MSNBC - SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY - Jay Sekulow Discusses the Judicial Filibuster Issue
MSNBC - SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY
April 27,
2005
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AL GORE: It is no accident that this assault on the integrity of our constitutional design has been fueled by a small group claiming special knowledge of God's will in American politics. They even claim that those of us who disagree with their point of view are waging war against people of faith. How dare they. How dare they.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOST: JOE SCARBOROUGH: He's back. Al Gore was keynote speaker today in Washington at one of 160 rallies held around the country by MoveOn.org. It's the liberal group that is jumping full force into the fight over faith and judges. They say they are out to stop the president's judges from being confirmed.
But do mainstream Democrats even want MoveOn.org and Al Gore in their corner?
With me to talk about it Ben Brandzel. Ben is the advocacy director for the MoveOn Political Action Committee. We also have Katrina Vanden Heuvel. She's editor of "The Nation," and also have Jay Sekulow of the American Center For Law and Justice.
Ben, let me begin with you. Do you agree with Al Gore that this is a battle between groups like MoveOn.org and Republicans who believe God is on their side?
BEN BRANDZEL, MOVEON.ORG PAC: I am not going to speculate on Republicans' beliefs about God being on their side.
I know what they say, but this is really about a battle between those who want to preserve checks and balances in our democracy and those who don't. At the moment, Republicans, some Republican leaders, like Senate Majority Bill Frist, are pandering to hard-right interests, including fundamentalists who do make those kinds of claims.
But this is not about religion vs. secularism. It's about absolute power vs. the checks and the balances we have had in our country for 200 years.
SCARBOROUGH: Katrina, you know, I heard what Al Gore said today. There's been a common thread that's gone through a lot of "New York Times" editorials, a lot of Democrats going on TV talking about a coming theocracy.
And yet, you have Howard Dean, obviously, the head of the Democratic National Committee, who had this to say about whose side Jesus was really on. Let's go ahead and put up that full screen right now.
He said that: "We need to talk about Christian values and how they're Democratic values. The Democratic Party is the party of that value, not the Republican Party."
Can you think of a time when a Republican senator or a Republican National Committee leader has said that Jesus is on our side and we are the party of Jesus' values?
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL, EDITOR, "THE NATION": I think Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist did just that last Sunday when he allied himself with televangelical leaders and he basically said that honest policy differences are not that, but he smeared those who have honest policy differences as people of no faith, as if saying our God is better than your God.
You know, Joe, I think a lot of people in this country are very scared today. They're scared because -- and Republicans and conservatives alike - - that there are people controlling this government who would like to merge church and state. The difference between a democracy and a theocracy is not necessarily secularism. It's pluralism.
And if those people are saying, our God is better than your God, we are going to impose our faith on this country in the laws and in the public's sphere, that is a very dangerous moment, and it's taking down what Ben was talking about earlier, the fundamental pillars of a democracy, that is, in an independent judiciary, rule of law, checks and balances.
That is what is at stake here, not just the filibuster. There's a much larger struggle for the heart and soul of a democratic America.
SCARBOROUGH: You know, Katrina, you -- again, you said the word theocracy and talked about the merging of church and state. I have read it in "The New York Times." I have read it in "The Nation." I've read it in a lot of magazines.
And yet I want to read this again, Howard Dean saying: "We need to talk about Christian values and how they're Democratic values. The Democratic Party is the party of that value, not the Republican Party."
I have Googled it. I Fact checked (ph) it. For the life of me, I have never, ever read a similar quote from a Republican leader, claiming that Christian values are the values of the Republican Party, not the Democrats. I just -- I would like a specific example, if you can think of that.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I can think of Jerry Falwell. I can think of Pat Robertson.
JAY SEKULOW, CHIEF COUNSEL, AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE: Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are not leaders of the Republican Party.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: They were never elected to any post.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I can think...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Howard Dean runs the Democratic Party.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I can think of Senator John Cornyn, who essentially said that those judges who rule in ways that violate Christian values may deserve the retribution they get.
SEKULOW: No, that's not what John Cornyn said, actually. So let's start...
(CROSSTALK)
VANDEN HEUVEL: His words were an incitement, were tantamount to incitement of violence.
SEKULOW: No, no, no, no, no.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: OK, Jay Sekulow, you respond.
VANDEN HEUVEL: For violating Christian values.
(CROSSTALK)
SEKULOW: Look, first of all, no one wants to deal with what's really going on here, not the concern over creation of a theocracy. How about senators doing their job and voting up or down?
