good morngs. and welcome to "this good morning. and welcome to "this week." supreme choice. justice stevens announces his retirement. >> i will move quickly to name a nominee. >> but will obama's next pick for the supreme court face a republican filibuster. >> i hope he doesn't nominate an overly ideological person. that will be the test. >> two key senators on the judiciary committee, democrat jon kyl and democrat chuck schumer, preview the battle to come, only on "this week." then -- president obama pushes the reset button on nuclear weapons. >> we will not do anything that
endangers or limits my ability as commander in chief to protect the american people. >> but is he putting the country at risk? >> that's kind of saying, okay, punch me in the face and i'm not going to retaliate. >> this morning headliners, secretary of state hillary clinton -- >> let no one be mistaken, the united states will defend ourselves. >> and secretary of defense robert gates. >> did you change your mind. >> clinton and gates on nuclears afghanistan and tension was israel. plus analysis and debate on all of the week's politic s on the "roundtable." with george will. aryana huffington, cokie robertson and sam donaldson. and as always the sunday funnies. >> did you all watch tiger -- i got to at mitt. wasn't it great seeing tiger swing a golf club again instead of dodging one? thought that was -- from the heart of the nation's capital "this week" with abc white house correspondent jake tapper live from the newseum on pennsylvania avenue. good morning, everyone. we start with the announcement supreme court justice john paul stevens is retiring, longest
sitting justice on the court. stevens in firmly in the liberal block, now the president has his second supreme court appointment. coming into a polarized atmosphere and election year. the nation's capital will likely have a long, hot summer. joining me this morning, democrat chuck schumer and jon kyl, both members of the senate judiciary committee. thanks for joining me. >> thank you. >> senator kyl. we heard you talking about being worried about president obama nominating an overly ideological person. we know the four on the short list. elena kagan. merrick garland, diane wood and secretary of the department of homeland security, janet napolitano. are any of them overly ideological? >> it will depend upon the analysis of what they have written, what they said, judicial decisions they've made and what they say in hearings, whether my colleagues would
reach that conclusion. they are all qualified, and, again, the question, i think to present is, do judges like this, or candidates like this, approach judging on the basis of each case presenting its unique facts in law, being decided strictly on that basis, rather than with the judge coming to the bench with an ideological position. for example, i've heard colleagues say we want somebody that will be tough on execute powers. i heard somebody else say we need somebody to be tough on large corporations. no. you need somebody that will decide the case whether the big corporation or the executive should win a particular case. depends upon the facts of the case of the law. not on the judge's ideology before that person even gets to the bench. >> let me follow up with you for second. senator jeff sessions, ranking republican on judiciary and other colleagues of yours have talked about importance of nomination because the supreme courwill likely hear from the states who are trying to block the federal government from requiring individual citizens to
get health insurance. what will you be asking the nominee when it comes to that issue? >> well, first of all, you don't ask the nominee how he or she would rule on a case that's likely to come to the court but try to discern their attitudes. i was just in a small town in arizona. as i drove into town i saw a sign for re-election of a judge. reelect judge so and so. he's fair. that's all you ask for in addition to the qualifications which i'm sure the candidate will have. what i object to and i think my colleagues will object to is somebody that comes in with pre conceived notions how a particular case should be decided. for example, the case on the requirement that you buy insurance under the health care bill. decide that case based upon a reading from the law, what the precedents are and what the specific wording of the statute is, nothing more. >> senator schumer, you said in 2007, the senate should reverse the presumption of confirmation and a nominee's ideology does
matter. should the republicans adopt a schumer principle when considering president obama's nominee? >> i think we're saying the same thing. what you want is somebody who will follow the law, not make the law. not impose their ideology, if they're far right, far left, on the law itself. if they're in the main stream, you don't have to agree with all their views to vote for them. i voted for hundreds of judges that george bush nominated. i didn't agree with their views their judicial ideology. as long as i think they follow the law not make law, i was willing to vote for them. one final thing is this. look who president obama nominated, somebody like judge sotomayor who got nine republicans to vote for her. no one questioned whether she was out of the mainstream. other nominees in many courts of
appeals. he chooses people in the mainstream. i don't think there will be a filibuster or blocking. furthermore, practically, this is not a switched vote, a swing vote in the sense that you're having somebody, justice stevens and president obama's likely to choose somebody in justice stevs' image. >> senator schumer, do you think if you were giving president obama advice, do you recommend he go with a more moderate person ideologically, or does it matter? >> first and most important is legal exec lens, i think we'll find that. to me, there's a second criteria that matters a lot. and it's a little different. in my view, at least. justice roberts has tried to move the court very far to the right, much further than we ever envisioned. i think justice stevens felt that in some opinions in the sense that he rendered and he's been able to get justice kennedy to go along with some of those. so, my view would be, i would like the new nominee to be one of five, not one of four when
