The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight the news of this day, then the development on the latest London bombing attacks, a look at the legal side of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, the analysis of Mark Shields and David Brooks, and a Richard Rodriguez essay on the nation that is NAFTA.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: British police shot and killed a man today in a London subway car. They said the shooting was directly linked to yesterday's bombing attacks. Another suspect was arrested. We have a report by Victoria MacDonald of Independent Television News.

VICTORIA MAC DONALD: More terror in a London neighborhood: Stockwell Tube cordoned off, frightened residents and commuters watching from behind the blue and white police tape. Not long after the incident, armed police came up out of the underground station. For some time there was little information except that a young man had been shot. Then the eyewitnesses:

MARK WHITBY: I was sitting on the tube train. It hadn't pulled out of the station, the doors were still open. I heard a lot of shouting, "Get down, get out." I looked to my right. I saw a chap run on to the train, Asian guy. He ran on to the train, he was running so fast he half sort of tripped. He was being pursued by three guys; one had a black handgun in his hand, left hand. As he went down, two dropped on him to hold him down and the other one fired... I heard five shots.

VICTORIA MAC DONALD: The shooting happened just after 10:00 A.M. At the South London tube station. Around 20 police officers, some armed, rushed into the station, in pursuit of a young Asian man. The man described as being in his mid-to-late 20's and wearing a heavy winter coat jumped over the barriers. He ran down the escalator and onto a northern line tube on its way to Bank in central London. Three plain clothed officers, who were about two or three feet behind the suspect, followed him and shot him a number of times at close range. It is understood that this was not a stop and search situation, that the man had been under surveillance by undercover police following yesterday's incidents. They then called in specialist armed police marksmen. And we are being told that because they thought they were dealing with a potential suicide bomber, public safety became a priority.

SIR IAN BLAIR: The information I have available is that this shooting is directly linked to the ongoing and expanding antiterrorist operation. I need to make clear that any death is deeply regrettable. But as I understand the situation, the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions.

VICTORIA MAC DONALD: At the Stockwell mosque just three hours after the shooting, Friday prayers and disquiet among the Muslims living in the area, pleas to remain calm and to help the police.

SPOKESMAN: If there's anything that you think would help the community to bring it peace, we would appreciate that.

VICTORIA MAC DONALD: But there was also a sense of anger over the shooting and real fears of a backlash.

MAN: I reckon he was scared or something and he ran and they just shot him, just shot him about five times. That wasn't right. That's not right, man. That is not right.

JIM LEHRER: Police also released photos of the alleged bombers in yesterday's attacks. The pictures, from closed-circuit television, show the four men shortly before the explosions. In other developments, Italy adopted tougher anti-terror laws today. They were drawn up in response to the London attacks. In the United States, President Bush said Americans will stand by the British during these trying times. And police in New York City began random searches of packages and backpacks of subway passengers. Some 4.5 million passengers ride the system every day. Secretary of State Rice paid a surprise visit to Lebanon today. Three days ago Lebanon formed its first government outside Syrian control in nearly 30 years. She met with parliamentary leader Saad Hariri, the son of assassinated former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. After talks with the new prime minister, Rice pledged U.S. backing for Lebanese reforms.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: What I'm here to do is to support the new Lebanon. And the new Lebanon is one that is democratic. The new Lebanon is one that should be free of foreign influence. It is a Lebanon in which Lebanese should make decisions for the Lebanese. And it is one that does have international obligations that we fully expect to be carried out.

JIM LEHRER: Secretary Rice interrupted talks in Jerusalem to make her Beirut visit. She later returned to Israel, where she has three days of meetings slated with Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Insurgent attacks killed at least 16 people across Iraq today, most of them Iraqi security forces. Also, the prime minister pledged to increase security for foreign diplomats. Two Algerian envoys were kidnapped in Baghdad yesterday. And the American military said a roadside bomb killed a U.S. Marine yesterday, west of Baghdad. The U.S. Patriot Act was one step closer to renewal today. The U.S. House of Representatives voted 257-171 to extend it last night. The measure would make 14 of its 16 provisions permanent, and reinstate the other two for ten years. Supporters say the law helps fight terrorism. Opponents warn it could threaten civil liberties. Today, lawmakers said both concerns should be taken into account.

REP. RAHM EMANUEL: There are pieces of the legislation that are controversial and the task you have to ask yourself is what does it take to make the American people safe? What can this help us do this and do it right? The Senate has a different bill. We now need to set our mission on protecting the American people and deal with also balancing both security and American love for their civil liberties.

REP. MELISSA HART: It does make sense for the larger protections of Americans to sometimes walk that line, sometimes cross that line if it need be, if there's enough reason to believe that a person may be in violation, maybe working with a terror cell, helping to finance a terror cell. I think it's important that we do that and Americans understand that there is a little bit of give and take when it comes to our safety and our civil liberties.

