CNN Inside Politics - Transcript

CNN Inside Politics - Transcript
Monday, July 11, 2005

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

CROWLEY: As Washington considers potential replacements for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the potential retirement of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, I'm joined from Capitol Hill by Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa. He is a member of the Judiciary Committee, which is about to have a lot of work to do. Senator, thank you for joining us.

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY (R), IOWA: Glad to be with you, Candy.

CROWLEY: Seems to me the conversation now is going in a couple of ways, and one of them has to do with consultation with Capitol Hill. What, in your mind, is appropriate consultation with Capitol Hill? Should the president ask Democrats for who they would like to see on the Supreme Court? Should he take that list seriously or should he hand them a list? What's appropriate?

GRASSLEY: Well, first of all, the consultation is not absolutely required by the constitution, but politically, it's a good thing for the president to do. And I think that it ranges from whatever people want to ask the president to consider, and I think that that would be legitimate. What they asked me -- I had conversations with top-level people at the White House last week and they asked if we had any names to suggest. We asked what sort of a person we would want to put on the Supreme Court. And I was able, in maybe a 15-minute telephone conversation, to give some direction. I think that that's the sort of consultation. And I could have probably gone on for an hour and they would have listened to us. But, you know, that covered the basics.

CROWLEY: Now, I know some Democrats have complained that mostly what they've heard now or sort of people who may be on the list, is that sufficient? Do you think you're going to get hung up over this?

GRASSLEY: Well, I think that the president hasn't made up the list. There's been no list made public. So a list, if one is available, is the figment of imagination of people that want to put lists together until the White House puts out a list. And I don't expect that the White House will put out a list. So you've got people that are supposedly on a list that's somebody else's list and then you got everybody else that anybody wants to suggest that could also be considered on the list.

CROWLEY: So let me tell you about the other thing that I think sort of is bubbling up into the conversation. And that is this whole idea of interpreting the law versus an activist judge. Now, I know that you have made it very clear that you want a judge that interprets the law, rather than makes the law. But in the end, doesn't this come down, really, to the issue of abortion? Because you have Democrats saying we don't want activist judges, either, who would mess around with Roe v. Wade.

GRASSLEY: No, it doesn't come down to abortion, because, for instance, the recent court case modifying the right of eminent domain and the fifth amendment, as an example, is very much a constitutional issue as much as abortion. And, you know, strict constructionist applies to anything that's not just constitutional, which is the case of Roe v. Wade. It's strict constructionist, what applies to the laws that we pass.

And the idea behind it is that judges are not elected, they're appointed. And should they be interfering with the legislative process? Because if judges interfere with the legislative process, except for impeachment, there's no recourse that the people have in this country. Whereas if I legislate and people don't like what I legislate, then they can vote against me in the next election.

CROWLEY: Democratic leader Reid has said -- signaled to the White House that he doesn't want to hurry this up. It's sort of raised the possibility that perhaps by the time the court opens in October, they may not have a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor. Is that acceptable?

GRASSLEY: I don't think it's acceptable, because, obviously, when there isn't a confirmation made, that that person is going to have to take office immediately and maybe vote on some cases that Justice O'Connor heard starting the first Monday of October. We need somebody on the bench that's not only going to vote on the cases, but are going to hear the cases.

CROWLEY: So you see hearings and you would like hearings in September, I take it?

GRASSLEY: Yes. They ought to come in September. Now, I've got nothing to denigrate Senator Reid's efforts to make sure that there's a good legislative process in place to give it due constitutional consideration. But where I have gripes about extended debate is you listen to the same thing said ten times over. You know, and points can only be made so often that they serve no useful purpose beyond that point. And that's where we ought to be voting. And I think that we have elongated debates way beyond what's constitutionally necessary to fulfill our role of advice and consent.

CROWLEY: Well, good luck to you, Senator Grassley, as you try to get everybody not to speak their turn. We'll be watching. Thank you so much. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/11/ip.01.html