the votes come up, and somebody who would be quite persuasive in terms of influencing other justices, particularly justice kennedy, to his her pnt of view. and that would matter to me more than any particular ideology. >> senator kyl. almost the reverse question for you when it comes to the filibuster. throughout the bush years, you repeatedly spoke against democrats with regards to the filibuster. in 2008 you said this. it's been undertoday by both parties that you do not play politics while it comes to confirming judges, because while you may be able to stop them this time they might stop yours this time. besidewhich it's not good often. it's not doing the people's business. the president was elected fair and square. he has the right to submit judicial nominees and senate's position to act on those nominees. are you willing to take
fill buster off the table? >> i'm willing to abide by what became the rule after a gain of 14. after president bush was elected. democrats threatened filibuster, 12 judges on the circuit court of appeal, nominated by president bush, including miguel estrada, a certainly fine individual. that was beginning to get out of hand. eventually, 14 senators got together and said, look, we'll not filibuster any judge, except in extraordinary circumstances. that's pretty much the way it's been ever since then. that's why i think both chuck and i would agree it's unlikely there's a filibuster, except if there's an extraordinary circumstance. i'm never going to take it off the table because of what the democrats have achieved here which is possibility of filibuster. president obama himself attempted to filibuster justice alito who now sits on the supreme court. if the president is not going to take it off the table i'm not going to take it off the table. i think it can be easily avoided by appointing frankly the kind of person senator schumer just mentioned.
someone that's mainstream enough with intellect and application of good law can persuade colleagues to support his position. >> only good news i say, jake, i think it's just a certainty that the president will nominate someone in the mainstream. so the likelihood of filibuster is tiny. >> we only have a couple minutes left. i'm going to exercise my prerogative. bear with me and be quick. i want to ask about a couple international issues. senator schumer, the israeli nepaper quoted an anonymous confidant to prime minister netanyahu called president obama, quote, the greatest disaster for israel, strategic disaster. i'm sure you have constituents to share those view and concerns. do you think that the white house has behaved for rael and prime minister of israel as you would want them to? >> let me say this. i think everybody here in the united states, virtual everybody, and the vast majority of israelis want peace. they're willing to accept a
two-state solution. the best way to bring about that peace is let the two sides negotiate, and bring them together. i think one of the problems we have faced in the middle east, is that too many palestinians they elect in hamas warned to israel's destruction don't really believe in peace. i do believe that you have to let the two parties come together. if the united states imposes preconditions, particularly on the palestinian and arab side, they will say we won't come an negotiate. >> very quickly, senator kyl. you helped lead the cause of immigration reform in 2007. senator majority leader harry reid said he's going to bring up immigration reform. you said in yuma, arizona the republicans use the opportunity to filibuster. are you ing to help filibuster the immigration reform? >> i don't think i said that. i said the conditions no longer exist. the consensus that existed no
longer exists. and among other reasons, this current administration has not done what's necessary to secure the border and enforce the law. we saw a tragic death of a rancher on the border, presumably from drug smugglers or illegal immigrants which illustrates we have not controlled the border. until that's done it's going to be very difficult for congress to support legislation that will be as comprehensive of that supported three years ago. >> senators kyl and schumer, thank you so much. we appreciate it. enjoy the rest of your weekend. even before the news of the supreme court. this has been a momentous week for the president. he jo signed a new nuclear arms treaty with the russians and two of the the architects of the policy are secretary of state hillary clinton and robert gates. i spoke with them friday at th pentagon. secretary clinton i would like to start with you. this has been a big week for
talking about deterrents, especially about deterrents against iran. we've learned iran announced third generation of centrifuges, six times faster. than the previous generation. is iran not saying to the united states, we aren't deterred? >> jake, it has been a very positive week for american foreign policy, particularly with respect to nuclear posture. when it comes to iran we take everything they say with more than a grain of salt. we know they have a tendency to say things that may or may not be carried out, they may or may not be accurate. but in fact their belligerence is helping to make our case every single day. countries that might have had doubts about iranian intentions, who might have questioned whether iran is seeking nuclear weapons are have those doubts dispelled as much by the evidence we present than what
