Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Supreme Court Ruling on Tow Issues; First Democratic Debate Tone; Democrats Clash over Immigration. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired June 27, 2019 - 12:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:0024] JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to INSIDE POLITICS. I'm John King. Thank you for sharing your day with us.

The Supreme Court ends its term with two big rulings. The Trump administration is blocked for now from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census. And the court's five conservatives unite to say the high court should not get involved over fights over extreme political gerrymandering.

Plus, debate night take one. The 2020 contenders spar over just how left their party should go on questions ranging from abolishing private health insurance to decriminalizing illegal border crossings.

And, this note for the longer shot candidates in round two tonight, you might have to fight for time.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: My grandfather was actually separated from his family when he came into this country.

LESTER HOLT, MODERATOR: We need -- we're going to -- we're going to -- we're going to talk about Iran right now because we're working against the clock.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE, MODERATOR: Congressman Delaney, you'll have some time in a moment on this issue.

JOHN DELANEY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It -- this issue is related to the (INAUDIBLE).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Congressman Delaney, I'll give you some time in a moment.

Mayor de Blasio --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE, MODERATOR: We're going to -- we're going to keep moving.

Congressman Delaney, I'm going to get to you.

DELANEY: This is -- I introduced the only bipartisan carbon tax bill in Congress.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, 30 seconds, go.

DELANEY: This is really important.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Come back to the big debate takeaways in just a moment.

But we begin the hour with two big rulings on two big, political questions from the Supreme Court. One is a big win for Republicans. The other is a loss for the Trump White House, though that loss could be just temporary. The justices ruling today that the administration cannot add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census. But the court did not say the question was out of bounds. It just sent the case back to a lower court for additional arguments. And it says the Commerce Department needs a better explanation.

The other big ruling came on the question of partisan gerrymandering. The court was asked to determine how far the party in power can go in maximizing its clout when it draws legislative and political lines. The court's conservative majority, though, led by the chief justice, John Roberts, said no, that it would not set a standard because it believes those decisions are best left to the politicians, not to judges. That's a boon to the Republicans at the moment because they control more governorships and state legislatures.

CNN's Ariane de Vogue is outside of the Supreme Court on this big day.

Ariane, what are the big, major takeaways as we wrap up this session?

ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER: Right. This is the last day of the term. Two big politically charged cases. And Chief Justice John Roberts, he was at the center of both of them. The first one, that census case that you mentioned, in the vote that mattered Chief Justice John Roberts, 5-4 with the liberals, sending the case back down to the lower court. That blocks the question for now and it raises the question of whether or not the Trump administration is going to have enough time to add it in time for the next census.

Chief Justice John Roberts, he really focused on the reasons put forward for adding the question. And this is what he said. We cannot ignore the disconnect between the decision made and the explanation given. Keep in mind, the government said all along that the question was necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Challengers said that it was a veiled attempt to intimidate minority voters.

But in the second case, John, that was a totally different circumstance. This case had to do with the census question. And here the chief -- with partisan gerrymandering. And here Chief Justice John Roberts, he sided with the conservatives here and he slammed the courthouse doors shut on these kind of challenges that go to when politicians go too far in drawing district lines for partisan gains. Critics said that the courts needed to step in here because the system had run amok. But Chief Justice John Roberts, again, with the conservatives, he said that such claims are beyond the reach of federal courts.

That drew a biting dissent from Justice Elena Kagan. She said, of all the time to abandon the court's duty, to declare the law, this was not the time. She said -- she read the dissent from the bench and she said she was deeply saddened about this.

KING: Ariane de Vogue outside the court. Appreciate the insights. Pretty remarkable. 5-4 decisions, both by the chief justice siding with different blocs on the courts. A big day.

With me here in studio to share their reporting and their insights, CNN's Joan Biskupic, Annie Linskey with "The Washington Post," Vivian Salama with "The Wall Street Journal," and Rachael Bade with "The Washington Post."

So, this is the Roberts coast. The final day cements that if you had any doubt about it.

