The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

GWEN IFILL: Good evening. I'm Gwen Ifill. Jim Lehrer is on vacation. On the NewsHour tonight: Our summary of the news; then, a three-part look at Judge John G. Roberts, the president's choice for the Supreme Court, with legal reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg, White House chief of staff Andrew Card, and Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer; plus, a report from Minnesota on the clash between farm policy and trade policy; and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay about the dance of the penguins.

NEWS SUMMARY

GWEN IFILL: Supreme Court nominee John Roberts began his confirmation campaign today paying his first courtesy calls on senators from both parties. Republican Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he's "optimistic there won't be a filibuster" against Roberts. Democratic leader Harry Reid said senators "must be convinced that the nominee will protect the constitutional rights of all Americans." Abortion rights groups have already declared opposition to Roberts, but so far no senator has done so. We'll have much more on this story right after the news summary. Sunni Muslims temporarily pulled back today from helping to draft Iraq's constitution. They demanded better security after two of their colleagues were gunned down yesterday. The draft constitution is supposed to be ready by Aug. 15. In Washington, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said the security problems won't stop the process.

DONALD RUMSFELD: The perspective I would give to it is the fact that these kinds of problems have occurred month after month after month and yet we always see more people step up to participate in the elections, more people step up to participate maintain Iraqi transition assembly and to run for public office, more people step up to serve in the Iraqi security forces and it shows that the Iraqi people have a lot of courage.

GWEN IFILL: Also today, a suicide bomber killed at least six people at an army recruitment center in Baghdad. That same site has been attacked half a dozen times before. Reports out of Pakistan today said police arrested a man with direct links to the London bombings. There was no word on his identity or the evidence against him. We have a report from Ian Williams of Independent Television News.

IAN WILLIAMS: Led from court in shackles this morning, two of those detained in overnight raids in Lahore. They were armed when arrested at a city hostel, but didn't resist Pakistan's anti-terror police, who say that more than one hundred people have been taken into custody across the country. These men are alleged to be members of the Laskar-I-Taiba, a banned militant group associated with the Murike Madrassa, where Channel 4 News filmed earlier this week. At least one of the London bombers is reported to have visited here. There are reports that among the 11 people detained in Lahore is a Briton of Pakistani origin found with money and explosives and rumored to be a key figure in the London bombing, though the city's police chief wouldn't confirm this. The authorities also confiscated what they call "hate material" urging violent Jihad, though we had little problem obtaining these audio CD's in a Lahore market today. In the capital, Islamabad, this was the reaction after police entered one madrassa for female students in order to arrest the imam. The crackdown against extremism, targeting madrassas accused of preaching hatred, does run the risk of a violent backlash. Even in mainstream religious schools there was unease today and accusations that President Musharraf is merely doing the bidding of Tony Blair.

GWEN IFILL: Muslim leaders in Britain demanded a judicial inquiry today into what drove the bombers. And Prime Minister Blair said he might call an international conference on rooting out Islamic extremism, especially at religious schools known as madrassas.

TONY BLAIR: There is a real desire and willingness on the part of the Pakistani government to deal with those madrassas that are preaching this kind of extremism and we know the roots go very, very deep and they're not al found in our own country but other countries as well.

GWEN IFILL: Forensic teams in London examined one of the bombed trains today. They removed the mangled carriage last night from the Edgware Road subway station. It was one of three trains and a bus bombed on July 7, killing 56 people, including the bombers. And there were conflicting reports on Magdy al-Nashar, an Egyptian chemist detained in Cairo last week. Egyptian officials said he was released because he had no connection to the attack. His family said he is still being held. An Italian prosecutor asked a court today to issue arrest warrants for six more CIA operatives. They're accused of helping plan the kidnapping of a Muslim radical in 2003. He was taken to his native Egypt for questioning and claimed he was tortured. Last month, an Italian magistrate ordered the arrests of 13 other U.S. operatives in the incident. None is believed to be in Italy. Hurricane Emily battered the U.S.-Mexico border today with winds of 125 miles per hour. The eye of the storm blew ashore before dawn about 75 miles south of the Texas border. It forced at least 17,000 people in Mexico to flee to shelters, and it knocked out power to thousands more. Earlier in the week, the storm did extensive damage on the Yucatan Peninsula. Canada today was set to become the latest country to allow gay marriage. Last night, the Canadian Senate overwhelmingly passed a national law permitting same-sex unions. It now needs only formal approval by the country's governor-general. The Netherlands, Belgium and Spain have already passed similar laws. Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan reported today the economy has rebounded after a slowdown in the spring. He told a House committee the Fed is keeping an eye on oil prices and housing prices. But he said, overall, the outlook is good.

ALAN GREENSPAN: Despite the challenges I have outlined and the many I have not, the U.S. Economy has remained on a firm footing and inflation continues to be well contained. Moreover, the prospects are favorable for a continuation of those trends.

GWEN IFILL: Greenspan also said the Fed would continue to raise interest rates gradually, as needed, to control inflation. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 42 points to close at 10,689. The NASDAQ rose 15 points to close at 2,188. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to: Who is Judge John Roberts; farm policy vs. trade policy; and beauty on ice.

