Text 1507, 870 rader
Skriven 2005-10-03 23:39:52 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0510032) for Mon, 2005 Oct 3
===================================================
===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 3, 2005

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

Press Briefing
"); //--> view

  þ Supreme Court Nominee Harriet Miers
      þ Reference B
  þ Bill Bennett statement
  þ Hurricanes

12:23 P.M. EDT

MR. MCCLELLAN: Good afternoon, everyone. The President was pleased to offer
the Supreme Court nomination to Harriet Miers last night, and pleased that
she agreed and accepted it. Harriet Miers has a distinguished legal career
and a record of accomplishment. The National Law Journal has recognized her
on a number of occasions as one of the nation's most powerful attorneys and
one of the top 50 women attorneys in the nation. She's worked at the
highest levels of government, most recently and currently as Counsel to the
President in the White House. She helped manage a 400 person law firm in
Texas. She has clerked for a federal district judge. She has tried cases
before state and federal courts, including trying cases before appellate
courts on a broad range of issues.

Harriet has been a trailblazer for women in the legal profession. She was
the first woman elected president of the Texas Bar Association. She has
been a leader in the American Bar Association. She is someone who is
exceptionally well-qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. She
has earned the respect and admiration of the legal profession, and she will
earn the respect and admiration of the American people -- we are confident
of that.

The President was looking exactly for someone with her qualifications and
experience and judgment. She has great legal ability and good judgment. She
is someone of the highest integrity who will faithfully interpret our
Constitution and our laws.

Just to give you a little bit more information on how this came about, the
President was pleased to get the input and advice of the United States
Senate. We consulted with more than 80 senators. The President took their
advice very seriously. There were two things that stood out to the
President in those consultations: one, that Republicans and Democrats alike
had suggested Harriet Miers by name as someone that would serve well on the
United States Supreme Court; and, two, that the President should consider
someone that is not a judge, someone that would bring some unique and
different perspective to our Court. As you all are aware, there are a
number of justices that have served -- served with exception and served
with distinction that were not previously members of the bench, or not
previously served on the bench -- Chief Justice Rehnquist is one; Justice
Byron White is another one.

The President -- and remember, we consulted with more than 70 senators in
the first round when the President was considering the first vacancy. This
process was really a continuation of that first. There were a number of
people considered; there were a number of people interviewed during this
whole nomination process. There was a committee that the President had set
up the first time around with Andy Card, Harriet Miers, Judge Gonzales, the
Vice President, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, and Chief of Staff to the
Vice President, Scooter Libby.

The President considered a diverse group of potential nominees. He was
looking at people from all walks of life. This is not a position that
Harriet sought. She was someone who, as I mentioned, was involved in the
selection process. But as others on this committee were looking at
credentials and qualifications -- and the President, as well -- they
recognized that she was someone who had the kind of qualifications and
experience and judgment that was needed to serve on the nation's highest
court.

And the President met with Harriet on four separate occasions to discuss
the vacancy with her specifically, including on September 21st, was the
first, and September 28th and 29th. He met with her last night over dinner
in the residence, and that was when he formally offered her the position.

The President had called Andy Card just before 7:00 p.m. last night to let
him know that he had made a final decision. Andy Card informed the Vice
President. And then this morning, the President called Chief Justice
Roberts around 7:00 a.m. to let him know about the decision. And he spoke
with Justice O'Connor around 7:15 a.m. to let her know about the decision,
as well.

And as you all are aware, Harriet has been over at the Capitol meeting with
leaders of the Senate to begin the consultations during the confirmation
process. And she met earlier with Senator Frist and Senator Specter and
Senator Stevens, and had good discussions with them. She's scheduled to be
meeting with Senator Reid this afternoon. And we've also reached out to
Senator Leahy to set up a time that will be good for him to visit with her,
as well.

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

Q Scott, some conservatives appear to be less than thrilled with this
nomination. One noted conservative columnist said that he had expected the
President to pick someone with a visible and distinguished
constitutionalist track record -- a suggestion that the President flinch
from a fight on constitutional philosophy, that this appears to be a
combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the President. What
would the President say to his conservative base to allay them of those
concerns?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you ought to look at those who know Harriet
Miers well, because they have said other things than what you just cited.
There are a number of people who have praised her for her great legal
ability and her sound judgment and her extensive experience. She is
someone, as I just mentioned, who brings great legal ability to this
position. She is someone who has earned the respect of the legal community.

