The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MARGARET WARNER: Good evening. I'm Margaret Warner. Jim Lehrer has the day off. On the NewsHour tonight the worst outbreak of violence in the Middle East in four years; a campaign issue and debate about the Supreme Court with Congressman Barney Frank and Asa Hutchinson and court observer Stuart Taylor and Anthony Lewis; a report from Oregon about Ralph Nader's impact on the presidential campaign, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay about the power of memory. It all follows our summary of the news this Monday

NEWS SUMMARY

MARGARET WARNER: Fighting between Israelis and Palestinians continued today across the West Bank, Gaza, and Arab towns inside Israel. The Israelis deployed tanks, missiles, and helicopter gunships. Palestinian fighters were armed with stones, rifles, and automatic weapons. At least 51 people have died in the violence since Thursday, including more than a dozen today. At the White House President Clinton urged both sides to stop the fighting.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: In the short run it's hard even because they can't do anything on the peace process until people stop dying and the violence stops. But when the smoke clears here, it might actually be a spur to both sides as a sober reminder to what the alternative peace could be. So we have to hope and pray that will be the result.

MARGARET WARNER: We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. The opponents of Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic launched a general strike today in hopes of forcing him to accept the results of last week's election. We have a report from John Draper of Independent Television News.

JOHN DRAPER: The pickets were out early in the capital - main roads were blocked as was the Branka Bridge connecting the old and new parts of the city. Buses and taxis went on strike; schools and shops closed. People who used their votes a week ago to remove Slobodan Milosevic took direct action today to try and finish the job. And while the middle classes rose up in Belgrade, workers in other parts of the country joined in. Employees at this petrochemical plant at Pancev went on strike joining thousands of coal miners who began their stoppage over the weekend. There's a real prospect now of power cuts bringing their country to a halt. But perhaps more significant were the ordinary workers who traditionally back President Milosevic are now deserting him. This evening he addressed the nation in an unplanned TV broadcast. He accused the West of being behind a plot to break up Yugoslavia, andhe was adamant there would have to be another round of elections this coming Sunday. So as this first day of a week of protests draws to a close both sides are taking a hard line. The demonstrators say they'll bring Serbia to a complete halt by Wednesday. Mr. Milosevic says he will not stand down; this week will prove a severe test of wills for both sides.

MARGARET WARNER: Russian President Vladimir Putin offered to mediate between Milosevic and the opposition. The Milosevic government has not responded publicly to the offer. The U.S. Supreme Court today rejected a lawsuit brought by 31 members of Congress against President Clinton over last year's NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Without comment, the court let stand a lower court ruling against the lawmakers. They had argued the President violated the 1973 War Powers Act by ordering U.S. troops into the conflict without congressional approval. Also today, the beginning of the Court's new term; Justices let stand a lower court ruling ordering Exxon Mobil to pay $5 billion in punitive damages in the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The 1989 disaster polluted more than a thousand miles of shoreline in Alaska. We'll have more on the high court later in the program. In the presidential race today Governor Bush headed from Texas to Boston for the first presidential debate tomorrow night. He stopped on the way for a rally in West Virginia, a state heavily dependent on coal mining. He said he'd work to increase the use of coal and at the same time protect the environment. Vice President Gore will travel to Boston tomorrow. Today he's in Sarasota, Florida, continuing his debate preparation. He's been there since Saturday, conferring with advisers and a number of citizen coaches, including a Pennsylvania steelworker, a Georgia firefighter, and an Illinois high school freshman. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to violence in the Middle East, the Supreme Court as a campaign issue; the Nader factor; and a Roger Rosenblatt essay.

FOCUS - NEW VIOLENCE

MARGARET WARNER: The violence in the Middle East continued to escalate today. It was touched off last Thursday when Israel's right wing opposition leader former Defense Minister Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, a site holy to both Jews and Muslims. We begin our coverage with this report by John Irvine of Independent Television News.

JOHN IRVINE: There is a huge turnout for each and every Palestinian funeral. These people regard their dead as martyrs, killed in a religious war over Jerusalem, and therefore worthy of being honored. And appearing at each funeral are many more men prepared to die. This is one of several funerals taking place on the West Bank today. And it is not only an outpouring of grief. It is a call to arms, a call for retaliation. So after the funerals, the violence resumed. Some of today's fiercest clashes were again on the Gaza Strip, where Palestinians attacked an Israeli lookout post that protects a small Jewish settlement. The Israelis have accused the Palestinian security forces of not doing enough to quell the rioting; at first they tried to deter the youths but later the Palestinian policemen joined in the fighting themselves. What will concern many Israelis is the spread of the violence from the occupied territories to Israel itself. For the second day running, the town of Nazareth was virtually cut off, Arabs who live inside Israel make up nearly 20% of the population, so they pose a sizable threat. The trouble, however, has been most widespread in the West Bank, where stone throwers have againbeen out in force, despite being outgunned by the Israelis. More than 30 Palestinians have been killed, and serious questions are being asked about the use of live ammunition. The Israelis are fully aware of worldwide abhorrence at the death of 12-year-old Mohammed Al-Durah, who with his father got pinned down during a gun battle. For 45 minutes, they cowered, terrified in no man's land, but eventually the Israelis killed the boy. They said afterwards they had not seen him. The father, Jamal, survived; he said that after they were both shot his son told him not to be frightened. The Israelis have brought in the tools of war, but they have not been used, for this has become a popular uprising and it would be difficult to justify overwhelming force against stone throwers.