FOCUS - THE CHOICE

GWEN IFILL: Supreme Court nominee John Roberts stepped into the John Roberts stepped into the spotlight today at the White House and on Capitol Hill. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: Twelve hours after he was nominated to the Supreme Court, 50-year-old federal appeals court judge John Roberts had breakfast with President Bush, who prepared him for a day on Capitol Hill.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Judge Roberts is off to the Senate this morning to begin his consultations. In my conversations with senators last night, we discussed how important it is that Judge Roberts get a fair hearing, a timely hearing, and a hearing that will bring great credit to our nation and to the United States Senate.

KWAME HOLMAN: Roberts, who worked for both President Reagan and the first President Bush, later launched a successful private law career during which he argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. But Roberts still is a new face to most senators who'll ultimately decide his nomination. So he arrived at the capitol with a full day of greetings and meetings ahead of him. Meanwhile, the Senate floor already was abuzz with talk about the nominee.

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: It is important to know where Judge Roberts stands on this great opportunity and justice for all.

SPOKESPERSON: To sit on the Supreme Court, you look for a John Roberts.

KWAME HOLMAN: But Democratic leader Harry Reid said Roberts' impressive resume did not make him a shoo-in for the nation's highest court.

SEN. HARRY REID: While these are important qualities, they don't automatically qualify John Roberts to serve on the highest court in the land. Nor does the fact that he is confirmed to serve in the court of appeals mean that he's entitled to be automatically promoted. The standard for confirmation for the Supreme Court is very high.

KWAME HOLMAN: Majority Leader Bill Frist, who promised to move Roberts' confirmationthrough quickly, called for all parties to work together.

SEN. BILL FRIST: I hope this process is marked by cooperation and not confrontation and by steady progress and not delay with obstruction. This morning with less than 12 hours after the president's announcement, some extreme special interest groups are mobilizing to oppose Judge Roberts.

KWAME HOLMAN: In fact, even as Frist was speaking, several abortion rights organizations were just off the capitol grounds, voicing their opposition to the new nominee.

PROTESTORS: What do we want?

KWAME HOLMAN: Kim Gandy heads the National Organization for Women.

KIM GANDY: If you care about basic civil and humanitarian, we cannot have a partisan ideologue like John G. Roberts replacing Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

KWAME HOLMAN: Back inside the capitol, Texas Republican John Cornyn hoped interest groups would not play a significant role in the upcoming debate.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN: I can only hope that we will not, in this body, the 100 senators who work here and represent our constituents, be tempted by the outside interest groups to engage in the same sort of irresponsible rhetoric that is used by too many of them. Let us behave as senators. Let us do our human best to uphold the dignity of this great body.

KWAME HOLMAN: The first stop for Judge Roberts was an appearance with Senate Republican leaders, and he thanked them for their early support.

JOHN ROBERTS: I appreciate and respect the constitutional role of the Senate in the appointment process, and I am very grateful to the senators for accommodating me and having me over here today.

KWAME HOLMAN: Roberts later met behind closed doors with Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, perhaps the most important senator because he will set the terms of the confirmation hearings. Specter earlier described how he would approach the hearings, expected in early September.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: I want to give confidence to people with diverse views that I intend to do my utmost to conduct the hearings in a fair and impartial way right down the middle, and that I don't come to the hearings with any preconceptions or any judgments already formulated.

KWAME HOLMAN: The so-called "Gang of 14" senators also could play a key role in deciding Roberts' nomination. They are the bipartisan group that last spring agreed to permit a filibuster of a judicial nomination only in "extraordinary circumstances." And today, Arizona Republican John McCain said the Roberts choice hardly meets that criterion.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I am convinced that even though various members of the Senate on the other side of the aisle may oppose and vote against Justice Roberts's nomination, and perhaps with well founded reasons, that by no mean by any stretch of the imagination, would Justice Roberts, because of his credentials, because of his service, because of his extraordinary qualifications would meet the extraordinary circumstances of criteria.

KWAME HOLMAN: Late this afternoon, Democratic leader Harry Reid got his meeting with Judge Roberts...

SEN. HARRY REID: Judge, welcome to the Democratic side of the United States Senate.

KWAME HOLMAN: ...While Reid's deputy, Illinois' Dick Durbin, said on the Senate floor that many questions need to be asked before a lifetime appointment to the court is granted.

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: He may be there twenty-five or thirty years. We have one chance, only one, to ask questions of him, to ask what is in his heart, what are his values. Does he really reflect the mainstream of America?

KWAME HOLMAN:In the days and weeks ahead, senators can expect the voices from interest groups to grow louder, each with its own reasons why John Roberts should or should not be given a seat on the high court.

GWEN IFILL: So with weeks of speculation finally at an end, the question today became: who is John Roberts, and how did he rise to the top? For that we go to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: It was exactly 24 hours ago, give or take a few minutes, here on this program, that NewsHour regular Jan Crawford Greenburg of the Chicago Tribune predicted the president would nominate a conservative white man to the Supreme Court and not a minority or a woman, which was the buzz around Washington all day yesterday. Jan is with us again this evening.

