Transcript: Newt Gingrich and Howard Dean

(UNKNOWN): No. STEPHANOPOULOS: But this is -- this is brand new. It wasn't just Scalia, Sam. Both Justice Breyer, Richard, and Justice Ginsburg had overwhelming votes, two or four votes against. But President Obama actually has himself in some ways to blame for this.

ROBERTS: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: He was the one who led... ROBERTS: The filibuster. STEPHANOPOULOS: ... partly the filibuster against Justice Alito.

ROBERTS: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And we have seen a new standard now. It's not enough, Peggy, to be qualified. That's not the standard. The president doesn't get his choice. Senators basically vote for who they want on the court, someone they think will agree with them.

NOONAN: Yes. HAASS: It's part of the larger...

NOONAN: A country can't -- can't operate that way. We need more give.

HAASS: But the country is operating that way, dysfunctionally. And we're seeing -- this is not, shall we say, a one-off or is not unique.

There's another thing, which I thought Matt was going to mention, which is why the Republicans are lining up against this Hispanic nominee. It's the fastest growing demographic group in America...

(UNKNOWN): It's crazy.

HAASS: ... 15 percent roughly. This is the future. How is the Republican Party ever going to become a majority party again, if it alienates...

DONALDSON: The party has a death wish.

ROBERTS: They're not.

(CROSSTALK) DONALDSON: This party has a death wish.

ROBERTS: This is shooting yourself in the foot.

DOWD: Well, I don't -- I think -- I think that Republicans figured that out. And when they're opposition, they pulled way back from where they were at the beginning of this and made it much more like, oh -- they spent more time talking about how great she was and then I'm going to vote against her than they did talking about how bad she was, because they were worried about that situation, because they know that if, unless they regain the Latino vote, they cannot be a majority party in this country.

But I do think this polarization is a bad effect on the court of law, because people sit there and say, "Justices decide by what party their -- whoever got nominated from, and it's not about the law, and it's not about what's right for the country. It's about like what's -- what's politically advantageous to either political party."

The other thing, I think, is people are going to be watching her. Sotomayor's first year or two is going to be very important, because people are going to say, whether we should have believed what she said at the hearings -- and she said, "I'm going to stick with the law or not." So when Justice Stevens or somebody else, the vacancy occurs, and somebody else, people are going to say, "Wait a second."

STEPHANOPOULOS: So this is all about the next choice?

ROBERTS: Oh, sure. But -- but a lot of people said, in this -- in this round, well, she doesn't change the make-up of the court. So it really is a -- you know, it's all right. We can go with this.

But the -- the next choice could be something that does change the makeup. And that -- that becomes a much tougher thing.

But, you know, I think, Matt, what really happened, I mean, it was already getting very polarized, but Bush v. Gore really crystallized that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I think that's right.

ROBERTS: Because when you got to a court that basically decided an election and decided an election on a 5-4 decision, that was -- that's when people started to think they're just politicians. (CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: We're going to have to stop it right there. You guys keep going in the green room.

END

-- This embed didnt make it to copy for story id = 8287587. -- This embed didnt make it to copy for story id = 8287587. -- This embed didnt make it to copy for story id = 8287587. -- This embed didnt make it to copy for story id = 8287587. -- This embed didnt make it to copy for story id = 8287587.
Page
Join the Discussion
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
You Might Also Like...