Fox News "The Story" - Transcript: Chairman Grassley: Not Wise to Impeach Justice Kavanaugh

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

MACCALLUM: The Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley was at the center of the storm during the wildly contentious confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh who today spent his first day in the robes and on the court. I sat down exclusively with the senator in the very room where Kavanaugh and Ford's dramatic testimony played out. Grassley has seen 15 confirmation hearings since he joined the Judiciary Committee. There he is back in 1981, but he has not seen anything like this.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

MACCALLUM: So last night the President thanked you at the swearing-in. He thanked you for your principled leadership and he said that your handling of the confirmation earned widespread admiration but this was challenging from the get-go. When you began the first hearing Kamala Harris and Cory Booker the Senators both wanted to derail it right out of the gate.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

MACCALLUM: What is what you witnessed in this incredibly contentious environment tell you about the politics of today?

GRASSLEY: Well, it's very divided, but don't forget it the grassroots of America, it's divided as well. And if you want Congress to reflect the grassroots, you shouldn't be surprised if some of it permeates up to the Congress as a whole. I would hope we set a better example so there'd be less of it at the grassroots but that doesn't seem to be the situation. But where I started out was to make sure who had a fair and thorough hearing. And even though it took a long longer than the average Supreme Court justice takes by about three or four weeks, I think we still had a fair and thorough that I promised the people and everybody had a chance to voice their convictions.

MACCALLUM: So you don't think that this process was more contentious, more vicious than what you've seen in the past.

GRASSLEY: No, it was very much more contentious and more vicious but I don't want to lead people to believe that that's the way Congress is going to function into the future except maybe on judges, yes, but on legislation generally, no, we can work in a bipartisan way.

MACCALLUM: What do you say to those who saw what they reveal -- what was revealed about Judge Kavanaugh in the final hearings as too political, too partisan and then last night when he was thanking individuals who were involved, he only thanked the Republican senators who were part of the process. Was that a mistake?

GRASSLEY: I don't want to be in Judge Kavanagh his head but I think he's looking to the future. And he said that when he goes to the Supreme Court where he is this very week that there isn't a hole between Republicans and Democrats. They meet together as a group and he's part of a team and he's going to be part of that team. And I think that he expressed what was a fact of life in his speech last night that Republicans were going to generally agree with him and thought he had the qualifications and knew he had the qualifications beyond the court and the Democrats knew he had the qualifications to be on the court but they were going to make sure he didn't get on the court.

MACCALLUM: In terms of the allegations that came up against Judge Kavanaugh, the most extreme was the one that came from Julie Swetnick and her attorney Michael Avenatti. Was that a turning point in all of this, do you believe?

GRASSLEY: I think with Avenatti's reputation that he is established as a lawyer for the porn world that that raised questions about the legitimacy of Swetnick. Now, I think when you look at all sexual assault allegations, they all got to be taken very seriously because, until recent years, there was never much thought given about it. And it's a good thing that the MeToo Movement has come about because it has brought to the surface something that we ought to be talking about being more cognizant out. But when you have that combination, it didn't bring the credibility that it ought to be brought.

I think dr. Ford brought credibility to the whole issue and -- but beyond that you know, you raised some questions.

MACCALLUM: What do you say you know, when you look at the protesters and they were in the Hart building the other day and outside on the Supreme Court steps today holding posters some of them that say that old white men can't be fair about these issues.

GRASSLEY: Well, first of all, there's only two of us on the Judiciary Committee that are old and I'm one of them. Everybody else is young. So I don't like to bring races issues into it. I like to see people as Americans first and only as Americans. Now, you can be proud of your background being an African-American, Hispanic, being from Italy, being from any place. You can be proud of your background, but I think we ought to not divide America. We ought to be thinking that we're all Americans and bringing America together not separate America. But the -- I wish we had women on the Republican side of the Judiciary Committee.

MACCALLUM: You were criticized the other day for saying that women -- you couldn't get women to be on this committee in this room. Maybe it's too much work.

GRASSLEY: Well, and I shouldn't have accepted the proposition that women aren't on it. They just don't want to be on it. Just like we had a man that would serve on it, not because of work, I think it's because it's ideologically divided. And also from the standpoint of the number of times we meet, you know almost every Thursday there's descendants and sanctions. We have an executive session. Most committees don't have an executive session every week like we do. So whether you're --

MACCALLUM: So there's a lot of work and they don't want to do that.

GRASSLEY: So whether you're a man or a woman, there's a lot of work on the Judiciary Committee.

MACCALLUM: Will there be an effort to find -- to get a little bit more diversity on this committee?

GRASSLEY: Of course there will be and there should be.

