Text 1557, 762 rader
Skriven 2005-10-12 23:33:22 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0510121) for Wed, 2005 Oct 12
====================================================
===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 12, 2005

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

Press Briefing
"); //--> view


1:37 P.M. EDT

MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon, everyone. I will go straight to your
questions today.

Q Scott, you said earlier today that some potential nominees or candidates
for the nomination for the Supreme Court had withdrawn their names from
consideration, requested that their names to be withdrawn. Who were those
people?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I'm not going to get into any names, John, out of
respect for the nomination process and out of respect for those individuals
who may or may not have been under consideration.

Q Scott, the President has said that religion was part of Harriet Miers'
life, and the White House's outreaching has mentioned the fact that she
does go to this conservative Christian church --

MR. McCLELLAN: Outreaching -- reaching out.

Q Reaching out, outreaching. No such efforts were made, not to this extent,
anyway, in terms of Chief Justice Roberts. No one in the White House even
mentioned his religion, as best we can tell. Why is this case --

MR. McCLELLAN: In terms of outreach?

Q In terms of talking about his religion --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think it's well-known that he is a person of faith, as
well.

Q I know, but it was never -- it never was brought up at this podium, and
the President never mentioned it.

MR. McCLELLAN: Where have I brought up Harriet Miers' religion at this
podium?

Q Do you think Harriet Miers' religion is being emphasized more by this
administration than Chief Justice Roberts' was?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Harriet Miers is a person of faith. She recognizes,
however, that a person's religion or personal views have no role when it
comes to making decisions as a judge. A judge should make decisions based
on our constitution and our laws. That's the role of a judge. A judge
should look at the facts and apply the law. And that's just like Judge
Roberts. He recognized that, as well, that someone's ideology or religion
has no role to play when it comes to making decisions on our nation's
highest court. That's what the American people expect.

I think when you're talking about our outreach, or reaching out, we do
reach out to a lot of people. And Harriet Miers is not someone who has
sought the limelight. So there are a lot of Americans who are just
beginning to get to know who she is. And we're confident that, as they do,
they will see what the President has known for some time now, which is that
she will make an outstanding Supreme Court justice. But what we emphasize
in the outreach to people we talk to is that she has the qualifications and
experience and judicial philosophy that is needed on our nation's highest
court. The President appointed her, or nominated her, because she is
eminently well-qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. We should
be looking at a nominee's record and that nominee's qualifications and
their judicial temperament. She is someone who believes in strictly
interpreting our Constitution and our laws. And that's why the President
selected her.

Q So if her personal views and ideology have no bearing on --

MR. McCLELLAN: You just had your question.

Q -- the judicial decision --

MR. McCLELLAN: You're taking away from others.

Q -- what relevance does it play in a conversation between Karl Rove and
James Dobson? Why would he bring it up, even?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you're being very selective in what you're
talking about from the conversation, because I know what Karl emphasized in
that conversation is her qualifications and her background, and her
judicial philosophy.

Q Also that she's a member of a very conservative church.

MR. McCLELLAN: That she is a person of faith. She is someone who attends
church on a regular basis. And people want to know who she is. They want to
know her qualifications, they want to know her background, they want to
know her experience. And that's all part of reaching out to people to gain
support for her nomination.

Q But in the context of the conversation between the President's Deputy
Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor and the head of a very conservative
Christian organization, it sounds like code.

MR. McCLELLAN: John, what Karl emphasized in that conversation is that she
is someone that has the qualifications and experience and the judicial
philosophy that the American people want to see on our nation's highest
court. And that's why the President selected her.

Helen, go ahead.

Q I read that the President is seeking a regime change in Syria. Does he
plan to widen the war in the Middle East? And just how does he -- what
right would he have to unseat anybody in another country without
provocation?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I don't know what you're reading, but it doesn't seem
like it's an accurate reflection of our policy.

Q The Financial Times.

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think it's an accurate reflection of our policy.

Q Are you denying --

MR. McCLELLAN: The President talked about our concerns when it comes to
Syria earlier today --

Q I know. I'm asking you specifically --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and he expressed what our view is.