The President was looking for someone who has a philosophy of strictly
interpreting our Constitution and our laws, and she is someone who has
committed to do that. She will look at the law and she will apply the law.
And I think that that's what the American people want on the bench. She was
appointed, or nominated by the President because she is the best person in
his mind to fill this vacancy.

Q How would you describe her? Is she a bedrock conservative, an ideological
conservative, a moderate? What words would you use to --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I would describe her the way I did, John. As you know,
ideology, religion, politics, things of that nature don't really have a
place when it comes to making decisions on our highest court. The decisions
should be based on the law. Harriet Miers will apply the law. She will look
at the law, look at the facts of the case, and then apply the law. That's
what she's committed to doing, and that's what the American people want on
the bench.

Tom, go ahead.

Q Scott, she's a total skeleton candidate with no paper trail. Do you think
the --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I disagree with your characterization, because she is
someone who has a very distinguished career and a long record of
accomplishment.

Q Well, let's say without judicial experience, and without having taken
public positions on issues, if that will -- if you're concerned that that
will give Democrats in the Senate more desire to take a long -- very long
time looking into her background to sort things out?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let me back up. There were -- and we appreciate Leader
Frist expressing his commitment to move forward in a timely manner and have
this confirmation completed by Thanksgiving. Senator Specter made it clear
that he was going to move forward on a thorough confirmation process. We
welcome that. Harriet looks forward to sitting down with members of the
Senate, visiting with them in person. She welcomes the opportunity to go
through the confirmation process and answer their questions. I know that
she's very much looking forward to that. This is our nation's highest
court, and it should be a thorough process.

The President went through a very thorough and deliberate process when
selecting her, and we would expect nothing less. We hope they will move
forward in a prompt and timely manner and that they will remain committed
to moving forward in a civil and dignified way, as Senator Frist and
Senator Specter expressed their commitment to doing so earlier today.

But let me back up, because I think it's important to look at the Court.
There are a number of justices who have served on the United States Supreme
Court that had no prior judicial experience. I think that is a strength
that can be brought to the Court. It will help offer a broader perspective
and bring some broader experience to the Court.

That's something the President did consider as he was making this
selection. Neither Chief Justice Rehnquist, nor Justice White had prior
judicial experience when they were appointed to the bench. But they both
become two of the most distinguished and respected justices in recent
memory. And they served for 30-plus years with great excellence, and so I
think you have to look at that. But there have been, I think, some 38
people appointed to the highest court that did not have prior judicial
experience. But she does have experience as a practicing lawyer, very
extensive experience. And that is something that the President considered,
as well.

Q Harry Reid said that he likes her. Are you encouraged by that comment
from him?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as I said, there are Democrats and Republicans alike
who suggested that she would be a good nominee. We did take those into
consideration.

Q Was he one of them?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into any individual discussions; I'll
let them speak for themselves. But I think you've heard from a number of
senators, Republican and Democrat, who said that the President should look
outside the bench for when he makes this selection.

Kelly, and then I'll come back here.

Q To what extent did the President's personal friendship with Harriet Miers
have an impact on his ultimate decision? And those who say that it is sort
of the appearance of cronyism, that -- did this relationship give her an
advantage, and the fact that she was heading the search committee?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President knows her well. He has known her for
some time now. But the decision was based on who was the best person to
fill this vacancy. And she has the qualifications and experience needed to
do an outstanding job on the United States Supreme Court, and that's why
the President selected her.

Q Was he rewarding a friend?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I said he was appointing someone who will make an
outstanding Supreme Court Justice. And all you have to do is go and look at
her record and what she brings to the Court. She brings very diverse and
broad experience that will be very helpful to the Court.

Go ahead, Terry.

MR. McCLELLAN: Scott, you mentioned her legal experience. Part of that
experience is that she was the President's personal lawyer. Can you tell us
some of the matters that she would have represented the President in? I
understand there was a real estate matter. Did she get involved in the
National Guard stuff, the jury duty -- can you tell us --

MR. McCLELLAN: There will be a confirmation process. No, I don't have
specifics on that in front of me. She did, originally, I think, serve as
counsel to the President's gubernatorial committee that was set up when he
was first running for governor, back in '93, and I think it was some time
after that she did represent him in some personal matters.

