Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Retiring; Congressman Bart Stupak Not Running for Re-election
Aired April 09, 2010 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Time now for your top-of-the-hour reset.
I'm Tony Harris in the CNN NEWSROOM.
It is noon in Washington, where the Supreme Court's longest- serving justice announces his retirement.
In Michigan, Democratic Congressman and Tea Party target Bart Stupak tells his constituents this hour he won't run for re-election.
And in West Virginia, another setback for rescuers, forced to call off the search for four missing miners due to a fire.
Let's do this -- let's get started.
In 11 days, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens will be 90 years old, and he says it is time to do something else. After thirty- four-and-a-half years on the nation's highest court, he is retiring.
In the letter he sent President Obama, Justice Stevens says he will step down after the court finishes its work this summer.
At the White House, CNN's Dan Lothian and our senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin is in New York.
You know what, Jeffrey? I want to start with you, because I love talking to you and I don't get an opportunity to do that nearly enough.
Justice Stevens, you know, what are your overall impressions? And then I want to talk to you about his dissent on the court's campaign finance decision, because it was a very strong dissent. And I'm wondering if that might have been a final straw, had he had enough of, you know, pushing back and forth trying to win consensus on this conservative court. But a couple hours after the decision, and us being aware of it, you certainly weren't surprised.
What are your thoughts?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, you know, just in sort of looking at Justice Stevens in historical perspective, one of the things that was true about the United States after World War II is that World War II veterans dominated our public life, whether it was John F. Kennedy or George Herbert Walker Bush. That was the defining experience for public people, mostly public men, in the late 20th century.
John Paul Stevens is the last World War II veteran in a position of great prominence in American life. He's really the last member of the greatest generation to pass from the public scene.
I don't mean that he's going to die, by any means, but he is leaving his public post. And I think that just shows his perspective was different from a lot of people who are in public life now.
You know, one of his uncharacteristic decisions during his tenure was in the famous flag-burning case, because he tended to be more liberal, he tended to believe in freedom of expression, even unpopular expression. But he voted that flag burning could be a crime.
And in his dissenting opinion in that case, he talked about, you know, the sacrifices that American service members made in Iwo Jima, on the beaches of Normandy. And it just comes from a patriotism and a kind of life experience that is different from most of us today.
You know, you spoke of the last major decision that he participated in, the Citizens United case, where he wrote the longest dissenting opinion of his long career, a 90-page dissenting opinion saying that the Supreme Court, in Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion, had reversed years of precedent and really gone out of its way to be an activist judiciary and overturn the McCain/Feingold bill, give corporations rights that they hadn't had previously. And it was a level of bitterness we hadn't seen before.
Did it push him into retirement? Frankly, I doubt it. You know, 90 isn't the new 80. Ninety is 90.
And we don't have -- we don't have many 90-year-olds working full-time jobs anymore. And I think Justice Stevens very correctly decided that it was better to leave when he was still on the top of his game than risk getting feeble on the bench.
HARRIS: Was he? Was he still pretty much at the top of his game?
TOOBIN: You know, when he announced his dissenting opinion in the Citizens United case on January 21st, when he read it from the bench, he was uncharacteristically stumbling over words. But, you know, I interviewed him in March several times. He was in great shape. Every morning that I interviewed him, he had played tennis, singles, that morning.
HARRIS: Wow.
TOOBIN: So I think he is an extraordinarily fit 89-year-old, but I think he also recognized that 89 is enough. And very importantly, a president is in office, his fellow Chicagoan, Barack Obama, who is politically in sync with him. So he felt comfortable turning over this very precious seat to Barack Obama.
HARRIS: Was he a great disappointment to -- you know, we've got a couple of parties in this country, Republicans, Democrats. He was appointed by a Republican president. Was he a -- did he turn out to be a disappointment to Republicans?
TOOBIN: I think that's a clear yes, but it's also worth remembering the moment at which he was appointed and who appointed him. It was 1975.
Social issues were not on the agenda the way they were now. You know, and he was the first justice appointed after Roe v. Wade was divided in 1973. He was appointed in 1975.
The controversy over abortion had not become as big as it would later become. Gerald Ford picked him because, after he had pardoned Richard Nixon, he wanted someone who would not create controversy.
And John Paul Stevens was confirmed by a vote of 98-0. And that was the success of his nomination.
So he was always known as a centrist. He was never known as someone who was going to be a strong Republican on the bench. But just how liberal he became, I think that is a surprise to many people.
HARRIS: Well, did he change? Was he being true to himself all along? Did he change, or did the court change?
TOOBIN: Well, you know, this is a question I put to him when I interviewed him in February and March. And he insisted that it was the court change, that the court simply became more conservative.
When you had, say, William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Connor replaced by John Roberts and Samuel Alito, that is a significant move to the right on the part of the court. And I think that's correct.
But I also think John Paul Stevens changed. When you look at his early decisions on issues such as affirmative action, he was very hostile to the idea of any sort of racial preferences.
By the time of the famous University of Michigan Law School case in 2003, where he joined Justice O'Connor's opinion supporting affirmative action, he had moved substantially on that question. On some issues, he didn't move. But I think on race and civil rights, he definitely did move to the left.
