Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Supreme Court Prop 8 on Trial; T-Mobile Unveils iPhone; North Korea Threatens U.S. Bases
Aired March 26, 2013 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Good to see you on this Tuesday. I'm Brooke Baldwin. Thanks for being with me.
For civil rights, it was Brown versus Board of Education. For women's rights, Roe v. Wade. Now gay rights advocates are hoping Hollingsworth v. Perry becomes their landmark case. This is the case that the U.S. Supreme Court heard today on whether same-sex marriage should be legal. And we are now getting the audio from inside the nation's highest court.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTHONY KENNEDY, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT (voice-over): There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the writ (ph) brief, that live with same-sex parents. And they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: At the heart of the case is Proposition 8, or Prop 8, which bans same-sex marriage. Californians approved it five years ago. But these two same-sex couples, the plaintiffs in this case, are arguing that keeping them from getting married is unconstitutional. One of them spoke about it after the hearing today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SANDY STIER, PLAINTIFF: But more than anything, I believe in love. And Proposition 8 is a discriminatory law that hurts people. It hurts gays and lesbians in California and it hurts the children we're raising and it does so for no good reason.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: On the other side, supporters of Prop 8 say the court should not undo a decision by the voters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLES COOPER, ATTORNEY FOR PROPOSITION 8 ADVOCATES: We believe that Proposition 8 is constitutional and that the place for the decision to be made regarding redefining marriage is with the people, not with the courts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: Joining me now, senior legal analyst Jeff Toobin.
And, Jeff, before we get into the arguments, both, you know, for and against, I want to get to something you alluded to this morning and I was reading "The New York Times" a moment ago, the lead line, they're calling it buyer's remorse here. The justices, inside this court, were wondering aloud if they acted too quickly to hear the case. Did you sense that?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Certainly from some of them. I have to say, I've seen a lot of Supreme Court arguments and perhaps I've been a bit hasty in making predictions in the past, but, boy, I was confused by this one.
BALDWIN: Huh.
TOOBIN: I am baffled about which direction they're going to go. Any of a number of possibilities seems to still be on the table. Even among the ideological blocks, some of the conservatives seem to want to get rid of the case and not really decide it on the merits. Some of the conservatives clearly wanted to say that this was a political issue, not a legal issue.
The liberals were pretty much united on the issue of same-sex marriage, but they were not united on whether this case was properly before the court. I mean there are a lot of moving parts to this case. And, frankly, I came out of that courtroom more muddled in my thinking about the result than when I went in.
BALDWIN: OK. So here we are. Jeff Toobin is officially baffled. Maybe you can help unbaffle some of us as we're parsing through some of the audio that, as I mentioned, we're now getting from inside the courtroom. Let me play this sound. This is going to be the voice of Justice Antonin Scalia.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTONIN SCALIA, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT (voice-over): The California Supreme Court decides what the law is. That's what we decide, right? We don't prescribe law for the future. We just -- we decide what the law is. I'm curious, when did -- when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was inducted? Sometimes -- sometime after Baker (ph), where we said it didn't even raise a substantial federal question. When? When -- when did the law become this?
THEODORE OLSON, ATTORNEY FOR PROP 8 OPPONENTS (voice-over): I -- may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?
SCALIA: Easy question, I think, for that one, at the time that the equal protection clause was adopted. That's absolutely true.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: And, Jeff Toobin, let me just say this for the viewer, for folks who do not write books for the Supreme Court, as you do. You know, we try to read into the tea leaves and --
TOOBIN: That's most -- that's most viewers, I think, do not write books about the Supreme Court.
BALDWIN: OK, most viewers. So, you know, listen, we try to listen to the questions very closely because it could be a harbinger of how each of these justices could ultimately decide on said cases. That said, what was Antonin -- Justice Scalia getting at?
TOOBIN: Well, what he was getting at there was quite clear to people who know this -- sort of the rhetoric of the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia is what's called an originalist. He thinks the Constitution does not change with the times. The Constitution means today what it meant in 1791 when it was ratified and in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment came in.