Q And you can get us details on what those matters were?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll work on getting you more information. Obviously, that
will be something that, I'm sure, will come up during the confirmation
process.

Q And something else will come up, and I just want to let you have the
opportunity to answer directly, and Kelly was getting at. What do you say
when people will say he put his own lawyer on the Supreme Court? That's
definitional, cronyism.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'd say look at her record. As I said, she is someone that
he knows well. But look at her record. Her record is one of being a
trailblazer for women in the legal profession and a record of being a tough
and strong litigator who has represented clients before state and federal
courts on a broad range of issues. She is someone who brings the exact kind
of experience and qualifications needed on our nation's highest court, and
that's why the President selected her.

Helen, go ahead.

Q I have a two-part question. She's going to obey the law of the land --

MR. McCLELLAN: You're taking the Les mode now.

Q She's going to pay strong attention to the law of the land, which means
she should support Roe versus Wade. And, also, what policies has she
participated in, in the White House, that are already on the record? Can
you say what her participation was?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, she's been very involved in the policy process here at
he White House. She started as the Staff Secretary for the President when
he first came into office. Then she became the Deputy Chief of Staff. And
then, just about six/seven months ago, the President named her his White
House Counsel. So she's been very involved in policy matters here at the
White House. That was part of her role, and that's one of her strengths, is
that she has served within the administration at some of the highest levels
of government. The two justices I mentioned earlier, Chief Justice
Rehnquist and Justice White, were --

Q No, I'm asking --

MR. McCLELLAN: I know, but I'm pointing out, they were members of the
administration prior to being nominated to the bench.

Q Well, what policies --

MR. McCLELLAN: So it's helpful that she has that kind of broad experience.
She has served as a city councilwoman in Dallas. She has served as a state
official on the Texas Lottery Commission -- she helped clean it up when it
needed cleaning up. And she is someone who has produced positive results.

Q Can we assume that his policies -- that she had a big, strong hand in the
policies that we've watched over the -- since 2001?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, she's been very involved in the policy process here.
She's been a senior member of the President's White House staff.

Q On treatment of the prisoners of war, for example?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the General Counsel of the White House during the time
you're referring to was Justice -- was Judge Gonzales, or Attorney General
Gonzales.

Q Scott, he --

Q She gave money to Al Gore in the --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, he's answered those questions before the Court, but I
think she's going back to some of the previous directives that were issued.

Q She give money to Al Gore and Bentsen in the '80s. Do you have any
information that she was ever registered as a Democrat?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know what her affiliation was back then. I do come
from Texas, and I do know that there were not a lot of Republicans back in
the '70s and early '80s in Texas. And most of the elected officials in
Texas, and certainly the statewide level, were Democrats at the time. They
were conservative Democrats and liberal Democrats. And I think that since
probably about 1988, she has contributed exclusively to Republicans as an
individual.

Q So you don't know what -- before that, you don't know her affiliation
before that?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I was just pointing out the history of Texas. Many of us
in Texas grew up Democrats because there really wasn't much of a -- there
weren't many Republicans elected to statewide office. Many of the elections
were decided in the primaries, and so I think some of those contributions
go back to primary time.

Q Did you give money to Al Gore? (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: I did not. When I became 18 I was a Republican and voting
Republican, and proud of it.

Q Scott, back on Tom and Helen's question --

MR. McCLELLAN: I supported the President's father, too. (Laughter.)

Q Back on Tom and Helen's question, people are trying to zero in on her
opinions. They are concerned that, you know, granted, she doesn't have any
paper trail from the bench or what have you, but they want to know
specifically what her thoughts are on issues. Specifically, can you give us
something that, from the White House Counsel's Office, what she has
thought, what she has worked on, the opinions that she's put into the work
that she's done?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as Staff Secretary you have involvement in a broad
range of issues; as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, you have involvement
in a broad range of issues; as General Counsel to the President, you have
involvement in a broad range of issues. And the confirmation process will
be an opportunity to discuss these matters. I'm sure that she will answer
questions appropriately.

Q Well, people like Howard Dean, are asking -- they're, like, the jury is
still out because they want to know what her opinions are. What would you
say to Howard Dean, beyond the spinnage [sic] you're giving now, to give
something specific --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, beyond what?