Let's start with the gerrymandering case. The census case has been more in the debate in Washington, the here and now immediacy. The gerrymandering case has the impact to have much more meaning as this goes forward. And, at the moment, it benefits Republicans because they have more governors, they have more legislatures, so they -- to the victor go the spoils. The Supreme Court essentially saying, go the spoils on steroids if you so choose, we won't get involved.

[12:05:08] JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: On steroids is right, when you consider what's happening with extreme partisan gerrymandering across the country.

Two things to note here. This has been a project of Chief Justice John Roberts. He has wanted to remove federal judges across the country from assessing these partisan gerrymanders. And he was able to do it this term with the vote of Brett Kavanaugh, who succeeded Anthony Kennedy, who was the fifth vote leaving the door slightly open to allowing these kinds of challenges.

And, interestingly, the chief said, we don't want judges involved in politics. But the dissent said, you're playing right into politics. Look what is happening to democracy. These voting maps are getting rigged based on sophisticated data, polling analysis, computer maps. So he -- he got what he really wanted in this one.

RACHAEL BADE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes. It's interesting. We'll have to see how it affects Washington here because we've been hearing, you know, on Capitol Hill that gerrymandering is the main -- one of the major reasons why we're seeing partisan tensions increase, you know, over the past few decades. I mean Cook Political Report has said that only 20 percent of congressional districts are actually swing districts held by sort of moderate voices. And that's a decrease by more than 50 percent overt past two decades.

So your -- with these gerrymandering districts, you have more increasingly partisan politicians. They don't have to work across the aisle. And that could affect politics in Washington. VIVIAN SALAMA, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": And

it's going to be really interesting to see how this emboldens a lot of politicians around the country. I mean the -- today's ruling obviously focused on Maryland and South Carolina. But you have issues like this in Georgia and elsewhere in the country. And it's going to come up over and over again and a lot of politicians are going to feel emboldened, like this is their opportunity to (INAUDIBLE).

KING: Right, because you can use a database now.

SALAMA: Absolutely.

KING: You can use a database now. You know where the voters live and you know if you have to deal with voting rights issues, you know some of those issues. Like, you can still come back if it's a race-based, some other standards you can come back, but the court essentially saying now, if you're the Republican governor of state x and you have a Republican legislature, even if your state's divided 50-50, you can draw the congressional districts in a way, or the state legislative districts in a way that benefit you overwhelmingly.

ANNIE LINSKEY, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": That's right. There is a counterpoint that's sort of a less popular one that's a defense of the Maryland map in particular, and it's the map that -- the defense that was used when this map was challenged in the state courts, which is this, that when you gerrymander and you -- for Maryland it went from a 4-4 state, four Democrats, four Republicans, to having seven to one, seven Democrats, one Republican, what that meant is those Democratic districts are a little bit tougher for Democrats to hold onto. The voting performance is not as high. And the argument that -- you know, there was like an argument out there that says, look, these are more moderate members because they actually do have more Republicans in their district. It was an argument that won in the Maryland courts.

BISKUPIC: Well, you know, there is something about what --

LINSKEY: And it is -- yes.

BISKUPIC: What has one below, because the chief said, John, that federal judges shouldn't be -- have no standard to assess this. But the truth is that lower court judges have been figuring out ways to assess this, not just in Maryland but North Carolina and Ohio and Michigan. So all over the country as the dissenting justices pointed out in a very passionate dissent by Elena Kagan from the bench, judges are working with this. Don't you, Chief Justice Roberts, throw up your hands and say it's impossible.

KING: Right. And that -- to that point, you see some of the 2020-ers weighing in. Kamala Harris saying politicians shouldn't be able to pick their voters. Cory Booker saying essentially the same thing in a tweet, voters should be able to choose their politicians, not the other way around. I mean because they do use these computer databases now to do this. It will be interesting to see -- again, benefits Republicans today because they have more governors and more legislatures. Two years from now, four years from now, six years from now could flip that one over, you get a little back and forth.

