Return to Transcripts main page
Rick's List
New Study Links Fructose to Cancer; Has BP Finally Plugged Oil Well?; Afghan Woman on Way to U.S. for Reconstructive Surgery; 74 Percent of Oil in Gulf Gone; Gay Marriage Ban Overturned in California
Aired August 04, 2010 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: But now there is something else that I am very much interested in, as a parent, and I think most of us as Americans should be, because there is a lot being said about this and there is a lot of money involved in this debate. It's new worries about a popular sweetener and your health.
It's a new study that links fructose, which is used in a lot of soft drinks, breads, cereals, all kinds of stuff. They're linking fructose for the very first time ever to cancer. This is very important, obviously. And we're going to treat it as such.
This is leaving a bitter taste in the mouth of the corn industry, which has been pushing the safety of its product, saying, look, fructose is no different than sugar. Why are people making a big deal out of this?
In fact, here is one of their commercials.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: My cereal has high-fructose corn syrup in it.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: So?
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: So, even a doofus like you must have heard what they say about it.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: What?
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: You know, I mean --
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: That it's made from corn and it's nutritionally the same as sugar and it's just fine in moderation?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Hmm. Good ad, huh?
Scientists have long known that sugar can feed cancer cells. That's why you shouldn't eat a ton of sugar every day, right?
But this new study is the first to say that fructose may actually speed up the growth of cancer cells more than just regular sugar. This is important.
So, I want to bring somebody I trust whose opinion I trust on this. This is the report that I read. I wanted to read it to you. And Elizabeth has been examining the report, going through the details of this new UCLA study.
And you say what?
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: I say that what they did was very interesting, but somewhat preliminary.
SANCHEZ: OK.
COHEN: Let me lay it out for you. They had cancer cells in a petri dish. And they said, oh, cancer cells, what would you like to eat today, basically?
(LAUGHTER)
COHEN: And so they fed them fructose and glucose. And what they found, to really simplify it here, is that those cancer cells reproduced really well on the fructose. They reproduced also on the glucose, but really well on the fructose.
SANCHEZ: So, the cancer cells that were exposed to fructose, as opposed to sugar, fructose being that very thing that we find in soda pop, that we find in a lot of the junk foods in the grocery store aisles, that is more apt to suck up the cancer cells or increase the cancer cells than regular sugar.
COHEN: Right, and make them grow.
Now, to be clear, fructose is in peaches, and fruit, and all sorts of good things.
SANCHEZ: Right.
COHEN: But the fructose that is in high-fructose corn syrup is refined and is really, highly concentrated. You're getting a huge amount compared to the amount that you would just get, say, in a piece of fruit.
And this stuff is -- as you said, it's in blue cheese dressing. It's in ketchup.
SANCHEZ: I don't want to -- I don't want to go too far into this, but folks at home aren't stupid and they know what is going on, so -- and this is CNN. Our viewers are -- are in the know.
We also know much of this fructose is subsidized by our tax dollars. Corn producers are subsidized to create lots of it. Oftentimes, there is a surplus, so they got to put it somewhere, and it ends up being real cheap. Is it possible that it's cheap at our health's expense?
COHEN: There is a concern that because this stuff is so highly concentrated, and because we're eating more and more of it, that it is linked to the epidemic of obesity, that maybe one of the reasons why there are more obese Americans today than ever is because there is also more of this.
Now, I want to work in here what the high-fructose corn industry has to say. The Corn Refiners Association makes the point: "This study does not look at the way fructose is actually consumed by humans, as it was conducted in a laboratory, not inside the human body."
And that is an important point.
SANCHEZ: OK.
COHEN: This is in the lab.
But I also want to make the point that we all ought to be eating more stuff that comes out of the ground, right?
SANCHEZ: That's natural.
COHEN: Because -- that's right, exactly.
SANCHEZ: Thank you. Yes.
(LAUGHTER)
COHEN: So, it's not as if this stuff is poisonous. It's just we all ought to be eating more natural things and less refined and processed things anyhow.
SANCHEZ: Look, the study is there. We reported it. We analyzed it. We have got you on. That's our job. If we get anything else, we will share it.
COHEN: Absolutely.
SANCHEZ: That's what we're here for.
Good job.
COHEN: Thanks.
SANCHEZ: Thank you. Appreciate it.
All right, as we begin this next hour, any moment now, we're going to be hearing from officials there in the court of California on this momentous decision on same-sex marriage.
And, by the way, I also want to welcome right now all the troops, the sailors, the Marines, the soldiers who are watching us overseas. Welcome, all of you, to the national conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ (voice-over): Here is what is making your LIST today. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At approximately 7:26 a.m. yesterday morning, reporting that there was an active shooter inside of the building.
SANCHEZ: Eight people gunned down in Connecticut.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our hearts go out to all those Hartford Distributors and Company's families who are hurting today.
SANCHEZ: Who are the victims? Were there warning signs? Was there racial harassment and did it make Omar Thornton snap?
One hundred days, and no longer counting. BP says the well is plugged.
ADMIRAL THAD ALLEN (RET.), NATIONAL INCIDENT COMMANDER: High confidence that there will be no oil leaking into the environment.
SANCHEZ: Now we assess the damage. Where is it? What is it?
OZZIE GUILLEN, CHICAGO WHITE SOX MANAGER: A couple of days ago, we wasn't talking (EXPLETIVE DELETED). Now we're (EXPLETIVE DELETED).
SANCHEZ: White Sox coach Ozzie Guillen defends Hispanic players with another tirade -- why he may be dead wrong.
