Return to Transcripts main page
Rick's List
Judge Lifts Stay on Same-Sex Marriages/Serial Slasher Suspect Arrested/AZ's AG Blames Governor for Prison Escapes; Arizona Prison Escape; Judge Lifts Stay on Marriages; Defending Sarah Palin
Aired August 12, 2010 - 15:59 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Hey, welcome back.
As we file through this information that we're getting for you, some of which is contained in these documents that I have right here, a judge has essentially said that same-sex marriage can in fact continue in California.
The latest news on this stay, we've got reaction there on the ground in California. We've got Dan Simon standing by. He's got some people he's rustled up. They're going to be -- we're going to be hearing from them. We've got Dan (SIC) Toobin with legal analysis.
And there's another part of this story that we're finally nailing down now as to why it is exactly that this judge has made this ruling. It's contained within the document. I'm going to read that to you in just a moment.
Stay right there. Here is what we've got on tap for you. Here's what's making "The List" today. Why Sarah Palin must be defended, and I will.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A person of interest was taken into custody.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Police chase down a man about to board a plane. Is he the slasher serial killer? And why was he trying to go to Israel?
This suspected killer has still not been caught, and Arizona, Governor Jan Brewer is being blamed for his escape. Who is blaming her? Her own attorney general, that's who.
Have you seen the surfer's great white video? It's a talker.
And so is this. Go, Charlie. Go, Charlie. Go, Charlie. Can he dance his troubles away? The lists you need to know about. Who is today's "Most Intriguing"? Who has landed on "The List You Don't Want to Be On"? Who is making news on Twitter? It's why I keep a list. Pioneering tomorrow's cutting-edge news right now.
Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez. The decision is in. The judge has decided that same-sex marriage in California will resume as of next Wednesday -- not today, but next Wednesday. That's the ruling of a judge in California, and we are getting a lot of reaction on this ruling as we move forward here on RICK'S LIST.
First of all, to the attorney general, Jerry Brown. Here we go. A step in the right direction. He tweets equality, quote, "is the soul of liberty. There is, in fact, no liberty without it." In quotations, he's quoting Frances Wright. That, of course, is Jerry Brown with this tweet that just came in three minutes ago.
Dan Simon is standing by now there in Los Angeles (SIC) where a lot of folks, I imagine, are celebrating over the judge's decision, Dan?
DAN SIMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Mainly celebration, Rick. We are here at city hall in San Francisco, about a block away from the courthouse where the ruling just came down. We have two people here with me, as you can see. This is Jennifer (ph) right here and Victor (ph) on the other side, and they have opposite positions on -- on this issue of same-sex marriage.
We're going to start here with Jennifer. You moved to California a year ago from Georgia.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I moved from D.C., actually.
SIMON: From D.C. And you have a partner. You're not ready to get married. Just briefly explain to me your reaction when the ruling came down.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it's great. I think it's great we're moving forward on this, and I think it's unfortunate that there is the stay until August 18th, that every time we are in the mode to celebrate and poised to get married, you know, there's always a slight setback, a slight bit of bitterness in that. But I think the ruling is great and I think it's great that we're talking about this and engaging on this issue.
SIMON: Proposition 8, November 2008, is when this went into effect. Fifty-two percent of Californians said there should be no same-sex marriage. Now, that's a lot of people. Seven million people cast their ballot. Why are they wrong?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, they're wrong because, you know, as al lot of people have said, it's not the type of issue that should be voted on in the first place. I think it's very sad that there -- that 52 percent of Californians, and maybe more than that across this country, have those views. But I also think it has no bearing on whether or not I or, you know, other gay people, or anyone for that matter, should be able to get married. I think that it's, as the judge ruled, irrelevant in large part, because, you know, it's not the type of issue that should be put to a vote.
SIMON: All right, Jennifer, thanks very much. That's Jennifer's point of view. Let's now talk to Victor. As you can see here, he's wearing a "Yes on 8" sign, also holding up a rather large sign here, "California, where votes don't count." That's what he's holding up. Victor, why are you so passionate about this issue?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: First of all, I want to show the back. This is the number one reason.
SIMON: "Judge mocks God," is what his sign says.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What's really at stake here is that God's law is trampled on their feet by this person who is not even elected by the people of California. And I think this is scary, given my background from former Soviet country, Ukraine, because I thought America is a free country ruled by the people.
SIMON: Well, but here you have a judge who looked at evidence on both sides. He determined that Prop 8 violates the Constitution, that -- - you know, among some of the things he said, heterosexual couples, you know, gay couples can be just as good as parents as heterosexual couples. How do you square those arguments?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All these arguments don't matter in face of God's -- God's holy standard. God said it, decreed it from the very beginning that a man and a woman coming together is marriage. And in face of God, there's no -- there's no people -- arguments that can be made against it.