HARRIS: Jeffrey, I don't want you to go anywhere because I've got another question for you. And I'm going to ask that in a second.
TOOBIN: I'm not going anywhere. Tony, I work here.
(LAUGHTER)
HARRIS: I work here. Paycheck from these people. I'm with you, brother.
But we've got Dan Lothian standing by, and we also have Kate Bolduan standing by as well.
Why don't we get to the White House now? I love this, multiple balls up in the air. Let's get to the White House now and Dan Lothian.
And Dan, this decision from Justice Stevens was expected by this White House. Correct?
DAN LOTHIAN, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It was. And, you know, Tony, we've been reporting and other organizations have been reporting, as well, various different names, all of them left-leaning. The White House would only say over the past few weeks that this is something that they have been working on, but certainly not tipping their hand to -- as to whether or not there were particular names that the president was really focused on.
But, yes, this is something that they were prepared for. But that letter that they received this morning from a representative from the Supreme Court arrived here at the White House at 10:30. And then the White House Counsel's Office reached out to the president. He's flying back, obviously, from Prague.
He was notified of this letter at 10:45 a.m. He was expected -- and this was a late add this morning. After arriving here later this afternoon, he was expected to make some comments in the Rose Garden about the West Virginia mine accident. And now we are told by senior administration officials that in addition to that, the president will also be making some remarks about Justice Stevens' retirement -- Tony.
HARRIS: Way too early to be talking about names on a list at this point?
LOTHIAN: It is. It is. But you know we like that game here inside the beltway.
HARRIS: We do.
LOTHIAN: And there's certainly -- this is going to be something to be watched very closely because, as I pointed out, you know, these names that we've been talking about now for quite some time are left- leaning. And so you can expect that the confirmation process will be interesting, to say the very least.
HARRIS: Let's get back to Jeffrey Toobin on that point.
Because, Jeffrey, you've had -- boy, you've been pretty strong in your comments about the confirmation process right now.
First of all, what are your thoughts about this moment in time for this president to make a second choice to the court, and the environment in which he makes that decision?
TOOBIN: Well, it is, of course, a very polarized moment. The midterm elections are coming. But it is also worth remembering that there are 59 Democratic senators now. That's a big majority by contemporary standards.
It hasn't been since the 1960s that a president appointed someone when the Senate was in the president's party's control and that nominee lost. So, the odds very much favor anyone that President Obama nominates.
Now, it is true that there could be a filibuster. It only takes 40 for a filibuster. But there has never been a successful filibuster against a Supreme Court nominee.
There sort of was one in the late '60s against Abe Fortas, but not really. I think it's going to be very unlikely to mount a filibuster, and I think the votes will be there for any nominee, which is not to say it couldn't be a big fight.
HARRIS: OK. Let's do this -- I've got one more question for you on cases pending and decisions that we're waiting for from this court. But I want to get to CNN's Kate Bolduan. She's at the Supreme Court right now.
And Kate, if you would, take -- you've been taking a look at some of the cases that could be impacted this term by Justice Stevens' retirement.
What do you have for us?
KATE BOLDUAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. Well, it doesn't get any bigger than guns and religion, Tony. That's really the easiest way to set it up.
And as we've been talking about Justice Stevens, he is almost 90, turning 90 on the 20th of this month. And he's served in this court, on the Supreme Court, for almost 35 years now. And his retirement plans have quickly turned the focus to everyone asking, what's next?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BOLDUAN (voice-over): It's one of any president's longest lasting legacies, filling a Supreme Court vacancy. And, for President Obama, that opportunity is likely drawing near.
Speaking to "The New York Times" Friday, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "I do have to fish or cut bait just for my own personal peace of mind and also in fairness to the process." Then, to "The Washington Post," he said, "I will surely do it, while he," meaning President Obama, "is still president."
THOMAS GOLDSTEIN, SUPREME COURT LEGAL ANALYST: If there's going to be a retirement, it's almost certainly the liberal Justice Stevens, so President Obama can't move the Supreme Court to the left in any way. Rather, he can cement his impact in the court with his nominees serving for decades in the future.
BOLDUAN: Stevens is expected to make an announcement about his future this month, less than one year after the president's history- making nomination of the first Latina Justice, Sonia Sotomayor.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Justice Sotomayor brings to the court both a mastery of the letter of the law and an understanding of how the law actually unfolds in our daily lives.
BOLDUAN: Sources close to the process tell CNN the White House is quietly but actively preparing to fill the spot.
Among those talked about for the job, Solicitor General Elena Kagan; Judge Merrick Garland, an appeals court judge in Washington; and Judge Diane Wood, an appeals court judge in Chicago, all left- leaning choices which could mean a tough confirmation fight ahead.
SEN. JON KYL (R), ARIZONA: I think the president will nominate a qualified person. I hope, however, he does not nominate an overly ideological person.
That will be the test, and if he doesn't nominate someone who is overly ideological, I don't think -- you may see Republicans voting against the nominee, but I don't think you'll see them engage in a filibuster.
