Category Archives: Broadcast

Stuart’s Broadcast Transcripts.

Posted on

NewsHour: Racial Profiling – September 26, 2001

by

GWEN IFILL: So is this racial profiling or reasonable investigation?

We ask four people who specialize in civil rights, terrorism and the law. Juliette Kayyem is executive director of the Domestic Preparedness Session at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government; Frank Wu is a professor at Howard University Law School, he is the author of Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White; Stuart Taylor is a columnist for the National Journal and Newsweek; and Gail Heriot is a law professor at the University of California at San Diego.

GWEN IFILL: Juliet Kayyem, you’re an Arab-American woman. Do you believe at any time that racial profiling can be acceptable?

JULIETTE KAYYEM: The easy answer to your question is no. It can’t be. And it’s not simply for the legal issues that will probably get into or the ethical issues. As a person in the terrorism business, I think it’s completely ineffective.

It’s ineffective with the specific problem we’re dealing with here. We have the Al-Qaeda group, we know they’re in 40 countries, from Malaysia to the Philippines to Latin America, so Arab looking people won’t satisfy, if you look for Arabs you’re not going to satisfy it.

But secondly I think it’s ineffective because we have a huge problem in law enforcement and intelligence right now, and that is simply we have no one to translate any of the information that we have. We have, we’re starting to hear hints that we knew something was going on at least a few weeks before this, and we’re still trying to translate some of that information.

If we continue to sort of intimidate and interrogate an entire community, and I should point out that most Arab Americans are Christians, not Muslims in America, we will not get the kind of cooperation we need.

GWEN IFILL: Stuart Taylor, when can racial profiling ever be acceptable?

Posted on

NewsHour: Pardon Probe – February 22, 2001

by

JIM LEHRER: Now how all of this looks tonight to four columnists. Stuart Taylor of The National Journal and Newsweek; Tom Oliphant of The Boston Globe; David Brooks of The Weekly Standard; and Joe Conason of The New York Observer. First on the Hugh Rodham matter, Stuart, is there anything illegal in what he did?

STUART TAYLOR: Not from what meets the eye immediately. It’s legal for the brother of the First Lady to lobby the president. It’s legal for him to get a huge fee for a small effort, as seems to have been the case in the Braswell case. However, I think… I hope we’re getting to the point in this country where something doesn’t have to be illegal to be recognized as inappropriate and smelly.

JIM LEHRER: We’ll get to that part of it in a moment. Joe Conason, have you discovered anything about what Hugh Rodham did or did not do that’s against the law?

JOE CONASON: Well, I’m not a lawyer, Jim, so I’d be hesitant to offer an opinion about that. But on the face of it, there was nothing illegal, as Stuart said, in his representing someone or collecting an exorbitant fee for it either.

JIM LEHRER: David, Tom, either of you come down differently on that?

TOM OLIPHANT: No, not at all at that point.

DAVID BROOKS: No.

JIM LEHRER: All right, then, back to Stuart, to your point, if it wasn’t illegal, what’s wrong with what he did?

Posted on

NewsHour: Supreme Showdown – December 12, 2000

by

MARGARET WARNER: For some analysis of where things stand we turn to two law professors and two journalists: Pam Karlan, an election law specialist at Stanford Law School; John Yoo, of the Boalt Hall Law School at the University of California, Berkeley; Stuart Taylor, legal affairs columnist for the "National Journal"; and Anthony Lewis, a columnist for the "New York Times." Welcome back all. Let’s start with a couple of nuts and bolts. Today is December 12 — the deadline we have been all fixated on. Pam Karlan, what is the status now of Florida’s electors if the Supreme Court doesn’t rule today versus if it does?

PAM KARLAN: Well, I don’t think that it makes much difference – the Supreme Court’s ruling. There is a slate of electors on file. So, if, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court were to reverse the Florida Supreme Court and end the recounts right now, there is a slate of electors on file with the National Archives, and that slate is within the "safe harbor." Anything else that happens takes you beyond the safe harbor and really out to a completely uncharted sea. There is no way there could be a slate pledged to Al Gore that would fit within the safe harbor. And if the Florida legislature votes a slate through tomorrow, that slate too won’t be in the safe harbor so you’re virtually guaranteed if there is a slate for Gore and a slate for Bush, that there will be a contest in Congress.

MARGARET WARNER: John Yoo, how do you see it, the relationship between today’s date and a possible Supreme Court ruling or not?

Posted on

NewsHour: The Florida Recount Supreme Court Case – November 28, 2000

by

MARGARET WARNER: Late this afternoon, the Bush and Gore legal teams filed their briefs on Bush’s pending appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court. The court is set to hear arguments Friday morning. We asked two observers to read today’s filings, and brief us on them.

