Category Archives: Broadcast

Stuart’s Broadcast Transcripts.

Posted on

NewsHour: Campaigns Under Scrutiny – Reno Testifies – October 15, 1997 (con’t)

by

JIM LEHRER: Now how all of this looks to our regional commentators: Lee Cullum of the Dallas Morning News; Robert Kittle of the San Diego Union Tribune; Mike Barnicle of the Boston Globe; Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Constitution; and Patrick McGuigan of the Daily Oklahoman. Lee, how do you think the attorney general did before the House committee today?

LEE CULLUM, Dallas Morning News: Jim, I thought she did very well. I thought she held her own. I like her imperturbability, and I think that she should be very pleased with her performance today. You know, I find support for her in this part of the country which surprised me actually because Dallas tends to be very Republican. Of course, there are those who stay she’s weak administratively, but they’ve said that for a number of months, if not years, but I found in talking to people about her the last two or three days I have found that especially young professional and businessmen speak well of her. They say that she’s a decent public servant in a very difficult circumstance. So I don’t think her reputation is suffering from this campaign funds crisis.

JIM LEHRER: You think so, Cynthia, her reputation is suffering?

Posted on

NewsHour: Supreme Court Watch – October 6, 1997

by

JIM LEHRER: This is the first Monday in October, always the first day of a new term of the U.S. Supreme Court. We look at the prospects and the possibilities of this term with NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor of Legal Times and The American Lawyer. Stuart, welcome. STUART TAYLOR, The American Lawyer: Nice to be here.

JIM LEHRER: In general, what should we expect from this term?

STUART TAYLOR: The biggest cases on the horizon so far involve race, gender, and the complex of issues under the rubrics racial, affirmative action, racial preferences, and sexual harassment.

In particular, the civil rights groups I think are awaiting this term with trepidation because when you count the votes in past cases, they have a hard time being optimistic about two big cases: one which the court has already agreed to here involving two schoolteachers in New Jersey in which a white teacher was laid off ahead of a black teacher, who was deemed equally qualified, on the ground that diversity in the business education department of a high school was the goal to be pursued. And the court’s going to review that. A lower court in that case held very broadly that any kind of racial preference could not be justified in employment if the only reason was diversity.

And there’s a huge case from California coming that may be even more important that the court will probably decide whether or not to hear sometime in the next month or two, and even if they say we’re not hearing it, even if all they say sert denied, it would be enormous.

JIM LEHRER: That’s a big deal.

STUART TAYLOR: It would be a very big deal.

A case challenging affirmative action.

JIM LEHRER: I’ll just go through those one at a time. The New Jersey case; give us the facts on that and where the matter rests as we speak.

Posted on

NewsHour: New Direction – September 17, 1997

by

JIM LEHRER: The Justice Department is also conducting a fund-raising investigation. Phil Ponce looks at the developments there.

PHIL PONCE: That investigation went through a maker shake-up yesterday when Attorney General Janet Reno replaced the top federal prosecutor and the FBI agent in charge with more experienced senior personnel. For more on this we’re joined by NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor, correspondent for Legal Times and the American Lawyer, and Dan Klaidman, Justice Department correspondent for "Newsweek." Dan Klaidman, before we get into the question of the changes that the attorney general has made in the task force, what exactly are they looking at?

DANIEL KLAIDMAN, Newsweek: Well, among the principal allegations is that the Clinton administration systematically solicited contributions, millions of dollars in contributions from foreign donors, which is illegal, and that in some instances perhaps tried to disguise the source of those contributions by laundering through–laundering them through legal donors. Among the other allegations, most serious allegations, is that in exchange for political contributions contributors got certain favors, perhaps policy changes, access.

That would be a bribe, and that’s very serious but very difficult to establish the quid pro quo. Then there are the allegations involving Vice President Gore, essentially soliciting contributions from federal offices, and under some analysis what he did is illegal. And that remains to be seen. But most serious–potentially the most incendiary of the allegations is the Chinese government had a plot to subvert the American–the 1996 presidential and past congressional elections. That remains to be seen as well.

PHIL PONCE: And what exactly prompted her to make these changes? What was the motivation there?

Posted on

NewsHour: Death Penalty Update – July 30, 1997

by

BETTY ANN BOWSER: In 1992 George McFarland was tried, convicted and sentenced to die for the murder of a Houston convenience store owner. The trial lasted less than three days–and through much of it one of McFarland’s attorneys was asleep.

GEORGE McFARLAND: So I’m nudging him with my feet–what are you doing–wake up! So later that day I asked him I said: "Well what happened?" "Oh, I was just tired." And I asked him, I told him, I said, "Man, I’m fighting for my life here. You’re supposed to be helping me"–"Oh, I got it under control George." He always told me: "I got it under control."