Q -- is he seeking a regime change in Syria?

MR. McCLELLAN: There's no change in our policy toward Syria.

Q Whatever that is.

Q Back to Miers for a moment. When you say that Ms. Miers understands that
religion has no role in the business of the Court, at the same time the
President has said he knows her heart, her beliefs, her character; he
talked today about people wanting to know about her life and, therefore,
her religion. How are we not to interpret that her religion was one of the
factors in his selection?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President makes selections based on potential nominees'
qualifications and experience and judicial temperament. That is what he has
done in each and every instance when it comes to appointing people to the
bench. He has a long track record of appointing people who have a
conservative judicial philosophy, one that is based on interpreting our
Constitution and our laws, not making law from the bench. And that's what
he bases his decisions on, not someone's religion.

Q So her religion played no role in her making it to the final group and
then, ultimately --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, the President makes decisions based on the person's
qualifications and experience and judicial temperament.

Q All right. So there was no -- no role at all in the President's
decision-making of Harriet Miers' religion?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's part of who she is. That's part of her background.
That's what the President was talking about in his remarks in the Oval
Office.

Q Why is Karl Rove calling up religious leaders telling them it's okay, she
belongs to an ultra evangelical church?

MR. McCLELLAN: We're calling up a lot of people --

Q Why that?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- to reach out to them and talk to them about the
President's selection of Harriet Miers. And what he is emphasizing in those
conversations, Terry, is that she is someone who is strongly committed to a
conservative judicial philosophy.

Q What is somebody's --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, why wouldn't --

Q Wait, wait, wait. What relevance does how a person prays have to the
judicial philosophy?

MR. McCLELLAN: Didn't say that it did.

Q So why are you peddling it?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's part of her background, Terry; it's part of who she is.

Q But you just said it was relevant to judicial philosophy.

MR. McCLELLAN: People want to know who she is. And when you're getting to
know someone, you want to know what their qualifications and experience
are, you want to know what their judicial philosophy is, and you want to
know who they are. Faith is very important to Harriet Miers. But she
recognizes that faith and that her religion and that her personal views
don't have a role to play when it comes to making decisions.

Q It seems that what you're doing is trying to calm a revolt on the right
concerned that Harriet Miers isn't conservative enough, by saying, it's
okay, she is conservative enough, because she goes to this church.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, it seems like the media wants to focus on things other
than her qualifications. Maybe your news organization would rather focus on
things other than her qualifications and record. The President believes we
should focus on her qualifications and her record and her judicial
philosophy. And that's what we emphasize.

Q Why is his top aide going around and telling people how she prays?

MR. McCLELLAN: He's simply talking about who she is and what her background
is. And you're being very selective in your comments there, because what he
emphasized and what Dr. Dobson said he emphasized, was her conservative
judicial philosophy. That's what it should be based on.

Q Scott, isn't -- the bleed-over here, though, is that if we understood the
account correctly -- and it doesn't sound like you're disputing it -- that
Karl was making an argument that her religious faith and her membership in
the evangelical church was evidence of what her judicial philosophy --
conservative judicial philosophy would be. He was using it to buttress the
question of how she would rule -- am I misunderstanding that?

MR. McCLELLAN: See, David, there's some that have -- no, there's some that
have a litmus test for the Supreme Court. The President does not. The
President does not ask candidates their views on issues that may be
controversial, like abortion. The President looks at them and asks them
what their judicial philosophy is; are they someone who is going to
strictly interpret our Constitution and our laws, rather than -- and not
make law from the bench. The President doesn't believe people should be
legislating from the bench. He believes that judges ought to be looking at
the law and applying the law.

Q Scott, if that's the case, then, wouldn't Karl's statement to Mr. Dobson
have been, "you know, what church she belongs to is completely irrelevant
to how she would serve on the Supreme Court; I'm not even going to tell you
what church she went to because it doesn't have anything to do with her
philosophy." Wouldn't that be the consistent statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's part of who she is, David. We're just pointing out
facts about who she is. But that's not what we're emphasizing. What we're
emphasizing is her judicial philosophy and her experience and her
qualifications.