A major ruling happening momentarily in California -- same-sex marriage ban about to be ruled on. And Jeff Toobin joins me live.
The lists you need to know about. Who's today's most intriguing? Who's landed on the list you don't want to be on? Who's making news on Twitter? It's why I keep a list.
Pioneering tomorrow's cutting-edge news right now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: Hey. Welcome back, everyone.
Let me just take you through something, if we possibly can.
Robert or Jean (ph), come on over my shoulder, if you would. I just want to show you this Web site that we have right here. This is a clearinghouse for some of the court documents as they come in. And we're going to be able to show you this document that you're looking at right there.
See, as the documents come in, I am going to be able to click those. You see that moving right there? All right, there is my mouse. I'm going to be able to click one of those and open the document. The document that we're expecting to come in, in the next several seconds right here is having to do with this, again, momentous decision that's going to be coming in from the state of California.
That tops the LIST, California law that will define marriage as a union between man and a woman or not. We expect breaking news from this federal court on whether this law violates the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.
This is all about Prop 8. It's become a polarizing issue across the country, even making an impact on the 2008 elections. A gay couple and a lesbian couple filed suit in federal court asking for an injunction against the law, which bans same-sex marriage.
All right, here's some perspective on Prop 8 by taking a look back through what's happened over the last decade. First, California began registering same-sex domestic partners. That was January of 2000. Remember that?
Two months later, 61 percent of California voters approved a ballot measure that said marriage should be reserved for couples of the opposite sex. February 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, he tells city officials to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, law be damned.
August of that year, the California Supreme Court ruled that Mayor Newsom had overstepped his authority and declared the 4,000 same-sex marriages null and void. Fast-forward four years later to May of 2008. California Supreme Court rules that the state constitution protects the rights of same-sex couples to marry.
Following month, one million signatures are submitted to place this Prop 8 on the ballot. Then, November 2008, California voters prass -- pardon me -- passed Prop 8 with about 52 percent of the vote. Since then, the law has been out of the court and the headlines ever since.
And now we are expecting what could be -- well, let me not -- let me not say final, but one of the final rulings on this. Of course, it could continue going all the way up to the Supreme Court.
We have got team coverage on Proposition 8 ruling with crews all over the country. Let me tell you who they are. Dan Simon is live outside the courthouse in San Francisco. You see him there. Ted Rowlands is live in Los Angeles awaiting a reaction on the ruling. Senior political analyst Gloria Borger has been working this story from Washington for quite some time.
And our Supreme Court producer, William Mears, is also joining us.
William, I'm going to begin with you, only because I want to know what you're hearing in terms of this decision and whether it has come in yet.
In fact, hold on, William.
Gloria, you have been working on this for some time. Set this -- set the argument up for us.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, you know, it's actually quite a simple argument, when you think about it, Rick. It's really a question of whether the civil rights laws in this country apply to same-sex marriage. And what's particularly fascinating about this case is the lawyers who are arguing that in fact Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, that it violates the equal protection clause, and that's because it's none other than Ted Olson and David Boies. You remember those guys. They were arguing against each other in Bush vs. Gore in 2000.
Ted Olson is a conservative legal icon, David Boies the same for liberals and Democrats.
SANCHEZ: Oh, yes.
BORGER: And they are on the same side of this case. And that's because they fully expect it will go to the Supreme Court, and they would like to be arguing there together this time.
SANCHEZ: Hey, Ted, bring us up to date on what you expect might be the reaction there in Los Angeles. I know that you're -- you're -- you're expecting to see someone go out and possibly demonstrate after this. What are you hearing?
TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's interesting, Rick.
We're outside a park where they are having a function tonight. A few thousand people are going to be here. Boies and Olson are actually going to fly down here and address the crowd after this decision is released, around 6:00.
But right here is the Abbey. This is really an institution in West Hollywood, just where we are. The slogan here, 20 years and still raising the gay bar. You can imagine a lot of people here with a vested interest in here and a lot of interest. The people we have talked to so far today say they're monitoring their BlackBerrys, the same Web site that you're monitoring.
When that decision comes down, they will then obviously react to it. But one of the things that you sort of alluded to, that this is the first step in a long process, people aren't going to be overly excited or disappointed on what this judge rules, because everybody who has an interest knows that this is the first step towards the eventual Supreme Court -- expected Supreme Court ruling on this issue.
So, obviously, a lot of interest, and there will be gatherings here with reaction, but tempered a bit, because everybody seems to be on board that this is the first step.
SANCHEZ: And we have got -- we have no idea at this point which way the decision is going to come down.
Dan Simon, though, is at the courthouse. He welcome be one of the first to hear this, although, with the use of the Internet, we might be able to get it here just at the same time that he's getting it.
Dan, take us through the process. Who is this court? What -- how long have they been deciding? And how do we expect to get this information from you hopefully?
DAN SIMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is the federal Northern District of California that's been hearing this case. This trial really started back in January. It was a two-and-a-half-week trial.
The judge that -- that's going to be deciding this, Judge Vaughn Walker, he was appointed by George H.W. Bush, known as a libertarian, somewhat conservative, but also has an independent streak.
And, Rick, just let me kind of put it in these terms. When you think about some of the famous Supreme Court cases in the history of American law, you think about cases like Roe vs. Wade or Brown vs. the Board of Education.
This case called, Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, has the potential to join those cases in being one of the most famous court cases of all time, because, no doubt, this case is going to reach the Supreme Court.
I want to talk to two people here.
