Return to Transcripts main page
Campbell Brown
Supreme Court Vacancy; Bart Stupak Announces Retirement
Aired April 09, 2010 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAMPBELL BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Hey there, everybody.
We have got a lot of news for you tonight, much of it coming under the heading calling it quits. First, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens today saying he will step down, leaving President Obama with another seat to fill on the court, and the certain prospect of a bruising confirmation battle this summer.
We have two guests who have been inside that process. They're going to be here to talk about that a little bit later on the show.
Then there is Congressman Bart Stupak, retiring after nine terms in the House. He says it's got nothing to do with the heat he took when he voted for the president's health care bill. Well, that's what he says, anyway. But you do have to wonder about the timing.
And then the story that everybody has been talking about: a 7- year-old Russian boy adopted by an American family a few months ago, then sent back to Moscow this week, alone, with a note that called him mentally unstable and violent. Should you be able to give back an adopted child? We have some interesting answers for you coming up on that front as well.
A lot to talk about tonight, but we begin with your cheat sheet for the top stories of the day. It is our "Mash-Up."
And our top domestic story is the move that has been rumored for months, Justice Stevens announcing his retirement from the Supreme Court this summer. He is about to turn 90. And if you think things got heated during the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor, you ain't seen nothing yet.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: This gives the president his second opportunity to appoint someone to the nation's highest court. Among the possible nominees, federal appeals court judges Diane Wood and Merrick Garland and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. We haven't mentioned the solicitor general, Elena Kagan, as well.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stevens' retirement marks the end of an era, the last veteran of World War II to serve on the court. And, in an increasingly polarized political world, he may end up being the last liberal on the court nominated by a Republican, President Gerald Ford.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He has applied the Constitution and the laws of the land with fidelity and restraint. He will soon turn 90 this month, but he leaves his position at the top of his game.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Friends say Justice Stevens may have decided to leave now, because the longer he waits, the harder it will be to nominate and confirm a successor who would vote on cases the way he has.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: A senior administration official tells CNN the White House already has a list of about 10 potential replacements for Stevens.
The big international story today coming from the Vatican, where church files have surfaced showing that, before he became pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger signed a letter resisting the defrocking of a California priest convicted of child sexual abuse. The AP obtained that letter. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Father Stephen Kiesle, a priest in Oakland, California, was sentenced to three-years probation for tying up and molesting two young boys inside the church rectory in 1978. The local bishop wrote several letters to the Vatican office headed by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, trying to remove Kiesle from the priesthood.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This 1985 letter made public today by the Associated Press shows Cardinal Ratzinger turned down a request from Oakland Bishop John Cummins to defrock a pedophile priest.
Ratzinger acknowledged, in Latin, it was a case "of grave significance," but declined to take action, worried, he said, about the impact on the good of the universal church. The AP says the Vatican confirms then Cardinal Ratzinger signed this letter.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For the next two years, as the Vatican decided his fate, the priest was sent to a local parish as a youth minister. He was finally defrocked in 1987, nearly six years after the Vatican was notified of the abuse.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: A Vatican spokesman said it was -- quote -- "not strange" that there are single documents which have Cardinal Ratzinger's signature.
And our top political story is that additional Washington retirement of Congressman Bart Stupak. He says he is on his way out after nine terms. You will remember the anti-abortion Michigan Democrat drew a lot of heat when he switched sides at the 11th hour and voted for the health care reform bill.
Well, he is saying it wasn't the critics that drove him out of the House, but listen to what he told our Dana Bash today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Is there any risk in looking like you're actually...
REP. BART STUPAK (D), MICHIGAN: No.
BASH: ... a coward...
STUPAK: No.
BASH: ... not a fighter here...
STUPAK: No.
BASH: ... and saying this...
STUPAK: No.
BASH: ... as they're here trying to get you out of office?
STUPAK: No. No. The Tea Party is not even from my district. You know, I'm -- I'm glad -- I hope they are spending...
BASH: I was here yesterday. There were a number of people from your district at that first rally.
STUPAK: OK. Most of the calls come from an office in Texas. I mean that's what the Tea Party is.
You have groups come and go. When I ran, it was the Perot people -- the Ross Perot people. I mean, I get I along with these folks.
And even if they were from my district, they're my friends. And there's no doubt in my mind I would win reelection if I chose to run again. I have chose not to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Stupak said he decided not to run again because he fulfilled one of his original campaign promises from 18 years ago, the passage of the health care reform bill.
The buzz tonight is a moment at the White House today, and it has nothing to do with politics. Take a look at this caught-on-camera reunion between the president and first lady.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
B. OBAMA: FLOTUS. I was just looking for you.
MICHELLE OBAMA, FIRST LADY: Here I am.
