agree with you, the Constitution and traditions of the
Senate are more important. And they voted him down.
President Roosevelt, one of our greatest Presidents, in the beginning
of his second term, with the power of the national mandate behind him,
said to the Senate: Do something about that damnable Supreme Court that
won't approve my New Deal. Allow me to put more Justices on the Court
until I can have my way politically.
His political body in this Senate said: Mr. President, we are
Democrats, we respect you, we voted for you, we are for the New Deal,
but you are wrong. You cannot come to us and ask for more Presidential
power at the expense of the Constitution, at the expense of Senate
traditions and values. They turned him down.
Look what happens today. President Bush, fresh from a victory of 51.5
percent in this election, comes to this body and says: I want more
power in the Presidency.
What does he hear from his own party in the Senate? Sadly, it is:
Whatever you want, Mr. President.
Mickey Edwards, a former Congressman from Oklahoma, who was quoted in
the Washington Post this morning, gets it right. He said what amazes
him about this debate is that Congress isn't standing up for its own
constitutional responsibilities and rights. Congress is acquiescing in
this effort by the President to take on more power so that he cannot be
questioned and challenged when he puts people on the Federal bench for
a lifetime.
Mr. President, I will submit for the Record a list of over 50
newspapers that have endorsed President Bush in 2000, 2004, or both,
and have said that the President is wrong when it comes to this effort
to increase Presidential power in the White House.
I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Albuquerque Journal [NM], The Albuquerque Tribune [NM], The
Arizona Republic [Phoenix], Arkansas Democrat & Gazette,
Austin American-Statesman [TX], Bangor Daily News [ME],
Birmingham Post Herald [AL], Chicago Tribune, The Cincinnati
Enquirer [OH], and The Cincinnati Post [OH].
The Clarion-Ledger [Jackson, MS], Columbia Daily Tribune
[MO], The Commercial Appeal [Memphis, TN], Contra Costa Times
[CA], Corpus Christi Caller-Times [TX], Courier-Post [Camden,
NJ], The Daily Camera [CO], The Dallas Morning News [TX], and
The Day [New London, CT].
The Denver Post, Easton Star-Democrat [MD], Fort Worth Star
Telegram [TX], The Grand Island Independent [NE], The
Hartford Courant [CT], The Herald [Bradenton, FL], Houston
Chronicle [TX], The Idaho Statesman, The Indianapolis Star
[IN], and Journal Star [Peoria, IL].
Kalamazoo Gazette [MI], The Knoxville News-Sentinel [TN],
La Crosse Tribune [WI], Lincoln Journal Star [NE], Loveland
Daily-Reporter Herald [CO], The Morning Call [Allentown, PA],
The Muskegon Chronicle [MI], Muskogee Daily Phoenix & Times-
Democrat [OK], New Haven Register [CT], and The News Leader
[Staunton, VA].
The Omaha World-Herald [NE], The Oregonian, Orlando
Sentinel [FL], The Oshkosh Northwestern [WI], The Palladium-
Item [IN], The Plain Dealer [Cleveland, OH], Poughkeepsie
Journal [NY], Quad City Times [Davenport, IA], The Record
[Troy, NY], and Salt Lake Tribune.
San Antonio Express-News [TX], Savannah Morning News [GA],
Seattle Times [WA], San Diego Union Tribune, The State
[Columbia, SC], The Tri-City Herald [WA], Ventura County Star
[CA], The Wichita Eagle [KS], Winston-Salem Journal [NC], and
York Daily Record [PA].
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me tell you, I listen to the talk
shows, and I hear people say that until these judicial nominees were
challenged with extended debate or filibuster, it never happened
before. I will also submit for the Record, for the third time, this
chart which shows on 11 or 12 different occasions when a filibuster was
invoked on judicial nominees throughout history, including Supreme
Court Justices. This is not new, not novel. It is certainly not earth
shattering. It has happened before.