GOLDSTEIN: We're talking about determining the constitutionality of laws that relate to abortion, to affirmative action, to gay rights, to the separation of church and state. So the stakes are incredibly high.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BOLDUAN: And with this retirement announcement, Tony, the White House's goal is going to be to get a nominee confirmed and in place in time to join the bench by the start of the next term, which is in October. But, before then, as we kind of were alluding to at the top of this piece, there are some big cases still facing this court.
The last week of the term is scheduled to be near the end of June. So that is coming up on us in the next couple of months.
HARRIS: Good stuff. Kate, appreciate it. Thank you.
And back to our senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin for just a moment.
And one of the biggest cases that we're keeping an eye on that you've talked about a lot here is the McDonald versus Chicago case. And this is a case examining the legality of Chicago's handgun ban.
Set that up for us and where you think the court is likely to come down on it.
TOOBIN: Two years ago, the Supreme Court decided that the federal government -- in this case, the District of Columbia -- could not ban the possession of handguns. That was the famous Heller decision written by Justice Scalia.
The question in the current case is, OK, the federal government can't do it. What about the states? Can the states ban the possession of handguns?
Chicago has a very tough gun control law. Is that law constitutional?
What makes that case so significant is that most gun control laws in this country are not by the federal government, they're by states and localities. So this decision could decide whether all these gun control laws are unconstitutional.
Plus, it's going to have to decide what kinds of gun control laws are constitutional. Like, for example, is it constitutional to possess a Stinger missile? Is it constitutional to have a tank? These are questions that these Second Amendment cases have not yet addressed, and they're going to be in front of the courts for decades.
HARRIS: Yes. Jeffrey, appreciate it. Thank you.
Let's bring in our senior congressional correspondent, Dana Bash, on the politics of all of this.
Dana, how difficult is it going to be for President Obama to get a Supreme Court nominee through the Senate?
DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, I mean, Jeff mentioned this. This is not unimportant. There are still 59 Democratic senators. That is huge.
But, guess what? You need 60.
Look, historically, Supreme Court nominees have not been filibustered. Some of the most conservative Republicans, the last time around, when Judge Sotomayor was nominated, said we don't think it's appropriate to filibuster.
But in terms of the bigger picture and the politics here when it comes to the Democrats, Tony, that I think is what's going to be really fascinating. And that is, look at the climate that we're in.
We are just a few months away from November's election, and you have a lot of Democrats who are in the Senate fighting for their political lives, not the least of which is the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid. So, I think it would not be surprising to hear about some quiet back-channeling. It probably has already been happening about, look, Mr. President, don't send us somebody we're going to have a lot of trouble defending in terms of somebody who might be considered too liberal.
It would not be surprising at all that that is happening. In fact, I'm hearing from sources that there is a concern about that politically.
And then just, also, from the perspective of the Republicans, you know, there's no question that they feel that they have public opinion on their side in terms of the Tea Parties that we're seeing here in Michigan and elsewhere across the country, in terms of the fervor to just basically be anti-anything at this point. And that -- there's no question that that is going to play into what's going on.
Also, in talking to some conservative groups leading up to this, knowing that Justice Stevens was likely to resign, with Judge Sotomayor, Justice Sotomayor now, it turned out to sort of fizzle in terms of the political fight. There's so many conservatives champing at the bit, and this whole issue of the politics of the Supreme Court is so potent, that it's hard to imagine that it will do the same in terms of fizzling this time around.
HARRIS: OK. We should tell everyone that you are in Michigan for the other big story of the day. And it concerns Congressman Bart Stupak.
Why don't we do this? We're going to tease that you'll come back and you'll talk about the importance of this announcement scheduled sometime in this hour, in just a couple of minutes.
We will rejoin our senior congressional correspondent, Dana Bash, in Michigan.
But right now, a quick break. We're back in a moment in the CNN NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: OK. Let's get back to our other big story that we're following for you here in the CNN NEWSROOM.
Congressman Bart Stupak, under fire for his vote in support of health care reform, expected to call it quits in just a couple of minutes.
Dana Bash is with us from Michigan.
And Dana, if you would, a couple of questions for you.
How much of a role did the fallout over health care reform play in Stupak's decision here?
BASH: Well, I'll tell you what we are told he is going to say with regard to health care reform. What we are told he's going to say -- and we're talking about that 10 minutes from now. He's going to be at this podium behind me here in Marquette.
That he is going to say that he first ran 18 years ago, in 1992, when Bill Clinton ran for the first time for president on the same promise that he did, which is reforming the health care system. And that now that it is completed, he has voted for in a very public way, in a very notorious way, voted for health care, he feels that it is an OK time for him retire.
We have been told by several sources close to Bart Stupak as we have been hearing the rumblings about this over the few days that it is possible he would retire, that he has actually considered this several times before, considered retiring. And for various reasons, he has not done it. He's been convinced to stay in office.
And I can also tell you from Democratic sources that that was the same case this time. President Obama called him a couple of nights ago, the House Speaker called him, the House majority leader, to try to convince him to stay in Congress. And, you know, you might think, well, he's somebody who is an anti-abortion Democrat, who very publicly gave them all a very, very difficult time in passing the president's signature issue -- that's health care -- because of his demands of restrictions -- strict restrictions -- on taxpayer funding for abortion.
