The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Monday, President Bush nominated black Appeals Court Judge Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Soviet parliament approved the sale of state owned industries to private interests. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in New York tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: After the News Summary, we spend most of tonight's program on Judge Thomas. We'll have an extended excerpt of the President's news conference introducing Thomas, then we'll look at his background, his record in government and in the Judiciary, and the issues likely to come up in his Senate confirmation. We'll also hear what President Bush had to say today about Saddam Hussein and the nuclear threat from Iraq and get essayist Roger Rosenblatt's thoughts on closing libraries to save money. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Pres. Bush today nominated Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. Thomas is a black 43 year old Federal Appeals Court Judge. He headed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the Reagan administration. If confirmed, he will replace Justice Thurgood Marshall who announced his retirement last week. Mr. Bush made the Thomas announcement at his vacation home in Kennebunkport, Maine. He was asked if the nomination of a black man could be seen as filling a quota.

PRES. BUSH: I kept my word to the American people and to the Senate by picking the best man for the job on merits. And the fact he's minority, so much the better. That is not the factor and I would strongly resent any charge that might be forthcoming on quotas when it relates to appointing the best man to the court.

MR. LEHRER: We will have very much more on this story right after the News Summary. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: President Bush said today he would probably adopt the military base closings recommended by an independent commission. He said he was interested in saving money while preserving military preparedness. Two dozen bases, including some major army posts, are on the shutdown list. In Maine, 10,000 state workers were told to stay home today because of budget problems. The state legislature has been unable to pass a spending bill for the new fiscal year which began today. At least eight other states are also without new spending bills. Connecticut may have to shut down tomorrow if a budget isn't adopted by midnight. State lawmakers across the country have been forced to make tough choices, including tax increases, layoffs, and spending cuts in order to reduce huge budget deficits.

MR. LEHRER: The cease-fire in Yugoslavia held today, but just barely. The peace agreement between the federal government and the independence declaring republic of Slovenia was announced earlier today but troops on both sides have not yet backed down. And we have a report from Slovenia by Jeremy Thompson of Independent Television News.

MR. THOMPSON: In the beautiful alpine state of Slovenia, people emerged cautiously today to check if the nightmare of conflict was really over. The villagers of Muste clambered on the remains of a Yugoslav army tank they'd set ablaze during the height of last week's battle. There were no regrets about their action, no love lost here for the army. Road blocks were still in place as Slovenian defense forces checked rigorously for army undercover agents. The cease-fire remained precarious. In the capital, Ljubljana, people began returning to work as the tension eased a little. There was now more optimism about a peaceful solution. Even though their drive for independence had been put on "hold" most Slovenians believed a victory had already been won.

SPOKESMAN: We have shown the so-called Yugoslav brotherly army that they are not brotherly at all and that they have been beaten any place any time.

MR. THOMPSON: Many Yugoslav army units were still pinned down by Slovenian forces who insisted that they surrendered unconditionally, but tonight the army commanders have promised to air drop supplies and order their troops to shoot if attacked. There had been some contact between the two sides on the ground, but until the stalemate can be resolved, the peace initiative remained in jeopardy.

MR. LEHRER: Members of the Warsaw Pact formally ended their 36 year alliance today. Official from the pact's six remaining nations signed it into history in Prague. The military alliance had linked the Communist regime to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Hungary's prime minister said today a bad marriage had ended, now friendship can begin.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Soviet Union took another big step away from the centralized economy today. The nation's parliament overwhelmingly approved a privatization law that permits the Kremlin to sell up to 3/4 of state owned industry to private companies or individuals including foreigners. Up to half of the defense and energy industries will remain in government hands. Meanwhile, Soviet President Gorbachev met today in Moscow with representatives of the seven leading industrial nations. They were working out details of his meeting with the nation's leaders at their London economic summit this month. Pres. Bush confirmed that he will meet privately with Mr. Gorbachev on July 17th, the day the summit ends. He said a strategic arms treaty would be one of the things they discussed.

MR. LEHRER: United Nations officials reported no progress today in gaining access to Iraqi nuclear facilities. A UN official met with Iraqi officials last night and today in Baghdad. Iraq's foreign minister said UN inspectors will be allowed in. Iraqi soldiers fired shots into the air last week to scare them off. At his news conference today, President Bush had more harsh words for Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

PRES. BUSH: Everyone knows that the man was cheating and lying. Everyone knows that he did that which the resolution said not to do, and he should give unfettered access to these inspectors. He didn't do that. He surreptitiously moved the equipment. We've presented the evidence to certain parties and all I'd say is he'd better get on with keeping his word and he'd better get on with total, free, open inspections.

MR. LEHRER: Hundreds of Muslim fundamentalists were arrested in Algeria today following a weekend of violence. Four people died in clashes between police and the anti-government forces in that North African nation. Six thousand Lebanese government troops moved into the Southern Port City of Sidon today. The action restored government control after 16 years of local militia rule. Sporadic fighting was reported between the army and Palestinian guerrillas. The guerrillas have refused to give up their bases in the region.