I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
History of Filibusters and Judges
Prior to the start of the George W. Bush administration in
2001, the following 11 judicial nominations needed 60 (or
more) votes--cloture--in order to end a filibuster:
1881: Stanley Matthew to be a Supreme Court Justice
1968: Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
(cloture required 2/3 of those voting)
1971: William Rehnquist to be a Supreme Court Justice
(cloture required 2/3 of those voting)
1980: Stephen Breyer to be a Judge on the First Circuit
Court of Appeals
1984: J. Harvie Wilkinson to be a Judge on the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals
1986: Sidney Fitzwater to be a Judge for the Northern
District of Texas
1986: William Rehnquist to be Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court
1992: Edward Earl Carnes, Jr. to be a Judge on the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals
1994: H. Lee Sarokin to be a Judge on the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals
1999: Brian Theadore Stewart to be a Judge for the District
of Utah
2000: Richard Paez to be a Judge on the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals
2000: Marsha Berzon to be a Judge on the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals
Because of a filibuster, cloture was filed on the following
two judicial nominations, but was later withdrawn:
[[Page S4804]]
1986: Daniel Manion to be a Judge on the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals Senator Biden told then Majority Leader Bob
Dole that ``he was ready to call off an expected filibuster
and vote immediately on Manion's nomination.''--Congressional
Quarterly Almanac, 1986.
1994: Rosemary Barkett to be a Judge on the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals ``. . . lacking the votes to sustain
a filibuster, Republicans agreed to proceed to a confirmation
vote after Democrats agreed to a daylong debate on the
nomination.''--Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1994.
Following are comments by Republicans during the filibuster
on the Paez and Berzon nominations in 2000, confirming that
there was, in fact, a filibuster:
``. . . it is no secret that I have been the person who has
filibustered these two nominations, Judge Berzon and Judge
Paez.''--Senator Bob Smith, March 9, 2000
``So don't tell me we haven't filibustered judges and that
we don't have the right to filibuster judges on the floor of
the Senate. Of course we do. That is our constitutional
role.''--Senator Bob Smith, March 7, 2000
``Indeed, I must confess to being somewhat baffled that,
after a filibuster is cut off by cloture, the Senate could
still delay a final vote on the nomination.''--Senator Orrin
Hatch, March 9, 2000, when a Senator offered a motion to
indefinitely postpone the Paez nomination after cloture had
been invoked
In 2000, during consideration of the Paez nomination, the
following Senator was among those who voted to continue the
filibuster:
Senator Bill Frist--Vote #37, 106th Congress, Second
Session, March 8, 2000.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me tell you something else that
troubles me. How much time do I have?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Almost 12 minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. So I will be notified in 2 minutes.
There is something more at stake here that is even more important
than the power of the President and the tradition of the Senate, and
that is the independence of the judiciary. You cannot turn on the
television or radio without hearing from some special interest group
criticizing the Federal judiciary. I have been critical of individual
decisions. I can point to some, including one that was made in the
State of Florida in 2000. But to come to the floor and say let's get
rid of the people making the decisions, take the power of Congress and
control the judiciary, that is a mistake. An independent, fair, and
balanced judiciary is critical for America.
When I hear Members of Congress and special interest groups saying
they want to use this nuclear option, the power of Congress, to take
control of the Federal judiciary, I am concerned. That is a power grab
far beyond violating the traditions and rules of the Senate. It says
they are going to try to show control and exert authority over a branch
of the Government which has always been independent.
I will submit a transcript of a program on May 1 from ``This Week
With George Stephanopolous.'' It is an interview with Pat Robertson.
I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[ABC News Transcripts, May 1, 2005]
This Week With George Stephanopoulos
pat robertson interview
President George W. Bush, United States: ``Role of religion
in our society, I view religion as a personal matter. I think
a person ought to be judged on how he or she lives his life,
lives her life, and that's how I've tried to live my life
through example. Faith plays an important part in my life
individually, but I don't ascribe a person's opposing my
nominations to an issue of faith.''
George Stephanopoulos, ABC News: (Off Camera) That was
President Bush in his prime time press conference Thursday
night talking about religion and public life and now for more
on this I'm joined from Virginia Beach by reverend Pat
Robertson. Good morning reverend Robertson.
Pat Robertson, Chairman, Christian Broadcasting Network:
Good morning, George.
George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) You know, the president
seemed to be putting some distance between himself and people
like you, allies like you who have cast this battle over
judges in more religious terms. Do you now accept the
president's belief that those who want to preserve the
filibuster for judges are not fighting against people of
faith?
Pat Robertson: George, I've never said that. I've said some
things about the judges, but I think this filibuster thing
strictly is an attempt to please the People for the American
Way and the ultra left. I think the Democrats are catering to
them, but, you know, in the entire history of the United
States of America, there has never been a judge who has been
refused a.vote when there was a majority of Senators willing
to vote for his confirmation, never in history. This
filibuster in the last two years is unprecedented in our
history.
George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) But, sir, you have
described this in pretty, this whole battle in pretty
apocalyptic terms. You've said that Liberals are engaged in
an all-out assault on Christianity, that Democrats will
appoint judges who don't share our Christian values and will
dismantle Christian culture, and that the out-of-control
judiciary, and this was in your last book ``Courting
Disaster'' is the most serious threat America has faced in
nearly 400 years of history, more serious than al Qaeda, more
serious than Nazi Germany and Japan, more serious than the
Civil War?