Well, politically, the main reason is because this very, very sprawling district of Michigan -- we're in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan -- it may be on paper pretty OK in terms of Democrats, but it is very socially conservative, conservative when it comes to fiscal issues, to government. And Bart Stupak, until this health care vote, I think, from the perspective of many people here, really did fit this district when it comes to his perspectives.
(CROSSTALK)
HARRIS: Let me fire a couple of questions at you here.
You know, a difficult we re-election campaign doesn't mean you can't win a difficult re-election campaign. Did he have the money in the war chest? Could he have raised money? Could he have run for re- election?
And is there any sense that -- maybe from other Democrats -- that he should have run for re-election and defended the vote on health care and, at the same time, promote the health care reform that he helped to pass and let the chips fall where they may?
BASH: Absolutely. As I said, you know, the House Speaker, the president, they really wanted him to run because they felt that that was the best chance at keeping this district in Democratic hands. There's concern it would go Republican.
You know, in terms of whether or not he could have won, look, the Tea Party Express is here, and we should not that. They are here in this district as we speak.
And they came here specifically with one goal in mind. And that is, they said, to force Bart Stupak in early retirement. So they are gloating right now big time because they feel that they have a part of it. Whether or not that's true, we'll hear in a little bit.
But Bart Stupak is actually not one of the typical Democrats that the Tea Party and Republicans felt that they really could topple, legitimately topple this year. He's not been historically vulnerable.
He has won big, big here, 65, even close to 70 percent of the vote here in this district. So that is why there is concern politically, in terms of the numbers of Democrats in the House, that they could lose this seat along with Bart Stupak.
HARRIS: Oh boy. I've got more questions for you, but I know you've got to go and you've got to take your seat.
All right, Dana. Appreciate it.
Our senior congressional correspondent, Dana Bash, for us.
BASH: Thanks, Tony.
(NEWSBREAK)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: Love this segment. We are following two developing stories related to politics right now. The major one, announcement from Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens that he is retiring.
Joining me with some perspective, great to have him back, Frank Sesno, former CNN Washington bureau chief and director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University.
Frank, it is good to see you again.
FRANK SESNO, FORMER CNN WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: Good to see you, Tony.
HARRIS: And CNN Political Editor Mark Preston is with us again.
Boy, let me start with you, Frank.
What are you thoughts on this day? Who is -- who was Justice Stevens as a Supreme Court justice, and what was his role in the court? Jeffrey Toobin has called him kind of a consensus builder.
SESNO: Well, first of all, let me answer your first question, what kind of day is it? It's a huge day here in Washington. It's a huge day for the White House. It's a sort of good news/bad news day.
Mr. President, the bad news is that a long-time Democrat in the House is stepping down, and it's going to be one more seat we're going to have to grind our way to try to save.
Mr. President, the good news is that you have another shot a the Supreme Court here, to put somebody on there who is young and who's going to stay long past you're the president.
As far as Stevens and what kind of justice he was, yes, a consensus builder. And yes, for the most part, a solid liberal. And he showed up on that side of the issue dependably from, as we've heard, abortion rights, to campaign finance, to the death penalty.
HARRIS: Did President Ford know what he was getting when he appointed Justice -- nominated, appointed Justice Stevens in '75?
SESNO: No. And I think that this is really the case that we see again and again here in Washington. Not always, but in many cases where centrists are appointed and they evolve over time, they change with times, with the issues.
Justice Souter has had a similar trajectory, disappointing many conservatives. And I think that it's just -- you know, part of it is human nature. It will be very interesting to see whether President Obama, with this highly charged political environment, some of which shaped the Stupak decision, I'm convinced, goes with somebody who is, in fact, highly ideological or another centrist to try to sort of calm things down. I rather doubt he's going to take that tact, by the way.
HARRIS: Yes.
Hey, Mark, talk about the politics of this and some of the reactions you've received at your desk. We're hearing from -- Republicans are saying we don't want an ideologue, we don't want someone who's going to be an activist from the bench.
MARK PRESTON, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Yes, Tony. And what we're hearing from Democrats on the other side is that this confirmation process should be respectful and that the confirmation process should move swiftly.
In fact, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who Dana just earlier said is in a tough re-election fight himself, put out a statement. And really, the key comment that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said was this, Tony: "I encourage my Republican colleagues to join us in conducting fair, respectful hearings, and a swift confirmation of the president's nominee."
So we're hearing these words now from Democrats. They're coalescing around the idea that Republicans need to be respectful, they need to be quick.
At the same time, what Republicans are telling us, Tony, is that President Obama better not send somebody up to Congress, up to these confirmation hearings, somebody who is considered a judicial activist.
HARRIS: Let me -- one more for you, Mark, and then I'm going to jump back to Frank in just a second.
Bart Stupak has known for a long time -- and this is the other big story we're following out of Washington and Michigan today -- that the vote on health care reform would be a controversial vote, a difficult vote, and a vote that could cost him his job. He knows the demographics of his district better than anyone. What do you think was the deciding factor in this decision not to run for re-election?
PRESTON: You know, Tony, I think we'll probably put a lot of weight on the fact that he was very much involved in the health care debate. That he was getting pinged (ph) both from the left side and from the right side of the political spectrum.
