Transcripts For KQEH Charlie Rose 20170202 : vimarsana.com

Rose we take a look at t he life of a ceo in a conversation of ursula burns, chairman and former c. E. O. Of xerox. Ive never been one to solely identify with my work. I t does consume the vast majority of my time. And therefore, you worry about when its not going to consume the vast majority of your time. But my interests have never been narrowed to how do i make xerox the greatest company in the world. That was one of the most important things i did. But i have a family im i nterested in, i have a social causes im interested in, i have a country im interested in. Rose a new Supreme Court Justice Nominee and a departing c. E. O. When we continue. Rose funding for charlie rose has been provided by the following and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and Information Services worldwide. Captioning sponsored by Rose Communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. Rose we begin this evening with the Supreme Court, judge neil gorsuch is president trumps nominee to feel the seat vacated by the death of judge j o y j ust tice antonin scalia. It was broadcast from the whitehouse on tuesday evening. Millions of voters said this was the single most important issue to them when they voted for me f president. I am a man of my word. I will do as i say. Something that the American People have been asking for from washington for a very very long time. [applause] thank you. Today i am keeping another promise to the American People by nominating judge neil gorsuch of the United States Supreme Court. Rose judge gorsuch is a 49 year old conservative jurist serve on the court of appeals for the 10th circuit in denver. Speaking at the ceremony he paid h uh module to home age to his predecessor. Justice scalia was the lion of the law. Agree or disagree with him. All of his colleagues on the bench share his wisdom and his humor. And like them i miss him. Rose Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer promise the democrats will offer a tough c o n firmation fight. It remains to be seen whether the democrats will filibuster the nomination given the republicans refusal to consider president obamas choice of Merrick Garland last year. Joining Meese Adam Liptak of the new york times. Jan crawford on the cbs news and paul climate solicitor general j o armer solicitor general and david boies chairman of the law firm of boies, schiller and flexner. It is high, it is not. He went to columbia harvard and has a doctor from legal philosophy from a oxford went to a p restigious law firm in the Justice Department and has been a judge on the 10th circuit for 11 years and earned at meyeration from both sides being a careful serious judge and one who shares Justice Scalia whom he is to replace a writing style. So he is a pretty solid package. Rose so david boies, whats to be concerned about here . If that package was enough to get you on the Supreme Court there wouldnt be a vacancy because judge garland would w o u l d it. Rose its always judge garland isnt it. Its always politics. Rose what i mean by that you cant talk to democrats about this nomination without a reference to someone they thought was eminently qualified and didnt get a chance to be confirmed. I think thats exactly right because i think one of the principles here is how are we going to select our Supreme Court nominees and our justices. If the answer is only republican president can select somebody who will be confirmed, were obvious me not going to have balance on the Supreme Court. So how is the senate and the president going to work together. President nominates the senate advices and consents. The more the president injects politics into the selection more the senate is going to have the to take politics into account in advising and consenting. Rose paul clement where do you think this nomination stands. This nomination is now before the senate. As adam suggested, they are confronting an eminently qualified individual in judge gorsuch. And i think that, im sure theres going to be a lot of discussion about politics and pay back and a lot of discussion of judge garland who is also a terrific jurist. But i dont think were going to hear a lot of criticism of judge gorsuch because he really real is just a top caliber individual a n d a judge who has really proven as adam suggested somebody to be admired across partisan lines. Rose jan you must hear from Senate Democrats criticism of judge gorsuch. They have to fight him and theyre just looking for how to do it. Theres going to be a close scrutiny looking to see any clues where he might be antiwomen or antiworker. We havent seen the specifics what they would use. Its almost like theyre just now trying to find it. Which means again, this is raising the political battle. But i think its really important to keep in mind when we look at this fight, that this didnt start last year with Mitch Mcconnel and the republicans. These judicial confirmation battles, the democrats and the senate and the republicans, i mean they are like the hat f i e l ds and mccoys and you go to go back and understand why these fights are so bitter starting with robert bork and going back to the 2000 where democrats for the first time in history filibustered president george bushs court nominees. I remember when they blocked several of those nominees hearing and talking to Mitch Mcconnel, and he said memories are long in the u. S. Senate. What goes around comes around. That is not a fight Mitch Mcconnel started last year. You can mix the parties in the play book. Republicans believe that democrats would have done exactly the same thing if the parties had been reversed. And president obama, i