E-mail a friendSen. Patrick Leahy
airdate October 24, 2005
Serving in his sixth term, Vermont's Sen. Patrick Leahy is the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and also a senior member of the Agriculture and Appropriations Committees. He previously served as State's Attorney of Chittenden County, where he gained a national reputation for his law enforcement activities and was selected one of three outstanding prosecutors in the U.S. Regarded as one of the leading privacy advocates in Congress, Leahy is also passionate about the issue of land mines.
Sen. Patrick Leahy
Tavis: Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. First elected to the Senate back in 1974, making him one of the most senior members of the U.S. Senate and the only Democrat to serve in the Senate from the Green Mountain State. He joins us tonight, though, from Washington. Senator Leahy, nice to have you on the program, sir.
Sen. Patrick Leahy: Tavis, good to be with you.
Tavis: Glad to have you on. So, if the vote - let me just jump right to this. If the vote for Harriet Miers were held today, today, would she be voted up or down in committee?
Leahy: Well, I think if she's going to be confirmed, it's only going to be after a stellar performance in the - hearings, which will start in a couple weeks. I don't think there are many people who are willing to take the leap of faith and vote for her now. But actually, that's the way it should be.
Even with somebody as brilliant - as John Roberts, who's now Chief Justice, most people, certainly all the Democrats, reserve judgment on voting for them until after they'd had the hearings. Most of the Republicans reserve judgment until after the hearings. And that's what we're doing here. But in this case, where so little is known about her, the hearings are going to be extremely important.
Tavis: Let me ask you to give me your thoughts on this questionnaire brouhaha. We all know now that the Senate gave her a questionnaire she was supposed to fill out. She, of course, filled it out. And I have seen her ripped apart by folk on the left and the right for the, my word here, sloppy job that many people think she did in answering those questions. But give me your take on what you saw when you read - her response to the questionnaire.
Leahy: Well, the most charitable thing I could say is it was incomplete and inadequate. This questionnaire was not a gotcha questionnaire. It was put together very carefully by the Republican chair and myself, with input from the Republicans and Democrats on the committee. It was to give her a roadmap of which way the hearings are going. Nobody's out there trying to - play tricks or anything. We just want to know who she is.
After all, the 100 US Senators stand in the shoes of 280 million Americans, you and everybody who might be watching this program. We stand in their shoes. We have to make up the decision. The questionnaire is step one. In my 31 years here, I've never known of a questionnaire having to be returned to a Supreme Court nominee for a do-over. That we've done, however. She has said she will fill it out correctly this time and send it back. I hope for the whole process that she will.
Tavis: You mentioned again just a moment ago that in the 31 years you've been in the Senate, you've never known a questionnaire to have been sent back for a redo. I might add that you have been involved in hearings for all nine, all the current Justices on the Supreme Court. You have been in the Senate long enough to have been involved in their hearings. Involved in the process on some level.
Tell me what it portends, then, for her in these hearings. The questionnaire, I understand, is due to be returned on Wednesday. What does it portend for her that she had - that she was even asked to have to redo this thing?
Leahy: Well, I think it's unfortunate. I think that this was, again, not a case where anybody was trying to play gotcha. It was put together by the key Republicans, key Democrats on the committee, sent in a bipartisan fashion, and Senator Specter and I, he's the chairman, I'm the ranking Democrat, we did also a somewhat unprecedented thing in a press conference to say where we thought it was inadequate, and that we were sending it back. I think it's extremely important that it be done right this time. Now, the President has said that she is the most qualified person in America for this position.
She, in turn, has said the President is the most brilliant person she's ever met. It's not being partisan or political to say that some people may disagree with one or two of those, one or either of those statements. But in any event, she is the one nominated to be one of the nine members of the court, a court that's going to be there long after any of the Senators are gone, long after the President is gone. And she should be highly qualified. And right now, it's going to have to be up to her to prove that kind of qualification.
Tavis: To your point about what the President thinks of her and what she thinks about the President, let me talk about the Bush White House and we'll give you a chance to talk about the Bush White House just for a second here. I want to ask whether or not you have been at all surprised by the way that the White House has rolled this out.
