MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesFebruary 14, 2002
ALAN KEYES, MSNBC HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I am Alan Keyes.
Tonight, we are going to talk about President G.W. Bush's nomination of Charles Pickering to a vacancy on the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, a court that receives cases from a lot of the most important states in the south and southwest. You will recall that in the past, there have been some controversial nominations in which the left wing ganged up in order to slam the nomination and tried to knock it out of the box, as they did with Robert Bork and tried to do in the case of Clarence Thomas.
Once again with Judge Pickering, there are forces gathering on the left, making an attempt to say that this judge is somehow insensitive to minorities and women. Really behind it all I believe are his strong pro-life views, his willingness to take an unabashed stance of faith, when it comes to his own life. And it seems as if, when these nominations come forward, the idea that you might give a lifetime appointment, put in the way of a path to the Supreme Court, someone of true and strong pro-life viewpoints, brings out a lot of opposition from the left wing, which does in fact seem to apply a litmus test to these kinds of nominations.
Tonight, we are going to address some of the key questions that have to do with this kind of nomination, the nominating process and especially the Pickering nomination itself. Why is the left slamming the Pickering nomination? Are their tactics just race baiting and character assassination? Are his pro-life views the real motive for this assault?
We'll be joined by a number of folks of differing viewpoints, when we get to our panel discussion later. But right now up front, I want to talk to some folks who are looking at this issue, and one very important figure in the civil rights movement on history and the civil rights movement, witness in fact to a lot of history and one of those folks whose name invokes the very heart of the civil rights movement, Charles Evers. Charles is the younger brother of martyred civil rights leader, Medgar Evers. When Medgar was assassinated in 1963, he took over as the head of the NAACP in Mississippi and has been a key civil rights leader. Also with us is Thomas Jipping, director of the Judicial Monitoring Project at the Free Congress Foundation. He is also a columnist for worldnetdaily.com — welcome to you both and thank you for joining me here on MAKING SENSE.
THOMAS JIPPING, FREE CONGRESS FOUNDATION: Thank you, Alan — great to be here.
CHARLES EVERS, CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST: Thank you.
KEYES: Charles, with your experience, your background with the kind of life that you bring to an issue like this, I'd like you to tell us a little bit about Judge Pickering, and why you have come forward in the context of this seeming effort to move against him, to assassinate his character, to insinuate all kinds of things about his racial views, in order to support the nomination. What are the grounds for your support of this nomination?
EVERS: First of all, Alan, thank you for allowing me to do this. Judge Pickering, when he wasn't popular for any white just to stand up or speak up for a particular minority. In those days, you know, we were Negros, black, whatever, about every 10 years we change, you know. But right then, I think we were Negros back in those days.
In 1967, I was field secretary for the NAACP, and Vernon Damon (ph) was one of my presidents out in Hattiesburg. And Vernon Damon's (ph) house was fire bombed, and he was killed and his daughter — and his family were just in terrible shape. And Judge Pickering at that time was an elected official in Jones County, and he stepped up and began to fight the Ku Klux Klan. And back in those days, it was not heard of a white elected official, because we weren't voting, a white elected official speaking up for blacks. And this man did that. And had he been the kind of racist that — and Vernon was the head of the NAACP.
Another thing he did (UNINTELLIGIBLE), and because his kids stayed in public schools. He never took them out. They stayed in public schools, and he is responsible partly for the man who killed our president being in jail today, the testimony he put forth.
KEYES: Chuck, tell me something...
EVERS: Another thing he did, he...
KEYES: Tell me something. In that day and age, though, when somebody stood forward to take a stand like this, we're talking about someone risking his life, risking threats to the life of his family. This wasn't just a case of some kind of abstract threat, was it?
EVERS: No, indeed. It was not. It was a case, I believe, and I always believed, it was the way the man felt, and he has proven that. It's not something that — you know, 40 years ago, who won the races in this country? White person. You know, we couldn't stay in hotels. We couldn't do anything 40 years ago, but that day is past.
And my whole problem with it is how long are we going to keep fighting the civil rights war? And this man has no — there is no judgment, no justice for them to be doing the thing they are doing, because first of all, in the '70s, a young white girl had claimed that a young black man had robbed her at knife point, Pickering was just a practicing lawyer. And the black family had no money, and Pickering took the case. And he took the case and fought, and fought until he freed and cleared the young black man.
You know, so my question is where did he get it from? Then he was the first one to hire a black into the Republican party, which was real low at that time, and there don't have any blacks, not much, but the few we have, Pickering was the man who opened the door for blacks to become a part and my point....
KEYES: Well, from what you re saying...
EVERS: ...(UNINTELLIGIBLE) ...
KEYES: From what you are saying, it seems like this was somebody who was personally motivated in a lot of ways to take these stances and positions, even at a time when it wasn't generally the trend or popular to do so among whites in the south. Tom Jipping, I have a question for you. We are looking at this nominating process, G.W. Bush has put the nomination on the table. Why do you think now the left is mobilizing these forces against a nomination, making these insinuations that don't seem to correspond to his background, his character, his personal actions? What's the motive here?
JIPPING: Well, your question is right, because it's a very strange thing to accuse someone of the description that Charles Evers just gave of being insensitive to civil rights, so there's got to be some other explanation. And the bigger picture, the other — the real motive here goes beyond Judge Pickering. They are using him as sort of a political pinata. They're just kind of whacking him around, using him to send a message to the Bush administration regarding a future vacancy on the Supreme Court, just like they did with John Ashcroft last year. This is all about the Supreme Court, and it's all about abortion.
You know, to the left, judges, No. 1, deliver a political agenda. They don't just follow the law. Therefore, No. 2, they have got to be liberal, because that's the agenda that they want judges to deliver. All of these code words about sensitivity and — you know, they say we want judges to demonstrate a commitment to civil rights. Those are just code words. Those are fake code words. What they really mean is we want judges who will deliver the liberal political agenda and not...
KEYES: But what you seem to be describing there, and I know this is a word that's used quite often, when they are approaching presidential nominations and they'll ask the president, well, do you have a litmus test and so forth and so on. It sounds like you are describing a very absolute litmus test that's applied by the left wing.
JIPPING: It is a very specific and a very clear litmus test. It is a litmus test that you will deliver political results, and a litmus test that those results will be liberal. That's why, for example, when people from the American Way issued their report about Judge Pickering, they went into pages and pages about his personal religious convictions. I mean, our Constitution says that there is no religious test for public office. You wouldn't know it from these left-wing crazies.
KEYES: Now, that wasn't — that wasn't going into any way in which he might have reflected this in just his opinions. Talking about the personal side of his religious faith and what he did in pursuit of that in terms of his own life.
JIPPING: They went into detail about that, because they insist that whatever you do, whatever you believe personally, you are going to impose that as a judge. They don't believe that judges know the difference between what their personal beliefs are and what they are supposed to do as a judge. To them, it's all politics. It's all political. That's why someone's personal beliefs have got to be gone into...
KEYES: Well, that sounds like though...
JIPPING: ... because they can't take the risk.
KEYES: That sounds like they are applying a religious test. That's unconstitutional.
JIPPING: It is absolutely a religious test. And it is religious bigotry, because it is certain religious beliefs that if sincerely held to the left, disqualify someone from being a judge, because they are going to impose them on the rest of us. Judge Pickering made the point repeatedly at his hearing last week, “I know the difference between a personal decision or a personal belief and a judicial decision.” To the left, I guess they don't believe anyone can make that distinction. To the founders of this country...
KEYES: Tom...
JIPPING: ... and to us, you know, they can, and they have to.
KEYES: Tom, how nasty do you think this is going to get? In the past, we have seen with Justice Thomas, prior to that with Robert Bork, when these folks wanted to make a point, they got nasty enough. They just assaulted people with character assassinations, innuendo, slander. I have seen some argumentation that comes very close to that right now with respect to Judge Pickering. Is it going to get that bad here?
JIPPING: It's going to get worse, because No. 1, it is starting earlier, and No. 2, it is starting lower on the judicial ladder. The examples you gave were Supreme Court nominees. This is a U.S. Court of Appeals nominee. They will do this to whatever extent, to whomever they want, to suit their purpose, so that they can flex their muscle.
You know, I'd like the left and Judge Pickering's attackers to be put a little bit more on the spot, because I don't know that any of them put their lives on the line the way he did when he defended the folks that Charles Evers was talking about, when he prosecuted the Klan, when he lost elections because of the stance he took. His attackers have addresses in Washington, D.C. and New York. They haven't put their lives on the line. They haven't taken the kind of risks that he did.
KEYES: Well, I think they...
JIPPING: They haven't made the personal sacrifices he has.
KEYES: The question is going to be whether their overall ideological agenda is going to overwhelm the particular merits of this individual, just as they would like it to overwhelm the merits of any cases that come before his court and every other court.
JIPPING: Yes. It's going to overwhelm them, except to the extent that the president personally and publicly provides leadership to counter it, and that Republican senators, you know, especially Senator Trent Lott, who championed this nomination in the first place, step up to the plate. They really haven't done that strongly yet.
KEYES: Charles Evers, do you think that this is a nomination where the president is going to have to step up to the plate and support it? Do you think it deserves that kind of strong support?
EVERS: Very definitely, and Alan, my questions are those who are fighting the man. What have they done other than talk about the betterment of black folks? I was in Washington last week, and I walked the halls of the Senate. And it was hard to find a black person in any of those liberal senators' offices. And I finally found one that said he worked on some committee. But I went to Senator Kennedy's office, I went to Senator Biden's office, and these are the people leading the fight, you know. And my whole thing is what's any worse than discrimination when you don't hire my folks or don't appoint them? And I've got a problem with that. I've got a problem with most of those who are hollering and screaming, and the NAACP should be (UNINTELLIGIBLE) somebody.
