MSNBC Hardball - Transcript

MSNBC Hardball - Transcript
03/24/05

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

MATTHEWS: OK, thank you very much, NBC's Pete Williams.

U.S. Congressman Patrick McHenry is a North Carolina Republican and a supporter of the House action to allow federal review of the Schiavo case, and U.S. Congressman Barney Frank is a Massachusetts Democrat who opposed it.
Let me ask you, Mr. McHenry, what do you want to do now?

REP. PATRICK MCHENRY ®, NORTH CAROLINA: I think we need to make sure that all legal means are exhausted, then take a look at the case and see if we need to rein in these federal judges that have acted perhaps inappropriately, and did not look at Congress' intent when we passed this law to take a de novo look at this new case, a fresh start of looking at this case and look at the federal repercussions on this case, because, at its essence, our federal government is constituted to protect life and liberty.

MATTHEWS: Right.

MCHENRY: And that is really what the essence of this case is about.

MATTHEWS: Congressman Frank, let me ask you about the legislative role here and the judicial role. Congress writes a law that says the federal court system should look at this case. Did they do it properly, as far as you see it?

REP. BARNEY FRANK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Well, I disagree with the law.

And I think we have to separate it out. There are two questions here. One, what should be the situation with regard to this terribly tragic case of Terri Schiavo? Two, who decides it, the courts or the Congress? When they voted the Constitution, they made a clear distinction in the Constitution. Congress is supposed to set general policy. We are not well suited to make individual judgments like that. We take politics into account. We take public opinion into account.

We bring our ideology to it. We're supposed to. So, no, I-frankly, this is the dilemma they had when they passed that bill. If in fact Congress was ordering the courts to do something, the courts would have said that's unconstitutional, correctly.

MATTHEWS: Right. Wouldn't that be a bill of attainder, something you're not supposed to have under the Constitution?

FRANK: We're not supposed to do it individually.

MATTHEWS: Right.

FRANK: And I think I-I differ with my colleague when he says it's our job to rein in the courts.

No, the Supreme Court of the United States does that. The Supreme Court of the United States, including Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist just said, no, this is not what we're going to do in this case and it is not-we can change the policy if we wanted to. But we should not be individually intervening in a particular case. And it is not our job to be the high court of appeals that overrules what courts do, state courts and federal courts now, in a particular case.

MATTHEWS: Is this-Congressman, isn't this favoritism for the Congress to intervene in a legal proceeding and say, we want a certain result here? We don't like the way the courts are operating in this case. We want a different result in this case. Isn't that what you're saying?

MCHENRY: No. What we're saying is, the federal courts should take a look at protecting life. And as you all...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: They have, haven't they? Haven't they done that?

MCHENRY: Well, no, the state courts don't often act in the best regard for protecting life. The federal government is constituted for are that purpose. It's written into the Constitution, protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And, as a Congress, as a people, we want to make sure that everyone has the option, the opportunity, to go to the federal courts and pursue a way to protect themselves and their rights.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. I think the federal court's job is to ensure that the people aren't denied their constitutional rights.

MCHENRY: Absolutely. And...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: You're saying that Congress' job-you're saying the Congress has a right to do that.

(CROSSTALK)

MCHENRY: ... protection.

MATTHEWS: In other words-go ahead, Congressman Frank.

FRANK: Well, I'm just struck by the sweeping condemnation of the state courts we've just heard. And I think this is what happens when people understandably emotional-and, you know, the parents are acting exactly as parents should. And no one should be criticizing what they're trying to do.

But the question is, what are the rules and what's the proper role for other people? This condemnation we've just heard that the state courts don't protect life is really quite unfair, I think, and inaccurate. The state courts have the same responsibility as the federal courts. The federal courts have had a kind of...

MCHENRY: No, actually, the state courts are...

(CROSSTALK)

FRANK: Excuse me, sir. Please, Mr. McHenry, I did-Mr. McHenry, I did not interrupt you. And it's probably-I understand this is an emotional thing. If we don't interrupt each other, we'll do better.

The state courts have their responsibility. The federal courts in these areas have had a supervisory role. The notion that the federal courts would be ordered by Congress to disregard everything the state courts did, all the evidence they took, etcetera, and simply issue an injunction, which is what people wanted to do, based on no chance to hear any evidence, is really quite an extraordinary denigration of the state courts.

MATTHEWS: Congressman McHenry, I'm stunned. I'm stunned the fact that two-thirds of the people who identify themselves as evangelicals and conservatives in this country say they think Congress should have butted out of this thing. I'm amazed. These are conservatives talking.

MCHENRY: Look, let's-let's look at the votes. Let's look at the votes in Congress, though; 80 percent of my colleagues agree with my position, that we should step in and protect the life of Terri Schiavo.

MATTHEWS: Why does the public disagree with you?

MCHENRY: Eighty percent of my colleagues, including, including a diverse number of Democrats.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I know. But why is the conservative base opposed to this?

MCHENRY: I don't know. I can't speak to that.

All I've got to tell you is that, on this matter, it's a mater of conscience for our Congress. And that's why we acted in this way. We're wrestling with this issue, just like families wrestle with it. It's an intensely emotional issue. And I don't want to really engage in the legalese of it. After all, certainly, Congressman Frank is a well-trained attorney, having been Harvard-educated.

So, I'm not going to speak to those legalistic terms. But in terms of overall policy, at its essence, our federal government needs to protect life. And that's something that we need to look at as an overall policy and going forward, protecting life.

(CROSSTALK)

FRANK: This is what's so-this is what's so disturbing, legalese. Legalese is very important to this country. This denigration of being a country of laws, Chris, you said it in your opening. Are we going to remain a country of laws? That's a way of denigrating the notion that you do it by rules. What does legalese means?

It mean that you had a very thorough set of hearings in Florida where evidence was presented. A guardian, a neutral guardian was appointed and made a report. Doctors examined her. What do you have in Congress instead? People in-we have people calling us telling us what to do. We are supposed to take public opinion into account. We bring to it our own ideologies. Judges are not supposed to do this. So, this is-this is what's disturbing about this, and I understand the emotion.

MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, U.S. Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts and U.S. Congressman Patrick McHenry of Virginia.

Let's get an update.

MCHENRY: Great to be with you.

MATTHEWS: Thank you, sir.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7295550/