Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Supreme Court Overturns Texas Abortion Law; Stock Market Down; John Kerry to Speak About Brexit Vote. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired June 27, 2016 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00] KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: LEGAL VIEW with Ashleigh Banfield is going to start right now. Have a good one, guys.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. I'm Ashleigh Banfield. And welcome to LEGAL VIEW. Want to begin this hour with some big legal news. The Supreme Court, in a ruling on abortion, the biggest one, in fact, in two decades, on the final day of a term that saw the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the eight remaining justices overturned abortion clinic restrictions that were passed but never enacted in the state of Texas. In doing so, the court ruled unconstitutional a measure in that state that would have required abortion providers there to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

And the big court also struck down another provision that would have required abortion clinic in that state to have hospital quality equipment and facilities. Big, expensive, onerous things for them to do.

And writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said this and I will quote the justice. "There was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure. We agree with the district court, that the surgical center requirement, like the admitting privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an undue burden on their constitutional right to do so."

Strong words, strong action. CNN justice correspondent Pam Brown was among the first to get her hands on that decision. She is live on the steps of the Supreme Court. Also want to bring in our senior legal analyst, and staff writer for "The New Yorker," Jeffrey Toobin, also happened to write the book about the Supreme Court, a few of them, and our chief political correspondent, Dana Bash, also joining us with the political ramifications.

Stand by to the latter two of you.

First to you, live on the Supreme Court steps, Pamela Brown.

This was not just a vote. This was a 5-3 vote, which makes it permanent and precedent setting. Break it down for me.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and, Ashleigh, this is the most significant abortion case in two decades. And Justice Kennedy joined the liberals striking down these two provisions under this Texas law, saying they are unconstitutional. The two provisions include the requirement of doctors to have admitting privileges to hospitals in the area near the clinic and hospital like standards for these clinics. And the five justices in this case says that these requirements would basically shutter most of the clinics in the state of Texas and would be an undue burden on women.

Now, those who favor the law said this was really about the safety of women and the health of women, to raise the standards for them. And they claimed that the 5.4 million women of reproductive age in this state would have access to a clinic within 150 miles.

But as you see here, Ashleigh, the five justices, the 5-3 opinion, the five justices say that, no, that these standards are not necessary and they are unconstitutional. And what is striking here as well is not only did Justice Kennedy join the liberal justices, but he didn't write an opinion in this case. He has written an opinion in all the major abortion cases since he came to the bench in 1988. But in this situation, he was a more senior justice, but he chose to give the opinion away for Justice Breyer to write, which is just really interesting to note.

BANFIELD: And they normally do this on a last day of session. They start to unload a whole bunch of big decisions on us. This was the biggest of them. But there was that decision we've been waiting on, referring to the legal problems that the former governor of Virginia has been struggling through for the last few years.

BROWN: Right.

BANFIELD: Take me to that case and tell me what the high court said.

BROWN: Well, the high court today, in a unanimous decision, Ashleigh, threw out Governor McDonald's (ph) conviction and basically it said that the jury in the lower court had the wrong instructions, that the instructions were too broad when it comes to what constitutes an official act. And in this opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, it says, "setting up a meeting, talking to another official or organizing an event or agreeing to do so without more, it does not fit that definition of official act."

So in this case, Governor McDonald received $175,000 from a businessman in Virginia in loans and gifts and in exchange the government - the governor set up meetings with government officials and this businessman. The prosecutor has argued that this was quid pro quo. That this was a violation of federal public corruption laws. But his attorney argued that he never put his thumb on the scale, never influenced any government decisions on behalf of this businessman.

And what's interesting here, Ashleigh, in this case is that the justice said that, look, this seems maybe unseemly. In fact, it says, "there is no doubt this case is distasteful. It may be worse than that, but our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes and ball gowns, it is instead what the broader, legal implications of the government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute." [12:05:06] What's important to note here too, though, Ashleigh, is that it did leave open the possibility, the high court leaving open the possibility that this could be retried with different jury instructions.

Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: Well, and when you have a case as tawdry as the ball gowns and the money and the Rolexes, that would be something that I think no one should be surprised at if they did choose to retry.

Pamela Brown, stand by for me, if you will, for a moment.

I want to bring in Jeffrey Toobin and Dana Bash.