mean president bush were getting an Election Year nominee. And then senator joe biden in fact warned that when Senate Democrats had control he warned if president bush got another nomination, hw bush, that they would not confirm it. This is not so black and white as you think. This goes back much longer than last year. Rose how do we get out of this if not this process another confirmation battle. David. I think president obamas nomination of garland, if it had succeeded would have been a step in that direction because garland was clearly somebody who was more moderate than many other nominees. And more moderate frankly than the current nominee. Rose and more moderate than Many Democrats might have wished. Exactly. I think thats right. There was a lot of criticism of obama because he was not liberal enough. I think it never would have happened, but a great step towards bringing the country back together again and ending some of this politicalization of the court would have been for trump to nominate garland and put him on the bench. Hes going to have another chance. Rose he couldnt do that. He couldnt do that with his base. Rose not with his constituency. A guy can dream, you know. It would have been a great step. And he could have picked somebody. And nobody doubts that the current nominee is a brilliant legal mind, disciplined thinker, great writer. Ive appeared in front of him. Hes well prepared. Hes thoughtful. Rose doesnt it trouble you then to be because of past things have nothing to do with h i m to be oppose ing him. Its not just past things, charlie. Rose that he had nothing to do with. Its not whether he had something to do with it and he h a s something to do with it. His views are very very conservative views. Rose the man he was replaced was very conservative. And scalia was i think confirmed unanimously. I dont think there was a single vote against scalia. So times have changed since scalia was put on the court. It is a more political process. But if its going to be a political, its got to be political both ways. Its not a question in my view as pay back, its a question of balance. Because if you dont have, the same kind of scrutiny both sides, you get a very unbalanced Supreme Court and thats not good for anybody. Rose paul clement, would you have had problems with j udge garland. No. In fact i signed a letter saying he was a very qualified nominee. I did not comment one way or another exactly how the senate should proceed and i would say the same about judge gorsuch. I would say what we need to try to do and i dont have a silver bullet, its not going to be easiest but we do need to try to get back to a world where when we say a judicial nominee is well qualified, a greater writer and has sterling academic credentials that the person gets confirmed. Maybe were not even going to get back to a world where people get confirmed unanimously. But you know, Justice Kagan for example was confirmed with most of the republicans voting no. But still, there wasnt talk of filibusters and the like and she was confirmed. I do hope we can get back to a time when once we recognize that somebody is a really terrific jurist, really well qualified, writes exceptionally well that theyll get confirmed. I think judge gorsuch not just because he was on the list of 21 judges but is exactly the kind of judge that you would expect a republican president to appoint to the Supreme Court. Rose adam, what about this argument. That president ial contest was in part about electing your candidate so he could appoint judges that you liked. And this is one of the thing that goes with winning the presidency, you get to appoint Supreme Court justices. You win, you appoint. True that Mitch Mcconnel said he want the next president to get to choose and you could say thats what happened here. You could also say that more americans voted for the other candidate. So its a complicated thing. Its probably true on both garland and gorsuch that the fight is not over their qualifications. In fact, about garland, the republicans didnt go after him personally. They said were not going to let anyone come through. And now what were hearing is the flip side of that where my guess is theres not going to be enormous opposition based on the particulars of judge gorsuchs credentials and jurisprudence but more of what we were hearing from david in particular that if the other side has done this, we have to do it too. If its going to turn into a political fight, both sides have to play politics. That of course is not good for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Courts authority a nd law jut must y and prestige is based on the notion that its apolitical impartially and how it gets along on political grounds is really bad for the Supreme Court. Its not merely that both sides got to play by the same rules. Its also that part of the advise and consent function of t h e senate is to look at the judicial philosophy of a nominee. Although i have great admiration for the nominees intelligence and integrity, he is somebody with judicial views that are way to one side of the spectrum. And i think that that is something that independent of any history, that it is wise for the senate to take into account when theyre going to confirm somebody who is going to be on the bench for 30 or 40 years. Rose jan. To davids point when he says way to the side of one spectrum thats because its different in the spectrum that david is arguing from you could say that Merrick Garland who people describe as a moderate, theres no question he would have been anything other than a solid liberal vote. And president s are entitled to nominate justices with philosophies that they agree with. So when youre