Obviously, you two are married. We talked earlier. You have been together for 36 years. The first question I want to ask is, obviously, seven million people in the state of California voted against same-sex marriage. The people who say that the will of the majority has the right to decide this issue, you say what?
SHELLY BAILES, OPPONENT OF PROPOSITION 8: I say that people shouldn't be voting on my civil rights. It's not -- it's not right. The majority should never vote on minorities' votes. If that were the case, then we probably still wouldn't have the woman's right to vote or interracial marriage.
SIMON: And I neglected to introduce you formally. This is Shelly Bailes and Ellen Pontac, her -- her lifelong partner.
When you got married a couple of years ago, explain how that changed the dynamic of your relationship.
ELLEN PONTAC, OPPONENT OF PROPOSITION 8: Well, being married is something different. There's just a whole 'nother level to your relationship.
And when you go out and you introduce someone as your wife, people know exactly what you mean. When you say, this is my domestic partner, they don't have a clue. So, being married is just something that we always thought, as children, that we would do. And then, when we got together 36 years ago, we never really thought about it.
It wasn't even a part of our vocabulary, because marriage was just -- didn't exist. But being married is just wonderful.
SIMON: Last question. We know -- we know this is just one stop, that, ultimately, it is going to go to the appeals court and then to the Supreme Court. But -- but today, how important is today to you? What's going through your mind? BAILES: Well, I'm very, very optimistic, but I think every battle won is a battle won, and it's just one step closer to equality, which we definitely deserve.
SIMON: That is Shelly Bailes and Ellen Pontac.
And, Rick, as we get closer to this decision -- and, as you mentioned, it could happen any moment -- we are starting to see people gather on the steps of the courthouse, which is on the other side. We actually can't get there because the way the -- the way that -- the way we have to get to the satellites, we can only park our truck right here.
But we're going to be over there. We are going to -- we have tape crews over there. We are going to be monitoring the process throughout the afternoon. And we're just waiting with you.
SANCHEZ: Well, I will tell you what. There's -- there -- by the way, that was -- that was a good interview that you just did. That was -- that was -- that was well done. And it was a -- it was a heartfelt perspective that we heard. And we're going to be sharing more of those and we're going to obviously be talking to the other side as well here on RICK'S LIST.
There is -- there is a political component to this story. We -- we all know -- let's not kid ourselves -- that this has been used as a wedge issue in the past.
And I want to bring in Gloria Borger on that in just a little bit.
Also, my old friend Kendall Coffey is going to be joining us in just a little bit. And he can take us through the legalese of this, if we get a decision right away. He has looked at a million of these documents, so it is a little easier for him to cut to the chase and tell us what the news is.
And this could happen within seconds, all right? This could happen within seconds. And you will hear it first right here on RICK'S LIST.
Let's take a quick break, pay some bills. And then we are going to come right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: So, here we go. Welcome back.
I'm -- I'm looking at the information that is coming in, and we're expecting that this possible ruling could come at any moment.
Let me bring Kendall Coffey into this conversation. He's a federal -- former federal prosecutor who has got a lot of experience with this and can take us through what this ruling might look like.
What can this court do, Kendall? KENDALL COFFEY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, the court can make history today.
And as we -- we consider whether this is history in making, we're all seeing, in the broad legal spectrum, that recent years have shown that the tide of history is towards steadily increasing and greater recognition of the constitutional rights of gay Americans.
But there is a difference, a distinct feature here in terms of this judge -- judge's approach to the case. He is not simply going to say what he thinks the law should be. He is going to create factual findings. We're going to have an order that goes through witnesses, that goes through evidence, because he had an actual trial of close to two weeks.
And that's very significant, Rick, because so many times, these things are argued based on social policy. They're argued based on legal precedent. And all of that is going to be part of the decision, but this is a judge who has decided, you know, more than just that, I want to see evidence.
Is there in fact a documented, verifiable, evidentiary basis for justifying a law that would -- that clearly creates a separation, creates a differentiation between heterosexual couples and gay couples?
SANCHEZ: But the -- but 52 percent of --
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: But 52 percent of the people in California voted and said they don't think that gays should be allowed to be married, that it should be a union only reserved for a man and a woman. That's what 52 percent of the people of California -- how can the judge come in and say, I'm sorry, majority, you're wrong, and I'm going to go this way?
Just legally, I ask the question, how does -- how does he do that?
COFFEY: It's the essence of having an independent federal judiciary.
If the will of the people violates the constitutional rights of individuals, then that will -- can, in fact -- be overridden, if there is a constitutional violation. To be sure, Rick, as you say, the judge has to take as his starting point the will of the people, and it's presumptively correct.
But that's why he spent two weeks going through evidence. Do the facts, does the evidence show a justification for this form of discrimination? And that's why this is not just an important case. That's why this could be a historic case.
SANCHEZ: A lot of these decisions -- let me bring Gloria Borger into this. A lot of these decisions are driven politically as well. Let's not fool ourselves.
BORGER: Sure.
SANCHEZ: We know that, that there are people out there who will use this as a wedge issue as a way of getting people out to the polls.
Have we seen that type of pressure applied in the decision-making in this case in California with that 52 percent majority?
BORGER: Well -- well, you know, right now, it is in the courtroom.
And you raise a really interesting question that goes to the crux of all of this, Rick, which is a question about, what's the proper role of the courts here, right?
SANCHEZ: Right.
BORGER: And that is, of course, a political issue.
