Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is retiring after 35 years, as he approaches his 90th birthday in just a couple of weeks.
Well, the president paid tribute to Stevens in the White House Rose Garden this afternoon and detailed some of the qualities that he's going to be looking for in a new justice.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: While we cannot replace Justice Stevens' experience or wisdom, I will seek someone in the next couple of weeks with similar -- similar qualities -- an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people.
MALVEAUX: Let's bring in our senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, to talk a little bit about what this all means -- Jeff, you know, he is such an interesting person to -- to look at. You have interviewed him numerous times, very recently, as a matter of fact. He's almost turning, what, 90 in a couple of weeks. He loves to play bridge and tennis. He's a very active man. He's got a beach house. I understand that he said some of his best writings he did -- his first drafts were right there on the beach, writing those briefs.
What kind of absence -- what kind of hole is there going to be in the Supreme Court now that he is walking away?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: It's a big one, because he is, by far, by 11 years, the longest tenured justice on the Supreme Court.
He joined the court in 1975, appointed by President Ford. The next most senior justice is Antonin Scalia, who joined in 1986. So his range of experience is so different than the other justices.
Also, as the senior associate justice, he had the opportunity to make assignments when the chief justice wasn't in the majority. So he controlled the majority in such important cases as "Lawrence v. Texas," which was the big gay rights case. In all of the Guantanamo Bay cases, which -- where he ruled against the Bush administration and -- and wrote several of those opinions himself.
He supported affirmative action later in his career, in the University of Michigan Law School case and he wrote the most famous dissenting opinion in "Bush v. Gore" in 2000, which is probably the case he'd like to have back the most.
MALVEAUX: Now, one of the things that he was able to do that perhaps another justice is not going to be able to bring to the table, is he was able to go to those swing votes, to go to Sandra Day O'Connor -- she's now since retired -- but to go to her, to go to Kennedy and say, we want you to swing on this side, the liberal side, because he had seniority, because he knew how the Supreme Court works.
How does President Obama replace someone like that?
Can they -- can he appoint a justice who has those kind of qualities?
TOOBIN: Well, he can try, but the Supreme Court is such an unusual institution. It's so small and it so depends on the chemistry of just a handful of people. It's very hard to predict how they will interact among them. And one thing that President Obama has said is that he doesn't necessarily want to appoint only federal appeals court judges.
You know, this is the first time in history that all nine justices are former federal appeals court judges. He -- Obama has said that he want to broaden his sights a little bit, look for politicians, look for professors, look for people who have had the experience of persuading others of their point of view, maybe in hopes of getting someone who could become a power broker on the Court. MALVEAUX: All right, Jeffrey, we're going to get back to you.
More -- more details, more information, your insights on this.
But I first want to go to our senior political analyst, Gloria Borger. She is in New York. And David Gergen, who is in Boston.
Obviously, this is a very big development. Not surprising. We knew this was coming -- Gloria, I do want to start with you, however, because we just saw it -- this -- this health occasion debate erupt in Washington. We heard the heated rhetoric, all kinds of different tactics that were used to get this to push through. The Republicans are just furious and -- and look like they could use delaying tactics, the filibuster, in this confirmation process the next go around.
How does this play out in Congress?
What are we looking at over the summer?
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, there -- there are a couple of things that are really interesting.
First of all, I talked to a senator Republican leadership aide today who says, look, unless this person is at the far end of the left spectrum, it doesn't seem likely that a filibuster could occur because even if Republicans were united, they could lose a couple of the moderates and then have to get Democrats to join them and that probably wouldn't happen.
But you raise health care and you raise the Tea Party issue and the interesting thing to me, as a political journalist, watching this is, we haven't seen the impact of the Tea Party movement on a Supreme Court nominee.
Will the issues that people in the Senate feel very pressured to look at be the issues of, for example, the Constitutionality of health care reform, the issues of eminent domain -- can the government take your land away from you, any issues at all that are related to the size and the scope of government?
And will Republicans in the Senate feel very pressured to raise those issues and take a stand and take a stand and mount a very vigorous campaign against this candidate, no matter who it is, even if they know that they're going to lose?
MALVEAUX: And, David, what do you think we're seeing?
I mean is -- is that going to develop into some sort of cultural war over the summer, when we actually see some of those issues that Gloria brought up out in the open and a fiercely, fiercely divided Congress?
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: I think we are likely to see those issues. The Tea Party folks have made it clear that one of the three big issues in their minds is Constitutionally limited government. And by that, they -- they do mean, as Gloria suggested, that Washington has -- has centralized too much power, overcoming the influence of the Tenth Amendment, leaving, you know, un -- undelegated powers in the hands of the states.