B. OBAMA: Let's not do this in front of cameras.
(LAUGHTER)
B. OBAMA: Stop it, guys. I haven't seen my wife...
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: The first couple hadn't seen each other in at least two days while the president had traveled to Prague.
And that brings us to the "Punchline" tonight. Have you heard the one about KFC's new fat-tastic sandwich? Well, Jay Leno has the last word on that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAY LENO, HOST, "THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JAY LENO": KFC coming out with their new Double Down sandwich. Have you heard about this? It's bacon and cheese wrapped inside two pieces of fried chicken.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
LENO: In fact, today, al Qaeda said: We quit. When it comes to killing Americans, we can't keep up with you guys.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Jay Leno, ladies and gentlemen. That is your Friday night "Mash-Up."
Up next, we're going to dissect the new buzzword among Republicans going after President Obama: radical. Is he? We're going to hash that out, plus the opening on the Supreme Court, the legacy of retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, and what President Obama is facing as he tries to fill the void -- when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Tonight, it is one big Republican lovefest down in New Orleans. This year's Southern Republican Leadership Conference is just teeming with White House hopefuls, and Barack Obama is their political pinata of choice.
The hero of the 1994 Republican revolution, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, threw some red meat to the right, using an extraordinary superlative to describe the president. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The president of the United States, the most radical president in American history, has now thrown down the gauntlet to the American people. He has said: I run a machine. I own Washington. And there is nothing you can do about it. (END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: The president of the United States a radical, the most radical?
Chief political correspondent and "STATE OF THE UNION" host Candy Crowley is at the conference tonight, along with "TIME" magazine senior political analyst Mark Halperin.
Welcome to you both.
Candy, let me start with you.
Radical, a very strong word. You have been at this conference surrounded by Republicans. How else has the president been described down there?
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, let's understand, of course, first that meetings like this, particularly at this time, which is in advance of the 2010 elections, and looking forward to the 2012 elections, are designed to jack up the base.
They're designed to say, fire them up, get them out there, go to the polls, plant -- get your guy elected to Congress, that kind of thing. So, having -- to directly answer your question, yes, we have -- the president's policy toward Hamid Karzai and the way the U.S. has treated him -- Liz Cheney was here. She called it childish and dangerous.
And you're right. The president is the chief person they have gone after. And why? Because that's what fuels that passion that they hope will move people to the polls in November.
BROWN: It's about him, or it appears to be about him.
Mark, what are you hearing down there?
MARK HALPERIN, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, "TIME": It is so about him. Candy mentioned Liz Cheney's speech last night when she talked about she was critical of the White House for being too critical of Karzai. There were cheers when Liz Cheney announced the news that had broken shortly before he spoke that the prime minister of Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu, wasn't going to come to Washington for a security conference.
These are extraordinary things for Republicans to be cheering, the dissing of a president's foreign policy and of the president's and the American role in the world. And it shows the extent to which Gingrich and Cheney and others see that the way to rile up Republicans more than anything else is to talk about Barack Obama.
BROWN: And, Candy, I guess if anybody else sort of was able to share the limelight, it was Sarah Palin. And the president, before we get to what she said, took a shot at her this morning.
To give people the backstory, he was asked about her criticism of his nuclear policy in an interview with ABC News. Check out his response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues.
If the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are comfortable with it, I'm probably going to take my advice from them, and not from Sarah Palin.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: And she didn't exactly take that lying down, did she, Candy?
CROWLEY: She didn't, Campbell.
Look, if you are someone who wants to remain in the forefront of the Republican Party, who wants to be a kingmaker or perhaps a king themselves, there is nothing better than engaging with the president of the United States from a different party. It certainly elevates your status. And she wasn't about to let that remark go.
BROWN: And, Mark, I mean, this is one of those potential presidential cattle calls, I guess, I mean, a lot of Republican hopefuls all gathered in one place. You have the straw poll tomorrow. Who is really working it there? Who is the crowd favorite?
HALPERIN: Well, we have some more tomorrow, so we don't want to make a final judgment. Clearly, Sarah Palin is a huge favorite.
When they opened the doors to let people in for the session at which she was speaking, people ran in, as if they were giving out money. There was caribou jerky and not money on the seats waiting for them. I think that Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, who a lot of people don't take seriously as a potential candidate, but is certainly someone who is talked about in some quarters, he was clearly here to give a speech to attract national attention.
Three big people missing from here, though, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Mike Huckabee. But almost everybody else who is eyeing is seriously is here. And the crowd's got it on its mind. Everybody is being -- having their tires kicked and evaluated in the prism of not just, can they help in the midterms, but can they take on Barack Obama.
