This is a partial transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," Oct. 18, 2004, that has been edited for clarity.
Watch "Hannity & Colmes" weeknights at 9 p.m. ET!
ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: A page tonight from the "Hannity & Colmes" notebook.
The former Republican governor of Michigan, William Milliken (search), endorsed John Kerry for president today saying that the Bush administration has been pandering to the extreme right wing.
He went on to criticize the administration for pushing tax cuts for the rich, blocking stem-cell research, and for rushing into war with Iraq. I guess his vote cancels out Zell Miller's!
One person who may take issue with his Milliken's comments is our next guest. Joining us now to tell us about his new book, "Courting Disaster," Pat Robertson.
Reverend, nice to see you.
PAT ROBERTSON, CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING NETWORK: Good to see you. Thank you.
COLMES: Let's talk about the kinds of justices that each candidate might appoint were one to be — one will be elected or re-elected. Who on the court now, would you say Antonin Scalia, for example, would be the model justice?
ROBERTSON:: Scalia's my hero. He is a brilliant man. And the chief is pretty good, too.
COLMES: Do you agree with Scalia, though, who said, "I am not a strict constructionist and no one ought to be?"
ROBERTSON: I think Scalia is an independent thinker. He's got a broad education, and he's just a very sharp guy.
COLMES: You often talk, and you talk in this book, about activism and your concern about liberal activism, but is there such a thing as conservatism activism on the court?
ROBERTSON: If there is, I haven't seen any recently. There may have been before.
I just think that they ought to take the Constitution, and say here's what we've got. This is the document. We want too interpret the document and whatever collateral documents, like the Federalist Papers, and let's see what the law says, but let's not take your sociological point of view and impose it on the Constitution.
COLMES: Some would say, for their cases, like Kimel vs. Florida Board of Regents a number of years ago, that ruled states could not be sued for age discrimination because of a general principle of state sovereign immunity. The Gore decision in 2000, where they didn't revert to the Florida state court.
ROBERTSON: It's amazing...
COLMES: There are those who believe that that is conservatism activism.
ROBERTSON: Well, I think there are some who felt that the Supreme Court went out of bounds on the election, but of course I was very pleased to see that decision. It surprised us all.
COLMES: But isn't that activism on the right?
ROBERTSON: Well, I think they were trying to interpret the law properly. That's what it was.
COLMES: But you liked the decision.
Isn't it all a matter of what prism you're looking at through?
ROBERTSON: Well, sort of, but when it's case after case — you know, in this book, I've got about 167 different cases showing judicial activism and, as Scalia said, you have taken sides in a culture war. And I think that's what it amounts to. They have imposed a particular mindset on the American people.
COLMES: Isn't the idea though, of a justice, any justice, to be totally neutral, not to have a political agenda, left or right, and if you believe in states' rights, you would think the 2000 decision would have reverted back to the Florida Supreme Court? And when it said, this case exists in this case only, or this opinion applies to this case only, that's activism.
ROBERTSON: You know, it really shouldn't be.
And I'm a purist in relation to states' rights and the other things. I mean, the Constitution — we do have a federal government, federal form of government, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendment indicate that the powers that weren't reserve for the federal government were given to the states and to the people.
And I think the court has, you know, run all over that egregiously, and that's what I would like to see stopped.
COLMES: Who are some of the people you would like to see on the court?
ROBERTSON:: I'll put this guy on right now. Sean is my first candidate.
COLMES: You ran for president — but you ran for president once. Who would you like to see on the Supreme Court?
ROBERTSON: I tell you what. Miguel Estrada (search) to me is a superb candidate and he — I mean, after all, he served under the Clinton administration in the solicitor general's office. Why not him?
What about Janice Brown? She's a black jurist who was elected overwhelmingly by the citizens of California. There is another guy named...
COLMES: Do you think it's good for the country to have an all conservative court? Should all the justices think like Scalia or is it better for the country to have diversity on the court, left and right?
