Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Senate Democrats Holding Call On Strategy On SCOTUS Fight; GOP's Lindsey Graham Suggests He'd Go Back On His Vow Against A Vote; Source: Three Candidates Top Donald Trump's List To Fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg Seat; Supreme Court Nominating Process Expected To Be Contentious; Trump Wants To Announce Supreme Court Nominee Before First Debate; Dr. Patrice Harris Discusses Studies Showing Spacing People Out On Planes May Not Stop Virus Spread, Rising Cases In Five States. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired September 19, 2020 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:35]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: I'm Anderson Cooper. Thanks for joining us for our special coverage. Right now the nation mourns the loss of the giant. Not only a legendary legal mind and trail blazer for generations of women but someone who beat back cancer four times.

Loving tributes today pouring in for the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg whose death at the age of 87 not only diminishes the country but sets up an epic and time-honored process to replace her.

American history shows us that process is rarely easy and rarely without a major battle in Washington. We are already seeing crystal clear signs the battle is shaping up, and it's already affecting the election.

CNN's Lauren Fox is on Capitol Hill. So Lauren, the president is drawing the lines already, indicating he'll move quickly to get a new justice approved, sworn in. We heard from the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Lindsey Graham. Give us the latest.

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Well, essentially a couple of years ago, Graham's message was he didn't think it was appropriate to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year. But he tweeted just awhile ago saying, "I fully understand where the president is coming from". And of course, President Trump tweeting that he wanted to move quickly with this nomination.

So certainly, signaling here that he is open to moving forward with the nomination, and he would be overseeing that whole process in those nomination hearings in the Judiciary Committee.

But taking a step back, this weekend is really the time where the Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is going to be taking the temperature of his conference in phone conversations and preparing for that Republican lunch on Tuesday, the first in-person opportunity where lawmakers will be able to talk formally as a conference about where they want to go from here. The big question, when will this nomination start moving? Will it

happen before the election? Or will they have a vote after the election? And that's the key and critical question here.

And there are some real political ramifications for either decision. If McConnell decides that he wants to move forward and rush this through before the election, that's potentially problematic for people like Cory Gardner up for re-election in Colorado or someone like Thom Tillis up for reelection in North Carolina.

However, if he waits until after the election, Conservatives are concerned that you could get into a scenario where perhaps President Trump could lose or perhaps Democrats would take the Senate from Republicans.

If that's the case, even though folks are returning and Republicans would still have control in the lame duck, there might be some concern for moderates that they don't want to move ahead with the president's nominee if the voters have made a different decision in November.

So, that's what McConnell is weighing. He sent a note to his members last night warning them to keep their powder dry. Not to lock in on any specific position at this point. He wants to have a conversation. He wants members to understand what's at stake.

And again, he can only lose three Republican members, Anderson, so his margin here very tight.

COOPER: Yes, Lauren Fox. Lauren, thanks very much. Appreciate it.

We're going to the White House now because the process to select the Supreme Court Justice nominee is going to start from there with the president. Boris Sanchez is there for us this afternoon.

Boris, sources telling CNN that even before Justice Ginsburg's death, President Trump had seriously considering who he'd elevate to the Supreme Court. The word the source uses is the president has been salivating, that was the sources' words, to perform this duty. What are you hearing?

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, salivating, really interesting choice of words there from that source, Anderson. Sources have indicated that the president has been contemplating this for some time, including earlier this summer when he apparently had a private conversation with aides, revealing that he was eager to nominate a female justice to the Supreme Court. In part, because he believes it will boost his standing among women.

Polling has indicated in recent weeks that the president is struggling among female voters, specifically because of his response to the coronavirus pandemic.

A few weeks ago, the White House put out a list of some 20 potential nominees to the Supreme Court. A couple of notable names on there, Senators Josh Holley, Tom Cotton as well and a name that we've heard before, Amy Coney Barrett. She is a judge on the Appeals Court of the Seventh Circuit, and her name first came up back in 2017 upon the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Remember, she was being considered as a potential replacement. Ultimately, Brett Kavanaugh was chosen as the nominee and wound up becoming a Supreme Court Justice in part because it was believed that getting her confirmed would be difficult. She's been an outspoken opponent of abortion, something that Democrats will likely latch onto and attack.

