Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

House GOP Kills Gun Vote, Dems Continue Sit-in; Interview with Representatives Michael Capuano and Bobby Rush; Verdict Soon for Cop Charges in Gray's Death; Supreme Court Issues Ruling on Affirmative Action Case. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired June 23, 2016 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:03] CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: Jean Casarez is watching all of this. We'll keep you posted as soon as the judge issues his decision. He is expected to do that any minute now in Baltimore. Jean Casarez will keep you posted.

All right. Back to Capitol Hill now. House Democrats sit in, Republicans fire back, and the debate over gun control takes a bizarre and angry twist.

Democrats refusing to budge from their sit-in on the House floor after nearly 23 hours. They're demanding a vote on gun control in the wake of the horrific shooting rampage in Orlando. Their protest virtually unprecedented and ultimately unsuccessful, at least for now.

Republican leaders shutting off the TV cameras and shutting down the session, ordering the House into recess for the next couple of weeks. The House Speaker Paul Ryan calls the sit-in a publicity stunt. Democrats call it just the beginning.

CNN's Manu Raju live on Capitol Hill to tell us more. Good morning.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning. Last night was a chaotic scene as House Republicans tried to regain control of the floor after the Democrats essentially took it over, upended business, and essentially hijacked all legislation that was happening.

Now what Republicans ended up doing was moving forward on a number of bills that they actually wanted to have votes on and they did have votes on it, doing over the shouting and screaming of House Democrats, and at the end of the day Republicans adjourned for the Fourth of July recess. Republicans left town, but Democrats are still on the floor, a handful of them, protesting action and the leader of that effort, John Lewis, said the Democrats won't be giving up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN LEWIS (D), GEORGIA: Today we have come a distance. We made some progress. We cross one bridge, but we have other bridges to cross. We're not giving up the fight. The fight is an ongoing fight. We will not be happy, we will not be satisfied, we will not be pleased until we do something in a major way.

(END VIDEO CLIP) RAJU: Now Republicans are, indeed, calling this a publicity stunt because the two parties are just nowhere near agreement on what to do about guns and even if a bill came to the floor, it would almost certainly be voted down. They're seizing on a number of fundraising solicitations that the Democratic congressional campaign committee sent out last night asking to raise money off of the sit-in that was happening on the House floor. Now House Speaker Paul Ryan pushing back rather aggressively on the Democratic tactics.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PAUL RYAN (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: This is nothing more than a publicity stunt, that's point number one. Point number two is this bill was already defeated in the United States Senate. Number three, we are not going to take away a citizen's due process rights, we're not going to take away a citizen's constitutional rights without due process.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Now across the Capitol from where I'm standing right now is the Senate which is still in session. And there's a possibility they're trying to move forward on some sort of compromise legislation that Susan Collins of Maine is pushing that would actually try to ban some folks on that no-fly list from getting guns, but there are some concerns, constitutional concerns, that the NRA is raising and as well as Republicans here as well. They do not like the appeals process that this -- this sets in place. They think it could deny people who should have -- be able to buy guns, the right to buy a gun, so even if that does come forward, and I'm hearing Republican leaders still want to put that forward for a vote and get the issue over with, but even if it does come forward, it's not going to pass, probably not the Senate and almost certainly not the House -- Carol.

COSTELLO: All right. Manu Raju reporting live from Capitol Hill this morning. Thank you.

It was obviously a very chaotic scene on the House floor last night. One standout moment, when Massachusetts Congressman Michael Capuano took to the floor. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MICHAEL CAPUANO (D), MASSACHUSETTS: To be perfectly honest I thought this should be done around noontime. We'd have our fun, maybe some people would make the news, and we'd go on our merry way and the same old stuff would happen. I'm tired.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

CAPUANO: I need a shower.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

(CROSSTALK) CAPUANO: I need a beer. I know that there is nothing that we can do to stop it all. I know that. But I also know that doing nothing is not the answer.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: We're told Congressman Capuano was on the floor until 4:00 in the morning. He joins me now over the phone from Capitol Hill. I'm also joined by Representative Bobby Rush, a Democrat from Illinois. His son was killed in 1999 by gun violence.

Welcome to both of you.

Congressman Rush, this is so personal for you, but, you know, a lot of people think it just -- it won't accomplish anything, and it is just a publicity stunt.