comes out of the leadership of iran. >> second gates, just a year and a half ago, you had a different boss but the same job. and were you expressing support for the idea that nuclear weapons can be an effective deterrent against chemical and biological weapons. >> in the first gulf war we made it very clear if saddam used chemical and biological weapons the united states would keep all options on the table. we later learned this vailed threat had the deterrent effect as iraq considered its options. >> it's a refrain that a lot have talked about that the united states is taking things off the table that would deter other countries. did you change your mind? >> i think what has happened is the situation has changed. we have more robust deterrents today because we've added to the nuclear deterrent, missile defense, and with the adapt tiv
approach that the president has approved, we will have significantly greater capability to deter the iranians because we'll have significantly greater missile defense. also developing a probably strike which hasn't gone anywhere in the bush administration but has been embraced by the new administration that allows us to use long-range missiles with conventional warheads. we have more tools if you will in the deterrent's kid bag than we used to. >> secretary clinton, the united states, according to the nuclear posture review, the united states will not be developing new nuclear weapons. china will. russia will. you said when you were running for president in 2007 -- >> presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons. presidents, since the cold war,
have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and i don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons. >> did you change your mind? >> no, jake, because i think if you actually read the nuclear posture review, you make three conclusions. first, we intend to maintain a robust nuclear deterrent, let no one be mistaken. united states will defend ourselves and defend our partners and allies, we intend to sustain that nuclear deterrent by modernizing the existing stockpile. in fact we have $5 billion in this year's budget going into that very purpose. we believe, and this is a collective judgment from ts government, that is certainly shared by the secretary of defense, chairman of the joint chiefs, secretary of energy and others along with the state department who worked on this
nuclear posture review, that we can have the kind of deterrent that we need by modernizing our stockpile, but not necessarily having to replace and build new nuclear weapons, but if there is a conclusion down the road that there does have to be consideration for some kind of replacement, that decision will go to the president. we don't think we'll get there. we think we have more than adequate nuclear deterrent, and with this evidence on the nuclear stockpile and stewardship program that we are engaged in, that we will be stronger than anybody in the world as we always have been. with more nuclear weapons than are needed many times over. so we do not see this as in any way a diminishment as what we're able to do. >> let me just chime in in this respect. the reliable replacement war head program that existed in the past, was really a means to an end. it was a means to modernizing
the nuclear stockpile, as secretary clinton says, making it more reliable, safer and more secure. it -- the policy of the bush administration was also not to include -- not to add new nuclear capabilities. this was about how do you make the stockpile safer, more reliable. the approach that we now have, is intended to do exactly that. it offers us a path forward as secretary clinton says, in terms of reuse, refurbishment and if necessary, replacement of components, not an entire warhead, necessarily. so the chiefs and i, and the directors of the nuclear labs, are all very comfortable, that this puts us in a position to modernize the stockpile and $5 billion that hillary has referred to is actually just what's in our budget for this program. there is another big chunk of money in the department of
energy budget for this infrastructure and modernization program as well. we think this is a pretty robust approach to sustaining and modernizing the stockpile. >> let's turn to the security agreement that's about to start. prime minister netanyahu said he's not going to come. compared to some other countries like egypt and turkey. we're going to raise the worst-kept secret that israel has nuclear weapons and the fact that israel is not a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty. don't they have a point? >> part of the goal of the nuclear security summit is to focus on the threat from nuclear terrorism. and we don't believe the threat from nuclear terrorism comes from states. our biggest concern is that terrorists will get nuclear material. we fear north korea and iran, because their behavior as the, first case, north korea, being
already having nuclear weapons and iran seeking them, is that they are unpredictable. they have an attitude toward countries like israel, like their other neighbors in the gulf that makes them a danger. we are focusing on the two states, but we are also very concerned about nuclear material falling in to terrorist's hands. that's a concern that we all share. part of the challenge is to bring the world together as president obama is doing in the nuclear security summit, to have everyone sign off on an agreed-upon work plan that will enable us to begin to try to tie up these loose nuclears, and look nuclear materials, to make sure they don't fall not wrong hands. and israel will be prepped by the deputy prime minister and we'll be at the table to try to figure out how to deal with this particular problem. >> is it a good thing? it would have made the summit into a side show?