BROWN: All right, Mark Halperin for us tonight, Candy Crowley as well, from New Orleans -- thanks, guys.
And we are going to continue this conversation when we come back and focus on that question -- or the charge from Newt Gingrich we heard today of the president being the most radical president in American history. It turns out there are others commanders in chief who may have worn the same label, and maybe even proudly. We will talk with some experts and historians on the presidency when we come back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: We are talking about President Obama being called the most radical president in American history by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Gingrich's statement was bold, but certainly not unique when criticizing this president. Take a listen.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: The radical left leadership of this party bears much more resemblance to Nazi policies than anything we on the right believe in at all.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEAN HANNITY, HOST, "HANNITY": Our cross-country tour coincides with the release of my first book in six years. It's called "Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama's Radical Agenda."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He has given us an administration of radicals that have an agenda.
TOM TANCREDO (R), FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: A committed socialist ideologue in the White House -- name is Barack Hussein Obama.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Well, if the president really is a radical, he might just have some company.
With me to talk about it is presidential historian Doug Brinkley, senior CNN political analyst David Gergen, and also James Peterson, a professor at Bucknell University, joins us as well.
David, let me go back to Newt Gingrich for a second. He didn't just call Barack Obama radical. He called him the most radical president in American history. What did you make of that?
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Listen, Newt Gingrich is a very good debater. He knows how to make his points.
And what is he doing here, Campbell? He is trying to throw up as many charges as he can against Barack Obama and see what sticks. And this charge of being radical, out of the mainstream, is an attempt by the right to push Obama out and be perceived as a -- someone who is trying to bring us a Western European-style government that is going to be socialist in nature and going to be destroy a lot of our freedoms.
I would remind you that it was only a few years ago that people were calling -- from the left -- calling George W. Bush a radical and publishing books calling it a radical regime, because they wanted to paint him out as someone who was taking us to war right and left and stealing all the liberties and everything like that. This is sort of -- this is sort of -- not -- it is not standard political rhetoric, but it's well within historic traditions.
BROWN: James, I know that you have a certain interpretation of this word when applied to this president. You study how language is used. When you hear guys calling this president radical, what does it mean to you?
JAMES PETERSON, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH, BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY: Well, I think we have to put it in the broader context of the ways in which radical has been racialized since about the mid-20th century here in America.
So, oftentimes, when you hear the term radical now, there is usually a racial component to that designation. Think about the Black Panthers from the '60s, or think about when we talk about radical Islam, right? We're normally thinking of a certain racial designation that goes with that.
And if you think about the undercurrent of all this conversation that we see coming from the extreme right, like the Tea Party folk, a very homogeneous group, racially homogeneous, I think we can get a better understanding of the very nuance of race that is operating here.
Yes, it is about making Obama an outsider, but one of the easiest ways to do that is to ostracize him along the lines of race.
BROWN: Before I go to Doug on this, because I want him to give us the more historical perspective, what do you think of -- David, of what James just said?
GERGEN: I must say I just sharply disagree. I think it's unfair, when people take issue with the president from the right, to suddenly see a racist hiding behind -- within the suit.
It was only a few years ago that there was a column written about Franklin Roosevelt, well since the '60s, just a couple of years ago, written about Franklin Roosevelt calling him a radical in the White House, and it was written by an African-American columnist for "The New York Times."
And I would just tell you, I do not think that was a racist comment, nor do I think what Newt Gingrich was saying should be seen as a racist comment.
PETERSON: I certainly am not saying that Newt Gingrich is a racist. I'm actually saying that Newt Gingrich is very smart. He is very much aware, I think...
(CROSSTALK)
PETERSON: ... of some of the undertones of the kinds of conversations we have had about this presidency
(CROSSTALK) GERGEN: But you're saying he was racializing the issue.
PETERSON: No, I'm saying the term radical...
(CROSSTALK)
PETERSON: No, no, no. With all due respect -- I have much respect for you, sir -- I'm saying that the term radical itself has been racialized over time, not that Newt Gingrich has done it. But surely we cannot step away from the fact...
GERGEN: But why would you bring it up, then, with regard to -- why would you then bring it up with regard to Newt Gingrich, if you were not suggesting that that's what he was doing?
(CROSSTALK)
PETERSON: Because I think that, within the context of our critique of Obama, race is always on the back burner.
In the attempt to get the Republican Party to cohere around certain issues, race has been used, maybe not explicitly, but certainly implicitly.
BROWN: All right.
PETERSON: And I think -- and when people think about radicals, the image that comes to mind usually now is radical Islam or a person with a black fist in the air, or a Chavez. There is usually a racial designation that attaches to it.