SIMON: Thank you very much, Victor. And what he's saying, Rick, is really what you hear from Prop 8 supporters everywhere you go, that they look at this as a religious issue, that from their point of view, the Bible does not condone same-sex marriage. And you know, when you talk to them, they say, Look, 52 percent of the people in California voted for Prop 8, that in this particular instance, popular vote should rule. But obviously, the judge has another opinion on that.
And we'll be standing by, bringing you some other voices. But again, this is the scene here at city hall, where a lot of people were hoping to actually get married this afternoon. They will be lining up inside, trying to get a marriage license. Now they are told that they won't be able to do so until August 18th, it is. And so we'll be back there -- back here on the 18th and watching this all unfold. But in the meantime, a significant victory for same-sex marriage supporters -- Rick?
SANCHEZ: All right. Thanks so much, Dan. We appreciate that.
Let's talk now about this thing moving forward because you start to look at some of these rulings to see if there's any indication of what's going to happen next. We've all talked about this thing possibly ending up in the Supreme Court. Jeffrey Toobin is standing by now. He's going to bring us up to date on his sense of this -- of what this ruling means.
Now, one of our colleagues, a friend of mine and yours, David Vigilante (ph), and I -- I just was on the phone with him, and he's been sending me some e-mails and he directed me to some interesting information. He says, "It looks to me the judge seems to be saying that one reason for denying the stay is that he doubts they will even have a standing to appeal unless the government of California appeals."
So I got David on the phone, Toobs, and I asked him, Well, tell me where because I haven't -- I haven't had a chance to read the entire ruling yet because we've been involved in all these conversations. So let me read to you from page 5. You cool with that?
It says "Proponents' intervention" -- this is the judge. "Proponents' intervention in the district court does not provide them withstanding to appeal." And then he goes on to list some cases, which gets a little too boring for our viewers, so I'll skip to the bottom, where he finishes by saying this. "The Supreme Court has expressed grave doubts whether initiative proponents have independent Article 3 standing to defend the constitutionality of the initiative." And then he -- he states a case, Arizonans for Official English (INAUDIBLE) 67.
Is David right? Is that what he's saying there, that he doesn't think that this thing can be appealed further down from a federal standpoint?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I -- I think the interesting point that David is addressing here is the peculiar situation of the politics in California. When you sue to have a -- when a plaintiff sues to have an act of the government of California overturned, the defendant is the governor or the attorney general. But the governor here, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the attorney general here, Jerry Brown, are on the plaintiffs' side. They're saying, We agree with you. We think Prop 8 is unconstitutional.
So you have a situation here where the plaintiff and the defendant agree, and the only people who disagree, the only people who say that Prop 8 is constitutional, are what's called the interveners, this group that were the advocates who supported Proposition 8. So the legal situation is a little bit unusual procedurally in that respect.
Frankly, in one respect, I disagree with David in that courts usually get around these procedural barriers. They figure out a way to reach the merits of cases. I think the 9th circuit court of appeals is going to say Prop 8 is constitutional or unconstitutional. I doubt the case will go off on the standing issue and say that, Well, you know, they don't even have the right to bring the case, so we're not going to reach the issue of whether it's constitutional.
But certainly, that was a factor that Judge Walker today cited in his decision not to grant -- not to grant a stay, that maybe procedurally, this case can't go forward any further.
SANCHEZ: Well, that's interesting. One of the reasons I raise that, of course, is you and I have been covering this story now for the better part of a couple of weeks, and I remember we had conversations with people on the right who are convinced, I mean, they would swear this thing is headed right to the Supreme Court, and they're confident they're going to win this thing. I think what I'm hearing you say is that's not a certainty. TOOBIN: It's not a certainty, but we're not even there yet because the 9th circuit has to get involved first. And you know, the 9th circuit is a funny court. It has the reputation of being the most liberal of the circuit courts of appeals.
SANCHEZ: Right.
TOOBIN: And there's some truth in that. But there are also some very conservative judges, and through the luck of the draw -- there are three judges picked for every case, and depending on which three judges you get, you never know what the panel is going to look like. So we will know a lot about how the 9th circuit decision will come out once we know the identity of the three judges who are going to get it. And I -- we should know that probably in the next day or two.
SANCHEZ: Thanks so much for clearing that up. Jeff Toobin, following the story for us and giving us his insight on exactly where this thing might be headed. We're going to continue with our news here in just a moment.