Jeff, first to you, and let's go back to the big decision on abortion. Again, 5-3 means this is it. We had expected it could have been 4-4, which would have meant, you know, punt back down to Texas, then the status quo would have remained and it would have been difficult for abortion rights activists in that state. But this is permanent and it means what for the rest of the country?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, you know, Ashleigh, we've spent a lot of time appropriately talking about Justice Scalia. But one thing that today and this last week's decision reminds us is this is still Anthony Kennedy's court. Where he goes, that's where the majority goes. And, you know, the four liberals can't do anything by themselves. And they had Anthony Kennedy with them today. And this is a decision of immense significance because it's not just Texas. It's Louisiana. It's Mississippi. It's Wisconsin. Many states have passed increasingly restrictive rules on abortion clinics in recent years. And what Justice Breyer's opinion says is that unless you, the state, can prove that these restrictions really do benefit women's health and they are not just pretext to make it harder for clinics to stay open, these restrictions are going to be struck down. So there are lots of challenges coming to new rules making abortions harder to get in states around the country and it's a new world today on abortion rights.

BANFIELD: A new world not only for, you know, folks who follow the law, but for folks who follow politics and they're very intricately intertwined, which brings me to Dana Bash, because this kind of a decision is not lost on people on the campaign trail. And the candidates are already on it.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. Hillary Clinton tweeting really in just a few moments after the Supreme Court decision came down, and here's what she said. : SCOTUS decision is a victory for women in Texas and across America. Safe abortion should be a right, not just on paper but in reality." And then you see that "H" there, which means that she apparently did that tweet herself.

And a very different point of view from the Republican House speaker, Paul Ryan. I'll show you what he said. "I'm disappointed in the court's decision, but our fight to protect women's health and promote life will not stop here." And I think that this, not surprisingly, sort of lays down the political markers for how you're going to see this court decision being used politically. And, again, it's kind of the political arguments we've seen for decades now, Ashleigh. For the most part, Democrats arguing that you need to have a Democratic president who will appoint Democratic justices to the Supreme Court, or people who are like-minded, I should say, and abortion being a case in point from their perspective. And the same goes for Republicans. And it seems to me, just politically, that this might be more of a galvanizer for the Republican base because they're looking at this court and this decision. And it was 5-3, which means that, you know, as somebody here in the newsroom reminded me earlier, even if there were an Antonin Scalia or somebody who were - is sort of in his slot, it wouldn't have mattered.

BANFIELD: Sure.

BASH: It would have been the same decision because, as Jeff was just talking about, about Kennedy. But that's in the short term.

In the long term, there are likely to be retirements coming up and the Supreme Court is front and center in the movement and the move to get the base galvanized, again particularly on the Republican side, this time around.

BANFIELD: And, Jeffrey, I want you to - specifically because you wrote the book, "The Nine." the significant of the ages of the current sitting justices and the significance of the age of the one potential judge that President Obama would like to have confirmed and how all of that becomes extraordinarily important in the next presidential term?

TOOBIN: Right.

BANFIELD: Just lay out the critical, critical aspect for people who are going to the ballot boxes.

TOOBIN: Right. Well, just for starters, there is a vacancy. Justice Scalia's seat has not been filled. President Obama has nominated Merrick Garland, who is in his early '60s, who is unusually old for a nominee to the Supreme Court. And that is one argument that Democrats have tried to make to Republicans is, look, come on, we're not talking about someone who's going to be on the court for 30 or 40 years. He's older. You know, confirm him, or if Hillary Clinton wins, she might nominate someone much younger.

[12:10:21] But then there's that one vacancy. Anthony Kennedy, the key swing vote on the court, 80 years old. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 83. Steven Breyer, 79 years old. Clarence Thomas, 68 years old. I mean there is a - this is, even by Supreme Court standards, an unusually old court -

BANFIELD: Yes.

TOOBIN: Which suggests that the next president will have the opportunity not just to fill Justice Scalia's seat, which is, of course, vacant right now, but potentially two, three, or even four seats on the court. BANFIELD: Which may explain why some people who find Donald Trump

distasteful, find a conservative commander in chief more tasteful because there is that massive stake that, you know, is facing down the current panel of justices.

TOOBIN: And he - and one reason why I think he -

BANFIELD: Yes, real quick.

TOOBIN: He put that list of ten potential nominees to the Supreme Court -

BASH: Exactly.

BANFIELD: Right.

TOOBIN: Out is to show that he would nominate conservatives to the court.

