Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

President Obama Nominates Merrick Garland; Interview with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz; GOP Leaders Reiterate Not Considering Nominee; Interview with Sen. John Barrasso; Republican Debate Canceled. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired March 16, 2016 - 13:00   ET

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


ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf Blitzer takes over the helm right now.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's noon in Chicago, 1:00 p.m. here in Washington, 5:00 p.m. in London. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BLITZER: We begin with breaking news. President Obama chooses a nominee for the United States Supreme Court, setting the stage for a political showdown. The president made the announcement at a Rose Garden ceremony just a little while ago.

Our CNN Justice Correspondent Pamela Brown has more on the president's choice and his challenge to Senate Republican leaders.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Today, I am not nominating chief Judge Merrick Garland to join the Supreme Court.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): President Obama today made his case for why 63-year-old Merrick Garland, Chief Judge for the D.C. Appeals Court, should be the next justice for the Supreme Court.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I've selected a nominee who is widely recognized not only as one of the America's sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, evenhandedness and excellence.

BROWN: An emotional Judge Garland officially introduced himself to the country.

MERRICK GARLAND, CHIEF JUDGE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: This is the greatest honor of my life, other than Lynn agreeing to marry me 28 years old.

BROWN: The White House tells Judge Garland as having more federal judicial experience than any other Supreme Court nominee in history, serving more than 18 years on the bench. The president considers the Chicago native and Harvard Law graduate, a consensus nominee who has previously garnered praise from both Democrats and Republicans.

Judge Garland was appointed to D.C. Appeals Court by President Bill Clinton in 1997 and confirmed by a 76-23 Senate vote with support from both sides of the aisle. He clerked for the late justice William Brennan, and also served at the Justice Department, where he prosecuted Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing.

GARLAND: A Ryder truck was seen there --

BROWN: Now, the battle begins to whether a divided Congress will confirm Garland to fill the open seat on the Supreme Court.

GARLAND: Mr. President, it's a great privilege to be nominated by a fellow Chicagoan. I am grateful beyond words for the honor you have bestowed upon me.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: And our Justice Correspondent Pamela Brown is joining us now live. Also, our CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin is joining us. Jeffrey, quickly, how would you characterize the president's choice of chief Judge Merrick Garland?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, this is an extremely qualified nominee by any standard, someone who has impeccable legal background, 18 years, on what is widely regarded as the second-most important court in the country. Under normal circumstances, he would certainly get a vote and certainly -- almost certainly get confirmed. These are not normal circumstances, and his chances for confirmation, at least at this point, appear remote.

BLITZER: At least, at this point. Pamela, you have some insight into the selection process, the reasons Judge Merrick Garland was chosen. What have you learned about that?

BROWN (live): Well, we know the White House already had a lineup in place, and that included Merrick Garland, because he was a front- runner for past high court seats. And they added to that list. They had people with professional experience, including federal and state court judges, elected and government officials, academics and others. They say the list also included individuals with a diverse range of personal backgrounds, men and women, Republicans and Democrats, and individuals of different races, ethnicities, religions and sexual orientations.

And the White House says that it consulted with every member of the United States Senate about this vacancy. It also reached out to minority groups. There was consultation mobilization taking place. They reached out to 125 experts in the field, relevant experts to this, including former administration officials, elected officials. So, they said that they really did their due diligence in getting input from all sides on this issue and from across both sides of the aisle.

And then, in the past week, Wolf, we've learned that the president had interviews with just a handful of candidates. And, of course, that included Merrick Garland. We're also told that Sri Srinivasan was also in the running and Paul Watford out in California. But, ultimately, the White House says the president decided on Merrick Garland because he is indisputably qualified.

As the president said, he's looking for someone who has the credentials. Without a doubt, he is considered a consensus nominee. He's someone that has garnered support on both sides of the aisle, and he's someone who has the life experience outside of the classroom. The president talked about his story today, saying he tutored in D.C. public schools, that he helped prosecute Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing and kept in the touch with the victims after. And the president has made clear that this was a really important part, the empathy aspect of things.

[13:05:11] And so, in the end, Wolf, he chose Merrick Garland.

BLITZER: He certainly did. And, Jeffrey, give us some historic perspective because you've studied the Supreme Court for a long time. The controversy is that this is an election year and Republicans and the Senate say, you know, wait until after the election. Don't do this now. How unusual is it for a president to nominate the Supreme Court justice during an election year and what is the historic tradition?

TOOBIN: Well, and the history about this seat, in particular, the seat that -- with Justice Scalia's death, there are four Democrats and four Republicans on the court and that makes this seat so significant.