Q So there was no effort, to your mind, that it was not Mr. Rove's desire
here to use her church background as evidence of how she may approach cases
from the bench?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I already described what we were talking about in
these outreach efforts. If you want to interpret them differently, that's
your right to do.

Q I was asking how you were interpreting.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I just explained it.

Q You talk about conservative judicial philosophy. As you know, there is a
difference between conservative judicial philosophy and conservative
ideology. Were both equally important to the President in picking Harriet
Miers?

MR. McCLELLAN: I just told you what the President looks for when he
nominates someone to the bench. He has a long track record of appointing
people who are highly qualified and people who have a conservative judicial
philosophy. That's what you're looking for in a judge -- you want someone
that is going to apply the law, not try to legislate from the bench. And
that's why the President -- in part, is why the President selected Harriet
Miers.

He also selected her because she is someone who is exceptionally
well-qualified to serve in our nation's highest court. Some have tried to
create a different standard when it comes to the confirmation process for a
Supreme Court justice. I would encourage you to go back and look at her
record and look at her qualifications. She is very accomplished. She is
someone who has a distinguished career and a long record of accomplishment.
She was one of the top 50 women lawyers in the nation, named by a national
journal, on a number of occasions. She is someone who has been a
trailblazer for women in the legal profession. She has broken the glass
ceiling when it comes to the legal profession in Texas, serving as the
first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association and then the first
woman president of the Texas Bar Association. And she's on track to be the
number two leader at the American Bar Association. She is someone who has a
record of overcoming obstacles throughout her life.

Q That doesn't answer my question. Is it --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I disagree because I think it's important --

Q No, no, no. Here is my question. Is it as important to the President that
his nominee, that Harriet Miers has a conservative ideology, as a
conservative judicial philosophy?

MR. McCLELLAN: He bases it on their judicial philosophy and their
qualifications and experience. That's what he makes decisions on. Again,
your question implies that there are litmus tests. There are not litmus
tests when it comes --

Q I wasn't implying anything. I was asking --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, sure, because a person's ideology and personal views
have no role to play when they're making decisions as a judge. A judge
makes decisions by looking at the case and looking at the facts and then
applying the law. That's what the American people expect, and that's the
type of people that the President has always appointed to the bench.

Q If personal views don't have a role to play, then why would anybody from
the White House talk about what church she goes to and what the beliefs are
of the people in the church?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's part of who she is. And faith has played an important
part in her life. But she recognizes that religion and personal views and
ideology don't have a role to play when you're a judge, but people want to
know who she is. And that's been an important part of her life.

Q Scott, was she a member of Texas Right to Life?

MR. McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of. I think she attended some events.

Q Well, Dobson said that Karl Rove told him that she was a member of Texas
Right to Life.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think she attended some events.

Q Scott, does the fact that some on the right oppose Harriet Miers so much
suggest that they are just unwilling to trust the President?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let me talk to you about a couple things. First of
all, there are a number of conservatives who know Harriet Miers very well,
and they strongly support her because they recognize that she is
exceptionally well-qualified to serve on the highest court in our land. And
she is, right now, going through what is essentially a job interview.
People are just beginning to get to know her. The President has known her
for a long time. She is not someone who sought out the limelight or sought
out the spotlight; she has quietly accomplished much in her life, breaking
new ground for women in the legal profession and serving with distinction
with the White House, at the highest levels of government.

Back in 1970, she was clerking for a federal judge. Not many women were
clerking for federal judges back in 1970. She has tried many cases in state
and federal courts, represented many clients, and she is someone who is
highly respected within the legal --

Q -- respected --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- within the legal community. With all due respect, you're
not pointing out her record and accomplishments, Ed.

Q I'm not talking about Harriet Miers as a person or her background. I'm
asking if some of the people who have supported President Bush so strongly
over the last five years and their unwillingness now to take his word for
-- on this issue. Is that not --

MR. McCLELLAN: What do you mean, what about their unwillingness?

