Text 1214, 600 rader
Skriven 2005-07-20 23:34:04 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0507206) for Wed, 2005 Jul 20
====================================================
===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 20, 2005

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
James S. Brady Briefing Room

Press Briefing
"); //--> view


1:18 P.M. EDT

MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon, everybody. The President was pleased to have
coffee this morning with his nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Roberts.
They had a good discussion. You all heard from the President following
their coffee. Judge Roberts is now over, beginning some meetings with
members of the Senate. Judge Roberts is starting by meeting with Senators
Frist, McConnell and Specter. Then he will have a meeting with Senator
Specter. Following that, he will meet with Senator Reid, and then Senator
Leahy. And I believe he now has a meeting scheduled with Senator Durbin, as
well. And I think those are the meetings he has scheduled to begin his
consultations for the confirmation process and begin his courtesy visits
with leaders in the Senate. And Senator Thompson will be accompanying him
on those visits.

Judge Roberts is an exceptionally well qualified individual and someone
with impeccable credentials. The President recognized that when he got to
know him during the interview process, and he is someone who is widely
respected by Democrats and Republicans alike. The President was pleased,
but not surprised, that people across the political spectrum recognized
what he recognized, that he is someone who is highly qualified to serve on
our nation's highest court. The President is confident that the Senate is
going to move forward on a dignified confirmation process, one that will be
civil and one that the American people can be proud of. The President has
nominated a judge that the American people can be proud of, and it's
important that we continue to move forward in a timely manner and that he
receives fair treatment and a reasonable timetable for action, so that he
can be in place when the Court convenes -- or reconvenes in October.

And with that, I will be glad to go to your questions.

Q Scott, in his consultations with senators, did the President discuss the
issue of whether it was fair game for them to question a Supreme Court
nominee on specific issues that might arise, issues -- sensitive issues
like abortion and affirmative action?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, in terms of the role of the Senate, the Senate has a
very important role to play. The President has fulfilled his constitutional
responsibility of nominating someone to the bench that represents
mainstream American values and represents the mainstream of American laws.
He is someone who has served with distinction on the court over the past
two years, what many people refer to as the second highest court in our
land, and he is someone who has a very long and praiseworthy record as an
appellate lawyer. He is someone that brings great intellect and legal
ability to the position. He is someone of unquestioned integrity.

That's why the President pointed out in his remarks last night that more
than 105 bipartisan members of the D.C. Bar praised him when he was
appointed to the D.C. Circuit back in 2002, I believe is when that letter
went to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Now, in terms -- I'm sorry. Go
ahead, you --

Q The question was, are there -- did the President feel that there are
issues that are off limits, or can senators ask any question they want?

MR. McCLELLAN: Senators have the right and a responsibility to ask
questions and ask tough questions. That's their role. Now, I think that
people recognize that someone who is serving on our nation's highest court,
or any court, ought to be impartial and open-minded. That's the type of
individual that Judge Roberts is. He is someone who has shown that he's
impartial and fair. He wants to give people a fair hearing and let the case
be heard.

So I don't think anyone expects people to prejudge cases that could come
before them. The role of a judge is to listen to the facts and make
decisions based on the law. And that's exactly the type of person that
Judge Roberts is. He is someone who believes in interpreting the law and
not legislating from the bench. And I think if you look back, there has
been a tradition in the Senate where other nominees to our nation's highest
court have not gotten into discussing issues that may come before the Court
that they may have to decide. That would be prejudging cases before they
have heard them. And I think the American people want to see someone who is
impartial and fair and that will faithfully interpret our Constitution and
our laws.

Q But, Scott, isn't that overly limiting? I mean, for instance, if a judge,
like Judge Roberts, who, in his previous confirmation hearing, indicated
that he felt Roe v. Wade was settled law, as a circuit -- as an appellate
judge, that sort of -- he is limited by what is the Supreme Court decision.
But as a justice, he would wield so much more power and have the authority
to reverse settled law, essentially. So why shouldn't, on matters like
abortion, Judge Roberts be more forthcoming? And why is it unreasonable to
expect people to try to understand what his views may be?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the American people want people on our Court that
are going to faithfully interpret our Constitution and our laws; people
that are going to be impartial and open-minded and listen to the facts, and
then apply the law based on those facts; someone that will decide cases
based on law and based on the merits and --

Q Fine, that may be the case, but why shouldn't a candidate, a nominee not
comment on the Supreme Court's holding in a particular case that is past
law and be able to explain -- be willing to explain his philosophy and his
views on the law as it was applied previously?