MARGARET WARNER: To explore what's behind the violence, and what can be done to stop it, we turn to Khalil Jahshan, vice president of the American Arab Anti- Discrimination Committee, and David Makovsky, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He's the former executive editor of the Jerusalem Post, and diplomatic correspondent for the "Ha'aretz" Newspaper in Israel.

Welcome, Gentlemen. Khalil Jahshan, there have been provocations before in the last few years, but it's never touched off this kind of violence. What caused the situation to blow up so quickly and escalate so rapidly?

KHALIL JAHSHAN: Well, as you just mentioned, certainly there were provocations this time; of course the latest one was the visit by Mr. Sharon to Harim Sharif, in which the Israelis call the Temple Mount, at this crucial time, at this particular time. But really the reason for this uprising, renewed uprising is the built up frustrations over the past ten years, as a matter of fact -- but particularly since the latest Camp David where we have a typical frustration of rising expectations. People were anticipating some type of agreement. The Palestinians faced a lot of pressures - a humiliating pressure forcing the Palestinian side to postpone once again Palestinian statehood, and nothing has happened So the situation was tense and everybody knew that it's going to take only a tiny little kind of incident of some sort or provocation of some sort to break the camel's back and that's what happened, I think, with Sharon's visit to Al-Harim Sharif.

MARGARET WARNER: David Makovsky, do you see it that way, that the Sharon visit was just the spark that lit this?

DAVID MAKOVSKY: Yeah, I don't think the Sharon visit was useful. It should be pointed out that Sharon's visit ended peacefully. But then what happened was a series of events where Mr. Arafat's Fatah Tanzime started clashes it seems like in 20 different locations; there was stoning of the Wailing Wall, the Jewish holy site. So, yes, there was a lot of sensitivity at this juncture and therefore I think Sharon's visit was not helpful. But I think you got to look at everything else that was going on and what seems to be used, once there are official Palestinian forces are involved it seems that it was used to help improve Mr. Arafat's negotiating position at a very sensitive juncture -- believing somehow clashes will improve the bargaining position. So I think there was genuine passion, I think it was real. But I think there was fuel that was doused by flames, by the Palestinian officialdom. I think that's regrettable.

MARGARET WARNER: That is a question, Mr. Jahshan, that -- in effect -- Sharon said he thought this was preplanned by Arafat all along. I mean, is this being sanctioned and in some way encouraged bythe Palestinian leadership?

KHALIL JAHSHAN: I don't think so. I think typical of the main uprising that produced the peace process back in '87, I mean, people kept saying that -- as if Arafat has some kind of remote control and with the push of a button he can move, you know, 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to the street. That's not the case. These are genuine feelings, genuine frustrations that are being expressed day in, day out, particularly over the past five days. And one cannot honestly simplify things by saying, all we have to do is blame a call to arms or to Jihad by either Arafat or some kind of a pulpit minister here or there, or even by Sharon. There are some genuine frustrations on the part of the Palestinians. The peace process has not brought home the peace dividend that the Palestinians had been promised ten years ago.

MARGARET WARNER: But are you saying you think Yasser Arafat has no control over the situation?

KHALIL JAHSHAN: I don't think he has total control. Nobody has total control. Certainly Yasser Arafat is the Palestinian leader and he is in charge of the Palestinian Authority and has a constituency of some 30 or 35% of the Palestinians who support him. But I doubt that these types of uprisings can be either started or stopped dramatically by Yasser Arafat or anybody else.

DAVID MAKOVSKY: Can I -

MARGARET WARNER: Yes.

DAVID MAKOVSKY: Just for a second, because Marwan Bargouti heads Mr. Arafat's own Fatah Party. It would be like the Democratic Party is Mr. Clinton's party, and Mr. Bargouti says openly on the record yes, that we did this in all these different places, we're not talking about "Hamas", the Islamic militant who were Mr. Arafat's rivals. This is his own party and that's the source of concern, because it raises issues of trust, like how do you resolve issues peacefully if the other side could always resort to violence? There's just no excuse for violence. But I agree with Khalil that there's genuine passions, and that's why we have to go back to the table and work towards a peace deal, because I fear if we don't, if we push these issues under the rug, the violence will get worse. So don't get me wrong. I'm not ignoring Khalil's point of real passions. My fear is, though, how these passions are being exacerbated by people like Mr. Bargouti of Mr. Arafat's own Fatah Party.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, what about Prime Minister Barak's role and responsibility here - do you think - one, do you think the Israelis overreacted? Do you think he could stop the violence?

KHALIL JAHSHAN: I don't think he could stop the violence either - on the country. I'm afraid Mr. Barak is in a serious predicament as we all know, politically. And I have a feeling that the situation is going to give him a way to rehabilitate himself. I mean, the intensity of the Israeli reaction, as your report described, resorting to unprecedented levels of violence bringing in helicopters, bringing in tanks and so on, I mean, all this is an attempt by Mr. Barak to rehabilitate himself,.

MARGARET WARNER: You're talking about politically?

KHALIL JAHSHAN: Of course, politically. And appealing basically to the radical elements in Israel that he is not the wimp that they have perceived over the past few months trying to sell Israel down the drain, and to give the shop to the Palestinians.

MARGARET WARNER: David, how do you see it?