You know, this discussion about a filibuster -- and, Katrina, you all ignore this on your side. And MoveOn.org certainly is not talking about this. Let's talk about the history of the filibuster. When was it most successfully utilized? To block the '64 Civil Rights Act, which ended up starting in the 1950s and took eight years to get through because it was what? Filibustered.
The Constitution of the United States says that the Senate is supposed to advise and consent. The minority in the Senate that's not allowing these nominees to go to the floor of the Senate for a vote, up or down, are violating, in my view, their constitutional obligations. And this filibuster is code word for taking. That's what actually the word means. It's a pirating. And that's exactly what's happened here.
And, look, I know Vice President Gore. My wife and I had dinner with him not too long ago with he and his wife. But let me tell you something. He is trying to relive a case from 2000 called Bush vs. Gore. But here's what happened. He lost.
(CROSSTALK)
SEKULOW: And you don't get to block these judges because you disagree with their ideology. I'm sorry. That's not the way the Constitution works.
(CROSSTALK)
VANDEN HEUVEL: But, Jay...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: I would like a straight answer from you all, if I could get it.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Sure.
SCARBOROUGH: And I am going to ask each of you -- and let's go quickly through it.
And I want to ask, can you think -- And, Ben, let me start with you. Can you think of a time -- has there ever been a time in the history of the United States Senate, over 200 years, that appellate court judges have been blocked by filibuster?
BRANDZEL: Are you asking me?
SCARBOROUGH: Yes, Ben. Yes.
BRANDZEL: Oh, well, the filibuster has a long history of being used in the case of judicial nominations.
SEKULOW: Has it ever been used to block an appellate court nominee? Answer, never.
BRANDZEL: That's not accurate.
(CROSSTALK)
VANDEN HEUVEL: But that's not pertinent.
SEKULOW: It is true.
(CROSSTALK)
BRANDZEL: Look at the 60 federal nominees to federal bench that Bill Clinton put up from 1995 to 2000 that were blocked, denied a vote.
SEKULOW: None of them were filibustered.
BRANDZEL: By a filibuster by the Republicans.
(CROSSTALK)
BRANDZEL: They were denied an up-or-down vote. But you can go all the way back. Look at Abe Fortas in 1968, nominated by Lyndon Johnson to be the...
SCARBOROUGH: Supreme Court justice.
BRANDZEL: Right. Or look -- it goes all the back to 1881, 200 years of this being used to block extreme judicial nominations and keep the courts fair.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on. Please stop. Katrina, I'm trying get -- I want an answer on this.
VANDEN HEUVEL: But...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Katrina, could I have an answer? Is there any time in the history of the United States Senate that you can name when appellate court judges have ever been blocked by a filibuster?
VANDEN HEUVEL: I believe People For the American Way says that they have been blocked, but the more...
SEKULOW: Never.
VANDEN HEUVEL: The larger question, the larger question -- and I agree with Jay that the filibuster as a tool has been used for good and bad purposes.
But the fact that we are now talking about blasting away, getting rid of the filibuster with this nuclear option I think is gutting -- is going to gut democracy. And the key here is that we need an independent judiciary. Finally, what is so striking is, these attacks on the judiciary from conservatives come at a time when the judiciary is quite conservative. These aren't the times of, impeach Earl Warren. These are times when 55 percent of the circuit and district courts in this country are made up of judges appointed by Republicans.
There's something larger going on in the right wing's attack on the judiciary. And I would argue it is to roll back the democratic rights and liberties of accountability, of checks and balances.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: All right.
BRANDZEL: It's a quest for absolute power.
SCARBOROUGH: Jay, let me -- let me ask you the same question, Jay. Has there ever been a time -- and I know you have studied it. Has there ever been a time when a filibuster has been used to do what the Democrats are doing to George Bush's nominees right now?
SEKULOW: Very quick answer, never.
And the Abe Fortas example is incorrect, because Abe Fortas removed his own nomination from the floor of the Senate before vote was going to take place, so there was no filibuster.
BRANDZEL: That's incorrect. There was a vote for cloture to end the filibuster.
(CROSSTALK)
SEKULOW: He did not have majority support on the floor of the Senate, withdrew himself.
BRANDZEL: He was never voted on the majority, but a majority voted for cloture.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Again, friends, friends, I am not talking about...
BRANDZEL: Not a supermajority.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on, friends. I'm not talking about the United States Supreme Court.
BRANDZEL: Your facts are wrong.
SEKULOW: There has never been one, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: I am talking about, again...
