Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

High Court Tackles Same-Sex Marriage; Winter Cold Lingers; Weigh More Pay More Flights; Mother of Murdered Baby Shows Anger; SpaceX Dragon Splashdown; Teen Becomes Instant Millionaire; Soyuz Rocket Moves to Launch Pad

Aired March 26, 2013 - 13:00   ET

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


SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN ANCHOR: Can states ban same-sex marriage or is it unconstitutional to prevent gays and lesbians from tying the knot? That is the issue before the Supreme Court today. And people on both sides, they were there to make their voices heard.

Easter just days away but the snow and cold temperatures make it seem like Christmas is coming this weekend. In spots across the country, people continue to recover from record snowfalls. Temperatures are below average from Minneapolis to Orlando.

The debate over having heavy people pay more for their flight, it is raging again today. A European economist's new study says pay what you weigh makes mathematic and economic sense.

This is CNN NEWSROOM, and I'm Suzanne Malveaux. It is one of the biggest social issues of our time. Today, the country's highest court, the Supreme Court, weighting into the debate over same-sex marriage. While lawyers argued inside the court, people on both sides, they demonstrated outside. You can see in there, supporters of same-sex marriage says -- they say it is about equality. Opponents, they say that they're standing up for traditional family values and the sanctity of marriage.

I want to take a close look at case that the court heard today and the legal issues involved. Joe Johns, he was inside the court. He joins us from Washington. Must have been really -- pretty incredible to actually hear and see these arguments. This is all about California Prop 8 that bans same-sex marriage.

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Suzanne. The main issue in today's arguments was simple, actually. It's whether it's OK for a state like California to discriminate against same-sex couples with Proposition 8. So, I just want to give you a little bit of a sense of what was going on in the courtroom today. Obviously, a deeply divided Supreme Court of the United States. The lawyers who are involved in this case hit with extremely difficult questions. The lawyer arguing for Proposition 8, argued, of course, that traditional marriage should be preserved for heterosexual couples because it's all about procreation.

But the next questions, Suzanne, were about whether if that's true, the state ought to ban marriages between infertile couples or marriages between 55-year-olds. Justice Antonin Scalia repeatedly asked Ted Olson, who is the lawyer arguing for the other side, to define how long ago gay marriage became a fundamental right. And Olson, of course, refused to go there. And the question even got raised in court today by Justice Anthony Kennedy and to whether they should have taken the case at all. So, don't ask anybody to predict how this was going to turn out -- Suzanne.

MALVEAUX: Joe, I was to ask you how you how you thought it was going to turn out.

JOHNS: Right.

MALVEAUX: What was it like outside, inside? What was the feel, the mood, if you will?

JOHNS: Well, it's interesting, different cases obviously have different textures. This started out as a bit of a party atmosphere, because you could sense there are a lot of people who saw this as a day that was so long coming, a day they had wanted so much just for the court to hear them and to hear their case and why they thought they ought to have the right to be married. Inside the courtroom, tense, yes, but also funny at times. And there's always a lot of sort of tongue-in-cheek humor, if you will. And that played well.

The other thing I have to say is it felt very rushed because these are issues that have been a long time brewing out in the states. And just to sit in the court for an hour or two, as the attorneys tried to sum up everything, they have been working on this for so long, it's pretty tough. It's pretty tough to do. And it will be very interesting to see what the court does with it -- Suzanne.

MALVEAUX: And, Joe, we're going to be getting those audio tapes very soon. We'll actually be able to listen for ourselves what took place inside the courtroom. But can you give us a sense of what we should be listening for? Are there any special moments or things that really grabbed your attention during that about 90-minute proceeding?

JOHNS: Yes. I do think you really want to hear, in my view, the exchanges between Justice Antonin Scalia and Ted Olson as the justice tried to push him again and again to define when it was that gay marriage became a right in this country? Because if Ted Olson were to have answered that question, then the next question obviously is, so it wasn't a fundamental right when the constitution was written, was it? This is something we're doing later on, something perhaps we're making up. And, of course, Ted Olson being a very good litigator and skilled before the Supreme Court just really would not go for it. So, that's the kind of thing that I think was very interesting. Also, the -- any of the questions that have to do with procreation where a number of justices raised --

MALVEAUX: Right.