MR. McCLELLAN: Because judges have an obligation to apply the law, not
their personal views. They are there to interpret laws and not try to
legislate from the bench. A judge should decide cases based on the law and
based on the facts. And that's the type of individual that I think the
American people want.

Now, in terms of questions about specific cases that may come before the
Court, I think everybody recognizes that there has been a precedent set
over the years in the United States Senate. If you go back and look at the
two most recent nominees to the Supreme Court -- Justices Ginsburg and
Breyer -- they were appointed by, or nominated by President Clinton. And
there were many in the United States Senate that did not share some of
their political views that they had held over the years. They recognized,
though, that they were qualified individuals; they moved forward in a
thoughtful and timely manner to approve those nominations.

And I think that if you look back at those hearings -- and hearings even
before that -- that there are a number of instances where individuals have
been asked their views on cases that might come before them, but they have
said, we're not going to prejudge cases before we have heard them; we will
listen to the facts; we will apply the law; we will look at precedent. And
I think that's an important precedent to keep in mind.

Q One more on this. When the President met with Judge Roberts, did he
discuss any issues in particular, any hot-button social issues with him to
understand his views on them?*

MR. McCLELLAN: The President is not the one who has a litmus test. The
President has always made clear that he doesn't have a litmus test, and
he's not someone who tends to get into questions with potential nominees to
the bench about issues of that nature. What he looks at -- what he looks at
is their judicial temperament and how they apply the law. Do they apply the
law by faithfully interpreting our Constitution and --

Q You're not saying "yes" or "no," he did or didn't?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Are you saying, no, he did not?

MR. McCLELLAN: I said the President has made very clear that he doesn't
give a litmus test, so --

Q I didn't ask whether he had a litmus test --

MR. McCLELLAN: And if there's any more to --

Q -- I'm asking if he discussed issues. So you don't know, or you won't
say?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't -- I think the President has made his views very
clear publicly that he's not the one that has a litmus test, and those are
not questions that he gets into with nominees. He stated that before
publicly. Now, I didn't listen to every conversation that they had, but
I'll -- if there's anything else to add, I will. But I think he's already
publicly said that he does not get into litmus test questions with
potential nominees.

Q Following quickly on that, and I just have a question, did Karl Rove or
Dick Cheney or anybody else in the administration ask those hot-button
questions?

MR. McCLELLAN: This was a decision made by the President. Obviously, there
are a number of key advisors that have a role in the nomination process,
but these were issues that the President addresses --

Q But was he vetted on hot-button issues --

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't heard any discussion about that whatsoever,
Jessica, and I do not -- I have no knowledge of that whatsoever. It's not
the way that the President has tended to approach nominations to the bench.
He does not have a litmus test. Others may have litmus tests, but the
President said, I don't have a litmus test, and he's publicly said before
those are not questions that he gets into.

Q Another question. Justice O'Connor is quoted as saying that Roberts is,
quote, "Good in every way, except he's not a woman." What's the President's
reaction to that comment?

MR. McCLELLAN: Who said that?

Q Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Justice O'Connor is someone that the President has the
highest regard for. He has great respect for Justice O'Connor. And she has
served with great distinction. We appreciate the job that she has done.

The President has a long record of nominating people to the bench and to
other positions within government, from all walks of life, and the
President considered a diverse group of individuals for the Court. The
President made the decision that Judge Roberts was the best person for this
position, and that's what he based his decision on.

Q So were there no qualified women?

MR. McCLELLAN: There were a number of qualified women that the President
considered. He considered a diverse group of individuals. The President
believes that Judge Roberts is the best person to fill this position, and
that's why he nominated him.

Q And what made him more ideal than the women the President considered?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you should look at the qualities that he possesses.
He is someone of unquestioned integrity who believes in faithfully
interpreting our Constitution and our laws. He is someone of high intellect
and great legal ability, and he is --

Q And there weren't women who met that standard?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I didn't say that at all. He is someone who is
exceptionally well qualified. He has impeccable credentials. Go back and
look at what he has accomplished over the course of his life. He has
advocated on 39 different occasions before the United States Supreme Court.
He is one of our nation's top appellate lawyers. He is someone who clerked
for Judge Rehnquist. His academic credentials are unquestioned. I mean,
they -- his background at Harvard and then Harvard Law School, graduating
in three years in undergraduate, and then going on to graduate from Harvard
Law School with high honors.