MACCALLUM: Susan Collins who gave a seminal speech when she established that she was going to vote yes is being roundly criticized. She was called a fake feminist. And now there's $3 million in a fundraising effort against her in Maine. What do you think about that?

GRASSLEY: I'm going to help raise $3 million to match that because that criticism is absolutely abominable that they would say that about her for everything that she has stood for in her lifetime related to feminist issues. And she's in been in the forefront of everything. It just goes to show you how narrow the thinking of the opposition to Kavanaugh was that they would say those extremists' anti-column positions about a person that's been with them most of the time.

MACCALLUM: So, today is the first day that Judge Kavanaugh will wear the robes. Do you think there's a possibility that this court in its new composition could in the foreseeable future overturn Roe v. Wade?

GRASSLEY: No. Based upon what Kavanaugh said but even if Kavanaugh hadn't said it, a longer a president is in place the more apt it is to say.

MACCALLUM: Even if there is more technology that is more informative about when a fetus feels pain, you know, we have lots of new information now so is it possible that any of that could lead to the reevaluation of Roe v. Wade?

GRASSLEY: I think that legislatures, state legislatures are operating in this area trying to find something that is more based upon modern medicine and the science of life, to find answers and pain is one of them. That you will find some states and laws being upheld, but that is way short of overthrowing Roe v. Wade.

MACCALLUM: Nancy Pelosi would like to see all the FBI documents that were called from this investigation made public. There are a lot of headlines this morning on the editorial pages that the resistance should not back down, and if there is a civil war in America.

That just because Kavanaugh is now on the court, it doesn't mean that the fight that was undertaken to keep him from there would be given up. What do you see in the future with regard to that?

GRASSLEY: Well, I think that there is, if Democrats take over the House, the new chairman would be the new chairman Nadler of New York. He said he's going to do that.

MACCALLUM: Do you think there will be enough effort to try to impeach Judge Kavanaugh if Democrats take the House.

GRASSLEY: They said they would be, I hope it isn't. I don't think it's a wise thing to do and I don't think they'll find a basis for impeaching, but here, don't you see all this talk, whether it was prior to Saturday's vote or since Saturday's vote, every effort that has been made in the last month has been to detract from his outstanding qualifications and academic background.

And his 20 -- 12 years on the D.C. circuit court of appeals, nobody said that he wasn't qualified to be. So when they couldn't this keep him off the bench, by pointing out that he wasn't qualified, then they threw everything at him that he could. They threw it on the wall, if it didn't stick on Monday, they threw something on the wall on Tuesday. If it didn't stick, it came back with something.

Even on the day that he was going to be voted to the Supreme Court, there were still people digging around to find some reason that this guy shouldn't be on the court.

MACCALLUM: Do you think that the changes in the filibuster rules first for the lower court judges and now for the Supreme Court judges, is there any turning back from that? Could anyone get to this process if it required 60 votes in the Senate?

GRASSLEY: The two people that are on the Supreme Court by this president would not be there if it took 60 votes. But I want to remind you between 1789 and about 2001, there wasn't filibusters of Supreme Court justices.

And then, Schumer gave the same speech that we can bring ideology into it. That poisoned the well. He wanted to make sure that George W. Bush didn't get a Hispanic on the card. And so, you know, it establishes a pattern through eight years of George W. Bush.

And then obviously, it was continued by Republicans when there was a Democrat president and it continues today. I would like to have somebody to sit down with me that's a Democrat, and say, you know, we've had enough of this. We are going to go back to the way that judges were viewed between 1789 and the year 2001 that ideology didn't pay a major role. It was only based upon your confidence and you and your judicial temperament.

In other words, were you going to be a judge or were you going to be a super legislature? That's basically what went into it. And this thing has been an uproar since then.

You know, some people would say well, Grassley, you're wrong, look at the way they treated Bork, yes. Look at the way they treated Thomas, yes. But then there was a period of time during the 1990s when there seem to be common sense prevailed and Ginsburg and Breyer were approved almost unanimously.

And then all of a sudden George Bush gets elected president, the Supreme Court decides he ought to be president, instead of recounting millions and millions of votes, and that's when Schumer gave his speech and that's why the well has been poisoned since.

MACCALLUM: Last question. Merrick Garland is someone that a lot of people point to as the beginning of the most recent poisoning of this process. If there is an opening on the court, in the election year, in 2020, do you believe that the Senate should take up a nomination during that period?

GRASSLEY: If I'm chairman, they won't take it up, no. Because I pledged that in 2016, that if the ball is the same as it is -- now, if somebody else is the chairman of the committee, they have to decide for themselves. But that's a decision I made a long time ago.

MACCALLUM: Thank you very much, Senator Grassley. Good to see and speak with you this morning.

GRASSLEY: You bet. Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source