KEYES: I think one of the problems we are going to see here, a lot of folks will come forward with all kinds of arguments, but at the end of day, we are looking at somebody who was at a time when it was not only not popular but dangerous, laid his life, put the welfare of his family on the line...
EVERS: And still is.
KEYES: ... in order to make a point about justice. And I think that's what one wants at the heart of a justice.
Well, next, we are going to be getting to the heart of the matter, but first I want to thank both Charles and Thomas for joining us tonight. I appreciate your willingness to come forward, and Charles, especially, to share the fruits of your experience.
We're also going to have our open-line segment — hope you will call me at 1-866-KEYES-USA with whatever is on your mind.
But first of all, do you think this makes sense? I saw a report today that apparently in an MTV interview, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in response to a question about the AIDS epidemic and things like that that are ravaging populations in Africa and elsewhere in the world, basically said we had to throw out conservative ideas about sex and distribute condoms. Now, as you know, condoms have a failure rate, so that about one in six times you are liable to catch the disease. And telling people that this is going to make them safe is like handing our children a six-shot revolver with one bullet in it and saying it's safe to play Russian roulette. Should the secretary of state be handing that revolver to our kids in sexual terms? Does this make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT BORK, JUDGE: Roe against Wade has contained almost no legal reasoning. We are not told why it is a private act. There are lots of — and if it is, there are lots of private acts that are not protected. Why this one is protected? We are simply not told that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: That was Judge Robert Bork at his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court. Tonight, we are talking about another nomination, lower down in the court, but still very important, because it looks like the left is ganging up to try to stop this one on pretty much the same grounds, opposition to the pro-life stance of the judge that's being proposed. Are we seeing the beginning of a repetition of the same kind of pattern that we saw with Judge Bork, with Justice Thomas, where we go down a path of character assassination, insinuation, slander, whatever is going to undermine and destroy the individual so the nomination will not succeed? It's an ugly chapter in our history. Are we going to repeat it?
Joining us now is the Sandy Rios, the president of Concerned Women for America, Marcia Kuntz, the director of the Judicial Selection Project at the Alliance for Justice, and Keith Watters, former president of the National Bar Association, the country's oldest and largest African-American bar association. And they are going to help us get to the heart of the matter.
Let's start first with Keith Watters. Keith, tell me what you think is behind this opposition to the nomination of Judge Pickering?
KEITH WINTERS WATTERS, FMR. NATIONAL BAR ASSN. PRESIDENT: Clearly the judge's record is what the problem is. When he started out as a young man as a law student, he wrote an article about how to preserve the segregation laws that were enacted in the south. He has continued that activity by some type of association with the southern — the Sovereignty Commission, which was behind a lot of discriminatory acts and illegal acts. I am very troubled by the nature of his opinions, reversed over 26 times by the court of appeals, a very conservative court of appeals, for outrageous positions. He seems to have little tolerance for anybody who asserts civil rights issues, whether it be women's rights, rights of minorities, rights of prisoners. He just has no tolerance and temperament.
I have been involved in the selection of judges since 1988 in various bar associations, and I really don't want someone on the left or the right. I want somebody who reflects traditional American values, and this man has contempt for the values that I hold dear, based on what I see in his record.
KEYES: Sandy Rios, do you agree with that? Do you think that that's what we have in Judge Pickering, given what we know of his background? Or are we dealing here with what is really a nicely put in this particular case, but still clearly pillow motivated assault on someone whose views just aren't compatible with the left?
SANDY RIOS, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA: I think you are very kind, Alan. I think we just heard a bunch of lies actually. We heard Charles Evers quite eloquently express Judge Pickering's record. And I don't know who Keith thinks he is, but he knows better than Charles Evers, who lives in Mississippi and has followed this man's career since 1960. We know that this man, according to Charles Evers, unless he is a liar, has really championed the race issue. He has been a champion of black people in Mississippi. That's why so many of them support him. I don't know what Mr. Watters is talking about.
WATTERS: Well, we need to look at his record. That's what we're talking about. It's not about...
KEYES: But wait, wait...
RIOS: You are not looking at his record. You are you not.
WATTERS: It's not personal between me and you.
RIOS: You are fabricating.
WATTERS: No, it's not personal between me and you. It's about his record as a judge.
RIOS: Well, of course not. But anytime someone is lying about someone...
WATTERS: As a judge.
RIOS: ... I feel the need to defend.
WATTERS: What is the lie? What lie have I told, ma'am?
KEYES: Keith, Keith...
WATTERS: You tell me what lie.
RIOS: I will be glad to tell you.
KEYES: Keith...
WATTERS: Tell me. Go ahead, tell me. Which one?
KEYES: Now, one second, please. Both of you, hold on one second, because before we get to the free-for-all, I still want to hear from Marcia Kuntz in terms of why you agree or disagree with Keith Watters in opposing this nomination. What do you see as the grounds for rejecting this nomination?
MARCIA KUNTZ, ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE: Well, Alan, Charles Pickering has a long record of hostility to progress made in civil rights, in women's reproductive freedom, in various other rights and protections that Americans have come to take for granted and to cherish. And this record extends from the beginning of his legal career in 1959 all the way up to the present. His supporters are attempting to re-invent his prior career, when in fact if you look at the facts as Keith has attempted to do, you will see that it is entirely that his record is entirely inconsistent with a support for progress in civil rights.
KEYES: So what you are really telling me, though, and I hear it in both what you have said and what Keith Watters has said, is that this is not a left-wing judge. This is somebody who doesn't agree with your position.
KUNTZ: Absolutely not!
KEYES: Let me finish — let me finish. This is somebody who doesn't agree with your position on the life issue, and who believes that you ought to respect the sanctity of human life. This is somebody who believes in a strict interpretation of the law and doesn't believe in going down what might be your particular liberal road. And so for that reason, political reasons basically, you think that he ought to be rejected. But the point is...
KUNTZ: That is absolutely incorrect.
KEYES: ... the people of this country elected President G. W. Bush. They didn't elect you. And they basically put in his hands...
WATTERS: He was selected — he was selected by the Supreme Court.
KEYES: They put in his hands of appointing these judges. Why should that be usurped by the insinuations of your side?
KUNTZ: But the people this country want judges who will respect the rule of law, who will adhere to precedent, who will not try and legislate from the bench and reverse rights and protections that have been put into place by the Supreme Court and by lower federal courts.
RIOS: Let me just say, Marcia, that is exactly what's been happening for the last 20 years in your favor. It's time that the judges...
KUNTZ: Absolutely incorrect!
RIOS: ... of this country represent the views of the people. And I'll you something.
KUNTZ: That is absolutely not true. You have...
RIOS: The American people elected a pro-life president. He made it very clear. In fact, the Gallup Poll shows recently that most Americans are still very pro-life. They do not share your position.
KUNTZ: That is absolutely incorrect! The American people ...
RIOS: That is not incorrect!
KUNTZ: ... do not want judges who are going to roll back established rights in reproductive freedoms.
RIOS: I wonder about that, Marcia. I really don't think they are as worried about it is you are.
WATTERS: See, my problem is I don't know why President Bush nominated this extremist on the right.
RIOS: He is not an extremist! He represents the mainstream. You folks are the extremists.
WATTERS: And my problem...
RIOS: You are out of step!
WATTERS: ... is that there are so many federalist society officials in the Bush administration that they an agenda to turn back the clock on civil rights...
RIOS: Oh, we want to move forward! So we want to move forward to this new age where we...
WATTERS: ... improve the judiciary by getting their judicial candidates that are right-wing extremists in place.
RIOS: ... where we...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: I have to confess that I find it fascinating. I sit here and listen to you, and you are all saying, well, no! It's not a litmus test. It's not political. It's all about just getting the best nominee. And yet every word out of your mouths has to do with how he doesn't agree with you on abortion, and he doesn't agree with your left-wing agenda.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: You claim he is not qualified.
KUNTZ: It's not a question of not agreeing...
KEYES: Wait. That is exactly...
KUNTZ: It's a question of his...
KEYES: Let me finish, please. Let me finish. That's exactly what you have said. You characterized his record in terms that say he doesn't make progress and this and that. Your idea of progress, he doesn't respect the rights of...
WATTERS: Alan, Alan...
KUNTZ: He doesn't agree...
(CROSSTALK)
WATTERS: When you go to court, when you go to court for your day in court...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Let me...
(CROSSTALK)
WATTERS: ... and the judge blows you out...
KEYES: What you are saying here...
WATTERS: ... you don't keep him in there.
KEYES: What you are saying here is that since he doesn't satisfy your agenda, we shall ignore the personal courage with which he stood in fact at a time of danger against those...
WATTERS: Alan, Alan...
KEYES: ... who represented racist elements in the context of the civil rights movement. We will ignore his judicious temperament on the bench, where he suits his sentences to the crime and not to some general ideological agenda. We will ignore all of his virtues for the sake of your political agenda. And I...
RIOS: Let me also say — Alan, could I also add that Judge Pickering has never ruled on the life issue. Any speculation that he would do anything other than uphold the law is mere wild speculation. They have nothing to base that on except expression of private views.
KUNTZ: In fact we do. In fact we do. Senator Trent Lott said when Judge Pickering was nominated for the district court, he said that he would pass any Bush-imposed litmus test on abortion. He was quoted in the local paper as saying that. And Judge Pickering does not deny...
RIOS: No, that's not the same thing as ruling on a case.
KUNTZ: ... Judge Pickering...
RIOS: That is not the same thing as ruling on a case.
KUNTZ: Judge Pickering does not deny...
RIOS: You are indicating...
KUNTZ: ... that he is anti-choice, and...
RIOS: Well, no, and I'm he is!
WATTERS: Alan, you are most eloquent as always, but I think we want to focus on the man's record, and the man's record is an abomination. He is not fit...
RIOS: The man's record is exemplary.
WATTERS: He is not fit to be a judge. When you go to court...