Did you hear about the serial killer who stabs his victims? He's got people scared to go outside in as many as three different states. Now the feds are saying they think they've got their guy. But if so, why was he trying to get on a flight to get away to Israel, no less? And how do they know that he could be the guy for sure?
Andy Hill (ph) is going to join me in just a little bit. He's our law enforcement expert from Phoenix, Arizona. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. As we move forward, time now to pick up the pace of today's lists, and starting right at number one is the crime list. Have you heard about this story today? It's a big break in the case that's had three cities on edge, the arrest of a man suspected of being the slasher serial killer who has attacked 20 people already in three different states. He's killed five people.
The suspect's name is Elias Abuelazam. This is his mug shot. See him right there? He's 33 years old, and he's worked at a party store just outside of Flint, Michigan, where most of the attacks had taken place. He was arrested overnight at the airport in Atlanta's Hartsfield, where he was about to board a flight to go to Israel, where his family apparently lives.
Prosecutors say tips from the public led them to Abuelazam. And get this. They could have gotten him sooner. He was pulled over for a traffic violation in Arlington, Virginia, last week. In fact, here, listen to part of that story.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When stopped, police learned he had an outstanding warrant for a prior assault. He was taken into custody and the vehicle he was driving was impounded at that time. That vehicle was a 1996 Chevrolet Blazer, green over gold. Inside the car, police found a knife in the driver's side door and a hammer on the passenger rear floor.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: A knife and a hammer.
Andy Hill is a retired Phoenix police sergeant. Should we be struck by the fact that he was picked up once before but they let him go, or is that just one of those things that happens in police work, where you just don't have the goods on everybody all the time?
SGT. ANDY HILL, PHOENIX POLICE (RET.): Yes. You might have a situation where they had an idea who he might be, based on a tip, but with no probable cause, you can't make an arrest. They may have been following him around, used an opportunity to go ahead and stop him. Maybe they were able to seize some evidence, and then they processing it in the hope that they would develop that probable cause through forensic evidence.
SANCHEZ: This is a hell of a case, isn't it? I mean, this guy has stabbed 20 people. He's killed five of them. He comes up and talks to them really nicely, apparently, to the point where he wins their trust. Almost all of his victims have been slight to smallish African-American men. I mean, this is a serial killer, but not the type of serial killer we're used to hearing about.
HILL: Well, Rick, with every serial killer, they're going to develop an M.O., something that they become familiar with, a particular type of victim that they go after. So in a sense, when you look at the overall view of a serial killer, they do develop an M.O. And then, of course, they're going to go after that type of M.O. repeatedly because it continually fulfills their desire to have that violence.
SANCHEZ: But why violence with somebody of a particular race, for example? Unless, of course, this is really a slash-hate crime, where -- pardon the pun with the word slash -- didn't even mean to do that. But he's killing black people. Does that make him a racist?
HILL: Well, of course, it would, if that was one of his motives. Right now, what they probably have to do now immediately is figure out and develop the probable cause that enables them to hold him as a suspect forensically.
Then when you have hundreds of people working on the case like you have here, you have to make sure that you have the right person in custody. You have to follow up on all those other thousands of tips and leads, look for other cases and make sure you're not missing another suspect or an accomplice or somebody that may have been helping this suspect. And as you slowly put all those pieces together with the prosecutors, you develop a picture, but you want to make sure that you don't leave anything out of that photo.
SANCHEZ: What's to be made of the fact that he was trying to get on a plane to go to another country, no less Israel, the Middle East? HILL: Well, I think he knew he was about to -- I would suspect, not knowing that when he was stopped and they took that information in his vehicle from him, he knew that -- you know, that it was about up for him and he was going to try to get away. So he probably went to a city where he thought he might be able to get on a flight and go to his family, like many suspects do. Like, when you saw those escapees in Arizona, the first place one of -- they went was to a family member in northern Arizona. That's not atypical if somebody has a family to go to. It probably wouldn't have helped in the long run. He eventually would have been extradited back to the United States, but he tried to get away.
SANCHEZ: When you look at the -- yes, and I see what you're saying. I mean, it's no different than he was going to Pittsburgh, PA, or anywhere else. It just so happened that his family lived in Tel Aviv, so he was going to try and get back to Tel Aviv. Although it's not every day that you hear somebody's trying to -- who's a serial killer in the United States and is trying to get back to Israel.
When you look at the totality of this case so far, does he -- does it fit the -- I mean, you and I used to be working on a serial killer case in Phoenix. When was that? When was that, Andy? That was about two-and-a-half, three years ago?
HILL: That was 2005, 2006, almost five years.