So what -- he was sort of mocking Ted Olson, the lawyers for the opponents of Proposition 8. He was saying, look, you know, you don't think that the founders of this country were thinking about same-sex marriage. You don't think in 1868 that the people who passed the Fourteenth Amendment were thinking about same-sex marriage, which they clearly weren't.
And Olson was trying to make the point that, look, the Constitution, the meaning has changed over the years. In 1967, the Supreme Court said laws banning racial intermarriage were no longer constitutional anymore. That's what we know about how the Constitution changed then. And it changes now to prohibit bans on same-sex marriage.
BALDWIN: OK. So if he's an originalist, you know, you have to think about, well, how are Americans sitting with this, you know, idea of same-sex marriage? And if you look at the polls, Jeff Toobin, they certainly -- they show a shift in public opinion. Take a look at the numbers with me. CNN/ORC poll taken just last week shows 53 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage. You look from back a couple of years ago, 2007, that number was 13 percentage points lower at 40 percent. Do you think the justices are weighing any of that? Public opinion?
TOOBIN: Well, you know what, this came up several times in the argument. And I thought it was interesting how it was spun. It was actually the opponents of same-sex marriage who mentioned the changes more than the supporters. The opponents, Charles Cooper, the lawyer who was saying Proposition 8 should stand, was saying, look, this is a subject of intense political debate in the country. Some states are changing. Some states are not changing. You, the justices, you should not get involved. You should let the states continue to make their own decisions. Obviously things are changing, he was saying, but don't you preempt that process, don't you stop the people from expressing their views of how the law should change.
BALDWIN: And let me just throw this final, crazy question at you, sort of making -- tying this all together from an original question. Is it possible that even though the Supreme Court hears a case, they may not move on it?
TOOBIN: You know, there is a technical term that Justice Kennedy raised, and he's obviously a very important swing vote here, where DIG, a case can be DIG-ed, d-i-g. That means the case can be dismissed as improvidently granted. It's a -- you know, we shouldn't have taken this case in the first place. You just go back and rely on the decision in the court below. That does not seem out of the question as a possibility here.
BALDWIN: Interesting.
TOOBIN: What that would mean in real terms is that same-sex marriage would become legal in California. Proposition 8 would be overturned, but it wouldn't apply anywhere else in the country if they do that. And Justice Kennedy at least seemed very open to that possibility.
BALDWIN: It's fascinating. Thank you for allow me to get my Supreme Court geek on with you. It's fascinating. I'm jealous you were inside.
TOOBIN: It was great, actually.
BALDWIN: Jeff Toobin, thank you very much.
And now to some of the hottest stories here in a flash. "Rapid fire." Roll it.
Take a good long look with me at this man because this is the guy who just won $338 million in Powerball money. The New Jersey lottery announcing it just a short time ago. Just one day after Pedro Quezada revealed he had the winning ticket. What does he do? Owns a bodega in Jersey.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One of the biggest rushes I've ever felt in my entire life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: This is extreme rope jumping. Daredevils fix a rope to this canyon arch. This is in Utah. They jump. And after getting as low as 10 feet off the ground, they bounce back up and they swing again. But a stunt like this one you're seeing here, this turned deadly for 22- year-old Kyle Lee Stocking. He miscalculated, leaving too much slack in the rope. Sent crashing into the base of the sandstone arch there.
You think normal sharks are scary? How about this one? Yes, you're looking at a shark with two heads. The first ever two-headed bull shark discovered off the Florida Keys. Other species of sharks have been born with two heads before, but this is the only bull shark -- look at this -- on record. Researchers from Michigan State University are still trying to figure out what caused this abnormality.
And from creatures of the ocean to monsters on the beach. Take a look at this. Hollywood themed sand sculptures. I am talking Gollum (ph), ET, The Hulk and, yes, even The Godfather. Look at this. Works of art built from nothing more than water and sand at the UK's annual Western Sand Sculpture Festival. The festival opens to the public Friday.