DAVID MAKOVSKY: Oh, I refer to your own ITN setup piece that you just had that Israel has avoided using overwhelming force.

KHALIL JAHSHAN: If that's not overwhelming, I'm not sure what overwhelming is, David. Come on.

DAVID MAKOVSKY: But the point is, that this violence has to stop, Mr. Barak has been calling Mr. Arafat for what, three days now, asking him please use whatever you can to stop, we will stop. This is not a political maneuver by Barak. I think you know, Khalil, that Mr. Barak has bet his whole political fortune and his own life, frankly, given the concessions he wants to make in Jerusalem, he's putting his own life on the line in this peace agreement. To suggest that he's somehow hedging his bets by doing this, I think, is outrageous.

MARGARET WARNER: David Makovsky -

DAVID MAKOVSKY: And, therefore, we have to think of a way to get back to the table.

MARGARET WARNER: But do you think, given the escalating violence, the deaths and also the fact that there's much heavier fire power on both sides, do you think this could, this is the beginning of a major conflagration?

DAVID MAKOVSKY: Yeah, there's the chance, I mean both sides have to look over the abyss and see that they have to pull back. And I think clearly Barak wants to do it, maybe Mr. Arafat wants to do it, I hope Khalil is right. But let's put it this way. If they don't reach a solution on issues like Jerusalem and the holy sites, then I fear a political conflict of the last 50 years is going to spill over into an uncontrollable religious war. This doesn't serve anybody. And therefore it was regrettable to me that when there's been all these ideas, how do we share the Temple Mount, it's Mr. Arafat says no, no, no, no. And that sort of approach will bring us to deadlock, not to a breakthrough.

MARGARET WARNER: There are people on the ground who are also using the term war. Do you think that's in fact where this could head?

KHALIL JAHSHAN: It has the potential to do so, not in the sense of a conventional war, I don't think most Arab countries have for all practical purposes resigned the Arab Israeli conflict. But - as David just said -- you have the potential here for some serious deterioration into some sort of a religious-based conflict between radicals on both sides. And what is happening is not just a simple clash here. When you talk about 47 Palestinians killed thus far in the past five days, it's important for your viewers to realize, this is the equivalent of 3,000 Americans killed, shot on the streets of the United States in five days. You're talking about 1,000 injuries. This is the equivalent of 86,000 people shot people and injured in five. So the Palestinian society now is in a very, very serious turmoil and turbulence as a result of this reaction. Certainly they are shocked by the intensity and the speed with which this Intifada has taken place, but they are also angered by the intensity of these reactions.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. David Makovsky, what is it going to take to stop the violence? I've just received word that Madeleine Albright, the Secretary of State is now going to meet in Paris with, she hopes, I guess, Mr. Barak and Mr. Arafat on Wednesday. But, I mean, can the international community do anything? What will it take?

DAVID MAKOVSKY: Yeah, okay. First, the most basic thing that would stop the killing like this would be if Mr. Arafat would go on Voice of Palestine Radio and Palestine television and say I urge you, everyone, stay home, don't join the mobs in the street and don't foment violence. His personal word would speak volumes, point one. Point two, I think Madeline Albright is right to make the last push to bring the sides together. There's a deadline at the end of October, the Israeli parliament reconvenes and Mr. Barak could be toppled by critics who question long term Palestinians intentions, and unfortunately this violence only fuels that. So with very little time and there has to be a way to think of compromise ideas, on the issue of Jerusalem, and the remaining points of Camp David. It would just be a horrible tragedy that at the very moment that peace seemed within grasp, within hairs away, this conflict is kind of reverting back to a primordial religious state. We've come so long after 50 years, now is the time to close the deal and not to rip it apart.

MARGARET WARNER: What do you think it will take it to stop it? Is there any chance Arafat would do what David Makovsky just suggested?

KHALIL JAHSHAN: I think what needs to be done right now within that limited window of opportunity left is for the administration to put on the table in a courageous manner and a moral manner, which has been missing thus far, some serious American ideas to bridge the gap between the two sides -- ideas that are based on international legitimacy, and that once and for all, over the past 52 years this issues we have not dealt with, the issue of refugees, the issue of Jerusalem, the issue of the settlement, all these issues have to be reconciled in a straight forward manner, in a fair manner that caters both to the national interest of the Palestinian people and the national interest of Israel.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Thank you both very much.

MARGARET WARNER: Still to come on the NewsHour, politics and the Supreme Court; the Nader factor in the pacific northwest; and a Roger Rosenblatt essay. Ray Suarez has our campaign issue and debate on the Supreme Court.

RAY SUAREZ: Liberal and conservative activists rallied outside the Supreme Court today, warning voters the future of the court is at stake in next month's presidential election. The President of the United States-- and only the president-- has the power to name justices to the highest court in the land. If one or more of the nine Justices retires or dies in the next four years, the next President, Republican Governor George W. Bush or Democratic Vice President Al Gore, will have the chance to change the face of the current court. Three of the high court Justices are over 70. The oldest, 80-year-old John Paul Stevens, is considered a liberal. 76-year-old chief Justice William Rehnquist is a conservative. He presided over the impeachment trial of President Clinton in the Senate last year. And 70-year-old Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the high bench, is a swing voter who has joined conservatives on some occasions and liberals on others. Another Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, has been ill. She was treated for colon cancer earlier this year. The 67-year-old votes with the court's liberal bloc. The remaining five Justices are all under 65, and all are in good health. A new Justice could tip the balance, especially since many decisions are issued with a slim one-vote margin. Last term, 20 out of 73 cases were decided by 5-4. At the conventions, both candidates addressed one of the most contentious issues: Whether the court should take cases allowing it to revisit aspects of the landmark 1973 "Roe V. Wade" decision giving women the right to have an abortion.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: Let there be no doubt: I will protect and defend a woman's right to choose. The last thing this country needs is a Supreme Court that overturns "Roe V. Wade."