>> that's a decision for every government to make as to who comes and who doesn't come. the point is, the countries will be represented. the overall goal of this nuclear security summit is to make progress. i have to say, this is something secretary gates and i have said repeatedly. the threat of nuclear war, nuclear attack as we grew up in the cold war has diminished. the threat of nuclear terrorism has increased. we want to get the world's attention focused where we think it needs to be with these continuing efforts with al qaeda and others to get enough nuclear material to cause terrible havoc, destruction and loss of life somewhere in the world. >> president obama officials say is contemplating presenting a peace plan to help jump-start the process between the israelis and palestinians. what advice do you get from president obama as to whether or not he should offer a peace plan. >> i never share advice that i give directly to any president. >> hypothetically. >> i don't answer hypotheticals. i will say this, this administration from the very
first day, has made it clear. we are committed to pursuing a path of peace in the middle east. and to get the two parties to get to a point where they can engage in negotiations again to deal with these very difficult final status issues, our goal remains the resumption, relaunch of negotiations, both incorrect, eventually leading to direct, and that's our focus. >> secretary gates, turning to afghanistan, when you hear president karzai refer to the 87,000 troops under your command as occupiers, and suggests that he could envision joining the taliban, how does that affect you? does it make your blood boil? >> well, i think, you know, this is a man who is, first of all, a political leader. he has domestic audiences, as well as foreign audiences.
what i can tell you is that general mcchrystal continues to meet with him regularly. they have a very positive relationship. he gets very good cooperation out of president karzai, i think that the afghans are very concerned about their sovereignty. and they are very concerned that it be clear who is the president of afghanistan. and that he be treated with respect, because he is the representative of the people of afghanistan and their sovereignty. and i think that that kind of cooperative relationship certainly that he has with -- i can only speak for general mcchrystal's side of it. i think general mcchrystal thinks this is a man he can work with. he's taken him to kandahar, indicated he can go to kandahar repeatedly, as the kandahar campaign gets under way. i think the day-to-day working
relationship, certainly on the military side and between general mcchrystal and president karzai, is working well. and i think we, frankly, have to be sensitive in our own comments about president karzai in terms of being mindful that he is the embodiment of sovereignty for afghanistan, also in the way we treat him. >> secretary gates, with the recently released video that showed u.s. troops killing some civilians in iraq, i understand, the cause of war and i understand this is a very difficult situation. does the release of that video, and the fact that that happened, damage the image of the u.s. in the world? >> i don't think so. they are in a combat situation. the video doesn't show the broader picture of the firing that was going on at american troops.
it's obviously a hard thing to see. it's painful to see especially when you learn after the fact what was going on. but you talked about the fog of war. these people were operating in split second situations. we've investigated it very thoroughly. and it's unfortunate. it's clearly not helpful, but by the same token. i think it should not have any lasting -- consequences. >> secretary clinton, i want to ask you a couple of domestic questions.>> secretary clinton, ask you a couple of domestic questions.consequences. >> secretary clinton, i want to ask you a couple of domestic questions. first of all, there is a supreme court opening. what advice would you give president obama? >> well, i think president obama is fully aware of this great responsibility and opportunity
that justice stevens' retirement presents him. and as a former law professor, i know he is devoted to the constitution, and understands the critical role that the court plays in so many areas of our lives, as americans, and i'm confident that he's going to nominate a highly qualified person, and i hope that there will be a smooth confirmation, because whoever the president nominates will be qualified to sit on the court. and i think it would be really reassuring for the country to see republicans and democrats working together to confirm a nominee as soon as possible. >> and, lastly, health care reform. when you look at president obama's success that he was able to get this done, do you think, oh, that's how you do it, or do you think that the only way he was able to do it was because you and your husband stormed the castle first, and even if it didn't work, you laid the ground work for president obama to have succeeded? >> jake, i don't think either of
those things. i think, thank goodness, finally, the united states is going to have a system that will begin to meet the needs of all of our people, reform our insurance industry which is long overdue, begin to control costs which is absolutely critical, and, you know, it's been a long time coming. it goes back many decades. and i think it's -- an extraordinary historical achievement and i'm delighted to have seen it come to pass. >> secretary clinton, secretary gates, thanks so much for joining us. >> thank you. >> and the "roundtable" is next with george women, aryana hoverington, cokie robertson and sam donaldson and later the "sunday funnies".