Jeffrey Rosen is a law professor at George Washington University, and legal affairs editor at the New Republic Magazine. Stuart Taylor is a legal affairs columnist for the National Journal. What we didn’t tell our viewers which was that we insisted you take a speed reading course because these just came out.

But, Stuart, the gist of Bush’s appeal was that the Florida Supreme Court had overreached when it extended the vote- counting deadline down there. What do you think were the strongest arguments that the Bush brief makes in support of that?

STUART TAYLOR: Just to give the gist a little more fully, the claim is that the Florida Supreme Court violated federal law, both an act of Congress from 1887 that was passed after the Hayes-Tilden problem, and Article II of the Constitution violated federal law by changing Florida law after the November 7 election in an effort by the Gore camp to change the outcome of the election, which the Florida state Supreme Court, the Bush camp argues, basically went along with.

Now the strongest points, I think, are the state court did say in its opinion that the state’s legislation on this was hyper-technical, and the seven-day deadline for completion of hand counts and the certification of the election results just seemed sort of silly to them and didn’t work in this instance because you needed more time for hand counts, and therefore, they were going to junk that and write their own rules.

Posted on

NewsHour: Supreme Court Politics – October 2, 2000

by

RAY SUAREZ: For more on what’s at stake for the Supreme Court this presidential campaign we turn to two congressional spokesmen for the Bush and Gore campaigns: Republican Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas and Democrat Barney Frank of Massachusetts. They are both on the House Judiciary Committee.

Joining them are two Supreme Court watchers: Stuart Taylor, legal affairs correspondent for National Journal and Newsweek, and Anthony Lewis, a columnist with The New York Times. Representative Hutchinson, this is one of the longest periods of the stable membership of the court in American history. These nine men and women have been there for six years with no changes.

What should voters be thinking about this fall, as they consider who should be the next president and how that may change the court?

REP. ASA HUTCHINSON: Well, I think first they have to realize how significantly it could change the court — in the last term, I think there were 70 decisions, one-third of those were a 5-4 decision on a whole host of issues, from partial birth abortion to the case involving the Boy Scouts — 5-4 decisions.

And so if the next president would appoint one, two or three, then it could be a significant change in the tilt, the balance of the court. Governor Bush has indicated that he does not have any litmus test for those; he wants to make sure that they are well qualified, reflect his general philosophy.

If you look at his record in Texas, his appointees represent all walks of life. 50 percent of them were women and minorities. And so I think that’s how he would approach appointees to the United States Supreme Court.

RAY SUAREZ: And Congressman Frank, let me move to you, what would you ask voters to keep in mind about the makeup of the Supreme Court and who the next president will be?

Posted on

NewsHour: The Future of the Supreme Court – July 13, 2000

by

MARGARET WARNER: Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court term ended with a burst of decisions on hot-button issues ranging from abortion to school prayer to whether the Boy Scouts could expel a gay scoutmaster. The fact that many of these cases were decided by a 5-4 vote prompted a flood of articles and editorials on how the outcome of this year’s presidential race could alter the balance on the court.

What’s more, both liberal and conservative groups are now trying to energize their supporters by arguing that this election could reshape the court for decades to come. For our own discussion of what’s at stake for the court in this Presidential campaign, we turn to Stuart Taylor, legal affairs correspondent for National Journal and Newsweek, and author of last week’s Newsweek cover story on this issue; Anthony Lewis, a columnist with the New York Times; C. Boyden Gray, former White House counsel in the Bush administration, now in private practice in Washington; and Ralph Neas, People for the American Way and author of a 75-page report on this topic called "Courting Disaster."

Welcome, gentlemen. Ralph Neas, in this report, you wrote that the court is just one or two votes away from can your tailing fundamental rights that millions of Americans take for granted. Is there really that much at stake in this election?

Posted on

NewsHour: Investigating The Investigator – February 10, 1999

by

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner begins our coverage of the Kenneth Starr investigation story.

MARGARET WARNER: As the senate winds up its impeachment trial of the president, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr is coming under investigation on a growing number of fronts. Today’s "New York Times" reported the Justice Department has decided to open an inquiry into whether Starr’s prosecutors misled Attorney General Janet Reno about possible conflicts of interest when they obtained permission to investigate the Lewinsky matter in January 1998. At issue, the "Times" said, is whether Starr’s "prosecutors should have disclosed the contacts between Mr. Starr’s office and the Paula Jones legal team" in the weeks leading up to Starr’s request to expand his inquiry into the Lewinsky affair. According to the "Times," Starr’s prosecutors denied any such contacts at the time, but subsequent news stories have reported otherwise. Starr spokesman Charles Bakaly would not comment to the "Times" about whether the Department was opening an inquiry. But Bakaly insisted, "there was no misleading of justice." Democratic Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa jumped on the "Times" story this morning.