But more than 40 years ago, the court had a famous case called Loving in which it ruled that black people and white people could get married. Before that point, interracial marriage was outlawed. It was -- interracial marriage was more unpopular in the country at the time than same-sex marriage is right now, OK?
And it's pretty unpopular in the country. So, at that point, what the courts did and what Kendall Coffey is talking about, the independent court said, this violates these people's civil rights, a black person, a white person, who wanted to get married.
That is the same kind of decision that they're asking the court to make today. They believe -- these attorneys believe that this is kind of the last civil rights issue of our generation that the court can decide. And they see it as a natural progression from this Loving case on interracial marriage or desegregation, Brown vs. Board of Education.
The question is, is this the role for the courts, given the fact that over 40 states right now outlaw gay marriage; only a handful allow gay marriage? Should it progress through the states, or is this the proper role for the Supreme Court?
SANCHEZ: Gloria Borger --
BORGER: Big question.
SANCHEZ: -- and Kendall Coffey following up on this story for us. As we get information on this case, the moment that we hear that a ruling has been made by the court, we will bring it to you immediately.
Let me show you something else now, another story that so many thousands of you have responded to over the last 24 hours. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We didn't have a master list that we found or anything saying that these were the people that he was going to go after.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Eight people dead after their co-worker literally seemed to hunt them down, chase them down out of the building, in the building, into the parking lot.
And now we're hearing some of the stunning new details about the moments that led up to this mass murder in Connecticut. We're all over that.
Stay right there. We have got all parts of the story covered for you. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Boy, I -- just we -- since we started doing this segment out of California on this decision that's about to come in any moment now from this judge on same-sex marriage, we have been getting a ton of tweets, and not just from you. I have been reading yours, obviously, as I always do. I tweet back to you during commercials, but we are also getting some people who are relevant to this story who are tweeting as well.
Let's go to that, if we possibly can. Over the shoulder we go to the Twitter board. "Court decision on Prop 8 will be announced soon." This is Ellen DeGeneres, "The Ellen Show." "I hope that equality will win today." So says Ellen DeGeneres.
Mike Quigley is a congressman, a representative from Illinois, I believe. He's a Dem. "Hoping that the California courts will strike down Proposition 8 today and side with equality." There you go again.
Here is another one. "Rick Sanchez -- Rick, the question is, does the Constitution state that all people have a fundamental right to marry? I think it does."
And here is another one. Paulino Arias says: "Rick Sanchez, hopefully, equality is enforced by laws, as it is supposed to be for all Americans."
So, there are some of the early tweets that we're getting now as this conversation begins. We are going to be going through this for some time now, until we get the actual ruling. And then we expect, as you can see, we have got reporters lined up, some at the courthouse, some in Los Angeles, where they are expecting some -- some type of demonstrations.
We have got legal experts. We have got the political side covered with none other than Gloria Borger, who is as good as it gets. So, we're -- we're on this for you. And as the information comes in, we will pore over it.
Wyclef Jean, he wants to do more for Haiti than raise earthquake relief money. Now he wants to run for president. This is a trending topic, so we're going to drill down with Brooke Baldwin in just a little bit.
And get this. According to a new CNN poll, one in four Americans thinks the president wasn't born in Hawaii, believes he is not even a citizen of the United States.
Happy birthday, Mr. President.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: You know, I played college football -- ching -- Rick's bingo -- this is before I decided to become a journalist. And while I think I make a better anchor than a linebacker, I don't mind saying I still can throw down a pretty mean tackle. Just ask my daughter.
Apparently, so can these next guys.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: Time for "Fotos."
ANNOUNCER: Aye dios mio.
SANCHEZ: Another entry -- another early morning at the local pharmacy in Pensacola, Florida, until an armed robber tries to make a downfield run with a bag of prescription drugs. He might have gotten away with it as well, if not for this textbook takedown by two of the store's employees.
That's right. Somebody give those guys a scholarship.
That's no lava lamp by the way. We told you yesterday about an explosion that scientists observed on the surface of the sun. Well, that solar activity resulted in some wild light shows across the Northern Hemisphere. Did you see any of this stuff, folks? Check out the time-lapsed iReport of the Northern Lights from Denmark, an amazing solar effect and one you don't generally see so far south.
Keep your eyes on the sky tonight as well. If you live in the Northern United States, you might be able to see it for yourselves. And, if you do catch a glimpse, send us an iReport.
Speaking of northern climes, check out this find from beneath the Arctic Ocean. Canadian archaeologists are three sheets to the wind over the discovery of 19th century ship. What is it? The HMS Investigator abandoned to the ice in 1853 -- that's 156 years ago -- after heavy ice trapped the crew during an attempt to cross the Northwest Passage. The men were stuck there for two years, before their eventual rescue.
The boat was left behind and thought lost forever, until now.
You can see that and all of our "Fotos Del Dia" on my blog at CNN.com/ricksanchez.
ANNOUNCER: Aye dios mio.
SANCHEZ: Have you heard what White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen said about players, Hispanic players, and how some are getting special treatment over others? Wow.
Is he right or is he wrong? What do you say we talk about that? We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Brooke Baldwin follows those things that are trending.
Our show, RICK'S LIST, is trending today?
BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So we have a couple stories. But, yes, the first story is, I wanted to give a little shout-out to our fantastic director Roger for coming up with this brilliant idea to have a Rick Sanchez bingo, because it's kind of been on the down-low, like our little crew plays little games.
SANCHEZ: I didn't know about this. So you were talking behind my back.
BALDWIN: And then we have the Sanchezisms. Of course, daily. So now we're making this public.