I think it's an interesting strategy for Newt Gingrich to apply. I'm not calling him a racist. I'm saying that, when we think about the term radical in America, many people attach racial issues to that.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: All right, hold on, David.
GERGEN: OK.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: Let me bring Doug -- let's get a little broader here, and let me have Doug talk a little bit about who really was a radical president when you put this in a historical context.
DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, the word radical is used for our founding fathers. Paul Revere and Sam Adams and Thomas Jefferson -- Abraham Lincoln is considered a radical for...
PETERSON: Absolutely.
BRINKLEY: ... for back -- time in the Civil War.
But I think, when Newt Gingrich is using the word radical, it really has a '60s connotation, not a racial one as much as the '60s. Remember, Tom Wolfe wrote the famous essay about radical chic. And it's part and parcel for kind of Obama being an elite, in a way, a liberal elite.
And more to the point, I mean, radical, by Newt Gingrich calling him that, seems to me, mild. I mean, he has a book coming out called "To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular Socialist Machine."
So, you're seeing a Newt Gingrich, who did his Ph.D. in history and is really quite a fine historian, wanting to get into the political game. I thought the word radical wasn't as interesting as the fact that Gingrich was talking about taking back Congress today, trying to remind people that, in '94, he was the one who orchestrated that victory.
And I think he is trying to be -- show that he is going to be the one to orchestrate this congressional comeback this year -- and come January. And, in many ways, the more interesting dynamic wasn't the anti-Obama sentiments here. That's to be expected. But it's the Palin-Gingrich square-off with Obama -- or, I mean, with -- you have Palin saying, I'm for no, no to all Obama, and Gingrich was trying to use the word yes.
So, it was a lot of political theater going on. But I don't think Newt Gingrich is a racist.
BROWN: And, to that point, I think the bottom line is, whatever this overheated rhetoric actually says, what it's about is to serve one goal, and that's kicking him out, kicking Democratic colleagues of his out of power in Congress.
So, let me just ask you. Let me ask all of you, but start, Doug, historically speaking, has this worked, to use sort of -- radical to define your opponents?
BRINKLEY: Well, of course it does.
I mean, Ronald Reagan ran in 1980 against the sort of '60s radical. He was governor of California, and Berkeley radicals, and it had a connotation for Reagan. And Gingrich is trying to become an inheritor -- in many ways, he is an inheritor -- of a Reagan tradition.
But the speech -- and if you read all of Newt Gingrich's speech today -- was a very well-crafted political speech. And I was, in some ways, surprised at how much he is ready, I think, to get into it now. His book is coming out this spring. He sees this year that he can claim somebody like Palin or Perry don't know about Washington politics, and he is going to get Congress back to vote down.
So, I thought it was an important speech if you're looking at Gingrich as a potential long-shot candidate in '12.
BROWN: James, let me give you the last word here. We're almost out of time.
PETERSON: Sure.
I mean, what will happen is, this will work. It's a great strategy. Think about how homogeneous the Republican Party has come. If there is a way to galvanize or extort them or get them out there to vote, one way to do that it is to do the us-and-them strategy.
I'm not saying Newt Gingrich is a racist, but there is a racial component to the term radical that will be applied by some people in this society when they hear it.
BROWN: All right. Gentlemen, appreciate it.
James Peterson, Doug Brinkley, and David Gergen, thanks a lot, guys.
PETERSON: Thank you.
BRINKLEY: Thank you.
BROWN: Also tonight, President Obama has another issue to face, as we have been talking about, as you have probably been hearing about all day today. Who will he pick to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens?
We're going to look at the Stevens legacy and the fight ahead with Jeff Toobin, who recently had a rare sit-down with Justice Stevens -- that coming up right after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: For weeks, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the longest serving member of the current court, has been, well, dropping hints, I guess, signaling his plans to possibly step down.
And, today, Stevens sent the letter to President Obama giving the word that he will in fact retire this summer. And he will turn 90 later this month.
CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin sat down with Stevens for an extensive profile, a rare interview that appeared last month in "The New Yorker."
And Jeff is with us now.
I will give credit where credit was due. You were here, what, a month ago, early March...
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Just about, yes.
BROWN: ... telling us this was about to happen.
TOOBIN: Yes. You know, he didn't say directly that he was going to quit, but all the body language...
BROWN: Right.
TOOBIN: ... the reading between the lines.
And, also, I thought it was typical of Justice Stevens' precision that, on March 8, he said to me, I think I will make my decision in about a month. And here it is April 9, the day -- you know...
(CROSSTALK)
(LAUGHTER)
BROWN: You think maybe he had already made that decision?