[13:05:11]

SANCHEZ: Of course, we should point out that sources have told us that the president is fond of her, that he remained on -- rather, she remained on his mind after he met with her back in 2017, specifically, as a potential replacement for RBG.

Again, she will likely be a difficult confirmation, but given the current political climate, Anderson, it's unlikely that this is going to be easy for anyone the president nominates.

COOPER: Boris Sanchez. Boris, thanks very much.

Remind us, there was a sudden Supreme Court vacancy, President Obama was the president. It was an election year and the prominent GOP voices were adamant that it was time to slow down, to not rush to fill the vacancy, that the American people should choose at the voting booth.

Listen to some of the Republican senators in 2016, particularly Senator Lindsey Graham who paints an almost eerie picture exactly of what's happening right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination. And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right.

We are setting a precedent here today, the Republicans are, that in the last year, at least of a lame-duck eight-year term, I would say it's going to be a four-year term, that you're not going to fill a vacancy at the Supreme Court based on what we're doing here today. That's going to be the new rule.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court. And have a profound impact on our country. So, of course -- of course, the American people should have a say in the court's direction.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL): And I don't think we should be moving forward on a nominee in the last year of this president's term. I would say that if it was a Republican president.

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): President Obama is eager to appoint Justice Scalia's replacement this year. But you know in the last 80 years, we have not once has the Senate confirmed a nomination made in an election year and now is no year to start.

This is for the people to decide. I intend to make 2016 a referendum on the U.S. Supreme Court.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Joining us now, former White House Counsel president -- to President Richard Nixon, John Dean. His new book titled Authoritarian Nightmare: Trump and His Followers. Also with us, host of PBS's "Firing Line" Margaret Hoover.

Margaret, you heard that sound. I mean, is this anything other than blatant hypocrisy that we're going to be witnessing?

MARGARET HOOVER, HOST OF "PBS FIRING LINE WITH MARGARET HOOVER": I think where you sit is a -- where you stand is a -- is a matter of where you sit, Anderson. You see this a lot in politics. And it's -- there's no way to argue that it isn't hypocrisy but there's also no way to argue that many of the senators whose seats are up and the Senate itself, which is highly contested at this moment. Republicans are quite worried about losing the Senate. Many of their voters aren't going to care that they said that four years ago under entirely different circumstances.

Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump know that this is manna from heaven. This is a gift. By the way, not -- no passing of a Supreme Court Justice or an American hero like Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a gift to anybody. It is -- it is a mournful and sorrowful moment for the country where we should reflect.

To the extent that this now becomes about politics, this is a political gift for Donald Trump. And make no mistake about it, Republican voters are not going to hold any of their previous statements from Lindsey Graham or Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or otherwise if it means they can secure the Senate moving forward.

COOPER: John Dean, I mean, the Republicans say, well, look, Democrats would do the same thing. They wanted to get Merrick Garland passed in the last year of the Obama administration. Are they right?

JOHN DEAN, FORMER NIXON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Well, they -- you know, we have a new rule. We're playing under new rules that Mitch McConnell created during the Obama presidency. Obviously, those rules are going to play however Mitch wants them to play this year, and looks like he's not going to follow his own rule.

But, you know, Anderson, the bigger picture, Mitch McConnell has been busy really packing the federal judiciary. And they want to do it from top to bottom.

I see this as an opportunity for Democrats to latch on to that and say, hey, we've got to -- we've got to stabilize this branch of government. We've got to depoliticize it. And what we're going to do if Mitch does this, is we're going to use our legislative power in the -- in the Congress, and if we have a Republican -- excuse me, a Democratic President, Biden, we're going to change the judiciary. We're going to depoliticize it. We're going to expand the number of judgeships, and we're going to increase by at least two seats the Supreme Court. That's totally within their power. And that will give people something to look forward to as part of this reason to vote Democratic because Republicans are going to likely jam this through.

[13:10:18]

COOPER: Margaret, the -- I mean, Democrats really have no options in terms of actually stopping this from happening. Really the only thing that would stop it I guess would be several Republican senators not going along with it.

