Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Terror Attacks in France, Tunisia and Kuwait; Supreme Court Issues Same-Sex Marriage Ruling; Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired June 26, 2015 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:00] SAVIDGE: You spend one minute outside of Emanuel AME Church in front of the growing memorial, in front of the people who pray, the people who come from all across the country to pay their respects in a kind of pilgrimage. If only we could all live as we feel in the shadow of Emanuel AME Church.

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Martin Savidge, Jason Jonathan, thanks to you both. I appreciate it.

The next hour of CNN NEWSROOM starts now.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

COSTELLO: All right, breaking news to tell about right now. We're following a string of terrorist attacks across Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. In France, two people in custody now after an attack at a U.S.-based company's factory. Reports one person was decapitated, their head placed on the front gate.

In Tunisia, North Africa, at least 27 dead at a beachfront hotel. According to government officials one of the attackers has been killed.

And in Kuwait -- and in Kuwait, ISIS is claiming responsibility for a suicide bombing at a mosque that killed several people.

Good morning. I'm Carol Costello. Thank you so much for joining me. We want to begin in southeastern France, near the city of Lyon. It's considered a hotbed of radical Islam. And we have learned at least one of the suspects lived there.

Let's begin with Jim Bittermann, he's in Paris. What's the latest, Jim?

JIM BITTERMANN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Carol, just to modify that a bit, the hotbed of radical Islam is more on the suburbs of Lyon, not in Lyon itself. And in some of the suburbs over the last probably decade, there have been a number of arrests of radical Islamic figures including imams and whatnot that have been expelled because this has been an area where there have been some Islamic fundamentalists who've been preaching a very radical version of Islam.

In any case, what we know now is that the Defense Council of the -- at the Elysee, the presidential palace here, is underway and will probably continue for a short time, I would imagine, about a half hour or so. The president surrounded by his Interior minister, his Defense minister --

COSTELLO: Jim Bittermann -- Jim Bittermann, we're going to have to let you go. The U.S. Supreme Court has made its decision on same-sex marriage. Let's head to Wolf Blitzer in Washington.

Hi, Wolf.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And this is important CNN breaking news. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. We want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world.

The United States Supreme Court has just released one of the most anticipated, one of the most important decisions of this term, whether states here in the United States must issue licenses for same-sex marriages and whether they're obliged to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Our correspondents and our experts are going over the opinion right now making sure we understand exactly how the justices ruled. Jake Tapper is standing by, he'll join us in a moment. As we await the result, let's go John King first over at the magic wall -- John.

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, let's explain the issues in this legal case that is also part of a fast-evolving political argument here in the United States. It is the case of " Obergefell versus Hodges." Here's the big -- two big questions. Can states ban same-sex marriages? Will the court today say there is a national right to same-sex marriage or not? A subset question, do states have to recognize lawful same-sex marriage in one state if you move to another state, if you're married in a state where it's legal and you move to a state where it's not, does that state have to recognize your marriage?

Let's look at the arguments. Mr. Obergefell, one of the plaintiffs, says, look, under the 14th Amendment, he says he deserves equal protection. That same-sex couples should be able to be married just like heterosexual couples. That's his argument. The state of Ohio in responding said, no, the Constitution specifically leaves marriage up to the states and states should be allowed on a state-by-state basis to ban same-sex marriage.

Those are the legal arguments, Wolf, that the court will decide. We'll have that decision in a minute. This, of course, has been a huge political issue as well as it's made its way through the courts, through the state legislatures and the like.

Look at the fast-moving numbers here. 63 percent of Americans, nearly two-thirds, six in 10 Americans plus say same-sex marriage now should be legal. If you look at this breakdown by age, it's very clear. Younger Americans, those under 50, nearly three-fourth. 73 percent say yes. Those 50 and older a bare majority, 52 percent. So it is an issue that has a big generational divide. Also a significant but evolving political divide. 74 percent of

Democrats say yes, same-sex marriage should be legal. Seven in 10 independents say yes. Only 35 percent of Republicans, but that's significant. That number has been growing. More than a third of Republicans still, though, 60 percent of Republicans. One of the reasons this is a big divisive presidential campaign issue is six in 10 Republicans still say no on the question of same-sex marriage.