Pat Robertson: George, I really be1ieve that. I think they
are destroying the fabric that hold our nation together.
There is an assault on marriage. There's an assault on human
sexuality, as Judge Scalia said, they've taken sides in the
culture war and on top of that if we have a democracy, the
democratic processes should be that we can elect
representatives who will share our point of view and vote
those things into law.
George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) But, sir, let me just
stop you there. How can you say that these judges are a more
serious threat than Islamic terrorists who slammed into the
World Trade Center?
Pat Robertson: It depends on how you look at culture. If
you look over the course of a hundred years, I think the
gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country
together is probably more serious than a few bearded
terrorists who fly into buildings. I think we're going to
control al Qaeda. I think we're going to get Osama bin Laden.
We won in Afghanistan. We won in Iraq, and we can contain
that. But if there's an erosion at home, you know, Thomas
Jefferson warned about a tyranny of an oligarchy and if we
surrender our democracy to the tyranny of an oligarchy, we've
made a terrible mistake.
George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) You know, President
Bush at that press conference also said that he believes
you're equally American whether you're Christan, Muslim, or
Jew, and I wonder if you fully accept that, because in the
past, you've said that you believe that only Christians and
Jews are qualified to serve in the government. Is that still
your belief?
Pat Robertson: Well, you know, Thomas Jefferson, who was
the author of the Declaration of Independence said he
wouldn't have any atheists in his cabinet because atheists
wouldn't swear an oath to God. That was Jefferson and we have
never had any Muslims in the cabinet. I didn't say serve in
government. I said in my cabinet if I were elected president,
and I think a president has a right to take people who share
his point of view, and I would think that would be . . .
George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) Well, wait a second.
Let me just stop you there. `Cause in your book ``The New
World Order'' you wrote, `` `How dare you maintain that those
who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better
qualified to govern America than Hindus or Muslims.' My
simple answer is, `yes, they are.' '' Does that mean no Hindu
and Muslim judges?
Pat Robertson: Right now, I think people who feel that
there should be a jihad against America, read what the
Islamic people say. They divide the world into two spheres,
Dar al Islam Dar al Harb. The Dar al Islam are those who've
submitted to Islam, Dar al Harb are those who are in the land
of war and they have said in the Koran there's a war against
all the infidels. So do you want somebody like that sitting
as a judge? I wouldn't.
George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) So I take it then the
answer to the question is that you believe that only
Christians and Jews are qualified to serve in the Federal
judiciary?
Pat Robertson: Um, I'm not sure I'd make such a broad,
sweeping statement, but I just feel that those who share the
philosophy of the founders of this nation, who assent to the
principles of the Declaration of Independence, who assent to
the principles that underlie the constitution, such people
are the ones that should be judges, and the thing that I'm
opposed to about judges is the thought that this is a living
document that can be manipulated at the will of five out
of nine judge, nonelected judges. It's the tyranny of an
oligarchy that I'm concerned about.
George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) You said also that you
believe Democrats appoint judges who ``don't share our
Christian values'' and will ``dismantle Christian culture.''
So do you believe that Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg,
who were appointed by President Clinton, are trying to
dismantle Christian culture?
Pat Robertson: Justice Ginsburg served as a general counsel
for the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU. That was
founded, as you probably know, by about three members of the
Communist Internationale. Their leader, Baldwin, said that he
wanted to be a Communist and wanted to make this . . .
George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) So she's a Communist?
Pat Robertson: He was. He said, it's in my book. I mean, he
said it. He made a declaration. He said I want to make
America a workers' state, breed Communists.
George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) But I was asking about
Justice Ginsburg. And you now seem to be trying to equate her
with these Communists.
[[Page S4805]]
Pat Robertson: Well, she was the general counsel for this
organization whose purpose right now is to rid religion from
the public square. That's they are announced. We've had
Nadine Strasser down here to our university in a debate.
She's a very pleasant lady but that's what she said was her
avowed goal, to take all religion from the public square.
That's their initiative and Justice Ginsburg served as their
general counsel,
so . . .
George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) Let's turn to some
broader issues. You spoke at the beginning of the year on
``The 700 Club'' and said that you had been praying and God
had given you some predictions about President Bush's second
term. Let me show you that.