RIOS: The man's record is exemplary.
WATTERS: ... when you...
RIOS: What you are saying is...
WATTERS: ... when you go to court...
RIOS: ... a defamation of character. You guys are wrong about this.
WATTERS: And you know what else?
RIOS: You are lying about this.
WATTERS: A lot of his decisions suddenly have disappeared. Over 400 of his decisions, he doesn't even know where they are.
RIOS: Oh, this is just (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that means...
(CROSSTALK)
WATTERS: ... judge's decisions just vanished.
KEYES: Keith, Keith...
WATTERS: So we can't even review over 400 of them.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: That is a canard.
RIOS: Yes.
KEYES: That notion that somehow or another he purposely has obscured his decisions, and they are not published. He is, in fact, under the same restrictions with respect to that publication that other judges at his level are under, and you know it and I know it.
KUNTZ: All we have to do is look at the decisions that are available to see that Judge Pickering does not deserve to be elevated to the court of appeals.
RIOS: What decisions are you talking about, Marcia, that are so...
KUNTZ: A number of decisions.
RIOS: Like for instance?
KUNTZ: One very recently that Senator Edwards talked about at the hearing.
RIOS: Oh, lets' talk about that! I'd love to talk about that!
KUNTZ: The (UNINTELLIGIBLE) decision.
RIOS: The one where Senator Edwards hung him out to dry and misrepresented. This is where three boys were convicted of burning a cross on a couple's yard.
KUNTZ: No, they were not three boys. They were not three boys.
RIOS: Yes, they were!
KUNTZ: There was one minor. There was one man with...
RIOS: Seventeen years old...
(CROSSTALK)
KUNTZ: ... there was one man with mental impairment and there was another...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Excuse me you all. Wait, wait a minute, one at a time, please. One at a time please.
RIOS: The boy that was 17 was the instigator of this crime.
KUNTZ: That is not true!
RIOS: And he got off scott free.
KUNTZ: The records show...
RIOS: Yes, it is! The boy that was 23 is the one who received eight years of a sentence, and the judge felt that he was charged way too heavily when he was not the instigator, and he tried to make sure that justice was done.
KUNTZ: First of all, he was...
KEYES: Sandy, let Marcia have — let Marcia reply. Go ahead.
RIOS: Yes.
KUNTZ: He was very much the instigator.
RIOS: Who?
KUNTZ: And Judge Pickering — the adult here. There was a minor, there was a man with mental impairment...
RIOS: Well, you must know something that the judge didn't — Marcia...
(CROSSTALK)
KUNTZ: ... and then...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Sandy, let her finish — let her finish.
RIOS: Sorry.
KEYES: Sandy, let her finish. Go ahead.
RIOS: All right.
KEYES: Marcia, go ahead.
KUNTZ: Well, the government asserted that he was the leader of the group.
RIOS: I think you're wrong about that, Marcia.
KUNTZ: But aside from that, this was the...
KEYES: No, no, no, can I introduce...
(CROSSTALK)
KUNTZ: ... and he was the defendant who refused to plead was the only adult with no mental impairment. And for Judge Pickering to take it upon himself and to decide that somehow there was a huge discrepancy between this man's sentence and the sentence of the minor and the man with mental impairments, who pled guilty...
KEYES: Do you what I find, Marcia...
KUNTZ: ... is absolutely outrageous.
KEYES: ... Marcia, I know that...
KUNTZ: It is unprecedented in his own record...
KEYES: Marcia, hold on. Yes, I hope that's not true.
KUNTZ: ... as he testified.
KEYES: As a matter of fact, there have been similar decisions that had gone one way and the other. To say it's unprecedented is simply untrue.
KUNTZ: No, Judge Pickering had knowledge...
KEYES: Hold on — hold on.
KUNTZ: ... that he had never...
KEYES: Hold on a second.
KUNTZ: ... that he had never...
KEYES: Marcia, I gave — Marcia!
KUNTZ: ... challenged the government in such a disparity.
KEYES: Marcia, hold on. Let me speak.
KUNTZ: Well, you are stating inaccurate facts.
KEYES: I gave you your chance, Marcia. Let me talk. OK?
KUNTZ: Well, you're saying inaccurate things.
KEYES: Because in point in fact — in point of fact the interesting thing about bringing up this case is that this was a case where, instead of going along with some ideological agenda, he carefully looked at the facts of the case and decided to suit the punishment to the individual circumstances, as he understood them. You can disagree with his judgment. It's a judgment call to be sure. But to say that that doesn't show a judicial temperament, it seems to me entirely to misunderstand what judges are all about.
KUNTZ: It absolutely does not show a judicial temperament. This was the only case that he acknowledged to Senator Edwards that he had ever undertaken to try and get the government to reduce its sentence. And let me tell you something that one of his big supporters in the Senate...
KEYES: On what basis, Marcia?
KUNTZ: ... well, let me tell you...
KEYES: Marcia, on what basis did he try to get the sentence reduced?
KUNTZ: He claimed that he was concerned about the discrepancy, about the disparity in the sentencing.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Marcia, Marcia, he was looking...
KUNTZ: He had never shown a similar concern.
KEYES: ... he was looking — excuse me. He was looking at the individual circumstances of this case, and he actually ended up giving a sentence that was more than what this individual would have gotten if he had pled it out...
KUNTZ: If he had pled, but...
KEYES: ... but less than the maximum, because that's what he thought was judicially required.
KUNTZ: But frequently criminal defendants do try to go to trial, and they do get larger sentences. But let me tell you something. What one of his staunchest supporters in the Senate has said about mandatory minimum sentences. Jeff Sessions has said mandatory minimum statutes have been a critical component of a criminal justice system that treats equal conduct equally. Judge Pickering tried to undermine those mandatory...
(CROSSTALK)
RIOS: Marcia, you are grasping at straws.
KUNTZ: ... sentences that are dictated by the statute.
(CROSSTALK)
RIOS: You are grasping at straws.
KEYES: We have come — hold on a second. We have come to that point, you know, I really think it would be wonderful if we had seen that kind of enthusiasm for mandatory sentences with the three strikes laws from the left wing in this country. All of a sudden you all have discovered the virtues of this and not looking at individual cases, because this is a man you want to oppose. We have...
KUNTZ: This is the only individual case...
KEYES: Wait a minute.
KUNTZ: ... in which he asserted that position.
KEYES: We have come to the end of our time, I am afraid, but I want to thank all three of you, Sandy, Marcia, Keith, for joining us for a very lively discussion. And it's not over yet.
WATTERS: Thank you.
KEYES: You stay right there.
RIOS: Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: We really appreciate it.
We are going to be joined now by Donna Brazile, who was, as a lot of you will remember, Gore's presidential campaign manager. And she and I are going to go one-on-one on this very topic of whether or not we should see this kind of assault on the nomination of Judge Pickering and what's behind it.
And later, we'll get to what's on your mind. You can call me at 1-866-KEYES-USA. 1-866-KEYES-USA. We're back right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back.
Now we get to the bottom line. We've been talking about the nomination of Judge Charles Pickering by President Bush to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the fifth circuit. The controversy involved in this nomination has involved some folks coming forward to suggest that Judge Pickering is insensitive to minorities and to women and for that reason, should be rejected.
Now to help us get to the bottom line, Donna Brazile, Al Gore's presidential campaign manager in 2000, is joining us here on MAKING SENSE. Welcome to the show, Donna. Thank you for joining us.
DONNA BRAZILE, FORMER GORE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. And happy Valentine's day to you, sir.
KEYES: Thank you. Same to you.
Now in your sense of it, as you've watched the developments in the early stages of this nomination, why is there opposition to Judge Pickering and do you think that opposition is justified?
BRAZILE: Well, first of all, as you well know, this is perhaps one of the most powerful courts in the country. It's ultimately looked at as a stepping stone to the United States Supreme Court. The fifth circuit, which represents Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi, also is home to the largest concentration of minorities, as well as the largest concentration of poor people in this country. And currently, the court is stacked; 10 Republicans and five Democrats.
So I'm not at all amazed that you have a lot of the liberal and public interest groups, environmental groups and others coming out against this nomination. Judge Pickering is seen as a very conservative man, and I believe the congressman from that area, Benny Thompson, is opposed to him. The members of the Congressional Black Caucus just came out and said that they would oppose his nomination and urged Senate Democrats to return to President Bush. So I think there are a lot of hard feelings on this one, sir.
KEYES: Well, see, I don't understand where the hard feelings come from though, Donna, to tell you the truth. I have looked into the background. I've read all about the controversy. All the charges that some folks have tried to bring against Judge Pickering, to suggest he's racist and all that, don't seem to hold water.
In fact, he has in his background an example of the kind of courage that I wish more people had shown back in the 1960s, willing to stand against the Klan, risk his life, risk his family's life, in order to bring to justice somebody who had murdered a civil rights leader and then take the heat, fail in his next election, paying the price for his courage. Isn't that exactly the sort of example we wish more people had set back in those days?
BRAZILE: Well, absolutely. As a southerner, I wish more people would have stood up against the Klan. But as you know, at that time, in the late '60s, the Klan was bad business, not just for the state of Mississippi but also for all other states. And so you had a lot of politicians taking a stand against the Klan. It was sort of in vogue at that moment.
But when it was time for him to take a stand to support interracial marriages, to support a woman's right to choose, to support the voting rights act and the principle of one person, one vote, the judge skipped out of town. He did not take a stand on those issues, and I think that's the reason why this nomination has caused such a stir and a controversy in Washington, D.C.
KEYES: I think that there's a lot of truth in that in the sense that, in terms of the miscegenation thing, I have to tell you, this was early on his life, when many folks in the South, obviously, were reflecting the kind of racial views and characteristics, a very young man. It seems that as he got older, he took a stand against that racism, even at the risk of his life.