BANFIELD: Dana, last word.

BASH: And I should just quickly say that I have just been checking his Twitter feed. We have not heard yet from Donald Trump about this. But, presumably, we'll hear pretty soon.

BANFIELD: That's a - that's a really good presumption, actually.

All right, Dana Bash, thank you for that. Jeffrey Toobin, thank you as well.

I just want to do something really quickly, if I can, because I think we may have a statement from the president on this. Let me just have a quick look. Doing it live while I'm talking to you. It might take me a little bit. There we go.

I can tell you this. It's fairly lengthy, so I'll read it live for you. "I am pleased," says the president, "to see the Supreme Court protect woman's rights and health today. As the brief filed by the solicitor general makes clear, and as the court affirmed today, these restrictions harm women's health and place an unconstitutional obstacle in the path of a woman's reproductive freedom. We remain strongly committed to the protection of women's health, including protecting a woman's access to safe, affordable health care and her right to determine her own future. Women's opportunities are expanded and our nation is stronger when all of our citizens have accessible, affordable health care."

A statement by the president of the United States on Whole Women's Health versus Hellerstdedt. That is the case that was just handed down by the Supreme Court, 5-3. Texas loses in its bid to put those restrictions on those abortion clinics. And that is officially the law of the land.

In just a couple of minutes, we're going to change course, and you're going to hear from the secretary of state. John Kerry is overseas. And he's dealing with Brexit. As the Brexit follow continues to ripple around the world and make your big board look ugly again today, we're going to check in on the markets, not just here but abroad as well, to see how that U.K. vote is leaving us and how it's leaving your wallet.

And you can watch LEGAL VIEW any time at cnn.com/go. And you can also find me on Twitter, @cnnashleigh or on FaceBook. Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:17:11] BANFIELD: Breaking news. I want to take you to the U.K., Britain in particular. The shockwaves once again going global. It is a pretty flag, folks, but it is a messy picture. The backlash from Brexit, or more precisely from the decision by U.S. - or U.K. voters to exit the European Union, the actual, actual breakup itself is really still likely years away, assuming that the remain camp, plus a good many leave voters, now having second thoughts, don't find a way to derail it. So far we don't seem to think there's any way to derail it, but since Friday, more than 3.5 million Brits have signed on to petitions calling for a do-over.

World markets are equally queasy. The Dow resumed its slide at the opening bell following the leads of most other major exchanges around the world. You can see the live big board on your screen right now. We're down 233 points. And that's in addition to Friday's, I don't know, 600ish drop, which is a big drop, especially in two trading days.

The British pound, for its part, well, it stinks too. It fell another 3 percent today. And that means it's at its lowest value against the U.S. dollar in more than 30 years. The U.S. secretary of state is in London. He's actually - he's been doing a little traveling, not just in London, but he's just come from the E.U.'s home base of Brussels. While he was there, he urged all sides to, ready, keep stiff upper lips.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, I think it is absolutely essential that we stay focused on how, in this transitional period, nobody loses their head, nobody goes off halfcocked, people don't start ginning up, you know, scatter brain or revengeful premises.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Scatter brained or revengeful premises. So he's in London and any moment now he's going to come through those gold and brown doors and address the waiting press. And a lot of people are waiting to hear what he has to say because right now there's just so much uncertainty. Any clarity is what the press is looking for at this point.

And to that end, I want to bring in CNN business correspondent Alison Kosik, who's at the New York Stock Exchange. She's forced to watch that big board all day, folks, and CNN's International anchor Becky Anderson in London.

And with it may be funny just to deal with like how frustrating this has all has been, one can only laugh amid the tears.

ALISON KOSIK, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Right.

BANFIELD: Alison, these numbers are ugly. We were - I think we were down almost 300 points at one point today. We may have dipped over that and I missed it for a nanosecond. Why are we continuing to sell off?

KOSIK: Yes, I mean, this is no laughing matter. I mean I laughed. You made a funny joke. But the reality is, I mean the Dow and the S&P, if you're invested in this market, the Dow and the S&P have wiped out all of the gains for this year. Now, there's still more of the year to make that up, but if you're looking at your 401(k), unless you've got a strong stomach, it's not easy to look at. Yes, we did see the Dow dip as much as - a little over 300 points today. So we're seeing the Dow off its lows.