Q The spin --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm giving the facts.

Q No, you're not answering directly, Scott.

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, I'm giving the facts, April.

Q No, you're not answering directly, Scott, about her opinion.

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, I'm giving the facts. There's some spin going on
from you. (Laughter.)

Q Okay, so anyway -- okay, thank you. So, anyway, on another subject --

MR. McCLELLAN: I would say they ought to look at what Senator Leahy said.
It's too early to reach any firm judgment about such an important
nomination, if there are Democratic members of his own party that are
saying otherwise. Senator Harry Reid said -- made some very positive
comments about Harriet Miers.

The standard that we should look at, April, is qualifications. That has
been the precedent, and certainly in recent history, is what are the
person's qualifications. Are they qualified to serve on the highest court?
Do they have the kind of background and experience and judicial temperament
to represent the American people well on the United States Supreme Court?
Harriet Miers is someone who will make the American people very proud. She
has the kind of experience that is needed on the United States Supreme
Court.

And so I encourage you to look at her record. She welcomes the opportunity
to talk about her distinguished career, and to talk about her record of
accomplishment. These will be questions that will come up during the
confirmation process, but there's been a precedent set. The precedent is
based on the Ginsburg and Breyer standard, and even people before that. We
should look at qualifications. There are many that may have disagreed with
some of the philosophical views or political views that those justices
took, but there was broad support when it came time to confirm them to the
Court, because people on both sides of the aisle recognized they were
qualified to serve on our nation's highest court.

The one thing that the Court should not become is subject to partisan
politics. We would hope that Democrats wouldn't become -- wouldn't become
beholden to liberal special interest groups that want to prevent a civil
and dignified process from moving forward. That would be unprecedented.

Q And another -- Scott, quickly. On Bill Bennett, the President was upset
when he saw the issue about the stamp coming out of Mexico. What are his
thoughts about Bill Bennett and his statements about blacks and --

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I spoke about that last week, and I think I've already
addressed that matter.

Q Can you address it again, please, because it's still an issue and many
people --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I've already answered that. I don't think --

Q People are calling for an apology.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- I need to again. Bill Bennett is someone who has done a
lot of good things in life for a lot of people from all walks of life.

Go ahead, Goyal.

Q Scott, two questions. One, as far as Katrina is concerned, and Rita,
there are hundreds of small businesses are out of business, and they are
nothing now to --

MR. McCLELLAN: Small businesses where?

Q In Louisiana and those affected areas.

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay.

Q And they were employed -- hundreds of thousands of people they were
employed. Now they can't --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll tell you what, can I come back to you? Because I think
there's probably more people that have questions about the Supreme Court.
And if we have time, I'll come back to you.

Q Can I get one? Can I ask you real quick?

MR. McCLELLAN: You've had one. Dana.

Q No, just real quick.

MR. McCLELLAN: No.

Q Are you going to make available all the documents regarding her time here
--

MR. McCLELLAN: Dana. I'll come back to you.

Q That's my question.

MR. McCLELLAN: Is that your question?

Q It's my question.

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you defer -- do you defer to John Roberts?

Q No, no. What I was going to say is essentially that recent history shows
that Democrats, especially when there's virtually no paper trail, they want
to know what the nominee has done, particularly --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's what the confirmation process is for. And
Harriet Miers looks forward to that process.

Q If and when the Democrats ask to see the documents, the papers, the
consultations that Harriet Miers was involved in, in the White House and
the executive branch, will --

MR. McCLELLAN: A couple of things. She welcomes the opportunity to answer
questions during the confirmation process. That's an important part of the
confirmation process. And I'm sure that she will answer questions in an
appropriate manner. We will also make sure that we provide them appropriate
information so that they can do their job.

Q Does that mean we'll be more inclined to show them some of the documents
that perhaps before were --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to speculate. And I'm not aware of any such
requests that have come at this point.

Q Okay. Wait, can I just follow up on one thing?

MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, yes, go ahead.

Q Along the lines of what Terry was asking. There's a report that the
President hired Harriet Miers to look through his background for anything
that could be derogatory when he first started thinking about running for
office, back when he was in Texas, back in --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me double-check. I wasn't working for him at that point.
Go ahead.