JIM LEHRER: The Senate is expected to take up the Patriot Act in the fall. At least 45 deaths have been blamed on the heat wave gripping the western half of the country. The National Weather Service said more than 200 heat records have been broken in the last ten days. The highest temperature recorded was 129 degrees, in, appropriately enough, Death Valley, California. Kwame Holman has our report.

KWAME HOLMAN: People in Arizona are used to hot summers, but this heat wave has left a trail of death in its wake. Charlene Pinkerton of Mesa lost her 97-year-old father to 110- degree temperatures inside his home.

CHARLENE PINKERTON: Don't let his death or any of the other people's deaths go for nothing. People have to start thinking about vehicles and houses and cooling and something.

KWAME HOLMAN: Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon sent out a message especially for those who are most vulnerable, the young and the old.

PHIL GORDON: The word is hydration. We lose about a gallon of water every hour if you are outdoors. Please drink a lot of water.

KWAME HOLMAN: Much of the country is experiencing high temperatures, but the worst of the wave is being felt in the western two-thirds of the U.S. In Las Vegas alone, an unusual stretch of six consecutive days of temperatures of more than 100 degrees has been blamed for six deaths. In Utah, extreme heat has caused dehydration and heat exhaustion among more than 700 firefighters who have been battling a wildfire that blackened more than 800 acres. In California, officials worry about potential power outages from the increased strain on electrical systems. Farmers from Pennsylvania all the way West are facing wilting crops because of extreme heat and little rain. And the National Weather Service is reporting that the mercury will hold steady through the weekend.

JIM LEHRER: On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Averagegained 23 points to close at 10,651. The NASDAQ rose a full 1 percent to close above 2179. For the week, the Dow gained a tenth of a percent. The NASDAQ rose a full 1 percent. The National Hockey League's 30 owners today unanimously approved a new six-year collective bargaining agreement. It will end the year-long lockout that led to the cancellation of the hockey season. The Players' Association overwhelmingly endorsed the contract yesterday. The terms of the new deal include a 24 percent rollback in salary on all remaining player contracts and a payroll cap. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the latest from London, the legal side of John Roberts, Shields and Brooks, and a Richard Rodriguez essay.

FOCUS - TARGET: LONDON

JIM LEHRER: Our London bombing update begins with a report from Simon Israel of Independent Television News.

SIMON ISRAEL: The man shot dead by police today is not one of these four, captured on CCTV just before or just after attempts were made to detonate the bombs on three tube trains and a bus. The images were produced at the first police press conference on the investigation 26 hours on. The first picture was connected to the rucksack bomb on the northern line train at Oval Station.

SPOKESMAN: Shows a man running away from the northern line at the Oval underground station at approximately 12:34 hours yesterday. We believe this man had traveled northbound on the northern line from Stockwell underground station to the Oval.

SIMON ISRAEL: After the man left the station, eyewitness reports say he ran towards the park. Police found his dark top with New York across the front half a mile away at Cowley Road. The second image is of a man leaving Warren Street Station, at 12:39, minutes after another rucksack bomb was left in carriage on a northbound Victoria line train. The third was taken at just after 20 past 12. It's of a man with a rucksack packed with explosives on his back. He's standing on the platform at Westbourne Park, waiting to board a westbound Hammersmith and city line train.

SPOKESMAN: We believe he traveled westbound on the Hammersmith and City line to Shepherd's Bush underground station where he ran from the station. He was wearing a dark shirt and trousers and was later reported to be wearing a white vest.

SIMON ISRAEL: The fourth image is a man on the Number 26 bus in East London just before 1:00, and soon after the lethal rucksack, which ultimately failed to explode, had been left on the top deck at the back of the bus. The police appeal for information comes with a warning that these man are considered highly dangerous.

ANDY HAYMAN: Anyone who has information about where these men currently are, you should immediately call 999 and ask for urgent police response. The public are asked not to approach them.

SIMON ISRAEL: Police also want people to use the antiterrorist hotline for information on the suspects' identities and backgrounds. Detectives are still working on the similarities between yesterday and the suspected suicide bombings a fortnight ago. But the hunt for these four is being concentrated in London. Several hundred officers supported by firearms units have been deployed across the capital.

TERENCE SMITH: Terence smith has more on this story.

TERENCE SMITH: With us tonight from London is Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post. Craig, welcome again this evening. Is there any late word on the identity of the man that police shot today?

CRAIG WHITLOCK: No, there's not, Terence. We're still trying to figure out who he is. We do know that police say they were staking out residents in the Stockwell District near a subway stop which is where this man came out of the residence. And they followed him into the tube, into the subway system. This is also the area where one of the un-detonated bombs was placed yesterday, near the Oval Tube stop. So this is in that same area, and clearly police were looking for people. And this was somebody they had their eye on. But they have not formally identified him as yet.

TERENCE SMITH: Is there any information as to whether he was today carrying explosives or anything else suspicious?