SANCHEZ: Five years.
HILL: And that case -- one of those cases has still not come to trial for the homicides. It probably will next year. So those investigators are looking on -- about a case that's going to take up a good portion of their lives over the next five to ten years.
SANCHEZ: Well, that's what I mean. When I talk to a guy like you, a guy who I know has had a lot of experience covering these types of cases, does this look to you like the pattern of serial killing cases that you've followed in the past, or does this one look a little different? Or are they all different?
HILL: No, it's a good point. Every serial killer case is different. I mean, it all depends upon that person and what they are after. Sometimes there's a lot of similarities. But in this particular case, he was a violent offender. For whatever reason, he liked to use a knife or a hammer, didn't use a gun, apparently.
But I think it's very important to note that the violence level is still the same. And what you do have more than anything else are victims and many victims and their families that have to live with this for the rest of their lives. So this is -- it's very typical of a serial killer case to inflict a lot of damage and then to try to get away and be avoided -- avoid the prosecution.
SANCHEZ: Andy Hill, law enforcement expert, thank you so much for joining us and taking us through this once again, from Phoenix, Arizona. More on Proposition 8 when we come back. Stay with us. The story is continuing to develop.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Once again, a lot of folks are reacting to what's going on right now in California, the decision by the judge that, in fact, same-sex marriages are legal. And the ban that was previously ruled on, or the amendment that was passed which involved the ban on same- sex marriage, will be lifted. But it won't happen today, even though the ruling came in today. He's not going to make it effective until next Wednesday.
So a lot of folks who are pertinent to this story are tweeting. Among those, Ellen. Let's go to the Tweeter board, if we possibly can. There it is. From "The Ellen Show." "Big news," says Ellen, "the California stay on same-sex marriage is lifted. Marriages begin again next Wednesday. Another step in the right direction."
And here's another tweet. This one's from Star Jones. She says, "Defense lawyers in the gay marriage case argued to, quote, `safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible child bearing.'" She goes on to write, "This is a joke, right, that with the number of heterosexual out-of-wedlock births and deadbeat dads, they make that claim?" Well, there we have it, Star Jones and Ellen both tweeting in this case.
Here's what else we've got coming your way. How would you answer this question? Should babies born in the United States be citizens of the United States? Isn't that the way it's always been? Well, it's in the Constitution, but some Republicans say it might be time to change that. I'm going to ask a Democrat who says that is a ridiculous idea. You don't want to miss this. That's coming up.
Also, wouldn't you know it, that politics are now playing a role in an urgent manhunt for an escaped convict and his alleged accomplice. Arizona's attorney general is saying it's the governor's fault. That's right, the attorney general of Arizona is blaming it on the governor of California (SIC) that these two are still on the loose. That's next right here on "The List." We'll be right back. I'm Rick Sanchez.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. Is Arizona governor Jan Brewer responsible for the suspected killer running loose somewhere in this country? They are number two on our crime list, the Arizona prison escapee and the cousin that he plans to marry, the couple who thinks that they are Bonnie and Clyde. They're frustrating lawmen at every turn. U.S. Marshals -- I've had several conversations with them here, saying, you know, We need help to catch these guys before they kill somebody else.
Take a look at the newest images of the couple released by the U.S. Marshals. That's what it looks like, or that's what it's believed that they've changed their appearance to look like now. McCluskey's hair may be dark now. Welch (ph) may have lightened hers. Welch allegedly helped McCluskey and two other inmates escape from this privately run medium-security prison near Kingman, Arizona. It's one of the dozens of private prisons in the United States.
These escapees were really bad guys. Two were doing time for murder, McCluskey for attempted murder. Since they have escaped, they've been linked to the murders of a vacationing couple in New Mexico. So what were such violent prisoners doing at a prison that's designed to hold people who get caught for DUIs and or people who've been caught with drugs or substance abuse offenders?
Terry Goddard, as you know, is Arizona's attorney general. He's joined us before. He's joining us once again. He's also a candidate for governor. He's expected to be the Democratic candidate facing Republican Jan Brewer, so we should be transparent and share that with you because the reason he's here is that he's slamming his own governor, saying that she may have had something to do with the fact that these guys were in this type of private medium-security prison.
We asked Governor Brewer to join us, by the way, but we got no response. Here's Governor Brewer's response. She said to "The Arizona Republic" about Mr. Goddard's comments, "Trying to exploit a tragedy like this is incredibly irresponsible. This is purely a political stunt and nothing that is based in constructive improvement."
All right. Attorney General Terry Goddard, thank you, sir, for joining us. The accusations you make against the governor, what are they based on?