And then there are folks, I'll acknowledge, I think a lot of the opposition to Judge Pickering comes because he's strongly pro-life. So am I. I believe that we have to protect the innocent life of the child in the womb. But do you think that folks ought to be making that a litmus test on the basis of which they will out of hand reject the nomination of somebody who has, I think, the kind of characteristics and character that he has exemplified in his life? Just because he's pro-life, he should be barred from the bench?
BRAZILE: I don't think it has to do with the fact that he's anti-choice. I think it has to do with the fact that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and he should uphold the constitutional protections that women now have in this country, all Americans, to the right to choose. It's a fundamental freedom, just like the civil rights and voting rights for all Americans. And I believe that Judge Pickering should support those rights.
But you know, sir, that in 1994, a very important case came before Judge Pickering. It was a case involving a cross burning on the lawn of an interracial couple. And the judge went out of his way not to throw the books at this young man who had burned the cross and set it afire and set it ablaze and risking the lives of others. Instead, he called the Justice Department to see if he could give the guy a more lenient sentence.
So I think that his record, while he may have done one or two exemplary things in his life, these are lifetime appointments. These are very important appointments and we should look for fair and balanced-minded individuals. This is a nation with very talented people across the country, Republicans, Democrats, independent. Why not find someone who would represent the values of all Americans and not just one segment of the population?
KEYES: But, see, Donna, I think — you say he needs to be fair and balanced. That case was actually an example where he was trying to be exactly that. He had come upon a situation. You have three people involved in this crime. One was a minor. One was a retarded person. All were drunk. It turned out that the individual that was the adult in age had in fact been following the ringleader, the 17-year-old, who had been actually involved in violence against the same couple previously, and that that individual who was not the ringleader and had been following after these other two, was in fact not the one who was mainly responsible for instigating the violence and carrying it out.
When he discovered these facts about this individual's particular case, he felt that in this case, the maximum sentence was not authorized, and the person who was really responsible for instigating the whole thing, being a minor, he couldn't go after in the same way.
He was looking for something that would be fair to the individual involved. That's what judges are supposed to do. I know a lot of liberals out there who oppose the three strikes law, because they say it doesn't allow liberals to, in fact, do just what Judge Pickering did, look at the facts and try to suit the punishment to the individual situation. Isn't that right?
BRAZILE: No, in this case what he should have done is led by example. Mississippi, like many other states, has endured a terrible legacy. My grandmother was born in Mississippi. As I mentioned, I'm a Louisiana native. They've endured terrible legacies from slavery on and to the present moment. And many of these states want to remove themselves from that legacy by really showing the nation that they are ready to move forward into the 21st century.
I think when he called the Justice Department — and I don't know if that was ethically proper to do, the lawyers will be able to answer that question — but when he called the Justice Department, he may have stepped out of bounds in trying to find a way to give someone a more reduced sentence and not throwing the book at him, which would send a real good message to people in Mississippi and across the country that we will not tolerate that type of stupidity in the 21st century.
I would hope that Judge Pickering, now that he's been a federal judge now for over a decade — you know, when he testified back in 1990, he seemed not to recollect any of his past with the sovereignty commission. And yet when the papers were released in 1998, it indicated that Judge Pickering wanted to be kept informed of some of the investigations and some of the issues involved in the sovereignty commission.
So you can't have it both ways. You can't say that you're on the side of freedom and justice and liberty for all, and then when those cases come before you, you say, oh, not that one. That's not the way we play it in this country, and I think you and I both agree we want to have fair and balanced individuals on these courts.
KEYES: Yes, we do. But Donna, what we actually have here is you're looking at somebody who had the courage to stand against racists at the risk of his life. Now people are trying to blame him because as an official he had to keep tabs on the activities of the sovereignty commission in the course of his job?
In those days in the South, throw a rock, you hit a racist. If we're going to say that everybody in the South who ever made a phone call to a racist is now barred from anything in America, then I think we'd better look at some of the folks in the Senate, like Senator Byrd and their background, before we start saying that somebody like Judge Pickering, who stood against this racism, is going to be tarred with the same brush. It's simply not fair.
And there, we want to suggest that his pro-life views bar him from the court, that his exercise of judicial discretion in the interests of individual justice — because unlike what you said, we're not supposed to take individuals and judges treat them as if they're supposed to be examples of this historic trend or that. Judges are to make their judgments on the merits of the individual case.
BRAZILE: Absolutely.
KEYES: If they do anything else, they are not being fair judges. And to suggest that he should have looked some other place than at the individual merits is wrong. And after two other courts had split indecisions about this case, to suggest that there is some cut-and-dried verdict to be drawn about this man's judgment on this basis, I think is just an example of trying to be unfair, to tar him in such a way that for political reasons. Really, I think because people oppose his strong pro-life views, they're looking for anything they can find.
BRAZILE: I don't think so. I don't think there is one issue here. I think there's a lifetime of inconsistency in his record and his approach to civil rights, and voting rights, and a woman's right to choose, that these senators should take a look at his record. They should examine his record. And if they don't like it, they should return this package to the sender, and ask the president to put forward someone who's more balanced, who will respect the rule of law and who will uphold civil rights and voting rights for all Americans.
We fought those fights. Those battles are over with. And by the way, Senator Byrd did apologize. I don't believe Strom Thurmond has apologized.
KEYES: Thank you so much. I appreciate your willingness to join me tonight. I think truly in my own sense we're looking at somebody who has shown his courage, his fairness, his willingness to look at the details of each individual case. He has shown the kind of judicial temperament that we need on the court, and I hope that we won't let politics and the fact that some people disagree with his pro-life views become the litmus test that keeps this man of character off the court.
Next, it's open line time on MAKING SENSE. Call me on any subject you want to talk about. The phone number, 1-886-KEYES-USA. You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
ANNOUNCER: ALAN KEYES IS MAKING SENSE on MSNBC, and so are you. Take a look.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Just a reminder, the chat room is open tonight, and hopping tonight at chat.MSNBC.com.
Now, let's get to some of your phone calls. David in West Virginia is first up. David, you're making sense tonight. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
DAVID: Good evening, Dr. Keyes. It's an honor to speak with you.
KEYES: Thank you.
DAVID: Can you give us some historical background and explain why successful conservative pro-life blacks such as yourself are not viewed as role models by other blacks and liberals and are often considered Uncle Toms?
KEYES: See, I am not sure that's true, David. I think beyond what might be the impression in the media and so forth, as I go around the country I find people of all backgrounds and races are very responsive, particularly my fellow African-Americans, to the kind of moral stances and positions that I take. There are a lot of people of faith, a lot of people of tremendous moral conscience in the black community, and they respond to the kind of things that I stand for.
I think in our politics, there's been a tendency for people to vote party lines, but I think in response to the issues there's a lot of respect across those party lines from people who stand for principle and are willing to articulate things in a way that is based upon an effort to respect those principles, which is what I do. So I find that I am getting a reception even where people disagree with me because they're willing to listen to somebody who's trying to make sense. Thanks for your call.
Let's go to Nick in Florida. Nick, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
NICK: Good evening, Mr. Keyes. How are you doing, sir?
KEYES: Good again.
NICK: I think that all of our judges should be elected officials just like our Congress or our Senate or our president, and let the people, like put cameras into the courtrooms so we can actually view how these judges are ruling on cases and let us decide who we want to be in power instead of it being a political issue or the president nominating who he wants to be in, because you know, I believe that when we were coming up in elementary school, they teach you that a seed starts life, and assisted suicide is against the law, but yet it's OK for a doctor to abort a child. And I don't understand the common sense there.
KEYES: Well, Nick, in terms of the election of judges, you know, that is the case in certain states, in certain levels of our government. I think one of the reasons at the federal level that it's not the case is because the founders were very concerned that the judiciary had to be independent. And that meant, in the end, they also had to be able to make judicious decisions against the will of the majority, so that minorities, whether they were minorities of wealth, minorities in terms of race or whatever, would be protected. If you had elected judges, that might be harder to achieve because they wouldn't have the independence that was necessary to go against the majority when that was necessary.
Let's go to Tom in Colorado. Tom, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
TOM: Thank you, Mr. Keyes, for taking my call.
KEYES: Sure.
TOM: I believe that judges are to make judgments on the facts of the case. They are not to make their judgment by — or make law by their decision. And they are not to be approved because of their faith or religion.
KEYES: I think you're absolutely right. And I think one of the things that disturbs me about the way in which the Pickering nomination is being approached is they seem to be establishing a religious test, looking at the man's faith and background and saying, well, that disqualifies him, which of course is unconstitutional. And they also seem to be taking him to task because he acted as a judge, somebody willing to look at the facts of the case and make a judgment based on those facts, and that of course is what we want from judges, as you say.
Now let's look at some of your e-mail. We have John and Carolyn who write from Illinois: “Big compliments on the short, one or two-line commentaries that you often put in before the commercial breaks. Should convicted child molesters be given Viagra in prison? Does that make sense? Those are the best parts of the show. No frills, no argument needed, just educate the audience in 30 seconds.”
Well, do you have something that doesn't make sense? You can log on to our Web site at keyes.msnbc.com and send us your ideas.
Thanks for your feedback tonight. Next on this Valentine's day, a personal note on the social benefits of marriage. Don't go away. I'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Today is Valentine's day, and of course we usually think of personal romance, the exchange of flowers. I thought, though, that it was a wonderful thing that on today's date, there was a social science report released that listed and brought up together a lot of the benefits of marriage.
They talked about how folks who get married live longer, have more satisfying sexual lives, have children who grow up to be healthier and happier and more psychologically balanced, have better incomes, all the wonderful benefits of marriage, reminding us I think of where a successful romance should lead. I want to tell you all I learned about successful romance. I learned from my wife, Jocelyn. I want to thank her on this Valentine's day for that lesson.