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: I will lead our nation toward a culture that values life: The life of the elderly and the sick, the life of theyoung, and the life of the unborn.

RAY SUAREZ: But on the campaign trail, the candidates have said little about who they'd name to the court if they get the chance, even when the youngest citizens have asked.

CHILD: Who do you plan to appoint to the Supreme Court? And I ask this because even though we aren't old enough to vote yet, whoever you appoint to the Supreme Court is going to have a major impact on our lives.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: That's exactly right. I'm not telling you who I'm putting on there because I don't know yet, but I do know the characteristics. Sounds like you might not be President, you might be the chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I'm going to put people on there who strictly interpret the Constitution, and who've got a judicial temperament necessary to do the job.

RAY SUAREZ: Gore was asked about the Supreme Court on the NewsHour in March.

JIM LEHRER: And just so we understand it straight on, you will not appoint anybody to the Supreme Court who would vote to overturn "Roe V. Wade"?

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: I will insist upon Justices who have an interpretation of the Constitution that's in keeping with the general philosophical approach that I share. You know, I believe the Constitution is a living and breathing document. And that there are liberties found in the Constitution, such as the right to privacy.

RAY SUAREZ: For more on what's at stake for the Supreme Court this presidential campaign we turn to two congressional spokesmen for the Bush and Gore campaigns: Republican Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas and Democrat Barney Frank of Massachusetts. They are both on the House Judiciary Committee. Joining them are two Supreme Court watchers: Stuart Taylor, legal affairs correspondent for "National Journal" and "Newsweek," and Anthony Lewis, a columnist with the "New York Times." Representative Hutchinson, this is one of the longest periods of the stable membership of the court in American history. These nine men and women have been there for six years with no changes. What should voters be thinking about this fall, as they consider who should be the next President and how that may change the court?

REP. ASA HUTCHINSON: Well, I think first they have to realize how significantly it could change the court -- that in the last term, I think there were 70 decisions, one-third of those were a 5-4 decision on a whole host of issues, from partial birth abortion to the case involving the Boy Scouts -- 5-4 decisions. So if the next President would appoint one, two or three, then it could be a significant change in to tilt the balance of the court. Governor Bush has indicated that he does not have any litmus test for those; he wants to make sure that they are well qualified, reflects his general philosophy. If you look at his record in Texas, his appointees represent all walks of life. 50% of them were women and minorities. And so I think that's how he would approach appointees to the United States Supreme Court.

RAY SUAREZ: And Congressman Frank, when it moved to you, what would you ask voters to keep in mine with the makeup of the Supreme Court and who the next President will be?

REP. BARNEY FRANK: The Supreme Court is closely balanced on some very important issues. I think if Al Gore wins, the right of a woman to decide whether or not she remains pregnant will remain a constitutional right. It is overwhelmingly likely if George Bush wins, given his strong opposition to legalized abortion and the nature of the court and the fact that it's closely balanced, that Roe versus Wade would either be overturned or so substantially diminished as to give women very little protection. The other area that very much bothers me is the current five-member majority, which George Bush would strengthen, because he's admired, he said particularly, two of the most conservative Justices, Scalia and Thomas; they have consistently, I think, in a burst of judicial activism, revised constitutional doctrine and stricken many federal laws - literally a number of them -- which give citizens the right to sue states if they're being mistreated. This court by a five-member majority said if your state decides to violate your patent, you have no recourse because of the 11th Amendment. And as far as activism is concerned, I thought it was a striking moment in Supreme Court history when Justice Scalia, the supposed restrained Justice, blamed Justice Breyer for being too literal with his reading of the 11th Amendment. So you have a new trend here in the court, where this five-member, very conservative, very activist majority has stricken a number of federal laws that give people protection. And if you don't get Al Gore elected, I think the likelihood is that the Americans with Disabilities Act, which guarantees to citizens the right to physical access to facilities in their own state and city government is likely to be thrown out by this court.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, what do we know about Al Gore's voting report as a legislator, his public pronouncements as Vice President that might guide us, might indicate what he would be looking for in a Justice?

REP. BARNEY FRANK: Oh, I think both of them are probably looking for, and they dance around this, Justices who be inclined to agree with their views on the very controversial issues. A President is unlikely to be able to predict what's going to be controversial, six, eight, ten years down the road, and there a Justice might vote differently than the President. But I think it's very likely that George Bush will appoint Justices who would overturn Roe versus Wade, and say abortion was not a constitutional right -- Al Gore would appoint people who would maintain it. And with regard to the right to sue on the basis of discrimination, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the AIDS Discrimination Act, Bush has already said his two models are Scalia and Thomas, who have taken away that right from private citizens and said the states have this power that no federal agency can deal with, and I think Gore would clearly be on the other side.

RAY SUAREZ: Congressman Hutchinson, let me hear your response to your colleague, Barney Frank.