CRAIG WHITLOCK: Well, the police have not said if he was carrying any explosives or anything like that. They did describe and witnesses confirmed that he was wearing what appeared to be some sort of heavy, padded coat. Now it is July here and while it's not as hot as in the United States, certainly that's something that police have been told to keep their eye out for, anybody riding around on the subways or the buses that's dressed in unusually baggy clothing that isn't suitable for the weather. And this person seemed to fit that bill. Certainly they were... I think there's no doubt that the police were concerned that this man was carrying explosives. But again they have not specified whether he in fact was or not.

TERENCE SMITH: But running him down and shooting him, this is an unusual police action in Britain, is it not?

CRAIG WHITLOCK: It's very unusual here. I think it's very fair to say that people here were very startled and shocked when they heard the news of this. Part of that is, of course, the idea that there may have been another attempted bombing on the subway. People are, understandably, very jittery about that. But the idea that there was a police shooting I think it's, again, starting to sink in with people here in London that what they're going through is something that, you know, is very dangerous and could stay with them for a while. These are not events that they're used to seeing and hearing and reading about, especially not in the space of a few weeks.

TERENCE SMITH: What are the rules of engagement for British police in situations like this? And have those rules changed in any way because of these bombings?

CRAIG WHITLOCK: No, they haven't changed because of the bombings. While police shootings here are very rare, I think, again, it's the same guiding principles you might find in the United States or other countries. If police are armed and they're confronted with a suspect who they judge to represent an imminent and lethal danger to the public around that suspect, they're authorized to use deadly force. Not every police officer in London carries a weapon. In fact, very few carry firearms. It's usually special squads who are in dangerous situations or out for dangerous suspects. In this case, that's what appeared to be going on. These were plain-clothed officers who were staking out a home in the Stockwell area. They were looking for people who were associated or suspected to be suicide bombers. So, you know, understandably this is a very dangerous situation and when this gentleman was running away through the subway, you know, you can imagine the concerns that were going through these officers' minds. Now, of course, there will be a thorough investigation, but witnesses clearly appeared to be alarmed as well. They were worried that something serious was going on and this man was running away, was running away from the officers through the subway, again, a repeat of what happened yesterday and two weeks ago.

TERENCE SMITH: Well, you mentioned people being startled by this. What's the atmosphere in London tonight?

CRAIG WHITLOCK: Well, I think people are trying to get along with their lives. But, again, this is sinking in, I think, by the day, the sense of vulnerability among people in London. They've been told about the threat of terror attacks for many years now. This is not a theoretical problem for them. They sort of feared that something like this would happen. And, of course, we had the bombings two weeks ago, which brought that home. Then what happened yesterday, I think, really brought that to another level. People realized this wasn't a passing thing -- that this threat was going to stay with them here for a while, for the foreseeable future. Then, of course, you have a deadly shooting on the subway today and people are starting to wonder, you know, how long is this going to go on? When is the threat going to be encircled to the point where they feel like they can get back with their normal lives again? But it's difficult. It's difficult here.

TERENCE SMITH: Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post, thanks very much for joining us.

CRAIG WHITLOCK: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the legalities of John Roberts, Shields and Brooks, and a Richard Rodriguez essay.

FOCUS - LEGAL LEGACY

JIM LEHRER: Ray Suarez has our legal look at John Roberts.

RAY SUAREZ: John Roberts spent a third day meeting with the senators who will decide his nomination, starting with Dick Durbin of Illinois. He was one of only three Judiciary Committee Democrats devoted against Roberts' nomination for the D.C. Federal Court of Appeals.

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: I think he was evasive and that's why I didn't support his, his nomination for the district court of appeals. I asked some questions that I thought were pretty easy questions. If you believe in strict constructionism, was Brown versus the Board of Education a strict constructionist decision? No, it clearly wasn't, but he wouldn't answer the question.

RAY SUAREZ: Durbin added that Roberts will have another chance in September when the hearings are likely to begin.

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: I said to Judge Roberts as he came in, the slate's clean. As far as I'm concerned, I want to sit down and get to know you now. I don't feel like I did during this earlier process.

RAY SUAREZ: Judge Roberts also met with the other two dissenting Democrats this week, Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, who shared images from his past with the nominee, and with New York's Chuck Schumer, who gave Roberts a list of more than 60 questions for him to consider.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: This is not a game of gotcha. This is a game to figure out how somebody thinks and what their judicial philosophy is and what their method of legal reasoning is, and he doesn't have to answer every one of those questions to get an idea.

RAY SUAREZ: Overall, Roberts' many meetings across the capital this week seemed to go smoothly, at least in front of the teams of media that tracked his every move.

SEN. BILL FRIST: He is obviously an outstanding Supreme Court nominee. He is the best of the best legal minds in America.

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY: I know that you've got fine credentials for the work that you've been selected to do.

JOHN ROBERTS: I have a great deal of respect for the constitutional role of the Senate in this process, and I'm looking forward to that very much.