BETTY ANN BOWSER: McFarland appealed his conviction to the Texas criminal court of appeals, citing, among other things, ineffective counsel. The appeals court said it "did not condone" the behavior of the attorney but ruled that because there was a second lawyer present during the trial McFarland failed "to make any showing that he was not effectively represented" added Congress in here.

Now McFarland wants to go into federal court to seek relief through habeas corpus–a legal term meaning he is alleging his constitutional rights have been violated. But under the anti-terrorism-Effective Death Penalty Act passed by Congress in 1996, it will be harder for him to do that because the new habeas corpus law places a time limit on death row inmate appeals ; streamlines the entire appellate process; and may limit inmates’ ability to appeal state court decisions in the federal system.

Before the new law, McFarland could make one appeal after another sometimes on the same issue. University of Houston Law Professor David Crump says the law is designed to do what is says–make the death penalty more effective.

Posted on

NewsHour: Justice Brennan Remembered – July 24, 1997

by

JIM LEHRER: Retired Supreme Court Justice William Brennan. He died today at the age of 91. Joshua Rosenkrantz clerked for Justice Brennan. He’s now the executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s School of Law. Douglas Kmiec was an assistant attorney general during the Reagan administration; he now teaches law at the University of Notre Dame. And NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor; he covers the Supreme Court for the American Lawyer and Legal Times. Mr. Rosenkrantz, how will you remember Justice Brennan?

JOSHUA ROSENKRANTZ, New York University Law School: I’ll remember him first and foremost as an extraordinarily wonderful human being who just cared so much about everyone who crossed his path, and secondarily as one of the most profound movers in our history, certainly in this century, on the Supreme Court.

JIM LEHRER: Stuart, one of the most profound movers in this century on the U.S. Supreme Court?

STUART TAYLOR, The American Lawyer: I think he was that. He’s widely credited, including by Justice Antonin Scalia, his philosophical opposite, as being the most influential justice of this century and one of the most in history, but that’s not what I suppose I’ll remember him for the most. I was in the–like many of my colleagues–was privileged to visit with him in his chambers. And I’ll remember him as perhaps the most lovable, likeable, charming, humble, delightful, very important person I’ve ever encountered. I remember him saying things like "When you get this damn job, my, nothing you’ve ever done prepares you for it;" things like, I’ve been excited and thrilled every day since I got here, and I’ll be excited and thrilled every day until I leave, things like, see, I didn’t really settle into the liberal mold until I’d been here a few years. I had some surprises. He was–

JIM LEHRER: In other words, he talked like a real person.

Posted on

NewsHour: Supreme Court Curbs Brady Gun Law – June 27, 1997

by

MARGARET WARNER: Jim Fotis is executive director of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, a voluntary organization claiming to represent 50,000 rank and file officers. He’s also a former police officer, himself, in Lindbrook, New York. Hubert Williams is president of the Police Foundation, a private, non-profit research organization. He’s also the former police chief of Newark, New Jersey. Joining them are the chairman and ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Republican Bill McCollum of Florida, who opposed enactment of the Brady law, and Democrat Charles Schumer of New York, one of the law’s original sponsors. Jim Fotis, what do you think will be the impact of this bill now? How is local law enforcement going to react–excuse me–of this ruling.

JIM FOTIS, Law Enforcement Alliance: Well, I think many of your small departments and most people don’t realize that police departments throughout the United States are very small, possibly under 20 people in most of the departments, and what’s going to happen is some of them are going to continue doing background checks. But what we have to look at is the future, as–as Mr. Farnsworth said–

MARGARET WARNER: Taylor.

JIM FOTIS: Excuse me, Taylor–that we have to look at the future. And we have to find–there are 28 states that have some kind of background check now. We have to fund the instant check for the other 22 states, so that law enforcement can get online, not use up their reserves of manpower to sit and look through hand records or sometimes have to call throughout the United States. I think it’s great that the law was struck down as it stands right now. Now we have to move forward and force the administration to fund the second part of the Brady law, the instant check.

Posted on

NewsHour: Supreme Court Curbs Brady Gun Law – June 27, 1997

by

BETTY ANN BOWSER: In 1981, when a lone gunman attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan, his press secretary, James Brady, was also seriously wounded. The fallout from that shooting and from several other widely publicized shooting incidents brought calls for federal legislation that would require criminal background checks on people who want to buy handguns. After much legislative controversy, a bill named after Brady was signed into law in November of 1993. PRESIDENT CLINTON: It will be step one in taking our streets back, taking our children back, reclaiming our families, and our future.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Under the Brady Bill, states could refuse to sell handguns to anyone indicted or convicted of a felony, and to those who had ever had a restraining order placed against them. The work of checking those backgrounds was given to state and local chief law enforcement officers. They were required to review the forms within five days, destroy applications of those declared eligible, and inform in writing those who were denied. But at the Graham County Sheriff’s Department in Arizona, Sheriff Richard Mack said he was too busy to do those jobs.