And the long wait is over. T-Mobile USA has finally unveiled plans to sell the iPhone. The nation's fourth largest wireless carrier wants to compete with the other big guys. So after years and years of hints and rumors and all the speculation, it's ditched monthly service plans and set its hopes on Apple's iconic device. Here is the president of T- Mobile.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN LEGERE, T-MOBILE PRESIDENT: I can finally announce that the phone that redefined the industry is coming to T*Mobile. There's an affordable, unrestricted way to buy an iPhone 5 right now from T- Mobile for $99. That's right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: CNN business correspondent Zain Asher is in New York.
So, if they're saying no to contracts, 99 bucks for a new iPhone 5, what does the plan cost the customer?
ZAIN ASHER, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: OK. So they're saying it's $99, but in this case you really do need to read the fine print carefully, Brooke.
BALDWIN: Yes.
ASHER: Yes. So technically it's a $99 down payment, right, down payment. So you're going to be paying full price for the phone, roughly around $600, but it's going to be spread out. So $99 down and then you make $20 monthly payments. So, technically, T-Mobile is not offering a subsidy. It's going to be the first major carrier to do this. There's no contract. The good news is that you can upgrade at any time.
Now, let's compare T-Mobile deals to other carriers. AT&T and Verizon, you pay $200 for the phone, but you're locked into a two-year plan. So T-Mobile, in this instance, is really going after other carriers that offer contracts. They're calling contracts "a two-year sentence." But the company does desperately need to bring customers back.
Let's take a look. It lost 4 million contract customers over the past two years. So it's really looking to shake things up somehow, Brooke.
BALDWIN: So I imagine, for the customers who don't want to feel locked into those contracts, this would help them be competitive?
ASHER: Yes. I mean how it's going to compare to the other carriers. You know, the proof is going to be in the pudding. If customers respond, if it's successful, it could shake up the industry and save carriers millions of dollars in subsidy costs. But T-Mobile does faces stiff competition. It has 8 percent market share. Not huge by any stretch of the imagination, compared to that 30 percent for AT&T and Verizon.
Also, the stakes for T-Mobile in this instance are pretty huge. They're merging with Metro PCS and they're soon going to be their own publicly traded company. So they're going to need to grow subscribers or else investors will sell.
Brooke.
BALDWIN: Zain Asher, thank you very much.
And the numbers are in and it's looking pretty good for homeowners across the country. Here's what we're learning. According to the new S&P Case Shiller Index, we have had the biggest year over year jump in home prices since that housing bubble back in 2006. Look at this. Phoenix leads the pack here with a 23 percent jump in values. Prices are up more than 10 percent in cities like San Francisco, Las Vegas, to Atlanta.
Amanda Knox's operatic drama has another act to go, apparently, for reasons it has yet to explain here. The Italian Supreme Court issued a stunning reversal today of Knox's acquittal for murder. That means Knox will be tried yet again in Italy for the slaying of her roommate, Meredith Kercher, from back in 2007. Both of the young women were exchange students in Italy. Knox was 20 at the time. Was convicted of murder two years later, but then, in 2011, was freed when the conviction was overturned. Knox received today's news in Seattle, her new home, where she is now 25 years old, has a new book coming out next month. Her attorney says the ruling is disappointing, but the case against Amanda Knox has not, he says, gotten any stronger.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TED SIMON, AMANDA KNOX'S ATTORNEY: You -- while, yes, we would have preferred the supreme court to simply affirm the acquittal, and it certainly was painful for Amanda to receive this news, in the bigger picture, these charges still remain just as unfounded, just as unjust as they were before.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: Knox doesn't need to attend the trial, which would be held in Florence, Italy, a little later this year, possibly early next.
Coming up, the rhetoric, it is growing louder. This time, North Korea is threatening to strike American bases. You will hear why these threats may be different this time around.
Also, remember the judge who got the bird? Well --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE) No! No!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): From this moment, the KPA supreme command will put on the highest alert all the field artillery units, including strategic rocket units and long range artillery units, which are assigned to strike bases of the U.S. imperialist aggressor troops in the U.S. mainland and on Hawaii and Guam and other operational zones in the Pacific, as well as all the enemy targets in South Korea and its vicinity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: What was that? That was more saber rattling from North Korea today. This is just the latest in the string of taunts and threats. But this time, they are directly targeting American bases. And this comes on the third anniversary of a torpedo attack that killed 46 South Korean sailors. North Korea denies it was responsible.