Again, Democrats and even Republicans have been stunned at the way they have stumbled in rolling out this nomination, the questionnaire being sent back again is another example of a major stumble. Have you been at all surprised at, this White House is pretty adept usually at rolling stuff out like this?
Leahy: Well, I - have been surprised. I have not raised the kind of criticism an awful lot of Republicans have. There have been a number of Republicans who have been sharply critical, and of course a number of the - very, very conservative groups that normally back the White House have been very - critical. What bothers me is that a lot of it was done with a wink and a nod. And the people that she should be aiming this for are the 100 members of the United States Senate. We're the only ones to who get to vote on her. It's an awesome responsibility.
But instead, what they've done is said - we'll hold back information from the Senators, but we'll do these round-robin telephone calls and others to different groups and say, 'Well, we know how she's going to vote, we're sure how she'll vote in cases. We can assure you she'll do the things we want her to do.' Well, that doesn't help a nominee, because a nominee is not there to be the tool of either a Democratic President or Republican President. They're supposed to be independent of politics. They're supposed to be there to represent all of us.
Tavis: Democrats have asked for more documents. They want documents from her years in the White House. President Bush has put his foot down and says I'm not gonna give you guys those documents. Your thoughts?
Leahy: Well, I think that's a mistake. - He's also had some of the key Republicans on the committee have asked for the same documents. After all, the President has said that he is nominating her based on her work in the White House. Well then, we ought to know what it was he bases this on. Basically, they are saying at the White House, well, trust us. Well, you know, one of the areas where I did agree with Ronald Reagan was when he said trust, but verify. And we want to verify.
After all, some of the cases may come up before the Supreme Court. The whole torture policy of the administration at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib. These cases may come up. Was she involved in developing that torture policy? What involvement did she have with, one of - the chief lobbyists for her - position on the Supreme Court is also somebody who argues often before the Supreme Court. We have this policy called recusal, where if you have a conflict of interest, you have to step back, you can't hear a particular case.
Well, there are a whole lot of matters that she dealt with at the Supreme Court that potentially could end up before - she dealt with at the White House, rather, that potentially could end up before the Supreme Court. I think we have to know what those issues were, because she has to be asked, are you prepared, are you prepared to state today that you would step aside from cases involving those matters that you dealt with in such depth that the President felt it was important enough to nominate you to the Supreme Court.
Tavis: We, of course, will continue to follow the ongoing saga of Harriet Miers and see whether she ends up on the Supreme Court. I've got a minute to go here. Let me ask you two questions and split my minute in 30 seconds apiece, if I can, sir. The first, the word is out. We now know that Alan Greenspan's replacement has been named. Your thoughts about that right quick?
Leahy: Well, President Bush inherited the largest surplus in America's history. He's turned it into the largest deficit in America's history. I think the question the new Fed Chairman's gonna be asked, what are you going to do to get us out of this mess, where now our children and our grandchildren are gonna have to pay for - a lot of tax breaks that have gone to the wealthiest supporters of this administration. And also have to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq.
Tavis: I should mention that the guy's name is - they guy who I referred to that's taking Mr. Greenspan's place is Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors at the moment.
Leahy: Yeah. He's part of the - administration now. He's close to the President in the administration. I want to know if he's willing to break with this administration that has supported these huge crushing deficits.
Tavis: Finally, right quick, let me ask you, because there might be indictments, perhaps this week of maybe even Karl Rove, the President's top advisor, and Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff. Your thoughts about that.
Leahy: Well, I was a prosecutor nearly 10 years, and no matter what the crime that is charged, no matter whether you have a criminal grand jury, as you do in this case, and of course serious crimes being charged. I've always reminded people that even if somebody is charged with a crime, they're presumed innocent unless and until they're proven guilty. Obviously, if they were indicted, they would have to step aside. They could not serve at the White House while that was hanging over their head.
Tavis: Senator Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. We will, of course, again, continue to follow the Harriet Miers saga in the coming days and weeks. Senator Leahy, as always, nice to talk to you. Thank you, sir.
Leahy: Good to be with you.
Tavis: Glad to have you. Up next on this program, Grammy-winning musician Melissa Etheridge. Stay with us.
Back to October 24, 2005