In the end, though, I think Bart Stupak made this decision on his own. Everyone that I've been talking to that knows him, you know, points out that, you know, Stupak isn't somebody who really shies away from a fight. He was a former police officer. In fact, he suffered a great tragedy about 10 years ago, Tony, when one of his children, his son, died. At the time people thought that Bart Stupak would leave. However, he decided to stay. So I'm not quite sure that Bart Stupak was actually pushed out by the Tea Party Express as they are saying, but I think it probably had a little bit to play into the fact that he said, 18 years in Congress is enough.
HARRIS: Yes. You know, I watched him in a couple of the post- health care vote interviews. I know you did as well. And the man looked whipped. I mean he just frankly looked whipped. Have you gotten a sense of the toll of the debate, the year long debate has taken on him, on his family?
PRESTON: Yes. I mean and let's even broaden it beyond him as well.
HARRIS: Yes.
PRESTON: And you're absolutely right, heading into that health care debate, Bart Stupak was constantly talking to the White House, constantly talking to Republicans, constantly talking to Democrats about which way he was going to go. And if you talk to Democrats, at least off line, they'll say, look, Bart Stupak is the reason why health care reform passed. He delivered those very critical votes at the eleventh hour that allowed the House of Representatives, that allowed Nancy Pelosi to have that big win.
Overall, though, Tony, I think it's fair to say that House Democrats and even Senate Democrats have gotten really beat up over the health care issue, and certainly taking a lot of the criticism for the fact that the economy continues really to be down in the dumps. Unemployment is almost at 10 percent. And they're starting to feel the heat from voters. And they're very much concerned heading into the midterms that they're going to lose perhaps control of the House and certainly a lot of seats in the Senate.
HARRIS: You know, help me vamp (ph) for just a little bit. We've got the live picture up from Michigan now and we're expecting to hear from Congressman Stupak in just a moment. You see him there in the shot. Is there any sense that, from other Democrats -- I doubt that we would hear something like this from Congressman Stupak but is there any sense from other Democrats that he owed it to the debate on health care reform to fight on, to, if he had the money in the war chest, to run for re-election, defend the vote, and make the case for health care reform and to let the chips fall where they may?
PRESTON: You know, Tony, I think that that's probably some of the conversations that he had with President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who, you know -- who, in their private conversations probably said, look, we didn't agree necessarily on everything in the health care reform, but we did agree that you should have your say and we honored that.
You know, at the same time, they probably told him that he was a very important member of Congress and certainly was a very important member of the democratic caucus. But, you know, let's not forget, these are human beings. Bart Stupak is a human being.
HARRIS: Yes.
PRESTON: And I think oftentimes we put too much on politicians here in Washington, D.C. to carry the flag, to really be the big proponent for the party. At some point, you have to look inward and say, you know something, for the good of my family, I have to leave.
HARRIS: Right. Is the Tea Party movement claiming credit? Have you seen some of the e-mails for those decisions today?
PRESTON: I'll tell you what, Tony, can you see me smiling?
HARRIS: Yes.
PRESTON: Because there's no question about -- look, they're in his district right now and they're -- of course they're claiming credit. They're saying that they're the ones that pushed him out and, you know, well, it's just, you know, timing is everything. They happened to be in Michigan. They're holding rallies against him.
Look, as Dana reported earlier, the fact of the matter is, Bart Stupak won easily re-election back in 2008. Republican strategists are telling me they did not have a prayer of winning the Stupak seat if Bart Stupak decided to stay in. So, again, I don't think the Tea Party movement can take credit for this.
HARRIS: Well, and it's interesting. On a lot of issues, you would think that Bart Stupak and the Tea Party might have been aligned. I mean he's a conservative. He's a conservative Democrat. But on the key issue of -- it seems to me that what the Tea Party wanted was a Democrat, any Democrat, who would be willing to side with them in their view on big government and health care reform and working with them to squash the bill and that Bart Stupak, and like- minded Democrats, that he filled the bill.
PRESTON: Well, he certainly has some of the politics, Tony, that the Tea Party folks are pushing.
HARRIS: Yes. Yes.
PRESTON: But, you know, there's this big argument about what the Tea Party movement's about and whether they're aligned with the Republican Party. And in the end, would they prefer to have all Republicans in Congress. And I think that's an argument that you have to take a close look at.
That's not to say that everybody in this Tea Party movement, which is not a centralized movement, you know, doesn't have distrust for government in general and would rather have a Democrat or Republican there as long as they subscribe to their views. But, overall, I think it's fair to say that the Tea Party movement is certainly closely align with the Republican Party, more so than the Democratic Party.
HARRIS: Yes. Yes, I think you're right about that.
Let's bring in our chief political correspondent, Candy Crowley, also the host of "State of the Union" here on CNN.
Candy, it's great to talk to you. What are your thoughts? I know you've been following this announcement. And, boy, you certainly have been following the story of Bart Stupak. What are your thoughts on this announcement, expect in just minutes now, that he is going to not run for re-election?
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: You know, I think that a lot of people tend to say, oh, it got rough and tumble. He remarked when he was going back and forth trying to get the abortion issue settled over the health care bill that it had gotten really uncomfortable and he was sort of getting it from both sides. And I think that there's this desire to sort of say, well, it got too rough and he's getting out.