He is someone who has been recognized by Democrats and Republicans alike as
someone who possesses "enormous skills, unquestioned integrity and
fair-mindedness." I think that's something people will look for in a judge,
fair-mindedness. In fact, those bipartisan members of the D.C. Bar who
signed the letter said he is, "One of the very best and most highly
respected appellate lawyers." So I think all you have to do is look at his
credentials to see how highly qualified he is for this position. And I
think that if you look back at the comments from members on both sides of
the aisle, they recognize that, as well.

Q Scott, you now have a nominee to the Supreme Court up on the Hill at the
same time that another key nominee is stagnated up there, John Bolton. So
does this change the way that you try and move forward on the Bolton
nomination? Because if you guys do a recess appointment on Bolton, I mean,
that would probably anger people on the Hill and could affect the Supreme
Court nomination.

MR. McCLELLAN: The President continues to believe that John Bolton ought to
have an up or down vote; that remains our position.

Q But that's not happening, so how are you going to move forward on that,
with the nomination?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we continue to believe he should have an up or down
vote. I wouldn't necessarily connect the two. We believe that all nominees
should -- the Senate should move forward on all nominees.

Q Scott, along the line of questioning that Jessica had -- what was the
obligation, if there was any, for the White House to pick someone at least
along the lines of Sandra Day O'Connor's judicial philosophy? She's a
moderate conservative, she upheld Roe v. Wade. He is totally the opposite.
What was the obligation the White House had, at any point, to try to fill
that -- not necessarily being a woman, but try to fill that judicial
philosophy?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the obligation the President has is to appoint
someone who he believes is the best person for the position, and someone
who meets the criteria that he outlined. The criteria that he outlined was
someone who will faithfully interpret our Constitution and laws, someone of
integrity, someone who brings great legal ability to the position. And I
think all you have to do is look at Judge Roberts' lifetime of achievement
to recognize that he meets all those criteria. And the President has an
obligation to the American people to consider a diverse group of
individuals, and he did.

Q And a follow-up. Some are concerned that this potential next pick the
President has for the Supreme Court, that the scales will definitely be
tipped, the judicial scales will be tipped to the conservative side more
so, instead of balancing the scales. Is there a concern --

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think that's ever been a standard for the Supreme
Court. If you go back and look -- I mean, look at when President Clinton
appointed a -- nominated a replacement for Justice White, he nominated
Justice Ginsburg. I think people would look at those as people with very
different views, ideological views.

Q So you're not looking at balancing the scales, it's more about a
conservative lean?

MR. McCLELLAN: And the President is going to continue to appoint -- or
nominate people to the bench that meet the criteria I just outlined. He
believes that we ought to nominate people to the bench who will look at the
law and apply the law, and not try to make law from the bench.

Q You use the term -- and I'm not arguing with this -- the term "interpret"
the Constitution and interpret the law. By definition, interpretation is
subjective. That being the case, would it not be appropriate for members of
the Senate to try and find out, on any given issue, the basis for a
nominee's interpretation?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the Judge has certainly issued a number of rulings
over the course of the last couple of years, and those are issues for the
Senate to look at. Those are matters for the Senate to consider as they
move forward on the confirmation process. But I think it's important to
look at the judicial temperament of nominees to our nation's highest court.

Q Beyond temperament, however, an orientation on a particular issue would,
perhaps, affect a senator's vote. Shouldn't the nominee be forthcoming
about how he views, for instance, candidly, the abortion issue?

MR. McCLELLAN: Look at the tradition in the United States Senate, and I
think you can find your answer to that question. People want to see
nominees to the bench that are impartial, that are fair, that are
open-minded, and that's the type of individual that Judge Roberts is. And
they can go and look at his record on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and
the rulings that were issued there. Those are certainly issues that
senators will look at, and questions they will discuss.

Q But as you know, that's a thin record, which is probably concerning both
sides at this particular point. Is that something that factored into the
choice?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you have to look at all his -- he has extensive
experience. Look at the qualifications that I just discussed. He is
someone, as people on both sides of the aisle have said, who is highly
qualified for this position. I noticed that you even had some Democrats
that had mentioned that he -- publicly -- that he was someone that was
considered acceptable, from their standpoint, as well.

Q Scott, two quick questions on the consultation. The President seemed to
indicate this morning that he spoke with senators last night. Can you tell
us with whom and when? And also, of all the senators that have been
consulted, how many did the President actually speak with, beyond the four
or five of the leadership?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure. A couple things. One, we briefed on that last night.
The President called Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Senator Specter, Senator
Leahy, to inform them of his decision, and he had good discussions with
each of them. I think all those have expressed their appreciation for the
President's phone call. This was a little bit after 7:30 p.m. last night.
It was part of our continuing consultative process.