And Jan, has a back story begun to emerge for the hours leading up to the president naming this pick? How did he narrow it down to John Roberts?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Sure. I mean there had been widespread speculation for the last several months that the Chief Justice, William Rehnquist was going to step down. He's gravely ill with thyroid cancer and the White House had begun looking to see who would be perfect nominees to replace the Chief Justice. On that list was John Roberts, as were several highly-regarded federal appeals court judges. But Justice O'Connor surprised everyone with her announcement at the end of the term. So that threw everything up in the air; the White House went back to the drawing board and cast a very wide net, many people urging the president to nominate a woman. Even First Lady Laura Bush has said that she would like to see a woman nominated to take Justice O'Connor's place. And the president has said he would like to make a historic pick by naming an Hispanic to the Supreme Court. So White House officials and Bush administration lawyers looked across the country at many qualified women and minority candidates. The president said he would like to look for a diverse candidate, but all of the candidates had some kind of down side. Some were inexperienced; some were inflammatory in their legal views. Some were just too unpredictable for this pick that the president saw as a very important pick that could change the future and the direction of the Supreme Court, so the president, at the end of the day, his lawyers directed him and he went back to that original list where John Roberts was very much near the top of that to replace the Chief Justice. And after meeting with the president over the weekend, the president decided that John Roberts would be the perfect person to take Justice O'Connor's seat. The pick, as he saw it, was historic because John Roberts will change the future and the direction of the Supreme Court.

RAY SUAREZ In the days after the O'Connor announcement, a lot of emphasis and a lot of attention was directed at those consultations that the president held with members of the Senate. Is there any sign that that helped?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Many senators had urged the president to consult with them, and the president said that he did; he met with senators in the White House, his officials reached out to senators on Capitol Hill, had many phone conversations. Some 70 senators got to express their views. But at the end of the day, the president went with the nominee that expressed and hold views of the two Justices, or believed to hold views of the two Justices that he's always said he most admires, Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia, a nominee who will narrowly interpret the Constitution, who will not read new rights into the Constitution beyond the rights that are explicitly stated in that document, who will, as President Bush said, apply the law, not make up the law from the bench. Many Democratic senators began saying this is not the consensus nominee that we had in mind. This guy is a strong conservative, a solid conservative. We wanted you to nominate a moderate, a Justice like Sandra Day O'Connor, someone who has that swing vote position in the middle, who sometimes votes with the liberal Justices, who sometimes votes with the more conservative Justices. So many Senate Democrats are saying John Roberts is not the kind of Justice that they had in mind for this seat.

RAY SUAREZ Now John Roberts was not one of the names that was floating around Washington yesterday afternoon. And it was the work of other jurists that were starting to get attention and blast faxes and e-mails started to float around the capital. Once the Roberts name came out, did people start hitting the books, starting looking at opinions, starting looking at Law Review articles, that kind of thing, and what is emerging from his record?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: People are very familiar with John Roberts because he has quite a long record, he's a very established and reputable appellate lawyer; he's argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. He's widely considered one of the best lawyers ever to appear before the Supreme Court. President Bush's father first nominated him to the appeals court back in 1992. So people were investigating his record back then; he was nominated again in 2001 again; people looked at his record then. So he has been around for a while. People are very well aware of him. He has been on the radar screen. But his record, his legal record, and views on the record, it's very thin. And there is not a lot there for Democrats looking for inflammatory statements or things that they might use to hold against him can oppose; he's been on the federal bench two years here, the D.C.-based court of appeals; that's not a court that gets these controversial social issues that sometimes groups get engaged in and want to oppose. He has had about 40 cases interpreting various administrative laws and decisions by agencies. No hot button, contentious issues there; he hasn't had any kind of writings, Law Review articles that would suggest any controversy. So the Democrats now and some of the outside groups will spend the next four to six weeks in advance of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing over this nomination looking into his background for clues on what kind of Justice he would be. They believe he is very conservative. Obviously, the president thinks he's a solid conservative, but now they're going to try to find the evidence to back that up. And Senate Democrats today already are suggesting that they will be looking for some of the memos and documents that John Roberts wrote while he was in government service, while he was in the first Bush administration and perhaps even when he was in the Reagan White House. And that could produce a big battle with the White House over access to some of those documents.

RAY SUAREZ That he has already been confirmed, does that help?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: He has been before the Senate Judiciary Committee. And he was opposed by three of the Democrats on the Committee. So they're familiar with him. They've looked at his record. They know what views that he has expressed that are out there. He has answered some of their questions; he's declined to answer some of their questions. So they know what they are going to see when he comes back. But the questions will be very different. As an appellate court nominee, they're looking to see if he is going apply the law. When they ask him about "Roe versus Wade," the case that said a woman had a constitutional right to an abortion, you know, as an appellate court judge, John Roberts would say the Supreme Court, well, has said that settled law and I will apply that faithfully. In the Supreme Court, however, he gets to interpret whether or not it should be a constitutional right.