But again the fast moving politics of this is why this Supreme Court decision is so highly anticipated. Back in May 2009, 45 percent of Americans said yes, same-sex marriage should be legal. Almost a majority, but the country is still divided.

Look now, Wolf, 63 percent of Americans. Again more than six in 10, approaching two-thirds say yes, this should be legal. So the politics on this one as a cultural and a social issue have been moving rapidly. Now we're waiting, of course --

BLITZER: All right.

KING: -- to get the final word from the justices.

[10:05:09] BLITZER: All right. John, stand by for a moment. I want to quickly go up to the Supreme Court. Jake Tapper is standing by.

We now know, Jake, what the United States Supreme Court has decided on this very historic day.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR, "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER": That's right, Wolf. It appears as though the -- in a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot ban same-sex marriages.

Let's go to Pamela Brown at the court itself for more on this landmark opinion -- Pamela.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: A historic day here at the Supreme Court, Jake. You can probably hear gay rights advocates to my right cheering by this decision authored by Justice Kennedy saying that the right to marriage is a fundamental right and gays and lesbians cannot be excluded from that right.

In this broad ruling by Justice Kennedy, he says, "The right to marry is a fundamental right and same-sex couples may not be deprived of liberty or that right to marriage." So again, ruling today that same- sex marriage is a nationwide constitutional right.

This is one of the greatest civil rights issues of our time, and this is what gay rights advocates have been hoping for, for decades, that they can get married no matter what state they live in, and today that is what has happened here at the Supreme Court with this ruling -- Jake.

TAPPER: Thank you so much, Pamela.

It was a 5-4 decision with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the opinion siding with the four liberal court justices. Let's go to Jeffrey Toobin now for more analysis of this historic

opinion.

Jeffrey, is this the biggest win for same-sex marriage advocates in the Supreme Court yet?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Oh, yes, indeed, Jake. You know, there are certain indelible dates in the history of the Supreme Court. May 17th, 1954, the date of "Brown versus Board of Education," which ended school segregation. December 12th, 2000, "Bush v. Gore" which ended the 2000 election. And June 26th, 2015 is going to be on this list because this is a profound change in American life that has come with explosive speed in the history of social movements.

Remember, it was only 2003 that the first state, Massachusetts, ordered that same-sex marriage must be legal. And it was very much an outlier in those days. And in 2004, much of the country voted against same-sex marriage. And here we now have same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

Another point that's really remarkable about today's decision, which is there have been four opinions in the entire history of the Supreme Court on the subject of rights for gay people. Anthony Kennedy has written all four of those decisions. No single justice in history, I think, has ever been so associated with an issue as Anthony Kennedy is with the rights of gay people. And this is a historic, dramatic change that, you know, will reverberate for a long time.

TAPPER: Interesting. I believe also that June 26th, today, is the anniversary of several of those other decisions written by Anthony Kennedy, "Lawrence v. Texas" and a couple others having to do with the rights of same-sex couples, whether or not to marry, striking down provisions of Defense of Marriage Act.

I'm joined here by Jonathan Turley. You've been going over the majority opinion. I should note that in the minority, it was a 5-4 decision. In the minority, all four conservative justices including Chief Justice Roberts wrote dissent. And we'll go over those in a second. But while you're reading Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion which states unequivocally that no state can ban same-sex marriage, what are you picking up? What strikes you?

JONATHAN TURLEY, LAW PROFESSOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Well, first of all, it's much like his earlier decisions. It's actually quite moving at parts where I -- where Kennedy says, look, Loving, the case involving interracial marriage, really wasn't people asking for interracial marriage. They were asking for marriage. And he talks about how marriage is a tradition, but it's also a changing tradition. That in the United States of America, we at one point didn't recognize interracial marriages. But then we did.

TAPPER: That was struck down just in the '60s, I believe. Right?

TURLEY: And in "Loving v. Virginia," you had the same type of moment you have today. It was the moment where the court in some ways leads the country. We've gone through, as Jeff has said, major political changes. The greater acceptance of homosexuality as a community of these rights. But here the court is getting ahead of society a bit. It's a much like "Brown v. Board of Education."

TAPPER: Well, if I could interrupt for a second. Just -- they're getting ahead of the legislature.

[10:10:05] TURLEY: The political aspects, I'm talking about.

TAPPER: Yes, the board. But they're not getting ahead of society.