That's my sense of it. Next up, “HARDBALL” with Chris Matthews. I'll see you on Monday.
Tonight, we are going to talk about President G.W. Bush's nomination of Charles Pickering to a vacancy on the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, a court that receives cases from a lot of the most important states in the south and southwest. You will recall that in the past, there have been some controversial nominations in which the left wing ganged up in order to slam the nomination and tried to knock it out of the box, as they did with Robert Bork and tried to do in the case of Clarence Thomas.
Once again with Judge Pickering, there are forces gathering on the left, making an attempt to say that this judge is somehow insensitive to minorities and women. Really behind it all I believe are his strong pro-life views, his willingness to take an unabashed stance of faith, when it comes to his own life. And it seems as if, when these nominations come forward, the idea that you might give a lifetime appointment, put in the way of a path to the Supreme Court, someone of true and strong pro-life viewpoints, brings out a lot of opposition from the left wing, which does in fact seem to apply a litmus test to these kinds of nominations.
Tonight, we are going to address some of the key questions that have to do with this kind of nomination, the nominating process and especially the Pickering nomination itself. Why is the left slamming the Pickering nomination? Are their tactics just race baiting and character assassination? Are his pro-life views the real motive for this assault?
We'll be joined by a number of folks of differing viewpoints, when we get to our panel discussion later. But right now up front, I want to talk to some folks who are looking at this issue, and one very important figure in the civil rights movement on history and the civil rights movement, witness in fact to a lot of history and one of those folks whose name invokes the very heart of the civil rights movement, Charles Evers. Charles is the younger brother of martyred civil rights leader, Medgar Evers. When Medgar was assassinated in 1963, he took over as the head of the NAACP in Mississippi and has been a key civil rights leader. Also with us is Thomas Jipping, director of the Judicial Monitoring Project at the Free Congress Foundation. He is also a columnist for worldnetdaily.com — welcome to you both and thank you for joining me here on MAKING SENSE.
THOMAS JIPPING, FREE CONGRESS FOUNDATION: Thank you, Alan — great to be here.
CHARLES EVERS, CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST: Thank you.
KEYES: Charles, with your experience, your background with the kind of life that you bring to an issue like this, I'd like you to tell us a little bit about Judge Pickering, and why you have come forward in the context of this seeming effort to move against him, to assassinate his character, to insinuate all kinds of things about his racial views, in order to support the nomination. What are the grounds for your support of this nomination?
EVERS: First of all, Alan, thank you for allowing me to do this. Judge Pickering, when he wasn't popular for any white just to stand up or speak up for a particular minority. In those days, you know, we were Negros, black, whatever, about every 10 years we change, you know. But right then, I think we were Negros back in those days.
In 1967, I was field secretary for the NAACP, and Vernon Damon (ph) was one of my presidents out in Hattiesburg. And Vernon Damon's (ph) house was fire bombed, and he was killed and his daughter — and his family were just in terrible shape. And Judge Pickering at that time was an elected official in Jones County, and he stepped up and began to fight the Ku Klux Klan. And back in those days, it was not heard of a white elected official, because we weren't voting, a white elected official speaking up for blacks. And this man did that. And had he been the kind of racist that — and Vernon was the head of the NAACP.
Another thing he did (UNINTELLIGIBLE), and because his kids stayed in public schools. He never took them out. They stayed in public schools, and he is responsible partly for the man who killed our president being in jail today, the testimony he put forth.
KEYES: Chuck, tell me something...
EVERS: Another thing he did, he...
KEYES: Tell me something. In that day and age, though, when somebody stood forward to take a stand like this, we're talking about someone risking his life, risking threats to the life of his family. This wasn't just a case of some kind of abstract threat, was it?
EVERS: No, indeed. It was not. It was a case, I believe, and I always believed, it was the way the man felt, and he has proven that. It's not something that — you know, 40 years ago, who won the races in this country? White person. You know, we couldn't stay in hotels. We couldn't do anything 40 years ago, but that day is past.
And my whole problem with it is how long are we going to keep fighting the civil rights war? And this man has no — there is no judgment, no justice for them to be doing the thing they are doing, because first of all, in the '70s, a young white girl had claimed that a young black man had robbed her at knife point, Pickering was just a practicing lawyer. And the black family had no money, and Pickering took the case. And he took the case and fought, and fought until he freed and cleared the young black man.
You know, so my question is where did he get it from? Then he was the first one to hire a black into the Republican party, which was real low at that time, and there don't have any blacks, not much, but the few we have, Pickering was the man who opened the door for blacks to become a part and my point....
KEYES: Well, from what you re saying...
EVERS: ...(UNINTELLIGIBLE) ...
KEYES: From what you are saying, it seems like this was somebody who was personally motivated in a lot of ways to take these stances and positions, even at a time when it wasn't generally the trend or popular to do so among whites in the south. Tom Jipping, I have a question for you. We are looking at this nominating process, G.W. Bush has put the nomination on the table. Why do you think now the left is mobilizing these forces against a nomination, making these insinuations that don't seem to correspond to his background, his character, his personal actions? What's the motive here?
JIPPING: Well, your question is right, because it's a very strange thing to accuse someone of the description that Charles Evers just gave of being insensitive to civil rights, so there's got to be some other explanation. And the bigger picture, the other — the real motive here goes beyond Judge Pickering. They are using him as sort of a political pinata. They're just kind of whacking him around, using him to send a message to the Bush administration regarding a future vacancy on the Supreme Court, just like they did with John Ashcroft last year. This is all about the Supreme Court, and it's all about abortion.
You know, to the left, judges, No. 1, deliver a political agenda. They don't just follow the law. Therefore, No. 2, they have got to be liberal, because that's the agenda that they want judges to deliver. All of these code words about sensitivity and — you know, they say we want judges to demonstrate a commitment to civil rights. Those are just code words. Those are fake code words. What they really mean is we want judges who will deliver the liberal political agenda and not...
KEYES: But what you seem to be describing there, and I know this is a word that's used quite often, when they are approaching presidential nominations and they'll ask the president, well, do you have a litmus test and so forth and so on. It sounds like you are describing a very absolute litmus test that's applied by the left wing.
JIPPING: It is a very specific and a very clear litmus test. It is a litmus test that you will deliver political results, and a litmus test that those results will be liberal. That's why, for example, when people from the American Way issued their report about Judge Pickering, they went into pages and pages about his personal religious convictions. I mean, our Constitution says that there is no religious test for public office. You wouldn't know it from these left-wing crazies.
KEYES: Now, that wasn't — that wasn't going into any way in which he might have reflected this in just his opinions. Talking about the personal side of his religious faith and what he did in pursuit of that in terms of his own life.
JIPPING: They went into detail about that, because they insist that whatever you do, whatever you believe personally, you are going to impose that as a judge. They don't believe that judges know the difference between what their personal beliefs are and what they are supposed to do as a judge. To them, it's all politics. It's all political. That's why someone's personal beliefs have got to be gone into...
KEYES: Well, that sounds like though...
JIPPING: ... because they can't take the risk.
KEYES: That sounds like they are applying a religious test. That's unconstitutional.
JIPPING: It is absolutely a religious test. And it is religious bigotry, because it is certain religious beliefs that if sincerely held to the left, disqualify someone from being a judge, because they are going to impose them on the rest of us. Judge Pickering made the point repeatedly at his hearing last week, “I know the difference between a personal decision or a personal belief and a judicial decision.” To the left, I guess they don't believe anyone can make that distinction. To the founders of this country...
KEYES: Tom...
JIPPING: ... and to us, you know, they can, and they have to.
KEYES: Tom, how nasty do you think this is going to get? In the past, we have seen with Justice Thomas, prior to that with Robert Bork, when these folks wanted to make a point, they got nasty enough. They just assaulted people with character assassinations, innuendo, slander. I have seen some argumentation that comes very close to that right now with respect to Judge Pickering. Is it going to get that bad here?
JIPPING: It's going to get worse, because No. 1, it is starting earlier, and No. 2, it is starting lower on the judicial ladder. The examples you gave were Supreme Court nominees. This is a U.S. Court of Appeals nominee. They will do this to whatever extent, to whomever they want, to suit their purpose, so that they can flex their muscle.
You know, I'd like the left and Judge Pickering's attackers to be put a little bit more on the spot, because I don't know that any of them put their lives on the line the way he did when he defended the folks that Charles Evers was talking about, when he prosecuted the Klan, when he lost elections because of the stance he took. His attackers have addresses in Washington, D.C. and New York. They haven't put their lives on the line. They haven't taken the kind of risks that he did.
KEYES: Well, I think they...
JIPPING: They haven't made the personal sacrifices he has.
KEYES: The question is going to be whether their overall ideological agenda is going to overwhelm the particular merits of this individual, just as they would like it to overwhelm the merits of any cases that come before his court and every other court.
JIPPING: Yes. It's going to overwhelm them, except to the extent that the president personally and publicly provides leadership to counter it, and that Republican senators, you know, especially Senator Trent Lott, who championed this nomination in the first place, step up to the plate. They really haven't done that strongly yet.
KEYES: Charles Evers, do you think that this is a nomination where the president is going to have to step up to the plate and support it? Do you think it deserves that kind of strong support?
EVERS: Very definitely, and Alan, my questions are those who are fighting the man. What have they done other than talk about the betterment of black folks? I was in Washington last week, and I walked the halls of the Senate. And it was hard to find a black person in any of those liberal senators' offices. And I finally found one that said he worked on some committee. But I went to Senator Kennedy's office, I went to Senator Biden's office, and these are the people leading the fight, you know. And my whole thing is what's any worse than discrimination when you don't hire my folks or don't appoint them? And I've got a problem with that. I've got a problem with most of those who are hollering and screaming, and the NAACP should be (UNINTELLIGIBLE) somebody.