So, if you want to go to your blog, CNN.com/ricksanchez, everybody can play along.
SANCHEZ: So these are the things that I say, and you have a shot every time you hear me say it?
BALDWIN: This one is my favorite. Can you say that one?
SANCHEZ: Down goes Frazier!
I was a beat reporter in Miami. My old pal Roland Martin -- Rog, can you get a shot of that?
BALDWIN: We're having a little fun.
SANCHEZ: Hey, Chad, are you there?
BALDWIN: We like having a little fun on this show.
SANCHEZ: All right.
BALDWIN: Anyhow, so the next story -- remember how you were -- we were really ahead of the curve on that "TIME" magazine story. I mean, incredible story.
If you haven't read this, it's the cover story of "TIME" magazine with the young woman on the cover, the Afghan girl.
SANCHEZ: And it goes to the heart of the Afghanistan War.
BALDWIN: It totally does on so many levels.
Well, encouraging news for this young woman. There she is on the cover of the magazine. And remember you talked to the editor, talked about it was a difficult decision to make --
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: This is how they treat women. I mean, she had her nose ripped off.
BALDWIN: Her nose sliced off, her ears sliced off. That's basically the story.
It happened last year. She was 18 years of age.
Who sliced that off? It was her husband, because she claims -- she was living with her husband, her in-laws, and she was claiming that they basically treated her as a slave. And so as punishment, because she tried to run away, as punishment the Taliban made the husband do this to her.
So she was left in the mountains to die. She survived. She made it to a women's shelter in Kabul, and that is where she shared this story with -- you see Atia on the left, our CNN correspondent, Atia Abawi, who spoke with her. And Atia translated.
But listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ATIA ABAWI, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): "When they cut off my nose and ears, I passed out," Aisha says. "In the middle of the night it felt like there was cold water in my nose. I opened my eyes and I couldn't even see because of all the blood."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: So the encouraging news we're thrilled to report, that thanks to an NGO, Women for Afghan Women, and the Grossman Burn Center out of Los Angeles, Aisha is on her way to the states for surgery, for reconstructive facial surgery right now.
And I read Atia's blog, which is fantastic. I tweeted it if you want to read. And she asked if she had ever been to the states, and, of course, "Are you excited to come to Los Angeles?" And Aisha just sort of silently nodded and smiled. So, yes.
SANCHEZ: Well, the problem is she is not the only one.
BALDWIN: No.
SANCHEZ: There is a history of that going on with the Taliban, and the fear is we leave, it continues. And it's important part of the conversation that Americans need to have.
BALDWIN: She was brave enough to allow "TIME" magazine to photograph her.
SANCHEZ: Well, good for her. Beautiful woman, by the way.
BALDWIN: Absolutely. Nineteen. The woman is 19.
The second story, Wyclef Jean, a Haitian native, moved to Newark, New Jersey, I think, when he was just 9 years of age, became a famous Fugee. So we did a little digging here, and we went back to 2006, and he actually sang this song, "If I Were President."
Foreshadowing? Perhaps.
And now he sings his song, he talks about, you know --
SANCHEZ: Which we don't have.
(LAUGHTER):
BALDWIN: Which we don't have. And I'm not going to sing it for you.
But he's not just singing about running for president. We're hearing -- stop laughing -- he plans to do it in Haiti. And where has he chosen to make this big announcement, this announcement official? Tomorrow night on "LARRY KING LIVE."
SANCHEZ: You what I always like? I always like when I get to watch people deal with what I have to deal with all the time. Here you are -- look at this unbelievable thing we found.
BALDWIN: Oh, wait for it. Wait for it.
SANCHEZ: This is Wyclef Jean, and this is where he sings about -- then I hear what you don't hear at home. This is Roger our director saying, "We ain't got it."
BALDWIN: But the point is he sang about running for president four years ago. And voila. He plans to announce that tomorrow.
SANCHEZ: You covered well.
BALDWIN: Thanks, man. I try.
SANCHEZ: Come back, will you?
BALDWIN: Maybe.
SANCHEZ: Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: There's thousands of people coming across the border to have their children in American hospitals illegally.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Senator Lindsey Graham is among several Republicans looking to actually overturn the 14th Amendment of the United States of America. Change the Constitution.
This is a dramatic suggestion, but it's not enough, because there's outrage against him politically. And now there's outrage against just the suggestion.
It's a new angle in the immigration debate, and it's ahead. And that's next on THE LIST.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: All right. First things first. You're probably going to want to hear this news.
Have we got a shot, Roger, of the static kill?
There it is.
Is that it right there? We've got it up? Is that what it looks like?
There it is, folks. That's static kill.
And here's the good news. Finally, after I believe what, 107 days -- is that right? One hundred and seven days. Wow, I got the numbers right.
After 107 days, I can definitively declare, at least according to BP, the seal is complete. The oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico is gone. History.
It worked. Now they just have to continue the operation and do the secondary leak, which is the one they do underground. This one is called static kill. That's called -- the relief well is called what?
Let me ask David Mattingly. He's standing by.
What's the second one called, David? I've always got to forget something here.
DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Bottom kill.
SANCHEZ: Bottom kill! There you go. Ding, ding, ding.
MATTINGLY: Right.
SANCHEZ: All right. So, it's working, David. But here's what I want to know from you -- because now we go on to the really most important question -- how much oil is out there? How much damage was done? What are they going to clean up what's left of it? Where are we going to see it?
I mean, go through this, because I understand today that the White House set up a meeting that you were privy to where they answered some of these questions.