HOOVER: Well, you need four Republican senators to exactly, to stop it -- to stop it. And I think it's unlikely you'll get that.

It's unclear what the timing will be, Anderson. I mean, it may be that this is something that could happen in a lame-duck after the election. You know, it's not -- it's not clear that a vote will happen before the election, but President Trump could certainly announce his intention to nominate a certain person to the bench and then that just becomes part of the campaign issue. And not you're working to re-elect President Trump, a Republican Senate and to get that justice nominated, it seems highly unlikely.

To John Dean's point, it's hard to say that adding two more to the court in the short term is going to fix the problem of intense polarization that we've seen in our politics and in the judiciary that has escalated over the last two decades.

If you add two more Democratic appointees to the court, you'll have, for the moment, a balance. But there are systemic polar -- a real systemic problem in terms of polarization of our politics. And packing the court, it seems to me, will be one more step towards ratcheting up that polarization, not de-escalating.

COOPER: John, what's the better calculus for Republicans to force a vote before the election or to do in the lame-duck session?

DEAN: I'll be surprised if they go before the election because they do cause jeopardy for several members who are in difficult races in swing states.

Obviously, the nominee will make some difference. There are four -- if I recall, at least four women on that list of 20. Some of them are from some very key states like Florida and Arizona that might well draw some votes from those states as a result of that.

But he could indicate his intention and say here's who I'm going to nominate. I'll let the Majority Leader decide when is the best time to proceed with this. So he'll can get the political advantage without putting members in jeopardy who that could be a tough vote for.

COOPER: You know, Margaret, and what's so fascinating about this is that it's incredibly complex -- I mean, chess moves essentially. This has ramifications for -- even for the election if the election ends up being decided in some way, the results decided by the Supreme Court or ruled on by the Supreme Court. The make-up of the court has a -- you know, a big say on that, whether there is -- it's -- you know, five to three or whatever the make-up ends up being.

There's also the question of Obamacare and what happens to that if it's a majority -- you know, far more majority court of conservatives.

HOOVER: Look, you know, you raise very good points. These are things that all of us should be worried about. And look, the court as an institution is one of the institutions that, as we have seen, a decrease in confidence of our institutions broadly.

Justice Roberts has been very aware of that and has guarded and tried to guard against that with as many majority opinions that have majorities rather than split decisions. You would hope and think that under his leadership, this would be very much front of mind going into the election, going into, frankly, an election that they very well may have to weigh into when it comes to counting ballots as the Supreme Court did in 2000.

So we would hope, and I would hope that the reverence for the institution and frankly, the seriousness with which that institution's leadership takes its role in a country where the faith in institutions has decreased so dramatically over the last 15, 20 years that the court would hold itself to a higher standard and be able to deliver for the American people.

COOPER: John, I mean, not that it will -- you know, change the outcome perhaps, but it'll certainly be interesting to see Kamala Harris on the Judiciary Committee questioning a potential Trump nominee with Lindsey Graham running the Judiciary Committee.

DEAN: It will be very interesting. It will, obviously, already, though, be a lot of attention on hearing, if indeed they start those before the election.

[13:15:00]

DEAN: Again, I think they have more political negatives than positives by going forward. And she'll still be there, however, after the election, even if she is the vice president-elect. So, that will make more theater out of this, and she'll be a very effective questioner.

COOPER: Yes. So many factors to consider. John Dean, thank you, Margaret Hoover as well.

CNN's learning new details about who the president is considering for the Supreme Court candidates topping the list. Plus, we're hearing from Ginsburg's colleagues on the court.

Also, from impeachment, the pandemic, now even a potential Supreme Court hearing and we'll take a look at the extraordinary year for Congress.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: President Trump says Republicans have a "Obligation", to nominate without delay the next Supreme Court Justice following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

[13:20:01]

COOPER: This hour, CNN has new reporting as to who is at the top of President Trump's list. It includes three judges, two of them women. Our Supreme Court analyst join -- Joan Biskupic joins us now live from Washington. What do we know about these jurists?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Good afternoon, Anderson. You know, the Trump team and the right wing has not been caught off guard by this news. They've been thinking for many months, years about what would happen if they got a third appointment to the Supreme Court.