But when you talk to and you read from these opinions from international analysts, they say that these are empty threats. They say this is meant for a domestic audience to portray the leader, Kim Jong-un, as strong. But then there are propaganda films, like this right here, which depict North Korea destroying our capital in an all- out attack. A recent CNN/ORC poll shows most Americans do not take these threats seriously. But they do view North Korea as a long-term threat to the United States.
Want to talk about this a little bit more with North Korea specialist John Park, who is with MIT and Harvard.
John Park, welcome back.
JOHN PARK, NORTH KOREA SPECIALIST: Thank you.
BALDWIN: You know, certainly provocative statements from North Korea. Not exactly new. What's different this time around?
PARK: Well, Brooke, the environment's different. Right now we have a situation where North Korea has walked away from the 1953 armistice agreement that stopped the fighting between the combatants. And also, North Korea is no longer answering the military hotline that in previous episodes has provided a little more space for conflict management, crisis resolution of sorts. And so the tensions are definitely high and you look at all of these threats coming out of North Korea. But also we're seeing levels of heightened military exercises from the South Korean and U.S. side where this brings up the tensions between the United States and China when it comes to these type of military buildups very close to China's borders.
BALDWIN: As the U.S. and South Korea have agreed to lower the threshold for responding to these provocations from North Korea, North Korea pushing ahead with its nuclear weapons program. Is it spoiling for a fight and do you think they would get it?
PARK: Well, these measures are very calculated in terms of how these are being announced and how these moves are coming about. How they're being closely covered by North Korean state media. The signaling has been very specific and quite high profile as well.
But with respect to, you know, another sort of side angle to all of this, it's North Korea's, I think, attempt to try to drive a wedge between the United States and China. If you recall, it was only a little while ago that those two countries coordinated very closely in getting the latest U.N. Security Council resolution passed in New York. And that kind of coordination is lethal to North Korea. By doing these type of threats, by conducting these type of military exercises on the North Korean side, and having the heightened military tempo on the U.S./South Korean military side, you're raising the stakes, essentially, in the region, and again bringing this tension between China and the United States ever closer.
BALDWIN: John Park, thank you so much.
PARK: A pleasure.
BALDWIN: When you are in a courtroom, this kind of outburst doesn't exactly help your case.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE). No! No! Please, no!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: My goodness. A Florida woman getting hysterical after being denied bond. But the judge in this case, no stranger to courtroom drama.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BALDWIN: A Florida woman is accused of trying to kill her husband. So she goes, she applies for bond. But the judge in this case denies her application, and this is what happens next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No bond.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your honor, if I may.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No! (INAUDIBLE). My husband broke my leg. Please, no! No! No, don't do that! I got my leg broke! I -- no, please, don't do that! Don't do that! No! No! Please, no!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: She's crying and screaming, "he broke my leg." She told police she stabbed her husband to death because he abused her. And if you're looking at that judge and thinking he's looking a little familiar, you're right. You've seen him before. He's no stranger to courtroom drama. You remember this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you serious?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am serious. Adios.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (EXPLETIVE DELETED).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come back again. Come back again.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK, come back again.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bring her back again.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What's up?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I believe I heard you saying to --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I did. I'm not going to (INAUDIBLE).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I believe you -- did you say (EXPLETIVE DELETED) me?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Actually, I --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you say that?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, sir, I did.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, you did say that?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm not going to lie.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I find you in direct criminal (ph) contempt. Thirty days in the county jail.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. That's fine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: So not only did she show him the lovely gesture with that middle finger, she says, "what's up?" So the woman you saw in orange, her name was Penelope Soto (ph). She did eventually turn things around. She did finally apologize to the judge.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They couldn't get a pulse, but the EMTs arrived and they took my baby in the ambulance to work on him. And they wouldn't let me see him. And they just kept working on him and nobody knew if he was alive or dead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: Oh, just days after losing her baby to a gunshot on the street, a mother opens up. Her emotional words, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