MS. WOODRUFF: Actor Michael Landon died of cancer today. He was 54. Landon was best known for his roles in the television series Bonanza and Little House on the Prairie. He was about to begin work on a new series when he was diagnosed with liver and pancreatic cancer in early April. That's it for the News Summary. We devote the rest of the NewsHour to President Bush's Supreme Court selection, his remarks about the nuclear threat from Iraq, and Roger Rosenblatt on closing libraries. FOCUS - GOING TO THE BENCH

MR. LEHRER: The selection of Clarence Thomas to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is the lead story this day. Thomas is only the second black American to ever receive such an honor. The first was Thurgood Marshall. And it is the vacancy created by Marshall's retirement that Thomas if confirmed by the Senate will fill. Pres. Bush moved quickly. Marshall announced his retirement on Thursday. Mr. Bush introduced Thomas to the press this afternoon at his vacation home in Kennebunkport, Maine. Here's an excerpt from what both men said.

PRES. BUSH: Well, I am very pleased to announce that I will nominate Judge Clarence Thomas to serve as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas was my first appointee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, where he served for over a year. And I believe he'll be a great Justice. He is the best person for this position. I have followed this man's career for some time and he has excelled in everything that he has attempted. He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor. He's also a fiercely independent thinker with an excellent legal mind who believes passionately in equal opportunity for all Americans. He will approach the cases that come before the court with the commitment to deciding them fairly as the facts and the law require.

JUDGE CLARENCE THOMAS, Supreme Court Nominee: Thank you, Mr. President. I am honored and humbled by your nomination of me to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. As a child I could not dare dream that I would ever see the Supreme Court, not to mention be nominated to it. Indeed, my most vivid childhood memory of the Supreme Court were the -- or was the "Impeach Earl Warren" signs which lined Highway 17 near Savannah. I didn't quite understand who this Earl Warren fellow was, but I knew he was in some kind of trouble. I thank all of those who have helped me along the way and who've helped me to this point and this moment in my life, especially my grandparents who are -- especially my grandparents, my mother, and the nuns, all of whom were adamant that I grow up to make something of myself. I also thank my wonderful wife and my wonderful son. In my view, only in America could this have been possible. I look forward to the confirmation process and an opportunity to be of service once again to my country and to be an example to those who are where I was and to show them that, indeed, there is hope. Thank you again, Mr. President. [applause]

PRES. BUSH: Well done.

REPORTER: Mr. President, how do you answer concerns stemming from Judge Thomas's days as chairman of the EEOC, that in that post he was somewhat insensitive to the concerns of the elderly and civil rights advocates and that he didn't aggressively pursue their complaints?

PRES. BUSH: Well, obviously, that complaint, if it was even raised in his confirmation hearings for the second highest court in the land, were satisfactorily answered. It is my view that the complaints are unfounded, of course, but I doubt if anybody had strongly felt that that he would have been confirmed for his present position.

REPORTER: Mr. President.

PRES. BUSH: Yeah.

REPORTER: Last year you vetoed the civil rights bill, saying it could lead to quotas. Today you've made a nomination that could at least be seen as quota based. How do you explain this apparent inconsistency?

PRES. BUSH: I don't even see an appearance of inconsistency because what I did was look for the best man and Clarence Thomas's name was high on the list when the previous nominee went forth, Judge Souter, Mr. Justice Souter now, and so I don't accept that at all. The fact that he's a minority, you heard his testimony to the kind of life he's had, and I think that speaks eloquently for itself, but I kept my word to the American people and to the Senate by picking the best man for the job on the merits. And the fact he's minority, so much the better. But that is not the factor and I would strongly resent any charge that might be forthcoming on quotas when it relates to appointing the best man to the court. That's the kind of thing I stand for, not opposed to.

REPORTER: If I could follow up, I mean, there are many people who felt that, in fact, that that was a plus, not that it was a factor or a quota, but that, in fact, since the court represents all the people, there ought to be a minority member. Did you at all feel that way?

PRES. BUSH: Oh, yeah, but I don't feel there's a quota. I don't feel that I had to appoint, nominate a black American at this time for the court. I expressed my respect for the ground Mr. Justice Marshall plowed, but I don't feel there should be a black seat on the court or an ethnic seat on the court, if that's what your question is.

REPORTER: I wonder if I could ask a question of Judge Thomas, Mr. President. You've made reference, sir, to Chief Justice Warren, the Warren court, known as a liberal court, but one that advanced a lot of things in the way of civil rights and on behalf of minorities. How do you feel about that court vis-a-vis the very conservative court that you seem to be joining?

JUDGE THOMAS: I think that many of the questions that I will be asked during my confirmation process will perhaps bring that comparison out and I think out of respect for that process, I'll have to refrain from making that sort of comparison at this time.

REPORTER: Not even a personal reflection, sir, on what the Warren court did for minorities?

JUDGE THOMAS: Not even a personal reflection.

REPORTER: Judge, a question for you. What do you say to critics who say the only reason you're being picked is because you're black?

JUDGE THOMAS: I think a lot worse things have been said. I disagree with that, but I'll have to live with it.

REPORTER: The appointments made by President Reagan and you have put the court on a conservative road. Is that what you would like to see for the next ten or fifteen years, to reverse some of the more liberal rulings in the past twenty years?

PRES. BUSH: Look, I don't know how, how Judge Thomas, when he becomes Mr. Justice Thomas, will come down on every issue, and, indeed, I didn't discuss specific issues with him. I didn't discuss them with Judge Souter before he became Mr. Justice Souter, but I did look at this. Would he faithfully interpret the Constitution and avoid the tendency to legislate from the bench, and that's a broad consideration, but that is certainly in his favor in my view. And I don't know whether he'll agree with positions that our administration takes or overthrow decisions or change positions that we think are right, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that he faithfully interpret the Constitution, and I am 100 percent convinced that that's exactly what he'll do.

