CNN Larry King Live - Transcript
CNN Larry King Live - Transcript
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
LARRY KING, CNN HOST: Tonight, Star Jones, the daytime diva tells her story her way, how she became Star Jones Reynolds, how she found God as well as love, how she became half the woman she used to be and how she feels about still being a big target for the tabloids. She's here for the hour and we'll take your calls too. It's next on LARRY KING LIVE.
Before we meet Star Jones Reynolds, this note, one of the most talked about people in America today is James Frey, the author of "A Million Little Pieces." His book was the number one non-fiction book in America last year, part of Oprah's Book Club.
And now there are claims that it is a distorted book and a memoir that is not true. A Web site has broken that story. We'll see all about it because tomorrow night James Frey will be our exclusive guest, James Frey tomorrow night.
In a little while, Star Jones Reynolds, first let's check in on the Alito hearings. We'll go to our bureau in Washington with Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, member of Judiciary. He will be the second questioner tomorrow morning. And, on Capitol Hill at the Hart Senate location is Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, who had an opportunity to question Judge Alito today.
Senator Brownback, why do the Senators spend so much time asking the question rather than getting right to the question?
SEN. SAM BROWNBACK (R), KANSAS: Well, I think a lot of it is, Larry that because of the nature of the process most is already known about Judge Alito and a lot of people have already made up their mind.
So, what they're trying to put forward is to frame an issue to the judge and they're trying to really kind of shape the judge's opinion and also shape some of the thinking they hope on Capitol Hill or across the country on these many issues.
There are many issues anymore that come in front of the court that a lot of people look at and say really they should be political matters and they should be left to legislative bodies but because of political the court has integrated itself in so many of this decision making this is a chance to really try to influence and impact some of the court thinking through one of the jurists that hopes to be on the bench.
KING: Senator Schumer, in the area of direct questioning why can't a question like would you vote to override Roe v. Wade be as simple as that?
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: Well...
KING: Who doesn't know what Roe v. Wade says?
SCHUMER: You know the bottom line is questions should be more direct and the nominee should answer them more directly but we've had a little game here. Senator Specter said it himself.
The nominees answer as few questions as they can get away with and still get nominated and this is bad -- I mean and get confirmed and this is very bad for the process because we don't find, you know, these judges have enormous power over our lives.
Every day a decision they make can affect every one of us and we don't really know what they think until they get on the bench and then they surprise people one way or the other and that's not how the system was set up. It was set up by the founding fathers so you'd have some idea who you were giving this awesome power to.
KING: How do you think he equated himself today, Senator Brownback?
BROWNBACK: Oh, I think he did a pretty good job but I also think that when you look at your question, if you just said to him, "How would you decide Roe v. Wade," number one you're asking a judge to prejudge a case which he shouldn't do.
KING: But it's already been judged.
BROWNBACK: It has been but these matters still come back up in front of the court. Plus, let's say he said, "OK, I would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade."
KING: Right.
BROWNBACK: Then Senator Schumer and most of the Democrats filibuster him so he can't go on the bench, so the system is set up such that he can't answer that and really as a justice-to-be in an active case he probably shouldn't answer that.
SCHUMER: You know the bottom line is you may not want to ask him how he'll vote on a specific issue but I asked him today a very simple question. He said in 1985 that the Constitution does not contain the right for an abortion to protect abortion.
And he did not -- he refused to answer that question tonight when I asked him and that leaves everyone in the dark. That is not prejudging a case. That's his view of the Constitution and he has an obligation to do it.
And, to Sam's question, you know, there are people on the right and people on the left who may not want him. If he ends up being a moderate in the middle where most Americans want him there's no way that they can filibuster him. So, the process of the filibuster is a pretty good one because if you have to get 61 votes, as opposed to 51 votes, particularly when Republicans march in lockstep, they have never voted against a nominee in the past, if you require 61 votes, then you're going to get a moderate nominee and that's what we should have. We shouldn't have too many people at the extremes the right or the left.