TERRY GODDARD (D), ARIZ. ATTORNEY GENERAL, CANDIDATE FOR GOV.: Well, Rick, thanks for the opportunity. I think first we need to pray that this McCluskey is found and this rampage comes to an end because that's our number one concern. Second, my comments are based on public safety. What this escape has put front and center is a failure of leadership here in Arizona and a wrong-headed policy that has put an awful lot of very violent offenders, it appears, into situations where they are not being adequately watched, and that's something we need to take very seriously.
SANCHEZ: I asked one of my staff members to do a little research for me, and here's what she came up with. In fact, I write about this. You know, I have my book coming out, where I talk about a lot of the things that Americans are angry about. My book is called "Conventional Idiocy," and in it I talk about this, the rise of privately maintained prisons in the United States.
In other words, people go to politicians and say, I've got a prison over here. Before you know it, they have the funding. And they're paid by how many heads they have in that prison. Listen to this. From 2000 to 2005, the number of private facilities in the United States increased from 264 to 415. Of all institutions, about two thirds of all private facilities were under contract to state authorities, and a third were under contract to the federal Bureau of Prisons. Now, I understand your state, Arizona, is probably one of the leading states when it comes to these private prisons. Should we, as citizens, have a bit of a problem or at least some good questions about these private prisons, these private facilities?
GODDARD: Well, I think we need to raise the kind of questions you're raising because security should be the issue. And I don't believe there should be any tolerance for failure in a security system where we -- you know, my office sentences somebody to a substantial time in prison for a capital offense, I believe the public has an expectation that they will stay there. And unfortunately, when a private institution bids for the contract, they have an acceptable loss in order so they can make a profit.
And that -- and especially as to violent criminals, I don't think there's any place in the incarceration system for that kind of acceptable loss. There is no acceptable loss. But let's look at Arizona.
You're talking about the whole country. We have taken this to extremes in the state of Arizona. The governor and the leadership here just passed a bill, and she signed it, that said that our entire prison system should be turned over to private operators, including maximum security, including death row. That goes way too far, in my opinion.
SANCHEZ: Yes, I'm not sure Americans would be comfortable with that. I mean, I'm not sure this kind of thing should be left for people to make a profit on. It just seems -- it seems a little disconcerting to me.
I'm wondering, by the way, back to the story, in and of itself, how is it that these guys who are obviously really violent -- these were really bad guys with the potential to kill, as we've seen already with what happened in New Mexico. Why were these guys in a medium facility instead of a maximum facility? Two of them were killers.
GODDARD: This is a very troubling question that relates to the whole way that this administration in Arizona has characterized prisoners. Apparently, it wasn't just the three that we're talking about who escaped who were violent criminals. There are another 117 in this Kingman facility who are convicted murders.
This is a facility, as you mentioned in the open, that was built for DUI offenders. It was built for drunk drivers. It was built as a minimum security facility, and frankly I have no trouble with that.
I think can you keep people who are basically serving their sentence on weekends or in 30-day segments, you can keep them in a very low-security, for-profit institution. The problem is when you get violent people like this. And in Arizona, over 2,000 murderers have been downgraded to moderate security.
That's something that I take very seriously. I think it's a violation of the public's trust. They expect them to stay in prison, and unfortunately we've seen now, through this break, that the coverage following the ability to keep them in prison is suspect, and we need to review it very carefully here in Arizona.
SANCHEZ: Attorney General Terry Goddard, thank you, sir, for take is us through this really intriguing and complicated situation involving our prison systems in the United States and forthrightly in your state of Arizona.
My thanks to you.
GODDARD: It raises a lot of serious questions. Thank you.
SANCHEZ: It really does, and I'm glad you're looking into it. I think we all should as Americans.
Now, did you hear about this one? Take a look at this.
There's a guy running for public office in New Hampshire. He says that he wishes Sarah Palin would have died in the plane crash in Alaska, and a lot of us wondered, are you kidding me? I mean, is this what politics has come to in this country?
And we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back.
In some accidents the injury to your pride is worse than your body. This next guy knows what I'm talking about.
Let's do "Fotos."
It's a rough day at the office for this roofer in St. John, New Brunswick. There he is, recovering after falling through some rotten wood on the job site and taking a spill that could have been much worse if he hadn't been wearing a safety harness. He had to be lowered down by local fire fighters.
I'm sure he really is glad this embarrassing moment got caught on camera.
From embarrassing to awe-inspiring, watch a 70-year-old Jack Nicklaus drain a 100-foot putt. Yes, old Jack still has it. There he is. By the way, he's playing on one of his own courses.
