PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: PART VII
October 8 , 2004

The presidential candidates discussed the legality of the Patriot Act, the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and possible Supreme Court vacancies at the second debate of the 2004 election.

 

Online NewsHour Special Reports: Vote 2004 Vote 2004: Issues Debates 2004 Debating Our Destiny Election 2000: Speeches and Debates Oct. 8, 2004: Update: Labor Department reports lower-than-expected number of jobs were added to payrolls in September. Oct. 6, 2004: Update: Iraq report shows Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Oct. 5, 2004: Political analysts offer instant assessment of night's clash Oct. 5, 2004: Political operatives discuss what Vice President Cheney and Senator Edwards each did to boost their parties run for the White House. Oct. 5, 2000: Cheney delivers strong performance in 2000 Oct. 4, 2000: Lee Hochberg talks with military families speaking out for and against the Iraq War Sept. 30, 2004: Shields and Brooks preview the first presidential debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry. Sept. 29, 2004: An analysis of President Bush's and Senator Kerry’s previous debating records. Sept. 28, 2004: Kohut analyzes the impact of debates on presidential campaigns from a historical perspective. Sept. 27, 2004: Adam Nagourney of the New York Times discusses the importance of the debates. Sept. 17, 2004: Susan Dentzer discusses Medicare as a presidential campaign issue. Oct. 20, 2000: Shields and Gigot assess how the debates affected the campaign. Oct. 9, 1996: Kohut considers historical impact of the Vice Presidential debates. Oct. 4, 1996: The NewsHour's historians weigh the role debates have played in decades past. More NewsHour coverage of the White House, and politics & campaigns   News for Students: Vote 2004.     White House Bush-Cheney Kerry-Edwards	MR. GIBSON: President Bush, the next question is for you and it comes from Rob Fowler (sp), who I believe is over in this area.
	Patriot Act impacts
	Question: President Bush, 45 days after -- (clears throat) -- excuse me. Forty-five days after 9/11, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which takes away checks on law enforcement, weakens American citizens' rights and freedoms, especially Fourth Amendment rights. With expansions to the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, my question to you is why are my rights being watered down and my citizen's -- (word inaudible) -- and what are the specific justifications for these reforms? PRESIDENT BUSH: I appreciate that. I really don't think your rights are being watered down. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't support it if I thought that. Every action being taken against terrorists requires a court order, requires scrutiny. As a matter of fact, the tools now given to the terrorist fighters are the same tools that we've been using against drug dealers and white-collar criminals. So I really don't think so. I hope you don't think that. I mean, I -- because I think whoever's the president must guard your liberties, must not erode your rights in America. The Patriot Act is necessary, for example, because parts of the FBI couldn't talk to each other. Intelligence gathering and the law enforcement arms of the FBI just couldn't share intelligence under the old law. And that didn't make any sense. Our law enforcement must have every tool necessary to find and disrupt terrorists at home and abroad before they hurt us again. That's the task of the 21st century. And so I don't think the -- the Patriot Act abridges your rights at all. And I know it's necessary. I can remember being in upstate New York talking to FBI agents that helped bust the Lackawanna cell up there. And they told me they could not have performed their duty, the duty we all expect of them, if they did not have the ability to communicate with each other under the Patriot Act. MR. GIBSON: Senator Kerry, a minute and a half. SEN. KERRY: Former Governor Racicot, as chairman of the Republican Party, said he thought that the Patriot Act has to be changed and fixed. Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, who is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has said over his dead body before it gets renewed without being thoroughly rechecked. A whole bunch of folks in America are concerned about the way the Patriot Act has been applied. In fact, the inspector general of the Justice Department found that John Ashcroft had twice applied it in ways that were inappropriate. People's rights have been abused. I met a man who spent eight months in prison, wasn't even allowed to call his lawyer, wasn't allowed to -- finally, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois intervened and was able to get him out. This is in our country, folks, the United States of America. They've got sneak-and-peak searches that are allowed. They've got people allowed to go into churches now and political meetings without any showing of potential criminal activity or otherwise. Now, I voted for the Patriot Act. Ninety-nine United States senators voted for it. And the president's been very busy running around the country using what I just described to you as a reason to say I'm wishy-washy, that I'm a flip-flopper. Now, that's not a flip-flop. I believe in the Patriot Act. We need the things in it that coordinate the FBI and the CIA. We need to be stronger on terrorism. But you know what we also need to do as Americans, is never let the terrorists change the Constitution of the United States in a way that disadvantages our rights.
	Stances on stem cells