talking about what is mainstream, these are labels that means generally things that you might tend to agree with. I think gorsuch, theres no evidence that he is an extremist, i think people are trying to find that. Does he have a solid conservative judicial philosophy, a restrained philosophy, absolutely. But he talks like someone straight out of the kind of republican, i mean conservative judicial philosophy handbook. And you know, if that cant be confirmed, then anyone with a conservative philosophy would not be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Rose adam how much coy do you want to respond to that. I dont agree with that. Ill let adam go. Rose adam how much do you put to this idea that they wanted to choose someone that would make it easy for Justice Kennedy to retire so they could then appoint someone even more conservative and not a swing judge to replace him. I think theres something to that. I dont know if its effective, i dont know if Justice Kennedy can be manipulative. But gorsuch is a former kennedy clerk and someone Justice Kennedy thinks highly of and you p u t such a person on the court, it may be Justice Kennedy should he be thinking hes retiring and theres some evidence he is would say listen my legacy is secure, i could live with such people and im hopeful the person that replaces me would be in this mold. And that may or may not be a winning play but i could see the logic of it. Rose paul, whats the likelihood well see some Nuclear Option here . Well, i dont know and it really depends on whether some of the thoughts that davids advancing ultimately prevail. I think what were coming down to is really a question where right now, the two Political Parties i think do have a different view of judging. And the question is going to become first of all when the president appoints somebody, if youre from the other party, are you going to vote against that person just because they dont have the same political or judicial philosophy as you do and they share the judicial philosophy of the appointing p r e s i d d a consensus that if the we person was qualified, then the fact that they shared the appointing president s philosophy, judicial philosophy, was just to be expected and not a reason to vote against them. If were past that and people are going to vote on party lines then the 64,000 question becomes whether or not theres a real effort to filibuster this nomination. And i certainly hope it doesnt come to that because i think it will be bad enough if weve gotten to a point where every judicial appointment is kind of a party line vote. But if we on top of that insist on filibustering Supreme Court nominees, then i fear that will go the same way as it did with the court of appeals nominees d u r i n g the last Administration Rose someone always argued that politic has always been there back to roosevelt and packing the court in a switch and time save nine. Well thats true, thats true. Politics is always part of the process. But i do think if you take the longer historical view, the numb informant dominant view has w i t h cabinet officers and the like, the president gets to appoint judges and we expect judges to have philosophy of the president that appointed them. I would add the irony is back in time when the more sort of restrained judicial philosophy was more associated with the Democratic Party than with the republican party. So if you take a really long view, these things work out in very strange ways. Rose adam go ahead, somebody. I was going to add on the likelihood, at this point my sense is charlie, that thats pretty slim for this nomination. And i think because democrats will see that its not in their interest to do it, to filibuster at the end of the day right now. The president is replacing a conservative icon and intellectual giant, this nomination will not change the balance of the court. Thats a powerful argument for republicans if democrats are blocking this nominee. And i think from my sources, they are prepared to trigger that Nuclear Option for this nomination which would be would mean the filibuster would be out of the way for the next big fight over Justice Kennedys seat which is expected either this summer or next summer. So that would be a big help to republicans in some ways and it would certainly enable them to appoint a more conservative nominee to replace Justice Kennedy. Thats why i think at the end of the day democrats will realize that put up a big fight for judge gorsuch but ultimately not filibuster and prompt the republicans then to change the rules and do away with the filibuster as democrats did for the filibuster of lower court nominees. Rose will this be a long battle, adam . It probably takes the usual kind of time which is about 45 days to the confirmation hearings. About 90 days to a confirmation vote. The trick would be, the court would like to see a 9th justice on in time for the last arguments of the term which take place in late april. Well see if that gets done or not. It may be democrats even if they dontant motherly succeed in blocking the nomination anyway well try to slow it down. Rose when judge gorsuch was up for confirmation as a court of appeals judge he got unanimous or 99 or some huge amounts and they included senators obama, Biden Clinton and schumer. For an Appeals Court nonnominations those justices are applying the law as its written or as the Supreme Court interpreted it. Its hard to say just because he was unanimous there its a different role he would play rose they dont take court of appeals judges seriously. Its a different role. Theyre interpreting the what you not making the law. Rose paul what are the big issues coming up before the Supreme Court<