Let's come back to the census case. The court did not say, did not say the Constitution prohibits you from asking this question. It did not say that --

BISKUPIC: No, it said -- it said just the opposite.

KING: Right, just the opposite.

BISKUPIC: You can do that.

KING: You can do that.

What it said, though, is that there was new evidence introduced as the case was in the pipeline, therefore back to court for you.

But -- but in that, in that, the chief justice also took a shot at the commerce secretary and the Trump administration. They have said essentially some guy at an agency proposed we do this and we said, yes, sure. The evidence in the case is, hogwash, this has been discussed at the White House, this has been discussed at the secretary level. He essentially said altogether the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the secretary gave for this decision. We are presented, in other words, with an explanation for agency action that is incongruent with what the record reveals about the agency's priorities and decision-making.

The court essentially saying the Trump administration lied about how this happened to the courts. But it -- but -- but it sends it back not saying because you lied doesn't mean you can't ask the question. The question is, can the lower courts resolve this in time to possibly have that question be on the census?

BISKUPIC: You've made exactly the right point because in many ways this is a ruling that could help the administration down the road. But on this particular point of the commerce secretary saying the sole reason we did this was to enforce the Voting Rights Act, that -- the chief said, we're going to defer to you, but we're not going to be duped. That wasn't the sole reason. So if hearings are able to go on, I expect the administration might be able to say, contrary to what it has been said to this point, that we're running out of time, maybe there is more time (INAUDIBLE) at the bureau (ph).

[12:10:21] LINSKEY: This process matters. I mean the Trump administration seems like again and again gets caught up in the, you know, in their process being so out of whack. And I just think having the Supreme Court call them out on that you'd hope maybe other agencies will look to that, like, look, we need to do this the right way and not just, you know, slap some question on to it.

KING: But those who don't like the question think that it will lead to a massive undercount --

LINSKEY: Yes.

KING: Because of mistrust, distrust in the Latino community. That is still unresolved. This case goes back to the lower court and it is possible, it is possible the administration could still -- the clock's ticking. You've got to get the -- you've got to get the forms ready, got to get the process ready, the procedure ready. But it's possible we're not done with this.

SALAMA: Well, and this is also a perfect opportunity for us to look at the consequences of an election and now we're going to go into a Democratic debate tonight where elections matter and now we have a court which is skewed to the right and these decisions are going to come one after the other where the right is going to dominate. And so while the Trump administration may not have gotten a clear victory on the census issue, on gerrymandering, this is one case where they can point and say, there we go, like, we were successful in packing the courts and it's going to work in our favor in the future. And it's something for people to think about.

KING: That's a reason to tune in tonight to see more debates, get more wrinkles. And we'll continue that.

Up next for us, the 2020 candidates on stage last night gamble the country is ready to move far to the left and some try to score extra points with Latinos by showcasing their Spanish.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BETO O'ROURKE (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And it's going to take all of us coming together to make sure that it does. (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE).

SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: (SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE)

JULIAN CASTRO (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Any way January 20, 2021, we'll say adios to Donald Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:16:42] KING: Debate night one is in the books. And what happened last night tells us a lot about the next eight months. A big audience for ten Democrats last night. And for many of the candidates, Wednesday their first real chance to talk to American voters. Julian Castro making a big impression.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JULIAN CASTRO (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Watching that image of Oscar and his daughter Valeria is heartbreaking. It should also piss us all off.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: No Joe Biden on the stage, so Elizabeth Warren essentially last night playing the de facto frontrunner. She helped set the tone on policy. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We can make our government, we can make our economy, we can make our country work, not just for those at the top, we can make it work for everyone. And I promise you this, I will fight for you as hard as I fight for my own family.

In the United States for decades now and it's basically been (INAUDIBLE) whatever they want to do. Giant corporations have exactly one loyalty, and that is to profits.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Warren there reflecting the biggest dynamic across the stage last night. The candidates are pulling the Democratic Party to the left on health care, immigration, taxes, climate, corporations. The candidates, most of them anyway, want more government say-so, expansive and expensive policies like Medicare for all, carbon taxes, busting up corporate titans.