for the rest of your life. endable income with more than 140 years of experience, pacific life can help you achieve your vision of the future. ask your financial professional about pacific life... the power to help you succeed. sfx: car crashing ♪ ♪ this is onstar. i've received a signal .you've been in a crash., i'll contact emergency services.
people get excited about tomorrow. i love yesterday. yesterday holds the answers. on a smarter planet, we can compare trillions of pieces of data about the past with what is happening now to help anticipate infectious disease, potential blackouts, when a delivery will arrive. i use the past to predict the future. i'm an ibmer. let's build a smarter planet.
somewhere in america... there's a home by the sea powered by the wind on the plains. there's a hospital where technology has a healing touch. there's a factory giving old industries new life. and there's a train that got a whole city moving again. somewhere in america, the toughest questions are answered every day. because somewhere in america, more than sixty thousand people spend every day answering them. emens. answers. ♪
finally -- good riddance. [ door closes ] hi, i'm from xfinity here to tell you about our exciting new xfinity service. is this a joke? no, sir, xfinity is not a joke. it's an exciting new brand that we just invented when we wanted... [ male announcer ] don't be fooled. xfinity is comcast. and verizon fios has 4 times more very satisfied customers than comcast. this is beyond cable. call the verizon center for customers with disabies this is fios. at 800-974-6006 tty/v. you know, with my work as a contributor on foxnews and my new tlc reality show, "sarah palin's alaska" just seemed the most logical state is launch my
own network. do you hate gotcha journalism? get ready for "hey journalist, i gotcha." where i reedit my interview with journ oolists to make it look like they were woefully unprepared. >> so, katie, what newspapers do you read? it's an easy question, katie. >> well, better luck next time. gotcha! >> the comedic stylings of tina fey as former alaska governor sarah palin. here to talk about sarah palin and all of the week's new, george will, arianna huffington of the huffington post, sam donaldson and cokie roberts. george, starting with you. white house officials think shorof ninating republican senator orrin hatch to the
supreme court, republican senators are going to object and pate their nominee as a radical. do any have a point? >> i'm not so sure. i think it's important for us to understand how radically and recently things have changed i the confirmation process. 1939 after this new deal fight with the supreme court. after the pecking plan by fdr. roosevelt nominates felix frankfurter. 12 days from the nomination through the hearing to the senate vote. nine days later he nominated william o. douglas. longest serving justice from all. 15 days from nomination to confirmation. stevens himself. the first justice appointed after roe v. wade goes through in three weeks. he's not asked one question on abortion and hearings, there's a five-minute debate on the floor. confirmed 98-0. as is, in 1986, scalia. it all changed in 1987. and i have a feeling that we may have burned over this forest and
people may not want to fight -- have armageddon yet again. >> you're leaving out haynesworth, carswell, we've had supreme court fights in that time period that are very nasty indeed. >> arianna, what do you think. is the white house ready for a fight? >> i think they like to do everything to avoid a fight. i think they're mistaken if they think they can avoid a fight. short of nominating liz cheney, there will be a fight. no matter who is nominated. you heard it this morning when jon kyl would not give any assurances that any of the front-runners were not ideological, and therefore, is anything including filibustering. that's why i think the president, upon whoever he thinks should nominate whoever he thinks is the best. and avoiding the fight because he won't be able to. >> you can nominate someone in the middle of the road and think that's the best. by the way, yes,
felix frankfurter, he thought he was nominating a liberal. wrong. they change. if this president decides his new criteria is to nominate someone to avoid a big fight, he's betrayed the people that elected him and what a lot of people think his feelings are on the supreme court. he should nominate not an extremist. off the cliff. but someone he thinks, let's see how he evolves, he'll stand up on the principles on the left, if he will, that he believes them. >> i'm not so sure he is so far to the left. >> i'm not sure either. >> i think that he is -- >> people who elected him thought he was to the left. >> some yes, some no. he got votes of moderates and independents who are not on the left. so -- but i don't see in that list of names that we've all now already gone over for a couple of days, there are a couple of people there -- >> let me interrupt one second, tell our viewers that some of our names are solicitor general,