JOHNS: -- different hypotheticals, you know, about the right time or -- you know, or should people who have been -- who are 55 years old and can't have babies, should they be banned from marriage? Just a whole range of issues, a fascinating discussion, and, if you could, you ought to listen to the whole thing. MALVEAUX: All right, we'll try work that in. We'll try to sneak that in -- fit that into a one-hour show. Thank you, Joe.

Of course, we're going to give you those audiotapes. We're going to be playing them for you throughout the hour. So, you'll be able to hear for yourself what took place inside of the Supreme Court earlier today. And, of course, it could be the biggest case of their lives. You've got these two former rivals teaming up to take on same-sex marriage fight. And inside the Supreme Court, our Gloria Borger, she actually gets exclusive access to them as they are preparing in the case. This is called "THE MARRIAGE WARRORS" Showdown at the Supreme Court." It is Saturday, 7:30 p.m. Eastern on CNN. You're not going to want to miss that.

And also, a dramatic development in an international murder case. We are talking about Italy's Supreme Court saying that American exchange student should be tried against for the killing of her roommate. We're talking about Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend, both found guilty of murdering Meredith Kercher, that was back in 2007. Well, they spent four years in prison and then their convictions were overturned. Knox has been living in Seattle ever since.

And our Linda Byron, she's a reporter for affiliate KING in Seattle, KING. And, Linda, tell us, how has she been spending the last four years, first of all, in Seattle? I mean she's been free and I imagine that she's been trying to move on with her life.

LINDA BYRON, CORRESPONDENT, KING: Yes, she's certainly has. Ever since she was freed, that was in the fall of 2011, she came home to a big, heartwarming homecoming, tears at the airport, lots of support. But she has really tried to live a low-key life. She enrolled in the University of Washington, was taking classes again. Of course, that's where she was attending school when she went on her foreign exchange program and wound up under arrest in Italy. But after sometime of taking classes there, friends and family told me that it was just very difficult. She took a break and she's been working on writing that book which will be coming out next month.

MALVEAUX: And so, how are they responding to all of this?

BYRON: Surprise, disappointment. Amanda was with her mother and stepfather at their home in west Seattle when they got word from attorneys this morning. And they had been warned that this was a possibility. The hearing yesterday in Rome, seven hours long. It went longer than the attorneys had hoped. And there was some concern based on the reaction from the judges that perhaps they were thinking about something along this line. Amanda did not come out and give any kind of a public statement but did issue one through her P.R. firm today saying that this was very painful news to hear and saying, again, that she is innocent and that the prosecution's theory for her involvement in this murder is absolutely unfounded and unfair. Amanda Knox also expressed concern and said her heart goes out to the family of Meredith Kercher.

MALVEAUX: All right. Linda Byron, thank you so much. We'll be following this. In Phoenix, the murder trial of Jodi Arias is about to take place. It's going to resume. She, of course, as you know, accused in the killing of her ex-boyfriend. Back on the stand today is the defense team's second expert witness, a domestic violence expert who specializes in treating battered women. Now, she's expected to say that Arias killed her ex in self-defense and a victim of domestic violence.

Now, this is a tragic story. And who could blame Sherry West for being very, very angry and hurt, really devastating. Her 13-month-old baby is dead, according to the police, murdered by two teens when they tried to rob her. This happened in Brunswick, Georgia. She says that they asked for money. She didn't have money. And so, she says that they shot her in the leg and then they shot her baby in the face.

Seventeen-year-old DeMarcus Elkins will stand trial as an adult. And West tells Piers Morgan that she wants revenge for her baby's killing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SHERRY WEST: They are being charged with felony murder. And I just -- I just hope, you know that he -- that the shooter dies. I mean, I had to watch my baby die and I want him to die. A life for a life. And the young one, he was an accessory, an accomplice. I hope that he gets a juvenile correctional facility to age 21 and consecutive life sentence in state prison.

PIERS MORGAN, HOST, CNN "PIERS MORGAN LIVE": You chose to cremate your little baby, Antonio, and you had a private memorial service. How would you -- how would you like to remember his short life?

WEST: Alive, walking around, waking me up. He didn't even get to say his first word. I'll never hear his first word.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: Oh, that's just heartbreaking. It's unclear if this other teen who is 15 is going to be treated as an adult or a juvenile in this case.

Here is also what we're working on for this hour. Looking for a cheaper air fare? Well, there's one report that suggests losing weight. Details how your weight could determine how much you pay to fly.