RAY SUAREZ: And members of the Gang of 14, who've agreed to limit the threat of judicial filibusters, said any extraordinary circumstances, which could break their agreement, weren't apparent. Connecticut Democrat Joseph Lieberman:

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: There was also a consensus that we're in a lot better position today than we might have been, that this is a credible nominee and not one that, as far as we know now, has a record that in any sense could be described as extremist.

RAY SUAREZ: Judge Roberts is scheduled to continue his consultations with senators next week.

RAY SUAREZ: For insight into Judge Roberts' record as solicitor general, a private lawyer, and a federal appeals court judge we turn to three legal experts: Shannen Coffin is a former deputy assistant attorney general and a partner at the Washington law firm Steptoe & Johnson. Jeffrey Rosen is a professor of law at George Washington University Law School and legal affairs editor at the New Republic and NewsHour regular Jan Crawford Greenburg of the Chicago Tribune joins us once again.

And, Jan, right after law school, tell us what John Roberts did. He headed right into a Washington legal life, didn't he?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: He did. He had a clerkship in New York in a federal appeals court with a very distinguished judge that he has said was a mentor to him, and then he, after that clerkship he came down to Washington to clerk for then Justice William Rehnquist, and at that the end of that year and the Supreme Court, he went into the government. He worked in the Reagan administration, first as an assistant to the attorney general, and then he went over to the White House counsel's office, where he spent a few years advising the president and the executive.

RAY SUAREZ: In his twenties, advising in a legal way the Reagan administration.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That's exactly right, and tackling any number of significant issues that the administration would confront.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, from the work, Shannen Coffin, that John Roberts did in that early stage in his career, taking a look at some of the most contentious issues of the day, what can you tell about this young lawyer?

SHANNEN COFFIN: Well, there's nothing like learning at the feet of legal giants and Judge Friendly and now Chief Justice Rehnquist certainly can be categorized as that. So, you know, in a young lawyer's formative years to have that sort of guidance means that John Roberts got the foundation of a terrific legal career and would have the tools to be able to tackle the really tough issues that the Reagan administration faced.

RAY SUAREZ: Was he asked to look at the law and explain the law on some things that show us his own mind, or as it was then?

SHANNEN COFFIN: Well, I think, I think that's probably right. The - the job of a White House -associate White House counsel and assistant White House counsel is to tackle a countless number of issues that come through the White House and give legal advice to the White House counsel and eventually to the president. And the folks that I knew in this administration when I was working at DOJ were just flooded with issues from all sorts of departments and all sorts of problems that the president was facing, from whether, you know, whether - in this administration whether a web site was violating copyrights that dealt with the presidency to really serious issues of national defense. And you can't help but reflect on your views of analyzing the law when you do that.

RAY SUAREZ: What stands out for your, Professor Rosen?

JEFFREY ROSEN: Well, the most controversial parts of his service and at the White House and in Justice will be the briefs that he signed as a deputy solicitor general, and in particular liberal groups are very upset about a brief in which he called for Roe V. Wade to be overturned, had a footnote to that effect. He also signed a brief calling for graduation prayer to be recognized. Now, frankly, I don't think it's fair to hold John Roberts accountable for the brief that he signed as deputy solicitor general. He was, after all, defending the position of the Bush administration, which was his job. So more revealing, I think, of his actual views are probably the legal memos he wrote in the White House Counsel's office, where you get a bit of that dry sarcasm that really shows more about the man probably than the briefs that he signed.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Shannen Coffin, what's the difference between the two? What's the difference between asking a counsel for his legal advice and telling the deputy solicitor general to come up with a legal rationale for one or another piece of administration policy?

SHANNEN COFFIN: Well, there is a difference; it's a subtle distinction. In court, you're an advocate for the president of the United States. When I stood up for president - for the administration as a Department of Justice lawyer, I wasn't arguing what I believed. I was arguing the law in order to win a case for the president of the United States, so if you take, for example, the Ruff V. Sullivan case, which Professor Rosen mentioned, first of all, two sentences in a brief that dealt with Roe V. Wade doesn't tell you much about John Roberts' legal philosophy, and also, you know, the brief only recited what the administration said in five prior cases, so I don't think, you know, I think Professor Rosen is right; that doesn't tell you anything about John Roberts' thinking. Legal analysis, you know, as a White House counsel employee you're going to be asked to analyze various issues, and your approach to the law is certainly going to come out in the way you analyze a case, just like a young lawyer at a law firm would analyze an issue, so some of the thinking, certainly, as Professor Rosen mentioned, the humor and wit of John Roberts certainly came through. So you knew something about the person, I think, perhaps not necessarily too much about their legal or their political philosophy but certainly something about the person.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Jan, in 1993, the first Bush administration leaves Washington and John Roberts leaves government. What does he go on to do?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Before that, the first President Bush actually nominated John Roberts to the federal appeals court here, and his nomination, Democrats controlled the Judiciary Committee in the Senate at that time so his nomination never made it through the committee, so at that point he left the government and went into private practice at a law firm here in Washington, Hogan & Hartson, where he continued representing clients, this time generally paying clients, as opposed to the United States Government, before the Supreme Court, as he had done in the solicitor general's office. Of course, the solicitor general is representing the United States generally in the Supreme Court. Now he's in the Supreme Court representing paying clients and some pro bono clients, for free, but that is where he really solidifies his reputation as one of the finest lawyers to appear of his generation before the Supreme Court. People would say that it was just a joy to watch him stand there before the Justices and make his presentation at the Justices. And I've seen him argue many times. He's clearly so engaged in his argument, so respectful in his views and insight, really pressing him on the legal issues to see his analysis and explanation of the law.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Professor Rosen, a minute ago you talked about how it might not be that fair to take a look at his - his brief written as the deputy solicitor general to try to find the mind of the man. Is it fair to look at his work standing before the appellate bar?