elena kagan. judge merrick garland with the d.c. court of appeals. diane wood with the circuit court of appeals. and homeland security secretary janet napolitano. four of the names on the short list. >> out of that group, i think the president would be very wise, if that is in fact the group, to pick napolitano or somebody like her. is court is all made up of appellate judges. and those are not people with real-life experience. politicians talk about going on the court as taking the veil. these people have been veiled for a very long time. and to have somebody -- that was why sandra day o'connor was a wonderful justice to have somebody in the thicket is a very good thing to do. >> give me another earl warren. former governor of california. who got consensus on the california school decision, one man, one vote. and a lot of things at the time
conservatives thoughts was terrible. >> i have another that's not an appellate judge, that's elizabeth warren. we can clone her so she can also run the consumer protection agency, who would be a great nominee, a harvard law professor, expert on bankruptcy law and many ways in which economic policies, are impacting the middle class. exactly what the country needs right now. a compelling communicator. the thing about judge stevens is how rsuasive i was to move justice kennedy to give us those 5-3 decisions which are so critical. >> george, do you think real-world experience matters? >> it can. one of the reasons that dwight eisenhower began the trend away from nominating people with political experience was the feeling that earl warren on the court was more a politician than a jurist. charles edwards hughes, chief justice of new york. hugo black, a senator from alabama. potter stewart, councilman in
cincinnati. some sense of political force. but there is something to be said for that kind of diversity. also the case that the remaining eight went to harvard or yale law schools and the president could conceivably, because she's the youngest on his list, and that matters, nominate miss kagan who is head of harvard law school. >> speaking of diversity. sam, i would like to get you to weigh in on the fact that stevens is the last protestant on the court. the others are six catholics and two jews. you are a member of the suppressed minority. do you think it's important for president obama to consider religious diversity? >> i was dipped in the drainage ditch in rural new mexico at age 11, the baptist church. i don't think today we need to do that. take roe wade. all of the catholics on the court have not overturned roe v. wade. it could happen for other reasons, but i don't think the
religious test makes as much sense today as we thought it was in this country. >> there used to be a catholic seat, a jewish seat. a black seat finally a woman seat. now maybe there's an hispanic seat. >> it was never agreed upon. >> we'll fix that, arianna. if there's anything i can do. >> there's another test wielded by conservatives that say we're against judicial activism which they mean they want the court to defer to elected political branches of government. look what happened recently, the decision that most outraged conservatives, the key load decision on eminent domain, whether or not the state can seize property for the alleged public purpose for giving it to richer people who pay more taxes, the court did not defer to -- did defer to the city government in connecticut and enraged conservatives. the recent decision that most pleased conservatives, citizens united on overturning mccain, was the court not deferring to
the senate. >> that's very relevant right now,ecause you have these 14 states attorneys general saying that they want to overturn -- have the court overturn the recently passed health care law. i was just with my grandkids at ft. sumter s the notion of nullification made be extremely nervous because it was the first step toward the civil war. that is going to be a huge question before the court this fall. whether the congress should be upheld. >> and some republicans have -- said that's an important issue. senator kyl was a little noncommittal. >> jake, when it comes -- what you're talking about. we all listened to senators kyl and schumer.