RAY SUAREZ And there are already abortion-related cases on the docket for next year.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That's right. So if he is confirmed in September, he will jump right in. There are two abortion cases; there's an assisted-suicide case; there's a number of controversial cases already on the docket. But, of course, if he's confirmed, he would be on the court for decades and decades to come.

RAY SUAREZ Jan Crawford Greenburg, good to see you.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Thanks.

NEWSMAKER

GWEN IFILL: Now, back-to-back Newsmaker interviews with two men who hold different views of the president's Supreme Court choice. First, we turn to White House chief of staff Andrew Card; he joins us from the Old Executive Office Building in Washington.

Welcome, Mr. Card.

ANDREW CARD: Good to be with you, Gwen.

GWEN IFILL: There has been so much positive commentary today about John Roberts, and as you have heard, Democrats have been largely circumspective in their criticisms; Republicans have been practically dancing in the streets, many of them. So is his nomination a - his confirmation a slam dunk?

ANDREW CARD: Well, I hope that the Senate will act deliberately. I think that they should do their work. The president did not ask them to pre-judge this process; he said, give him a fair, open process, but let's try to make sure that we complete the work so that a Justice Roberts can take his seat on the Supreme Court when it convenes on Oct. 3, but I think we've had a very good response to the president's outstanding nomination of John Roberts to be a member of the Supreme Court.

GWEN IFILL: And you think that means a likely confirmation?

ANDREW CARD: Well, I'm confident that he will be confirmed, but I do want the Senate to be able to conduct first hearings within the Judiciary Committee and then have an open and full debate on the floor of the Senate before they vote, but he deserves an up or down vote, and I'm confident that he will be confirmed. But I do want the process to work openly, fairly, and with respect.

GWEN IFILL: Give us a sense - after all the talk -- backing and forthing that's been going on the past several weeks about the Supreme Court and all the names that were floating in the air even up until yesterday about who the president would pick, give us some insight into what the president finally did in deciding to settle on Judge Roberts.

ANDREW CARD: Well, the president did an awful lot of work. He read many, many memos that were written describing some of the candidates that could be considered. He spent an awful lot of time meeting with some of his advisors, and then he interviewed several of the potential candidates that could serve on the court. And he was - I was impressed with how the president took the responsibility of naming a Supreme Court member and how he read the documents that were presented, asked tough questions of the staff and then interviewed the candidates.

Many of the candidates that were considered the president knew and he didn't feel he had to interview them. But some of the candidates the president didn't feel he knew well and he did want to interview them and he did do that; he did it, I think, with an appropriate respect for the challenge of being on the Supreme Court, a great respect for that Constitution that he has sworn to preserve, protect and defend. And he picked a nominee who is very, very smart, highly respected, a keen intellectual mind, excellent judicial temperate, and a great understanding of what it means to be an American citizen and have the protections afforded by our Constitution.

GWEN IFILL: Sandra Day O'Connor, the retiring Justice, said today that even though she described Judge Roberts as being first rate, she regretted a bit that the number of women on the court was going to be cut in half because the president did not nominate a woman. What do you say to that, why not a woman?

ANDREW CARD: Well, I'm sure that she's thrilled that he's nominated someone who has got the intellect of John Roberts, an understanding of how the court works, and a respect for the Constitution. So I think that, overall, she is very happy with the individual the president has named to succeed her on the bench.

GWEN IFILL: Well, let's talk about Judge Roberts' record, which obviously is going to be pored over with great detail at the Senate Judiciary Committee. He was on the appeals court only two years, and even though he has an extensive legal resume, is his record of judicial experience too thin?

ANDREW CARD: Oh, I think when you compare it to others who have served on the Supreme Court, you will find that it is robust. He is clearly a very well known and respected lawyer. And he has been a respected member of the Judiciary. He argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court, and he also has had a lot of praise from many lawyers who come from different philosophical and party backgrounds as he served in the court. And so I think he is an outstanding and well prepared individual to take a seat on the court. I think he will have a good hearing. The president has shown great respect to the senators during this process. He had conversations with many senators and instructed Harriet Myers and me and others in the White House to reach out to members of the Senate to solicit their suggestions, not only on names but also on the kinds of temperament and issues that he thinks should be considered as you take a look at someone to serve on the highest court in the land.

GWEN IFILL: But even some conservatives today have said that they have expressed a quiet nervousness about his lack of a record. They have said that - Sen. Sam Brownback, for instance, who, of course, is a friend of yours, said there was some cause for concern, that there wasn't enough actual judicial record on the issues, social issues he cared about. What do you say to them?

ANDREW CARD: Well, I can tell to you that the president has great confidence in the individual John Roberts and the intellect that he would bring to the court as well as with respect to the Constitution and an understanding that it is not the job of a judge to legislate. Legislators legislate and members of the Judiciary interpret the law. And as a member of the Supreme Court, he would help to interpret a better understanding of that Constitution.