REP. BARNEY FRANK: Well, first of all, I think that there's the intent on the part of the Gore campaign to put fear in the American people. Again, if you look at the appointees of Governor Bush in Texas, 50% of those appointees were women and minorities. The New York Times said that his appointees actually had a moderating influence on the court. Certainly there's a difference of view. Governor Bush has indicated he's a strict constructionist, wants people to strictly interpret the Constitution. Vice President Gore certainly talked about an expansionist view of the Constitution. And I think that he would try to take the court in a direction that would expand the, you know, the central federal government, would try to interpret the Constitution, rather than simply strictly apply the Constitution. When you talk about the women's right to choose, the Roe versus Wade has been upheld in a 6-3 margin. I think the greatest difference the next President could make would be in the area of partial abortion; that was a 5-4 decision. And Vice President Gore has really come very, very close to saying he's going to have a litmus test; in fact I think he's made it clear that he would have a litmus test where he's only going to appoint those Justices that would uphold Roe versus Wade, and would, I think, continue down the path of tracking down, the Nebraska law, the state laws prohibiting partial abortion. Governor Bush has said no litmus test; he's going to have people who reflect his general philosophy and he's going to have 'em reflect all walks of life.

REP. BARNEY FRANK: Could I say one statement because -- half of the people George Bush has appointed are minorities - half of the people he takes as role models are minorities, and that doesn't reassure me.

RAY SUAREZ: Let me turn now to Anthony Lewis. What should voters be looking at in the fall, what's at stake for the court, depending on who becomes President?

ANTHONY LEWIS: I can't disagree with what's been said. It's very clear that a woman's right to choose or abortion, however you call it, is an issue. I think Congressman Hutchinson, though he was quite right about Governor Bush's appointments in Texas, has left out one important factor -- and that is that the people who are most strongly against abortion, the right to life groups, the Christian right, are really committed, powerfully, to getting Governor Bush -- if he's elected President -- to make their kind of appointments to the Supreme Court. And in a sense that's what they're getting from him. They have had to accept a number of things from him that they don't like so much. But I think judicial appointments are crucial to their interests, and I think it will not be the same as the appointees in Texas. He's bound to please those groups. And it isn't of course just abortion. There are racial questions. The Brady Gun Law went down by a 5-4 majority. There are lots of things in which it will make a big difference.

RAY SUAREZ: Stuart Taylor, we've talked a lot about abortion so far in this conversation. What are some of the other issues, given the kind of cases that the court is granting cert on -- that who becomes the next Justice could have a big bearing.

STUART TAYLOR: Well, as has been pointed out, the court is very closely balanced and the nominees have very different ideas with most liberal Justices in recent history being Mr. Gore's models and the most conservative ones being Governor Bush's models. The issues that are 5-4 right now that could tip dramatically, I think, are not, do not include abortion, which is 6-3. Race, particularly affirmative action, race based affirmative action preferences in election districts, is sort of a 4-4 issue with Justice O'Connor kind of on the fence. A conservative replacing a liberal could move a long ways towards banning racial preferences. A liberal replacing a conservative could move a long way towards open season for racial preferences everywhere. There are also closely balanced on the whole federalism complex of issues that I think are best described as federal regulatory power issues. The more conservative Justices, presumably including any that Governor Bush appoints, are in a mode of cutting back on federal regulatory power, in some cases for states rights reasons, in some cases for property rights reasons. The more liberal Justices would give Congress more or less - and federal agencies more or less carte blanche to do what they want. Religion, aid to parochial school could tip. Abortion, I actually think that if Governor Bush are is elected, the chance of Roe versus Wade would be overruled in the next four years is pretty low, maybe one in ten, mainly because I don't think it's likely that two of the pro Roe versus Wade Justices are going to retire in the next four years; maybe one will, but you need two. And you need him to get two anti-abortion Justices through the Senate, which wouldn't be an easy trick. But in eight years of course Roe versus Wade could be in jeopardy, which would of course send the abortion issue back to the states, where presumably the voters in many states would have abortion rules much like those the Supreme Court has decreed.

RAY SUAREZ: Gentlemen, on the Hill, as an issue that you try to get voters to pay attention to, is this a particularly tough one -- because there's so many imponderables and things that can't be predicted about the temperament of a man or woman who is going to serve for another 10, 20, 30 years, and the kind of issues they'll face? Asa Hutchinson?

REP. ASA HUTCHINSON: Absolutely. First of all, I think it is difficult to get the voters to take a look at this issue. I think the people who are politically active certain little are aware of it, and I think the concern about the Supreme Court will intensify the base of both parties in getting out and participating in the election. But also it is unpredictable, if you look in the past, you know, because there is not a litmus test, because the American Bar Association simply says they ought to be - have judicial temperament - they ought to be qualified and people of integrity - you know - that leaves a whole range of issues that are not dealt with and you can't go in there and ask them how are you going to rule in a particular case, and so there is a lot of unknown that is there, and I think history tells us that, and I think that the voters shouldn't make too much of this. Again, the general philosophy is very, very important here, and I think it will impact the court, whether you're going to be a strict constructionist and try to stick with the Constitution and the concept of federalism that we hold dear, or whether you're going to have an expansionist court. That's the difference of philosophy here, and I think that's what the people have to weigh.