As for the timing of the nominees, it is true that it is unusual to have a nominee appointed and confirmed in an election year. But it has definitely been done many times in American history. Anthony Kennedy, who was currently on the court, was confirmed in 1988, an election year.

These confirmation battles are always more about power than they are about principle. The Republicans have the power to deny President Obama this incredibly important opportunity, and they're using that power. That's what it's really about. The principle is very much a secondary consideration.

BLITZER: All right, Jeffrey, thanks very much. Pamela Brown, thanks to you as well.

The Republican National Committee issued a statement today blasting the president's action. The statement saying, among other things, the -- President Obama is doing a disservice to voters with this attempt to tip the balance of the court with a liberal justice in the 11th hour of his presidency. We will not stand by idly while President Obama attempts to install a liberal majority on the court to further undermine our Constitution and protect his lawless actions.

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the chair of the Democratic National Committee. She's a member of Congress. She's joining us from Capitol Hill right now. I'll just get your quick reaction to this very tough statement from the Republican National Committee. REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D-FL), CHAIRWOMAN, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL

COMMITTEE: Coming from the party that shut the government down to deny people health care and cost us $24 billion, coming from the party of obstruction, who's done everything they could to stop Barack Obama from making any progress, then he's done so in spite of them. It isn't at all surprising that they refuse to do their jobs.

The president has more than 300 days left in his term. I'm not sure what their definition of 11th hour is but I'm sure the American people think that we shouldn't leave a Supreme Court seat, of which there are only nine, and a court that has the consequential issues facing them that this court does, open for almost a year. It's ludicrous. It's unprecedented and it's unacceptable.

BLITZER: When president Obama was a U.S. senator, Congresswoman, as you know, back in 2006, he filibustered the nominee Justice Alito, who's now Justice Samuel Alito, something he now says he regrets. And when Vice President Biden was a U.S. senator back in 1992, he said President Bush, and I'm quoting him now, "should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not -- and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

So, if it was good for the Democrats then to make these kind -- these kinds of statements during an election year in the case Biden, why can't the Republicans do that now?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, let's be clear, it -- when Barack Obama was filibustering, he had that opportunity because there was a nominee that was being given a hearing. So, I mean, they have the perfect right to filibuster, to -- you know, to debate it, to do anything they want while letting the process unfold.

But to suggest that they aren't even going to grant courtesy meetings to his nominees, to not have hearings, to not take this nominee through the process, vote them -- vote the president's nominee down if that's what they choose to do. But, you know, they have a senior Republican who has clearly in the past said that Judge Garland was well qualified. That he would do what he could to help him get confirmed.

Now, he's back pedaling, this is Senator Hatch. This is blatant, brass knuckles politics. And you know what? For a party that has a whole bunch of Republicans that say that they are strict constructionists, if you strictly read the United States Constitution, it is the president's role to nominate a justice for an opening on the Supreme Court and the Senate's role to advise and consent.

It is not in the Constitution to do that when they feel like it, to do it when they want to make sure that their not -- their presidential candidate is able to appoint one. It's to just do it when there's an opening.

BLITZER: How do you think this is going to play out in the election? This is an election season, obviously the presidential election, Senate elections, House elections. This whole issue, which obviously is a critically important issue, there are four liberal justices right now in the Supreme Court, four conservatives with the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. This could shake the balance of the Supreme Court, not just for four years or eight years but for 20 or 30 years down the road.

[13:10:11] WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: It sure could, exactly. And so, the opening on this -- on the Supreme Court makes the stakes of the outcome for this election even more significant. You know, we're going to make sure that Americans are -- ask themselves the question, do I really want Donald Trump nominating the next Supreme Court justice? I mean, that is going to be hung around the neck of every Republican candidate in the country.

And, you know, we're happy to hear them say, yes, that's what they want, because this is the most extreme divisive un-American, dangerous, vulgar Republican candidate for president that has -- that has certainly been nominated in modern times. And, you know, when you have a candidate that espouses torture, that has proposed unconstitutional policies, you know, that's who we want to place in the hands the balance of the Supreme Court? I think Americans will reject his candidacy --

BLITZER: Well, are you --

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: -- based just on this.

BLITZER: Are you working under the assumption that Donald Trump will be the Republican presidential nominee?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Mathematically, Wolf, that's exactly where they're headed. It -- Donald Trump only needs to win about 59 percent of the remaining delegates available. John Kasich, for example, has to win 112 percent. And I'm not even addressing Ted Cruz because, mathematically, the person that is this close to the nomination and who basically has it almost locked down is Donald Trump. There's just no question.