JEFFREY ROSEN: It is because his works pending before the appellate bar is distinguished by something interesting. He represented Democrats as well as Republicans, and he took pride in it. It's funny, not all Washington advocates have this distinction. Ted Olsen, for example, the former solicitor general, a very distinguished lawyer, but he tended to represent more movement conservative. Roberts was different; he argued for and against affirmative action. He defended environmentalists in defending regulations at Lake Tahoe against the claims of property owners. The Democratic attorneys general hired him to represent their views in a Microsoft case. And I have the sense that Roberts is proud of his ability to argue the case round or argue it flat, as the lawyers say. He doesn't see this as a sign of wishy-washiness. For him it's a sign of the fact that people on both sides trusted him enough to be fair and neutral and to put the best case forward. And I would hope that his interest in engaging arguments on both sides, which was so evident in his career as an advocate, would be continued on the Supreme Court.

RAY SUAREZ: But Shannen Coffin, didn't he also argue the kinds of cases that are still very much with the Supreme Court today, having to do with discrimination, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Endangered Species Law and those kinds of things, that he'll be called upon to decide as a judge?

SHANNEN COFFIN: Well, yeah, he argued a lot of cases because he was probably one of the two or three best Supreme Court lawyers in the country. But as Professor Rosen said, he argued a range of cases. He argued cases that, you know, were... where he was representing a corporation in labor disputes. He argued a case where I filed an amicus brief against his position where he represented the state of Hawaii in defending what the Supreme Court determined was a race-based regime for voting that favored native Hawaiians over everyone else. Is that an issue that might come before the court again? Absolutely. I was testifying on the Hill about a bill this week that dealt with that very issue at the federal level. So, yeah, there's no doubt that these issues are timeless.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Jan, the second President Bush came to Washington and John Roberts got another run at the federal bench.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That's right. President Bush, the second President Bush, nominated him in 2001 as his first group of nominees to the federal appeals court and John Roberts was confirmed in 2003. So we have some somewhat of a record now to look at from that period of service that he has now been on the D.C.-based federal appeals court. But in looking at those cases, keep in mind that the D.C. Federal Appeals Court doesn't get a lot of the hot-button controversial social issues that are so divisive and that have so deeply divided the Supreme Court. They take a lot of administrative law cases and cases that are important, very important, to the agencies. But thus far it's been very difficult to determine how John Roberts would tackle some of those divisive issues. And it's also important to keep in mind that an appeals court, if you're an appeals court judge you're doing a very different thing. You're interpreting the law,applying the law than you would be doing on the Supreme Court.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, what stands out for you in the 20 months on the federal bench?

SHANNEN COFFIN: I think you start to get a picture of his judicial philosophy. And it's one that starts with the letter of the law and hews very closely to it. There's an example... a very good example is a well-known case that dealt with Iraq prisoners of war, American prisoners of war in the first Gulf War that Saddam Hussein had taken prisoner. They sought to sue Iraq but after the... after the invasion of Iraq and the cessation of hostilities, the first cessation of hostilities, Congress passed a law that said the president had the power to set aside any law that applied to Iraq because they had supported terrorism. And two of his colleagues read that law rather narrowly so to say any law doesn't mean any law. John read it to say any law means any law and said at the end of the day I take comfort in the language of the statute.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor Rosen?

JEFFREY ROSEN: A central question, especially for Senate Democrats, will be Roberts' view of the scope of federal power and there are two very interesting opinions on this score: On the one hand, John Roberts said that Congress might not have the power to protect an endangered species. He called it the hapless toad because this toad might not move in interstate commerce. It sounds esoteric but Democrats will focus on this opinion as the central window on to the possibility that he might broadly strike down all sorts of environmental regulations, health and safety regulations and so forth. However in another case he took a broader view of congressional power and said that the Washington Metro could receive federal funds on the condition that it allow itself to be sued for discrimination. So I know that Democrats will be trying to weigh these two cases but they'll, above all, be returning to the question that Jan identified: What is his view of stare decisis, of the validity of past presidents. And as Jan said, the fact that he applied precedents as a lower court judge doesn't tell us whether he would do that as a Supreme Court Justice where he would be free to uphold or overturn decisions. And Democrats are going to be centrally focusing on that question.