	MR. GIBSON: Senator Kerry, the next question is for you, and it comes from Elizabeth Long (sp). Question: Senator Kerry, thousands of people have already been cured or treated by the use of adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells. However, no one has been cured by using embryonic stem cells. Wouldn't it be wise to use stem cells obtained without the destruction of an embryo? SEN. KERRY: You know, Elizabeth, I really respect your -- the feeling that's in your question. I understand it. I know the morality that's prompting that question, and I respect it enormously. But like Nancy Reagan, and so many other people -- you know, I was at a forum with Michael J. Fox the other day in New Hampshire, who's suffering from Parkinson's, and he wants us to do stem cell -- embryonic stem cell. And this fellow stood up, and he was quivering, his whole body was shaking from the nerve disease, the muscular disease that he had, and he said to me and to the whole hall, he said, you know, don't take away my hope, because my hope is what keeps me going. Chris Reeve is a friend of mine. Chris Reeve exercises every single day to keep those muscles alive for the day when he believes he can walk again, and I want him to walk again. I think we can save lives. Now, I think we can do ethically guided embryonic stem cell research. We have 100,000 to 200,000 embryos that are frozen in nitrogen today from fertility clinics. These weren't taken from abortion or something like that, they're from a fertility clinic, and they're either going to be destroyed or left frozen. And I believe if we have the option, which scientists tell us we do, of curing Parkinson's, curing diabetes, curing a -- a -- you know, some kind of a -- of a -- you know, paraplegic or quadriplegic or, you know, a spinal cord injury -- anything -- that's the nature of the human spirit. I think it is respecting life to reach for that cure. I think it is respecting life to do it in an ethical way. And the president's chosen a policy that makes it impossible for our scientists to do that. I want the future, and I think we have to grab it. MR. GIBSON: Mr. President, a minute-and-a-half. PRESIDENT BUSH: Embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of life to create a stem cell. I'm the first president ever to allow funding -- federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. I did so because I, too, hope that we'll discover cures from the stem cells, from the research derived. But I think -- I think we got to be very careful in balancing the ethics and the science. And so I made the decision we wouldn't spend any more money beyond the 70 lines, 22 of which are now in action, because science is important, but so is ethics, so is balancing life. To destroy life to save life is one of the real ethical dilemmas that we face. There's going to be hundreds of experiments off the 22 lines that now exist that are active, and hopefully we find a cure. But as well, we need to continue to pursue adult stem cell research. I helped double the NIH budget to $28 billion a year to find cures. And the approach I took is one that I think is a balanced and necessary approach to balance science and the concerns for life. MR. GIBSON: Senator, 30 seconds. Let's extend. SEN. KERRY: Well, you talk about walking a waffled line. He says he's allowed it, which means he's going to allow the destruction of life up to a certain amount, and then he isn't going to allow it. And I don't know how you draw that line. But let me tell you point blank, the lines of stem cells that he's made available, every scientist in the country will tell you, not adequate, because they're contaminated by mouse cells, and because there aren't 60 or 70; there are only about 11 to 20 now, and there aren't enough to be able to do the research because they're contaminated. We've got to open up the possibilities of this research, and when I am president, I'm going to do it -- MR. GIBSON: Senator -- SEN. KERRY: -- because we have to. MR. GIBSON: Mr. President. PRESIDENT BUSH: Let me make sure you understand my decision. Those stem cell lines already existed. The embryo had already been destroyed prior to my decision. I had to make the decision, do we destroy more life? Do we continue to destroy life? I made the decision to balance science and ethics.
	Choosing a Supreme Court justice
	MR. GIBSON: Mr. President, the next question is for you, and it comes from Jonathan Michelson (sp). Over here. Question: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why? PRESIDENT BUSH: (Laughs.) I'm not telling. (Laughter.) I really don't have -- haven't picked anybody yet. Plus I want them all voting for me. (Light laughter.) I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States. Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick. I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to strict interpretation of the Constitution. Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges years ago said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's a personal opinion; that's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America. And so I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution. And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year, next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus tests except for who -- how they interpret the Constitution. Thank you. MR. GIBSON: Senator Kerry, a minute-and-a-half. SEN. KERRY: Thank you, Charlie. A few years ago, when he came to office, the president said -- these are his words -- "What we need are some good conservative judges on the courts." And he said also that his two favorite justices are Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. So you get a pretty good sense of where he's heading if he were to appoint somebody. Now, here's what I believe. I don't believe we need a good conservative judge and I don't believe we need a good liberal judge. I don't believe we need a good judge of that kind of definition on either side. I subscribe to the Justice Potter Stewart standard. He was a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. And he said the mark of a good judge, good justice, is when you're reading their decision, their opinion, you can't tell if it's written by a man or a woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew, or a Christian. You just know you're reading a good judicial decision. What I want to find, if I am privileged to have the opportunity to do it -- and the Supreme Court of the United States is at stake in this race, ladies and gentlemen -- the future of things that matter to you in terms of civil rights; what kind of Justice Department you'll have; whether we'll enforce the law; will we have equal opportunity; will women's rights be protected; will be have equal pay for women, which is going backwards; will a woman's right to choose be protected? These are constitutional rights, and I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law.