TURLEY: No.

TAPPER: Society shows overwhelming support by the public for same-sex marriage.

TURLEY: That's right.

TAPPER: Including among young Republicans.

TURLEY: That's right. But I mean here, as in with Brown, the court says we can't wait any longer, essentially. We have to recognize the right of these folks. You have to remember in terms of what Jeff was talking about, back in the days of the Hardwick decision where the Supreme Court upheld the criminalization of homosexuality, the decisive vote in that case, Justice Powell, said he had met a gay person.

He said that to his clerk who turned out to be gay. But it shows you the tremendous transformation that's occurred not just in society but in that court over there. These justices are part of a newer generation. And -- but it's very ironic that the one who's really led the way is Justice Kennedy who bridges the generations in this sense.

TAPPER: Yes.

TURLEY: But in his --

TAPPER: Ronald Reagan appointee.

TURLEY: That's right. And this is not just a legacy, this is a legacy that will last really for generations for Kennedy and I think he knows it. But he writes incredibly passionately and deeply about marriage and the importance it is for two individuals regardless of their sexual orientation. That's what gives this opinion such historic weight is not just its conclusion, but the depth of the analysis that comes to all these opinions by Justice Kennedy.

TAPPER: And there's been a lot of people attempting to read the tea leaves, Jonathan Turley, about how Justice Kennedy who was really the swing vote on this, how he was going to vote. And "The New York Times" pointed out that one of his clerks is an openly gay individual.

Pamela Brown on the steps of the Supreme Court where there are protests, where there are attorneys are speaking with one lawyer right now, let's go to you. BROWN: Well, I can tell you, Jake, that there is a lot of emotion

here in front of this Supreme Court today because this is really a dramatic, historic day especially for those gay rights advocates who have been fighting for this day for years, for decades. And what we're seeing here is Justice Kennedy really cementing his legacy as a gay rights champion.

This is Elizabeth Wydra, our CNN legal analyst. What do you make -- as you read through this opinion, what do you make of it, what Justice Kennedy has to say?

ELIZABETH WYDRA, CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER: Well, Justice Kennedy, it's very interesting. He goes through the arguments that this should be left to the people to decide, that the conversation should continue, but he said, you know, we've had this conversation that's helped us understand our neighbors and our friends who might be gay or lesbian. And we are at the point where they've come to the court and said, we deserve equal dignity under the law. And Kennedy says squarely, the Constitution grants them that right.

BROWN: And we're just learning that the chief justice, Chief Justice Roberts, right now is reading his dissent at the bench to his decision. I was in the oral arguments when this case was being presented. And he seemed -- Chief Justice Roberts seemed really concerned that the marriage -- the definition of marriage has been around for millennia. And Justice Kennedy was concerned about that, too. From what you've seen is that addressed in this?

WYDRA: Yes, you know, Justice Kennedy says, you know, indeed there is no union more profound than marriage. And he says these couples want to be part of that marriage, want to be part of that time honored tradition. And he says that given this high ideal of love, fidelity, devotion and sacrifice, that has been the enduring definition of marriage, allowing these couples who want to be part of that, he writes is very powerful, evocative terms, is furthering those values.

It doesn't take away from them. He writes very broadly that they're pleased that they respect this definition of marriage, they respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves.

BROWN: And during oral arguments, the supporters of the bans on same- sex marriage said this is a decision that should be left up to the people. The people should decide this through the democratic process. How is that addressed in this? I know you sort of touched on it earlier -- and we hear a lot of cheers right now to my right and human rights campaign, a lot of cheering going on and celebrating going on because of course this is a day gay rights advocates have been hoping for.

But again, let's go back to this other argument that this should be left up to the democratic process, not to the courts.

WYDRA: Right. And, you know, Justice Kennedy says we have the Constitution. We have the equal protection clause, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, and those guarantee rights to people beyond what someone may vote for them or not. They're written in the Constitution and these couples have come to the court asking to vindicate the Constitution. Those rights are not left up to a vote. They're written in our founding charter.

BROWN: And let me ask you this because people who are religious may not support this decision. What now for them? Those people who may not want to be a part of same-sex marriage?