Q Well, he's saying, trust me, I know Harriet Miers, and they're not
willing to.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, he's saying -- he's saying, get to know her. Look at her
record, and look at her accomplishments. Listen to her during the Senate
confirmation hearings. That is what the confirmation process is about, Ed.
This was just -- this nomination was just made just over a week ago. She is
not someone that is well-known by the American people, but as they come to
know her, they will see what others who know her already know, which is
that she is --

Q Well, why are some already opposing her --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- that she is exceptionally well-qualified to serve on our
nation's highest court. I'm not going to try to speculate about people's
intentions, but I do think that some people are setting a different
standard for this nomination.

Let's go back and look over the last 70 years or so. Since 1933, one out of
three people confirmed to our nation's highest court have not had prior
judicial experience. The President believes that it was important to take
into account what many senators said, both Republicans and Democrats, which
is that having someone that doesn't come from the bench would bring some
good diversity of perspective to our nation's highest court. That's one of
the things he took into account. He listened very seriously to that. She is
uniquely qualified and she is someone who will bring a different
perspective to our nation's highest court. And that will strengthen the
court.

Q So if there's a different standard being set, is it sexism, and to what
extent is sexism a part of that --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I certainly hope not. The President believes it should
be based on qualifications and experience and judicial philosophy. But as I
said, it's clear that some people are setting a different standard. And go
back and look at people who didn't have prior judicial experience that were
confirmed to our nation's highest court -- people like Justice Rehnquist,
or Justice White. They served with great distinction on the nation's
highest court. Look at their record. Look at Justice Powell's record. And
look at Harriet Miers' experience and her record. I would encourage you to
look at that, and look at the standards. The standards should be based on
qualifications. That's always been the standard that has been used when it
comes to our nation's highest court.

Q Until Mr. Dobson this morning disclosed his conversation with Karl Rove,
it has been suggested in some places -- that Mr. Rove's role has been
diminished and he wasn't as hands on in the Miers nomination, and perhaps
hasn't been as involved in other things in the White House. Can you give us
--

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think that's an accurate reflection at all. He was
part --

Q Well, can you give us one?

MR. McCLELLAN: He was part of the committee that the President had in place
to consider people for this nomination. The President is the one who made
the decision, but he was very much involved in that, as was the Vice
President, Andy Card, Karl -- as I mentioned -- General Gonzales, the
Attorney General, Scooter Libby, and Harriet Miers, of course, was involved
in that process. In fact, that's another thing for people to consider. She
is someone who has been very involved in the President's judicial selection
process. She was very involved in overseeing the selection of Chief Justice
Roberts to our nation's highest court. She knows what the President is
looking for in a Supreme Court justice. She knows that he wants someone on
the Court that believes in strictly interpreting our Constitution and our
laws, and not legislating from the bench. And that's the type of person
that she is. And that's the type of person the American people want on our
Court.

Q Has Mr. Rove's involvement in any issues in the White House changed at
all in the last couple of weeks?

MR. McCLELLAN: No. He continues to perform his duties.

Q When the President created his tax commission there was confusion on the
commission as to his instructions. For example, former Congressman --
thought that the President told the commission, don't mess with the
charitable deduction, don't mess with mortgage deduction. Chairman Connie
Mack, on the other hand, interpreted the President's instructions as
everything is on the table. Could you tell me, was everything on the table,
or did the President say, don't touch that mortgage deduction?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is a bipartisan advisory panel that the President
appointed, and he appreciates the work that they are continuing to do. They
are about to wrap up their work and send their recommendations to the
Treasury Secretary. They will send their recommendations by November 1st to
Treasury Secretary Snow. He will then review those recommendations and send
his own recommendations on to the President for consideration.

When the President announced this bipartisan advisory panel, he laid out
some very clear principles. He said that the tax code is a complicated
mess; we need to make it simpler, fairer, and more conducive to economic
growth. That's the principles that the President laid out. Beyond those
principles, he didn't set any parameters. He did say, as one of the
principles, that we should have a tax code that encourages home ownership
and encouraging charitable giving. And that's one of the principles that he
believes strongly in.