BLITZER: Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the chair of the Democratic National Committee. She's the United States congresswoman from Florida. Thanks very much for joining us.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: My pleasure. Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: Coming up, Senate Republicans are vowing to deny holding a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland setting the stage for another showdown between the president and Congress. Republican Senator John Barrasso, he is here. We'll get a very different perspective from him, right after this.

[13:12:05]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:15:52] BLITZER: Let's get back to the breaking news. President Obama's Supreme Court nomination sets the stage for an potentially epic showdown with Senate Republican leaders. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer is calling on Republicans to act, but the majority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, stood firmly against even considering the president's nominee.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MAJORITY LEADER: And it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent. The Senate will continue to observe the Biden rule so that the American people have a voice in this momentous decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: We hope the saner heads in the Republican Party will prevail on Chuck Grassley and on Mitch McConnell to do their job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Joining us now, Republican Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming. He's part of the Republican Senate leadership.

Senator, thanks very much for joining us.

SEN. JOHN BARRASSO (R), WYOMING: Thanks for having me.

BLITZER: Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate, former colleague of yours in the Senate, she just issued this statement. "This Senate has almost a full year to consider and confirm Judge Garland. It should begin that work immediately by giving Judge Grands the full and fair hearing followed by a vote. That is what the American people deserve. It is what our Constitution demands, and with millions of people's lives in the balance, anything less is entirely unacceptable."

Are you at least willing to welcome him into your office, to sit down with him, to talk with him, to consider the possibility of hearings? Forget about a vote for now.

BARRASSO: Well, I don't know that that actually does anything that's fair to him. This has already been excited. This next Supreme Court nominee ought to come from the next president. This is not about the person, it's about the principle involved, and I want to give the American people a voice in this.

BLITZER: So --

BARRASSO: What's interesting when, you know, when Ms. Clinton makes this statement, both Justice Alito and Justice Breyer have said that they can do their work with eight members. There's nothing about the magic number of nine.

BLITZER: But it would be almost a year until there's a full nine members of the United States Supreme Court. Is that what the American people deserve, to have eight to consider some of the most sensitive, important issues with eight justices as opposed to nine? BARRASSO: Well, we've had both -- two of the justices, one Republican

appointed, one Democrat appointed, they said they can do their work. And in our lifetime alone, when Abe Fortas resigned from the Supreme Court, that was open for well over a year. So this is not at all unusual. There's nothing about this. And I think it's just most important in a presidential election, when the president's time is running very short, that we ought to just give the American people a choice.

BLITZER: Well, what do you think of Judge Merrick Garland, based on what you know, his qualifications, his reputation? Forget about the fact that this is an election year. Let's say it wasn't an election year. Do you think he's -- he would be good for the United States Supreme Court?

BARRASSO: Well, to me, again, it's not about the person, it's about the principle that we're looking at. So qualifications here in his case don't really matter at all to me when this higher principle is involved, not the person that's been nominated.

BLITZER: Because, let's say the president decides -- let's say that a Democrat is elected president of the United States in November, let's say Hillary Clinton is elected president, and this nomination came forward, would you then consider it after a Democrat is elected president?

BARRASSO: Well, the Democrat -- if a Democrat is elected, then that person is going to have an opportunity to make the case and put forward --

BLITZER: Well, the president is still the president until January 20th of next year.

BARRASSO: Well, the incoming -- yes.

BLITZER: Let's say the president pushes the U.S. Senate to do it between November and January 20th.

BARRASSO: That should be the next president who makes that decision, who makes that nomination. That, to me, is what this upcoming election is about. This is a very consequential election for the country and that's the way we ought to deal with this.

Now, I've heard the president today talk about the Constitution. I have the Constitution right here. Your legal scholars will tell you that what the president is saying is just a politically convenient fairytale. There is nothing you here in the Constitution that says the Senate needs to vote. There have been 124 Supreme Court members so far, but there have been 160 nominees, and a dozen of them have never even had a vote. So this is not at all unusual. And we know that members of the current Supreme Court say they can do fine with eight.

BLITZER: Back in 1997, Orrin Hatch, a friend of yours, you know him well, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, he said this about Merrick Garland. Listen to this.

[13:20:06] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R), UTAH: Based solely on his qualifications, I support the nomination of Mr. Garland, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. To my knowledge, no one, absolutely no one disputes the following -- Merrick Garland is highly qualified to sit on the D.C. Circuit. His intelligence and his scholarship cannot be questioned.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: But today Senator Hatch issued another statement saying, "I think highly of Judge Garland, but his nomination doesn't in any way change current circumstances. I remain convinced that the best way for the Senate to do its job is to conduct the confirmation process after this toxic presidential election season is over."