WYDRA: And interestingly, Justice Kennedy actually directly addresses that point saying the First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and people who oppose gay marriage and other basis, they can continue to object in their own personal way and in their churches and so forth and they're not required to officiate over couples that are of the same sex who want to get married, but the Constitution nonetheless requires that all states nationwide recognize marriage equality.

[10:15:05] BROWN: Certainly historic day here at the Supreme Court.

Jake Tapper, back to you.

TAPPER: Thank you, Pamela. And just to put a button on something I said earlier, today is the anniversary of two other pro-same-sex rights decisions, both of them, I believe, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy who also wrote this landmark decision. It was in 2003, the "Lawrence v. Texas" case on this date in 2003 which undid the criminalization of homosexual behavior, and then in 2013, there was a decision that "U.S. v. Windsor" which undid some of the Defense of Marriage Act. So that was also on this same day. That's why a lot of people thought this decision were it to come out the way it did would come out today.

I want to go to Jonathan Toobin -- I'm sorry, Jeffrey Toobin right now.

Jeffrey, you're talking about right now the dissent from Chief Justice John Roberts who was vilified by conservatives today but is on their side today.

TOOBIN: Right. And you know, Chief Justice Roberts' dissenting opinion is really a discussion of why we have a Supreme Court. Because what he's saying is, you know, this is a very important issue, and if I understand why there are people who want same-sex marriage to be legal, and that is a perfectly legitimate goal. But he says that is for the political process. That is for state legislature, for Congress, for the -- people's elected representatives, not -- the Constitution has nothing to do with it.

And if I can just read a paragraph from -- or a couple of sentences from justice -- Chief Justice Roberts' dissent, I think it really captures what's going on here. He says, "If you are among the many Americans of whatever sexual orientation who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision, celebrate the achievement of a desired goal, celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment, but do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it." Now, that, of course, is where the majority disagrees. The majority

says, in the words of Anthony Kennedy, that the -- that the Constitution forbids discrimination against certain groups and forbidding marriage is a form of discrimination. But I think that really captures the question here of who should make this decision. Is this a decision for the courts, as Anthony Kennedy says, or is it a decision for the people's elected representatives as Justice Roberts said?

TAPPER: All right. Jeffrey Toobin, I want to read now a tweet put out by President Obama just seconds ago. He wrote at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time today, "Today is a big step in our march toward equality. Gay and lesbian couples now have the right to marry just like anyone else. #lovewins."

It is certainly a different era than previous ones when we talk about a president issuing a statement to a Supreme Court decision with a tweet and a hashtag.

Jonathan Turley, if you would, this case was about a gay man and his partner who had been married. They're from Ohio. They were married in Maryland because same-sex marriage until seconds ago was not legal in Ohio. And then his partner died. And that he could not be listed as next of kin or as a spouse, and so they sued the Ohio Department of Health.

What is the constitutional grounds under which Justice Kennedy and the four liberal justices ruled that that was not constitutional?

TURLEY: Well, it's interesting. There were actually two questions that were being considered today. One was whether states have to recognize the marriages of other states and it was called the full faith and credit clause.

TAPPER: So whether Ohio would have had to recognize Maryland's same- sex marriages. OK.

TURLEY: That's right, and then the question of whether there is a constitutional right for same=sex marriage if you were granting marriages in a given state, that second question overwhelmed the first by reaching the conclusion on the second sentence, it means that all states, you know, are required to recognize these with other marriages. And the important thing to remember is this is an incrementalist court. They waited a long time.

You know, we've been standing here in these earlier decisions like Windsor, like Lawrence, and each time the court steadfastly avoided this question. It would get right to the edge, then all lights would go out. Including Kennedy. He was very, very careful and he crafted this, but basically what he's saying today is time's out. That is, even as an incrementalist court, even when it doesn't want to get ahead of their skis.

TAPPER: Let's just look at the decision. Obviously you have Justice Anthony Kennedy, the proverbial swing vote in the court, writing the opinion for the four liberal justices, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, the latter two were appointed by President Obama. And then in dissent, you have Chief Justice John Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas, each of those four writing his own dissent.

Jonathan Turley, what's the significance of the fact that all four wrote their own dissents as opposed to joining together?

[10:20:04] TURLEY: It is significant. Those dissents together are 64 pages long. These are justices that wanted to make clear they have slight differences. Justice Scalia, of course, gave a dissent that has its usual flair, but they all do have this common element, which is this is not for us to decide. That is, we are --

TAPPER: It's up to the -- it's up to the legislative branch and the American people, it shouldn't be courts making the ruling?

