Oct. 15, 2002
Networking
Excerpts from Recent Radio and Television Interviews
with Members of the GW Community
Leon Fuerth, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor
of International Affairs
[As heard in an interview on Foxs Hannity and Colmes
Sept. 26 responding to criticisms of Vice President Gores comments
on Iraq.]
[Former Vice President Gore] was criticized by people who automatically
rushed to do that as soon as anyone attacks the presidents policy.
But on substance, I think there are many people who feel that he did
the right thing by opening up this debate. Its much too late in
the game to be playing a coy game with the Congress.
The basic message in that speech was, if youre going to go after
Saddam Hussein, make sure youve got the posse organized. Al Gore
has thought Saddam was a menace since 1988, when he was the first guy
to go to the Senate floor, long ahead of people who are now seniors
in this administration, but were in Congress at that time, to point
out what a menace he was. But he believes that if youre going
to go to war with somebody, you prepare the battle field. You dont
let the other guy do it. And he is concerned that we have not adequately
prepared the grounds.
I think what Al Gore is trying to do is to open up a debate thats
been stalled for too long.
What I want to emphasize is the question that Al Gore raised,
and that is, Mr. President, could you please tell the Congress whether
or not were going to do a better job in post-invasion Iraq if
we do this, than we have done in post-invasion Afghanistan. And could
you please explain to the Congress whether or not invading Iraq is going
to get in the way of the kind of international cooperation we need to
fight terrorism?
Jeffrey Rosen, associate professor of law
[As heard on National Public Radios Talk of the Nation,
Sept. 9, responding to questions about lower court nominations such
as that of Judge Pricilla Owen.]
The shift is that were now treating lower court judges as Supreme
Court justices in miniature. What was so remarkable about the Owen hearing
and it was a continuation of whats been going on before
is that Senator Schumer, for example, said to Judge Pricilla
Owen, Imagine that its 1963. Youre a Supreme Court
justice asked to decide the Griswold case involving the right to privacy.
How would you advise the chief justice? And she said, Well,
Im a lower court judge. I dont have to decide these things.
I just look at what the Supreme Court said. He said, No,
a bunch of us are very concerned that other nominees he
was referring to Clarence Thomas have come before this
committee, said that they believe in the right to privacy, and then
voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. What would you do if you were on the
court? And she says, Im a lower court judge.
So its this effort to turn basically to look into the nominees
souls.
[The nomination of Judge Owen] was clearly about abortion, and this
is why it was so explosive: Because abortion Roe has indeed become
the seismic test at the heart of all the confirmation hearings.
However,
to impose Roe as the litmus test, for example, on the US Court of Appeals
for the DC Circuit its considered the second-most important
court in the country it hasnt heard an important abortion
case in a decade. And most lower court judges would rarely confront
an abortion case. So to use Roe of all things as the litmus test, the
one case that Republicans in particular say this was a decision
that even many Democrats at the time said was loosely reasoned, to make
us pledge allegiance to this, not only to say that we would uphold it
but that we love it, to make that our litmus test is just gives
the lie to everything we believe as a matter of constitutional law.
Send feedback to: bygeorge@gwu.edu