And speaking of men who are of age, this gentleman here is 80 years old. He is having a birthday party last night, and we thought you'd enjoy his -- well, his dance.
Go, Charlie, go. Go, Charlie, go. Go, Charlie. Go Charlie. Go Charlie.
Charlie Rangel, ladies and gentlemen, as he waves to the crowd. That was his party last night. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.
We'll have more on Charlie coming up in a little bit.
By the way, if you want to see "Fotos" at any time, all you've got to do is go to my blog. It's at CNN.com/ricksanchez.
It reminds me of Boris Yeltsin.
It's a major push to change our Constitution. Many Republicans say people born right here in the United States should not get citizenship to the United States, though the Constitution says if you're born here you're an American. They are saying no, not anymore.
Well, Democrats are now blasting that idea. One of them is an Illinois congressman named Luis Gutierrez. He's going to join me here in just a little bit.
Also, more on the Proposition 8 decision. Matthew Staver is the founder of Liberty Council. He is dead set against this ruling by this judge in California, and he is going to tell us why.
Stay right there. I'll be talking to him in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Let's bring you some more information now on the news topping the list today. The stay on California's Proposition 8 is going to be lifted next Wednesday. That means same-sex couples, gay couples, will be able to get married starting that date. That's next Wednesday, so it's six days from today.
Matthew Staver, he's the founder of the Liberty Council, and he joins us now live on the phone. He's against this decision made by this judge.
Mr. Staver, thank you for being with us.
Let me read to our viewers real quick what we've got. I did a little research on what you'd been saying, and I pulled it out and highlighted it.
Can you see this over my shoulder there, Robert?
Let me read this to the views.
Here's what you say: "It is outrageous that Judge Walker refused to stay this ruling. This is a classic example of radical individualism and judicial activism." Then you go on to say down here, "It makes no sense for one person to set aside a state constitutional amendment, radically change the longstanding status quo."
It sounds like you believe this judge is wrong, and you will hopefully be able to prove him wrong in court down the line.
Explain that to us, amplify that thought process, if you would.
MATTHEW STAVER, FOUNDER & CHAIRMAN, LIBERTY COUNCIL (via telephone): Well, I think the judge is absolutely wrong. In fact, he hasn't learned the lesson of 2008. That's when the California Supreme Court struck down a previous proposition. Proposition 22 passed in 2000, and it had the same language of marriage is one man and one woman.
They were asked to stay the opinion because of the disruption it would later cause when the amendment would be ultimately passed, if it was. And, in fact, it was, but in short order the decision was overturned. And so, you had all this chaos ensue between people getting same-sex marriages and then wondering whether they were legal or not.
You're going to have the same thing. This case is up on appeal as it is.
SANCHEZ: Well, let's just look at the merits of the case in and of itself. I mean, essentially, when you read the original order, the one a week and a half ago, the judge is essentially saying look, this is a question of equality. What's good for one person has to be good for any other person that's living in the United States.
It's that simple. It's no different than being African-American or being Hispanic or being anything else. If other people who aren't gay can get married, then gay people should have the right to get married.
That's what he's saying. Why do you disagree with that?
STAVER: No, no. That's exactly what he's saying. But put this in perspective since the 1970s when these cases first started from 2004 to the present. There's been 45 of such cases. Liberty Council has been involved in at least 44, and won 44 of those 45.
He is the only federal judge ever in the history America to fine a federal, constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Now, that being the case, he's really out there on a limb.
In fact, the Supreme Court has already hinted in a previous ruling that there is no constitutional right under the U.S. Constitution to same-sex marriage, so he's even further out on a limb. That is a more compelling reason why he should stay his decision.
SANCHEZ: But let's stay with the merits of this. How could there not be a constitutional right for one human being that's guaranteed to another human being?
STAVER: Well, what you have is a rational basis test, and that means, is this debatable? Is there any rationality in having marriage as one man and one woman? And obviously there is, and if there is, the government wins and Proposition 8 stays effective.
And there's a lot of rationality. Procreation obviously only occurs between a man and a woman, whether artificially or naturally. And also, there's a lot of research talking about the importance of fathers and mothers to the well-being of children.
We all know the idea of fatherless syndrome and its effect on males. Well, same-sex marriage as a policy matter says that kids do not need parents of dual gender. They don't need moms and dads. There's a lot of research that undermines that proposition.
SANCHEZ: Well, you know, it's interesting. The judge addressed that in his original finding and he said it's all hullabaloo, saying that two men are not capable of raising a child. He says, and he addressed it specifically, that that simply isn't true, nor is it true that two women can't raise a child just like a man and a woman can raise a child.