TURLEY: That's right. There is a danger. In fact, you know, Justice Scalia refers to this as the least dangerous branch. That's how it's referred to in history. But he says are we still the least dangerous branch, essentially? We're making a decision that takes away the voice of some people in these states who said they don't want to recognize same-sex marriage. But the countervailing voice comes through with Justice Kennedy is quite powerful. It basically says look, we faced this before. This was the same argument in Loving that said people should have the right to say that interracial couples shouldn't marry.

TAPPER: Yes.

TURLEY: And we stepped up and we said time is up. We have to recognize these marriages.

TAPPER: So he was equating this to the ban on interracial marriage, that's quite significant.

TURLEY: Yes.

TAPPER: Of course, there has been a sea change in public opinion on this issue, not just among the public but also among certain Democratic presidents. President Obama when he ran for president in 2008 opposed same-sex marriage. He came out during his first term in favor of same-sex marriage.

Let's go to Brian Todd now, he's at the Supreme Court where there are some very emotional, I guess I would call them protesters, but they're not protesting anything anymore. They're celebrating -- Brian.

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jake, an ecstatic crowd here in front of the Supreme Court. They vastly outnumber the people who are against this ruling, but this is the crowd in favor of upholding the right to same-sex marriage.

I'm here with Susie Gelman, she's the mother of a gay son who lives in Israel. He was married here.

Susie, she's with Human Rights Campaign. She was here for the arguments in this case. Suzy, just tell me what you and colleagues at Human Rights Campaign

are feeling right now.

SUSIE GELMAN, HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN: Absolutely overjoyed, completely overjoyed. I think we're cautiously optimistic, but the Supreme Court could have ruled on the recognition case and taken a pass on finding that this is a constitutional right for all Americans. I've never been prouder than right now to be an American.

TODD: You were here for some of the early arguments. You told me that you had feared early on that this may not go your way because of some of the questions that Justice Kennedy was asking.

GELMAN: Absolutely right. And we knew all along that Justice Kennedy was the linchpin because he is the justice who has ruled -- has written the decisions, has been the deciding vote in every case awarding Americans gay rights, and he came through big time today, big time.

TODD: Absolutely. All right, Marty Rouse, you're also with Human Rights Campaign?

MARTY ROUSE, HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN: Yes.

TODD: Again, what does this mean to you?

ROUSE: There's been decades and decades of hatred and discrimination against same-sex couples and today is a huge validation. The highest court in our land has ruled that gay and lesbian couples are equal and their love should be treated equally. And for so many people in this country, life is better today and for the next generations, this is going to be a wonderful, wonderful place.

TODD: What practical effect you think is going to have on same-sex couples all over the country now?

ROUSE: There'll be more marriages, there'll be more joy, there'll be more celebrations. And young people today will be able to live fuller lives. It's just an amazing wonderful day for America. America has lived up to her promise of liberty and justice for all.

TODD: Thank you both very much for talking to us. An ecstatic crowd here. They vastly outnumber those who are against this. There we go.

(CHEERS)

TODD: And they just released some balloons, guys, that said love and something else. I couldn't make out the other lettering was but it was a very spontaneous celebration here. And let's see if we can find some other people here to talk to.

You, sir, you told us you're a rabbi. You married some same-sex couples.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

TODD: Again, what does it mean for you practically?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is an incredible moment. As a rabbi, as a representative of the Jewish people. And peoples of faith of all religions in our society today, this is an incredible affirmation that the -- that the God that we all believe in is a God who is all about love and a God who sees that all human beings are equally created in God's image and that we all equally deserve a place in holiness and in joy as human beings whoever we are.

TODD: Did you get any resistance in religious circles in your religion or anywhere else to this whole thing?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've been very blessed in my congregation in Israel that's been incredibly accepting and loving. There's still a lot of work to do in many communities and we're set to do the work.

TODD: All right, guys, you have the gauge of the crowd here.

(CHEERS)

TODD: They're absolutely buoyant about this ruling. This will probably linger for a couple of hours, if yesterday's health care ruling was any indication, guys.

