MSNBC "Hardball With Chris Matthews" - Transcript

Interview

Interviewer: Chris Matthews

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

MATTHEWS: Well, that raises the question of whether her empathy for people is, in fact, a prejudice towards certain people. Has she addressed that issue so far, Senator?

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: I think she has. I think she‘s addressed it. And I think it just stands to reason that each of us, no matter what we do in life, whether we have a HARDBALL show or whether we‘re senators or whether we‘re trying to be on the Supreme Court, bring our life experience to it, the people we‘ve met, the experiences we‘ve had. It‘s bound to have some impact. Sandra Day O‘Connor grew up in a ranch in Arizona. It made a difference in the way she looked at the world, the way she analyzed human conduct. That‘s not unusual.

MATTHEWS: Well, I guess that gets down to the question of Affirmative Action and whether she on the Court will put her thumb on the scale in favor of minorities against people who might lose in a case where the courts rule in favor of minorities. Now, let me get to the key question here, the Ricci case. The Supreme Court overruled her when she ruled at the appellate level it was OK for the city of New Haven to throw out a test because the results showed that no African-Americans passed the test for promotion for firefighter, for higher office in a firefighter operation up there in New Haven. What did you make of her position on that? Did you support her ruling in that case?

DURBIN: I think her ruling was the only ruling that she could have handed down. It reflected 38 years of court decisions. It reflected the trial court‘s decision, the appellate panel‘s decision, and the full appellate court, and she joined in to what was clearly the precedent. Along came the Supreme Court, and by a 5 to 4 vote, a very close vote, turned it over and said, We‘re going to do it differently. How can you hold that against her? I mean, she was really taking the law as given to her over the years and applying the law to the set of facts she was given.

MATTHEWS: But a lot of people look at that as results-based Affirmative Action, not trying to create an equal chance at the starting line, which is the goal of Affirmative Action, an outreach which all reasonable people believe in, reaching out to a larger community that just the usual white guys who get the first dibs on jobs through networking, to a larger community. Every reasonable person‘s for that. But when you get to the question of whether if the results of the test come out in favor of the white guys, if you will, and then say, We don‘t like the test because the white guys won it, doesn‘t that seem prima facie like prejudice against white guys?

DURBIN: You know, let‘s be honest about it, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Doesn‘t it?

DURBIN: It sounds like a controversial issue that you and I could debate and people are going to see differently. Her role was the role of a judge. They asked her, Well, here are the set of facts. And she says, Well, you know, as a judge, I can tell you we‘ve seen these before. In fact, we have seen them for 38 years, and here is what we‘ve found and I‘ll continue to find that way. If she‘d have gone the opposite direction, people would have said, Oh, she‘s a judicial activist. She‘s trying to create law.

Listen, there are other people who can do it. The Supreme Court obviously could, as well as the Congress. But she is trying to find the appropriate role of the judge, and I think she did.

MATTHEWS: So you don‘t think the Ricci case was reverse discrimination?

DURBIN: I can tell you, we can argue that Ricci case and we will argue it. We will consider it before Congress. But consider her role. She‘s the judge looking to the settled law, the precedent of 38 years, and she applied it the right way.

MATTHEWS: OK, let‘s take a look at her statement here. This is her back in 2001 at a speech at Berkeley. Quote, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn‘t lived that life." Your view of that? Did she take that back today by saying, I rule on the law, not on other issues?

DURBIN: Yes, she did. And let me tell you, there isn‘t one of us who hasn‘t given a speech, including Chris Matthews and Dick Durbin, that didn‘t have a line in there that somebody could come back and say, Well, just what did he really mean? And the fact is, to judge this woman and her lifetime of experience and her experience on the bench by the phrase "wise Latina" is, I think, grasping at straws.

The bottom line is this woman has a splendid life story, an amazing story. To be sitting up there on that panel today in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and you could see her speaking and then watch her mother‘s reaction to that, told you this is a great American story that she brings to it. Of course she‘s proud about her origin, coming from the island of Puerto Rico, being born in the United States, and having served as she has in so many different aspects. And of course she‘s proud of the fact that she did well in school.

MATTHEWS: Right.

DURBIN: But to suggest that that means she‘s going to be biased goes too far.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the Hyde amendment. Do you support it, the refusal to spend federal money on abortions, period?

DURBIN: Yes. It is basically the settled law, and I‘m ready to stand by it. And I think (INAUDIBLE)

MATTHEWS: So despite the fact that the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund took a different position doesn‘t bother you about her nomination, the fact that she supports that group?

DURBIN: Not at all. She—you know, her job in the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, as a volunteer to the board, was not to pick and choose cases. You know, that really gets into the attorney/client relationship. It really was to try to guide this organization. And whether you‘re talking about the NAACP or the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund...

MATTHEWS: Yes.

DURBIN: As Mayor Bloomberg said, it‘s only in Washington that you can volunteer for a great non-profit group, serving a group trying to find its way into the mainstream of America, and be criticized for it.

MATTHEWS: So you don‘t believe—just to finish the point, you don‘t think the national health program we‘re going to get in October of this year—many of us hope we‘re going to get—should include federal funding for abortion. You think it should not.

DURBIN: It definitely should have a conscience clause involved in it so that those providers, doctors and hospitals and others, that cannot in good conscience provide abortion services will not be compelled to. I think that‘s been our settled situation in America.

MATTHEWS: But should any public program, if there is a public health care program as part of this plan—should any public program pay for abortions?

DURBIN: Well, what it boils down to is whether or not we are going to even allow health insurance policies to cover it. I think as long as the conscience clause is involved in it, then I can stand by it and say that that‘s acceptable.

MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you. Let me go—thank you very much, Dick Durbin, ranking...

DURBIN: Thanks, Chris.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source