KEYES: I think one of the problems we are going to see here, a lot of folks will come forward with all kinds of arguments, but at the end of day, we are looking at somebody who was at a time when it was not only not popular but dangerous, laid his life, put the welfare of his family on the line...
EVERS: And still is.
KEYES: ... in order to make a point about justice. And I think that's what one wants at the heart of a justice.
Well, next, we are going to be getting to the heart of the matter, but first I want to thank both Charles and Thomas for joining us tonight. I appreciate your willingness to come forward, and Charles, especially, to share the fruits of your experience.
We're also going to have our open-line segment — hope you will call me at 1-866-KEYES-USA with whatever is on your mind.
But first of all, do you think this makes sense? I saw a report today that apparently in an MTV interview, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in response to a question about the AIDS epidemic and things like that that are ravaging populations in Africa and elsewhere in the world, basically said we had to throw out conservative ideas about sex and distribute condoms. Now, as you know, condoms have a failure rate, so that about one in six times you are liable to catch the disease. And telling people that this is going to make them safe is like handing our children a six-shot revolver with one bullet in it and saying it's safe to play Russian roulette. Should the secretary of state be handing that revolver to our kids in sexual terms? Does this make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT BORK, JUDGE: Roe against Wade has contained almost no legal reasoning. We are not told why it is a private act. There are lots of — and if it is, there are lots of private acts that are not protected. Why this one is protected? We are simply not told that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: That was Judge Robert Bork at his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court. Tonight, we are talking about another nomination, lower down in the court, but still very important, because it looks like the left is ganging up to try to stop this one on pretty much the same grounds, opposition to the pro-life stance of the judge that's being proposed. Are we seeing the beginning of a repetition of the same kind of pattern that we saw with Judge Bork, with Justice Thomas, where we go down a path of character assassination, insinuation, slander, whatever is going to undermine and destroy the individual so the nomination will not succeed? It's an ugly chapter in our history. Are we going to repeat it?
Joining us now is the Sandy Rios, the president of Concerned Women for America, Marcia Kuntz, the director of the Judicial Selection Project at the Alliance for Justice, and Keith Watters, former president of the National Bar Association, the country's oldest and largest African-American bar association. And they are going to help us get to the heart of the matter.
Let's start first with Keith Watters. Keith, tell me what you think is behind this opposition to the nomination of Judge Pickering?
KEITH WINTERS WATTERS, FMR. NATIONAL BAR ASSN. PRESIDENT: Clearly the judge's record is what the problem is. When he started out as a young man as a law student, he wrote an article about how to preserve the segregation laws that were enacted in the south. He has continued that activity by some type of association with the southern — the Sovereignty Commission, which was behind a lot of discriminatory acts and illegal acts. I am very troubled by the nature of his opinions, reversed over 26 times by the court of appeals, a very conservative court of appeals, for outrageous positions. He seems to have little tolerance for anybody who asserts civil rights issues, whether it be women's rights, rights of minorities, rights of prisoners. He just has no tolerance and temperament.
I have been involved in the selection of judges since 1988 in various bar associations, and I really don't want someone on the left or the right. I want somebody who reflects traditional American values, and this man has contempt for the values that I hold dear, based on what I see in his record.
KEYES: Sandy Rios, do you agree with that? Do you think that that's what we have in Judge Pickering, given what we know of his background? Or are we dealing here with what is really a nicely put in this particular case, but still clearly pillow motivated assault on someone whose views just aren't compatible with the left?
SANDY RIOS, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA: I think you are very kind, Alan. I think we just heard a bunch of lies actually. We heard Charles Evers quite eloquently express Judge Pickering's record. And I don't know who Keith thinks he is, but he knows better than Charles Evers, who lives in Mississippi and has followed this man's career since 1960. We know that this man, according to Charles Evers, unless he is a liar, has really championed the race issue. He has been a champion of black people in Mississippi. That's why so many of them support him. I don't know what Mr. Watters is talking about.
WATTERS: Well, we need to look at his record. That's what we're talking about. It's not about...
KEYES: But wait, wait...
RIOS: You are not looking at his record. You are you not.
WATTERS: It's not personal between me and you.
RIOS: You are fabricating.
WATTERS: No, it's not personal between me and you. It's about his record as a judge.
RIOS: Well, of course not. But anytime someone is lying about someone...
WATTERS: As a judge.
RIOS: ... I feel the need to defend.
WATTERS: What is the lie? What lie have I told, ma'am?
KEYES: Keith, Keith...
WATTERS: You tell me what lie.
RIOS: I will be glad to tell you.
KEYES: Keith...
WATTERS: Tell me. Go ahead, tell me. Which one?
KEYES: Now, one second, please. Both of you, hold on one second, because before we get to the free-for-all, I still want to hear from Marcia Kuntz in terms of why you agree or disagree with Keith Watters in opposing this nomination. What do you see as the grounds for rejecting this nomination?
MARCIA KUNTZ, ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE: Well, Alan, Charles Pickering has a long record of hostility to progress made in civil rights, in women's reproductive freedom, in various other rights and protections that Americans have come to take for granted and to cherish. And this record extends from the beginning of his legal career in 1959 all the way up to the present. His supporters are attempting to re-invent his prior career, when in fact if you look at the facts as Keith has attempted to do, you will see that it is entirely that his record is entirely inconsistent with a support for progress in civil rights.
KEYES: So what you are really telling me, though, and I hear it in both what you have said and what Keith Watters has said, is that this is not a left-wing judge. This is somebody who doesn't agree with your position.
KUNTZ: Absolutely not!
KEYES: Let me finish — let me finish. This is somebody who doesn't agree with your position on the life issue, and who believes that you ought to respect the sanctity of human life. This is somebody who believes in a strict interpretation of the law and doesn't believe in going down what might be your particular liberal road. And so for that reason, political reasons basically, you think that he ought to be rejected. But the point is...
KUNTZ: That is absolutely incorrect.
KEYES: ... the people of this country elected President G. W. Bush. They didn't elect you. And they basically put in his hands...
WATTERS: He was selected — he was selected by the Supreme Court.
KEYES: They put in his hands of appointing these judges. Why should that be usurped by the insinuations of your side?
KUNTZ: But the people this country want judges who will respect the rule of law, who will adhere to precedent, who will not try and legislate from the bench and reverse rights and protections that have been put into place by the Supreme Court and by lower federal courts.
RIOS: Let me just say, Marcia, that is exactly what's been happening for the last 20 years in your favor. It's time that the judges...
KUNTZ: Absolutely incorrect!
RIOS: ... of this country represent the views of the people. And I'll you something.
KUNTZ: That is absolutely not true. You have...
RIOS: The American people elected a pro-life president. He made it very clear. In fact, the Gallup Poll shows recently that most Americans are still very pro-life. They do not share your position.
KUNTZ: That is absolutely incorrect! The American people ...
RIOS: That is not incorrect!
KUNTZ: ... do not want judges who are going to roll back established rights in reproductive freedoms.
RIOS: I wonder about that, Marcia. I really don't think they are as worried about it is you are.
WATTERS: See, my problem is I don't know why President Bush nominated this extremist on the right.
RIOS: He is not an extremist! He represents the mainstream. You folks are the extremists.
WATTERS: And my problem...
RIOS: You are out of step!
WATTERS: ... is that there are so many federalist society officials in the Bush administration that they an agenda to turn back the clock on civil rights...
RIOS: Oh, we want to move forward! So we want to move forward to this new age where we...
WATTERS: ... improve the judiciary by getting their judicial candidates that are right-wing extremists in place.
RIOS: ... where we...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: I have to confess that I find it fascinating. I sit here and listen to you, and you are all saying, well, no! It's not a litmus test. It's not political. It's all about just getting the best nominee. And yet every word out of your mouths has to do with how he doesn't agree with you on abortion, and he doesn't agree with your left-wing agenda.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: You claim he is not qualified.
KUNTZ: It's not a question of not agreeing...
KEYES: Wait. That is exactly...
KUNTZ: It's a question of his...
KEYES: Let me finish, please. Let me finish. That's exactly what you have said. You characterized his record in terms that say he doesn't make progress and this and that. Your idea of progress, he doesn't respect the rights of...
WATTERS: Alan, Alan...
KUNTZ: He doesn't agree...
(CROSSTALK)
WATTERS: When you go to court, when you go to court for your day in court...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Let me...
(CROSSTALK)
WATTERS: ... and the judge blows you out...
KEYES: What you are saying here...
WATTERS: ... you don't keep him in there.
KEYES: What you are saying here is that since he doesn't satisfy your agenda, we shall ignore the personal courage with which he stood in fact at a time of danger against those...
WATTERS: Alan, Alan...
KEYES: ... who represented racist elements in the context of the civil rights movement. We will ignore his judicious temperament on the bench, where he suits his sentences to the crime and not to some general ideological agenda. We will ignore all of his virtues for the sake of your political agenda. And I...
RIOS: Let me also say — Alan, could I also add that Judge Pickering has never ruled on the life issue. Any speculation that he would do anything other than uphold the law is mere wild speculation. They have nothing to base that on except expression of private views.
KUNTZ: In fact we do. In fact we do. Senator Trent Lott said when Judge Pickering was nominated for the district court, he said that he would pass any Bush-imposed litmus test on abortion. He was quoted in the local paper as saying that. And Judge Pickering does not deny...
RIOS: No, that's not the same thing as ruling on a case.
KUNTZ: ... Judge Pickering...
RIOS: That is not the same thing as ruling on a case.
KUNTZ: Judge Pickering does not deny...
RIOS: You are indicating...
KUNTZ: ... that he is anti-choice, and...
RIOS: Well, no, and I'm he is!
WATTERS: Alan, you are most eloquent as always, but I think we want to focus on the man's record, and the man's record is an abomination. He is not fit...
RIOS: The man's record is exemplary.
WATTERS: He is not fit to be a judge. When you go to court...
RIOS: The man's record is exemplary.