[12:20:21] But we are still seeing stocks extend their losses in a big way because what you're essentially seeing, Ashleigh, are investors repricing the values of companies to fit the new landscape. And the new landscape is a United Kingdom that's no longer part of the E.U. There's also this big concern hanging over investors that other countries will follow Britain's lead and try to leave the E.U. too.

Case in point, I'm watching the financials, big banks, they're hit hard, they've been hit hard since Friday. Citigroup, Bank of America, JP Morgan, all of those financials are dragging down the Dow. Now, financials are getting the brunt of this. They're the ugly ducklings because many banks have their headquarters in the U.K. and will soon have to follow new rules, and that involves, you know, staffing and more uncertainty. And it's also an expensive process to change all of this. You know, you have to relocate offices and transfer staff, all the paperwork, the new capital requirements. So depending on which country the banks will put their headquarters, there are going to be new capital requirements for these banks. So all of this for these banks while they try to do the day's business. That's just an example of some of the uncertainty that the financials, the banks are facing in the midst of this Brexit.

Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: So I want to bring in Becky Anderson in London.

And, Becky, whenever you talk on CNN International, I stop and I listen, as do so many other people. Here is what I don't understand. And the caveat here is that I'm watching these two doors to the - to the right of our screen here and if the -

BECKY ANDERSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Got it.

BANFIELD: Secretary of State John Kerry comes in, I'm going to have to interrupt everybody.

But the chancellor of the exchequer of your fine country is going on record saying the British economy is rock solid and can withstand Brexit. Why do I not feel better? ANDERSON: Yes, those calls for a stiff upper lip from John Kerry really today I think falling on deaf ears. And anybody who says, keep calm and carry on, well, that's not helping today either. We have had a day of political drama once again in the seat of power here in Westminster. David Cameron just addressing lawmakers for the first time since we heard him and saw him resign on Friday morning in the wake of this vote.

To call this a period of political chaos is probably an understatement. And to your question, markets hate volatility and they hate uncertainty. And whether the finance minister or the chancellor of the exchequer, as we call him here in the U.K., or David Cameron, the prime minister, anybody else tells you that this is going to be fine going forward, very few people are listening because the problem is this. We are being told here that there are contingency plans. We are being told that Britain has a strong economy and it will be strong inside or outside of the E.U. going forward. But it was only ten days ago that the finance minister, who was campaigning for Britain to stay within the E.U. told his audiences there was a - potentially a $42 billion hole in public finances here. And when he tried to reassure markets today that there were contingency plans, he didn't row back on that. And that, I think, is where the problem exists.

And as David Cameron addressed parliamentarians here today, you saw the pound slipping further to a 31-year low. I watched Wall Street slip further into the red. I watched the U.K. market slip further into the red. Let's have a quick listen to what David Cameron said. This was his attempt to reassure his audience.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID CAMERON, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: This is bigger (ph). The British people have voted to leave the European Union. It was not the result I wanted, nor the outcome that I believe is best for the country I love. But there can be no doubt about the result.

Of course, I don't take back what I said about the risks. It is going to be difficult. We've already seen that there are going to be adjustments within our economy, complex constitutional issues and challenging new negotiation to undertake with Europe. But I am clear, and the cabinet agreed this morning, that the decision must be accepted and the process of implementing the decision in the best possible way must now begin.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON: The problem is this, Ashleigh, that he won't be implementing any decisions going forward. We've learned today there is a new leadership contest going on within the conservative party. Nominations will close by Wednesday evening. And there will be a new prime minister in the U.K., taking this all on from September the 2nd.

[12:25:12] And there again, therein again lies a problem, that there are a couple of months now before any decisions will be made about when it is and how it is that the U.K. extricates itself from the European Union. Back to my original point, markets hate uncertainty and so does the British public, by the way.

Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: So do anchors, too, because the uncertainty is, is when John Kerry is going to walk through those doors and address the waiting public. You know, you just never know what kind of words might fall on deaf ears or may actually move the big board.

But, thank you, to both of you, Alison Kosik, Becky Anderson. Do appreciate it.

Still watching to see if the - if the secretary of state is - we haven't even gotten the two minute warning, folks, not at this point. But we are keeping a very close eye on it.

Joining me now, economic analyst Ali Velshi and former chief business correspondent here at CNN, and current chief business correspondent Christine Romans, both of them co-authoring the book "How to Speak Money."

Speak money to me, folks, about Brexit because a lot of Americans are looking just at the big board and saying, this is catastrophic for us. Is it going to continue to be catastrophic for us?