But, you know, he's been there a while. I have talked to any number of congressmen, like Congressman Stupak, who say it's not as much fun anymore. These are people who can go out and do other things. They've got families.
And being in Congress tends to, in fact, be very hard on family life. And I think you add to that, that certainly this might have been a tough race for him, but I think we also ought to sort of point out that he's won fairly handedly in past elections. So I think when they go to make these decisions, we try to make it about one thing, but it tends to be the totality of things that weigh on them when they come to this, especially after they've been there for a while.
HARRIS: And, Candy, before I lose you, and we sneak in a quick break here, I would love for you to set up where you are right now in New Orleans and the gathering of GOP officials, leaders, and the true believers, the faithful there, if you would, please.
CROWLEY: Yes. Southern Republican Leadership Conference here in New Orleans. What you can see behind me, these are largely activists. Not necessarily people that you would recognize. The people you would recognize are up on the stage. It's a little bit of what we used to call a cattle call for 2012. Newt Gingrich yesterday. We're getting prepared for Sarah Palin who, I suspect, will get quite a warm welcome here.
Basically this is table setting. This is hearing from some of the movers and shakers inside the Republican Party about 2010, when all of the House and a third of the Senate is up for re-election. Like here's how we're going to win this. Here's what I think we should do. And it's just really rousing that base because, after all, the bulk of people who come out to vote in non-presidential years tend to be the base of both parties. The more enthusiastic you can get your base, the likelier they are to go out and what Republicans hope is change the dynamic on Capitol Hill.
HARRIS: OK. There she is, our chief political correspondent, Candy Crowley, and the host of "State of the Union."
Appreciate the time, Candy. Thank you very much. And let me just see the shot again from Michigan. I just want to see if I can judge for myself how close it feels like we're getting here. All right, we still have folks who are making remarks. Let's try to do this. Let's sneak in a quick break. We're back in the moment. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: OK. Let's get a bit of a reset here. Two big stories that we're following for you throughout the day here in the CNN NEWSROOM. First of all, to the screen of your right here. You can see that we are waiting for a news conference from Michigan. Congressman Bart Stupak. That is his wife who is going to introduce him in just a couple of moments.
The other story that we're following is the announcement of the retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.
We are joined now by CNN Supreme Court producer Bill Mears.
And, Bill, this is -- man, this is terrific stuff here. I understand you were having -- are you kidding me -- breakfast with Justice Stevens' daughter when the news broke of his retirement?
BILL MEARS, CNN SUPREME COURT PRODUCER: Yes, having a little conversation with Susan Mullen. She's an attorney here in the Washington area. We were just chatting politely about her father, his judicial legacy, when I got a call from the Supreme Court saying, yes, he's announced his retirement. Of course, as you can imagine, she was very surprised. He had not told his own family, his own children that he was planing on doing this.
HARRIS: That is amazing. Had you broached the subject of when her dad might announce his retirement?
MEARS: Very delicate. It was the kind of thing where she didn't want to ask because she didn't want to be put in a position where she would have to answer lots of questions from friends and family and reporters about this.
HARRIS: Yes.
MEARS: So, she kind of kept her distance from it. And that's pretty typical of Justice Stevens himself. He's a very private man. And when it comes to a decision like this, it's something that he makes on his own. He didn't talk very much with his friends or colleagues about it. It was something he kept very close to the vest. And it was a surprise to everybody.
HARRIS: So, how did she react again? Did she go right to the phone? Did she go to the Blackberry? What did she do?
MEARS: Well, I quickly had to rush back here to the office --
HARRIS: OK. MEARS: So I didn't have much chance to talk with her. But I think one of the first phone calls, obviously, would be to her father. He's down in Florida. He has a second home down in the Ft. Lauderdale area. And that's where he is this week. So he's not even here at the Supreme Court.
HARRIS: Hey, Bill, very quickly. Maybe we can squeeze the picture of the press conference in that's set to get underway in Michigan just so that I can kept -- be honest on what's going on with Bart Stupak.
But, you know, look, you're our Supreme Court producer here. What are your thoughts on this day, this announcement from Justice Stevens that he is, in fact, retiring?
MEARS: No surprise. We knew that he had been thinking about it for quite a number of years, actually. He's going to be 90 in just a couple of weeks. And everybody knew the day would come. The question is, what kind of justice is going to replace him. He's been quite a power on this court. Quite a strategist, helping to maintain and build that liberal coalition that he leads. It's going to be tough to find somebody who has that institutional knowledge and that ability to work together with his colleagues, from the left and the right, to maintain that power base.
HARRIS: Yes, good stuff. All right, our Supreme Court producer Bill Mears for us. Man, just having breakfast, having a conversation. Oh, by the way, your dad just announced he's retiring.
Bill, appreciate it. Have a great weekend. Thank you.
Let's sneak in a quick break and we will get you to Michigan shortly to hear the retirement announcement. The fact that Bart Stupak, Congressman Stupak from Michigan, is planning not to run for re-election. Let me listen just a moment. Don't want to go to -- here we go. Let's take you to Michigan now for the announcement.
REP. BART STUPAK (D), MICHIGAN: I told Baldini not to let Laurie go last. She does a great job and it's hard to follow her.