SEN. TOM HARKIN, (D) Iowa: And if you believe the rule of law applies not only to the defendant– the president, in this case– but also to the prosecutors and those sworn to uphold that rule of law, then it is important to look at how this case got here. It’s interesting to note that in today’s February 10th "New York Times," "the conduct of the independent counsel is so suspect and potentially violative of Justice Department policy and law that now he is under investigation for a number of reasons."

Posted on

NewsHour: Debating Witnesses – January 26, 1999

by

MARGARET WARNER: In addition to the hours of public arguments in the senate over witnesses, there have been extensive negotiations behind the scenes. Some insight into both now from Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant and National Journal columnist Stuart Taylor, who is also a contributor to Newsweek.

MARGARET WARNER: Tom, the Senate is behind closed doors debating this. Why has this witness dispute become such a big issue in these proceedings?

TOM OLIPHANT: Because I think, Margaret, it is a metaphor for how long is this trial going to last. I don’t think witnesses per se have importance. I think the claims on both sides today made it clear that no one is saying that somebody is going to come forward and say something dramatic. But rather than argue about the specific length of the trial, witnesses have in a sense become the metaphor. What’s happening now I think has been arranged inside the senate Republican family. It appears to be working in the sense that it will have a majority. But it makes the House managers livid.

MARGARET WARNER: Why does it make them livid?

TOM OLIPHANT: Because they feel that their opportunity to put on the kind of trial that could have persuaded the senate, that could have persuaded public opinion has been limited to the point of ineffectiveness. And their expressions of frustration on the floor today and yesterday, but particularly yesterday, I think are just the surface of a genuinely deep fury at having the rug pulled out from under them.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree, Stuart? I mean, they made an incredibly passionate case for these three but they’re livid about it and they feel they need more.

Posted on

NewsHour: A Look at the Chief Justice – January 13, 1999

by

MARGARET WARNER: Stuart, what else do we need to know about this man that you think will affect how we conduct this trial?

STUART TAYLOR: Well, you cover it pretty well. I think the top of it is – he’s a very smart man – he’s no nonsense – as Jeff recently wrote in the New Yorker. He runs a poker game that includes some interesting players, and the idea is let’s play the poker, no nonsense. The one quibble I might have with what we just heard was the word "stern task master." Yes, he runs the court on tight schedule but he is liked and regarded as very fair in dealing with that by his colleagues.

I well remember Justice William Brennan, the late justice, one of the great liberals and the polar opposite ideologically of Rehnquist. I went to him after a bitterly, bitterly divided partisan ideological debate that led to Rehnquist’s confirmation as chief justice in 1986, and I asked Justice Brennan, what do you think of it? "I’m just delighted. He’s such a wonderful guy. He’ll be fair." Now, Brennan wasn’t particularly going to miswarrant Berger either. That might have been part of it. But I think he’s in a very different forum than he’s ever been in before because although when he brings down the gavel in the court and says counsel, your time is up, they salute, and they march away, and the other justices don’t challenge him on things like that. But in the Senate he can be overruled by 51 Senators on anything he does. And the most interesting thing for me watching him will be this. Will he try and set an aggressive tone in ruling, for example, if somebody wants censure, if there’s an argument over what evidence should come in, will he say in a clear and forceful way, well, here’s what I think and hope they don’t overrule him at the risk of

(a) being repeatedly overruled or

Posted on

Impeachment: A NewsHour Special – Rep. Bob Livingston Resigns – December 19, 1998

by

MARGARET WARNER: Paul, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole just sent out another sort of public letter yesterday saying even though he would have voted to impeach in the House, he still thinks some sort of censure deal is the way to go. Do you think Dole’s going to play an active role in this? Do you think he has clout if he decides to do so?

PAUL GIGOT: Oh, he has some personal contacts among senators, obviously. He was their leader for a time on the Republican side, and he has some moral authority as a former Republican candidate, well respected figure. So there may be people who heed him. I think it’s a little easier to have censure in the Senate because you’re now ñ than it was in the House ñ because you’re now in the punishment stage; you’re now in determining how the ñ how the case ultimately comes out. He has been impeached. And I think that in terms of heeding the Constitution, nobody doubts that the Senate can do what it wants. I mean, there was some debate about what the House could do, but nobody doubts the Senate can dismiss the case if it wants. It can agree to some kind of plea bargain, or it can go up to it and remove the president.

NORMAN ORNSTEIN: Margaret, this is where there are now two crucial figures who will come to the floor ñ Trent Lott, the Senate Majority Leader and Tom Daschle, Senate Democratic leader, who’s also very close to President Clinton. Trent Lott will have a major role in determining whether the Senate now moves to a trial and then after that point reaches a different stage, or whether something else can happen. And the events of the next week or ten days are going to be very important in determining whether or not he makes the political judgment that maybe we should not hold a trial or short circuit in some fashion and ñ or whether we orchestrate a way of getting through this.