ROBERTSON: I don't mind diversity, but I think every justice should look at the Constitution like my job is to interpret my Constitution. My job is not to be a replacement for Congress. My job is not to supercede the United States president, but I'm going to faithfully interpret the law. That's what I think they ought to do.
HANNITY: Reverend Roberton, good to see you again. Thanks for stopping by.
But this book — and by the way, it's an excellent book, because you give all the examples of...
HANNITY: ... of how judicial activism — and it is startling how much there is now.
I mean, in many ways, what liberals could never get done legislatively or at the ballot box, this is their avenue now.
ROBERTSON: That's the thing that I can't understand with the liberals. It's supposed to be for democracy. And I'm for the will of the people.
I think the legislatures ought to decide, the Congress ought to decide, and if we don't like what the Congress does, then vote them out of office. But you can't vote these judges out.
HANNITY: You can't. And they have these lifetime appointments. They yield tremendous power, and they are abusing that power, which you point out in the book and you use all of these examples.
The subtopic, though, of this election, the little thing that we're not really talking a lot about is, the next president elected in 15 days from now is likely to appoint how many Supreme Court justices?
ROBERTSON: Well, I do know that Rehnquist is thinking of retiring. I think O'Conner is thinking of retiring. Ginsberg hasn't been too well. So that's three of them.
HANNITY: How old is he?
ROBERTSON: He's about 85, and he told Jay Seculo, my friend, he said, "Would you please tell Reverend Robertson: I'm still healthy?"
But Mr. Justice, we're praying, but we don't know what's going to happen.
HANNITY: Pray for your health, but not...
ROBERTSON:: You pray for your health, and maybe you'll retire.
But at least three, maybe four, in the next term.
HANNITY: So this is — and you spell out, for example, recent battles in the Supreme Court. We've got the Ten Commandments, the pledge of allegiance, partial-birth abortion, same-sex marriage. This is all now become issues before the courts.
ROBERTSON:: You know, this — we thought that marriage was a relationship between a man and a woman. That has been established for millennia.
And, all of a sudden, four justices in Massachusetts overturn the will of the people of Massachusetts, the will of the governor, and say, "Well, we're sorry. This is a constitutional right." Since when?
HANNITY: Are you concerned about this election, in terms of the values — for example, there are, what, 40 million evangelicals in America today.
ROBERTSON:: Right. Right.
HANNITY: Are you confident that they are going to go out in strong numbers and support President Bush?
ROBERTSON:: In the last election, they weren't sure about Bush because they thought maybe he was a chip off the old block and they thought the old block was kind of liberal.
HANNITY: They thought he wasn't that conservative?
ROBERTSON:: No, he wasn't that conservative.
But I think, after four years, the bona fides of George Bush as a conservative are pretty well established, and I think the evangelicals will — I mean, they voted, what, 86 percent in favor of Bush. But I think they are going to go to the polls. And, listen, because this is such a key election. It's absolutely vital.
HANNITY: Are you surprised that there's always this discussion every election year, that politicians can't speak in churches? I'm like, why not? And why can't the preachers talk about the morality of government and voting and the issues at hand?
ROBERTSON:: In the colonial days, the preachers got up before an election and explained the principles involved. These are the issues at stake, and, you know, sometimes the people actually marched to the church.
HANNITY: Al Sharpton should be able to do it. Jesse Jackson and Pat Robertson and others.
ROBERTSON: Well, Jesse Jackson took up offerings in churches. I mean, it was pretty egregious.
But I think it's — why muzzle the preachers?
COLMES: You've probably got a couple of liberals in your church?
ROBERTSON: Of course, we do.
HANNITY: You're not doing your job, Reverend.
ROBERTSON: I'm so moderate it hurts everybody...
COLMES: Reverend, we'll see you later on radio later tonight. We'll continue the conversation.
ROBERTSON: Thanks a lot.
Content and Programming Copyright 2004 Fox News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2004 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.