Thanks to Dr. Wong (ph), Mike Lovelace, Mike Lahti, to all my friends and supporters throughout the years who are here with us today, especially my good friend Tom Baldini and my wife Laurie.
The people of northern Michigan have provided me with the honor of representing them in Congress for the past 18 years. I'm truly grateful for their support. I have the distinct honor of serving as your congressman longer than any other member in modern times. Longer than Bob Davis, Phil Roppi (ph) or John Bennet (ph).
When I first ran for Congress in 1992, I campaigned on a pledge to make affordable quality health care a right, not a privilege, for all Americans. I promised the people of the first congressional district that I would not accept the insurance that members of Congress received, the federal employees health benefit package, until all Americans could have access to the same quality of care. For the last 18 years, I have kept that promise.
Since the day I took office, I have fought to improve the quality and accessibility of health care for people throughout northern Michigan and our great nation. Despite many setbacks, due to partisan divides and Washington gridlock, I never gave up hope and I never gave in. As a result, we've made significant progress.
Here in northern Michigan, today veterans -- we have 11 community-based out-patient clinics to provide veterans with the care they need and deserve. Broadband access for northern Michigan hospitals serves as a model for a country of how to improve quality and efficiency in health care, while lowering the cost in rural areas. We've improved emergency rooms here in the district and provided updated diagnostic technology leading to improved medical treatment and critical prevention services. And last month, we finally accomplished what I set out to do 18 years ago. We passed comprehensive national health care reform.
Throughout the past year, I've worked alongside my colleagues to achieve health care reform and I'm proud to have helped bring it across the finish line. As a result of that work, today we're on the path to provide health insurance for 32 million more Americans, including 38,000 people living here in northern Michigan. Today, because of these reforms, all American families, including 197 families here in northern Michigan, will see their costs lowered and receive important consumer protections so they no longer have to live in fear of being one illness or one injury away from bankruptcy.
Today, children can no longer be denied care because of a pre- existing condition and no insurance company can drop you for your family from care or cap your insurance coverage due to a serious injury or chronic illness. Today, because of reforms, seniors will be able to afford their prescription drugs and Americans will receive preventive care that they need. And today, small businesses can receive tax credits to make employee insurance coverage more affordable. After 18 years, together, we've accomplished what you sent me to Washington to do, health care for all Americans.
My friends and family know that during the last several election cycles, when it seemed like health care reform was impossible in Washington, I considered retiring from Congress. I wish to spend more time with my family and begin a new chapter in my career. But in each of the past several election cycles, I chose to continue to serve the people of the first district because I felt we still had work to do.
In 2004, after I voted against the war in Iraq, I worked to elect John Kerry so that we could bring the illegal, immoral war to an end. In 2006, when it seemed possible for Democrats to regain the majority and put this country back on the right track, I worked hard to make that happen. And we did it. And I became chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Committee. The most fascinating subcommittee in all of Congress.
Over the past four years, on our committee, we launched investigations into high-profile issues such as border security, nursing home safety, security breaches at our nuclear weapons labs, food and drug safety investigations, excessive energy speculation, discriminatory practices in the health insurance industry, and the recent Toyota sudden unattended acceleration problems. But two years ago, I saw an opportunity to finally enact health care with the election of a new president. I thank President Obama and Speaker Pelosi for their leadership to put us across the line as we finally have health care a reality in this country.
While legislative accomplishments have been a significant part of my career, perhaps the thing I'm most proud of over 18 years is helping you, my friends, my neighbors, and my constituents. My staff and I have helped tens of thousands of constituents resolve problems and cut through the red tape. Problems such as helping secure benefits through the veterans or Social Security Administration, or helping with a tax problem at the IRS, or securing the medals of a service member who valiantly served our country. We've helped people obtain passports, secure local mail delivery service and obtain funding to weatherize our homes to save money. These may seem like little things, but to me and my staff, they're some of the most important things we do.
I want to thank the members of my staff, past and present, both here in northern Michigan and Washington, D.C., especially those individuals who have been with me from the beginning of my congressional career. My chief of staff, Scott Sclegel (ph), district director, Tom Baldini, Sue McCarthy (ph), Ann Fix (ph), Amy Whiskey (ph), and Sue Narkowsky (ph). I thank them for their dedication, loyalty and hard work.
I've spent more than 30 years in public service. As a police officer in Escanaba, a Michigan State Police trooper, a state representative, and now a U.S. congressman. My service to the people of Michigan have been one of the greatest honors of my life. But it's time to begin a new and exciting chapter.
Last night, and early this morning, I informed Democratic leaders and key supporters that I would not seek re-election to Congress. I will always serve the people of the first district, but I've chosen not to continue to serve as their congressman.
I'm committed to helping the Democrats retain this seat, as I believe we must continue to fight for our working families and small businesses, for our economic and national security, for our great lakes, and for our quality of life. By announcing my intentions here today, potential candidates will have ample opportunity to organize campaigns and collect the necessary signatures before the May 11th filing deadline.