Pat Robertson: What I heard was that Bush is now positioned
to have victory after victory. He'll have Social Security
reform passed, that he'll have tax reform passed, that he'll
have conservative judges on the courts.
George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) So that's what you
heard on January 3rd. Do you think you might have
misinterpreted?
Pat Robertson: No, I think he's got a winning hand on
Social Security, George, despite what Nancy Pelosi says. The
Social Security, as you know is going into deficit in 2018.
It's not 2042 or '52. What they've been doing is taking a
surplus of the money that we all pay into Social Security and
they've used it to fund the Federal deficit and there is no
trust fund. That's an illusion and it's going into deficit.
There won't be any more excess for the Federal Government in
2018. We're hitting into a crisis mode and I think the
president as far as younger workers concerned, he has a
winning hand, and I think the Democrats are holding on to
something that Franklin Delano Roosevelt did in the '30s and
they look like a bunch of mossbacks. It is time they, they,
they, they get some new ideas. You said it right when you
were interviewing her.
George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) You know reverend
Robertson, the God you describe is taking a very active
direct role in our lives. One of the earlier clips we showed,
said, you had Him saying I am removing justices from the
supreme court and I'm just wondering why does a God who is so
involved in our daily life, so directly involved allow
something like a tsunami to kill several hundred thousand
people in Asia?
Pat Robertson: I don't think He reverses the laws of
nature. The reason for that tsunami was the shifting of
tectonic plates in the Indian Ocean. I don't think He changes
the magma in volcanoes and I don't think He changes the wind
currents to bring about hurricanes, so I don't attribute that
to God or His lack or otherwise but in terms of human affairs
I do think he answers prayer and I think there have been
literally millions of people praying for a change in the
supreme court. The people of faith in this country feel
they're on a tyranny and they see their liberties taken away
from them and they've been beseeching God, fasting and
praying for years, so I think he hears and answers their
prayers.
George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) You know, let's look
ahead to 2008. The jockeying has already begun and of all the
candidates looking for the nomination on the Republican side,
which one do you believe is best positioned to get the
support of religious conservatives like you?
Pat Robertson: You know, it's really hard to pick a winner
right now. There's an outstanding Senator from Kansas who I
think would be looking for it. He certainly represents the .
. .
George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) Sam Brownback?
Pat Robertson: Brownback, he's a super guy. I think George
Allen from Virginia was a distinguished governor, he's a
distinguished senator and head of the senatorial campaign
committee and won some significant victories. He is a very
attractive guy and would make a tremendous president. So
there are a couple. I don't know who else is out there
jockeying, I'm sure Karl Rove has a candidate that he hasn't
told us about.
George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) You didn't mention Bill
Frist. I'm surprised about that.
Pat Robertson: Uh, Bill is a wonderfully compassionate
human being. He is a humanitarian. He goes on medical
missions. He is a delightful person. I just don't see him as
a future president. And I think he said he didn't want to run
for president. Maybe I'm putting words in his mouth.
George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) I think he's looking at
it. Let me ask you one other question on that and then I'll
let you go.
Pat Robertson: Okay.
George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) If the party chooses a
moderate like John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, do you think
religious conservatives will split off and form a third party
movement?
Pat Robertson: I don't think so. Rudy is a very good friend
of mine and I think he did a super job running the City of
New York and I think he'd make a good president. I like him a
lot, although he doesn't share all of my particular points of
view on social issues. He's a very dedicated Catholic and he
is a great guy. McCain I'd vote against under any
circumstance.
George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) Reverend Robertson,
thank you very much.
Pat Robertson: Okay, thank you.
George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) The roundtable is next.
George will, Terry Moran, and Linda Douglass weigh in on the
president's first 100 days, and in ``The Funnies'' it's
Laura's turn.
Laura Bush, First Lady: I was a librarian who spent 12
hours a day in the library, yet somehow I met George.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is a strident voice among some in
this country who came out and said he believed that the real threat to
America was not terrorism but men and women wearing judicial robes. He
thought that was a much greater threat. That gives you an idea of the
extreme rhetoric. We cannot let this happen. Whether the Democrats are
in control or out of control, whether Republicans control today or
tomorrow is secondary. We all swear to uphold the Constitution.
I will yield the floor to my colleague from New Jersey at this point.
I hope those following this debate will consider the constitutional
issues at stake.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is
recognized.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I also believe we must defend the
independence of the judiciary, and I think the comments of both the
Senator from Illinois and the Senator from New York regarding this
subject are ones that need to be understood and need to be brought
forward on the floor as we consider the potential for what I believe is
changing the basic nature of how our courts are put together and their
independence.
____________________