GWEN IFILL: So you're saying the senators should basically trust the president's judgment on this?

ANDREW CARD: Well, I think that they should look at their responsibilities and consider John Roberts with due deliberation and they should ask the questions on their minds. The president has great confidence that John Roberts will live up to the expectations that the Senate has and I'm confidenthe will be confirmed.

GWEN IFILL: If the Senators ask the questions that are on their minds, will Judge Roberts answer them?

ANDREW CARD: Well, as you know, when someone appears before the Judiciary Committee and they're peppered with questions, they answer questions in a way that does not prejudice decisions that might have been made should they be confirmed and serve on the court. Justice Ginsburg, for example, did a terrific job when she appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee answering questions, and I would expect Judge Roberts to perform the same way when he appears before the Judiciary Committee.

GWEN IFILL: How do you draw the line if a question is posed to Judge Roberts about his position on whether Roe versus Wade should be overturned or upheld? Would you expect him not to answer that question?

ANDREW CARD: I would expect him to answer the question appropriately consistent with the expectations that he would have that he might have to serve on the Supreme Court and consider issues that would center around that.

GWEN IFILL: What does that mean? What does appropriate mean?

ANDREW CARD: I would let Judge Roberts make that determination as he answers the questions that might be posed by the Senate Judiciary Committee members.

GWEN IFILL: Do you think there is still a threat of a possibility of a filibuster threat on this nomination?

ANDREW CARD: I certainly hope not. I think Judge Roberts has earned the respect of the Senate before. He was confirmed on a unanimous consent agreement when he was put on the circuit court in D.C. here, and he was treated very, very well in the Senate Judiciary Committee; he was passed out of that committee on a vote of 12-3 and his subsequent virtually unanimous confirmation because there was no objection when his name was put forward I think is a great testament to the respect that he has from both sides of the aisle and across the philosophical spectrum.

GWEN IFILL: Your critics have said that the timing on this announcement is at the very least convenient in that it comes at a time when there has been great criticism against Karl Rove at the White House, that the John Bolton nomination to be U.N. ambassador has been stalled in the Senate, and the Social Security legislation the president has staked his domestic agenda on has also been stalled. What is your response to that?

ANDREW CARD: I think that's a ludicrous suggestion. First of all, the president met with Sen. Frist and Sen. Reid, Sen. Specter, and Sen. Leahy and they talked about the timing of an announcement such that they would have time to consider a nominee so that he or she could be confirmed before the Supreme Court reconvened in October. And so the announcement had been suggested that it might come on a day like yesterday and so that the background checks could be completed, so that the Senate Judiciary Committee could begin its work and hold hearings and a vote on the floor of the Senate with the appropriate debate could take place so that a nominee could be confirmed before the court convened Oct. 3.

And that was the timing that the president took into consideration. He did an awful lot of deliberate work in researching potential candidates and then interviewing them, and he was ready to make the announcement last night, and he made the announcement.

GWEN IFILL: White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, thank you very much for joining us.

ANDREW CARD: Thank you very much.

NEWSMAKER

GWEN IFILL: Now to New York's senior senator, Chuck Schumer, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and one of only three Democrats who voted against John Roberts when his nomination to the Federal D.C. Court of Appeals came before the committee in 2003.

Welcome, Senator.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: Glad to be back here, Gwen.

GWEN IFILL: Why did you vote against John Roberts in 2003?

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: Well, I voted against him for one simple reason. And that is he really didn't answer the questions that I and others posed to him fully. And some he just refused to answer. I asked him, for instance, his views of a previous case, Morrison, which involved the great reinterpretation of the commerce clause and cutback on the Violence Against Women Act, and he said he wouldn't answer it. I asked him, for instance to name three cases that he disagreed with, already settled cases in the Supreme Court; he wouldn't answer that. I asked him what cases he considered activist and he picked an 1899 case from the California State Supreme Court. This is not being fully candid with the committee in letting us explore somebody's views. He did answer some questions. But in too many he did not. And that's why I voted no.

GWEN IFILL: Would that same lack of candor at that time, if it were expressed again in this setting, would that be a disqualifying characteristic for you?

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: More so. I'm hopeful that Judge Roberts will realize that when you are being nominated for the Supreme Court, you have a responsibility, an obligation to the nation to fully express your views. I mean, after all, a Supreme Court nominee has huge powers over the lives of average Americans. With the flick of a pen, that Justice can change lives dramatically, tens of millions of lives, one decision. And to hide your views, not express your views when that is the number one criteria that many of us are using and I think most Americans would use as to whether you should be on the court would not be living up to your obligation. I'm hopeful that Judge Roberts will understand that and answer the questions fully. No one is trying to trick him or play "gotcha."

I'm going to meet with him tomorrow and actually hand him some of the questions I'm going to ask him a month later. I'm not trying to surprise him but I do think he has an obligation to come fully forward with his views.

GWEN IFILL: Based on your examination of his record then in 2003 and now, what would you say are his strongest and his weakest qualities?