I want to thank the people of northern Michigan for putting their faith in me. For 18 years, I've traveled to district, from Keweenaw Bay, to Grand Traverse Bay, to Saginaw Bay, and all the points in between, to hear your concerns and share in your joys and disappointments. I've enjoyed almost every minute. And I fought for you and your families each and every day.
But now it's time to spend a little more time with my wife, Laurie, who we've been married for 36 years and whose love and commitment has sustained me through the years. With our son, Ken, and his family, and my extended family and friends.
Thank you. Thank you for all being here today. Thank you very much.
HARRIS: OK. I don't believe there will be questions. Just hang on. Let's sort of wrap this just a little. OK, there we go. I think the first question goes to Dana Bash.
STUPAK: That really came over the last 36 hours. As I said, I've struggled with this decision. I wanted to leave a couple times, but I always thought there was one more job to be done. Health care was always a major issue. In fact, some of my friends over here will remember this little pamphlet. It's one of my first election things. Health care reform right now. I believe every American has a right to health care. We did it. It might have tooken (ph) 18 years. I felt that main mission, my main goal, legislative goal, was accomplished.
I have been doing this for 30 something years in public service. I'm young enough, I'm at the cross roads in my life where I can do other things. I look forward to those new challenges. So it wasn't one thing, it was a number of things.
You've been in the district a little bit. About 20 percent of my district to understand. So you can imagine, when I come home, my biggest regret now, maybe it was exciting 16, 14 years ago, but now I come home, I see Laurie for 12 hours, I jump in the car, I'm gone. A different motel room every night. A different airport I fly out of. It just came to the point where I said, I've accomplished what I wanted to do. Either I run again and I'll be there forever or time to make the break. It's time for me to make the break. It's time for me to move on.
Yes, Todd.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE). On Wednesday you sounded like somebody who might be still willing to run again. Was there a conversation that you had with Laurie between Wednesday and now where you said, I've made my decision, I'm ready to hang them (ph) up?
STUPAK: Well, yes, we spent this last weekend at the NCAA Final Four. We're big Michigan State fans. In fact, my son, Ken, was the manager of the 2000 basketball team that won the national championship. Of course we're great friends with Tom Izzo, the coach from the upper peninsula of the Michigan State Spartans. We were down there.
My son flew in. And it allowed my family, three of us, to sit down and there was a lot of windshield time between (INAUDIBLE) and Indianapolis, about 444 miles to be exact. And we had a lot of time to talk. And we do it every year. Every two years we compare notes. What do you think? Should we go again? Is it time? Time to step aside? What else are you going to achieve by staying longer?
My son said, dad, it's time. You put your time in. Let someone else do it. You've long -- you're longer -- you've been there longer than Roopi (ph) and Davis, all these guys. Do something else. He encouraged us.
So after the disappointment in Indianapolis, I had to get over that. So it took me a day or two to get over it. And then I made the final decision.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This week sometime, after Wednesday (INAUDIBLE) --
STUPAK: Really Wednesday night, we just -- this is it. Let's go. I talked to the party leadership. And it was time. We've been struggling with this, Todd, for about six years.
Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think that extraordinary pressure in the last couple of weeks as you were voting on the health care bill, the death threats, the calls to your house, can you talk a little bit about that and how that might have (INAUDIBLE).
STUPAK: Well, you know, I've taken tough votes before. And, in my extraordinary time in the office, the 18 years, I mean I've seen everything. You know, when -- 1993, when we did the President Clinton's deficit reduction package, the one we passed by one vote and Vice President Al Gore broke the tie in the Senate, we got all kinds of -- that was my first election. That was a lot of pressure.
We had the impeachment vote. We had -- geez, I know I've taken on the National Rifle Association up here, which is real popular in my district, you know. I mean they're popular. I wasn't real popular when I did that. I voted against the war in Iraq, which wasn't popular with a lot of media -- the print media in my district.
No, I'm not afraid to do the tough votes. And with it, you get all this outside noise. As Laurie said, those threats, the 3:00 in the morning phone calls threatening us, things like this, that's people outside the district. That's not my district. If you look at my elections, I win by huge margins. I know these folks. They wouldn't do that. So you sort of just ignore it and move on.
And so -- you know, it didn't really play a big part. This was a decision Laurie and I and Ken made, what is best for us. I'm at the cross roads. I want to do new things, new challenges, new opportunities. And I look forward to it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Congressman
HARRIS: There you go. Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak saying he ran for congressional seat 18 years ago to pass health care reform and that with the passage of that reform his work is done. And he is not going to seek re-election in November. The congressman has been targeted, as you know, by conservative groups for, in their view, caving on his opposition to health care reform and by Democrats for delaying and obstructing by demanding stronger language, banning federal fund for abortions. As you know, the congressman was able to get an executive order from the president supporting his position that no federal money should go to pay for abortion. So after 18 years, Congressman Bart Stupak announcing that he will not seek re-election. Making that decision finally on Wednesday evening.
A live shot now, very quickly, before we get to Ali Velshi, and to Andrews Air Force Base. Do we have that? The president back from Prague and speaking shortly -- beautiful. There we go. Speaking shortly to make a couple of statements here on the decision from Justice John Paul Stevens to retire at the end of this term and a statement on the West Virginia mine disaster.
A quick break. As quickly as we can. And we'll get to Ali Velshi in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