WATTERS: ... when you...
RIOS: What you are saying is...
WATTERS: ... when you go to court...
RIOS: ... a defamation of character. You guys are wrong about this.
WATTERS: And you know what else?
RIOS: You are lying about this.
WATTERS: A lot of his decisions suddenly have disappeared. Over 400 of his decisions, he doesn't even know where they are.
RIOS: Oh, this is just (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that means...
(CROSSTALK)
WATTERS: ... judge's decisions just vanished.
KEYES: Keith, Keith...
WATTERS: So we can't even review over 400 of them.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: That is a canard.
RIOS: Yes.
KEYES: That notion that somehow or another he purposely has obscured his decisions, and they are not published. He is, in fact, under the same restrictions with respect to that publication that other judges at his level are under, and you know it and I know it.
KUNTZ: All we have to do is look at the decisions that are available to see that Judge Pickering does not deserve to be elevated to the court of appeals.
RIOS: What decisions are you talking about, Marcia, that are so...
KUNTZ: A number of decisions.
RIOS: Like for instance?
KUNTZ: One very recently that Senator Edwards talked about at the hearing.
RIOS: Oh, lets' talk about that! I'd love to talk about that!
KUNTZ: The (UNINTELLIGIBLE) decision.
RIOS: The one where Senator Edwards hung him out to dry and misrepresented. This is where three boys were convicted of burning a cross on a couple's yard.
KUNTZ: No, they were not three boys. They were not three boys.
RIOS: Yes, they were!
KUNTZ: There was one minor. There was one man with...
RIOS: Seventeen years old...
(CROSSTALK)
KUNTZ: ... there was one man with mental impairment and there was another...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Excuse me you all. Wait, wait a minute, one at a time, please. One at a time please.
RIOS: The boy that was 17 was the instigator of this crime.
KUNTZ: That is not true!
RIOS: And he got off scott free.
KUNTZ: The records show...
RIOS: Yes, it is! The boy that was 23 is the one who received eight years of a sentence, and the judge felt that he was charged way too heavily when he was not the instigator, and he tried to make sure that justice was done.
KUNTZ: First of all, he was...
KEYES: Sandy, let Marcia have — let Marcia reply. Go ahead.
RIOS: Yes.
KUNTZ: He was very much the instigator.
RIOS: Who?
KUNTZ: And Judge Pickering — the adult here. There was a minor, there was a man with mental impairment...
RIOS: Well, you must know something that the judge didn't — Marcia...
(CROSSTALK)
KUNTZ: ... and then...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Sandy, let her finish — let her finish.
RIOS: Sorry.
KEYES: Sandy, let her finish. Go ahead.
RIOS: All right.
KEYES: Marcia, go ahead.
KUNTZ: Well, the government asserted that he was the leader of the group.
RIOS: I think you're wrong about that, Marcia.
KUNTZ: But aside from that, this was the...
KEYES: No, no, no, can I introduce...
(CROSSTALK)
KUNTZ: ... and he was the defendant who refused to plead was the only adult with no mental impairment. And for Judge Pickering to take it upon himself and to decide that somehow there was a huge discrepancy between this man's sentence and the sentence of the minor and the man with mental impairments, who pled guilty...
KEYES: Do you what I find, Marcia...
KUNTZ: ... is absolutely outrageous.
KEYES: ... Marcia, I know that...
KUNTZ: It is unprecedented in his own record...
KEYES: Marcia, hold on. Yes, I hope that's not true.
KUNTZ: ... as he testified.
KEYES: As a matter of fact, there have been similar decisions that had gone one way and the other. To say it's unprecedented is simply untrue.
KUNTZ: No, Judge Pickering had knowledge...
KEYES: Hold on — hold on.
KUNTZ: ... that he had never...
KEYES: Hold on a second.
KUNTZ: ... that he had never...
KEYES: Marcia, I gave — Marcia!
KUNTZ: ... challenged the government in such a disparity.
KEYES: Marcia, hold on. Let me speak.
KUNTZ: Well, you are stating inaccurate facts.
KEYES: I gave you your chance, Marcia. Let me talk. OK?
KUNTZ: Well, you're saying inaccurate things.
KEYES: Because in point in fact — in point of fact the interesting thing about bringing up this case is that this was a case where, instead of going along with some ideological agenda, he carefully looked at the facts of the case and decided to suit the punishment to the individual circumstances, as he understood them. You can disagree with his judgment. It's a judgment call to be sure. But to say that that doesn't show a judicial temperament, it seems to me entirely to misunderstand what judges are all about.
KUNTZ: It absolutely does not show a judicial temperament. This was the only case that he acknowledged to Senator Edwards that he had ever undertaken to try and get the government to reduce its sentence. And let me tell you something that one of his big supporters in the Senate...
KEYES: On what basis, Marcia?
KUNTZ: ... well, let me tell you...
KEYES: Marcia, on what basis did he try to get the sentence reduced?
KUNTZ: He claimed that he was concerned about the discrepancy, about the disparity in the sentencing.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Marcia, Marcia, he was looking...
KUNTZ: He had never shown a similar concern.
KEYES: ... he was looking — excuse me. He was looking at the individual circumstances of this case, and he actually ended up giving a sentence that was more than what this individual would have gotten if he had pled it out...
KUNTZ: If he had pled, but...
KEYES: ... but less than the maximum, because that's what he thought was judicially required.
KUNTZ: But frequently criminal defendants do try to go to trial, and they do get larger sentences. But let me tell you something. What one of his staunchest supporters in the Senate has said about mandatory minimum sentences. Jeff Sessions has said mandatory minimum statutes have been a critical component of a criminal justice system that treats equal conduct equally. Judge Pickering tried to undermine those mandatory...
(CROSSTALK)
RIOS: Marcia, you are grasping at straws.
KUNTZ: ... sentences that are dictated by the statute.
(CROSSTALK)
RIOS: You are grasping at straws.
KEYES: We have come — hold on a second. We have come to that point, you know, I really think it would be wonderful if we had seen that kind of enthusiasm for mandatory sentences with the three strikes laws from the left wing in this country. All of a sudden you all have discovered the virtues of this and not looking at individual cases, because this is a man you want to oppose. We have...
KUNTZ: This is the only individual case...
KEYES: Wait a minute.
KUNTZ: ... in which he asserted that position.
KEYES: We have come to the end of our time, I am afraid, but I want to thank all three of you, Sandy, Marcia, Keith, for joining us for a very lively discussion. And it's not over yet.
WATTERS: Thank you.
KEYES: You stay right there.
RIOS: Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: We really appreciate it.
We are going to be joined now by Donna Brazile, who was, as a lot of you will remember, Gore's presidential campaign manager. And she and I are going to go one-on-one on this very topic of whether or not we should see this kind of assault on the nomination of Judge Pickering and what's behind it.
And later, we'll get to what's on your mind. You can call me at 1-866-KEYES-USA. 1-866-KEYES-USA. We're back right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back.
Now we get to the bottom line. We've been talking about the nomination of Judge Charles Pickering by President Bush to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the fifth circuit. The controversy involved in this nomination has involved some folks coming forward to suggest that Judge Pickering is insensitive to minorities and to women and for that reason, should be rejected.
Now to help us get to the bottom line, Donna Brazile, Al Gore's presidential campaign manager in 2000, is joining us here on MAKING SENSE. Welcome to the show, Donna. Thank you for joining us.
DONNA BRAZILE, FORMER GORE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. And happy Valentine's day to you, sir.
KEYES: Thank you. Same to you.
Now in your sense of it, as you've watched the developments in the early stages of this nomination, why is there opposition to Judge Pickering and do you think that opposition is justified?
BRAZILE: Well, first of all, as you well know, this is perhaps one of the most powerful courts in the country. It's ultimately looked at as a stepping stone to the United States Supreme Court. The fifth circuit, which represents Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi, also is home to the largest concentration of minorities, as well as the largest concentration of poor people in this country. And currently, the court is stacked; 10 Republicans and five Democrats.
So I'm not at all amazed that you have a lot of the liberal and public interest groups, environmental groups and others coming out against this nomination. Judge Pickering is seen as a very conservative man, and I believe the congressman from that area, Benny Thompson, is opposed to him. The members of the Congressional Black Caucus just came out and said that they would oppose his nomination and urged Senate Democrats to return to President Bush. So I think there are a lot of hard feelings on this one, sir.
KEYES: Well, see, I don't understand where the hard feelings come from though, Donna, to tell you the truth. I have looked into the background. I've read all about the controversy. All the charges that some folks have tried to bring against Judge Pickering, to suggest he's racist and all that, don't seem to hold water.
In fact, he has in his background an example of the kind of courage that I wish more people had shown back in the 1960s, willing to stand against the Klan, risk his life, risk his family's life, in order to bring to justice somebody who had murdered a civil rights leader and then take the heat, fail in his next election, paying the price for his courage. Isn't that exactly the sort of example we wish more people had set back in those days?
BRAZILE: Well, absolutely. As a southerner, I wish more people would have stood up against the Klan. But as you know, at that time, in the late '60s, the Klan was bad business, not just for the state of Mississippi but also for all other states. And so you had a lot of politicians taking a stand against the Klan. It was sort of in vogue at that moment.
But when it was time for him to take a stand to support interracial marriages, to support a woman's right to choose, to support the voting rights act and the principle of one person, one vote, the judge skipped out of town. He did not take a stand on those issues, and I think that's the reason why this nomination has caused such a stir and a controversy in Washington, D.C.
KEYES: I think that there's a lot of truth in that in the sense that, in terms of the miscegenation thing, I have to tell you, this was early on his life, when many folks in the South, obviously, were reflecting the kind of racial views and characteristics, a very young man. It seems that as he got older, he took a stand against that racism, even at the risk of his life.