So, the names I'm going to give you have been names that have been in the mix for a while, at least the first two. The third will be a relatively new one.

But a woman by the name of Amy Coney Barrett, who's a judge on the Chicago-based U.S. court of appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She was a Notre Dame Law professor. I think she's in her late 40s right now.

First of all, I should tell you that all three people I'm going to mention are well-known conservatives. They would be far more con -- night and day change from Ruth Bader Ginsburg to one of these potential nominees. And far more conservative even than Chief Justice John Roberts who was appointed by George W. Bush.

But he -- so, he -- Amy Coney Barrett on the Seventh Circuit. She's been interviewed before by the president. She would be near the top of the list, especially if he's looking for a woman to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Another person who is very well positioned is Judge Amul Thapar on the Sixth Circuit in the Midwest. He was U.S. attorney in Kentucky. He's been a close associate of Mitch McConnell from Kentucky. He would be the first justice of South Asian descent if he were to get it. He has always been as I said, right up there not just because President Trump chose him for the Sixth Circuit soon after he became president but that he's a good friend of Mitch McConnell.

And the third is a woman from Florida who's recently been appointed to the U.S. court of appeals for the Eleventh Circuit after having served on the Florida Supreme Court, Barbara Lagoa. She's of Cuban-America -- she's a Cuban-American which, again, would bring another kind of diversity to the Supreme Court.

And all of these people have, for at least several months, been in the mix with others. And I am sure that the Trump team has been figuring out pros and cons of them.

And I -- my guess on the time table, I don't know anything hard and fast yet, is that we're not going to have to wait too long. I think sometime between now and just as an estimate, the end of the month, before the first debate on September 29th. I think we'll see some name being offered. COOPER: We're also getting statements from Ginsburg's fellow justices.

BISKUPIC: That's right -- that's right. In fact, they've just been released. And this is when -- you know, this is -- this is a tough thing for them. It's like losing a member of the family.

Remember, all of these nine justices are appointed for life. You know, they spend all their time with each other. You know, they're thrown together and they become a family of sorts. And you had the chief, Chief Justice John Roberts talking about you know, her stature in America but also her tireless work ethic.

I know that we've been talking since last night about how that woman just could not stop working. And it was interesting that he hit that note, too, about how tireless she was and also how much she's meant to Americans and what a legacy she will have.

And the other one I'll mention is Justice Elena Kagan who is a fellow -- was a fellow New Yorker. She was from Manhattan. Just as Ginsburg was from Brooklyn. And Justice Ginsburg really took a liking to Elena Kagan and as Elena Kagan says in her statement, she was quite mentored, taken under her wing and that she felt like not only was she a hero to Justice Kagan. She was saying that, you know, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a hero to everyone. She was a personal hero to her. But that also she learned so much from her that she will now herself be able to pass on.

So, the very touching remembrances. Justice Breyer happened to -- happened to learn of this -- you know, as he was going to services for Rosh Hashanah and issued a statement that was sort of in the vein of the religious holiday.

But it's a very sad moment for the colleagues she leaves behind. Eight sitting justices and the retired justices, too.

COOPER: Yes, Joan Biskupic, appreciate it, thank you.

History books will surely be written about this extraordinary year in U.S. politics and the history of this country. From an impeachment trial to a pandemic, protests in the streets over racial justice. The U.S. lost John Lewis and now Ruth Bader Ginsburg, all converging in a hotly contested presidential race now thrown into even more chaos by the vacancy on the Supreme Court.

CNN's Chris Cillizza joins me now. Talk about this year just for Congress, specifically, the Senate.

[13:25:06]

CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN POLITICS REPORTER: Yes, it's stunning, Anderson. There's a scene in the Simpson's cartoon where Homer Simpson is grilling outside. He puts a little bit of lighter fluid on and it -- the fire perks up, then he just pours more and then more and then more and then more. That's sort of feels like this year in politics.

And to your point, in the Senate in particular. Let's not forget, this is a year in which the Senate held an impeachment trial. I mean, when that happened, we all assumed -- I mean, that's going to be the biggest thing --

COOPER: That seems like 20 years ago.