Q Reports are that the commission will recommend a reduction in the amount
of interest people can deduct on their home mortgages. Does that fit in
within that parameter?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let's let them make their recommendations, and then
the Treasury Secretary will have a chance to review those and send his
recommendations to the President. And then we'll have an opportunity to
talk more about it. He appreciates the work that they're doing. He looks
forward to seeing what their recommendations are. But in terms of the
principles that the President outlined, those are principles he remains
strongly committed to.

Keith, go ahead.

Q I'll try to ask an earlier question a bit more directly. Did Rove talk to
Dobson about Miers' religious beliefs to signal in any way how he thought
she would vote on an issue before the Court?

MR. McCLELLAN: He talked to her about a lot of things. And he emphasized
what her experience was and what her qualifications are. And he talked
about her judicial philosophy, and I think that's what he was emphasizing.
He also talked about who she is and what her background is.

Q Okay, but part of the discussion -- you talked earlier about it -- part
of the discussions was about her religious beliefs.

MR. McCLELLAN: I've already answered this question.

Q Did he -- I haven't heard an answer. Did he bring that up to signal --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you have an answer. It may not be one that you like,
but you have an answer.

Q I don't feel I have an answer. Can you just say yes or no, did he try to
signal -- was he trying to signal how she might vote on any particular --

MR. McCLELLAN: This should be based on someone's qualifications and record
and judicial philosophy. That's what the President believes. And I'm not
going to get into trying to go through every conversation that people have
in our outreach efforts. We have a lot of conversations. We are reaching
out to members of the Senate. Harriet Miers has met with a number of
Senators already. And the decision that senators make we hope will be based
on what the standard has always been, which is, is she qualified to serve
on our nation's highest court. She is highly qualified to serve on our
nation's highest court, and we encourage people to get to know her better
and get to know her record and her qualifications.

Sarah, go ahead.

Q Scott, former President Jimmy Carter believes FEMA should be removed from
Homeland Security, and again made independent. Based on the problems FEMA
encountered with Hurricane Katrina, does the President agree?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, a couple of things. One, we continue to move forward
on an internal lessons learned review within the federal government. The
President believes it's very important that we learn the lessons of the
response to Hurricane Katrina, and that we apply those in the future so
that we can prevent any possible problems that occurred in the preparedness
and response for Katrina from happening again. All levels of government had
responsibilities -- local, state and federal. And the President believes
it's important also to support the investigation underway by Congress.
Congress is moving forward to conduct a thorough investigation and we
support those efforts.

Secondly, Secretary Chertoff has been moving forward on some reorganization
within the Department of Homeland Security. He is moving forward on the
position of an undersecretary for preparedness. And I think when you look
at preparedness and response, you have to take into account all our
efforts, not just one agency. FEMA is one part of that, and they're an
important part of that. And Secretary Chertoff is committed to improving
and strengthening FEMA. In fact, since we've been in office, we've provided
significant increases in the budget for FEMA. But you also have to look at
what we're doing in terms of providing grants to state and local
authorities, because the local authorities are the first responders.
They're the ones that are in a position to immediately respond.

Of course, in Katrina we had a very different situation, because of the
magnitude of the storm, and that's why it's important to look at some of
the lessons from that storm and discuss with Congress about how we move
forward and respond better in the future, all of us, at the local, state
and federal level.

Go ahead, Bill.

Q Scott, a point of clarification on a question. Can you clarify for us how
many potential nominees withdrew their candidacy, and when did that take
place?

MR. McCLELLAN: There's a couple. I mean, any time you're going through a --

Q Was that on Friday, or --

MR. McCLELLAN: Any time -- no. Any time you're going through a confirmation
process you have a fluid and dynamic list that is expanding and
contracting, and people are being added to it, people are being taken off
of it. Sometimes you're going through a vetting process, and people may be
taken off of it for various reasons. And then sometimes along the way,
people express that they would prefer not to be considered, and there were
a couple of individuals in this instance that asked that they not be
considered. And that was when the list was longer; the list was in the
double digits at that point in time.