REPORTER: Did your list of possible candidates include anyone with known pro choice views or any candidate whose views on abortion you were unsure of?

PRES. BUSH: Probably, because I don't know. I didn't ask about that.

REPORTER: Do you anticipate any problems in the confirmation hearing?

PRES. BUSH: No, not if everyone's as fair as I think they will be. I think that there will be questions raised. I would hope there would not be political considerations, but look, it's, you've seen confirmation hearings before and you know that there's different people come in with a wide array of different questions, many of them philosophical, but I'm satisfied that, that this man will pass muster.

MS. WOODRUFF: For more on who Clarence Thomas is and what sort of record he has, we turn first to longtime Supreme Court watcher Nina Totenberg, Law Correspondent for National Public Radio. Nina, we discussed this, of course, last Thursday night, but do you have anything more on why the President chose this man?

MS. TOTENBERG: Well, yes and no. I mean, there were other people in consideration. I think they did give some serious consideration to Hispanic nominees, but in the end, I think they felt that the potential nominees they had before them were either too uncertain in terms of their ideology or not, not heavy duty enough in terms of their credentials, and so they turned to Judge Thomas, whom I think they feel quite confident of as a conservative and quite confident of in terms of his credentials.

MS. WOODRUFF: And when the President said he doesn't believe that there should be a black seat or an ethnic seat on the court --

MS. TOTENBERG: Well, I think that's window dressing. I think that it would have been very hard for this administration or any administration to have at this point in our history put forward an all white court.

MS. WOODRUFF: How much do we know about this man? We know that he came from a very poor, very humble background. He choked up today when he talked about his family --

MS. TOTENBERG: He's really a fascinating human being. He is a classic piece of Americana, a Horatio Alger story, who grew up as a boy, you know, in a house with no indoor plumbing and not enough to eat and was deserted by his father, and at the age of seven, he was sent to live with his grandparents, his grandfather, who was a strict disciplinarian, a devout Catholic, sent him to an all black parochial school, and taught him self-reliance in a hostile world. And that's sort of the way he proceeded. At one point he wanted to be a priest, enrolled in the seminary. It had been an all white seminary. He found the experience there a very segregated one, shockingly discriminatory. He left. He went to Holy Cross, graduated with honors, went on to Yale Law School, went to work for Sen. Danforth when he was attorney general of the state of Missouri, then came to Washington when Danforth went to the United States Senate, and, of course, eventually became assistant secretary of education for civil rights in the Reagan administration, a job that we are told he was insulted to be offered but took nonetheless.

MS. WOODRUFF: Why? Why insulted?

MS. TOTENBERG: Because he thought he had achieved an expertise in tax law and environmental law, and that this was some sort of tokenism. Nonetheless, he took it and a year later was made head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and it was an extremely tumultuous reign that he had there.

MS. WOODRUFF: What was it about his period at the EEOC -- what was it, seven years that he headed the commission -- what was it about that --

MS. TOTENBERG: Well, there were a variety of things. Probably the biggest one is that he is really an opponent of affirmative action for groups. He is a supporter of the idea that you redress individual grievances but not the grievances of groups, and he was at odds with civil rights groups, with groups representing the handicapped, the elderly. In fact, the only group of folks that consistently opposed his nomination at the lower court were, in fact, the elderly because they charged that he had deliberately made invalid some 13,000 age discrimination cases by failing to act on them in time, and so they were extremely bitter about that.

MS. WOODRUFF: So it was primarily the elderly?

MS. TOTENBERG: It was -- most of the liberal and civil rights groups held their fire when he was appointed to the Court of Appeals.

MS. WOODRUFF: Why was that?

MS. TOTENBERG: I think this was a touchy issue for them. It was a Court of Appeals position. It wasn't the Supreme Court of the United States. He would have to follow precedent and they do not - - most groups of any kind do not lightly challenge a lower court nomination. It's difficult.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. He's been on the Federal Appeals Court for a little over a year, a year and a half or so. How does that compare to the experience of other Justice appointees?

MS. TOTENBERG: Well, other Justices have had more experience, although David Souter had state court experience but not any federal court experience. I think the experience question will be his Achilles Heel. He got the lowest rating from the American Bar Association screening committee that you can get and still get a qualified rating. And I noticed the other day that the White House was starting to attack the ABA as hostile to conservatives. And I just want to note here that the chairman of the ABA screening committee is a Bush supporter, a conservative, an anti-abortion activist, and so I think that's a bit of a bum rap, but they're going to -- they're hedging their bets in case the ABA does not give him a highly qualified rating. And of course, if he gets just a qualified rating or a lower rating of some kind, it would fly in the face of the assertion that he was the best for the job.

MS. WOODRUFF: Nina, today two Democratic Senators, Cranston and Metzenbaum, both said that they wanted to know more about Judge Thomas's views on privacy and on abortion. Is there something on the record on these two issues?

MS. TOTENBERG: Not that I know of, and I'm sure they'll press just the way they pressed Judge Souter. It's very difficult, however, as we've all seen, because this issue is going to come before the Supreme Court.