You know when there was a Republican president who wanted to nominate justices during an election year, Republicans at that point said to the Democratic majority in the Senate, you know, give them a chance, let there be a full hearing, up or down vote. Is it all just politics about the Supreme Court because shouldn't the Supreme Court be at a higher level?

BARRASSO: Well, the supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. Justice Alito served -- I'm sorry, Justice Scalia served for 30 years. So these are so consequential in term of the future of the country, the direction of the country, the things that come in front of the president. You know, we've had the president re-elected in 2012, and then the Republicans picked up nine Senate seats in 2014, taking over the majority. So clearly, when you take a look at those two things, that's the reason you really ought to say, let's wait until after this election decides and that person should make the nomination.

And we ought to be spending this year on things we actually agree on, working in a bipartisan way. You know, Debbie Wasserman Schultz just made some comments about obstruction. We just on Monday confirmed the president's new secretary of education in a bipartisan vote. We passed a major opioid bill, bipartisan. We ought to be working on things that we can work on and get done in terms of jobs, the economy, national security. Those are things that I think the American people worry about.

BLITZER: Bottom line, Judge Garland, you're not going to consider it at all, no hearings, no -- no nothing, basically, this year? You're going to wait until after the election?

BARRASSO: That's already been decided. We need to focus on working together in a bipartisan way on things the American people are very concerned about right now.

BLITZER: Senator Barrasso is a member of the Senate Republican leadership. Thanks very much for coming in.

BARRASSO: Thanks for having me, Wolf.

BLITZER: Coming up, there's breaking news involving the race for the White House. We're getting new information about next week's Republican presidential debate that's been scheduled. That and a lot more coming up right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:27:01] BLITZER: We're getting some breaking news here as far as the race for the White House is concerned. Apparently the Republican presidential debate scheduled for next Monday, before the next round of votes, has been canceled. It was scheduled to be on Fox News. Donald Trump was the first to say he'd skip that Fox News debate earlier this morning, citing a scheduling conflict. He's scheduled to deliver a speech Monday night before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the annual convention they have here in Washington. John Kasich said he wouldn't attend if Trump was going to skip the debate. Now apparently Fox has decided to postpone or cancel that debate.

Let's talk about what's going on with Steven Miller. He is a senior policy adviser to the Trump campaign.

Stephen, thanks very much for joining us.

What's your reaction to the word that this scheduled debate in Salt Lake City, Utah, scheduled for next Monday, apparently now has -- is going away?

STEPHEN MILLER, SENIOR POLICY ADVISER, TRUMP CAMPAIGN: Well, Wolf, first, it's great to be on your program.

And I think as exciting as it would have been to see Ted Cruz and John Kasich debate for three hours, I think it makes sense to cancel the debate. And it really suggests that we're getting to the next phase here of the nominating process.

Donald Trump has a huge lead in delegates, a huge lead in state wins and is really on the path to becoming the Republican nominee. And after 12 debates, I think people know what the differences are. And I think right now it's about bringing voters together and bringing the party together behind the nomination of Donald Trump.

BLITZER: Yes, I just want to note that a Fox News source has told our Dylan Byers that Monday's presidential debate in Salt Lake City has been canceled apparently because Donald Trump said earlier this morning, and I'll read to you what he said. He said, "I think we've had enough debates. How many times can the same people ask the same question?"

You know what the -- the criticism of Donald Trump, your man, will be that he was afraid to go one on one with Cruz and Kasich, if you will. That he just didn't like those debates anymore. Your reaction to that?

MILLER: Well, it seemed like every time Ted Cruz and formerly Marco Rubio went after Donald Trump in the debate, their poll numbers went down. The debates have been a huge success for the Trump campaign. I mean look at the state results, look at the polls, look at the delegates. Every time he went in a debate and Ted Cruz attacked and Marco Rubio attacked, Donald Trump's poll numbers went up.

I just think it's right now it's about unifying the party and bringing voters together. I think voters are tired of watching these three-hour slugfests, and, frankly, I think a lot of voters right now are relived that we're moving to the next phase of the nominating process.

BLITZER: Trump was on CNN's "New Day" this morning. He was interviewed by Chris Cuomo. And he said this about the possibility of there being a contested or open convention in Cleveland in July. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (voice-over): I think we'll win before getting to the convention. But I can tell you, if we didn't and if we're 20 votes short or if we're -- if we're, you know, 100 short and we're at 1,100 and somebody else is at 500 or 400, because we're way ahead of everybody, I don't think you can say that we don't get it automatically. I think it would be -- I think you'd have riots.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[13:30:04] BLITZER: All right, so that's generated some commotion, "riots." What did he mean by that?

MILLER: I think he meant that a lot of people would be very upset. Obviously he was speaking metaphorically.