MSNBC Countdown - Transcript

MSNBC Countdown - Transcript
Tuesday, October 18, 2005

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

OLBERMANN: Thank you, sir.

What we do not know about the final phase of the CIA leak investigation is rivaled only by what we do not know about Harriet Miers' views on just about everything, till now, anyway, this day bringing the clearest indication yet of the Supreme Court nominee's thoughts on abortion. Surprisingly enough, she appears to be against it. Among a collection of documents filling a dozen boxes submitted by the White House to the Senate Judiciary Committee today is one that has Miers, then a candidate for Dallas City Council, promising in 1989 to, quote, "actively support," unquote, a constitutional amendment to been abortions in most cases.

That in response to a questionnaire from an anti-abortion group calling itself Texans United for Life. Again, it's 16 years ago. Ms. Miers checking yes to the question, "If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas legislature? She checked yes.

On that form, Ms. Miers also indicating that she would oppose the use of public funds for abortion, as well as use her influence as an elected official to, quote, "promote the pro-life cause."

As we mentioned, the questionnaire submitted today to the 18 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Charles Grassley of Iowa one of 10 Republicans serving on that committee, and Senator Grassley's been good enough to join us tonight.

Thank you for your time, sir, and good evening.

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY (R-IA), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Well, I'm glad to be with you, Keith.

OLBERMANN: I know you have said you will not announce your position on the Miers nomination till her confirmation hearings are over, but can we get your initial reaction to learning that she, in this case, at least, here, in 1989, was asked pointedly on this question, and came out against abortion rights in that particular situation?

GRASSLEY: Yes, but I think it's pretty simple. She was doing that as a candidate for local office. Candidates who are, in the case of a city council or state legislature or Congress, you're going to be-you're going to be a candidate, you're going to hold office. You can take almost any position you want to. You can even taken an unconstitutional position if you want to. But remember, you've got to be stuck with it if you get elected.

Now, that's got nothing to do with her being a justice on the Supreme Court, unless she testifies different, and if she does, then she shouldn't be serving on the court. She's got to testify that she's going to look at the four corners of the law or the four corners of the Constitution and just make a decision on that case based on the law or the Constitution, and the facts of that particular case.

That's what a justice is supposed to do. They're constrained by the law, they're constrained by the Constitution. But when you serve on the city council, you might be constrained by your state constitution or the federal Constitution, but you can still do wild things.

OLBERMANN: I don't need to tell you that the extraordinary polarization of the politics of our time has made what used to be a slightly vacuumized situation for Supreme Court nominees nothing like it any more. It's the political real world, obviously.

Do you fear that something like this, in which a statement from 1989 is held up by people who might hold that political belief about abortion as evidence that she's in their camp, could then also be used by someone else, or could be used to, other statements at other times could be used by other camps to say, No, she's not in that camp, she's in this camp? In other words, a way in which this whole thing gets so muddied up that both sides wind up believing her opinion is equal to theirs, and not to their opposition's?

GRASSLEY: Well, to some extent, that's already happened. It's really happened more by people outside of the Senate that's going to-they aren't going to be voting, like we 100 senators will be voting. They won't be asking the questions of her in the committee meetings, like I'm going to be and 17 others are going to be asking questions.

And if people just hold their cool, if people will read the record when it's all said and done, these questions are all going to be answered. Now, I'm not sure that those questions are going to satisfy everybody, but they're going to be answered. And that's the record by which this decision should be made, not by some evangelical church leaders that are having a conference phone call, or anything of that nature. Those don't count. Those are not going to be part of the official record.

OLBERMANN: So thus, I guess, the question then, Senator, is, do you think that either you or someone on that committee in those hearings, when they begin, is going to come out and bluntly state, if Roe v. Wade comes up again, or something similar to it, in your term as a Supreme Court justice, Ms. Miers, how would you vote on it? Is that question going to be phrased that bluntly?

GRASSLEY: Oh, well, it's going to-maybe not quite that bluntly, but that question's going to be asked. And the intent is going to be the same as the way you phrased the question, without a doubt.

But, you know, here again, there are going to be abortion issues. I don't know whether overturning Roe v. Wade's going to be one of those questions before the court. But there's going to be abortion questions before the court. And she can't prejudice herself on those. And so she just can't answer that direct of a question.

OLBERMANN: But she should give guidance, to some degree? Or how should she answer it, do you think?

GRASSLEY: Well, I think that she needs to say how she's going to approach the issue. What we need to be concerned about is, number one, her competence, number two, her judicial temperament, number three, for me, at least, and most Republicans, is she a judicial activist, or believe in judicial restraint? And is she going to legislate from the bench or not? And for me, not legislating from the bench is very important.

These are the things that ought to determine whether she should sit on the Supreme Court.

OLBERMANN: Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa and the Senate Judiciary Committee, our great thanks for some of your time tonight, sir.

GRASSLEY: OK, thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9751086/