So, share, my friend.
MATTINGLY: Right. OK. A lot of big questions you just tossed out there.
Remember, this was a huge oil spill, 4.9 million barrels of oil gushed into the Gulf of Mexico. It's hard still -- even at this point, it's hard to wrap your mind around that much oil. But what we're finding out today -- and we'll walk you through this -- this is from NOAA.
They went through and did a very detailed study of, where is the oil going? Where has it gone? And this is what they came up with.
First of all, 25 percent of this oil they're finding out actually was recovered. That was easy to count. That stuff that they were able to take up through the hoses and to the ships and skim and things like that. Another thing was 25 percent of it was something that depleted, was something that naturally biodegraded.
SANCHEZ: Hey, Mr. Mattingly.
MATTINGLY: Yes?
SANCHEZ: I'm going to interrupt you for just a moment.
We've got breaking news out of California. Apparently, this decision has been overturned by a federal court. The decision has been overturned is the preliminary information that I'm getting.
I'm going on my computer now. I'm being told frantically by my producers it should be there.
In the meantime, let's go to Dan Simon. He's outside the courthouse.
Dan, do some reporting for us.
DAN SIMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Rick, I'm told by a CNN producer who's upstairs in the clerk's office here at the federal district courthouse that Proposition 8 has been found to be unconstitutional, meaning that Proposition 8 is effectively overturned.
What that means in the short term we don't really know. We don't know if it means that suddenly, same-sex couples can resume getting married in the state of California. We still need to look at the documents to figure out how it immediately affects same-sex couples here in the state of California. But this is a hugely -- this is a huge victory for same-sex marriage supporters, a huge victory for everyone who wanted to see Proposition 8 overturned.
As we've been reporting from the very beginning, this is just one stop in a very long legal highway, if you will. Ultimately, this is going to be appealed. But in the meantime, this is exactly what same- sex supporters wanted. They wanted to get a victory here in federal district court, and apparently they got one, according to our producer who is looking at the documents right now on the 18th floor of the courthouse.
He's going to run those documents down, and we hope to read them for you on the air -- Rick.
SANCHEZ: Yes. As a matter of fact, here is what I'm hearing. While you were doing that report, I was just hearing from my producer Andreas (ph), who told me that it's not on the Web, as we expected, that the information is in document form.
And they gave it to some of the producers that we have inside the building behind where Dan is right now. A lot of reaction is going to be coming in on this.
Let me just set this up for you guys at home. OK?
It's a very, very important decision that has just been reached that will likely have repercussions throughout the United States and may be going all the way past this court, possibly to as far as the Supreme Court. Why? Because this thing has been long in coming.
The last part in this -- the last step in this process prior to today was when 52 percent of the people living in California -- that doesn't mean all of the people in California, as many of you have reminded me on Twitter, but 52 percent in this referendum decided that same-sex marriage was not legal, that it should only be between a man and a woman. Since then, it's been challenged again and again, and it finally got to this federal level with this court. And now this judge has come back and said, sorry, you can't make a decision that seems to disallow this type of marriage.
Folks are saying -- and I'm hearing you on Twitter, thousands of you, including people like Ellen DeGeneres saying, look, this is about equality. That's what this is. This is about equality.
You'll hear that argument again and again. Some folks on the other side are saying, no, we are against this proposition.
It's been called Prop 8. You've been hearing a lot about it.
Let me go back to Dan Simon. Let me ask my producers while we're doing that if we can hook up once again. Let's see if we can get Gloria Borger back on. Let's see if we can get Kendall Coffey back on.
Gloria Borger is back with us as well. Gloria, if you're there, just your preliminary reaction to this decision?
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. Well, when I see that the judge ruled that Prop 8 is unconstitutional under both the due process and equal protection clauses, that is exactly what Ted Olson and David Boies wanted to hear, because they argued this specifically on the grounds that Proposition 8 violated the equal protection clause in the way that segregation violated civil rights, in the same way that laws against interracial marriage violated civil rights.
So, I would say that this is exactly what they want to hear, and that of course this will be appealed to the 9th Circuit. But I think you'd have to say that this is a large victory for Ted Olson and David Boies.
SANCHEZ: Ted Rowlands is standing by now. He's in Los Angeles. He's going to be monitoring some of the reaction that's going to likely pour out into the streets throughout the course of the next several hours.
I imagine that there are going to be some people there who are going to be celebrating tonight, Ted.
TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely, Rick. And it's funny, the way this is just now starting to trickle because of CNN's reporting.
We sort of announced it. People had been monitoring their BlackBerrys throughout West Hollywood here. We're at The Abbey, which is an institution, a gay bar that's been around for 20 years, and people here are just starting to get the word.
Your initial reaction? We were talking earlier about this whole thing. And now that it's come down, what do you think?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's excellent. It's an overruling of an overruling. It's back to where the law should be.
I think it's a gay issue, and I know everyone in this country can vote, but I think it's a gay issue. And I think that heterosexual people should defer to the homosexual population and say, what do you guys want to do? And that's what we want to do, so --
ROWLANDS: All right. Well, I don't know that that will ever happen, but everybody will have a vote.
These folks have just found out the news as well.
You're from San Francisco. Your thoughts?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's great. You know, the more we can do to get marriage recognized legally, equality, the more we can do for equality on a legal level, on a federal level. It's great. So as this goes forward, I hope it just gets better. ROWLANDS: A lot of same-sex couples, obviously, in this area of Los Angeles, Rick, and so there's a lot of interest in this area.