Q Scott, could you please elaborate on the four meetings, including the
dinner the President had with Ms. Miers? It seems like that they're in
contact with each other anyway, throughout the normal working process. Why
did it take four meetings -- did she readily agree to serve, or did he have
to talk her into it? Can you tell us a little bit about each of those
meetings?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as I mentioned, I don't think this was something that
she expected. She was not seeking this out. She, earlier today, said how
honored and humbled she was to be selected by the President to serve on our
nation's highest court. The President, having known her, believed that she
would make an outstanding Supreme Court Justice. And that's why the first
meeting began on September 21st, to talk to her about the possibility. And
those discussions continued over time.

I wouldn't look at that as being surprising or anything, I think that's
just part of the nomination process. The President was doing his homework.
He was seriously considering a number of people, from all walks of life.
And it became clear to him, having known her and having been very familiar
with her record of accomplishment and her long career, distinguished
career, that she would be the best person for this position.

Q Did she readily agree to it, or did she have to kind of be brought along?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think if you look at her record, she is always
someone who has answered the call to serve. She is someone who has done an
enormous amount of pro bono work. The President talked about earlier in his
remarks all the community service activities that she has been involved in.
And that is something that she has always been committed to, serving the
people and helping people who are in need.

Q Scott, when I asked earlier about whether or not some conservatives who
have expressed concern that this is a capitulation, and that perhaps Ms.
Miers isn't going to be conservative enough, you said that ideology,
religion and politics, things of that nature, don't really have a place. Do
you think --

MR. McCLELLAN: When you're on the Supreme Court and you're making
decisions, you make decisions based on the Constitution and based on the
law and then you apply that law. I think that that's what the American
people want, including conservatives.

Q So that said, then, what would you say to cheer those conservatives who
are concerned that this is a capitulation?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think they ought to look at some of the comments,
and, again, this is an appointment of someone who will represent all
Americans well. And I think, as I said, the American people want someone
who is going to strictly interpret our Constitution and our laws, and is
going to apply the law -- that's going to look at the facts and apply the
law.

And they ought to look at some of the comments from people who know her
well -- many of their colleagues, people who are very familiar with her,
because they have spoken out about how well-qualified she is and what an
outstanding jurist she would make.

Q And can you give us some indication as to how the President decided he
would deal with these charges of cronyism, what his reaction might have
been as it was discussed during the process?

MR. McCLELLAN: He doesn't spend time thinking about it. He's looking for
the best person for the position, and that's what he focuses on.

Go ahead.

Q If I understood your opening remarks, it sounded like some Democrats, in
advance of the announcement, had said flattering things about Ms. Miers.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct.

Q I'm wondering if -- who were --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's part of the consultative process. I'm not going to
get into names. If they want to talk more about it, they are welcome to do
so, but I'm not going to get into names from this podium out of respect for
that process.

Q But we can assume that some key Democrats said, she's not radioactive,
she's okay with us?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think they used those words. (Laughter.) Republicans
and Democrats alike both suggested her name as someone who would make an
outstanding Supreme Court nominee.

Sarah, go ahead.

Q I have a different subject, so I'll wait until --

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay. Supreme Court. Les? No? Okay, go ahead.

Q Scott, it's been suggested that because she has no body of judicial
rulings to examine, that Harriet Miers should be more forthcoming than
other Supreme Court nominees. Is that a reasonable suggestion?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you ought to look back at what Justice Ginsburg said
and what other justices have said, that -- are you talking specifically
about answering questions about cases that may come before the Court?
Because that's never been a --

Q Well, about --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the judicial philosophy is one of strictly
interpreting our constitutional laws, and certainly, there will be
questions talking about the law and how you apply the law. That's part of
the confirmation process. Judge Roberts did that. And I disagree with your
assessment of the previous confirmation process, because it has never been
a precedent before the Supreme Court that justices -- or nominees should
get into answering questions about cases that may come before the Court. Go
back and look at recent nominees and look at what justices on the Supreme
Court have said. You shouldn't be prejudging cases that could come before
you.

Q I wasn't being -- I wasn't making any judgment, I'm just saying that it
has been suggested that there should be a higher standard if there isn't
this body of legal work. Is that not fair?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's what I -- I think the question you're getting
to is talking about cases that could come before the Court. And that's why
I was making clear what that precedent has been. But, certainly, she will
answer all questions appropriately.