seems like a lovefest -- >> until there's a nominee. >> and there follows the law. they never used the word law. people like scalia and think he's fair. >> and the same thing about main stream. >> the word fair and balanced, excuse me, fox, really is in the eye of the receiver. >> senator kyl was never willing to awer your question, whether he considered any of the froru front-runners to be ideologically too extreme. that's the reason why the president needs to decide who he wants to nominate and not try to avoid a fight. because just remember, both stevens and sutter were nominated by republican presidents. can you imagine nominating either of them. that's how far the party has came. >> stevens when he was first nominated was a moderate conservative. he evolved. >> as did the court. i interviewed jerry ford about his nomination of stevens,
a few years ago, right, shortly before he died. and he said -- he said he turned out to be one of the most liberal members of the current court which is not something i envisioned, but he said he's a very good legal scholar and i support him. >> yes, eisenhower said, when asked if he made some mistakes he said two of them are sitting on the supreme court. brennan and warren. but also, ar arianna, no democrat would nominate white or jack kennedy. >> the president has tried hard to make bipartisan decisions. the problem is liz cheney and giuliani and members of the peanut gallery think they're in a debating society, and whatever the president proposes, it's their job to oppose it no matter what. >> there was a cartoon that had "blank" is a fascist. "blank" is an anti-american, "blank" is a baby killer, we're just waiting for the nominee to
fill in the blank. >> i don't think there's going to be a good fight. assuming someone is nominated who meets all of the qualifications. >> you think there will be a filibuster? >> if the republicans go to the mat again as they did on health care and oppose someone who's qualified, except for the discussion we had an election, the president qualifies someone who is not in the scalia mode -- >> they think it's working for them. >> in the short run it's working, in the long run they could be back in the desert for 41 years. >> another thing that can put them back in the desert is this immigration bill. you heard senator kyl say the consensus isn't there. for the democrats, that doesn't matter. what matters is bring it up and have the republicans oppose it. then they really lose the hispanic vote for years to come. you had in the last election, three quarters of hispanics under 30 voted for barack obama. fewer than 20% voted for mccain. if that becomes the lasting
trend the republicans cannot become a majority party. n fact we determine who is around the nominee is the fact that it's around the type of the mid-term election. if the republicans feel they can energize their base by attacking their nominees, they will do that. that's what matters, short-term electoral gain. >> again, the point of my seminar on confirmation histy. it doesn't need to take that long. they could do this in three weeks. >> stevens was the last supreme court nomination that was not teleadvised. and i think that that obviously has played a significant role. i want to change topics for one second. you keep talking about liz cheney, she spoke at the southern republican leadership conference in new orleans this week and here she is, talking about how the administration treated afghan president hameed karzai. >> they dress him down on almost a lady basis and in the last 36
hours refused to say he was even an ally. i used to work on the middle east. there is a saying in the arab world that it is more dangerous to be america's friendhan it is to be our enemy and i fear very much in the age of obama that's proving to be true. >> first of all, afghanistan not part of the arab world. moving beyond that question, here you have the former vice president's daughter siding with hamid karzai that he said he could envision joining the taliban over president obama. whose side do you think karzai is on? >> there's a mild rebuke with mr. gates, he rebuked his own administration saying we have to be careful how we talk about this guy. i don't need to be careful. and i will answer your question. i think it's fair to ask whose side he's on. particularly since he said he'll join the other side if we don't fix elections which we did not
do in his country. he's the one shortly after president obama flies to visit him, president obama invites president of iran to give a fiery speech from iran and some munitions coming that are having devastating effect as roadside bombs. it's fair to ask. >> we don't have an alternative apparently. karzai, one re-election by fraud, i think that's established. he and his brother are corrupt. i think that's pretty well established. he's weird in many respects. many world leaders are. but who -- we're not going to depose him like we have in south vietnam. >> we do have an alternative. >> what is it? >> the alternative is get out. the alternative is to get out and it becomes more and more attractive every day. because karzai is our ally, and he's acting ut l utterly responsible -- >> what do we do if we get out? >> i highly recommend by everybody, which tells you
exactly why you need to get out. right now we're all preparing for this big push in kandahar. and objectives and reasons for doing that were, as given, are to improve local government, to provide jobs and to reduce corruption. >> if we get out now, who comes back? the taliban. >> the taliban is not our enemy. >> then we really prove that the united states -- >> then we throw in -- >> sam, let cokie talk. >> thank you, jake. that's never happened before. >> the -- we really prove at that point that america is a worse friend than enemy if we pull out at this point from afghanistan. but the problem we have, is when you ha a government that you back, that's corrupt, you have to walk a balanced beat, because the fact is that as gates just said, he is worried about sovereignty in afghanistan, we can't be seen as occupiers, which is the word that karzai
used, but on other hand, we can't show the people of afghanistan that we're all behind this corrupt guy, so you have to balance it out. and it's a hard thing to do. >> i'm glad i let you talk. >> thank you. thank you, sam. >> counter insurgency policy has enunciated by petraeus. is to have a reliable local partner which we do not have. our policy, under general petraeus is nation building, it has to be, because it is clear, hold and build. you can't build if you can't hold. you can't hold if you're coming home that. is our national policy. we're leaving in about 15 minutes. >> >> you think we should withdraw? >> i believe in the president's time table. get out. after giving due opportunity for this to work. >> i'm glad i let george talk. >> if our national security interest requires us to somehow try to stabilize afghanistan, not make a democracy of it, as we tried to do and i think will
eventually fail in iraq, then we have got to try to continue to stabilize it if that can be done and maybe the president's time table is too short. >> i think we need to show the people of the muslim world that we are reliable partners and we really mean it when we talk about human rights for women and girls, and that that is something they can count on us to promote and protect. >> i'm sorry, i have to cut it off. we have no time left. that's all the time we have for the round table. one other note, yesterday was the 40th anniversary of the break-up of the beatles. as we head to commercial listen to "get back." the "roundtable" will continue in the green room. we have a couple new futures, including fact checkers of the news makers. check it out. coming up here the "sunday funnies." because we believe in the strength of american businesses.