MS. WOODRUFF: And as you said a moment ago on the question of affirmative action, which came up naturally when he headed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, there is something on the record there.

MS. TOTENBERG: There is quite a bit on the record. There's also a record -- on the record he's opposed to busing, he's opposed to a good deal of the integration measures that went on in higher education, and those are all issues that are coming before the Supreme Court. He's made statements on them and those are going to come back at him I'm sure during his confirmation process, but we should know he's pretty young and he's changed quite a bit in the course of the years that we've seen him in public life, and I don't know where this man is going to end up, but he sure is fascinating to watch.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, Nina, thank you. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Now four other views of Clarence Thomas and what kind of Supreme Court Justice he is likely to make. Eleanor Holmes Norton is the congressional delegate from the District of Columbia, she's a former Georgetown University law professor and headed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the Carter administration. Nan Aron is the executive director of the Alliance for Justice, an association of organizations that has opposed a number of Reagan and Bush administration judicial nominations. Terry Eastland is a former Justice Department official during the Reagan administration who's currently a fellow for the Ethics In Public Policy Center in Washington. Alan Keyes is a syndicated columnist and president of Citizens Against Government Waste, a non-profit citizen action group, he's a former U.S. representative to the United Nations Economic & Social Council. Mr. Keyes, is this a good choice?

MR. KEYES: I think it's an excellent choice. Judge Thomas is a man of courage, intellectual capacity, and tremendous personal integrity, and I think that his confirmation hearings and his Justiceship will be a real contribution, a historic contribution, in fact, to the history of American constitutional law and to the education of the American people about the basic principles of our government.

MR. LEHRER: A good choice, Eleanor Holmes Norton?

MS. NORTON: I think Judge Thomas deserves a full hearing and I hope that's what he gets, so that we will see whether he is, indeed, a good choice. The only record we have on him will give many of us great pause, and that's the record from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission where he seemed often at war with the statute he was sworn to enforce. Judge Thomas may, in fact, be developing -- I've seen much change in Judge Thomas -- but I do believe that, that it may be the -- that breed from the political process that has bound him thus far. He may yet bring to bear his considerable and significant experience as a poor black man. Thus far he has chosen not to do that.

MR. LEHRER: In what way has he shown not to do that?

MS. NORTON: Well, he has been very vocal on his sense of where race should be or how it should be approached. It has been at odds with the Supreme Court. It has certainly been at odds with the way most black people have believed the law has had to respond if they were themselves to move forward in a progressive way away from the shackles of racism, and in that respect, he was and remains a very controversial person.

MR. LEHRER: Alan Keyes, do you agree with that, that most blacks would disagree with the opinions of Clarence Thomas as they relate to civil rights legislation and civil rights decisions from the Supreme Court?

MR. KEYES: No, I do not, and I think that we're going to see an opportunity I hope during the confirmation hearings for Clarence to present his views. I think those views are going to track very closely with the common sense of people, black and white, throughout this country who understand that the basic principles have to be principles in individual rights, that we have got to have an approach to the problems of race relations and racism that does not undermine the sense of individual responsibility, capacity, self-discipline, and self-respect, and that has been Clarence Thomas's approach to these issues throughout his career, throughout his lifetime. He learned from his experience as a poor person coming along that the worst thing you can do to another human being is to undermine their sense of self-respect, take away their sense of discipline and give them racism or anything else as an excuse for failure, for failure to live up to the highest possible standards they can set for themselves, and I think that to say that he hasn't learned from that experience is a travesty. He has learned from it and applied it in a way that shows the truest compassion for other human beings, which is the compassion that respects their dignity rather than taking it away.

MR. LEHRER: Nan Aron, when you look at Clarence Thomas's record, what do you see?

MS. ARON: Well, his tenure at the EEOC was marked by a tremendous amount of controversy not just by minority groups, women's groups, but older Americans as well were very upset with his failure to enforce the law time and time again. He spent eight years at this agency, very little indication that he really cared very much about protecting the rights of older Americans and the rest of these protected classes. It's a very, very sorry record and it's somewhat I think insulting to the legacy of Thurgood Marshall at this point.

MR. LEHRER: In what way is it insulting?

MS. ARON: Well, Thurgood Marshall was a real champion of individual rights and liberties. Clarence Thomas is really the opposite. He has in the area of civil rights, enforcement of the Equal Pay Act at the EEOC, enforcement of Title VII, systematically failed to extend protection to these laws. Every decision he had to protect those without power in society he chose not to, and the record is replete with instances of turning his back on those very people, the underclass, those less fortunate, and I think it's a record that will hound him quite substantially at his confirmation hearing.

MR. LEHRER: Terry Eastland, do you agree that it's an insult to the legacy of Thurgood Marshall?

MR. EASTLAND: By no means, but I think we will be debating what that legacy is for some time. I think that, that Eleanor put her finger on something that will be debated, and I disagree with her on the notion of Title VII, and she said that Clarence Thomas was at war with the statute he was charged with enforcing. Indeed, Clarence Thomas in his understanding of that statute I think comported with what the intentions of the framers were, followed it. He also followed what Supreme Court decisions were in this area. He did not abandon the goals and timetables, remedy of his predecessor which was Eleanor Holmes Norton in that Commission, until the middle of the '80s when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in 1984 and then he followed the latest Supreme Court decisions in '86 and '87, so I think that he -- if you look at the record, and we will be I'm sure debating it in time -- you will see an administrator in the executive branch who tried to follow what his understanding of that statute was, which I think is a correct reading of it, as well as what the court interpretations were.