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: I think he had counted the days, yes.
BROWN: He was telling -- he was signaling you, be ready on this day.
TOOBIN: He was signaling me in very...
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: It's interesting. A lot of people may forget that he is a Republican. He was appointed by Gerald Ford, but turned out to be one of the most liberal justices on the court.
What is the impact? What does it really mean, him stepping down?
TOOBIN: Well, I think, in a broader historical sense, it's really the passing of an era.
You know, for decades, in our civic life, World War II veterans, from John F. Kennedy, to George Herbert Walker Bush, they were the people who ran, you know, politics, government, business. He is the last one. He is the last World War II veteran in a position of prominence.
And, you know, that had an impact, in his intense patriotism, his -- his concern about the rules of war, which came through in the Guantanamo cases. So, you know, I think the ideological makeup of the court will not change that much. You'll have four liberals, four conservatives. Anthony Kennedy in the middle. But the fact that Stevens is not there will make it a different place.
BROWN: And he was also -- I know you've described him this way, I think, known as a consensus builder. So who takes on that role when he is gone?
TOOBIN: And that's a real lesson about the court, because when he joined the court in 1975, he was anything but a consensus builder. He was known as kind of an eccentric, someone who didn't ally himself with anyone.
But over the years, he learned to make alliances. And in 1994, when he became the senior associate justice after Harry Blackmun resigned, he learned to make -- to bring Sandra Day O'Connor around while she was on the court, to bring Anthony Kennedy around.
Not all the time. He lost a lot of big case, including Citizens United earlier this year, and Bush v Gore above all. But he really learned to exert influence.
Who is the next senior-most liberal? Ruth Bader Ginsburg. A very different personality. Much quieter.
BROWN: And does she have the personality to do that?
TOOBIN: You know what? It seems unlikely to me. She is not someone who is nearly as outgoing or as involved in dealing with the other justices as Stevens is. Maybe Stephen Breyer. But by the Supreme Court standards, he used to be the junior justice for a long time.
It's very hard to know how that will work. I think the new justice, Obama's next appointment, may have a very important role very soon.
BROWN: So given the current political environment, it is ugly out there.
TOOBIN: It is ugly out there.
BROWN: Understatement.
TOOBIN: Yes.
BROWN: How hot are these confirmation hearings going to get?
TOOBIN: You know it depends. I think it depends on who the nominee is. I mean if it is someone who has a outspoken liberal record. Frankly, I doubt that. I don't think Obama wants to nominate an outspoken liberal. You could see a big fight.
But you know I think the Republicans are going the make a very serious calculation here. Clearly they're going to vote against this nominee in large numbers. But the question is how ugly will it get?
You know, I think if they think they'll do better talking about jobs, talking about the economy, not talking about the divisive social issues that come up in the Supreme Court, you know, they'll make nasty statements at the confirmation hearings, but they won't really try to defeat this nominee.
BROWN: So do you -- read the tea leaves? Who is it going to be? Do you have any ideas here?
TOOBIN: I think it will be Elena Kagan. I think she is a leading possibility. She is a solicitor general. She is young, 49.
BROWN: Another woman, you think?
TOOBIN: Another, you know what, I think that's kind of --
BROWN: And I'm all for that, by the way.
TOOBIN: Well, you know what? I think that's kind of an anti- concern. The legal profession is almost half women. More than half the law students are women. Where is it written that two is the maximum on the Supreme Court? Why not five? Why not a majority like in Canada in their Supreme Court?
I just think the world is changing in such a way that the bean counting matters less than it used to.
BROWN: It is going to be an interesting summer for you, for all of us.
TOOBIN: It will be the nerd Super Bowl.
BROWN: The nerd Super Bowl.
TOOBIN: That's what we love.
BROWN: Jeff Toobin, thanks so much.
When we come back, we are going to look ahead as President Obama picks a nominee, and why this could be, as Jeff pointed out, a bigger fight possibly than the Sotomayor confirmation, believe it or not.
We have two people who've actually been on the inside. They're going to be here to tell us what the process will be like.
Also, an adoption gone wrong. You may have heard about this story. A 7-year-old Russian boy shipped back to Moscow all alone. This is a heartbreaking story, and the international outrage is unleashed. That still ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Once again, we are talking about the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens. And joining us right now are two guys who have really been on the inside of this process.
Jeffrey Peck, who is the former staff director and general counsel to then, or who was, to then Senator Joe Biden on the Senate Judiciary Committee. And also Ken Duberstein is with us, former White House chief of staff under President Reagan.
They have been on both sides of this issue in the past.