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Look, 1,000 points in two days is never very good, right? You've got a five or six percent decline expected in the S&P 500 over a couple of days. That shows you that there is fear and gloom about what happened in the U.K.

What did they do? What did the voters there do? Essentially they thumbed their nose at 40 years of globalization and said the winners are banks and big companies and rich people and emerging markets and not the little guy.

ALI VELSHI, ECONOMY ANALYST: And they're not - they're not entirely wrong. They answered the question that was answered differently, but they're not wrong. For working class people in America and manufacturing workers, for working class people in Great Britain and manufacturing workers, when you're the richer country in a trade deal, everything else about your country does well from these trade deals. Corporate profits are better. GDP increases. But there's a population that doesn't do well, and that's what you've got in the U.K. That's what we've got in the United States.

And markets just don't know how to parse this. They don't know what to do with this. I don't think this is an ongoing thing. I don't think our markets are going to continue to go down.

ROMANS: No.

VELSHI: They've given away the gains that we had because we thought there was going to be Brexit. They've given away a little more than that. But I think this comes to a conclusion.

BANFIELD: So what's interesting though is when you said that they thumbed their noses at this 40 years of globalization and the winners have been the richest 1 percent, et cetera, they may have thumbed their noses, but they cut their noses off to spite their face.

ROMANS: And that's why this is sort of a protest vote, right, because you ask people, what did you just vote for? You voted for higher taxes and fewer jobs. You're so mad at the elites and the status quo, as you see it there, that you are willing to vote for higher taxes on yourself and lower jobs.

VELSHI: Right.

ROMANS: That just shows you -

VELSHI: But there's something satisfying to throwing the bums out.

ROMANS: It is. There is. And I think it also shows the pollsters, the elites, the markets didn't see this coming.

VELSHI: Right.

ROMANS: And that shows a disconnect that's also playing in the United States. Their - the Trump vote, for example. You know, people who are just so mad at the way it is, the way they think it is, that they're willing to throw everybody out.

BANFIELD: Anything will do. Anything is better.

VELSHI: Right.

BANFIELD: So - and we've talked a lot about the money aspect of this.

VELSHI: Yes.

BANFIELD: The economic aspect of this. But let's - make no mistake, when that leader, Nigel Ferage, stood in front of that poster, that massive traveling poster that went all over the place -

VELSHI: Right.

BANFIELD: Showing hordes of Syrian refugees who apparently weren't anywhere close to England at that point, showing, this is the breaking point, the E.U. has failed us.

VELSHI: Right, you can't actually walk to England.

BANFIELD: You can't walk to England.

VELSHI: Yes.

BANFIELD: But this is what he did.

VELSHI: Yes.

BANFIELD: And so many of the people who watched this process said, this is what this vote was about.

VELSHI: Yes.

BANFIELD: It was anti-immigration.

VELSHI: Yes.

BANFIELD: Again, much like America.

VELSHI: Right. But keep in mind, so the difference between America and Great Britain is America is all immigrants at some point or other. U.K. wasn't. And what they had is a big surge of immigration right after the first colonial countries got independence in 1960, '61. That went on for years. So you've got the Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Nigerians, everybody who was a colonial. Then when the E.U. came in, they ended up getting the Poles and the Romanians, the poorer eastern Europeans. All of these people have come into England. Some of them have done better than native born English and now the - the British see these hoards, as it would - of Muslims, who even though they can't walk to England are going to come in and threaten their jobs.

BANFIELD: By the way, there are a lot of people saying there's buyer's remorse. The people who voted for exit now thinking, dear, God, what did I do? And for those people, here is what the fine and talented young Brit named John Oliver had to say on his program. Have a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN OLIVER: And the thing is, later that day, he found a way to make this whole thing about himself, tweeting, "many people are equating Brexit and what is going on in Great Britain with what is happening in the U.S. People want their country back." And you might think, well, that is not going to happen to us in America. We're not going to listen to some ridiculously haired buffoon pedaling lies and nativism in the hopes of riding a protest vote into power. Well, let Britain tell you, it can happen and when it does there are no (EXPLETIVE DELETED) do-overs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[12:30:06] BANFIELD: So John Oliver says there are no do-overs. The Scottish first minister wants a do-over.

ROMANS: Yes.

BANFIELD: The Scottish first minister wants a referendum on independence.