We have consulted with more than 70 members of the United States Senate,
including three-quarters of Senate Democrats. That has been called
unprecedented by longtime-serving members of the United States Senate, that
level of consultation. We will continue to consult as we move forward.
That's why Senator Thompson has -- is accompanying Judge Roberts on the
Hill right now, so that he can begin the confirmation consultations. And
that's what's going on today, he's beginning those courtesy visits.

Now, the President sat down when he got back from his trip to the G8 summit
in Gleneagles, Scotland, with those same four leaders, as well. I know he
spoke with Senator Byrd later that morning, reached out to him, as well.
And then there was a lot of outreach by White House staff, as well.

Q So, five.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'd have to double-check. I mean, obviously, there are other
meetings that occur, and the President has discussions with members. But
those are the ranking members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the
leaders of the two parties in the United States Senate. And that's why it
was important, the President felt, to reach out to them and listen to their
thoughts and views.

And as we move forward, as I discussed last night, the list that the
President had is something that has always been fluid. Attorney General
Gonzales, when he was counsel here at the White House, began the process of
compiling names of potential nominees. And that list has expanded and
contracted over the course of the years. And as we took into account the
thoughts and views of members of the United States Senate, the list that
the President took with him on his trip to Denmark and then Scotland also
was -- names were added to it and names were taken off it as we moved
forward.

Q Just to follow up a little bit on what Adam was talking about -- can you
describe to us to what degree or extent any of the Democrats that the
President spoke with actually commended Roberts to him, and whether or not
the President was led to understand by Democrats that Roberts was a
confirmable nominee?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I would look back at the public comments of some
members. And I think as part of being respectful of the process, which the
President has always wanted to be, I don't want to get into characterizing
views expressed by others in meetings with the President. But I think
you've heard from a number of Democrats how they recognize that Judge
Roberts is someone who is highly qualified for the position.

Now, there are a lot of questions, I know, that they want to ask and
they're going to have that opportunity during the confirmation process.

Q When you say "highly qualified," and the President thinks he's uniquely
qualified, does the President believe that Mr. Roberts is a strict
constructionist in the mold of Mr. Scalia or Thomas?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that Judge Roberts' record is reflected by his time
on the court and by the views that he has expressed previously before the
Senate Judiciary Committee as he went through that confirmation process. He
was someone who was supported by unanimous consent of the United States
Senate. That meant that no Democrat on the floor raised an objection to
moving forward on his nomination. And he is someone that is highly regarded
across the political aisle by lawyers who have known him and gotten to know
him over the years, and seen him through this work as an appellate lawyer
and then as a judge.

Q So insofar as the President made it clear in his initial campaign that he
was going to seek strict constructionists in the mold of Scalia and Thomas,
can we assume that this is a nominee that fits that bill?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you can look at his record. I mean, you all are
going to try to attach labels and everything else. You can look at his
record and see that he is someone who believes in faithfully interpreting
our Constitution and our laws.

Q Is it true Karl Rove was the first person to leak John Roberts' name to
the media last night? (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: Next question. Les.

Q I yield to the others, because I have one that goes overseas.

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Bob.

Q In Chicago in December of '03, the President said, "I want to know who
the leakers are." Separate from the legal issue, is the President convinced
now that Karl Rove was one of the leakers?

MR. McCLELLAN: I've answered these questions, and I don't have anything to
say beyond what I've already said.

Go ahead.

Q What's the answer to that one, then, Scott?

MR. McCLELLAN: I've answered these questions over the course of the last
week.

Go ahead.

Q It has been reported that President Bush has decided to hold nomination
of special envoy for North Korean human rights. Can you tell us why --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, could you repeat that question?

Q President Bush has decided to hold the nomination of a special envoy for
North Korean human rights --

MR. McCLELLAN: Hold the nomination?

Q Yes.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the State Department can probably give you a little
more information on that. I think they've addressed it recently.

Go ahead, Mark.

Q Scott, has the President or the White House, in the selling of John
Roberts, had to tell anyone, look, next time it's going to be a woman or an
Hispanic?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, not that I know of. I haven't heard anything like that,
and that's not our practice.

Q Are any of the two women who --

MR. McCLELLAN: The President considers each vacancy based on who he
believes is the best person for that position.

Q Are any of the two women who went through that final round of five
personal interviews still on deck for the next appointment?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, each vacancy is considered separately, and that's the
way I would look at it. Obviously, there is a list of names that are kept
for potential nominees to the court, but there's not another vacancy at
this point. So I wouldn't even want to begin to speculate about it.

Q Does the President, or you have any comment on the chaos in Israel and on
the votes today to continue to withdraw from Gaza?