Ken, let me start with you here. I know you helped three different Supreme Court nominees through the confirmation process. And you were involved in those conversations about who the president actually ended up choosing.
So kind of walk us through what's happening right now behind closed doors at the White House. What exactly are they thinking about as they get ready for this?
KEN DUBERSTEIN, FMR. REAGAN CHIEF OF STAFF: Well, Campbell, number one, they're thinking about is confirmability. You want to send up a nomination to get confirmed. So you can talk about all sorts of other attributes. But the bottom line is confirmability.
You know, the White House always has a list in the counsel's office, a short list so to speak. There are a lot of people who call and make recommendations. It becomes a longer list. But the White House really has two, three, four names that they are vetting.
They're using, you know, fly specking, going through somebody's career, everything that has been written, everything that has been said, all sorts of the nasty questions that have to be asked. All the financial statements.
So that they get to vet three or four of their top candidates. And then they start shopping around a little bit, not simply in the White House, or in justice, but more fundamentally with the Senate Judiciary Committee and with the Senate at large, saying, you know, what do you know, what do you hear, what can you tell us than person.
Can that person be confirmed? Is there a problem here, or is there a problem there? So you're really whittling it down to the point that you get one or maybe two candidates.
BROWN: Right. So --
DUBERSTEIN: And then the president has those decisions to make.
BROWN: So do you think that outreach has already started to the Senate at this stage?
DUBERSTEIN: I think it's a little bit premature, but I think there is an ongoing conversation and consultation that has been taking place for a number of months because the rumors about Justice Stevens have been rampant for a long time.
But it's always important for the counsel's office, the White House, the chief of staff to have that running roster, that short list, that leader board if you would, of the top two or three candidates.
BROWN: Right.
DUBERSTEIN: Even if they have not reached out right now to Pat Leahy or Harry Reid, let alone to the Republicans.
BROWN: Jeff, let me bring you in here. I know you worked on the Senate side of this, Bork, Kennedy, Souter and the Thomas hearings. This -- let me just play here for people. This is the rhetoric coming out of the Senate as of today. Senator John Cornyn. Listen.
Oh, we don't have the sound bite here. I'll read you what he said.
"Our nation deserves a Supreme Court nominee who is committed to deciding cases impartially based on the law, not on personal politics, preferences, or what is in the nominee's heart." It reads kind of like a warning shot, I guess, to the president already.
How big of a fight in your view are we talking about here?
JEFFREY PECK, FMR. SEN. JUDICIARY CMTE. COUNSEL: Well, I think that really is going to depend on who controls the Republican Party these days. If -- as your earlier segments showed, if it's the folks who are down in New Orleans, and it's Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin and tea party activists, then there is going to be a large fight.
And the Republican caucus in the Senate is going to be under tremendous pressure to put up a very, very large objection and try to do what they can to, if not stop it, slow down the nomination and damage the president and Senate Democrats politically to the extent they can.
I think that's going to be a very, very difficult task for Senate Republicans, though, because I think the president will nominate someone who is in the spirit and the legacy of Justice Stevens.
And that's going to be a pragmatic jurist who is faithful to the Constitution, but is also very, very sensitive to the real world implications of the decisions that the Supreme Court renders.
And that's the kind of nominee that I think will have widespread public support and will be difficult for the Republicans to score political points over.
BROWN: And that's who you would recommend to choose if you were advising the president, right, Jeff?
PECK: Absolutely.
BROWN: Ken, go ahead.
DUBERSTEIN: All I was going to suggest is that, you know, at a time where everybody is worried about jobs and unemployment, it's very difficult for the White House to focus on one job, and that's the Supreme Court justice job.
I think, you know, they're going to try to make this as noncontroversial as they possibly can, parading somebody around who is not only as a moderate, but somebody who has a compelling personal story because personal stories sell.
BROWN: Right.
DUBERSTEIN: And they're going to try to make this not quite routine because no Supreme Court nomination is routine. But they're going try to not have that flash of liberal nomination.
BROWN: Right.
DUBERSTEIN: That will bring out all the interest groups and all the rhetoric and all the finger-pointing. That's probably the last thing that they're looking for as they focus on the economy.
BROWN: Yes. All right --
DUBERSTEIN: And jobs rather than the Supreme Court.
BROWN: Ken --
PECK: But can I --
BROWN: Yes, go ahead. Quickly.
PECK: I was just going to say, Campbell, that I think I agree with you in terms of where the White House is coming from, but I think the Republican talking points, at least from the far right, have already been written.
You saw some of that already today. And it's almost regardless of who the nominee is, you're going to see the same kind of radicalizing types of comments that -- you know that we saw down in New Orleans today, and that I think you'll continue to see in the context of this nomination, whoever the nominee is.