And it is full of valuable science experiments, equipment floating around in the Pacific Ocean hundreds of miles off the California coast. Right now, there are crews, they are working to retrieve the SpaceX Dragon capsule, that is after it splashed down. That happened around 30 minutes ago.

And, of course, everybody's dream, especially a teen, to become an instant millionaire. One teen has done that after selling something very valuable to Yahoo!

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) MALVEAUX: Splashdown confirmed. SpaceX says its Dragon cargo ship hit water off of Baha, California. That happened just about 20 minutes ago just as planned. NASA says it's going to release pictures of the splashdown later today. So, these are pictures of the Dragon. This was earlier today at the International Space Station. The Dragon is carrying 2,600 pounds of Cargo from the Space Station, including, you've got biological samples for medical research that will be carried out and back on earth, as well as trash as well. NASA says it's going to take divers and engineers to bring the capsule back to land. Now, SpaceX is doing the job the space shuttle's used to do before the shuttle program retired.

Soyuz rocket is on its way to the launch pad today in Kazakhstan. Take a look. These are pictures from NASA. The rocket is so big, the train -- this train here, being used to lug it to the launch pad. It is set to blast off on Friday. There's going to be three people on the crew, including NASA flight engineer Chris Cassidy who flew to the space station on space shuttle Endeavour. That happened back in 2009. They will stay on the International Space Station for five and a half months.

We are just getting sound from the Supreme Court. This is from inside. These are the oral arguments around the issue of same-sex marriage. This is a piece of sound from Justice Anthony Kennedy inside of the court today. Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT: I think that there's substantial -- there's substance to the point that sociological information is new. We have five years of information to weigh against 2000 years of history or more. On the other hand, there is an immediate legal injury or legal -- what could be a legal injury and that's the voice of these children. There are some 40,000 children in California, according to the brief, that live with same- sex parents. And they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?

(END AUDIO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: That was Justice Anthony Kennedy, of course, he is talking about the role of children involved in same-sex marriage couples as well. We'll talk more about that as well as the debate over same-sex marriage. We're going to take quick break. We'll bring in Joe Johns and legal analysts to talk about what we've heard inside the court and which way the Supreme Court might go after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: The legal debate over same-sex marriage has now reached the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court. The outcome could determine how we define marriage as well as our own families. The Supreme Court heard arguments today in the first of two cases. It deals with California's Prop 8 which bans same-sex marriage. Attorney Ted Olson argued against the ban. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THEODORE OLSON, ATTORNEY FOR PROP 8 OPPONENTS: It is just wrong, it is not consistent with the ideals and the laws and the constitution of this country to take our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and put them in a class and deny them rights that we give to everyone else.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: Austin Nimocks, he is the senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which supports the ban on same-sex marriage. Good to have you here. The Supreme Court could take many different options. They could rule same-sex marriage unconstitutional for all states across the board, no states, just California, or throw this case out altogether. What would you consider to be a victory?

AUSTIN NIMOCKS, ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM: Well, the same thing we've been asking the Supreme Court to do all along, which is keep the debate alive in this particular case. Americans across the country are invested in the debate about marriage and we are asking the Supreme Court not to rule with a heavy hand here. We don't need the Supreme Court to intervene. Our Democratic institutions are where these debates belong and we should keep it with the people. That's what we're asking the Supreme Court to do.

MALVEAUX: So, for a victory for you would be for them to throw out the case and have this to be settled along the court of public opinion, among politicians, among communities themselves?

NIMOCKS: Well, not necessarily throw out the case. We believe the Supreme Court should rule that marriage, union of one man and one woman, is constitutional and that question was asked in the courtroom today when did marriage become unconstitutional? And our opponents could not answer that question. We believe the Supreme Court should uphold marriage and right of Americans to believe in marriage and uphold it in our public policy as one man and one woman. That is constitutional, and leave the debate on same-sex marriage to the states, to our lawmakers, to our elected representatives, right where it belongs. What we don't need is the Supreme Court to rule that same- sex marriage is the law of the land.

MALVEAUX: Is there anything you heard today, in those arguments that actually made you optimistic perhaps that you would see a victory on your side or was there something that gave you pause or concern that perhaps you wouldn't win this battle?

NIMOCKS: We remain optimistic about what the Supreme Court should do and what we're asking it to do. The optimism stems from the fact the court was engaged in the debate. They asked important and probing questions. We're satisfied with the argument made. We feel like we made an excellent presentation on behalf of the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and marriage as a whole. And so we're looking forward to the decision later this year.