(CROSSTALK)
BRANDZEL: So, let's look at the 60 appellate judges that Bill Clinton was blocked from getting a vote.
(CROSSTALK)
SEKULOW: None of them were filibustered.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Listen, we can't all talk at the same time.
BRANDZEL: They were denied an up-or-down vote.
SCARBOROUGH: We can't all talk at the same time.
The filibuster -- listen -- and, friends, by the way, if you have an example when the filibuster has ever, ever been used the way it's being used right now, then let me know at Joe@MSNBC.com, because I really would like somebody to come forward with a name where it's happened.
Now, Ben, I want to move on to the bigger picture.
BRANDZEL: Sixty judges, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: And I want to run an ad, if we could, run an ad that MoveOn.org, your organization, has put out there. And I want to ask what's behind it. Let's go ahead and run that ad right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, MOVEON PAC AD)
NARRATOR: Republicans control the White House and the House of Representatives and the Senate. Republican presidents appointed the majority of judges on most of our appeals courts. But now the Republicans want absolute control of the entire government. So they're planning to break the rules to get more extremist judges approved.
A few courageous Republicans have said no to the radicals. Will your senators have the same courage? Call them.
MoveOn PAC is responsible for the content of this advertisement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: Ben, is this the single most important political question facing Republicans and Democrats alike today?
BRANDZEL: It very well might be.
We are talking about a fundamental institution in American history, 200 years of checks and balances that have kept our courts fair and our democracy strong. And the Republicans are looking to break the rules in a way they have never been broken before to eliminate the filibuster. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you are on. When the interests of the minority are that badly threatened, it's a very serious issue.
SCARBOROUGH: All right. Thanks a lot, Ben. Greatly appreciate it.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel and Jay Sekulow, thank you
also.MSNBC - SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY
April 27, 2005
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AL GORE: It is no accident that this assault on the integrity of our constitutional design has been fueled by a small group claiming special knowledge of God's will in American politics. They even claim that those of us who disagree with their point of view are waging war against people of faith. How dare they. How dare they.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOST: JOE SCARBOROUGH: He's back. Al Gore was keynote speaker today in Washington at one of 160 rallies held around the country by MoveOn.org. It's the liberal group that is jumping full force into the fight over faith and judges. They say they are out to stop the president's judges from being confirmed.
But do mainstream Democrats even want MoveOn.org and Al Gore in their corner?
With me to talk about it Ben Brandzel. Ben is the advocacy director for the MoveOn Political Action Committee. We also have Katrina Vanden Heuvel. She's editor of "The Nation," and also have Jay Sekulow of the American Center For Law and Justice.
Ben, let me begin with you. Do you agree with Al Gore that this is a battle between groups like MoveOn.org and Republicans who believe God is on their side?
BEN BRANDZEL, MOVEON.ORG PAC: I am not going to speculate on Republicans' beliefs about God being on their side.
I know what they say, but this is really about a battle between those who want to preserve checks and balances in our democracy and those who don't. At the moment, Republicans, some Republican leaders, like Senate Majority Bill Frist, are pandering to hard-right interests, including fundamentalists who do make those kinds of claims.
But this is not about religion vs. secularism. It's about absolute power vs. the checks and the balances we have had in our country for 200 years.
SCARBOROUGH: Katrina, you know, I heard what Al Gore said today. There's been a common thread that's gone through a lot of "New York Times" editorials, a lot of Democrats going on TV talking about a coming theocracy.
And yet, you have Howard Dean, obviously, the head of the Democratic National Committee, who had this to say about whose side Jesus was really on. Let's go ahead and put up that full screen right now.
He said that: "We need to talk about Christian values and how they're Democratic values. The Democratic Party is the party of that value, not the Republican Party."
Can you think of a time when a Republican senator or a Republican National Committee leader has said that Jesus is on our side and we are the party of Jesus' values?
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL, EDITOR, "THE NATION": I think Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist did just that last Sunday when he allied himself with televangelical leaders and he basically said that honest policy differences are not that, but he smeared those who have honest policy differences as people of no faith, as if saying our God is better than your God.
You know, Joe, I think a lot of people in this country are very scared today. They're scared because -- and Republicans and conservatives alike - - that there are people controlling this government who would like to merge church and state. The difference between a democracy and a theocracy is not necessarily secularism. It's pluralism.
And if those people are saying, our God is better than your God, we are going to impose our faith on this country in the laws and in the public's sphere, that is a very dangerous moment, and it's taking down what Ben was talking about earlier, the fundamental pillars of a democracy, that is, in an independent judiciary, rule of law, checks and balances.
