Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Supreme Court Examines Same-Sex Marriage; Anniversary for Viagra; Zimmerman Brother Tweets about Trayvon; Americans Make Up Majority of Mexico Border Drug Busts

Aired March 27, 2013 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Just a short time ago, a group of senators toured the Arizona/Mexico border and we're getting word the majority of drug busts there involve Americans. I'm Brooke Baldwin. The news is now.

Tension at the U.S. Supreme Court, what today's hearing on gay marriage revealed about the justices' thinking.

Plus, as George Zimmerman awaits trial, his brother sends a racially- charged tweet about Trayvon Martin.

And brand-new pictures of the Kennedys behind closed doors, and one image, it's pretty eerie.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BALDWIN: Top of the hour. I'm Brooke Baldwin.

Good to be with you.

Dramatic new video coming into CNN right now from Seattle. Take a look. A huge section of earth just gave way early this morning, sounded like thunder according to people who live in the area, leaving just about a dozen homes on Whidbey Island teetering on the brink. No one was hurt, amazingly.

One home was damaged.

Chad Myers has been watching this for us here.

How exactly did this happen, Chad?

CHAD MYERS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Well, you know what? There hasn't been that much rain in the past couple of weeks, but there has been a lot of rain in the Pacific Northwest just all winter. That may have had something to do with it. There may have been a water main to break as well.

They're saying something about the size of two football fields, literally, let go. These people live on the edge of this cliff anyway. They knew that. But the pictures you're seeing there where there are no trees, where that land is just scoured away, that's where the land fell, fell down on to the roadway below, which had some homes on it, and then spilled out into the ocean, making a little bit of a bump there out, a little peninsula out where it used to be a straight just shoreline right there.

But this guy here said he used to have about 60 feet between him and the cliff. Now he's got 30 feet. And the fall is still happening. It is getting -- this water, this dirt, this mud still going down a couple of feet, every couple of hours. They're getting people out of there. This is Whidbey Island up there north of Seattle. Ledgewood is the community if you want to go take a look at it. Boy, these people are scrambling, trying to get their stuff out. I'm surprised the authorities are letting them anywhere near their homes, to even get their stuff out, Brooke.

BALDWIN: I know. I saw some pictures of people just walking all along that ledge.

Chad Myers, thank you very much from Washington state there.

And now to the highest court in the land as it takes on what could become the biggest cultural turning point of this generation, that being whether to legalize same-sex marriage. Today's focus, this federal law, it's called the Defense of Marriage Act, or called DOMA for short, that's the acronym, defines marriage as strictly between a man and a woman.

There are more hints here as which way the justices, chief justice could go, and you will hear the audio for yourself. We're going to get to that in just a moment from inside these oral arguments today.

But, first, let me just hear from an opponent of same-sex marriage who talked just after the arguments ended today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REV. ROB SCHENCK, EVANGELICAL CHURCH ALLIANCE: It appears now that DOMA is very shaky, and while we stand for the defense of marriage as between one man and one woman, it is quite clear that that definition on the federal level is at great risk, likely by 5-4.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: No doubt that is grand news to this woman here on the right side of your screen. This is 83-year-old Edie Windsor. This is her case, her own case, that is before the U.S. Supreme Court right now. Look at the crush of media today.

Windsor, her story is this. She got married to her love of four years. Her name was Thea Spyer -- in 2007. And they lived in New York, one of nine states that recognized their same-sex marriage. When Spyer died, Windsor had to pay a chunk of change. She had to pay $360,000, plus, in estate taxes and so her point is this, that if her wife had been a man, had been a husband instead, there would have been no tax she had to pay. That's the benefit that she lost because of DOMA and she spoke right after today's hearing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDIE WINDSOR, PLAINTIFF: I felt we were very respected and I think it is going to be good.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: She thinks it is going to be good. We have to wait and see.

Jeff Toobin, our senior legal analyst, joining me again.

As we mentioned a minute ago, we now finally have that audio from inside the oral arguments today. Let me play this and then we will get you to go through it with me. This is the exchange, this is an exchange between Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the attorney for those against same-sex marriage. Roll it.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

PAUL CLEMENT, ATTORNEY FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: The issue of same-sex marriage certainly implicates profound and deeply held views on both sides of the issue.

But the legal question on the merits before this court is actually quite narrow. On the assumption that states have the constitutional option either to define marriage in traditional terms or to recognize same-sex marriages or to adopt a compromise like civil unions, does the federal government have the same flexibility or must the federal government simply borrow the terms in state law?

I would submit the basic principles of federalism suggest that as long as the federal government defines those terms solely for purposes of federal law, that the federal government has the choice to adopt a constitutionally permissible definition or to borrow the terms of the statute.