[10:05:10] REP. BOBBY RUSH (D), ILLINOIS: Well, Carol, I sincerely wholeheartedly, deep down in the pit of my stomach, I totally disagree with this being simply a publicity stunt. I am so appalled that the speaker of the House would characterize this very, very genuine response of the representatives of this nation's citizens who are responding to not only Orlando but a series of serial mass killings in our nation.

What kind of response do we need to have in order for this Congress to get up off of its bump and move to get legislation, sensible legislation, legislation that 92 percent of the American people demand that we implement? What kind of motivation do we need? What kind of inspiration?

I tell you, Speaker Ryan, who I admire in so many ways, he is a real disappointment. I am so proud to be a Democrat. I have had my issues with the Democratic Party. However, last night we showed, demonstrated our better selves because we would not surrender to order when chaos in our nation is upon us. All the way upon us. And we know --

COSTELLO: Congressman -- Congressman Capuano, I do want to get this in. The Senate, they had four bills before them. The Senate voted down all of them because there is simply no support on the Republican side. In the House it's very similar. So isn't there some kind of bill that could have been introduced to avoid this problem that Republicans would have liked?

CAPUANO: There's a hundred different options for compromise. If they showed any indication towards compromise, of course we're talking. It's happening in the Senate now and of course we will. But first of all, these bills start from a very minimalistic position in the first place. The bill on no fly, no buy, that's a George Bush proposal. You know, so these things are pretty reasonable to begin with, which is why we're all trying to support them. I personally would argue we should go further but I understand those bills won't pass so we're trying to do the absolute minimum we can do to do something and to fail to put them on the floor because they don't think it will pass in the Senate, maybe they're right, but that's never stopped them before in some of the most egregious right-wing rhetoric bills that they know are never going to get through the Senate, they know the president is going to veto them, they know the veto cannot be overwritten, yet they do those.

Put the bills on the floor. Let representatives stand up and take a position, and let the American people judge us on how we vote. How is that so difficult --

(CROSSTALK)

COSTELLO: But, Congressman Capuano, I just want to ask you one more question about that. Are you putting Speaker Ryan in a very difficult place? Because the Democrats did break the rules to try to get something done.

CAPUANO: I would have preferred -- we've been trying for months to do it within the rules, to simply get a vote. We've had a discharge petition for months. All we ask is to put it on the floor. That's not asking much. We're not asking any Republican to vote with it. That's up to them to do their own conscience. If the rules don't work, on occasion, and this is the first time in history to my knowledge, I have been here 18 years, certainly the first time since I have been here, that we've had to do this kind of thing by breaking the rules, and it's really only because the rules didn't work on one of the most important issues of the day where, as you just heard Bobby Rush say, 90 percent of the American people -- that includes Republicans, that includes NRA members. 90 percent of the American people support us.

If we don't break the rules on a rare occasion, not all the time, on a rare occasion, on the most important issues of the y, then maybe we don't deserve to call ourselves leaders.

BLITZER: Congressman Rush, go ahead.

RUSH: I might add, while we were on the floor last night demonstrating, in my city alone there were 16 shootings last night. You know, this has got to come to a screeching halt, and we are just asking the Republicans to get out from under this fear factor of the National Rifle Association and do the right thing.

[10:10:10] I talked to them individually. They understand how frustrated we Democrats are, how frustrated the American people are, but they always come back to the NRA and what would happen to them if, in fact, they voted for any, no matter how sensible, no matter how much they want to do it, any gun control legislation. They don't even allow the police forces in our nation to gather and keep data on guns, who owns guns, who uses guns, what is the registry of guns.

They don't allow the law enforcement, our first defenders, to have adequate information about guns, gun trafficking, illegal gun trafficking in our nation. Something has got to stop, and we took to the floor to demand that once and for all after Orlando and others, let us do what we can do as a legislative body, as a U.S. Congress, and answer in response to our citizens. Let us do something about --

COSTELLO: All right, I have to leave it there. Congressman Bobby Rush, Congressman Michael Capuano, thanks to both of you.

Now back to Baltimore. Any minute now we expect to hear the verdict for the officer facing the most serious charges in the death of Freddie Gray.

Any word from the court, Jean?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: No word at all. This is a bench trial so we don't have to wait for a jury to reach a verdict. It is the judge that has reached the verdict, and he's on his own time schedule. It's set for 10:00 but he will come in. You cannot transmit any e-mails from the courtrooms, so the judge has to go through all of these charges, and there are many charges here. It's not just degrees. It's just not only second-degree depraved-heart murder, and he will probably give his explanation for all of that and then set a sentencing date if there are any convictions and then our producer Lawrence Crook will come out and we'll get that information.