RAY SUAREZ: Barney Frank, is a strict constructionist, constitutionalist somebody I agree with and somebody I don't and - this issue is spoken of -

REP. BARNEY FRANK: The most activist activity going on in the court right now are the conservative Justices striking down federal law after federal law on the grounds that the 11th Amendment means something it was never thought to mean until recently. And Justice Scalia literally said to Justice Souter you are engaging in an overly literalistic reading of the 11th Amendment; stop acting as if it says what it means. Understand that it says what I know it means, which is that you cannot sue your state government if they don't have an accessible library or city hall or if you can't get into the city council meeting, et cetera. In fact, I'm a little struck by Asa's trying to downplay this. The fact is that the Republican Party is dedicated to taking away the constitutional right of abortion, because the platform does say that - the RU-486 thing has made it more active -- and while it is true that Roe versus Wade may not be turned around in the first four years, it can be diminished. The anti-choice strategy has been to kind of whittle away at it and it's only 5 to 4 on that, not 6-3 like some of the significant whitterings away - not just on RU-486 - but other kinds of rules, notification, waiting periods, et cetera. And there clearly will be an effort to do that. But to answer your specific question, I think a lot of people have focused on the Supreme Court, and in particularly, frankly, it's one of the things that is helping hold liberals for Al Gore against Ralph Nader - because Ralph Nader tries to argue that it doesn't make any difference to people on the liberal side whether Gore or Bush wins, and the hardest thing he's got to deal with there is that it clearly does with the Supreme Court. Before 1980, it was true it wasn't such a close correlation. But since the more conservative movement within the Republican party and the reaction that's produced on the Democratic Party, people pretty much know who they're appointing. David Souter was the only exception. But the Democratic appointees and the Republican appointees are very different on a whole range of issues. And yes, that's a very important issue to a lot of voters.

RAY SUAREZ: Stuart Taylor?

STUART TAYLOR: I'd like to point out that three of the Justices who have voted to uphold Roe versus Wade in 1992 were appointed by Presidents Reagan and Bush - those were Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and Justice Souter. One of the difficulties voters have, I think, is if you just sort of plot public opinion against where the Supreme Court is and where they're coming out, the most recent decision striking down was against partial birth abortion by a liberal 5-4 majority, that was not popular in public opinion according to -- most members of the public aren't comfortable with late term abortions. And so if you had one notch to the right on abortion, it might be rather popular. On the other hand if you had a 2-vote swing to the right on abortion, which could conceivably happen, and you saw Roe versus Wade overruled, I think that would go too far for most of the public. And so that's one reason why I think voters, it's very important they should legitimately take into account, but it's a little bit harder to figure out exactly what's going to happen. There's more speculation in it.

RAY SUAREZ: Anthony Lewis, briefly your final thoughts?

ANTHONY LEWIS: My final thought is to reflect on how unfortunate it is, from my point of view, I expect Stuart agrees, that our view of the Supreme Court has become so politicized. It's true, as someone said just now, that in the past appointments were made, there wasn't a great deal of attention to them. But now, everything has become so politicized that it's very hard for any President to make an appointment without considering very closely the interest groups he will please or displease, and the Senate will certainly have the same view. So that's where we are, we're all talking about the Supreme Court in a very political way. I regret it but that's the way it is.

RAY SUAREZ: Gentlemen, thank you all for joining here tonight.

FOCUS- THE NADER FACTOR

MARGARET WARNER: Now, more on Ralph Nader's impact in the presidential campaign. Lee Hochberg of Oregon Public Broadcasting reports on the Nader factor in the Pacific Northwest.

SPOKESMAN: ...An American who's not for please welcome Ralph Nader. ( Cheers and applause )

LEE HOCHBERG: Ralph Nader strode onto the stage in Seattle recently to an ardent outpouring.

GROUP CHANTING: Let Ralph debate! Let Ralph debate!

LEE HOCHBERG: 10,000 supporters demanded Nader's third-party candidacy be treated as seriously as those of Vice President Al Gore and Governor George Bush, that he be allowed into the presidential debates. For two hours, the young and the old hung on Nader's every word.

RALPH NADER: We need to spend more time an resource waging peace, not just spending billions preparing for war against no known enemy! ( Cheers and applause )

LEE HOCHBERG: They rose from their seats after each angry assault on the nation's political and corporate elite.

RALPH NADER: Corporations are artificial entities. They are not human beings. They should not have all the rights that we have and the privileges and immunities that we can never have because they're not real human beings.

LEE HOCHBERG: Nationwide, Nader is polling only 3%, but he's stronger in several Northeast states, Wisconsin, and Alaska, and he's especially strong in the Pacific Northwest, drawing 6% in Washington State and 8% in Oregon. With Gore and Bush running neck and neck in these typically Democratic states, he could siphon enough liberal votes to tip the states to Bush. ( Protesters chanting ) He's generated passion among some of the same groups that protested the World Trade Organization in the streets of Seattle last November, supporters of the consumer, environmental, and human rights movements, death penalty opponents, labor and anti-globalism activists.

RALPH NADER: There are people in the Northwest who don't like corporate globalization. All these are unique positions that are either ignored by Bush-Gore or they have the opposite position that's not very popular with these people.

RALPH NADER: I submit --

LEE HOCHBERG: Nader's strategy is to attack both the Democratic and Republican Parties and attract voters disaffected by politics as usual. He hammered away his belief that both parties have fallen captive to corporate interests.