That is what is at stake here, not just the filibuster. There's a much larger struggle for the heart and soul of a democratic America.
SCARBOROUGH: You know, Katrina, you -- again, you said the word theocracy and talked about the merging of church and state. I have read it in "The New York Times." I have read it in "The Nation." I've read it in a lot of magazines.
And yet I want to read this again, Howard Dean saying: "We need to talk about Christian values and how they're Democratic values. The Democratic Party is the party of that value, not the Republican Party."
I have Googled it. I Fact checked (ph) it. For the life of me, I have never, ever read a similar quote from a Republican leader, claiming that Christian values are the values of the Republican Party, not the Democrats. I just -- I would like a specific example, if you can think of that.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I can think of Jerry Falwell. I can think of Pat Robertson.
JAY SEKULOW, CHIEF COUNSEL, AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE: Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are not leaders of the Republican Party.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: They were never elected to any post.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I can think...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Howard Dean runs the Democratic Party.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I can think of Senator John Cornyn, who essentially said that those judges who rule in ways that violate Christian values may deserve the retribution they get.
SEKULOW: No, that's not what John Cornyn said, actually. So let's start...
(CROSSTALK)
VANDEN HEUVEL: His words were an incitement, were tantamount to incitement of violence.
SEKULOW: No, no, no, no, no.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: OK, Jay Sekulow, you respond.
VANDEN HEUVEL: For violating Christian values.
(CROSSTALK)
SEKULOW: Look, first of all, no one wants to deal with what's really going on here, not the concern over creation of a theocracy. How about senators doing their job and voting up or down?
You know, this discussion about a filibuster -- and, Katrina, you all ignore this on your side. And MoveOn.org certainly is not talking about this. Let's talk about the history of the filibuster. When was it most successfully utilized? To block the '64 Civil Rights Act, which ended up starting in the 1950s and took eight years to get through because it was what? Filibustered.
The Constitution of the United States says that the Senate is supposed to advise and consent. The minority in the Senate that's not allowing these nominees to go to the floor of the Senate for a vote, up or down, are violating, in my view, their constitutional obligations. And this filibuster is code word for taking. That's what actually the word means. It's a pirating. And that's exactly what's happened here.
And, look, I know Vice President Gore. My wife and I had dinner with him not too long ago with he and his wife. But let me tell you something. He is trying to relive a case from 2000 called Bush vs. Gore. But here's what happened. He lost.
(CROSSTALK)
SEKULOW: And you don't get to block these judges because you disagree with their ideology. I'm sorry. That's not the way the Constitution works.
(CROSSTALK)
VANDEN HEUVEL: But, Jay...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: I would like a straight answer from you all, if I could get it.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Sure.
SCARBOROUGH: And I am going to ask each of you -- and let's go quickly through it.
And I want to ask, can you think -- And, Ben, let me start with you. Can you think of a time -- has there ever been a time in the history of the United States Senate, over 200 years, that appellate court judges have been blocked by filibuster?
BRANDZEL: Are you asking me?
SCARBOROUGH: Yes, Ben. Yes.
BRANDZEL: Oh, well, the filibuster has a long history of being used in the case of judicial nominations.
SEKULOW: Has it ever been used to block an appellate court nominee? Answer, never.
BRANDZEL: That's not accurate.
(CROSSTALK)
VANDEN HEUVEL: But that's not pertinent.
SEKULOW: It is true.
(CROSSTALK)
BRANDZEL: Look at the 60 federal nominees to federal bench that Bill Clinton put up from 1995 to 2000 that were blocked, denied a vote.
SEKULOW: None of them were filibustered.
BRANDZEL: By a filibuster by the Republicans.
(CROSSTALK)
BRANDZEL: They were denied an up-or-down vote. But you can go all the way back. Look at Abe Fortas in 1968, nominated by Lyndon Johnson to be the...
SCARBOROUGH: Supreme Court justice.
BRANDZEL: Right. Or look -- it goes all the back to 1881, 200 years of this being used to block extreme judicial nominations and keep the courts fair.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on. Please stop. Katrina, I'm trying get -- I want an answer on this.
VANDEN HEUVEL: But...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Katrina, could I have an answer? Is there any time in the history of the United States Senate that you can name when appellate court judges have ever been blocked by a filibuster?
VANDEN HEUVEL: I believe People For the American Way says that they have been blocked, but the more...