RUTH BADER GINSBURG, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Mr. Clement, the problem is that it would totally thwart the states' decision that there is a marriage between two people for the federal government to then come in to say, no joint return, no marital deduction, no Social Security benefits. Your spouse is very sick, but you get can't get leave.

People -- if that set of attributes, one might well ask, what kind of marriage is this?

(END AUDIO CLIP)

BALDWIN: OK, Jeff Toobin. Is that -- is she making the states' rights point that Justice Kennedy was making as well? What are you hearing there?

TOOBIN: She is. And, you know, it is so interesting, the questions the justices ask are often basically campaign speeches to try to get their colleagues on board.

And that speech was very much a pitch to Justice Kennedy, because Justice Kennedy is someone who believes very strongly in states' rights. He believes that there are areas of state power that the federal government has to stay away from.

And in this argument, he expressed repeatedly that he thinks marriage is one of those areas that belongs to the states. States make the rules on marriage, and DOMA is an interference with states' rights and thus unconstitutional. And the four Democratic appointees, Ruth Ginsburg being the most senior, wanted to try to bring him along and that question was a way of trying to bring him along on that.

BALDWIN: OK. It is interesting you talk about how it is a campaign pitch. Just because you write the book on the Supreme Court decisions, explain to us who don't follow it as closely what happens. Now that they heard the oral arguments before they all decide, how do they sort of sit individually, parse through all of this, and it is ultimately the chief justice, correct?

TOOBIN: Well, what happens is every week when there are arguments, there are arguments Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday this week. On Friday morning, they meet in the conference room of the chief justice. And this is the holy of holy of Supreme Court moments, no secretaries, no law clerks, just the nine justices, and they go around the table and vote.

If the chief justice is in the majority, he assigns which justice writes the opinion. If he's not in the majority, the senior, the longest-tenured associate justice in the majority makes the assignment. But that's not the end of the process.

They then start circulating opinions. Sometimes, in that process, justices change their mind. That's what happened in the health care case. Chief Justice Roberts changed his mind. It is only when the decision is announced that it is final. And since we're very late really in the term for a big case, almost certainly we won't get a result in the DOMA case or the Proposition 8 case from yesterday until the last week in June.

BALDWIN: OK. Jeff Toobin, thank you, as always. Appreciate it so much.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: Now 15 years ago today, men who were struggling to get things going in the bedroom were given a beacon of hope in the form of that little blue pill. I'm talking about Viagra.

Today marks the anniversary of the FDA approving the impotence drug. Last year alone, there were eight million Viagra prescriptions written in the U.S.

So let's talk about it, shall we?

Let's go to New York here, the host of HLN's "Dr. Drew on Call," Dr. Drew Pinsky.

So here is what I -- I think this is fascinating about Viagra itself, because this was a drug that was originally -- wasn't it tested for heart problems, and then sort of suddenly, you know, that didn't go so well, but the men in the study weren't exactly parting with their little pills and, boom, here you have it?

DR. DREW PINSKY, HLN HOST: They were noticing something. That's often what happened in medicine, that serendipity determines the therapeutic use of medication very often.

And for the sake of completeness, let me say I have no relationship with the Viagra manufacturers, of Merck, or any other the PDE5 inhibitors. I did do a campaign for Merck years and years ago where we were trying to raise awareness about the fact that erectile dysfunction in a man that's a smoker over the age of 30 or non-smokers over the age of 50 is a sign of heart disease.

So it is really important to remember, as people are expecting to stay sexually active longer and they start having dysfunctions, medical problems and hormonal issues and vascular diseases are the number one problem affecting sexual function.

So, please, people, if you have a problem with performance, before you reach for a pill, before you think it is a psychological problem, talk to your physician. It is really an important message here.

BALDWIN: OK. I want to talk about the women here, Dr. Drew, because look at "The Wall Street Journal," below the fold today is the headline, oh, my, that dirty book has sold 70 million copies. I'm talking about "50 Shades of Grey," 70 million copies. Is this the women's Viagra? It seems to me that for women, it is much different. It is like psychological vs. the physical, yes?

PINSKY: That's -- well, remember, the Viagra only affects erectile function, doesn't affect libido.

And women are saying that this -- "50 Shades of Grey" has not only opened up libido, it has opened up sort of creativity. I have had real problems with this book. This is about a woman who becomes a -- signs a contract to be a sex slave with a guy who was sexually abused by his business partner when he was a child. It is just an unbelievably pathological situation. But far be it for me to criticize...

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: Seven million women, not myself included, if I may.

(CROSSTALK)

PINSKY: God bless them.

BALDWIN: People love it.

PINSKY: It helps them with their fantasy life. I'm all for it.