Q There must be many other female corporate lawyers around the country who
are also extremely well-qualified in the way that she is. Is there anything
particular in her background with regard to her knowledge of constitutional
law that makes her particularly well-qualified for this nomination?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's everything the President mentioned earlier today, as
well as everything we've put out on her and her long distinguished career.
I mean, if you go and look at -- I mean, Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice
White, they were nominated at a much younger age than Harriet Miers, and
had not had as much legal experience as someone like she has had. She is
very uniquely qualified to sit on our nation's highest court.

She is someone who was selected by her colleagues, who know her best, in
Texas, to serve as the first president of the Texas Bar Association. She
was a candidate for the second-highest position at the American Bar
Association before withdrawing her name so she could come to Washington and
serve in the administration of the President, back in 2001.

Q So in terms of writings or constitutional law, you're not aware of
anything?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President has certainly talked to her about the
philosophy that she applies. And that's why he said --

Q Can you tell us about she said?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. She is someone who will strictly interpret our
Constitution and our laws, that will look at the law and apply the law
based on the facts of the case.

Q Just a quick follow up. It seems to me that every justice on the Supreme
Court would say that that is exactly what they do. It seems that there's a
very different understanding of what that means by different justices. We
don't know what their understanding is.

MR. McCLELLAN: There's a confirmation process that will come along in due
course. They are moving forward on the confirmation process already. Those
are all questions and issues that they can discuss during that process.

Ken, go ahead.

Q Scott, two Miers-related topics. Does the President invite and hope there
will be close Senate scrutiny of her tenure at the Texas Lottery
Commission?

MR. McCLELLAN: Certainly, that's part of her record, and I'm sure she would
welcome the opportunity to discuss her time there.

Q And what do you think her record there shows?

MR. McCLELLAN: That she helped -- what I said earlier. She is someone who
helped clean up the Lottery Commission. It was an agency that was in need
of cleaning up. And papers in Texas, not the one you work for, I don't know
-- well, maybe they did, but The Dallas Morning News, certainly a well-read
paper in Texas, praised her for the results she accomplished at the Texas
Lottery Commission. That's why the President selected her; she was someone
of the highest integrity, who brings a very straightforward approach to the
issue, and was able to get results and turn that agency around.

Q In 1992, she was part of a group in the ABA that moved for neutrality by
that body on the topic of abortion. Is that to be viewed as her feelings on
the merits of the issue, or just on the merits of what the ABA should be
saying?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don't think that's correct. I think in 1993 the
American Bar Association had voted to endorse -- essentially endorse
abortion, and taken a position on that. And she was head of the Texas Bar
Association at the time. She took the position that if the Bar was going to
take a position on the issue, that the members should be allowed to take a
vote. And that was her position, that the entire membership should be able
to vote on it.

Q Was it a statement at all about her position on abortion?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Was it a statement at all about --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if you're getting into asking questions about litmus
tests, the President doesn't have litmus tests.

Q What kind of test does he have?

MR. McCLELLAN: You're asking specific questions about issues.

Q Has he been tested? (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: Peter, go ahead. I didn't hear that. Must have been funny,
though. It came from Ken Herman. It's not worth going back to.

Q One conservative group is circulating a memo on the issue that Ken just
mentioned, on this abortion-on-demand and taxpayer-funded-abortions stand
by the ABA, characterizing her as the leader of that campaign. Is that --

MR. McCLELLAN: She was the leader of the Texas Bar Association.

Q Was she the leader of this campaign, though, to have the ABA in the
practice of supporting, "abortion on demand"?

MR. McCLELLAN: She felt that the membership ought to be able to vote on it.

Q How many cases -- how many, aside from -- separate from this, how many
cases was she actually at the defense table for? How many cases has she
actually been involved in?

MR. McCLELLAN: She's argued a number of cases, on a broad range of issues.
She's a well-known, proven litigator, and someone who has represented
clients before state and federal courts, and someone who has represented
clients before appellate courts.

Q Do you have an exact number?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's her background as a practicing lawyer.

Q Do you have an exact number on how many?

MR. McCLELLAN: I can check on that. I'm sure that -- I'm sure we can pull
that together. I don't have that specific number off the top of my head.

Go ahead. Supreme Court still?