RAY SUAREZ: Guests, thank you all.

FOCUS - SHIELDS & BROOKS

JIM LEHRER: And now our Friday night analysis of Shields & Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Mark, politically, how does the Roberts nomination look three nights later?

MARK SHIELDS: Politically, Jim, it looks like a ten-strike, a grand slam. In a political campaign - and, let's be frank, this is a political campaign -Scott Reid, the Republican campaign manager once put it, you have to win every day, you have to win the morning, you have to win PM, you have to win during the day. And I'd have to say that John Roberts has won every news cycle. He's... there must be some perverse satisfaction that President Bush takes compared to the reaction that his father's nomination of Clarence Thomas was greeted with - the criticism and I mean, almost universal praise. So I think... I think you'd have to say that John Roberts had a very, very good week.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I completely agree. As Mark said, the stories were all very positive. They praised his intelligence, every quote you get whether it's from Cass Sunstein, a liberal, or David Boies, another liberal, it's all positive. It's been a love fest. And I think the reason is-- and this is sort of systematic of the Republican Party-- is that you had a wave of Republicans who were revolutionaries, who were storming the barricades. And I think you'd put Scalia in that category. But after that wave, you had people who were more establishmentarian and Roberts, he's certainly a member of the establishment. And so he's got a lot of friends and also much calmer demeanor, less likely to offend. If there's somebody in America who doesn't like him, he hasn't shown up yet.

JIM LEHRER: What about his visits with the senators, particularly the three, Kennedy, Durbin, and Schumer, who voted against him the first go around before the Senate Judiciary Committee, what's your reading of how that went?

DAVID BROOKS: He did the grand ego tour.

JIM LEHRER: The grand ego tour?

DAVID BROOKS: Well he met a lot of big egos up in the Senate.

JIM LEHRER: Oh, I see.

DAVID BROOKS: So far it seems... you can never tell because they're all smiling in public. Schumer gave him a list of 47,000 questions or something, what kind of tree would you be if you were a tree --

MARK SHIELDS: No, it wasn't that.

DAVID BROOKS: (Laughs) And this will be actually the subject of the hearings which is how deeply can we probe? I happen to think that the guy has held himself up brilliantly, apparently, at Supreme Court grillings. And if you listen to those tapes or have seen those hearings, those are brutal. The Justices are coming at you from all directions.

JIM LEHRER: And almost immediately, too.

DAVID BROOKS: They don't wait for you to finish a sentence. If he can handle that brilliantly and be one of the best in the country, you have to figure he can handle one of these hearings. How deeply he wants to go up to his record will be between he and his strategists. One suspects he won't go very deeply at all.

JIM LEHRER: Mark, what have you heard the Democratic senators?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, Sen. Kennedy I talked to today and he said that - I mean, he praised on the record his intellect, his integrity, they found him enormously likable. He doesn't believe that... just as Sen. Schumer doesn't, that a hearing out to be a gotcha process and come up with some question that the witness or the nominee has never heard before. He believes in giving the questions beforehand that they want him to answer.

JIM LEHRER: You took offense at what David just said.

MARK SHIELDS: It's not what kind of a tree or what's your favorite color and is autumn your favorite season; it's... the fundamental question is the Supreme Court -- as William Howard Taft, a president who served on the Supreme Court as Chief Justice said, presidents come and go, the Supreme Court remains. It's always there. It endures. It is dominant. And it truly is. I mean, there's no question about it. All you have to do is go from "Plessey versus Ferguson" the Supreme Court absolutely sanctioned, gave moral credibility and legal status to enforced segregation of the races, separate but equal. And the same court, the same Supreme Court two generations later by a 9-0 move repealed it and said, no, "that's wrong, that's un-American, that's unconstitutional." So the power is enormous, the power to change American life. And Sen. Kennedy cited in particular the Tennessee case last year which I think all of us followed where the person in the wheelchair under the Americans for Disabilities Act had to crawl up to two floors of stairs - flights of stairs -- to get to the courtroom. And the Americans with Disabilities Act required the court to make accessible. It was approved, it stood by a 5-4 decision with Sandra Day O'Connor. And so questions like this, I think, are the kind that he can expect to get. I mean, where would you be on something like this? And those are... that's quite beyond the abortion thing, which is obviously underlying the whole fight.

DAVID BROOKS: I'd say two things. First, Robert Bork went into those hearings and thought he was in a seminar. The most interesting hearings to listen to are the ones least likely to get the guy confirmed. Whereas Justice Thomas...

JIM LEHRER: What do you mean?