How do you differ with him? If you were talking to him instead of me, how would you tell him that he's wrong?
STAVER: I would say that, you know, just do common sense. Go to a male prison section, go to the violent section offenders, and ask them one question, where was their dad growing up? They're going to say, by and large, 95 percent of them, "I had no dad."
There is a correlation between having a mom and a dad, a dual gender with both children in the household. And science and sociological studies say that. He simply did not cite those studies, and there's plenty of them in all different areas.
He never even cited them. He ignored them. And consequently, there is rationality, this is a legitimate reason why marriage between a man and a woman is valid and why the people of California and the rest of the people in the country would express it as the ideal human relationship.
SANCHEZ: Mr. Staver, we thank you, sir, for taking time to call in and join us and share your perspective on this. We appreciate it here on RICK'S LIST.
STAVER: Thank you. My pleasure.
SANCHEZ: Now, we're going to be right back, and when we come back, I'm defending Sarah Palin. That's right, I am going to defend Sarah Palin because I have to.
I'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: I want to welcome you back. I'm Rick Sanchez.
And it's time to defend Sarah Palin. You know why? Because what is wrong is wrong, and civility needs to be defended in this country, at this time, right now by me.
Time now for "The List U Don't Want 2 Be On."
I want you to meet a guy named Keith Halloran. He's running for public office in New Hampshire, a spot in the statehouse. He has said something that is not excusable. It's not funny, it is not right, and it certainly isn't civil. Plane crashes, first of all, are not something to joke about, not any plane crash. And certainly not this plane crash, the one that took the life of a former U.S. senator and a 16-year-old girl, among others.
Halloran couldn't resist throwing Sarah Palin's name into that mix. Here's what he wrote on Facebook about this crash.
"Just wish Sarah and Levi were on board." Levi Johnston, of course, is the father of Palin's grandson. There he is. A good looking guy, huh?
Well, in ran e-mail to CNN Halloran has now apologized, and we respect him for that. But what this aspiring politician did stinks of hateful opportunism.
Look, politics is important. It's the lifeblood of our democracy. But it's not nor should it be a partisan blood sport.
It matters not what you think of Sarah Palin, the politician, or, for that matter, Sarah Palin the speaker, or Sarah Palin the celebrity. It only matters that she be considered Sarah Palin the mom, the wife, the person, just like the people who matter in your life or my life.
Bottom line, you just don't do that. You don't wish for anyone to die. Period. You don't do people like that.
It's pretty plain. It's pretty simple. It's wrong, and why today Democrat Keith Halloran is at the very top of "The List U Don't Want 2 Be On."
I'm going to be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Hey, we've got all kinds of folks who are visiting us here today during RICK'S LIST, and we're so glad that they're here.
Welcome aboard, guys. That's a big group back there. Look at you guys. You're growing every single day.
You come here as much at this time not just to see me, but to see my friend and colleague Wolf Blitzer, who is checking in to us right now.
You guys want to give a big wave to Wolf. You ready? Say, "Hello, Wolf."
UNIDENTIFIED GROUP: "Hello, Wolf."
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: Wolf Blitzer joining us now from Washington.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I'm waving right back. SANCHEZ: What have you got coming up, man?
BLITZER: Well, we're going to do a lot more on the breaking news and what's going on in California with Proposition 8. A significant development, unless the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decides to continue the stay. Folks -- gay folks in California are going to start being able to get married once again starting next Wednesday, 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time, 8:00 p.m. Eastern.
Obviously a big story. We'll see if the Ninth Circuit intervenes between now and next Wednesday, Rick. We're going to be all over that story.
We're going to have more, by the way, of my exclusive interview with General James Jones, the president's national security adviser. We're going in-depth today on Afghanistan.
Is this war winnable? How much is it going to take? How much money? How many more troops?
All that and a lot more coming up right here on "THE SITUATION ROOM."
SANCHEZ: I thought you did a great job yesterday, and I thought those revelations about Ahmadinejad and the possibility that Ahmadinejad may at some point sit down with our president was extremely both noteworthy and newsworthy.
Well done. Well done, my colleague, Wolf.
BLITZER: Thank you. Thank you.
SANCHEZ: We'll look forward to seeing you in "THE SITUATION ROOM."
A major push to change our Constitution. Many Republicans say that people born right here in the United States should not get automatic citizenship. Well, Democrats are blasting this idea.
I'm going to talk to the other side today. Yesterday I talked to one side. Today, Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez. He's going to join me in just a little bit.
Stay with us.
There he is.