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen the latest on the vote, but if you're talking
about the latest situation there, we continue to urge all parties to show
maximum effort to make the disengagement plan successful. The President
appreciates the strong leadership of Prime Minister Sharon in putting
forward the disengagement plan, and it's important that everybody focus on
making sure it is successful. That can get us moving forward on peace in
the Middle East. And it is a historic opportunity, and the President
believes it's important to seize this opportunity.

That's why Secretary Rice is headed to the region. She has been in Africa
today. Then she is headed on to the region. I think it's the first of next
week, maybe it's late this week. But we also have the Quartet envoy, Jim
Wolfensohn, who has been in the region working with the Palestinians to
address economic needs and economic concerns as Israel moves forward on the
disengagement plan. You have General Ward who has been working on the
security issues.

And so we're committed to helping the parties move forward, and the parties
need to exercise maximum effort to make sure that it is successful and they
need to work together to coordinate efforts as they move forward.

Q One other follow-up.

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure.

Q If Hamas becomes part of the government in Palestine, and Hezbollah in
Lebanon, how will the United States handle that? Will the U.S. talk to
Hamas and Hezbollah?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, we don't deal with terrorist organizations. And our
views are well-known on both those organizations. And it's important the
Palestinian Authority and the leadership has taken some steps to address
the violence and terrorist attacks. There is more that needs to be done. We
continue to emphasize the importance of cracking down on terrorists and
stopping those attacks from happening in the first place. There is more
that needs to be done when it comes to that.

Les, go ahead.

Q Scott, U.S. News and World Report has just published what it identified
as, quote, Mike McCurry, former Clinton spokesman, expressing sympathy for
you about what the Media Research Center headlined as "reporters in full
scold mode" on July the 11th, including your plea, "if you'll let me
finish" -- and NBC's response, "no, you're not finishing, you're not saying
anything." And my question -- first of two -- has anyone from these three
networks -- NBC, ABC, CBS -- apologized to you for this behavior?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, first of all, I would say I have great respect for Mike
McCurry and the job that he did. I think we both recognize what it's like
to be up here. And he is someone whose advice I sought out before taking
this position, along with a number of predecessors.

In terms of the press corps here in this room, I think we have had a good
relationship over the years, and I look forward to continuing to have a
good relationship.

Q A New York Daily News columnist, Michael Goodwin called this, in his
words, "hostile hectoring" that revealed much of the mainstream press for
what it has become, the opposition party. "Forget fairness, or even the
pretense of it, bias has now slopped over into blatant opposition,
providing comfort food to ideological comrades," end of quote. Do you
disagree with The New York Times -- New York Daily News on this?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you know I try to avoid being a media critic.

Go ahead.

Q Do you have a response to Prince Bandar stepping down as ambassador? And
do you think that that will, in any way, affect U.S.-Saudi relations?

MR. McCLELLAN: We appreciate Prince Bandar's distinguished service as the
ambassador for Saudi Arabia to the United States, and I think we're going
to be putting out a statement in a short time here.

Q You were going to give us a readout on the conversation between Roberts
and the President when he made the offer.

MR. McCLELLAN: I really don't have more beyond what I said last night. I
think the conversation lasted several minutes. I think it was probably
around -- a little bit after 12:30 p.m., and it was right about 12:35 p.m.
when the President made the offer and Judge Roberts accepted the offer, and
the President was pleased that he did.

Q Scott, what are the prospects of a presidential mediation board in the
Northwest Airlines labor impasse?

MR. McCLELLAN: A couple of things. One, we're closely watching the
developments and hope that an acceptable agreement can be reached. Beyond
that, I think it's best at this point to refer specific questions to the
Department of Labor.

Q Thank you.

MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you.

END 1:46 P.M. EDT

* He did not. The President does not ask potential nominees their personal
views on so-called >hot-button issues._ He does not believe in litmus
tests. He believes in nominating people to the bench who will faithfully
interpret our Constitution and our laws, not legislate from the bench. He
looks at their qualifications, experience and key rulings when coming to a
decision.

______________________

FOLLOW-UP TO A QUESTION FROM THE BRIEFING

Q One more on this. When the President met with Judge Roberts, did he
discuss any issues in particular, any hot-button social issues with him to
understand his views on them?

He did not. The President does not ask potential nominees their personal
views on so-called >hot-button issues._ He does not believe in litmus
tests. He believes in nominating people to the bench who will faithfully
interpret our Constitution and our laws, not legislate from the bench. He
looks at their qualifications, experience and key rulings when coming to a
decision.
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050720-6.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)