BROWNBACK: Well, I would sure love to have seen President Clinton nominate a moderate instead of the former general counsel for the ACLU Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I mean I understand Senator Schumer's point but the fact of the matter is...
SCHUMER: But, Sam, that's not -- OK.
BROWNBACK: ...you have different philosophies coming forward and she even replaces a conservative on the court in Byron White so, you know, I don't think it's a fair comparison.
SCHUMER: Well, first of all President Clinton did nominate -- yes, Steve Breyer was clearly a moderate, conservative on economic issues. And, with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Clinton did what President Bush hasn't done. He gave four or five names to Orrin Hatch. Orrin Hatch vetoed several of the names and then said that he is for -- he would go for Ginsburg.
Furthermore, when that happened the Democrats controlled the Senate. There were 57. He didn't have to ask Orrin Hatch, who was a Republican but he did it to make it bipartisan.
KING: All right.
SCHUMER: The president has nominated judges in a purely partisan way and it's no wonder Democrats have their back up a little bit.
BROWNBACK: And, President Clinton -- President Clinton did as well.
SCHUMER: No, he consulted Orrin Hatch.
BROWNBACK: Well, and yet the process was different at that time. She was a known liberal and passed as 97-3. John Roberts, an extraordinary nominee, coming forward, putting forward a lot of information still has 22 Democrats that vote against him in that process.
SCHUMER: Yes and John Roberts is just as conservative as Ruth Bader Ginsburg was liberal and Bill Clinton, instead of nominating only liberals, nominated to the...
KING: all right, gentlemen...
SCHUMER: ...Court of Appeals mostly moderates.
KING: Gentlemen.
SCHUMER: George Bush has nominated very hard right wingers. KING: Gentlemen, is this knee jerk, Senator Brownback is it automatic? Are you voting for this nominee? Senator Schumer, is it automatic? Are you voting against?
SCHUMER: Well let me give you...
KING: Senator Brownback.
SCHUMER: Let me -- OK.
KING: Senator Brownback...
SCHUMER: Sorry.
KING: ...are you voting for him?
BROWNBACK: I lean strongly in favor of him but let's see how he answers the rest of the questions.
KING: You might still vote against him?
SCHUMER: OK, let me give you examples about knee jerk, Larry. Chuck Schumer has voted for approximately 200 of the 220 nominees George Bush has put forward. Sam Brownback hasn't voted against a single one. That's what knee jerk is all about.
KING: Sam.
BROWNBACK: It's not a knee jerk position. What the president does is the president nominates and then the Senate disposes of. There have been a number of nominees that have come forward and I've sat on the Judiciary Committee and reviewed and a number of them haven't gotten into the process because you look at them. You say this is not somebody that should come on forward in the process.
And it is an advise and consent role and plus I look at this mostly, I voted for most of President Clinton's nominees, even though philosophically I didn't agree with them that our part in this is advise and consent is this person legitimate to go on the bench?
Democrats have pulled out a new trick for as far as filibustering nominees, which hadn't happened in the past, you know, and that's something in the future, I guess if you have a Democrat president that you'll have to look at saying, well is that something that will be then done on the other side.
SCHUMER: Sam, I assure you if President Bush had consulted Democrats the way President Clinton consulted Republicans, the filibuster wouldn't be on the table. But when the president makes this partisan, when he chooses almost all of his nominees from the extreme right...
BROWNBACK: It isn't the extreme right. That's your (INAUDIBLE) in this process.
SCHUMER: ...and then -- then you are going to get nominees and there's going to be partisan fights.
KING: May I say that -- OK, gentlemen, I thank you both for coming and the past nine minutes have been more spirited than the whole day today just as a point of view.
BROWNBACK: Thanks, Larry.
KING: Thank you, guys.
SCHUMER: Bye, Larry.
KING: Senators Sam Brownback and Chuck Schumer.
And when we come back, you won't believe how great she looks. She's the author of "Shine." She's Star Jones Reynolds and she's next. Don't go away.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/10/lkl.01.html