We're going to be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: There's a lot of talk these days about kicking certain people out of the country. And there's also a lot of talk about the 14th Amendment.
And then there's Mike Huckabee, who suddenly is saying, you know what? I think I might defend the fact that some people should be allowed to stay in the United States if they have proven a real good record, and they should be allowed to get in-state tuition if they go to a university.
This is Mike Huckabee. Mike, as you know, is a certified conservative, right?
Well, here's Mike Huckabee in his own words.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE HUCKABEE (R), FMR. ARKANSAS GOVERNOR: Let me be clear, because I'm not for an amnesty program. When a kid comes to this country, and he's 4 years old, and he had no choice in it, his parents came illegally, he still, because he is in this state -- it's the state's responsibility -- in fact, it is the state's legal mandate to make sure that child is in school.
So let's say that kid goes to school. That kid is in our school from kindergarten through the 12th grade. He graduates as valedictorian because he's a smart kid, and he works his rear end off and he becomes the valedictorian of the school.
The question is, he better off going to college and becoming a neurosurgeon or a banker or whatever he might become, and becoming a taxpayer, and in the process having to apply for and achieve citizenship, or should we make him pick tomatoes? I think it's better if he goes to college and becomes a citizen.
So I did support a bill in my state, and would I support it today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Joining us now from Chicago is Democratic Congressman Luis Gutierrez, or, as my mother would say, Luis Gutierrez.
My thanks to you for being with us.
REP. LUIS GUTIERREZ (D), ILLINOIS: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: Well, there's Michael Huckabee, conservative guy, saying, you know what? We want people who are born in the United States to be able to stay in the United States and do well and prosper. But you know, as well as I do, that there are a lot of people in Mike Huckabee's party who would disagree with him on that, vehemently disagree with him on that.
Why are they wrong?
GUTIERREZ: Let me tell you, because Huckabee is right.
Think about it a moment, Rick. Here's a Republican Party that now, in order to distract and divert attention about the real issue, reforming our immigration system, has taken on to demonize and ostracize children, children in the wombs of their mothers. Think about it. This is the same Republican Party that in 1968, led the way to adopt the 14th Amendment, the Republican Party, immediately after the Civil War, so that every one of God's children born in the United States would be guaranteed and conferred the citizenship of the United States. And now -- and think about it, because yesterday you had Mr. Gingrey saying, oh, well we didn't have any immigrants back then when we passed it.
You know, Rick, over two million Irish immigrants came in the decade of the 1860s fleeing the famine. Millions before and millions after, but two million in that decade. At the same time we were passing the 14th Amendment, we welcomed them, we embraced them, and their children were citizens of the United States.
And think about it. Today we're going to change it.
SANCHEZ: No, we did not welcome them. We did not embrace you. I can show you that they were treated almost as bad as anybody who comes to this country is treated today.
They were called "pigs." I have signs in my house that say "Irish need not apply." They were treated horribly, just like a lot of immigrants have been treated.
The Italians were not treated well. Jews were not treated well. The Irish were not treated well.
Let's not try and look through rose-colored glasses at our history and show how well we treated everybody. Some of the things that are going on now are no different than what happened in the past, and you know that.
GUTIERREZ: But can I just make -- a fair point, Rick. But can I make this point though?
Two million of them came in the 1860s to this country. And you know what? At the same time they were coming to this country we adopted the 14th Amendment. And because of the 14th Amendment, they did acquire the constitutional right to be in this country and be citizens, and their children.
SANCHEZ: But you said that the Republicans were demonizing, and to a certain extent you're demonizing now. Because I asked you a very direct question and you immediately attacked the Republicans.
I don't want you to attack the Republicans. I want you to give me an explanation as to why the Republicans are wrong and people in the United States who are not legal should be allowed to stay.
I'm sorry, we're down to 30 seconds. If you can do that. If not, we'll get you back tomorrow.
GUTIERREZ: I look forward to coming back.
Rick, think about it for a moment. Four million American citizens, they call them anchor babies. They say they are drop and leave. That's not true, Rick.
These are children born in the United States. We should not attack children. We can't -- we should reform our immigration system so that we can end illegal immigration as we know it, but not use children as chatter (ph) in this thing
SANCHEZ: We'll have to leave it at that. I enjoyed the conversation, as I did yesterday with Mr. Gingrey.
GUTIERREZ: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: Maybe we'll get the three of us together and continue this discussion. I'm sure the American people would enjoy that.
I'm Rick Sanchez.
Thanks so much for being with us.
Here now, my colleague Wolf Blitzer.
We'll see you tomorrow and tonight at 8:00, right here on RICK'S LIST.