Q When the President says "not legislate from the bench," can you give us
an example what that means? Does that mean that Harriet Miers would not
interpret the Constitution to protect an implied right that is not
specifically --

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, she's going to go through the confirmation process.
These are questions that are going to be asked during the confirmation
process of her by members of the Senate. That's part of their role. She
looks forward to answering questions when she appears before the United
States Senate. She'll be talking about that. What he means is, is someone
that is going to strictly interpret our Constitution and our laws, that is
going to look at the facts and apply the law. And I think, beyond that,
she's going to be the one who's going to be answering questions and talking
about the legal issues that you bring up.

Q Can I ask about the constitution deal in Iraq? I know you've welcomed
what's taken place. The change, as I understand it, is essentially to make
an amendment easier. Are you convinced that's really going to make a big
difference, in terms of the participation that you're hoping to see?

MR. McCLELLAN: What is going to make a big difference, I'm sorry?

Q The deal to change the way the constitution can be amended, that that's
going to make a big difference in the turnout and participation?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, that's a decision being made by Iraqi
leaders. This is an Iraqi process. They're the ones who are making the
decisions about their future. That is part of what democracy and freedom
are all about.

We view the agreement that was reached as something that is very positive.
We welcome it. What we have always encouraged is that the political process
be as inclusive as possible. That's what we've emphasized. And we believe
that steps such as the one that you're mentioning will help Iraq move
forward on the path to a strong and lasting democracy. It's important to
reach out and be as inclusive as possible. And what you've seen is that
Iraqi leaders have come together. One of the things that we've always
worked to do is assist them and help them come together and work to reach a
compromise and build consensus. And that's what's happening. That's what
democracy is all about. It's about compromise and consensus-building.

And Iraqi leaders are showing, even though sometimes this process can be
difficult, that they are determined to build a future that is based on
freedom, that they are strongly committed to democracy.

Q But it's suggested that this deal postpones as much as it opens up --
postpones tough issues as much as it opens up the process.

MR. McCLELLAN: This is part of democracy, and the Iraqi leaders are the
ones who are making the decisions. They were elected by the Iraqi people to
serve in these positions, and the Iraqi people have shown time and time
again that they are committed to living in freedom. They did that in
January when more than eight million showed up to cast their ballots. They
will be going to the ballot box again this weekend, where they will be
voting on whether or not to ratify the draft constitution. And one thing
that we have continued to emphasize as they move forward on the
constitution is that they continue to work to reach compromises that will
broaden the participation in the political process. And I think that's
what's really is happening here. In terms of the decisions that they are
making, those are decisions that they are making that they feel are in the
best interests of building a lasting democracy.

Q Scott, quick follow on Bill's question.

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.

Q When you said a couple of individuals withdrew when the list was long,
was that prior to the Roberts' nomination, or in the interval between
Roberts and Miers?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think it was more in the interval.

Q Scott, Worldnet Daily reported in 1995 Ben Barnes, Texas former
lieutenant governor, secured a contract for a company called GTECH to run
the Texas Lottery. And my first question: Did Harriet Miers continue the
Texas Lottery's contract to GTECH without bid, so that Barnes received a
$23 million payoff as part of the deal, authorized by Miers?

MR. McCLELLAN: I would encourage you to go back and look at news reports at
the time, because the governor's office at the time denied any connection
that you may be asserting within your question. That's an issue that's
already been discussed, and I think that Ben Barnes has said the same.

Q In 1999, a former executive director of the Texas Lottery, named Lawrence
Littwin, filed a lawsuit alleging he lost his job as a result of political
influence wielded by Barnes. And my question, since this Littwin suit was
settled out of court for $300,000, what is the White House response?

MR. McCLELLAN: The allegations have been disputed previously by both the
governor's office and -- by the governor's office at the time, and by Mr.
Barnes. I would encourage you to go back and look at the comments that were
made at the time. I'd be glad to provide those to you if you would like.

Go ahead, David.