Your thoughts?
A lot of people have been talking, a lot of people were very pessimistic, Rick, before we got this decision.
But, boy, at this time it looks like the federal courts at least agree with the idea of same-sex marriage, or at least agree that it should not be banned by the state of California.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right. No. It's huge. I'm super-excited. It's a step in the right direction.
We just need to keep moving forward with it. I mean, it shouldn't even be an issue, and the fact we have to have these conversations are sad, but this is really great news.
ROWLANDS: All right.
Initial reaction, Rick. It's a bit tempered, as we talked about before. Everybody is well aware of the fact that this is the first step in a long process, likely going to the Supreme Court. But you can bet there will be a lot of celebrating here in this area, at least tonight as word travels.
SANCHEZ: Ted, just wondering, where are you? I mean, I don't mean specifically block by block. But what part of L.A. are you in that would garner that kind of reaction?
ROWLANDS: We're in West Hollywood, yes.
SANCHEZ: West Hollywood. OK.
ROWLANDS: West Hollywood. And specifically, we're at The Abbey, which is -- their slogan is "Twenty years and still raising the gay bar."
(LAUGHTER)
ROWLANDS: So this is an institution here in West Hollywood, and obviously a lot of opinions on one side.
SANCHEZ: No, we get that. And that's why let's just be real transparent about it.
Where are the 52 percent who voted against what this judge has ruled today? I imagine they're just -- you know the state. You cover it every day.
Are they just in different parts? Is it more of a suburban opinion? How is this usually broken down?
ROWLANDS: Well, you know, historically, the right is more in Orange County and in southern California. And then throughout the state, you know, California, if you drive a hundred miles either way, you're going to be in a vastly different area. And the pockets -- I mean, you could walk a few streets away from here and a few miles and head towards Beverly Hills, and you may have a little bit different opinion.
Fifty-two percent to 48 was the vote on Prop 8. The latest polls show it's closer to almost 50/50, maybe even leaning toward same sex. So it's a very divisive and very close issue here.
A lot of people are going to be pleased here. A lot of other people are going to be very bitter and disappointed by this decision as well, and are at this moment as this news travels.
SANCHEZ: Interesting. Good stuff there, Ted. Way to hustle and get some reaction to this here for us on RICK'S LIST.
OK. So the decision is essentially the overturning of this referendum that had been passed in California.
Let's go to Kendall Coffey now. He is apparently back on the horn with us.
Kendall, I haven't seen the document myself, so our reporting is based on secondary and tertiary sources that have seen the document. CNN producers have, apparently, upstairs in the building.
Have you seen the actual filing yet?
KENDALL COFFEY, FMR. U.S. ATTORNEY: Haven't seen it. But you know, Rick, as you talked about throughout the show, this is just the first document.
The appeals court will have its own way of describing its solution, its answer to the questions. And at the end of the day, if this gets to the Supreme Court, they have already decided a couple cases that are going to bear heavily on this, one of which overturned a Colorado Amendment Number 2 which banned -- which basically provided for anti-gay discrimination, public employment, things like that. Not treating the subject of marriage. Another case that supported allowing the Boy Scouts to exclude gays.
Two big Supreme Court cases. However this one is written, if the Supremes get it, it's going to talk about the Colorado case and the New Jersey case with the Boy Scouts. And don't be surprised if Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the Colorado opinion, which found an equal protection violation with respect to an anti-gay Amendment Number 2 in Colorado, don't be surprised if he ends up being the deciding justice if it gets to the Supremes.
SANCHEZ: Let me clear a couple of things up. And I want to get to the question of application with you in just a moment.
But first of all, just to back up what I said a little while ago, when I said that we have secondary and tertiary confirmation of this story, what I meant to say was -- and I may have misspoken, I could have been a little more artful -- our producers are inside that building. They have seen the document themselves.
So it's not a source that told our producers. They've actually seen it.
We haven't just been able yet to get the actual document down in Dan Simon's hands so he can read it to us. And as soon as he gets it, then we'll turn that around for you. Just wanted to be very clear and very transparent.
Now to the question of application -- and let me bring you back into this, Kendall -- does this decision today effectively change the way things are done vis-a-vis marriage in the state of California? Does it mean that tomorrow, a man and a man can get married or a woman and a woman can get married, or not?
COFFEY: I assume it will. We haven't seen it, you haven't seen it. Your producers probably haven't had time to digest it even.
But this judge certainly has the power to make that order effective immediately. And depending upon what the reaction of those supporting the amendment is, it could be emergency appeals.
Remember what we saw last week with respect to Arizona, Rick. A decision comes down striking down a measure in Arizona with plenty of public support. That one is off to the races in the Ninth Circuit. This one may very well follow a similar path, a similar track, seeking a (INAUDIBLE) review perhaps at the federal appeals court level, perhaps beyond that.
SANCHEZ: Hey, Kendall, we have got somebody on the line now who you're very familiar with, and I'm sure you've very familiar with his work. He has been a frequent guest here on CNN. You've seen him as well and seen much of his writing.
Erwin Cherminsky is one of the nation's most renowned constitutional lawyers. He is the dean of the U.C. Irvine School of Law, constitutional attorney, doctor of law.
He joins us from Irvine, California, now by phone.
Doctor, how important is this decision from a constitutional standpoint? And you know these courts. Was your expectation that this court would rule that way?
ERWIN CHERMINSKY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER: It's very important because it's the first court that's found that the prohibition on same-sex marriage violates the United States Constitution. The prior decisions in Massachusetts, Iowa, even California, all found that the prohibition on same-sex marriage violated the state constitution.
