CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports - Transcript

CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports - Transcript
Tuesday, July 19, 2005

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: Welcome back. We're less than three-and-a-half hours away from announcement that could change the course of U.S. law for decades to come. President Bush will announce who he's going to nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and that could be the prelude to a bitter Senate confirmation battle. Democratic Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, he's a key member of teh Senate Judiciary Committee, he's joining us now live from the Russell Rotunda on Capitol Hill. Senator Durbin, I assume since Senator Grassley wasn't informed, you have not either.

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D),ILLINOIS: No, there's been some wild speculation, Wolf, about the people that might be named to the Supreme Court, but you know it's just speculation. The White House kind of has a history of floating a name, yanking it back and throwing another one. So I'm going to wait patiently for 9:00 tonight on Eastern time.

BLITZER: If -- is it your sense that there's almost certainly going to be a bitter very partisan debate on Capitol Hill or do you think this can be resolved in an amicable bipartisan nominating process?

DURBIN: I was really hopeful last week. The Chief of Staff of the United States Andrew Card, called me from Scotland, asked what my thoughts were about the process. Did I have any names I might suggest. Teh president wanted me involved. And then they invited the leaders, Democrats and Republicans in to meet with the president for breakfast. It was really moving in a very positive way and then it stopped. That was the end of it. As of eight or nine days ago, there was no more contact as best I can determine. So now the president's making the choice. I hope we can avoid a bitter battle. But understand, this is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. The person who fills this appointment is going to be in on decisions that will affect every American's rights and liberties.

BLITZER: Edith Clement was confirmed. She was confirmed I think unanimously when she was nominated. If she's nominated now for the Supreme Court, you voted for confirmation for her once before, is it assumed you would vote for confirmation for her for the U.S. Supreme Court?

DURBIN: No, because when you would ask her a question, for example, what is your position on a woman's right to choose in Roe versus Wade, she'd say well that's settled law, the Supreme Court decided that. Well that's a good answer for someone seeking a circuit court position. But if you're going to the Supreme Court, obviously you have to ask other questions. Asking her or other nominees, what are your basic values when it comes to women's rights, privacy, worker's rights, human rights, trying to find out what they believe, whether they're in the mainstream of thinking, because those on the Supreme Court will be guiding the law of this country for a generation.

BLITZER: So it's by no means certain you would vote to confirm her. Is that what you're saying?

DURBIN: That's exactly right. I go in with an open mind and I voted for her for the Circuit Court, but now I'll take a look at it from a different perspective. Is it a matter of her following the law of the Supreme Court, that was the question for Circuit Court, but now a different question. What kind of law does she think should guide America? Does she believe that our Constitution, which doesn't include the word privacy, really guarantees a right of privacy of every individual and family. That's one of the more basic questions that would be asked of any nominee.

BLITZER: In a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll we asked how important it was that a woman replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. Thirteen percent said essential, 65 percent said it was a good idea, 19 percent said it doesn't matter, two percent said it was a bad idea. What do you say?

DURBIN: I want a good person, man or woman. But I thought it would have been a great choice by the president if he makes that choice to follow on with the first woman who ever served in the Supreme Court Sandra O'Connor with another woman. Having two women on the Supreme Court is not over doing it. Many of us believe that the more women who are involved in the process, the more likely we're going to have a good outcome.

BLITZER: Are you among those Democrats who think the president timed this announcement tonight to try to change the subject away from the Valerie Plame CIA leak?

DURBIN: Well, believe me, I'm sure it's crossed somebody's mind in the White House that the sooner they can get away from Karl Rove questions and Scooter Libby questions the better.

But the fact is, the president had a responsibility here that started with Sandra Day O'Connor's announcement of her retirement. He has to move the process forward so, in the Judiciary Committee, we can do our job and try to fill this vacancy before the court starts anew in October.

BLITZER: You're the minority whip: Should the Democrats get equal time or a chance to respond on television tonight following the president's announcement?

DURBIN: I don't think so. This is the president's decision. I hope he chooses well. And after he makes that choice, we're not going to rush to judgment on the Democratic side. We're going to give a fair hearing to the person involved, ask the important questions, and make sure the American people, as well as the Senate, understand whom this person will be that will have a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

BLITZER: Senator Dick Durbin is a member of the Judiciary Committee. He'll be among those holding the hearings. We'll be watching every step of the way.

Senator Durbin, thanks very much for joining us.

DURBIN: Thank you, Wolf.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/19/wbr.01.html