BALDWIN: What about the people who don't exactly need -- back to Viagra, people don't need Viagra, still the men take it for a little more va-va-voom, I guess. Does it work?

(CROSSTALK)

PINSKY: Yes, it does. But for young -- this is meant for people with medical disorders causing problems with E.D. It is not meant for recreational use.

So, like with any medication, you're only putting yourself in harm's way. Brooke, let me tell you an interesting story, when this drug first came out, I remember the day it came out , I had 70- and 75- year-old men at my office like waiting in line for my office to open.

BALDWIN: Are you serious?

PINSKY: But I got to tell you their female partners were so not happy about this. They're sort of, like, oh, thank goodness that was all over with, let's move on with our relationship.

And we had to sort of get them back in the game, which required all sorts of other hormonal and environmental and biological manipulations, and things that, by the way, you should think about today if you want to retain that physical intimacy, because it is an important part of emotional intimacy as well.

BALDWIN: Yes. Yes, it is. But you have been at this for many a year, Dr. Drew. And when you look to sort of bigger picture at the sex lives of Americans, how have you seen how has it changed or evolved over say the last decade or so?

PINSKY: I would say there are two or three things that have really evolved.

One is in the last 10, 15 years, surviving abusive childhoods, destroyed families has affected our ability to be effective in relationships in our adult life. People are having children at terribly young ages and then are unable -- that is to solve their problems, but of course it compounds the problems. And they're unable to sustain relationships.

The other issue is we're just getting older, and so these medical issues, these biological and hormonal issues are really stepping to the forefront now and there are solutions. So, again, be aware that it could be a sign of medical disorders, and be aware there are solutions to help you maintain the connection.

BALDWIN: OK. Dr. Drew, thank you so much.

PINSKY: You bet, Brooke.

BALDWIN: Don't forget to watch Dr. Drew on his show, HLN tonight, 9:00 p.m. Eastern and he will also, of course, be all over the Jodi Arias trial.

Now to this, to border security here on the minds of many a senator today, four to be precise. They toured the Arizona/Mexico border actually just a short time ago and that tour comes as we're learning a little bit more about the people getting arrested trying to smuggle drugs into the country. The headline here, most busts involve American citizens. Details of that new study next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: A group of four senators key to a possible deal on immigration reform due today along the U.S./Mexican border here.

You have Republicans John McCain, Jeff Flake, Democrats Chuck Schumer and Michael Bennet. They're all part of the so-called gang of eight. That's the gang of eight that are trying to work on an immigration deal acceptable for both parties. In fact, Senator McCain is quoted as saying, "I can't guarantee anything. We're still in serious negotiations, but we have made progress. We are negotiating now."

Speaking of that border, a report out today states most people arrested at customs on drugs charges are, guess what, Americans? Does that surprise you?

Andrew Becker is the author of this report. Andrew Becker, contributing editor at TheDailyBeast.com.

Andrew, how did you get to this conclusion about the drug arrests at the border?

ANDREW BECKER, CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING: Well, at the Center for Investigative Reporting, where I work, we had a team of journalists, another reporter researcher, data analyst, that combed through 80,000 rows of drug seizure data we had received from U.S. Customs and Border Protection and specifically the Border Patrol.

We had submitted a request to have a better understanding of who was actually bringing drugs either into the country or who at least was getting caught with those drugs. And the data just really jumped out at us. We found that three out of four people that the Border Patrol busts with drugs are actually United States citizens.

BALDWIN: Three out of four busted are Americans.

And so these Americans who are caught at the border, are they smuggling drugs for personal use, or are they caught for trafficking drugs?

BECKER: It is really a mix.

The majority are definitely getting caught with small amounts. And oftentimes they're getting caught at immigration traffic checkpoints that the Border Patrol sets up usually inland a few miles, up to 60, 70 miles or more inland from the actual border in an effort to both check people's immigration status to make sure that they are authorized to be in the United States and secondly they also often check to see if people are transporting contraband.

The data that we have is to a certain extent an imperfect set of data, or is an incomplete portrait of what is happening because half the time the Border Patrol when they catch drugs, they don't necessarily catch anyone with those drugs. There is some sense that who is bringing those drugs in is still not a complete known.

And the conventional wisdom is certainly that Mexican-based drug trafficking organizations dominate bringing drugs into the country. It is just they're getting them often into the hands of U.S. citizens who are bringing them deeper into the country.

BALDWIN: Which just reading your article this morning on Daily Beast, it just sort of -- it changes -- it is not necessarily the image that one thinks of, one conjures up when they picture people getting busted along the U.S.-Mexican border.

Who is to blame for putting that image of the drug mules in our heads, do you think?