SEKULOW: Never.
VANDEN HEUVEL: The larger question, the larger question -- and I agree with Jay that the filibuster as a tool has been used for good and bad purposes.
But the fact that we are now talking about blasting away, getting rid of the filibuster with this nuclear option I think is gutting -- is going to gut democracy. And the key here is that we need an independent judiciary. Finally, what is so striking is, these attacks on the judiciary from conservatives come at a time when the judiciary is quite conservative. These aren't the times of, impeach Earl Warren. These are times when 55 percent of the circuit and district courts in this country are made up of judges appointed by Republicans.
There's something larger going on in the right wing's attack on the judiciary. And I would argue it is to roll back the democratic rights and liberties of accountability, of checks and balances.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: All right.
BRANDZEL: It's a quest for absolute power.
SCARBOROUGH: Jay, let me -- let me ask you the same question, Jay. Has there ever been a time -- and I know you have studied it. Has there ever been a time when a filibuster has been used to do what the Democrats are doing to George Bush's nominees right now?
SEKULOW: Very quick answer, never.
And the Abe Fortas example is incorrect, because Abe Fortas removed his own nomination from the floor of the Senate before vote was going to take place, so there was no filibuster.
BRANDZEL: That's incorrect. There was a vote for cloture to end the filibuster.
(CROSSTALK)
SEKULOW: He did not have majority support on the floor of the Senate, withdrew himself.
BRANDZEL: He was never voted on the majority, but a majority voted for cloture.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Again, friends, friends, I am not talking about...
BRANDZEL: Not a supermajority.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on, friends. I'm not talking about the United States Supreme Court.
BRANDZEL: Your facts are wrong.
SEKULOW: There has never been one, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: I am talking about, again...
(CROSSTALK)
BRANDZEL: So, let's look at the 60 appellate judges that Bill Clinton was blocked from getting a vote.
(CROSSTALK)
SEKULOW: None of them were filibustered.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Listen, we can't all talk at the same time.
BRANDZEL: They were denied an up-or-down vote.
SCARBOROUGH: We can't all talk at the same time.
The filibuster -- listen -- and, friends, by the way, if you have an example when the filibuster has ever, ever been used the way it's being used right now, then let me know at Joe@MSNBC.com, because I really would like somebody to come forward with a name where it's happened.
Now, Ben, I want to move on to the bigger picture.
BRANDZEL: Sixty judges, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: And I want to run an ad, if we could, run an ad that MoveOn.org, your organization, has put out there. And I want to ask what's behind it. Let's go ahead and run that ad right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, MOVEON PAC AD)
NARRATOR: Republicans control the White House and the House of Representatives and the Senate. Republican presidents appointed the majority of judges on most of our appeals courts. But now the Republicans want absolute control of the entire government. So they're planning to break the rules to get more extremist judges approved.
A few courageous Republicans have said no to the radicals. Will your senators have the same courage? Call them.
MoveOn PAC is responsible for the content of this advertisement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: Ben, is this the single most important political question facing Republicans and Democrats alike today?
BRANDZEL: It very well might be.
We are talking about a fundamental institution in American history, 200 years of checks and balances that have kept our courts fair and our democracy strong. And the Republicans are looking to break the rules in a way they have never been broken before to eliminate the filibuster. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you are on. When the interests of the minority are that badly threatened, it's a very serious issue.
SCARBOROUGH: All right. Thanks a lot, Ben. Greatly appreciate it.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel and Jay Sekulow, thank you
also.MSNBC - SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY
April 27, 2005
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AL GORE: It is no accident that this assault on the integrity of our constitutional design has been fueled by a small group claiming special knowledge of God's will in American politics. They even claim that those of us who disagree with their point of view are waging war against people of faith. How dare they. How dare they.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOST: JOE SCARBOROUGH: He's back. Al Gore was keynote speaker today in Washington at one of 160 rallies held around the country by MoveOn.org. It's the liberal group that is jumping full force into the fight over faith and judges. They say they are out to stop the president's judges from being confirmed.
But do mainstream Democrats even want MoveOn.org and Al Gore in their corner?
With me to talk about it Ben Brandzel. Ben is the advocacy director for the MoveOn Political Action Committee. We also have Katrina Vanden Heuvel. She's editor of "The Nation," and also have Jay Sekulow of the American Center For Law and Justice.
Ben, let me begin with you. Do you agree with Al Gore that this is a battle between groups like MoveOn.org and Republicans who believe God is on their side?