BROWN: Right.
PECK: And regardless of whom the White House selects.
BROWN: Well, gentlemen, we'll see if you're both right --
DUBERSTEIN: Well, I hope --
BROWN: And we'll be watching this, Ken.
DUBERSTEIN: I really hope not.
BROWN: All right. Apologies for cutting you off. We are out of time. But many thanks to both of you.
Still ahead, everybody, international outrage over a Russian boy sent packing by his adoptive parents in the United States. Why the 7- year-old was put on a plane back to Moscow all by himself. We have the details next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: A really disturbing story tonight as an adoption gone wrong triggers international outrage. A 7-year-old Russian boy adopted by a family in Tennessee was shipped back to Moscow this week by himself. He arrived in Moscow on Thursday, clutching a note that said he was, quote, "Violent with severe psychopathic issues."
Well, now Russia is threatening to freeze adoption to all U.S. families, thousands of them, and both countries have launched investigations.
CNN's Martin Savidge has the details for us tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He is a very little boy at the center of what's becoming a big international incident between the U.S. and Russia. Seven-year-old Artyom Savelyev was adopted by an American family seven months ago and started his new life in a small Tennessee town.
But Thursday this little boy showed up at the international airport in Moscow all alone. After his U.S. family accused him of being violent and psychotic, and put him on a plane back to Russia with nothing but a note.
Artyom is now under the care of Russia's Child Protection Ministry as an international investigation gets underway.
Russians are outraged, chief among them Sergey Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister who's calling on a freeze on Americans adopting Russian children.
"What has happened is far beyond the borders of good and evil," Lavrov said. "We have taken the decision that the Russian Foreign Ministry will stand for this firmly to freeze, to suggest a freeze on any adoptions to American families."
The incident was even brought up at today's briefing at the U.S. State Department.
P.J. CROWLEY, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: Regarding this latest case, we are obviously, you know, very troubled by it. This child, as with all of the children that are involved in adoptions between Russia and the United States, they are U.S. citizens. They are Russian citizens. And we ensure -- share a responsibility to ensure their welfare.
SAVIDGE: The Kremlin's Children's Rights Commissioner says the boy is making accusations of his own against his adoptive American family.
"I asked him, did she hurt you? He says, no, she didn't beat me, but she did this to me all the time. He showed me what she did. So she pulled his hair all the time. And I asked him did she do this often? And he said yes, she did this very often."
5700 miles away in the small town of Shelbyville, Tennessee, the boy's adoptive American family has so far refused to talk on camera, speaking only through an attorney.
TRICIA HENEGAR, FAMILY ATTORNEY: It's in early stages of investigation. We'll be conducting our own investigation. Initially it appears there is a lot of pressure from external matters involving the adoption.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Martin Savidge joining us right now from Shelbyville. And Martin, I know you have some information about the boy's adoptive family and what they're having to say now about all of this. What do we know?
SAVIDGE: Well, they aren't saying anything on camera, but they did have a long conversation with CNN on the telephone, and they do reiterate he's got violent tendencies, they say.
They also say that the 7-year-old boy had a hit list of people he wanted to hurt. Topping that list his adoptive American mother whom they say he wanted to kill. They also say they've got video to back this all up. And the final straw they say came four days ago when they said they caught the little boy in the act of setting a fire in the home.
They claim he was attempting to burn the house down. That's when they packed his bags and put him on a plane bound for Russia, not realizing they were triggering an international incident, not to mention many parents' outrage.
BROWN: Yes, no kidding. Martin Savidge for us tonight. Martin, thank you very much.
So where does the law come down on all of this? At what point does the story go from heartbreaking to criminal?
We're going to talk about that, right after the break. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: We are talking about the 7-year-old boy, the Russian boy who was sent back to Moscow by the American family that had adopted him.
This is clearly a tragedy. But the question right now we have is it actually a crime? And joining us to talk about that is Tom Difilipo who is president and CEO of the Joint Council on Children International Services. And also CNN legal analyst Lisa Bloom.
Lisa, let me start with you on this. I know officials in the U.S. and Russia are investigating what exactly may have happened here. But is it possible that this family did do something illegal?
LISA BLOOM, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, when you think about putting a 7-year-old on a plane by himself and giving him a one-way ticket to Moscow, it certainly sounds like child endangerment, doesn't it?
I think the defense here is going to be, though, we couldn't handle him. We couldn't take care of him. And we didn't just abandon him in a middle of a field. We put him on a plane where flight attendants were responsible for him as an unaccompanied minor. And the airline has said they complied with all of the plane's procedures in doing that. And on the other end in Russia, there was an adult who met him at the plane and was to take him to the authorities in Russia. So they didn't necessarily cause damage to his health or well-being, as egregious as all this sounds.
