Senate Debate on Empathy
=====================================
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30566640/
video
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30546596#30546596
May 3: Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., discusses the speculation surrounding
President Obama’s Supreme Court.
Meet the Press
2009-05-03 - Meet The Press - Arlen Specter - Empathy.flv
Empathetic. Is that code to you for an activist judge?
SEN. SPECTER: Well, we look to the court to interpret the Constitution and the
statutes passed by Congress and not to make laws. There is no doubt that the
standards and values in our country have shifted, as Cardozo said in the Palko
case years ago. There was a time when equal protection meant that the Senate
galleries were segregated, and we know how foolish that would be in modern day
life. So there's no doubt that there are changes with the times.
But if you talk
about empathy, you may be talking about something which is, which is broader.
But we'll have to test the nominee on that. Listen, the job of the United States
Senate is to ask firm, really tough questions to find out whether the nominee
has an open mind, whether the nominee respects the supremacy of the
Constitution, whether the nominee will look to Congress to establish public
policy. And there are going to be some empathetic factors, but basically we're a
nation with a rule of law.
MR. GREGORY: You're a Democrat now, and so I ask you whether, in light of that
switch, do you regret your support in the past for some of the more conservative
members of this court: Alito, Roberts, Clarence Thomas?
SEN. SPECTER: I do, I do not. Remember, I was a leading voice opposite--opposing
Judge Bork, a Republican. Got a lot of brickbats for that. Not a month passes by
today without my hearing about Judge Bork. He was a leading Republican
candidate. So I've not hesitated to oppose Republicans, a Republican when I
thought he was out of the mainstream of American jurisprudence.
MR. GREGORY: All right, let me ask you about this switch from the Republican to
the Democratic Party. Back in April of this year on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" you
said this: "So I'm trying to bring back those voters to the Republican Party. We
need balance and I'm trying to get people to register Republican. We need a
second party. Look here, our country is built on checks and balances. The only
check and balance in America today are the 41 Republican Senators who can talk
and filibuster, otherwise, the White House, the House of Representatives will be
a steamroller." Well, Senator, you've now decided to join that steamroller. What
changed?
SEN. SPECTER: Well, well, since that time I undertook a very thorough survey of
Republicans in Pennsylvania with polling and a lot of personal contacts, and it
became apparent to me that my chances to be elected on the Republican ticket
were, were bleak. And I'm simply not going to subject my 29-year record in the
United States Senate to that Republican primary electorate. I'm not going to do
that.
Now, with respect to the steamroller, I have shown repeatedly my independence,
willing to cross party lines when I thought the interests of the American people
in Pennsylvania were required it. Take one example: There's a bill on employees
choice known as Card Check, which would take away the secret ballot and impose
mandatory arbitration. I said when I made the switch I'm still against that
bill. Democrats are all for it, Republicans are all against it and I'm the
critical vote. And if see that there are other issues where I feel as a matter
of conscience, I will continue a filibuster against legislation.
MR. GREGORY: Are there other issues right now that you can name where you don't
see eye to eye with this president?
SEN. SPECTER: Well, I'm not going to start to explore a long range of issues. I,
I'm not going to do that to...
MR. GREGORY: All right. Well...
SEN. SPECTER: You don't, you, you don't have enough time, David.
MR. GREGORY: Well, hey, we can make time. We're going to get to a few issues in
a couple of minutes, but I want to stick to this point, what you're saying, this
was politics. This was a cold, hard political reality check. This is what David
Broder wrote in his column in the Washington Post, and it was pretty pointed.
Look at the headline: "Specter the Defector. The one consistency in the history
of Arlen Specter has been his willingness to do whatever will best protect and
advance the career of Arlen Specter. ... So, once again, Specter is likely to
reap political rewards from his maneuvering. But the Democrats should be
open-eyed about what they are gaining from his return to his original political
home. Specter's history shouts the lesson that he will stick with you only as
long as it serves his own interests--and not a day longer." You're about to
stand for re-election as a Democrat. Do you think that reputation hurts you?
SEN. SPECTER: I think it's a, a misreading. I do not think it is true. I can
pick up any of the issues and tell you what my reasons were, and I think I have
very strong reasons for all of them. There's more than being re-elected here.
There's the factor of principle. The Republican Party has gone far to the right
since I joined it under Reagan's big tent. When I came to the Senate, you had a
roomful of moderate Republicans, Hines and Weicker and Stafford and Chafee and
Danforth and on and on. And in recent times I have diverged materially from the
Republican line. And the critical factor, David, as most--many people know, was
the stimulus package.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
SEN. SPECTER: I bucked the Republican line, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe and
I, and that created a schism. My approval rating dropped 30 points with
Republicans as a result of that vote, so that as the pictures has evolved I felt
a lot more comfortable as a matter of principle with Democrats than with
Republicans.
frankly, between liberal groups and Democrats in the Senate. I think it'll be
interesting to see here if Republicans senators are going to adopt what the
Democrat senators, Democratic senators adopted in the last confirmation process
with Roberts and Alito; which is to say it use to be that elections have
consequences, presidents win elections, they get to nominate. And if someone is
qualified in terms of their temperament, their intellect and their experience,
whether I disagree or agree with how I think they may vote down the line, I will
support them. That was changed in the last go around, and I think it'll be
interesting to see whether or not Republicans say, "Yeah, we think this person
may vote a certain way."
MR. GREGORY: Right.
MR. GILLESPIE: And I thought the president's comment about empathy, well, I may
have empathy for, for the little guy in a fight with a big corporation, but the
law may not be on his side. So I think that's a concern...
MR. GREGORY: Joe, let me talk...
MR. GILLESPIE: ...and Republicans should hone in on that.
MR. GREGORY: Let me talk about tactics on another issue, that's the issue of
national security. Here is a Web ad released this week from Republican leader
Boehner and Representative, Representative Pete Hoekstra talking about safety.
Watch this.
(Clip from advertisement)
MR. GREGORY: Is that the tone that Republicans should be striking now?
MR. SCARBOROUGH: No. How's that? You wanted a short--no, that is not the tone we
should be strike--it seems very discordant right now. The