The marquee takeaway many of the candidates in 2020 believe in solution that's veer left of where the country was in 2018, 2016, 2012, 2008, or in any modern presidential election. The big question we can't answer until the voting starts next February, are those candidates in sync with their own party or too far to the left? Are they in sync with the country or too far to the left?

Eliana Johnson from "Politico" joins the conversation.

It is an unproven question. The -- most of these Democrats think the country is ready to go farther left, to change the paradigm that has governed presidential politics, at least in the 30-plus years I've been doing this. We don't know if they're right, but they think they are.

ELIANA JOHNSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: That's right. One of the biggest moments last night I think was Elizabeth Warren saying she supports doing away with private health insurance, which we saw Kamala Harris stumble over a couple of months ago. And that does not poll as a popular position with the general public. So I think it will be interesting to see whether that is a policy position for the Democratic Party as -- as Warren moves forward.

KING: And let's just listen to that as you -- as you bring it up, because it is striking, again, we'll see the official ratings later in the day, but the early reviews were a lot of people watched. That's a good thing, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, whether you like these candidates or you don't, you should watch. You want to -- you should want to listen to these candidates and have this debate.

On this question, what does Medicare for all mean, some Democrats say, well, you keep private insurance if you want it, you just have a public option. If you want Medicare, you can, you know, buy your way in or switch your plans.

JOHNSON: More popular positions, yes.

KING: Elizabeth Warren says, no, let's go all the way.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes, I'm with Bernie on Medicare for all.

There are a lot of politicians who say, oh, it's just not possible, we just can't do it, it's -- have a lot of political reasons for this. What they're really telling you is they just won't fight for it. Well, health care is a basic human right. And I will fight for basic human rights.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: It's an interesting position. On the debate stage, on the far end of the stage, former congressman from Maryland, John Delaney, he was among the Democrats (INAUDIBLE) too far.

[12:20:09] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am defending private insurance (INAUDIBLE).

JOHN DELANEY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: (INAUDIBLE) million Americans say they like their private health insurance, by the way. It should be noted that 100 million Americans -- I mean, I think we should be the party that keeps what's working and fixes what's broken. I mean doesn't that make sense?

Because why do we have to stand for taking away something from people?

But all the big transformative things we've ever done in this country's history have happened when huge majorities of the American people get behind them, which is why we need real solutions, not impossible promises.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Now, nobody votes until February. But, at the moment, at the moment, if you just study the polling, if you add up Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, you're in the 30s or higher in these polls. And if John Delaney's at zero, one, or two, or three. So, at the -- at the moment that position is carrying the day within the Democratic Party.

LINSKEY: Yes.

KING: The question is, does it carry the day in the end in the Democratic Party? And then, if it does, can you sell it to the country?

LINSKEY: Well, you don't get a chance to sell it to the country if you're not the nominee. And you heard what Elizabeth Warren said, I'm with Bernie. And that was the only time Bernie Sanders' name was mentioned on the debate stage. And there is a reason for that. I mean she needs his voters at some point to come to her. And so she's saying, you know what -- and this is an evolution for her.

KING: Right.

LINSKEY: She has, on the campaign trail, been wishy-washy. She's been listening to that polling that you mentioned and the polling that you mentioned. But, at the end of the day, she doesn't get to make that case if she's not that nominee. And that's the bet she's making.

KING: And she sees -- she sees the opportunity. She's -- she's essentially caught up to Bernie Sanders and she sees the opportunity.

LINSKEY: And I -- yes. She sees the -- absolutely. And that's politics.

KING: Right.

LINSKEY: So that's what -- that's what we saw. That was politics.

KING: Right.