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: Well, clearly his strongest qualities are his resume and his history. And that's, of course, what the president and others have stressed. And it's an excellent resume and it's an excellent history. He is one of the leading lawyers here in Washington. But that not enough.

I think most people would rather have a nominee who didn't have such an illustrious history, who would understand that the court's job is to preserve the rights of individuals, women's rights, civil rights, workers' rights, than somebody who went to Harvard Law School or Yale Law School who was going to take away those rights and not defend those rights.

GWEN IFILL: So what have you seen in his record which leads you to believe he does not believe those things?

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: Well, his record is very skimpy, not his fault. For most of his brilliant legal career, he was arguing cases for someone else. He was either arguing for the government when he worked for the government, and that would be arguing for whomever the president was; it was President Bush, First Bush, or he was arguing for clients of various sorts.

He only has spent 20 months on the court wherewe can sort of get an idea of his views and most of the decisions he participated in are not the kinds of decisions that are made in the Supreme Court. And so we don't know much about his views.

And that's why I don't think you've heard a single Democrat say that we are for him or against him. You can't do that. I'm surprised so many Republicans have before we fully know the views of the man, the judicial philosophy, the method of legal reasoning, how quickly he would overturn existing case law. These are crucial questions to average Americans even though they're rather abstract questions.

GWEN IFILL: You just heard Andrew Card talk about what he would consider to be the line of appropriateness in the questions which are directed to Judge Roberts during the confirmation hearings. What is your interpretation of that?

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: Well, I think a good number of Judge Roberts' advocates seem to want to make sure that he is not asked the hard questions. And that's really wrong. And you wonder why.

The laws -- the rules are quite clear. You cannot ask someone a question about a specific case they might hear. If I were to say, Judge Roberts, how would you rule on Exxon - I mean, on Enron if it came before you, he should not answer that question, shouldn't be asked that question.

But if I were to ask him, Judge Roberts, what's your view on corporate ethics; how far do you think the Supreme Court can go in own forcing the rights of shareholders, for example and about what is the balance between state and federal law here, he would have an obligation to answer that question.

So you can't ask about a specific fact situation, but you can ask just about everything else. And, you know, Judge Miguel Estrada, unfortunately, was so disingenuous with the court when you said, what's your general view of the First Amendment, he said that might prejudice me when I had to rule on a case in the future. And, justifiably, I think, we did not support his nomination because when you go to these courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, so important, you have an obligation. And I say to average folks, you know, if you applied for a job and the employer said fill out this questionnaire and answer these questions, and you said no, do you think you'd get the job?

GWEN IFILL: Senator, you were not a member of the Gang of 14 that came up this judicial filibuster -- anti-filibuster, I guess, agreement, but -

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: It was really an anti-nuclear option agreement --

GWEN IFILL: Well if you -

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: -- more than an anti-filibuster agreement.

GWEN IFILL: If you wanted to decide, if you wanted to guess whether extraordinary circumstances would apply to those colleagues of yours who believe that that is what it would take to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, can you imagine Judge Roberts fitting that criteria?

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: Well, of course you can imagine it. Either one of two large ways -- one is he refuses to answer questions in a straightforward and honest manner tell us his views of the major issues that will be facing the court in the upcoming decade or two; and second, if when he expresses those views they are so far out of the mainstream, that people have the view, senators and the American people have the view that this is somebody who wants to make law, not interpret law but wants to impose his own system of values or whatever else on all of America.

GWEN IFILL: But here are the numbers. There are 55 Republicans as you point out, most of whom have already said they're planning to support thepresident's nominee. You need only five more Democrats to join them in order to avoid a filibuster. It seems like a very high mountain to climb in this current climate.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: Well, you know, this is my first Supreme Court nomination. But having talked to senior members of our committee like Pat Leahy and Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy, things change at these hearings.

Let me give you a couple of examples: Judge Carswell was confirmed unanimously for the court of appeals, I think it was the Fourth Circuit, and then eight months later was nominated to the Supreme Court, went through the hearings, went through the research process, and didn't get in, and so things change, and I think it's premature to say, yes; it's premature to say no.

One should look at the hearings and thoroughly examine this nominee. And I understand many Republicans are backing the president. I'm sure if it was a Democratic president, many Democrats would, too, so I don't condemn them for it, but I just think it's not the right thing.

And when you are the loyal opposition, as we are, you have a special obligation to examine those views.

GWEN IFILL: So if Andrew Card said, as he did, that he expects Judge Roberts will be confirmed, you say not so fast?

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: Yeah, I would. I'd say the jury is out, so to speak.

GWEN IFILL: Sen. Charles Schumer, thank you very much for joining us.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: Thank you.

FOCUS - CULTIVATING CONTROVERSY

GWEN IFILL: Next tonight, the Central American Free Trade Agreement is also a hot topic on Capitol Hill these days, but for some farmers in southern Minnesota the debate in Washington hits close to home.

Betty Ann Bowser has our report.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: In this part of the Midwest -- where fields of corn, soybeans and sugar beets spread out as far as the eye can see what you think of the Central American Free Trade Agreement depends on what you farm.