BROWN: Yes, but I -- I mean I just -- you wonder, even if there was no crime committed here, Tom, let me ask you. I mean just wonder why they didn't call somebody in the United States. Why they -- I mean I know supposedly the mother called a shrink, but why didn't they take this kid to see somebody? Am I crazy?
THOMAS DIFILIPO, JOINT COUN. OF INTL. CHILDREN'S SVCS.: No, I don't think you're crazy at all. One of the questions we have is exactly the same thing with all of the resources available to families that give birth or that adopt, it's incomprehensible that the solution here is to not call the police, but to call the travel agent.
It's just -- it borders on ridiculous. There is local churches they could have gone to, psychiatrists, counselors, their adoption agency itself has staff. They could have given them guidance. So there's just a multitude of resources. Putting a child on the plane by themselves or unaccompanied is basically inexcusable.
BROWN: So let me ask you, Tom, because I know you've dealt with these kind of situations a lot. The family says that he had a hit -- a list of people that he wanted to kill, a target list. That he was setting fires in the house. That he was supposedly abused in the orphanage in Russia.
I know you've studied this. What happens here? Could they be right? Could they have a point, and what happened to this child so that he is behaving this way?
DIFILIPO: Well, they certainly could have a point that this little boy was emotionally disturbed. But the solution obviously is not what they did.
BROWN: And I'm not saying that excuses the behavior by any means. But go ahead.
DIFILIPO: Thank you. Thanks. But yes, all children who are institutionalized, and this has been proven by one research study after another, the most recent being done by Harvard, any child that grows up in an orphanage or any type of institution is going to have delays, is going to have really significant negative impacts.
And the longer they stay in that orphanage, the more significant the impact. And it can go all the way from behaviors to actual size of brain mass to IQ. There is a lot of detrimental effects of institutionalization.
BROWN: Lisa, we looked at the reports on this story out of Russia, where this is front-page news right now. People there are outraged. And you may have heard earlier the foreign minister saying that they are considering freezing all adoptions to American families until there are some specific rules and obligations that are made abundantly clear.
Is that important? Is that something we should be looking at? Or does that already exist?
BLOOM: Well, it is certainly an overbroad response. The problem is not Russia-U.S. adoptions. The problem is, is that we really lack social services in this country for parents who are at the end of their rope with children who have real mental illnesses.
That happened here. It happens to lots of parents. Child psychiatrists are few and far between, insurance often doesn't cover, and parents are at the end of their rope, and they get desperate. And I think that's what happen heard.
BROWN: All right. Thanks to both of you. I really appreciate it. Thanks for being with us tonight.
"LARRY KING LIVE" starting in just a few minutes. But first, a U.S. film faces angry protest overseas. Why Japanese activists are calling an Oscar-winning documentary a national insult. That is coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: In Tokyo today, an angry protest over the Oscar-winning film "The Cove" produced in the U.S., this year's best documentary winner depicts Japan's often gory dolphin hunts.
Well, now protesters are pushing back. They are calling the Japanese distributors traitors, bent on destroying the country's way of life.
CNN's Kyung Lah has the story from Tokyo.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KYUNG LAH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (on camera): This is an issue of cultural identity, not just whale meat, that no one should tell Japan what it can eat.
(Voice-over): Waving cans of whale meat, the Nationalists call the documentary the western world's twisted view of Japan's food culture, and that the movie, which had only one single film festival viewing in Tokyo, should not be shown to the Japanese people.
"The Cove" won the Oscar this year for best documentary. It tracks the annual dolphin hunt in Taiji, Japan. CNN went to the cove and captured the bloody hunt. Killing and eating dolphin has been a tradition for hundreds of years in this small fishing town, a practice condemned in the documentary.
Dolphin hunt is a similar issue to Japan's whale hunts in the Antarctica. The government has resisted international pressure to stop the practice.
Back at the protests, anger started rising. The Nationalists started verbally attacking Caucasian journalists. Police did not come to this reporter's aid. Instead, physically removing him from the scene.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So I would rather move them back, I have been moved out of the way.
LAH: In an effort to diffuse the escalating protest, the film distributing company unplugged, sent down representative, and in an unusual scene, let the protesters yell at them as police looked on.
The company took a letter from the Nationalists.
(on camera): So now that the letter is inside this protest is ending peacefully. But the cultural debate over whale meat continues and these protesters say they will protest again.
Kyung Lah, CNN, Tokyo.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: And that's going to do it for us. "LARRY KING LIVE" is starting right now.