DAVID BROOKS: Because Robert Bork just thought "oh, we're having a discussion here. Let me air some ideas. I've got theories about this; I've got some theories about that." Well, there were just vulnerabilities all across the field. It was fascinating to listen to it about natural law and things like that. But the people who don't answer, who make it as boring as possible and that includes from Justice Thomas to Justice O'Connor, they tend to go through. The other thing that strikes me about him is... and this is a mind, I'm guessing, but we know people like this, very developed views about process, about how the government should work, about how strong the president should be; not so much developed views about what we could consider substance about the morality of abortion. He may have it but it's private. Or how much stability should govern. I would say one interesting thing that happened today finally was when he went into see Arlen Specter yesterday. He said the importance of constitutional stability. And Arlen Specter ate that up because that is a reference to stare decisis. That is a reference, I'm not going to go there overturning precedent. And that would be comforting to a lot of people in the middle and on the left.

MARK SHIELDS: A lot of people on the left, but I mean, just to return to "Brown versus Board of Education" eight-year-old child in Topeka was barred from attending the school eight blocks from her house, from her own home and had to walk two miles to the school because she was black. The court said we could go for societal stability. That was the argument to keep it. That's the way it had been in this country ever since the Civil War and how do you interpret the 13th Amendment to the Constitution which grants equal protection? And the Warren Court said "no, equal protection is not separate but equal." So, I mean, stability comes with a price. And...

JIM LEHRER: So you're saying if you're going to go on the Supreme Court, what a Democrat or some people would be looking for is a willingness to make that kind of leap?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, certainly. I think history would...

JIM LEHRER: Rightness over stability.

MARK SHIELDS: History would pay testimony to the Warren Court for bringing America... for starting the second reconstruction of this country that led to the legislation of the 1960s which made America a more just place.

DAVID BROOKS: I think it depends who's in the majority. If you have a liberal majority, then the Democrats want the court to be aggressive. When you have a conservative majority, it tends to be the conservatives who say you've got to overturn settled precedent like "Roe v. Wade." And the Democrats are much more likely in this climate to be comforted by stability.

JIM LEHRER: Let me pick up on something Mark said, David. In fact, I think we probably said it among us here that this decision of President Bush to... to choose the nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor could be one of the most important decisions he will make. And he's made it. Three days later, does it look that important?

DAVID BROOKS: Oh, yeah. Absolutely. I think it's tremendously important and a reflection of the man. I would say this. He's not actually a rabble-rousing Scalia type. He's much more a reflection of a Roberts. He's much less theoretical, much more into calm demeanor, professional management and Roberts is modest view of the court.

MARK SHIELDS: Let me just add to that, Jim I first of all one of the smartest Democrats I know said this week if Bush is smart, and he's certainly smart with nominating John Roberts, this Democrat said this is good as we'll ever get, in quality, intellect, integrity and all the other fair-mindedness -- that he... if and when, not to sound ghoulish, if and when Chief Justice William Rehnquist leaves, is a superb nominee to be Chief Justice. The very quality - I mean, he can bring a court together, to get majority opinions. That was the first thing. The second thing is that Sen. Kennedy said short of going to war, it's the most important decision that any president makes and that the Senate makes - the Supreme Court Justice.

JIM LEHRER: Clearly you all feel the same way?

MARK SHIELDS: I'll just add one thing and that is if Senate Democrats are smart, what they will do is they'll accept the inevitability of his being confirmed. But they'll lay down the predicate for the next one...

JIM LEHRER: For next time.

MARK SHIELDS: And the very qualities that they praise in Justice... in soon to be Justice Roberts: Fair-mindedness, respect for his adversaries, support for from both sides of the aisle, even tempered.

JIM LEHRER: All the things that David just said.

MARK SHIELDS: That's right -- that's what we want in a judge and that should be the test for the next one because chances are they may be defective in a couple of those categories.

DAVID BROOKS: Three months from now it's going to look different from now. The blogs are going to get revved up, the interest groups are going to get revved up; there's going to be a passionate opposition. It may be small but it will be there. And it will be interesting to see how far --

JIM LEHRER: The hearings are definitely... pretty definitely now going to be in September, not in August, right?

MARK SHIELDS: It will be in September but it's going to take more than a skeleton in his closet. It's going to taken a entire graveyard in his closet for the people on the other side to get revved up.

JIM LEHRER: Mark said the other night, David, the night of the president's announcement, and you took offense to this when Mark said that the president speeded up his announcement of Roberts in order to change the subject away from Karl Rove. Did it work if that was, in fact what he had in mind?

DAVID BROOKS: I didn't take offense. I took civil disagreement. (Laughs) No, I really don't think... for us in the media, the Rove thing has become an obsession. I do not think it's an obsession in the White House where they're dealing with India in the past week, they're dealing Australia, they're dealing with issues that are just absorbing them. When I look at what's happening with the Rove thing, it's like a game of Clue. It's not a reporting story because we've got four little facts and a gigantic castle of speculation about those facts. We don't know the key answers to any of the important questions and so there's all these theories spinning around but we don't know who did what to who and that remains true it's going to remain true for another six weeks, probably.

JIM LEHRER: But there is the memo. What do you think about the State Department memo?