(Duane Alberts herding cows)

DUANE ALBERTS: Get in the barn, get in the barn.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Duane Alberts is a fifth generation corn and dairy farmer in southeastern Minnesota .

His operation is high tech: he tracks his 550 registered Holsteins by computer...and consults a nutritionist so his cows produce the best-tasting milk.

DUANE ALBERTS: The agricultural products that America's farmers produce are second to none. We have the best product, period. And we want to export our products into other countries as much as possible.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: That's why Alberts is a strong supporter of the Central American Free Trade Agreement -- or CAFTA -- which is intended to liberalize trade with five Central American nations and the Dominican Republic. The agreement passed the Senate in June and is about to be taken up in the House of Representatives.

DUANE ALBERTS: CAFTA opens up an opportunity to have another 44 million consumers consuming our products, agriculture's products, whether it be dairy products which I produce, or pork beef, chicken, rice.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: So you're a free trader?

DUANE ALBERTS: I like free trade. I'm also competitive. I want to come out a little bit ahead in the trading game. And globalization, of course, is a trading game. I want to sell more of my products than are brought in.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Hog farmer Larry Liepold agrees. He says currently import duties as high as 47-percent are placed on U.S. pork products that go into Central American countries... so not much is exported there. Under CAFTA, Liepold says those tariffs would be removed and he could start sending a lot more pork down South.

LARRY LIEPOLD: CAFTA is going to increase my profits by 4 1/2 percent. It will add to my bottom line, that's essentially what it's going to do.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: And you're pretty sure about the export market for this?

LARRY LIEPOLD: Just look at history. You can use NAFTA. I mean, pig exports to Mexico have gone up immensely. Korea, Taiwan, Australia-- other countries involved in free trade agreements, pork has benefited from them all. Pork is the one shining example that these free trade agreements are working.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: In fact, most American agricultural groups have endorsed CAFTA... believing it will allow farmers to sell more of their products outside the U.S.

But one group of farmers has been very vocal in its opposition to the trade agreement: Sugar producers like Mark Olson of Willmar, Minnesota... who has 500 acres of sugar beets.

MARK OLSON: When we harvest them, they'll probably be ten to fifteen pounds.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Sugar farmers are not directly subsidized by the US. Government -- as are farmers of most other commodities.

Instead, the U.S. sharply limits the import of sugar -- which means American farmers get a higher price since they don't face competition.

Olson says if CAFTA is passed, those limits will be lifted and countries will be able to dump sugar in the U.S. at far below cost.

MARK OLSON: Every other country subsidizes the production of their sugar. And when they subsidize, they produce more than what their country needs and it gets dumped onto the world market at costs well below the cost of production. We are some of the most efficient sugar beet producers in the world. But we can't compete with foreign governments.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Ninety percent of the sugar processed in this country is done so in farmer-owned co-ops... like the southern Minnesota beet sugar cooperative.

Olson has invested nearly1/2 million dollars in the equipment which chops and cooks the beets -- producing a thick brown syrup.

A centrifuge then spins out the white sugar crystals. Sugar producers say CAFTA is just the first of many free trade agreements supported by the administration and could be the beginning of the end of the u.s. sugar industry, which employs some 140,000 people.

John Richmond is the president of the co-op.

JOHN RICHMOND: As the administration says, CAFTA is just a small piece of the puzzle. But what it does mean is that we will get to produce less sugar than was produced before. We will become marginally less profitable than we were before. If that's a blueprint for other agreements that the administration presently proposes, that would mean that we'd become less and less efficient with every entry of sugar in the United States and eventually would be unprofitable and we'd discontinue the production.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The Bush administration says sugar farmers are exaggerating the impact of the agreement.

It estimates that CAFTA would allow less than 2 percent more sugar from Central America into this country.

And free-trade advocates like Russell Roberts say it's time to stop protecting the sugar industry.

RUSSELL ROBERTS: The bottom line is the price of sugar in the United States is about double what it would be outside the United States in a freer market. That means higher profits for sugar farmers and it means higher prices for U.S. consumers.

And it's not just, of course, for the sugar you sprinkle on your grapefruit. It's for anything you consume that uses sugar: ketchup, all kinds of processed foods, candy that has higher prices that we don't see the higher price of sugar hidden in those higher prices.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But the sugar industry is putting up a fight. Sugar accounts for just 1 percent of all agricultural goods but it is a large donor to political campaigns and has many allies on Capitol Hill.

Last week farmer Mark Olson was there making the rounds to lobby against CAFTA. He bristles when he hears people complain about "big sugar interests" that keep sugar prices high.

MARK OLSON: I am the sugar industry; 90 percent of the sugar beets are grown by people that own their factories so I am the sugar industry. I'm not big sugar. The price of sugar in the U.S. is less than almost any other developed country in the world, so we're not -- consumers are not paying too much for sugar. The only people that complain about the cost of sugar are the big candy companies, that if they bought sugar cheaper, you would not see a reduction in the cost of your candy bar.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: CAFTA narrowly passed the Senate only after sugar-producing states were given some concessions.