COSTELLO: I see the scene there in Baltimore, as the officer walks into the courthouse to hear the verdict from the judge. Any big protests going on in Baltimore that we know of?

CASAREZ: I do know the National Guard was told to not leave the state and to just stay close because they have to be prepared for anything, and this is a trial that is very important because of how many charges there are and the second-degree murder charge, and this is the driver of the van. This is the man that held the keys, that opened the door for Freddie Gray to go into the back, and so I know in the other trials they really have put responsibility on him because he had a duty and he was the one to have the duty, Officer Porter said that, for the people that he would transport.

COSTELLO: OK. We'll check back. Jean Casarez, thanks so much.

OK. We're watching also the U.S. Supreme Court, right, four big decisions expected to be handed down today concerning immigration, abortion, affirmative action, and others. You see the protests -- protesters have already gathered outside of the U.S. Supreme Court. We're going to keep you posted on all of this so stay with us. I'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

[10:17:34] COSTELLO: All right. A major decision has been handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. I want to take you now to Washington and Wolf Blitzer for more on that.

Hi, Wolf.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks very much. This is a very important decision involving affirmative action at universities in the United States.

I want to go to Pamela Brown, our justice correspondent.

Pamela, you have just gotten word on this decision involving the University of Texas, their affirmative action program. Tell us what the Supreme Court justices decided.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Wolf. The high court upheld the affirmative action program at the University of Texas. The justices said that race can be taken into consideration as one factor during the college admissions process at the University of Texas.

This is the second time that this case has made it to the high court and it revolves around the student Abigail Fisher, a white woman who sued the University of Texas claiming discrimination because she was white.

Under the Texas Affirmative Action Program, 10 percent of the top students in their class are automatically admitted to any public university in Texas, and then on top of that, race is taken into consideration for students admitted after the 10 percent is accepted, and so the student, Abigail Fisher, was not accepted to the University of Texas, and she claimed it was because she was white, but today the high court is saying that this program is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, which was an opinion written by Justice Kennedy, and there were some -- there were two dissents by Justice Thomas as well as Justice Alito, but certainly a big win for those who favor affirmative action.

BLITZER: Certainly is an important win for those who support affirmative action, an admissions factor at universities and colleges in the United States.

Jeffrey Toobin is with us. Were you surprised? Seven justices ruled on this because Elena Kagan recused herself. She had been solicitor- general at the time it was argued earlier.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: This is a somewhat surprising decision because Justice Kennedy, who was very clearly the swing vote on this issue has sort of expressed a lot of misgivings about affirmative action over the years, but in this case he has clearly very much endorsed affirmative action.

The Texas plan is that most students are admitted to the University of Texas under the so-called 10 percent plan, that the top 10 percent of every public high school is automatically admitted, and there's no racial consideration.

[10:20:04] But there is a group of students who are considered under what's called the holistic review. It -- considers a lot of different factors, but very explicitly that factor includes race. They say that diversity is a value that they want to preserve at the University of Texas, and the Supreme Court today said that is OK. Diversity is something that can be considered in admissions, and that's a very big deal. BLITZER: Jonathan Turley is with us, professor of George Washington

University Law School. What they decided basically was that it was acceptable back in 2008 when she was denied admission to use affirmative action. That was constitutional, that was OK.

JONATHAN TURLEY, PROFESSOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: Yes. It's actually quite surprising because Kennedy was the one always on the fence, not just in this case. Back in 2003 the court split in cases called "Gruder and Gratz" and Kennedy expressed a lot of concern over the use of race, and when this case came back the second time in oral argument, he said, look, it seems like nothing has changed in this case. We're arguing the same things. So most people thought that Kennedy was prepared to pull the trigger on affirmative action, but there was this weird dynamic. You had two justices missing, one passed away, one recused.

BLITZER: Justice Scalia.

TURLEY: Yes. And that may have given Kennedy a bit of sticker shock in terms of, do you really want to end affirmative action on a seven- justice court? But I think it's more than that. I think that this shows an evolution of Kennedy's views, not a huge one, but I think that in those past cases he indicated that he was very skeptical about the use of race. And the important thing here is remember, this went back on the strict scrutiny standard and this says a lot about that standard. It says that you can make that standard even though many people thought they could not, that they had to show they couldn't achieve diversity without doing this.

BLITZER: So if Justice Scalia had not passed away, do you think that would have made a difference in this particular case?

