TONIGHT

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Blogs
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• Q & A with Mr. Henderson
• Article by Mr. Henderson
• Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
• Mr. Henderson's bio

E-mail a friend

Tavis: Wade Henderson is the executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Tomorrow, he's scheduled to give testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee; testimony that will reveal his reasons for opposing the elevation of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court. Wade Henderson joins us tonight from Washington. Wade, nice to have you back on the program.

Wade Henderson: It's great to be here, Tavis.

Tavis: For those who don't know what the LCCR is, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, let me first give you an opportunity to explain what the umbrella organization is right quick.

Henderson: Yeah, the Leadership Conference is the nation's premiere civil and human rights coalition, with approximately 180 national organizations working to advance the common goals of civil rights in this country.

Tavis: Organizations that we might be familiar with, like?

Henderson: The NAACP, and the National Urban League, the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, women's groups, labor organizations, human rights and religious groups, and gay and lesbian organizations are all a part of the Leadership Conference family. And I think we really stand for the proposition, Tavis, that in coalition, there is strength. And by working on a common agenda that helps to better the country and to move it forward, we are actually uplifting the goals that most Americans think are important today.

Tavis: So fair to say that whatever you say tomorrow, which I'll get to here in just a second, if I can get a sneak preview. Fair to say then that whatever you are going to say tomorrow is representative, or certainly is endorsed by, supported by, this umbrella organization?

Henderson: That's exactly correct. It represents the views of a broad swath of the American people, and particularly those national organizations working to advance civil and human rights.

Tavis: Before I then get to the conversation about Judge John Roberts and what you intend to say tomorrow in your testimony, let me ask one question about President Bush. President Bush has been met with opposition from time to time by this very same organization, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, on a number of civil rights and human rights issues. We all know the news now, President Bush has finally come out and said that he takes full responsibility, essentially saying the buck stops here. What do you make of the President saying, 'If anything went wrong, I'm to blame.'

Henderson: Well, I think the President's statement was important. It's an important statement of contrition. I think it helps to lance a growing political boil that was, of course, affixed to this administration because of its failure to respond to the Katrina catastrophe. But I think it does advance the public debate by conceding the role of the federal government in delivering services to all of our citizens.

And I think it helps to move the debate forward. I think the issue now is what kind of meaningful action will follow that statement, and the kind of efforts that he's already made in helping to improve the delivery of services to FEMA, and helping to really respond to the relief efforts of those in need, are the two next most important things.

Tavis: Well, to your point, we will see in the coming days and weeks and months what does in fact follow the statement. Let's get now to Judge John Roberts, if I might. Let me play a clip of Senator Joe Biden of Delaware today questioning, or actually in this particular clip, not questioning, but certainly making a strong point to the would-be next Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Roberts.

Joe Biden: So you've told me nothing, Judge. With all due respect, you've not - look, this is, it is kind of interesting this kabuki dance we have in these hearings here. As if the public doesn't have a right to know what you think about fundamental issues facing them. There's no more possibility that any one of us here would be elected to the United States Senate without expressing broadly, and sometimes specifically to our public, what it is we believe.

The idea that the founders sat there and said, 'Look, here's what we're going to do. We're going to require the two elected branches to answer questions of the public, with no presumption they should have the job of Senator, President, or Congressman. But guess what? We're going to have a third co-equal branch of government, that gets to be there for life, never, ever, ever again to be able to be asked a question they don't want to answer. And you know what? He doesn't have to tell us anything.

Tavis: At that particular moment, Judge Roberts did not get a chance to respond directly to that line of questioning, or certainly that statement by Senator Biden. But later on, Judge Roberts did get a chance to respond. I read now from the transcript of what he had to say very quickly. I quote Judge Roberts in response to Senator Biden.

'Judges don't stand for election. I'm not standing for election. And it's contrary to the role of judges in our society to say that. Judges go on the bench and they apply and decide cases according to the judicial process, not on the basis of promises made earlier to get elected, or promises made earlier to get confirmed.'

So Wade, there you have it. And this really sums up what's been going on here, certainly where the Democrats are concerned, not being able, my phrase here, to pin down Judge Roberts on certain positions, on certain ideologies. What is your take on that debate?