MARK SHIELDS: I disagree with the David. His own paper, the Washington Post, Walter Pincus, one of the greatest national security reporter who ever lived, Bloomberg is now out this afternoon with obvious leaks -- that there's conflicting testimony from Rove who said that Bob Novak had told him, allegedly testified Bob Novak told him it was Victoria Plame and that Novak when he testified said he did not tell him, that he already knew it. That Scooter Libby, the chief of staff of the vice president said that Tim Russert had told him the name. Russert testified reportedly that he never mentioned...

JIM LEHRER: Russert didn't tell him?

MARK SHIELDS: On any of this. So I would have to say that, you know, in a strange way, Jim, the president is uncurious George in this case. He could get to the bottom of this just like that. He said at the outset "I want to find out. I want to make sure what happened." All he has to do is bring the two guys in the office and say "what happened, fellahs?"

JIM LEHRER: What do you think of that?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, there are all these memos floating around. There are memos from the State Department, memos are from the CIA. The president was on a trip to Africa. They were all shooting around. You've got an investigation going on. Somehow it all will come out. And I assume the investigator has the ability to question the reporters, the White House, the CIA, the Senate, the State Department, frankly, more than the White House does and it's the investigator's job to find out what will happen and I suspect he'll do it and it will happen a few weeks from now. But the idea now, because we have conflicting testimony to say "well, it was Karl Rove" or all the other theories we have going around, the theories are just way out ahead of where the facts are.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Well we'll... we'll resolve this next time.

MARK SHIELDS: You better believe it.

JIM LEHRER: Yeah, right. Okay. Thank you both.

ESSAY - NORTH AMERICAN NEIGHBORS

JIM LEHRER: And finally, essayist Richard Rodriguez speaks about the NAFTA nation.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: On a recent summer day, President George Bush, invoking the memory of Sept. 11, pledged perseverance in Iraq.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The only we our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of Sept. 11.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: On that same day the Canadian House of Commons voted to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. On that same day, Mexico's lawmakers granted Mexicans living abroad, millions living in the U.S., the right to vote in Mexican elections. More than a decade ago the trilateral hand shakes among the U.S. and Mexican president and a Canadian prime minister endorsed NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement that recognized a continental relationship. And yet we North Americans remain strangers to one another, despite being implicated in each other's future, especially after Sept. 11. Mexicans and Canadians have very little idea of one another. They both obsess about their intervening neighbor. Until recently, the U.S. was dismissive of Canada and Mexico. Canada was our clean pharmacist, Mexico was our pusher, Canada was virginal, Canadian-born Mary Pickford convincingly impersonated America's sweetheart. The Mexican Delores Del Rio was in a different film altogether. Sept. 11 changed everything. Now the United States obsesses about Canada and Mexico. We feel ourselves in both directions vulnerable. In the days after Sept. 11, Mexican lawmakers were reluctant to express official sympathy toward the United States. Such is the durability of Mexico's 19th Century grievance against the land grabbing gringo. Canada on Sept. 11 behaved like a good neighbor; planes bound to the United States from Asia and Europe were diverted to Canada and Canada took us in. But in years since, we in the U.S. have re-imagined Canada. We have become fixated on terrorist cells in Ontario and the possibility that dark-minded migrants could cross our northern border. They did it once, they might do it again.

SPOKESPERSON: So when you headed back to the Philippines?

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: And Canadian immigration laws were turning Canada before our eyes from green to brown, no longer a European outpost. South of the border, Mexico has long been disdainful toward Mexican Americans because we abandoned Mother Mexico for Uncle Sam. Mexico has even scorned its own poor who travel north to work in Gringolandia. And if Mexico's congress is willing to extend voting rights to Mexican migrants workers represents a great change in the Mexican mind. Mexico is accommodating itself to the reality of North America. In a commercial for his reelection, George Bush holds a small Mexican flag as he stands beside a child. But that an American president would display the flag of another country surprising; that President Bush would hold a flag of Mexico, a country unsettling to many members of his own party, is astonishing. Self-described minutemen patrol the Arizona border on the lookout for illegal Mexican immigrants. The minutemen have lately announced their intention to patrol the Canadian border. On Gay Pride Day in Toronto, as Canada's parliament prepared to pass same-sex marriage rights, Canada's conservative party leader Steven Harper visited the city's Muslim neighborhoods to galvanize Islamic opposition to gay marriage, just as President Bush galvanized fundamentalist Christian opposition in the U.S. The gay couple in St. Louis imagines moving to Canada; the Mexican peasant in Colima dreams of getting a job in el Norte. The Canadian worries that his factory will close and move to Mexico. The U.S. President holds the flag of Mexico as U.S. minutemen patrol the Canadian border. We are all North Americans now. I'm Richard Rodriguez.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of the day: British police shot and killed a man said to be directly linked to yesterday's bombings in London. They also arrested a suspect in connection with those blasts. And late today wire services reported a series of explosions in and near the Egyptian report of Sharm el-Sheik on the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula. There were no immediate reports of casualties.

JIM LEHRER: And once 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 five more.

JIM LEHRER: Washington Week can be seen on most PBS stations later this evening. We'll see you online and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.