RALPH NADER: Politicians move to reelect themselves by selling their government to the highest bidders, and this is serious, very serious stuff. I mean, in any sane society, this would be an act of treason. It wouldn't just be bribery, it wouldn't be just extortion, it would be an act of treason. ( Cheers and applause )

LEE HOCHBERG: The message plays in his national TV spot.

SPOKESMAN: ...$1,000 a plate. Campaign ads filled with half- truths: $10 million. Promises to special interest groups: Over $10 billion. Finding out the truth: Priceless.

LEE HOCHBERG: The campaign spent $1 million on air time, funded by contributions averaging $100 apiece. It's 1/30th of what the Gore-Bush campaigns have spent.

RALPH NADER: On the real, important issues of corporate power, the only difference between Gore and Bush is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when big corporations knock on their door

SPOKESMAN: First, that our government is irretrievably corrupt.

LEE HOCHBERG: The anti-corporate, anti-two- party message has played exceedingly well in the Northwest. Young people like these at a Nader gathering in a Portland restaurant believe corporations control America, and hope Nader will fight them.

WOMAN: I want to have the assurance that the things that I live my life next to and via-- my clothing, my hair-styling products, you know, my food-- that all of this is created responsibly, and that the people who created this for me are treated well, and I don't have any of that assurance right now.

LEE HOCHBERG: While the Nader message targets corruption in both parties, his supporters hit Gore especially hard on environmental issues.

SPOKESMAN: It's about time the environmental community stood up and said, "we've had enough o your lies." I mean, Gore has been a disgrace

LEE HOCHBERG: At a neighborhood gathering in Eugene, Oregon, the leader of a group called Environmentalists Against Gore pushedNader's plan to end logging in public forests

SPOKESMAN: I know the Clinton-Gore record on the environment, and without exception on the environment, every time they touched it and told me they were saving it, the were trashing it.

LEE HOCHBERG: Arguments like that resonate with former Gore supporters who say that during the Clinton/Gore administration the timber industry continued to carve Oregon's lush forests into patchwork quilts. ( Phone rings ) The Gore/Lieberman campaign dismisses the Nader environmentalists as unrealistic; the campaign notes the administration's forest plan put 85% of national forest land off limits to logging, and that the Sierra Club has endorsed the Vice President. Spokesman Bill Arthur:

BILL ARTHUR: Environmentalists against Gore in fact do represent a very small and narrow segment of the environmental community that have long been frustrated and... with the political process, don't like working in the political arena, don't like working with the political process, and the reality is, that's what America is made of.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: And there's no greater treasure than this pristine stretch of the Columbia River.

LEE HOCHBERG: Gore has been a fixture in the Northwest throughout his vice presidency, often coming to deal with environmental issues.

MUSIC PLAYING: Here's to the keen men in the ground in Rome. Here's to the workers of the fields...

LEE HOCHBERG: On campaign visits, he's continued that focus, also emphasizing health care and prescription drug costs.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: We the people of this country can have a prescription drug benefit if we're willing to fight for it. ( Cheers and applause )

LEE HOCHBERG: He largely has ignored Nader and Nader's call for universal health care. His campaign says voter interest in Nader will wane as Gore pounds harder on the real differences between himself and Bush.

SPOKESMAN: I think that there was kind of somewhat of a summer flirtation that went on in some quarters, but I think also as we march towards election day, more and more people recognize that there's only going to be one of two people that are going to be President of the United States. It's either going to be Candidate Bush or it's going to be Vice President Al Gore.

LEE HOCHBERG: The Bush campaign says it's not worried about Nader either. Bush has stayed with his conservative, anti-government themes in several trips to Oregon and Washington.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Our governments ought to trust local people to make the right decisions for the communities in which they live.

LEE HOCHBERG: The governor believes Nader voters will peel away a crucial slice of Gore's support in the Northwest.

RALPH NADER: Are all of you going to try to each bring in 40 votes by November?

SUPPORTERS: Yes!

LEE HOCHBERG: There is the question of how many of Nader's supporters, like these 10,000 who came to a recent rally in Portland, will actually vote for Nader in November.

SUPPORTERS: (Chanting) We want Carter! We want Carter! We want Carter!

LEE HOCHBERG: Oregon voters have hurt major candidates before by embracing third-party candidates. In 1976, Jimmy Carter lost the state to Republican Gerald Ford when 40,000 voters cast ballots for independent Eugene McCarthy, but political observers say this year as many as one-half of Nader's supporters will go back to Gore if a Bush victory seems possible. University of Washington Professor David Olson:

DAVID OLSON: If they see their protest leading to the Bush presidency with conservative appointees and with policies that favor gun advocates and privatization of Social Security and health care, they're quite rational, and they will stay at home within the Democratic Party.

LEE HOCHBERG: On the streets of the Northwest, some voters say they've already decided to do that.

VOTER: I don't want to take any votes away from Gore because I would not like to see Bush in there.

RALPH NADER: I wouldn't be running if I was worried about Al Gore being entitled to votes. We all have to earn our votes.

LEE HOCHBERG: Nader says it would be shortsighted for voters to avoid him for fear of aiding Bush.

RALPH NADER: When you engage in tactical voting, you will be trapped in legitimizing the decay of the two parties every four years.

SPOKESMAN: Al Gore may be bad, but George W. Bush is worse.

LEE HOCHBERG: Nader derisively chides Bush, but he says a Bush presidency might actually galvanize his movement. Environmentalist Tim Hermach agrees.