BECKER: You know, it is probably a variety of folks.

What we specifically looked at -- or a variety of different reasons why -- what we specifically looked at were press releases from Customs and Border Protection and again specifically the Border Patrol. When we first started this project, we were just using press releases to try to get an understanding of who was bringing what into the country and who was getting caught.

We quickly realized that that was just painting a very -- just a very narrow picture of what was actually happening. Where we went back and actually we analyzed 2,000 press releases from the Border Patrol. We scraped them from their Web site and did an analysis and we found that disproportionately Mexican nationals were being highlighted in those press release, rather than United States citizens; 38 percent of the time, it was a Mexican vs. 30 percent of the time a U.S. citizen.

BALDWIN: Andrew Becker with the Center for Investigative Reporting, something we thought interesting enough to point out today on the show. Appreciate it very much, your piece again in The Daily Beast this morning.

Now to this. The death of Trayvon Martin made national headlines, but now there is a new twist here. George Zimmerman is charged with the murder of the unarmed teen. But it is his brother who is making headlines today, because of a controversial tweet comparing Trayvon Martin to a teen murder suspect.

CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin just talked to Zimmerman's brother. We will learn what he told her next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: There is no end to the outrage over the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. But today, there is a new twist.

Let me show you what George Zimmerman's brother has tweeted. Take a good look. It's on the bottom here of this tweet. These are the pictures, and one shows Trayvon Martin and the other shows one of the teenagers accused of shooting that 13-month-old baby in the head in Brunswick, Georgia. The pictures show both teenagers flipping the bird. Now, this brother here went on to quote what the baby's mother says the suspect said to her, and the threat Trayvon Martin allegedly made against George Zimmerman the night Martin was shot.

Sunny Hostin is "On the Case."

Sunny, Robert Zimmerman has been one of George Zimmerman's staunchest defenders. You just talked to him. What did he say? Why did he do this?

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, I spoke to him for about 45 minutes. And anyone that knows Robert Zimmerman and has spoken to him knows he's very passionate about his family, very, very supportive of his brother.

And he said he understands that the tweet may have been offensive to many. He apologizes for it. He also mentions that he understands that this is still a very sensitive topic, but what he really takes issue with is that he believes that the media has unfairly portrayed this case.

He said to me that he feels that the picture of Trayvon Martin that we just showed was Trayvon's digital signature to the world, because it was Trayvon Martin himself that placed that photograph out there. And that is what he says he meant by that.

He seems to be extremely frustrated by the way he says the media has sort of framed the discussion. He told me that, again, he feels that the media is not being honest about who Trayvon Martin was and that Trayvon Martin himself put that photo out there. And why is it that he can't put that photo out there?

BALDWIN: So, you know, just from your perspective, to his point about the media treatment in both stories, do you think he has a point?

HOSTIN: I think many people do believe as the story has been developed more, that there are two sides to this story, and that perhaps initially the Zimmerman family's story wasn't accurately depicted.

And I think that Robert Zimmerman in many respects feels that it is his duty to put that out there. I mean, he certainly discussed with me how this has changed the lives of his family. And while they acknowledge George Zimmerman is still alive, he acknowledged that his family has not lost a brother and a son, as the Martin family had, their lives have been destroyed, they received death threats.

And so he really feels very frustrated about how, I guess, the story has been framed.

BALDWIN: And then, let's just keep in mind, big picture, that George Zimmerman is scheduled to go on trial in June for the killing of Trayvon Martin. And when it comes to, you know, the brother's tweets, such as this one, does he need to stop what he's doing? Could this actually hurt this case? HOSTIN: I don't know that anyone will be able to stop Robert Zimmerman because, again, he feels very strongly about supporting his brother.

But he certainly could be a witness, right, in this case. I think, because he is George Zimmerman's brother, the jury will know if this goes to trial that there is some sort of bias there. You know, will this affect his testimony even if it -- if it even comes in -- I don't know that it will -- sure, sure. But this is something, Brooke, that I think we will all be following.

This is a case that has just struck so many nerves, and people have staked their positions firmly in the ground on so many different issues. And this is just yet another turn of events in this case.

BALDWIN: Sunny Hostin, thank you for picking up the phone and talking to Robert Zimmerman himself for 45 minutes.

I should also point out Piers Morgan will be talking to him as well, to George Zimmerman's brother. That is tonight "PIERS MORGAN LIVE," at 9:00 Eastern time.

Coming up next: news on everyone and everything, including why Google is trying to limit the way you talk about Google.

Also, what restaurant is allowing you to decide the price of food on their menu? Who is asking the U.S. to use Patriot missiles? And which team could put an end to a record-breaking streak tonight? The power block coming at you next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)