TOOBIN: A huge difference, huge difference. Justice Scalia almost certainly would have been a vote on the side against affirmative action, and I think this is just indicative of how the court is a different place now without Justice Scalia. The liberals, A, are a concerted, collective, unified bloc of four justices. Today they only had three because Justice Kagan was recused, but these four justices can now stop any decision that they want. They can make an equally divided court and mean that the lower court decisions will be affirmed, but this is a very different court than it was before February 13th.

BLITZER: So it underscores how significant Justice Kennedy -- when you say he's the swing vote on so many of these critically important issues, it's certainly true.

TOOBIN: And it underscores the importance of the presidential election because there is a vacancy on this court. Merrick Garland who's been nominated, it seems quite clear he's not getting a vote before election day. Probably not at all. This court is divided on a knife's edge between Democrats and Republicans and the presidential election will determine who controls the court.

BLITZER: Well, funny you mentioned that because Jeff Zeleny is with us as well. Jeff, the political fallout from this in the election and in general

could be significant.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: It will be significant. And Jeffrey is absolutely correct here. Had Scalia still been on the bench, this certainly would have been a 4-4 decision. I was just looking back at what he said when this was argued on December 2015. He said I don't think it stands to reason. It's a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible so it's clear he would have been on this.

But Republicans on Capitol Hill are still a little bit uneasy about this presidential election overall. Obviously with Donald Trump as the nominee. But look for a possibility for Merrick Garland to at least get one more round of possible consideration. There are still many Republicans who think that he is the best that they will get here. Now I'm not predicting he will be confirmed at all but this is going to highlight the importance of the court in the presidential contest. No question at all.

We've not had any reaction from the campaigns specifically but look for that to come. That's why this is the most critical issue here in this campaign.

BLITZER: Because you'll hear, you know, the Republican presumptive nominee, Donald Trump, saying in almost every speech, this is the most important issue facing American voters right now, the future of the U.S. Supreme Court. A president might serve for four years or eight years but a Supreme Court justice serves a lifetime. This could be 20, 30, maybe even 40 years of having an impact on decisions impacting the United States.

TURLEY: Yes, I think this is a transformative moment. I think it's certainly true that you can see the absence of Scalia. The needle has moved on this court. It has affected I think particularly Kennedy in terms of how he's voting, but more importantly, you know, we have rumors now that Clarence Thomas might be considering leaving the court.

This is the ultimate transformative moment for this court occurring at the most controversial time, and this case is really going to capture that. If you have those types of changes occurring at this time, we're talking about changes that will affect the entire country.

[10:25:05] TOOBIN: Remember, too, there are two big, outstanding cases in the last couple of days at the Supreme Court. One relates to abortion rights. The other relates to immigration. Two cases -- two issues that are at the heart of this presidential campaign. So today is a reminder of what's at stake at the Supreme Court over the next couple of days as we get those decisions. They will also be reminders of what's at stake in this election.

TURLEY: I also think the dynamic that we may see is that Kennedy has always been viewed, as you know, as a swing vote, not entirely reliable by conservatives. This may push the conservatives further to saying, look, we want a lead pipe cinch of a conservative. We want someone who's clearly going to hold the line the way Scalia did on these issues. And I think that dynamic is likely --

BLITZER: And you saw -- Jeffrey, you saw Donald Trump's list about 12 conservative justices out there -- judges out there that he would potentially consider.

ZELENY: He did, and he did that for a reason, to make conservatives more at ease with his candidacy but that seems like a long time ago since he's done that. So many other controversies have come his way since then. This is one of the many reasons Republicans are so, so anxious about this, and some of them are -- you know, they want to try to hold the Senate, hold control of the Senate more than anything else here because they fear the White House is slipping away from them here, but that's why it's so important.

TOOBIN: Remember your interview yesterday with Speaker Ryan, who obviously has mixed feelings about Donald Trump, but the one thing he did say over and over again to you --

BLITZER: Yes.

TOOBIN: -- was that I trust Donald Trump will appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court, and that alone is a reason to support him over Hillary Clinton, and I think it makes a lot of sense from his perspective given the potential for dramatic change on the court.

BLITZER: And we'll see if Merrick Garland's fate has an impact as a result of today's decision and as you point out two more critically important decisions that we're waiting from the U.S. Supreme Court as well.

Let's take a quick break. In Baltimore we're also waiting for a verdict in the Freddie Gray trial. Protesters outside the U.S. Supreme Court, also outside Baltimore right now.

Let's take a quick break. Much more right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)