And CAFTA is facing a much tougher struggle in the House of Representatives, where some two dozen lawmakers are undecided.

One of them -- Republican Gil Gutknecht from Rochester-- met with Olson and other sugar farmers from his state.

H says he hasn't yet been convinced that CAFTA will lead to greater exports for any American producers. And he argues that NAFTA did not help most farmers.

REP. GIL GUTKNECHT: Historically I have been a free trader. You know, I believe that markets are more powerful than armies. I believe that markets generally benefit both sides. But one of the facts that a lot of people sort of gloss over is that before we agreed to NAFTA, we had about a 1 1/2 billion dollar trade surplus with Mexico. Today, we have about a 45 billion dollar trade deficit. And so I think in some respects, this administration and previous administrations have tended to oversell the benefits of trade.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The Bush administration defends NAFTA, saying it led to a 30 percent economic growth in the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

That doesn't comfort Olson, who gets quite emotional when he talks about how CAFTA could wipe out jobs for farmers and other sugar workers.

MARK OLSON: It's a way of life. It's putting people out of business; it's rural jobs.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: And you really think that can happen?

MARK OLSON: Oh, I believe it.

DUANE ALBERTS: I think the sugar farmers are safer than they think they are. And I certainly hope that a small group of sugar producers do not derail the entire CAFTA process.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The House is expected to vote on the measure later this month.

ESSAY - BEAUTY ON ICE

GWEN IFILL: Finally tonight, essayist Anne Taylor Fleming takes in some summer movies.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: A warm summer afternoon; a restless mate who wanted to get out of the house. What should we see? We hadn't seen a movie in months. In fairness, a lot of our fellow citizens hadn't either. The box office is in a protracted slump -- movie-viewing down right across the board. Even the big blockbusters aren't as big as usual.

ACTOR ("War of the Worlds"): Get down! Get down! Get down! Get down!

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: We didn't want to see any of those, didn't want our terror tickled by "War of the Worlds"...

ACTOR ((Mr. & Mrs. Smith"): You still alive, baby?

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING:...Didn't want to see the kitschy, violence-as- foreplay of "Mr. & Mrs. Smith." What was left? Wasn't there anything delicate, moving, non-assaultive?

ACTOR: Who's your daddy now?

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: There was, indeed. An unassuming little documentary about penguins, a noble, goofy, waddling parade of them, making their way across the Antarctic icescape to and from their breeding ground. They were the sleeper stars of summer, these intrepid breeders shuffling and sliding in their age-old choreography across the coldest spot on the planet-- a 70-mile trek to the place they were born and where they now mate, momentarily monogamous, producing an egg, protecting it together to chickdom. It is a slippery, magical dance, and it is producing box office magic, small-scale but determined. In fact, when we caught it, ticket sales for "March of the Penguins" on a per-screen basis were more than for any other movie, including the big guys, to which it is so clearly a welcome antidote for young and old, kids and dates. It has been pulling them all in.

SPOKESMAN: Ever since Sept. 11, we were told this day was inevitable.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: The morning after we saw the movie, we awoke to the carnage in London: Another round of bombs, another vigil, another soul-sickening wait for the tally of the dead and wounded. We keep seeing it now, this new ad hoc hybrid form of rage and destruction, these fanatic martyrs sneaking among us with their lethal weapons, making themselves often into those weapons.

MAN ON STREET: Then they took us off the train and made us walk all the way back past it all-- dead bodies on the track, train blown open.

ACTOR ("Star Wars, Episode III"): This is where the fun begins.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: Is it any wonder then that we don't have the stomach for Hollywood's hyperactive violence, any wonder that it seems more gratuitous than usual, more exploitive, more insulting, more just silly -- any wonder that movie ticket sales are tanking? Big scary movies are often dubbed escapist fare. Grab your popcorn, sit back to be scared to death, like getting on one of those scream-inducing theme park rides. That still works for some, no doubt -- even many. But for some of the rest of us, it is too close to the bone -- not escapist at all. We don't need to be artificially scared, don't want to be. We need to see beauty, survival, the intrepid shuffling optimism of the emperor penguins making their eons-old mating march across a forbidding piece of the earth -- a reminder that, against fierce and frozen odds, they prevail. We will, too, won't we? I'm Anne Taylor Fleming.

RECAP

GWEN IFILL: Again, the major developments of the day: Supreme Court nominee John Roberts began his confirmation campaign paying courtesy calls on senators from both parties; Sunni Muslims in Iraq temporarily pulled back from helping to draft a constitution after two colleagues were shot dead; and reports out of Pakistan said police arrested a man with direct links to the London bombings. And late today, a national law took effect in Canada legalizing gay marriage.

GWEN IFILL: And again, to our honor roll of American service personnel killed in Iraq. We add them as their deaths are made official and photographs become available. Here, in silence, are eight more.

GWEN IFILL: We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Gwen Ifill. Thank you and good night.