CILLIZZA: Right, doesn't it? I mean, I was looking through, and your producers got it for me. And I was like, is that definitely this year? That's how long ago it feels. It feels like a different decade. And then, -- so, that's one massively historic, important thing.

Then, we have the coronavirus pandemic. And we have the Senate and the White House and the House all sort of trying to negotiate, figure out what would a stimulus package look like. We have to debate over, are people wearing masks on the House floor and the Senate floor or are they not? So we have all of that.

Then, we have the conventions and everything there in politics. And then we go to this which is, for anyone who has seen a Supreme Court nomination fight in the past, I mean, this is -- I hesitate to use too many sports metaphors, but this is a Super Bowl of sports for the Senate in any situation, much less Republican president, Republican Senate, less than 50 days before an election.

And with a liberal opening and a conservative president and the potential to shift the court from five-four conservative to six-three.

And with Senate -- the senators -- the Republican senators on the verge of losing their Senate majority in 40 plus days. I mean, its 10 things all coming together that even every one of them would be a massive story in any other circumstance.

COOPER: Yes. Chris Cillizza, appreciate it. Thanks very much.

Down to 45 days before the next election. And whoever wins could shape the Supreme Court for generations. We'll speak to presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:31:29]

COOPER: Just in, we're learning how fast the process is going to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, just hours after her death.

CNN's Suzanne Malveaux live at the Supreme Court.

What have you heard, Suzanne?

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: This really underscores the pace of what is happening here. There are still hundreds of people gathering outside the Supreme Court mourning the loss of Justice Ginsburg.

At the same time, you have these whole other political events that are unfolding. We have learned from our own congressional correspondent, Lauren Fox,

the president had a phone call last night with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell following the news of Ginsburg's death.

And McConnell putting out a statement already saying there will be a vote in the Senate for a Trump nominee.

And so that is certainly playing out in real time and at a very quick pace.

We're also learning as well, just moments ago, White House communications director, Alyssa Farah, was appearing on FOX News and she has said that the Trump administration is going to be moving on "Trump time," is what they say, on the Supreme Court nominee, that it is going to look to move in the coming weeks.

And so there really is a sense of urgency, if you will. All of this draped in politics.

And the stakes could not be bigger and more impactful when you think about who the next nominee will be.

At the same time, Anderson, you just look around here, and there have been hundreds and hundreds who have gathered to pay their respects to this legal superstar, to this civil rights icon, and someone who has really fought for the equality of so many people.

I've had a chance to speak to many of the folks out here who have been here early in the morning. They've offered flowers and balloons. And there's a huge chalk mural that's in front of the Supreme Court offering their condolences.

But also, a call to action, if you will, to make sure that her legacy is truly alive -- Anderson?

COOPER: Suzanne Malveaux, appreciate you of being there. Thank you.

Of all the powers the president has, nominating judges to the Supreme Court may have the most lasting impact. Although the court may strive to be nonpartisan in its rulings, it can -- it's hard to stay above the political fray.

In November 2018, President Trump blasted what he called Obama judges on the court for blocking his asylum ban.

That provoked Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare statement saying, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."

CNN presidential historian, Douglas Brinkley, is with me now.

Doug, certainly, it's not -- clearly, this will not be a nonpartisan process. Do you predict that it's going to be more contentious than past

examples? We've seen very contentious hearings, obviously, in the past.

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: I think it's going to be the most contentious. I mean, we had a big ordeal with Clarence Thomas when he was trying to make his way onto the Supreme Court. We saw what happened to Kavanaugh.

But these stakes are really for the direction of America in the next 40 or 50 years.

If Donald Trump is able to pick a Constitutionalist, somebody in their 40s, a woman that might be serving for the next four decades, tilting the court to a conservative agenda, you will see a lot of the liberal achievements in the courts from the 1960s and '70s start unspooling bot going away.

So this is a fierce battle. We have a battle on top of the battle.

[13:35:01]

It's almost of equal importance of who the next president of the United States is, is how this replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, you know, how this plays out.

COOPER: We're just learning President Trump wants to announce a SCOTUS pick by the first debate, which is less than two weeks away.