MR. LEHRER: In other words, whatever he did as chairman of the EEOC should not be read as a reflection of his own views?

MR. EASTLAND: Oh, I think you have to understand him as an official appointed by Pres. Reagan to begin with who was carrying out executive branch policy and I doubt, of course, that he would have done that in bad faith. I believe he believed in those policies, yes.

MR. LEHRER: Eleanor Holmes Norton, on the issue that you raised, that he has not maintained -- his actions do not befit his experience as a poor black man from the South and as coming out of a segregated society -- are you concerned at all? I mean, would you have preferred a white liberal to a conservative black? In other words, is race --

MS. NORTON: Of course.

MR. LEHRER: In other words, race, the fact that Pres. Bush appointed a black to fill the seat that was held by Thurgood Marshall, he gets no points for that?

MS. NORTON: None whatsoever. Why do blacks want a black on the Supreme Court? Certainly not to have another pretty black face. There is a black experience in America and that experience has profoundly informed the law and been informed by the law. Thurgood Marshall brought that experience. Perhaps there is a different kind of black experience to bring today to the court, but, nevertheless, it is a very special experience. Now to appoint a black to the court without empathy with that experience is not to do anything that blacks would particularly give you credit for and black people will be looking, if that is, if that is to be the point here, to see where Clarence Thomas stands on issues affecting them and they will not be heartened by his experience at the EEOC. What they will hope for is that he will tell us something in the confirmation hearing that will make us believe that that experience does not foretell how he would operate on the court.

MR. LEHRER: But is the key to it for you his attitude toward affirmative action?

MS. NORTON: That's all we have, although he has --

MR. LEHRER: I mean for you. I mean, is that the --

MS. NORTON: Certainly not. He has often pejoratively spoken on other things as well. For me the key is the Bill of Rights. We have a court now which has been thoroughly captured by the Reagan-Bush forces. We don't need a pylon, as it were. We have a court that it seems to me needs to say wait a minute, we do understand that the court profits from more than one point of view. And it would be very good to have a nominee, black or white, who sent that message to the American people.

MR. LEHRER: Terry Eastland --

MS. NORTON: The fact --

MR. LEHRER: Excuse me. Terry Eastland, is that even realistic to think that George Bush would have appointed somebody that would have satisfied Eleanor Holmes Norton?

MS. NORTON: Doesn't have to satisfy me.

MR. EASTLAND: I think what Eleanor Holmes Norton and other liberals have to understand is that if they want to affect the direction of the court, they're going to finally have to elect a President they want. You can't do it from the Senate Judiciary Committee. I would say that even if Clarence Thomas is rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee that the President will nominate another candidate who shares his judicial philosophy and that person will get through. Look at Justice Kennedy as a case in point. So I think that you have to understand where the leverage comes from. It's from the Presidential office and not from the Senate.

MR. LEHRER: Alan Keyes, how do you respond to Eleanor Holmes Norton's concerns about the fact that you put a black on the Supreme Court, then that black should reflect the black experience? Is it that he had a different experience, or he's read it differently than Eleanor Holmes Norton and others? Explain it from your perspective. You are also black.

MR. KEYES: I do think it's true that a lot of folks in America do not regard Eleanor Holmes Norton or anybody else as the godlike arbiters of the black experience in this country. All of us have something to say about it and our experience adds to it. And I think the other problem is that Clarence Thomas is going to represent a return to real American traditions, real civil rights traditions that emphasized individual rights, not group rights. The group rights concept is the concept that is at the basis of apartheid in South Africa. An affirmative apartheid is not affirmative action. It sets group against group in this country. It undermines the sense of real merit and dignity through which individuals can make the best contribution to their communities, to their groups, to this nation, and Clarence is not going to represent that view because that is not the black experience. The black experience was not people forging ahead as blacks. That was the stereotype of racism. It was black people who shone as individuals in spite of the racist stereotypes, the racist oppression that was clamped upon them on the basis of these group classifications and group notions that the liberals have now adopted as the basis for affirmative apartheid. I hope and believe that Clarence is going to reject that false tradition and return to the true traditions of the black community, the traditions of individual rights, of self-reliance, of self-discipline, of self- respect, the tradition that understood that it was not status centralized government power that was going to advance the community, but the community's ability to work together, function together, dedicate itself to its own future that was going to be the basis of its progress. That was black experience and I think Clarence Thomas will represent I hope a strong return to the articulation of the principles that informed that experience, that Frederick Douglas and the head of the AME Church and others pointed out in the last century, in this century, and that a lot of the leaders in the current liberal establishment have abandoned that the disastrous damage of the black community in this country.

MS. NORTON: Let me note I certainly didn't expect -- nobody would have -- the President to appoint a black like Thurgood Marshall. When I speak of the black experience, I really speak of some empathy for that experience and I expect that person to be a conservative. The kind of test I would use would be whether or not we have in Judge Thomas a nominee who would follow, rather than seek to overturn, precedents of the Supreme Court. That's important for two reasons. First, because otherwise we have a totally political court -- story decisis or following precedence is what makes it a law -- a country of laws and not of men. But another reason would be because the decisions of the Supreme Court, for example, on affirmative action, have changed the face of the workplace. Nobody believes that the workplace would now have women and minorities spread across them the way they are had not the law intervened in the very powerful way it did. Now those decisions are there. There are a couple of Justices that have intimated that they believe the close decisions, for example, 5/4 decisions, should be overturned. A real test of whether or not we have in Clarence Thomas sufficient empathy is not whether he is liberal or conservative but whether he will follow the conservative notion of following precedent and let us continue to make the progress we've made for so long.