SHERIFF RICHARD MACK, Graham County, Arizona: We have gun problems here, gang problems here. Am I supposed to know those problems so I can check a criminal background check on someone who’s never committed a wrong in their life? Can’t do it.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Sheriff Mack organized a gun rally to raise money to sue the federal government. He said the requirements were an infringement on states’ rights, a violation of the 10th Amendment, which reserves to the states those powers not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution.

SHERIFF RICHARD MACK: We cannot allow our constitutional rights to be trampled on like our federal government seems to be trampling on them.

Posted on

NewsHour: Assisted Suicide – June 26, 1997

by

MARGARET WARNER: In a unanimous decision the court upheld laws in New York and Washington State that make it a crime for doctors to prescribe lethal drugs for terminally ill patients who no longer want to live. For more details on today’s ruling we’re joined by NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor, correspondent for the "American Lawyer" and "Legal Times." Stuart, first brief background. What exactly did these laws say and who challenged them? STUART TAYLOR, The American Lawyer: These were laws in Washington State and New York State. Both of them are general laws that–with deepest, darker roots that say it’s a crime to assist someone else in committing suicide. It would apply to anyone, not just a doctor–would apply to you or me helping each other. Two sets of doctors and patients–all of the patients are now dead–in New York and Washington respectively–challenged these laws on various constitutional grounds. They found their way to the Supreme Court with the two lower courts each having struck down the laws as applied to mentally competent, terminally ill people who are suffering and want a doctor to give them say a lethal medication. But the two lower courts used different constitutional rationales in striking the laws down.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. So broadly on what grounds now did the Supreme Court say these laws were constitutional, uphold these laws?

Posted on

NewsHour: Communications Decency Act – June 26, 1997

by

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Cathy Cleaver of the Family Research Policy–Research Institute–coauthored a friend of the court brief in support of the Communications Decency Act on behalf of 26 members of Congress. And Jerry Berman of the Center for Democracy and Technology organized the coalition opposing the act, including online service providers, newspaper editors, and libraries. Thanks for being with us. Jerry, are you satisfied with this ruling?

JERRY BERMAN, Center for Democracy and Technology: We have to be satisfied. There’s a fundamental victory for free speech, for the Internet, and for Internet users. It is the bill of rights for the Internet and for the medium in the 21st century. What is incredible is that all nine justices said this was a new medium, not to be treated like radio, not to be treated like television. They’re saying it’s not pervasive; it doesn’t come into the home the way television does. The user goes to and picks their site. Contrary to your setup piece that says that this is easily available, the court found and we agree that you have to go places and pick sites and there are–many times they have warnings or they have identification.

The court also, I think, by giving such a clear ruling creates some breathing room for the Internet and allows us to focus on the real solutions. They point out that these technology solutions also mentioned in your setup piece, the blocking technologies, the Surf Watch, the Cyber Patrol, are less–more effective, less restrictive, and we think that they’re out there and that we should be really moved in that direction to give users, empower users to protect and enforce their own family values consistent with the First Amendment.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Cathy Cleaver, what’s your reaction to the court’s action?

Posted on

NewsHour: Communications Decency Act – June 26, 1997

by

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: In another ruling today the Supreme Court extended free speech rights to cyberspace, striking down key parts of the Communications Decency Act. We’ll discuss the case in a moment, but first some background.

The Communications Decency Act, or CDA, which signed by the President in 1996 as part of the telecommunications reform bill, made it a crime to transmit indecent material in cyberspace unless appropriate actions are taken to prevent access by anyone under age 18. Penalties range from fines as high as $250,000 to jail sentences of two years. Indecent is understood to mean patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards. The primary sponsor of the law, now retired Senator James Exon, wrote it after discovering what types of material were being transmitted on the Internet.

 

SEN. JAMES EXON, (D) Nebraska: I had a remarkable demonstration of what is readily available to any child with the basic Internet access. It is not an exaggeration to say that the worst, most vile, most perverse pornography is only a few click-click-click away from any child on the Internet.

 

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Sen. Exon was talking mainly about sexually explicit pictures and stories. They’re available, along with a wide range of other material, on the Internet, the global network connecting millions of home and office computers. People with access to the Internet can see just about anything these days, from information about the re-release of "Star Wars" to the centerfold in the current "Playboy."