TIM HERMACH: We would fight Bush if he tries to do stupid things. We aid and abet or at least allow Clinton and Gore to do worse things.

LEE HOCHBERG: Attitudes like that suggest the Democrats will have a tough time winning back all of the Nader supporters. Pollster Tim Hibbits found half of Nader's backers in Oregon have never voted for the major parties or have soured on them and wouldn't vote at all if Nader weren't running.

TIM HIBBITS: A significant slice of the Nader voters, the gore people can talk to them till they're blue in the face, and it isn't going to make any difference. They I think are lost, what I would describe as lost to the two major parties for this election.

LEE HOCHBERG: It's likely Nader will hold on to at minimum 2% to 4% of his voters in the region. Whatever effect that has on the election, he hopes it forces Gore and the Democratic Party to the left. (Cheers and applause ) His nationwide revenge of the non-voter tour, which took him through Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota before coming to Seattle, seems to have energized his fledgling Green Party.

SPOKESMAN: The Green Party's going to be more familiar after the year 200 and it will assist the green par in what it does best, which is n a top-down campaign for the presidency, but it's a bottom-up campaign for school boards, for city council, for state legislature.

RALPH NADER: Go on and build the might progressive political movement that history will record as having done it and done it right for a change! Thank you! ( Cheers and applause )

LEE HOCHBERG: Nader's Northwest campaign could help decide who leads the country for the next four years, but his real impact may be to add to the choices voters have for many years after that.

ESSAY - MONSTER MEMORY

MARGARET WARNER: Finally tonight, essayist Roger Rosenblatt considers the power of memory.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Memory: An impossible subject. One either remembers too little or too much, and we're never sure which is worse, though we spend more time thinking about remembering too little. Memory loss, in Alzheimer's Disease, is an occasion for helpless sorrow. Memory loss, when remarked upon as one grows older, is merely a nervous joke. A poem called "Forgetfulness" begins "The name of the author is the first to go, followed obediently by the title, the plot, the heartbreaking conclusion, the entire novel, which suddenly becomes one you have never read, never even heard of." The progression is funny, and not so funny. Reach a certain age-- say, 50-- and things that were around a moment ago begin to disappear: The name of the capital of North Dakota; the name of the president who preceded FDR. It was a vacuum cleaner, yes, a vacuum cleaner? That's what the machine is called, right? And then, the name of the star of "Casablanca"; and the pretty red flower that grows in window boxes; and then the name of your first girlfriend or boyfriend; and then... what is it you were trying to recall? On the other hand, historians deal with the problem of remembering inadequately, or for the wrong reasons. James E. Young, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, has recently written a book called "At Memory's Edge," about the proposed national Holocaust Memorial in Berlin. The artifact of memory implies contrition by the German government, which in turn suggests that memory is a way to innocence. Ought that to be encouraged? France apologizes for its complicities in the Holocaust. The Pope apologizes for centuries of anti-Semitism. America apologizes for slavery. These are more than acts against memory loss; they suggest that memory retrieved may lead the way to paradise regained. For the rest of us who live on a more ordinary, less exalted plane, the inability to get hold of memory has a private seriousness. There is a telling moment in "Citizen Kane" when Kane's successor as editor, played by Everett Sloen, tells the reporter about a girl he saw as a very young man. He was standing on one ferry, she on another, as the ferries crossed.

ACTOR: A white dress she had on, and she was carrying a white parasol. And I only saw her for one second. She didn't see me at all. But I'll bet a month hasn't gone by since that I haven't thought of that girl.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: And yet, in that same movie, the Joseph Cotten character laments:

JOSEPH COTTEN: I can remember absolutely everything, young man. That's my curse. That's one of the greatest curses ever inflicted on the human race, memory.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: One struggles to remember, and then one struggles not to.

ACTOR: Rosebud.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: One wishes to remember, unless memory hurts. Then memory loss seems a saving grace. In the film "A Brief History of Time," about the astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, a teacup falls and smashes to the floor to illustrate the space between the past and the future. With a trick of the camera, one may run the reel backwards and make the teacup whole again. But the mind has more trouble with reassembly. It often depends on what one wishes to put back together again. Not every reconstruction turns out as happy as Humpty-Dumpty. Scientists are working with a protein that helps nerve cells in the brain store memories, which means that soon, popping a pill will allow one to memorize the entire novel, the title of which the poet forgot; or to learn a new language; or get a college degree in a matter of months. And yet, even here, the scientists warn that the magic pill may also force us to remember every one of the ingredients on a cereal box, every name in the credits of a movie. The way science is going, someone may come up with a pill that allows us to edit memory-- to lose recollection of past sins and mistakes, lost opportunities, bad times, and recall only moments of triumph and joy. Would you take such a pill? I'm Roger Rosenblatt.

RECAP

MARGARET WARNER: Again, the major stories of this Monday: Fighting between Israelis and Palestinians continued across the West Bank, Gaza, and Arab towns in Israel. Secretary of State Albright said she would discuss the situation with Israeli Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian Leader Arafat in Paris on Wednesday. And opponents of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic began a general strike. They're trying to force him to accept defeat in last week's election. Before we go, a program note. A frontline documentary, "The Choice 2000," airs tonight at 9:00 PM on most PBS stations. It's "Frontline's" every-four- years look at the forces that shaped the two major presidential candidates. Please check your TV listing to confirm the time in your area. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Margaret Warner. Thanks for being with us. Good night.