MR. LEHRER: Terry Eastland, from a conservative point of view, how would you read Clarence Thomas on it? Is he going to overturn, or he is going to let things stand?

MR. EASTLAND: I should hope he would overturn. I think Eleanor just simply is wrong. This notion that, that what judicial strength means has to be to find the terms of story decisis is just incorrect. When one looks at the history of the court, we see that both liberal and conservative jurists have manipulated that doctrine. I think the important thing is that the doctrine of story decisis be considered in cases, but not --

MR. LEHRER: What are you saying?

MR. EASTLAND: We're talking about the Latin for let the decision stand. What Eleanor is saying essentially is that what the Supreme Court says is what in a previous case should be followed when the court again revisits that question and I think --

MS. NORTON: That's the rule of law.

MR. EASTLAND: Well, I think if Eleanor looks at her Supreme Court history, which I know she probably does know, she will discover that there are plenty of instances, including cases in which Justice Marshall voted to, in fact, ignore story decisis and to overturn a precedent.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Let's go to some of the other issues, Ms. Aron. He was raised a Roman Catholic. He's a Roman Catholic. Is there anything else known about his views on abortion other than that?

MS. ARON: Very little known about this man.

MR. LEHRER: Was he asked about it his confirmation --

MS. ARON: He wasn't.

MR. LEHRER: -- hearings for the Appeals Court?

MS. ARON: No. His -- the primary inquiry was into his enforcement of the law, particularly the Age Discrimination and Enforcement Act. Almost no discussion went into his views on abortion. And --

MR. LEHRER: What about criminal law matters?

MS. ARON: Well, it's interesting, because as a Court of Appeals Judge, he has written most of his opinions in the area of criminal law, although he like most other judges these days is very harsh on criminals and pretty much upholds the sentencing guidelines, so he seems to follow Souter in that particular area. But other than that, very little is known about his views in criminal law. Contrary to what Terry Eastland says, this is a man of relatively limited judicial experience. He's been on the bench only a year and a half.

MR. EASTLAND: I didn't say he had vast experience.

MS. ARON: And never has argued a case in federal court, although he has argued some cases in state court, in state supreme court. So, in fact, the record that we will have to look at really is the one established by him as chair of the EEOC. That will become I believe the basis of these confirmation hearings and certainly should provide a wealth of questions and criticisms to be raised by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

MR. LEHRER: Do you expect a major effort to be mounted in opposition to Clarence Thomas?

MS. ARON: Well, it's hard to predict at this point, although I think that a number of organizations today were absolutely dismayed with his appointment and are thinking about what strategies to pursue. Certainly no decisions have been made. But it's not a choice that pleases many of the organizations or individuals.

MR. LEHRER: Why not?

MS. ARON: Because this is a man by his deed at the EEOC chose to dismantle or attempt to dismantle the very agency chosen to carry out the worker protection laws and I think this raises a number of issues and concerns.

MR. LEHRER: No, but why would these groups be reluctant to oppose him if he did such an awful thing as chairman of the EEOC? That's my question.

MS. ARON: Oh, I just think it takes organizations a while to reach that kind of decision. As Nina said earlier, these decisions require a lot of process and discussions at various groups, but I do think within a few weeks, decisions will be made.

MR. LEHRER: Nina, do you have anything to add to what Ms. Aron said about his record in other areas outside of affirmative action and racial things?

MS. TOTENBERG: Well, as I said, we know that he's made some anti- busing comments. He's made some comments about desegregation in higher education.

MR. LEHRER: But I mean in other areas like abortion, the criminal --

MS. TOTENBERG: No. I would just add one thing, and that is from the political strategy perspective, I would doubt very much that the Democrats want to be in the position of defending goals and timetables in a rather aggressive way. Quotas have become a dirty word and I imagine that this debate can be turned around to backfire on them rather substantially if they're not careful.

MS. NORTON: That's not the way in which the debate would take place, frankly. It would take place over whether or not precedents were followed. The Supreme Court had approved goals and timetables, the Supreme Court had approved the uniform guidelines on employee selection which, which Judge Thomas opposed, and the question then, and this is why I've raised the question of story decisis, the question is: Will you follow those precedents? Judge Thomas did not always follow precedents and at a point where he was supposed to do so, and I must say I disagree with Terry that after all, people always overturn precedents. Precedents are very rarely overturned and, indeed, if I may finish, in this session of Congress -- sorry, of the court, we have seen something fairly remarkable occur, and that is five precedents overturned in one session, and I don't know when I have seen that or if I have ever seen it.

MR. EASTLAND: 1964, 1967, 1968 --

MS. NORTON: Five precedents.

MR. EASTLAND: You can count even more than those in those years. Go to the Warren court history. It's all there.

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask Mr. Keyes the quota question that the President was asked, that the President has vetoed bills that have quotas in them he says, very much opposed to it, and the question was, was the selection of Clarence Thomas a kind of quota selection?