BRINKLEY: Well, absolutely. Mitch McConnell is like Casey Jones, the engineer, just going to be putting on as much velocity as he can. Speed is in the favor of the Republicans right now.

Donald Trump was looking for some wind to put at his back. He's down in the polls everywhere, including in key swing states. And he had to get off of the COVID-19 story.

Now it's a backstory, the number-two story. Everybody will be leading with this story coming into the 29th, or at least parity with COVID.

And it allows Donald Trump to tell his base, get out of the woods, get out of the suburbs, vote for me.

Even if you don't like me, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have this conservative Supreme Court we've wanted since Roe v. Wade and some of the other environmental decisions, like Friends of the Earth, that decision in 2000 that Ruth Bader Ginsburg ruled on.

COOPER: And, obviously, the next president, whoever it is, might be able to pick even more justices.

BRINKLEY: That's right. I mean, I get called up by, Anderson, by -- as an historian, by reporters doing summaries of Trump's first administration.

And I always say Trump's ranked as one of the lowest presidents, if not the worst. He's in Warren Harding territory or below William Henry Harrison, who was only president for a month.

So I don't think Donald Trump's had a good performance in his first term where he was impeached and botched the biggest public health crisis with the novel coronavirus.

With that said, I tell those reporters, Donald Trump did get two Supreme Court justices in with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

And if he can get a second term, and, say, there are four Trump appointees, then Donald Trump becomes a very large figure in American history.

Not a fluky one-term president that we remember for crazy tweets, but somebody who grabbed the conservative movement by the scruff of the neck, took it on in a populist direction, that Ross Perot had once talked about as a third-party person. And he is a force of nature, Donald Trump.

So one will be interesting to see if the Democratic side can get motivated here as much as the Trump forces will to -- and whether Joe Biden will have to be picking who would his Supreme Court nominee be or at least put a short list of three or four people, if he's elected, who he would choose.

COOPER: Doug Brinkley, appreciate it. Thank you.

Just in, a new picture of vice-presidential nominee, Kamala Harris, appearing at the Supreme Court today to pay her respects. We'll talk about the Democrats' leverage, to what extent they have any, going forward.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:42:19]

COOPER: In 2018, CNN's Poppy Harlow sat down with Ruth Bader Ginsburg for an exclusive interview at a conference at Columbia University. The Conference was called "She Opened the Door."

Harlow asked Ginsburg a wide range of questions, including this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: In your first argument as an attorney before the court, you quoted the feminist, the attorney, the abolitionist, Sarah Grimke, who said in 1837, "I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they" --

(CROSSTALK)

RUTH BADER GINSBURG, FORMER U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: "Take their feet off our necks."

(CHEERING)

(APPLAUSE) GINSBURG: It had a certain shock quality, which is what I intended. I wanted to get the attention.

HARLOW: Are their feet off our necks today?

(LAUGHTER)

GINSBURG: Much more so than I ever dreamed would be possible in my growing-up years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: That interview came just two years after Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, 2016. Of course, Harlow asked Ginsburg about that outcome. Here's the exchange.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: You recently said, when you were asked by Charlie Rose a year ago --

(LAUGHTER)

HARLOW: -- if sexism played a role in the 2016 presidential election. And you said, quote, "I have no doubt it did."

I'm interested in what role you think it played.

GINSBURG: What role I think it played? I think it was difficult for Hillary Clinton to get by, even to -- the macho atmosphere prevailing during that campaign.

And she was criticized in a way I think no man would have been criticized.

Well, I think anyone who watched that campaign unfold would answer the same way I did. Yes, sexism was -- played a prominent part.

HARLOW: Was America not ready for a woman president?

GINSBURG: Oh, I think we were and will be the next time.

Anyway, we should be careful about not getting too much into the political arena.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[13:45:07]

COOPER: Poppy Harlow joins us now.

It's so interesting, just her speaking style, with her long pauses, which can be disconcerting for people, because normally people fill those pauses. I'm still trying not to say "um" at the age of 53 and fill silences

with things like "um" and "uh," but it's hard to do that.

She doesn't do that. She just has the silence, which is really kind of fascinating.