Henderson: Well, I think you're absolutely right, Tavis. I think Senator Biden's question put its finger on exactly the issue facing the American people, and that is, who is John Roberts, and how do we answer that question? Is John Roberts a lawyer, a judge with a demonstrated commitment to upholding the rights and freedoms and core American values that most Americans have come to accept? Or is he in fact a stealth candidate, committed to an ideological goal of turning back the clock with respect to important freedoms and rights that Americans hold dear? That is to say, will he uphold and protect core civil and human rights?

Or will he use his position as Chief Justice of the court to actually restrict those rights of lifting, for example, the roles of the state over the rights of the individual to be free from discrimination, protecting the rights of women to be free from gender bias in our society, or recognizing that there may be other factors that would justify or excuse that kind of bias? These are the central questions that I think both the Senate and the American people have a right to know. And unfortunately, Judge Roberts' answers thus far to many of the questions posed, have been evasive and non-responsive.

There is evidence in the record, Tavis, and this is really the troubling aspect of it, that would suggest Judge Roberts is indeed the ideologue that we fear. From his early tenure of public service in the Department of Justice, during the Reagan administration's first term, Judge Roberts issued a number of memoranda, which raised profound and serious questions about his commitment to core rights and freedoms. Unfortunately, he has given no information at the hearing that would somehow rebut the presumption that one draws from reading that material.

And regrettably, his service on the bench, he's been of course on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, has only been for two years, and we're not really able to discern a great deal from reviewing the record of his cases there. So the central question remains, who is John Roberts, how do we answer that question? And the conventional wisdom is that the American people have a right to have every reasonable question posed to Judge Roberts by the Judiciary Committee answered. The other final point, Tavis, is this. The Bush administration is withholding key documents that would help us get a better understanding of who John Roberts is.

He served, for example, in the Solicitor General's office in a political appointed deputy role, and that is, of course, the office that represents the American people in cases before the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, 16 cases that have been requested, both by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, by way of a Freedom of Information Act request, and also by democratic members of the Judiciary Committee, have not been made forthcoming by the administration.

Unfortunately, this is the same kind of information that has been made available in the past with other nominees, including former Chief Justice Rehnquist. So there's no justification for withholding this information, and the central issue, therefore, is, what is the administration trying to hide?

Tavis: As I mentioned earlier, tomorrow you will be one of any number of people testifying. There will be folk testifying for Judge Roberts and against Judge Roberts, we've already established here that you'll be testifying on behalf of the LCCR against Judge Roberts. Let me ask you right quick what you expect to come out of this tomorrow. Many people think - many people believe in a way that the outcome here is a foregone conclusion; that you, respectfully, are wasting your time tomorrow going to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Henderson: Yeah, well some would suggest that, Tavis. I don't think the jury is quite in yet on whether Judge Roberts will be confirmed. But having said that, certainly Judge Roberts is an attractive candidate, and I think he has made a very strong presentation before the committee. But you know, Tavis, this isn't a coronation, this is a confirmation. It's set up under the Constitution to provide advice and consent to the President. The questions that have been asked - of Judge Roberts are in fact critical to understanding who he is.

He has the burden of responding to those questions. If he hasn't answered them in a fulsome, effective way, then I think the Senator Judiciary Committee and the other Senators have to evaluate it. The points that we will make will be drawn in - part from the information that we've seen on the public record, which has raised, again, serious questions about his commitment to specific legislation, like the Voting Rights Act of 1965, his views on gender bias and discrimination, or equally importantly, his views on whether the federal government has a role in protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans, particularly when those rights come in conflict with the interests of several states.

Judge Roberts seems to be a strong advocate for state's rights over the rights of individuals to be free from discrimination. And we think by making those points clear in an unambiguous fashion, we can make a strong case for why Judge Roberts should not be confirmed. Now, that doesn't mean of course that the Senate won't confirm him.

Tavis: Right.

Henderson: And certainly there's evidence in the past that even when strong cases have been made, the Senate has ignored it. But I guess the point is this, the past is often prologue to the future. We opposed...

Tavis: Let me, I'm sorry, Wade, I hate to cut you off.

Henderson: No problem.

Tavis: I'm about to lose this satellite feed. I apologize for that. Glad to have you on the program. We'll be watching your testimony tomorrow.

Henderson: Thanks, Tavis. I appreciate it.

Tavis: Nice to you have on the program. Wade Henderson, from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Up next, singer-songwriter, Tracy Chapman. Stay with us.