MALVEAUX: What do you make of the fact that Ted Olson, a prominent Republican, the one who of course argued in Bush v. Gore, is really at the mantel of making sure that same-sex marriage is upheld as a constitutional right and you have many prominent Republicans who have decided they are in support of same-sex marriage. That used to be a group that was pretty much was in your camp.

NIMOCKS: Well, we've learned over the years that marriage is not exactly a partisan issue. We saw in November of 2012, when four states voted on marriage, we had tens of thousands of Democrats in those states voting for marriage as marriage outdid the Republican presidential ticket. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue that unites the country. We've seen red and blue state as like vote to uphold marriages as a union between one man and woman. It's not a partisan divide. It's really an American issue. We need to leave it to the American people.

MALVEAUX: All right, we'll see how the Supreme Court weighs in on all of this. It's far from over. We'll be hearing some oral arguments, audiotapes inside. We're also going to be following tomorrow because case number two goes before the Supreme Court regarding same-sex marriage. Thank you, good to have you.

Debate raging today whether or not people who actually weigh more should pay more to fly. A European economist has published a study on the concept of pay what you weigh. Yes, right. He says asking flyers to pay according to body weight is simple math and good economics.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BHARAT BHATTA, ECONOMIST: Because I'm straight up economics for me it is not discriminatory at all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: Miles O'Brien joins us. Miles, great to see you as always. Good friend, former CNN there (ph) and a pilot, aviation expert. You do a bit of everything. What do you make of this?

MILES O'BRIEN, AVIATION EXPERT: First of all, it sounds tongue in cheek. But as a pilot, one thing that's very important is the amount of weight on your aircraft. Weight equates to the amount of fuel and the safety of the aircraft. If you have too much weight on board you're not going to take off. It's probably not a bad idea for fairness sake because we have a system where the skinny people with their baggage subsidize the heavier people with the baggage. Skinny people pay for their excess baggage. The heavy people don't pay for the excess baggage they carry with them on the plane if you will. So it -- I guess you could say this is an issue either way it goes to the bottom line.

MALVEAUX: All right. But, miles, okay, I hear what you're saying. But clearly, this sounds like discrimination, right? You're going to charge people who are heavier more to fly? That doesn't seem fair either.

O'BRIEN: Well, yes, it doesn't but if the premise is it costs more to carry heavy baggage which is true, then that premise should hold for heavier individuals. So if the fairest of world, if you did a cumulative weight of the passenger plus his or her luggage and they are charged for the weight, that would be by far the fairest. That would be a level playing field. You can imagine how that's not going to go over so well.

MALVEAUX: I don't think so. I want to switch gears here because there's a lot of confusion over this. I was on a flight and had my cell phone on, and you have to turn it off but the "New York Times" reporting the FAA might stop forcing us to shut off electronic devices during take-off and landing and that might happen by the end of the year but it's not including cell phones. Explain this. How does this work?

O'BRIEN: This is all in process. The "New York Times" blog released some information of this committee that involved the industry and the FAA and the electronics manufacturers. They're trying to come up with a more sane policy. Let's face it the policy that we have now is draconian, silly. The fact that on my iPad I have an airplane mode. Why shouldn't I put it on airplane mode and read the newspaper as we're taking off? It doesn't emit anything when it does that. That's one of the sane approaches the FAA and this committee is considering. The Times blog sort of released information as they consider some of ideas. We're not going to get a final ruling until July. Until that time we have to live with those draconian rules. And circling back to weight, it's lighter to carry this than the three newspapers I used to carry on board. Why not allow me to read this at all times? I'm on the plane as long as I'm not transmitting.

MALVEAUX: That's true, that's true. I've got one more question before I let you go. I'm getting mixed answers. If you have your cell phone on, does that disrupt what the pilots and communications, what's happening when you land or take off or is it okay to have your cell phone on?

O'BRIEN: I can tell you I have flown with my cell phone on in my little plane next to the navigational gear for many, many hours and it never experienced a single problem with it. So it's -- frankly it's a bit of overreaction erring on the side of safety. No one has spent money to analyze what it does. And this is -- this process that is under way now maybe finally we'll get information into the system instead of a straight draconian, you can't use it.

MALVEAUX: You've used that word a couple of times, draconian. Maybe we'll see changes. Miles, great to see you.

Another threat from North Korea today but just how concerned should we be about an attack from North Korea? How seriously is our government and the military actually taking these threats?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)