[10:25:11] TAPPER: All right. That's Brian Todd at the Supreme Court where protesters have turned into celebrants. Let me go quickly to Wolf Blitzer back in the studio -- Wolf.

BLITZER: It's a huge, huge day here in the United States, Jake, same- sex marriage, marriage equality now will not only be in those states that have already approved it but throughout all 50 states and the District of Columbia, here in the nation's capital. The president of the United States obviously very happy. His position has dramatically changed over these years.

As you pointed out he was against same-sex marriage in 2008 when he was running for the presidency but much more recently he changed his position, he supports gay marriage and he just did tweet that statement welcoming what happened today is a big step in our march toward equality. He says gay and lesbian couples now have the right to marry just like everyone else.

The president now will make a statement, will make a statement at the top of the hour, in about a half an hour or so from now, 11:00 a.m. Eastern, applauding this decision, coming the day after the Supreme Court decided to uphold affordable health care here in the United States. The president now will make another major statement. He is very excite d. Officials there at the White House wanted the Supreme Court to affirm marriage equality in all 50 states. That's what they got in this 5-4 decision.

Gloria Borger is with me, John King is with me. This is historic, Gloria.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: It is. And, Wolf, when you think back, John and I were just talking, when you think back to the political evolution of this issue, you know, back in the 2004 election, candidate George W. Bush was using the issue of gay marriage as a wedge issue in the state of Ohio to rally a Republican base. Fast forward, you've had Proposition 8, you've had the Defense of Marriage Act, and suddenly now you have public opinion in this country, a majority, 61 percent in the most recent polls support gay marriage.

Not only that, Wolf, but when you look at younger Republicans, 58 percent support gay marriage. And I remember covering Proposition 8, talking to Ted Olsen, a conservative Republican lead attorney on that pro-gay marriage. He said to me at the time, the equal protection clause will get this through the Supreme Court.

And when this fight first started for gay marriage, Wolf, there were a lot of gay activists who said, don't go to the court because this court is going to rule against us. Look at it. It's a conservative court. Let's do it step by step by step at the state level. Don't take it to that level. And guess what? It ended up getting there and the court ruled in their favor on a constitutional question.

KING: In and of itself, a landmark civil rights ruling. We stop right there and breathe a little bit and think about what a dramatic, huge day this is for the country.

BORGER: Yes.

KING: Legally and it will become politically and culturally and socially. Now it's a legal decision, but wow, just this one decision. And then think about where we are. In the past week we've seen a huge shift in the debate about the Confederate flag in our country. Now we had the Supreme Court just yesterday say Obamacare is constitutional. Another key provision of Obamacare is constitutional. The cement is drying there. So it's been a -- this decision in it of itself is historic and just huge.

And then in the context of everything else that's happening, then what happens in the political fallout because we're beginning to see because of where we are heading into a presidential cycle, Gloria makes a good point about the younger Republicans who are saying it's time for our party to recognize the shifts here, to move on, to come out of the time warp is what a lot of young Republicans say.

However, think about the tensions in the debates. Mike Huckabee, a candidate, says this is an imperial court. We should resist and reject judicial tyranny. This will now become, like the president's health care law, a flash point in the Republican presidential debates. And the question is, when the party goes right to fight these issues on which it is losing in the courts and on this one losing in public opinion as well, what impact does that have in the party heading into the elections. So the fallout from this will be fascinating, history being made today.

BORGER: And it's interesting to hear Republicans rail against a conservative court.

KING: A Reagan appointee and a Bush appointee. BORGER: Exactly.

BLITZER: All right. Hold on, we're getting more reaction. I want to go to Dana Bash up on Capitol Hill. Beginning to get some Republican reaction.

Dana, what are you hearing?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: We are. I'm actually going to give you first one that is not typical of most Republicans and that is from Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. He, you may remember, announced on CNN -- I did an interview with him in 2013, that he was going to be in favor of same-sex marriage, and the reason is because his son Will told him that he is gay.

And so he just released a statement saying, "As a father, I welcome today's decision." He has said just politically as a senator he would have preferred that the issue be resolved as part of the democratic process in the states, but he also went on to say, "I hope after this decision is made that we can move past the division and polarization the issue has caused."

I think that this is a very telling statement for a number of reasons. First of all, because the fact that Rob Portman came out in favor of same-sex marriage a couple of years ago.