BEN BRANDZEL, MOVEON.ORG PAC: I am not going to speculate on Republicans' beliefs about God being on their side.
I know what they say, but this is really about a battle between those who want to preserve checks and balances in our democracy and those who don't. At the moment, Republicans, some Republican leaders, like Senate Majority Bill Frist, are pandering to hard-right interests, including fundamentalists who do make those kinds of claims.
But this is not about religion vs. secularism. It's about absolute power vs. the checks and the balances we have had in our country for 200 years.
SCARBOROUGH: Katrina, you know, I heard what Al Gore said today. There's been a common thread that's gone through a lot of "New York Times" editorials, a lot of Democrats going on TV talking about a coming theocracy.
And yet, you have Howard Dean, obviously, the head of the Democratic National Committee, who had this to say about whose side Jesus was really on. Let's go ahead and put up that full screen right now.
He said that: "We need to talk about Christian values and how they're Democratic values. The Democratic Party is the party of that value, not the Republican Party."
Can you think of a time when a Republican senator or a Republican National Committee leader has said that Jesus is on our side and we are the party of Jesus' values?
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL, EDITOR, "THE NATION": I think Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist did just that last Sunday when he allied himself with televangelical leaders and he basically said that honest policy differences are not that, but he smeared those who have honest policy differences as people of no faith, as if saying our God is better than your God.
You know, Joe, I think a lot of people in this country are very scared today. They're scared because -- and Republicans and conservatives alike - - that there are people controlling this government who would like to merge church and state. The difference between a democracy and a theocracy is not necessarily secularism. It's pluralism.
And if those people are saying, our God is better than your God, we are going to impose our faith on this country in the laws and in the public's sphere, that is a very dangerous moment, and it's taking down what Ben was talking about earlier, the fundamental pillars of a democracy, that is, in an independent judiciary, rule of law, checks and balances.
That is what is at stake here, not just the filibuster. There's a much larger struggle for the heart and soul of a democratic America.
SCARBOROUGH: You know, Katrina, you -- again, you said the word theocracy and talked about the merging of church and state. I have read it in "The New York Times." I have read it in "The Nation." I've read it in a lot of magazines.
And yet I want to read this again, Howard Dean saying: "We need to talk about Christian values and how they're Democratic values. The Democratic Party is the party of that value, not the Republican Party."
I have Googled it. I Fact checked (ph) it. For the life of me, I have never, ever read a similar quote from a Republican leader, claiming that Christian values are the values of the Republican Party, not the Democrats. I just -- I would like a specific example, if you can think of that.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I can think of Jerry Falwell. I can think of Pat Robertson.
JAY SEKULOW, CHIEF COUNSEL, AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE: Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are not leaders of the Republican Party.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: They were never elected to any post.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I can think...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Howard Dean runs the Democratic Party.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I can think of Senator John Cornyn, who essentially said that those judges who rule in ways that violate Christian values may deserve the retribution they get.
SEKULOW: No, that's not what John Cornyn said, actually. So let's start...
(CROSSTALK)
VANDEN HEUVEL: His words were an incitement, were tantamount to incitement of violence.
SEKULOW: No, no, no, no, no.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: OK, Jay Sekulow, you respond.
VANDEN HEUVEL: For violating Christian values.
(CROSSTALK)
SEKULOW: Look, first of all, no one wants to deal with what's really going on here, not the concern over creation of a theocracy. How about senators doing their job and voting up or down?
You know, this discussion about a filibuster -- and, Katrina, you all ignore this on your side. And MoveOn.org certainly is not talking about this. Let's talk about the history of the filibuster. When was it most successfully utilized? To block the '64 Civil Rights Act, which ended up starting in the 1950s and took eight years to get through because it was what? Filibustered.
The Constitution of the United States says that the Senate is supposed to advise and consent. The minority in the Senate that's not allowing these nominees to go to the floor of the Senate for a vote, up or down, are violating, in my view, their constitutional obligations. And this filibuster is code word for taking. That's what actually the word means. It's a pirating. And that's exactly what's happened here.
And, look, I know Vice President Gore. My wife and I had dinner with him not too long ago with he and his wife. But let me tell you something. He is trying to relive a case from 2000 called Bush vs. Gore. But here's what happened. He lost.
(CROSSTALK)
SEKULOW: And you don't get to block these judges because you disagree with their ideology. I'm sorry. That's not the way the Constitution works.
(CROSSTALK)
VANDEN HEUVEL: But, Jay...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: I would like a straight answer from you all, if I could get it.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Sure.
SCARB