Q Yes.

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, go ahead.

Q The Anna Nicole Smith case is coming before the Supreme Court, and she's
from Texas. And if this confirmation goes through smoothly, would Harriet
Miers have to recuse herself because she may know some of the legal people
involved out of Dallas in this --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's out of left field. I hadn't even thought about that,
and, no, I don't know that there's any connection there whatsoever.

Q Would she have to step aside because of the players involved --

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't even know who the players are that are involved.

Q Her husband is a wealthy Texan, oil man and --

MR. McCLELLAN: So that has a connection to the case?

Q No, but Harriet Miers might have had some social or legal interaction
with some of the people out of Dallas --

MR. McCLELLAN: None that I know of.

Q What about Paris Hilton? (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: Elisabeth. Your seat is open up here.

Q Okay. Two things. One, did she do pro bono work for the Exodus
Ministries, or Exodus Prison Ministries?

MR. McCLELLAN: It was the prison ministries. She did serve on the board of
that ministry, which helped prisoners who had served their time adjust back
into society and reunite with their families.

Q -- Exodus Ministries -- so is that --

MR. McCLELLAN: The one I just described to you.

Q You mean Exodus Prison Ministries?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct, yes. And I just described which one she was
a board member of.

Q Okay. She had no relation to Exodus Ministries?

MR. McCLELLAN: No.

Q Okay. Secondly, these four meetings, were they similar to the other
interviews for the Supreme Court -- you know, potential nominees the first
time around --

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know if you can necessarily describe them as
similar. Oh, were they all in the residence? I think some may have been in
the Oval Office. I'll have to double-check which ones were where. I can
check that for you. But I don't know if you can necessarily say "similar."
There are some people the President interviewed last time that he didn't
know as well as he knows Harriet.

Q But how many people did he interview this time?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I don't think you can separate out the first
nominating process from this nominating process. He interviewed a number of
people previously. The committee that was involved has interviewed a number
of people, as well. And --

Q You don't have the number of how many he sat down with?

MR. McCLELLAN: He interviewed five the first time, and he interviewed some
additional ones this time.

Q How many?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'd leave it at that.

All right, questions on other topics, or are we still on Supreme Court?
Supreme Court? Finlay.

Q Maybe I missed this, but do we know anything about her academic rankings
as an undergraduate and law school? Was she law review, summa/magna cum
laude?

MR. McCLELLAN: We can get you that biographical information, but I think
she did very well academically.

Q Okay now?

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, Goyal, then Sarah.

Q A question as far as the economy is concerned in those affected areas of
(inaudible). Small businesses, especially minority-owned businesses, they
are in trouble, putting back together their businesses because they've been
hiring hundreds of thousands of those affected victims. So what is
President doing about those -- putting together those businesses so they
can hire back those affected victims?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we've issued some waivers that will help open up the
process to more small businesses, and that would include women-owned, or
minority-owned small businesses. The President very much believes that the
role of the federal government is to support the state and local vision for
rebuilding the region in the Gulf Coast. And Mayor Nagin announced the
appointment of a private sector-led commission on renewal and rebuilding.
The Governor of Mississippi has announced -- is moving forward on a
commission to look at all these issues.

We want to continue to support those efforts. And one thing that is
important that you bring up to do is to help people get back into their
communities, particularly at the jobs that are most needed right now. So
that helps -- if we can get them the temporary housing that they need, help
put them in a position to get back to work and help their companies. The
President visited Folgers Coffee Plant in New Orleans, and they had taken a
number of steps to get trailers right on the property there so that they
could get the workers and contractors back in place to get those jobs going
again and get the economy going again. That's an important part of the
process.

Sarah, go ahead.

Q Thank you. Scott, there are those in New Orleans and Louisiana who want
to destroy all structures in the lower Ward Nine of New Orleans. That is a
predominately poor and black neighborhood, and many families there don't
want to relocate. How does the President feel about this project and
massive relocation and destruction of a historic neighborhood?

MR. McCLELLAN: Two things. One, the President has committed to a locally
inspired vision. He wants that to be decisions of the local officials and
local community leaders and others. And, two, the President believes that
it's up to the people from those communities to decide where they want to
live and where they want to go. And we want to help assist them in that
effort.

END 12:58 P.M. EDT
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051003-2.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)