BADE: Yes. And I thought it was really telling that Delaney was the one who had to jump in there to say, this is not what I think we should be doing. Medicare for all, I think his argument was something along the lines of, you know, hospitals are going to go bankrupt if we do something like this. You didn't see a lot of the candidates who do not support Medicare for all on that stage push back at all. And it was one of those moments for Beto O'Rourke where you thought he would really stand up for his own health care plan and, you know, potentially keeping private insurance. He had to be saved by John Delaney. It was not a good look for him.

KING: And we'll watch tonight. We'll get to tonight later. We have ten more candidates tonight. We'll get more to it but we'll watch tonight. I think this debate is going to be even sharper because they saw it last night. So the questions are going to come back, the candidates are going to come back. You look for a breakout moment in something like this. There are 23, 24 Democrats running for president. Twenty on the debate stage over the two nights. Right -- at the moment, Pete Buttigieg, who's on the stage tonight, has been sort of the, if you're looking for something different, outside of Washington.

Last night, Julian Castro, who was the HUD secretary in the Obama administration, he made his case, if you're looking for something different, give me a try.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JULIAN CASTRO (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The reason that they're separating these little children from their families is that they're using section 1325 of that act which criminalizes coming across the border to incarcerate the parents and then separate them. Some of us on this stage have called to end that section, to terminate it. Some, like Congressman O'Rourke, have not. And I want to challenge all of the candidates to do that.

BETO O'ROURKE (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: In fact -- CASTRO: I just think it's a mistake, Beto. I think it's a mistake. And

I think that -- that if you truly want to change the system, then we've got to repeal that section.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: A little Texas battle there, internal Texas battle there for starters.

But Julian Castro, who hasn't gotten a lot of attention, a, having a moment there. But, b, again, pulling the party left, saying if you cross the border illegally, it's a traffic ticket, it's not a felony.

SALAMA: So the interesting thing about Julian Castro's performance yesterday is that he really had an opportunity -- obviously it's a very timely subject, and so he was able to sort of take this emotional flash-point and use it. But he also has a very comprehensive immigration plan which he's rolled out already. He's a little bit ahead of a lot of the other candidates in this area. And that's what we saw play out in his exchange with Beto O'Rourke, who just really could not kind of come back and battle him because Julian Castro was very prepared on this particular issue.

LINSKEY: Yes, and then you also had Elizabeth Warren texting Castro today to say, hey, look, you did a really good job last night. And she's come out and endorsed his plans. So I think you're absolutely right that he has really seized this issue.

And I think for Beto O'Rourke, if you can't punch back against Castro, how are you going to look against Trump, who's the chief puncher?

SALAMA: Right.

KING: It's round one. It's an interesting point. The question is, if you go back, think about the crowded Republican field, not last time but back to 2012, a lot of -- Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, people had boomlets. The question is, can you sustain it? Castro's going to have a boomlet after this debate. Can he sustain it? That is the question.

Up next, more debate. Senator Bernie Sanders takes the debate stage tonight, says he has a strategy for the fight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm thinking of like Muhammad Ali, he noticed the weakness in his opponent and --

QUESTION: Well, what weaknesses did you see last night?

[12:24:41] SANDERS: Block -- they block -- dropped their left hand.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) KING: To debate night round two now. This time the early frontrunner, the former vice president, Joe Biden, is on the stage, sharing the spotlight with nine others, you see them there, including Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Kamala Harris. They, along with Senator Elizabeth Warren, who was on TV last night, have top standing with the Democratic voters right now. Biden will be literally center stage tonight thanks to his early lead.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALISYN CAMEROTA, ANCHOR, CNN'S "NEW DAY": Does he feel like he will have a target on his back tonight?

SYMONE SANDERS, SENIOR ADVISER, BIDEN CAMPAIGN: Well, I think there's no question that a number of folks will be looking for a breakout moment tonight, Alisyn. And Vice President Biden doesn't -- doesn't necessarily need a breakout moment. He doesn't need a viral moment.

[12:30:04] He doesn't need to take shots and, frankly, that's not the kind of campaign we're running. So you're -- a lot of people might.

END