And then there are folks, I'll acknowledge, I think a lot of the opposition to Judge Pickering comes because he's strongly pro-life. So am I. I believe that we have to protect the innocent life of the child in the womb. But do you think that folks ought to be making that a litmus test on the basis of which they will out of hand reject the nomination of somebody who has, I think, the kind of characteristics and character that he has exemplified in his life? Just because he's pro-life, he should be barred from the bench?
BRAZILE: I don't think it has to do with the fact that he's anti-choice. I think it has to do with the fact that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and he should uphold the constitutional protections that women now have in this country, all Americans, to the right to choose. It's a fundamental freedom, just like the civil rights and voting rights for all Americans. And I believe that Judge Pickering should support those rights.
But you know, sir, that in 1994, a very important case came before Judge Pickering. It was a case involving a cross burning on the lawn of an interracial couple. And the judge went out of his way not to throw the books at this young man who had burned the cross and set it afire and set it ablaze and risking the lives of others. Instead, he called the Justice Department to see if he could give the guy a more lenient sentence.
So I think that his record, while he may have done one or two exemplary things in his life, these are lifetime appointments. These are very important appointments and we should look for fair and balanced-minded individuals. This is a nation with very talented people across the country, Republicans, Democrats, independent. Why not find someone who would represent the values of all Americans and not just one segment of the population?
KEYES: But, see, Donna, I think — you say he needs to be fair and balanced. That case was actually an example where he was trying to be exactly that. He had come upon a situation. You have three people involved in this crime. One was a minor. One was a retarded person. All were drunk. It turned out that the individual that was the adult in age had in fact been following the ringleader, the 17-year-old, who had been actually involved in violence against the same couple previously, and that that individual who was not the ringleader and had been following after these other two, was in fact not the one who was mainly responsible for instigating the violence and carrying it out.
When he discovered these facts about this individual's particular case, he felt that in this case, the maximum sentence was not authorized, and the person who was really responsible for instigating the whole thing, being a minor, he couldn't go after in the same way.
He was looking for something that would be fair to the individual involved. That's what judges are supposed to do. I know a lot of liberals out there who oppose the three strikes law, because they say it doesn't allow liberals to, in fact, do just what Judge Pickering did, look at the facts and try to suit the punishment to the individual situation. Isn't that right?
BRAZILE: No, in this case what he should have done is led by example. Mississippi, like many other states, has endured a terrible legacy. My grandmother was born in Mississippi. As I mentioned, I'm a Louisiana native. They've endured terrible legacies from slavery on and to the present moment. And many of these states want to remove themselves from that legacy by really showing the nation that they are ready to move forward into the 21st century.
I think when he called the Justice Department — and I don't know if that was ethically proper to do, the lawyers will be able to answer that question — but when he called the Justice Department, he may have stepped out of bounds in trying to find a way to give someone a more reduced sentence and not throwing the book at him, which would send a real good message to people in Mississippi and across the country that we will not tolerate that type of stupidity in the 21st century.
I would hope that Judge Pickering, now that he's been a federal judge now for over a decade — you know, when he testified back in 1990, he seemed not to recollect any of his past with the sovereignty commission. And yet when the papers were released in 1998, it indicated that Judge Pickering wanted to be kept informed of some of the investigations and some of the issues involved in the sovereignty commission.
So you can't have it both ways. You can't say that you're on the side of freedom and justice and liberty for all, and then when those cases come before you, you say, oh, not that one. That's not the way we play it in this country, and I think you and I both agree we want to have fair and balanced individuals on these courts.
KEYES: Yes, we do. But Donna, what we actually have here is you're looking at somebody who had the courage to stand against racists at the risk of his life. Now people are trying to blame him because as an official he had to keep tabs on the activities of the sovereignty commission in the course of his job?
In those days in the South, throw a rock, you hit a racist. If we're going to say that everybody in the South who ever made a phone call to a racist is now barred from anything in America, then I think we'd better look at some of the folks in the Senate, like Senator Byrd and their background, before we start saying that somebody like Judge Pickering, who stood against this racism, is going to be tarred with the same brush. It's simply not fair.
And there, we want to suggest that his pro-life views bar him from the court, that his exercise of judicial discretion in the interests of individual justice — because unlike what you said, we're not supposed to take individuals and judges treat them as if they're supposed to be examples of this historic trend or that. Judges are to make their judgments on the merits of the individual case.
BRAZILE: Absolutely.
KEYES: If they do anything else, they are not being fair judges. And to suggest that he should have looked some other place than at the individual merits is wrong. And after two other courts had split indecisions about this case, to suggest that there is some cut-and-dried verdict to be drawn about this man's judgment on this basis, I think is just an example of trying to be unfair, to tar him in such a way that for political reasons. Really, I think because people oppose his strong pro-life views, they're looking for anything they can find.
BRAZILE: I don't think so. I don't think there is one issue here. I think there's a lifetime of inconsistency in his record and his approach to civil rights, and voting rights, and a woman's right to choose, that these senators should take a look at his record. They should examine his record. And if they don't like it, they should return this package to the sender, and ask the president to put forward someone who's more balanced, who will respect the rule of law and who will uphold civil rights and voting rights for all Americans.
We fought those fights. Those battles are over with. And by the way, Senator Byrd did apologize. I don't believe Strom Thurmond has apologized.
KEYES: Thank you so much. I appreciate your willingness to join me tonight. I think truly in my own sense we're looking at somebody who has shown his courage, his fairness, his willingness to look at the details of each individual case. He has shown the kind of judicial temperament that we need on the court, and I hope that we won't let politics and the fact that some people disagree with his pro-life views become the litmus test that keeps this man of character off the court.
Next, it's open line time on MAKING SENSE. Call me on any subject you want to talk about. The phone number, 1-886-KEYES-USA. You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
ANNOUNCER: ALAN KEYES IS MAKING SENSE on MSNBC, and so are you. Take a look.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Just a reminder, the chat room is open tonight, and hopping tonight at chat.MSNBC.com.
Now, let's get to some of your phone calls. David in West Virginia is first up. David, you're making sense tonight. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
DAVID: Good evening, Dr. Keyes. It's an honor to speak with you.
KEYES: Thank you.
DAVID: Can you give us some historical background and explain why successful conservative pro-life blacks such as yourself are not viewed as role models by other blacks and liberals and are often considered Uncle Toms?
KEYES: See, I am not sure that's true, David. I think beyond what might be the impression in the media and so forth, as I go around the country I find people of all backgrounds and races are very responsive, particularly my fellow African-Americans, to the kind of moral stances and positions that I take. There are a lot of people of faith, a lot of people of tremendous moral conscience in the black community, and they respond to the kind of things that I stand for.
I think in our politics, there's been a tendency for people to vote party lines, but I think in response to the issues there's a lot of respect across those party lines from people who stand for principle and are willing to articulate things in a way that is based upon an effort to respect those principles, which is what I do. So I find that I am getting a reception even where people disagree with me because they're willing to listen to somebody who's trying to make sense. Thanks for your call.
Let's go to Nick in Florida. Nick, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
NICK: Good evening, Mr. Keyes. How are you doing, sir?
KEYES: Good again.
NICK: I think that all of our judges should be elected officials just like our Congress or our Senate or our president, and let the people, like put cameras into the courtrooms so we can actually view how these judges are ruling on cases and let us decide who we want to be in power instead of it being a political issue or the president nominating who he wants to be in, because you know, I believe that when we were coming up in elementary school, they teach you that a seed starts life, and assisted suicide is against the law, but yet it's OK for a doctor to abort a child. And I don't understand the common sense there.
KEYES: Well, Nick, in terms of the election of judges, you know, that is the case in certain states, in certain levels of our government. I think one of the reasons at the federal level that it's not the case is because the founders were very concerned that the judiciary had to be independent. And that meant, in the end, they also had to be able to make judicious decisions against the will of the majority, so that minorities, whether they were minorities of wealth, minorities in terms of race or whatever, would be protected. If you had elected judges, that might be harder to achieve because they wouldn't have the independence that was necessary to go against the majority when that was necessary.
Let's go to Tom in Colorado. Tom, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
TOM: Thank you, Mr. Keyes, for taking my call.
KEYES: Sure.
TOM: I believe that judges are to make judgments on the facts of the case. They are not to make their judgment by — or make law by their decision. And they are not to be approved because of their faith or religion.
KEYES: I think you're absolutely right. And I think one of the things that disturbs me about the way in which the Pickering nomination is being approached is they seem to be establishing a religious test, looking at the man's faith and background and saying, well, that disqualifies him, which of course is unconstitutional. And they also seem to be taking him to task because he acted as a judge, somebody willing to look at the facts of the case and make a judgment based on those facts, and that of course is what we want from judges, as you say.
Now let's look at some of your e-mail. We have John and Carolyn who write from Illinois: “Big compliments on the short, one or two-line commentaries that you often put in before the commercial breaks. Should convicted child molesters be given Viagra in prison? Does that make sense? Those are the best parts of the show. No frills, no argument needed, just educate the audience in 30 seconds.”
Well, do you have something that doesn't make sense? You can log on to our Web site at keyes.msnbc.com and send us your ideas.
Thanks for your feedback tonight. Next on this Valentine's day, a personal note on the social benefits of marriage. Don't go away. I'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Today is Valentine's day, and of course we usually think of personal romance, the exchange of flowers. I thought, though, that it was a wonderful thing that on today's date, there was a social science report released that listed and brought up together a lot of the benefits of marriage.
They talked about how folks who get married live longer, have more satisfying sexual lives, have children who grow up to be healthier and happier and more psychologically balanced, have better incomes, all the wonderful benefits of marriage, reminding us I think of where a successful romance should lead. I want to tell you all I learned about successful romance. I learned from my wife, Jocelyn. I want to thank her on this Valentine's day for that lesson.
That's my sense of it. Next up, “HARDBALL” with Chris Matthews. I'll see you on Monday.