MR. KEYES: You know, I think it's an absurd question. The opposition to quotas doesn't arrive from the notion that you should never take account of race or that you should never be considering the need in this society to have diversity represented, whether it's in the courts or in the workplace or anywhere else. The notion is that you should not have a coerced and enforced statistical proportional balance that then leads people to downgrade merit in favor of simply putting people into places on the basis of race and coercing employers and others to do that. That was not the case here. The President sought a highly qualified individual. If at the same time he was able through his selection to confirm the fact that there are qualified representatives of the black community to sit on the Supreme Court, I think that's all well and good, as he said, but I think he was guiding his choice by the merits of the man, and we're going to see those merits I believe triumphant provided that the process under which he is scrutinized is a fair process that is not prejudiced by the political bias of I think a bankrupt and dying liberal establishment in this country.

MR. LEHRER: Terry Eastland, there were some conservatives on this program Thursday night, the night of Thurgood Marshall's retirement announcement, suggesting that if Pres. Bush considered race in the selection of a replacement that would be, in fact, improper to do, that the President should not consider that at all, should not be looking for a black person or a woman or a minority of any kind.

MR. EASTLAND: Well, I agree with that. I would also say that I think race or gender or ethnicity works itself into the nominating process in a perhaps different kind of way. My sense is if I can psychoanalyze the President, is that he probably feared being portrayed as somehow insensitive to the concerns of blacks or minorities given that this had been a seat occupied by Thurgood Marshall, the first Justice who was black, who is black, so I think that that probably played into how he thought about his selection. I think when you look at the various candidates under scrutiny at the White House, one can select a candidate based on different grounds in terms of actual legal experience and background. Clarence Thomas did have more years in the executive branch, for example, I think than any other person under consideration. Again, he had a very short judicial record, as Nina has pointed out, but I think that other candidates in the past have had one as well.

MR. LEHRER: What I was really getting at and not very well is do you think he's going to, the President is going to catch some heat from conservatives for having selected Clarence Thomas.

MR. EASTLAND: No, I don't think so at all. I think conservatives will probably think it's a brilliant political stroke for precisely the reasons Nina just articulated, namely that it will put liberals and Democrats on the defensive. This is not a battle I think that they would want to join aggressively.

MR. LEHRER: Is there any question in your mind, Nina, that he will be confirmed?

MS. TOTENBERG: Yes, there's always a question in my mind. I've been through these things too many times and seen people who were going to go through like grease lightning and they're just footnotes in history. I never say never.

MR. LEHRER: But is there anything just today that you picked up that makes you think this is going to be a big deal, a big fight?

MS. TOTENBERG: Look, when Robert Bork was nominated, it was the conventional wisdom that he would be approved relatively easy.

MR. LEHRER: That's right. In fact, we even said that on this program. You didn't but --

MS. TOTENBERG: I did not. I did not.

MR. LEHRER: No. That's right. That's right. I remember that.

MS. TOTENBERG: Based on what we know today, I think he probably will be approved, but that counts for nothing. You know, really, this process is a long and agonizing process and it's gotten longer and more agonizing and we'll just have to wait and see.

MS. ARON: I don't know. Just last summer we saw David Souter get a relatively easy going over by the Senate Judiciary Committee and I think there was the thought then that maybe he'd rise to the occasion and actually exercise some independence on this court. He hasn't. And I think this time around the Senate will be much more wary of allowing a nominee to really go through easily.

MR. LEHRER: They're going to push him you mean on some of these issues?

MS. ARON: I certainly hope they will.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Well, we have to leave it there. Thank you all very much for being with us. UPDATE - WAR OF WORDS

MS. WOODRUFF: Iraq was the other prominent issue in Pres. Bush's news conference today. Once again the President took the opportunity to criticize Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein for not cooperating with the United Nations Commission inspecting Iraq's nuclear facilities. In the past few days, there has been increasing evidence Iraq still has a capability to make nuclear weapons and there have been increasing calls for the U.S. and its allies to do something about it. Here's another excerpt from Mr. Bush's news conference.

REPORTER: On Iraq, there's news that the UN team went out looking again for that equipment and couldn't find it. Are you anticipating taking any action or --

PRES. BUSH: Well, we're anxious to see what this inspection, two person team gets when they come back but let me say this, everybody, everyone knows that the man was cheating and lying. Everyone knows that he did that which the resolutions say not to do, and he should give unfettered access to these, to these inspectors. He didn't do that. He surreptitiously moved the equipment. We've presented the evidence to certain parties. And all I'd say is he'd better get on with keeping his word and he'd better get on with total, free, open inspections, and I said the other day, perhaps you missed it, but that we are not foreclosing nor putting on the table any options at this point. We have a lot of diplomacy to do. We want to be sure that world opinion is as strong as I'm convinced it will be, because this isn't a unilateral U.S. problem. This is a problem now of which the United Nations has seized, you see.

REPORTER: Have you talked to any of the ally, of the leaders --

PRES. BUSH: No, but others have been talking. I've not gone to the chiefs of state. I anticipate -- maybe I indicated this the other day -- that I will be doing that. This is a very -- high level diplomatic decisions will be called on or diplomatic initiatives will be called on and decisions might follow.