Q Scott, just to go back to Tom's question. Dr. Dobson said that Karl Rove
told him that Miers was a member of Texas Right to Live. Did Karl tell Dr.
Dobson that?

MR. McCLELLAN: My understanding is that she attended some events. That's
what we've said previously. I'll be glad to look into it, but my
understanding is that she attended some events, some fundraising events
that they had.

Q Well, was that part of the conversation? I mean, did Karl bring that up
to Dr. Dobson in the conversation you're talking about?

MR. McCLELLAN: I have no reason to dispute his account that it came up.

Ken, go ahead.

Q Scott, in addition to concerns about sexism in the Miers nomination,
there's been some hinting that there's some elitism involved, in that she
is "only" from SMU, not from the usual Ivy, Stanford, Northwestern, that
produce Supreme Court nominees. Does the White House feel there's any
elitism involved, and that people are not looking outside the usual places
for a justice?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, it's the same thing I said earlier: We would
certainly hope not. She is someone, that if you look at her qualifications
and her experience and her judicial philosophy, will make an outstanding
Supreme Court Justice. This should be based on qualifications and
experience. And I see some may be shaking their heads, but that's always
been the standard that has been used when it comes to confirming a Supreme
Court justice. And that's the precedent that has been set.

Regardless of where one stands on personal issues, or ideology, the United
States Senate, if you look at recent history, has come together and voted
to confirm people to the bench because they recognize that they were
qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Justice Ginsburg and Justice
Breyer are good examples. There are many senators that probably didn't
agree with some of their personal views, yet in large numbers they voted to
confirm their nominations, because they recognized they had the experience
and qualification to serve on our nation's highest court.

Now I think some are, clearly, setting a different -- or trying to set a
different standard. Judicial experience has never been a standard that has
been necessary to serve on our nation's highest court. I pointed out
earlier how one in three of the Supreme Court justices confirmed since 1933
had no prior judicial experience.

Q Does the President think it's an advantage that her academic background
is from outside the usual places where we've been getting justices?

MR. McCLELLAN: He thinks that her broad experience and diverse experience
will help strengthen the Court. That's something he very much considered
when making this nomination. He very much considered the comments by
members of the Senate that he should look outside the bench, and it would
help to bring some diversity of experience to our nation's highest court --
diversity of experience and diversity of perspective. And that is one of
the reasons he selected her.

Q Scott, can I just quickly follow up on the judicial philosophy? Can you
point to a time in Harriet Miers' life or career when she demonstrated, of
her own volition, a support for a conservative judicial philosophy, apart
from the selection process as the President's advisor?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? Apart --

Q A time in her life or career when she demonstrated a --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that is part of her life and her career.

Q Apart from her role in the selection process of late, can you point us to
a --

MR. McCLELLAN: She's someone the President has known -- she's someone the
President has known for a long time, Carl, and she knows that as governor,
the President nominated people to the bench who have a conservative
judicial philosophy. She has very much had a deep respect for our
Constitution and our laws for some time. She has served as the managing
partner of one of the largest law firms in Texas. She was the first woman
to do so. And --

Q But that answer doesn't necessarily speak to --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, no, no, wait, I'll be glad to go and look back, Carl,
and provide you more -- I mean, you're asking me to go back and look over
her entire career. She'll be answering all these questions before the
United States Senate, and she looks forward to it. But she is someone who,
for a long time, has believed that people who serve on our benches ought to
have a philosophy that is based on interpreting our Constitution and our
laws, and not trying to legislate from the bench.

You can't separate out the last five years. Let's talk about the last five
years and talk about constitutional experience. She has served at the
highest levels of government. She has served as Counsel to the President.
She deals on a daily basis with complex constitutional issues here at the
White House. For the past five years she is someone the President has been
looking to and saying, what do you recommend, and she has had to answer
those questions. She is someone who is well-versed in knowledge of the
Constitution. And she has expressed those views to the President during the
course of the past five years in those high positions of government. And I
think very few lawyers, men or women, have had that kind of experience.

Thank you.

END 2:09 P.M. EDT
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051012-1.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)