♪ ge capital understands what small businesses need to grow and create jobs. today, over 300,000 businesses rely on ge capital for the critical financing they need to help get our economy back on track. the american renewal is happening right now. ♪ and while it can never be fully answered, it helps to have a financial partner like northern trust.
by gaining a keen understanding of your financial needs, we're able to tailor a plan using a full suite... of sophiscated investment strategies and solutions. so whatever's around the corner can be faced with confidence. ♪ northern trust. look ahead with us at northerntrust.com. most people try to get rid of algae, and we're trying to grow it. the algae are very beautiful. they come in blue or red, golden, green. algae could be converted into biofuels... that we could someday run our cars on. in using algae to form biofuels, we're not competing with the food supply. and they absorb co2, so they help solve the greenhouse problem, as well. we're making a big commitment to finding out... just how much algae can help to meet... the fuel demands of the world.
released the names of ten service members killed in iraq and afghanistan. we'll be right back. because we believe in the strength of american businesses. ♪ ge capital understands what small businesses need to grow and create jobs. today, over 300,000 businesses rely on ge capital for the critical financing they need to help get our economy back on track. the american renewal is happening right now. to help♪ et our economy back on track. we are surrounded by information. human beings use their 5 senses to understand the world. on a smarter planet, organizations have their own set of senses
to analyzeata from multiple sources and make sense of it instantly. banks can anticipate credit fraud, trains can run with fewer delays. the more types of data we understand, the smarter we become. i help organizations sense the world around them. i'm an ibmer. let's build a smarter planet. it's like hardwiring the market right into my desktop. launch my watchlist -- a popping stock catches my eye. pull up the price chart. see what the analysts say. as ip back, streaming video news confirms what i thought. pull the trigger -- done. i can even do most of this on my smartphone. really, it's incredible. like nothing i've ever experienced. trade free for 60 days on redesigned power e-trade pro. and now, the sunday funnies.
>> the united states and russia has signed a weapons treaty. apparently russia was getting a little nervous when they heard we successfully mounted a warhead on a toyota prias. >> senator mccain said something i found striking. i never considered myself a maverick. >> that would be like rudy giuliani saying i never mentioned 9/11. what are you talking about? >> it's not like i can't believe it's not butter saying i never believed i was butter. i never believed that. it's on the container. >> when i heard duke beat butler. i thought must be a scandal at buckingham palace. >> did you hear duke beat butler? >> i'm sure he deserved it. >> just look at this new nike commercial. >> i want to find out what your feelings are, and did you learn anything. >> yes. he learned that porn stars are
not trustworthy confidants. >> we'll be right back. e'll be right back. and in our factories. to find cleaner, more efficient ways to power flight. and harness our technology... for newnergsolutions. around the globe, the people of boeing are working together, to build a better tomorrow. that's why we're here. ♪ tdd# 1-800-345-2550 to help with my investments. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 so where's that help when i need it? tdd# 1-800-345-2550 if i could change one thing... tdd# 1-800-345-2550 we'd all get a ton of great advice tdd# 1-800-345-2550 just for being a client. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 i mean, shouldn't i be able to talk about my money tdd# 1-800-345-2550 without it costing me a fortune? tdd# 1-800-345-2550 if i had my way, tdd# 1-800-345-2550 investment firms would be falling all over themselves tdd# 1-800-345-2550 to help me with my investments. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 (announcer) at charles schwab, investors rule.
the risk-takers. the visionaries. the entrepreneurs... who put it all on the line to build and run their own businesses. at at&t, we know somhing about that. our company started out in a small lab, with not much more than a dream. and today, we know it's small businesses that can create the jobs america needs. that's why at&t is investing billions to upgrade and build out our wired and wireless networks. making them faster, smarter,