REPORTER: Mr. President, on Iraq, the other day, as you came to Kennebunkport, you were in a highly agitated mood, talking about a possible renewal of military action, although you also stressed diplomacy, but in the interim, has there been any news on this nuclear situation, or anything that's caused you to think that maybe the situation is calming down anymore, or --

PRES. BUSH: No.

REPORTER: -- are you still saying that we have all options --

PRES. BUSH: No, Rita, to be honest with you, I haven't seen anything that makes me think it's calming down. I'm not sure I would use the word "agitated" but certainly concerned and I -- what we've got to have is evidence that full inspection on challenge will be granted and I -- we're -- I don't want to mislead you -- I am very concerned about this situation and this is a fundamental part of what the United Nations resolution is about it. So there's still a feeling out there, on my view anyway, and I'm sure it's true of the neighbors, that he has to make this right and satisfy or we'll figure out what else happens. Yes. Excuse me, did you want to follow up?

REPORTER: Just that there's still a possibility of renewed military action by the U.S. government.

PRES. BUSH: Well, again, I just keep resisting saying what we will do or what we won't do. But you've seen speculation and I'll just steer you that it's not all warrantless, but on the other hand, I'm not saying what I will be, what will be recommended that I do as President of the United States. I'm very interested in getting the views of other world leaders and the diplomacy leading up to that has already started. Yes.

REPORTER: At the beginning of the -- as the war, the Gulf War got closer, you sensed that Saddam Hussein wasn't getting enough information that our threat was real.

PRES. BUSH: That's right.

REPORTER: There have been reports now, as you were talking about, about potential military action again. Do you think he's in the dark still?

PRES. BUSH: I don't know on this question, but you're right. Reminiscing here, as I hit Walkers Point a couple of days ago, that there were two points that I still am convinced of as the pre- battle period went on: one, that he didn't think that we were for real on this, and secondly, that he didn't -- he thought he could prevail at least enough to have a stand-off in the desert and be the hero of certain parts of the world over there. He was wrong on both counts, and if he assumes that he can get away with this kind of thing, he's just as wrong today as he was on August 2nd when he went back into -- when he sent his forces into Kuwait.

REPORTER: You don't consider him a very smart man, do you?

PRES. BUSH: I don't consider him a very bright man to have done what he's done, if that's an answer to it, because he's -- I can't conceive of why you would directly think you could hide, given the sophistication of technology today, and secondly, why you think he could get away with it. So there is, there's some parallel there. I don't want to overdraw it.

MS. WOODRUFF: The President was also asked about Democratic reforms in Kuwait. He said the war was not over democracy in Kuwait, but rather Iraq's invasion, however, he said he hoped that Kuwait would move toward democratic reforms and fair and open trials. ESSAY - BOOK END

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight this is the first day of the new fiscal year for cities and states. It has provoked a round of budget cuts and these thoughts by essayist Roger Rosenblatt, editor at large of Life Magazine.

MR. ROSENBLATT: I wonder how many people have fallen in love in a library. The place is a hotbed of romance. The sight of someone pouring over a book, the devoted, the beatific inclination of the head. In no other pose does the human body look at once so strong and vulnerable, tense and at ease. Something beautifying happens to a person in the process of reading a book. There's the soft library light and the quiet helps too. But mainly it has to do with the act, itself, the words, the ideas, transferring from one mind to another, and the recipient mind glowing like a smitten teenager. A library is a love nest, hot. You'd think they'd shut the thing down. In New York, in fact, that's exactly what the powers have contemplated, shutting down the public libraries -- permanently closing local branches or shortening the hours. What this amounts to at the moment is lost love in the city of New York. But with the economy falling apart everywhere, library closings could occur in any city. America without public libraries, think of it. Where would you find the reader of your dreams? What such closings will mean is not merely the end of libraries, but the end of books. Many people can perceive that end eventually, with or without public libraries. But the removal of libraries will speed the process hectically. The kid in Brooklyn, Queens, or Houston, Texas, who is inclined to read and who finds no books available to him will soon incline toward television or nothing. Books will become the special property of the rich or of oddballs and reading will become a hobbyist activity equivalent to pinning butterflies on a page. In the term "public library" the emphasis is on the word "public," an emphasis important to this country. In a set-up like ours, the public library is an essential, equal opportunity institution. Anybody, anywhere can grace his mind. That is the real and deep romance of a library. Every book on every shelf in every stack holds a promise of more. The politicians talk of merely closing the libraries a couple of days a week, but that will kill them too. The beauty of the place is that it is there, always there, waiting for everybody, open like a pair of arms. The closing of the public library should not be lamented. It should be forbidden. People, all the people, should rise in outrage and self-interest to keep the institution going forever. Picture him, picture her poised over that book, the book that broke into their hearts and gave them life. Think of yourself at that moment of liberty, when the feelings of the book became your feelings, its thoughts your thoughts, its information yours, all in the marriage of true minds. There -- you were never lovelier. I'm Roger Rosenblatt. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again the major story of this Monday was the selection of Clarence Thomas to succeed Thurgood Marshall in the U.S. Supreme Court. Pres. Bush announced the Thomas selection this afternoon. Thomas like Marshall is black but Mr. Bush said that was not a factor in his selection. Some civil rights groups expressed opposition to Thomas for his conservative views, particularly on affirmative action and similar issues. The appointment must now be confirmed by the Senate. Good night, Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night with a conservative opponent's tough talk about Mikhail Gorbachev. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.