HARLOW: Anderson, I had to train myself before that interview not to fill the silence because I'd learned from, you know, sort of urban legend, and her clerks would say they had this one Mississippi, two Mississippi, three Mississippi rule.

Because some of the wisest things she would say would come after those long pauses. So I just let there be silence.

Sometimes, in that interview, for a minute, and then she added a little bit more.

COOPER: Her impact on women, I mean, it's almost impossible to kind of just quantify in a short amount of time.

But it is just extraordinary how she changed in -- I'm talking about before she even got to the Supreme Court -- in arguing cases before the court in her work with the ACLU and others, how she opened the eyes of then-Supreme Court justices about the impact of the law on women's equality.

HARLOW: It did. And she did it slowly and deliberately. And quietly, but forcefully. And I think that was her magic.

She got people to come along with her. She didn't yell at them, you're wrong. She showed them, here's why we need equality.

And, Anderson, if I could speak a little bit from a personal angle, you know, her mother died when she was 17.

And she said the only difference between what she was able to achieve and her mother, who did not have a big career, was one generation. And that's how much she gained in women's rights.

I did that interview with her five days after having my son. You have a little baby, you know what those first days are like.

And I almost didn't do the interview because of that. And my husband said, you have to do this interview. You're going to tell our kids about it one day.

And I realized, because of all the barriers she'd broken down for decades, I was in a position, married to a man that was my true equal, like her husband, Marty, was her true equal and an equal caregiver, that allowed me to have that opportunity. And that's just, you know, my experience with it.

And it's so much bigger for so many more women. And for so many more men. She fought for real equality for men as single parents as well.

COOPER: Yes, her husband gave up a very lucrative job in, I think -- HARLOW: Yes.

COOPER: -- in New York in order to move to Washington when she got on the circuit court in Washington.

Poppy, it's great to see that interview again. Thank you so much.

Nearly 200,000 Americans have died from COVID. A key model is projecting that number to nearly double by the end of the year.

Meantime, two studies show that spacing people out on planes may not be enough to prevent the spread of coronavirus.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:52:42]

COOPER: The U.S. is approaching 200,000 deaths from coronavirus this weekend.

This comes as two new studies demonstrate how easily the virus can spread on airline flights and that simply spacing people on planes does little to stop it.

The researchers behind those studies are calling for new, tougher screening.

Dr. Patrice Harris is the former president of the American Medical Association.

Dr. Harris, there's little space on planes for people flying economy. Is there anything surprising to you about these findings?

DR. PATRICE HARRIS, FORMER PRESIDENT, AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION: Well, Anderson, we've known from the very beginning that this virus is relentless in its ability to spread.

And I think the good news is the science is evolving. We are eight months or so into this pandemic and we know more today than we certainly did at the very beginning.

And that's also why we have to think about risk in terms of layers of risk.

And so we're learning about the spread, we're learning about the spread on planes.

And so when people have to fly, if there are no other alternatives, they should, again, assess their own health and their own risk factors and then do all that they can to mitigate that risk.

They can check with an airline to see if middle seats are open. But they can wear their own protection and eyewear and masks.

There's no such thing as zero risk and sometimes these are individual decisions. COOPER: Yes. We began seeing another uptick in New York cases this

month. This past week, five states reported 50 percent increase in new cases over the prior week.

Right now, we're on the cusp of the regular flu season starting.

We heard from Dr. Fauci earlier -- we played something he said, that maybe by wearing masks, by getting a flu shot, the regular flu season may not be that bad.

If people take the precautions for COVID and get a flu shot, that's going to very possibly reduce the idea that we're going to get hit by flu and COVID at the same time.

HARRIS: Absolutely, Anderson. There's no question that these public health measures, the basic measures that you hear us physicians talk about all the time, wearing masks, washing our hands, watching our distance, those very measures can also help us mitigate flu risk.

[13:55:09]

Of course, we do have a vaccine for flu. And so I have to make sure that I encourage everyone to get their flu vaccine.

But, Anderson, that is the hope, that the very measures we are putting into place to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus will also help us decrease flu transmission.

COOPER: Dr. Patrice Harris, appreciate your time. Thank you.

HARRIS: Thank you, Anderson.

COOPER: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)