The fact that this is about the U.S. Constitution means it's now reviewed by the United States Supreme Court. And I think everyone predicted that this was going to be the outcome. All who followed the trial in San Francisco thought that it was pretty clear the judge was going to come to this conclusion.
SANCHEZ: Why is that?
CHERMINSKY: I think the judge's questions and closing argument indicated that he just wasn't persuaded by the arguments on the other side. Or to put it another way, in order for him to uphold this, he would have to find that there is some legitimate government interest in keeping gays and lesbians from being able to marry. And I don't think he ever found supporters of Prop 8 were able to articulate a persuasive, legitimate interest.
SANCHEZ: How is this decision going to be similar to the civil rights decisions that we dealt with in our nation's history, questions about equality for women, the right to vote, civil rights during the 1960s, emancipation, going down the list?
Will this reach that threshold, Doctor?
CHERMINSKY: The difference is this is a federal district court. The decisions you were alluding to were the United States Supreme Court decisions.
There is still a long way before this case gets to the Supreme Court. And it's of course uncertain what the Supreme Court will do with it once it's there.
SANCHEZ: Is there any question in your mind that this case is headed with a bullet right to the Supreme Court, as they say in the music industry?
CHERMINSKY: It's headed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. And then what happens after that is going to depend on many things.
A few weeks ago, a federal district court in Massachusetts struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. That could make it first to the Supreme Court, and that could be the place where the Supreme Court rules on this issue.
Also, if the Ninth Circuit were to reverse the district court, were to uphold Prop 8, maybe the Supreme Court wouldn't take it. So the bullet is going to be to the Ninth Circuit. After that it's still too soon to say.
SANCHEZ: Is this a question -- as I'm hearing here, I'm reading people who are madly sending me tweet after tweet, people on one side of this issue that are using one word, and one word an awful lot, and that is "equality." They say this is a question of equality, equality, equality.
Did that word, did that conversation come up during the dicta that's been released or that you've seen from the court?
CHERMINSKY: I'm at the disadvantage that the decision has not been publicly released yet. We know that the judge has announced it in the courtroom, and that's what we're relying on. I have not read the decision, but I can tell you that the lawyers who were challenging Prop 8 emphasized equality, that gays and lesbians should have marriage equality just like heterosexuals have always had.
SANCHEZ: Hey, you live in California. How big an issue is this, Doctor? Is this a top of mind issue for Californians?
CHERMINSKY: It depends on how you define "big an issue." If you talk about the emotion surrounding it, it's an enormous issue. If you talk about most people in their day-to-day lives, well, actually, it's only for the gays and lesbians who will be able to marry, that this affects their day-to-day lives. For everybody else, the economy, the state budget, that has much more of an effect on our day-to-day lives.
SANCHEZ: That's interesting.
Let's go back to Kendall Coffey, who is joining us as well.
As we look at this decision, Kendall, you heard what Erwin Cherminsky said just moments ago, and that is that there is no question this thing is going to be challenged and we're going to see this process through.
Is there any sense from either of you gentlemen -- Kendall, I'll start with you -- what the timetable is going to be on this thing? When will we get to the point where we have some kind of resolution, if at all?
COFFEY: It's unlikely to be weeks, months. Probably years.
Just one example. The Colorado case I mentioned, Rick, that took about three years to get from the trial court's rejection of the constitutionality of the Colorado referendum amendment to a decision by the Supreme Court. It could be longer, it could be shorter, but that's one sampling.
SANCHEZ: This just in. We told you a lot about the tweets that have been coming in. And one other person who has been tweeting somewhat prolifically on this is Ellen DeGeneres.
We shared one of hers just a little while ago. And here's another one. She is reacting now to this decision.
"This just in: Equality won." This is "The Ellen Show," Ellen DeGeneres' tweet, right here, live on RICK'S LIST, following up to the one we showed you just a little while ago.
We have got some folks coming into our studio now.
We want to welcome you all. Thanks so much for being with us. We appreciate you being here.
Back to the good professor, dean of the law school there in Irvine, California, Erwin Cherminsky.
I asked the question about what the length would be in this process. How long is it going to take for this decision to filter through the courts?
What is your best guess?
CHERMINSKY: I think it's at least a couple of years before it would get to the United States Supreme Court. My guess is it's going to take about a year for the Ninth Circuit.
But one thing we have to focus on that we haven't yet heard, has the judge enjoined Proposition 8 so that gay and lesbian couples can immediately get married pending review in the Ninth Circuit? That's a crucial issue, and since we haven't read the decision we don't know the answer to it.
SANCHEZ: And by enjoined you mean stop?
CHERMINSKY: Exactly. The question is, if the judge has declared it unconstitutional, is he going to say that gay and lesbian couples can get married immediately, or is he going to ask for additional briefing on that? Or is he going to wait to rule on that pending going to the Ninth Circuit?
And I think that's what we really next need to find out. And the answer to that could influence the timing with regard to the appellate review.
SANCHEZ: That's a heck of a decision, I'm telling you. We've been following it.
My thanks to all of our guests, including Erwin Cherminsky and Kendall Coffey, our correspondents who were right there on the spot.
Throughout the evening we're going to be getting reaction on this story. Tonight on "RICK'S LIST PRIME TIME," at 8:00, we're also going to be drilling down on this story for you.
In the meantime, my thanks to you for being with us.
Here is Wolf Blitzer now in "THE SITUATION ROOM."