But I don't think it's likely to be a fierce fight, unless they do go and -- and -- and find someone who's very compatible to the left.
And the three candidates who are now on the -- we know are on a short list, I don't think you could say any one of those three is going to set off those kind of explosions. I think there are going to be some fights. There will be controversy. But I think President Obama's in the unusual position where he may get two nominees onto the court in his first two years. And that will be remarkable for a president to do that. And I think he's likely to win on both.
MALVEAUX: Jeff, real quick, if I can ask you, what kind of legacy does this allow President Obama, when he is able to pick a second person?
Obviously, Stevens likes President Obama. He said in his letter, "Dear -- my dear Mr. President," when he addressed him.
What kind of gift is he giving President Obama?
TOOBIN: Well, they are both from Chicago and proud of it. He's giving him the chance to shape the court for decades. You know, President Obama will serve for four years or eight years. John Paul Stevens will -- had served for 35 years. Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, is one of the obvious shortlisters.
MALVEAUX: OK...
TOOBIN: She's only 49 years old. She could serve for 35 years.
That opportunity is just a treasure for any president.
MALVEAUX: All right. And we're going to bring more about the details of some of those possible candidates next up.
But I want to thank all three of you for joining us.
We'll be back with you in a little bit.
And a surprise announcement that caught almost everyone off guard. Now, this is Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak, revealing that he is not going to seek re-election. And he explains why to CNN's Congressional correspondent, Dana Bash.
Now, she broke the story and she's going to have more on that in just a bit.
Also, Sarah Palin is letting loose on President Obama, accusing him of coddling enemies and alienating allies. Details of her high profile speech, a possible preview of the 2012 presidential race. We'll have to see.
And new trouble for a Mideast diplomat who caused an airline bomb scare. Now he's having trouble getting home.
MALVEAUX: One more Democrat is joining the ranks of those who are leaving Congress. He said he accomplished what he set out to do. That's Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan, announcing today that he is not going to seek another term.
REP. BART STUPAK (D), MICHIGAN: I wanted to leave a couple of times, but I always thought there was one more job to be done. Health care was always a major issue. In fact, some of my friends over here will remember this little pamphlet. It was one of my first election things -- "health care reform right now."
MALVEAUX: We want to bring in now our CNN Congressional correspondent, Dana Bash, who joins us.
And she broke the news about the congressman's plans. And she also went one-on-one with him after the announcement -- and so, Dana, congratulations, first of all.
But what makes Stupak's departure significant at this time, specifically?
DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. Well, Suzanne -- Suzanne, look, he is a national figure. And he became a national figure because of what happened at the very end of the health care debate last month. And that, of course, is that Stupak, who is an anti-abortion Democrat, cut a deal with the White House that allowed him to vote for the health care bill. And he brought over enough other Democrats to give the president enough votes to make his top priority -- health care reform -- the law of the land.
And so that notoriety came with some -- some pretty vicious attacks on Bart Stupak, specifically opponents saying that, you know, they thought he was Exhibit A of what they needed to try to get rid of in Washington.
In fact, the reason why we are here in this rural area of Michigan in his district is because the Tea Party Express was here and has been here since yesterday. We were at a rally yesterday. And they came to say, look, we want to try to defeat him.
Well, it looks like Stupak did that for hi -- for them. He retired before they could.
So that's one of the things that I asked the congressman about when I sat down with him right after his announcement here. I asked about the curious timing of his announcement and their presence here.
BASH: Now you were announcing, as you know, as the Tea Party Express is here in your district. They came initially to try to send you into early retirement. You made that decision for them. But you're somebody who prides yourself -- I've watched you -- as a fighter.
And is there any risk in looking like you're actually...
STUPAK: No.
BASH: -- a coward...
STUPAK: No.
BASH: -- not a fighter here...
STUPAK: No.
BASH: -- in saying this...
STUPAK: No.
BASH: -- as they're here trying to get you out of office?
STUPAK: No. No. The Tea Party is not even from my district. You know, I'm -- I'm glad -- I hope they're spending...
BASH: I was here yesterday. There were a number of people from your district at that first rally.
STUPAK: OK. Well, they've been my -- they were in my district in -- in the summer.
I mean, look, the ads you see on TV, where are they from?
San -- Sacramento, California. All but -- most of the calls come from our office, Texas. I mean, that's what the Tea Party is.
This district is Independents -- one third Independents, one third Democrats, one third Republicans. You have groups come and go. When I ran, it was the Perot people -- the Ross Perot people. I mean I get I along with these folks.
And even if they weren't from my district, they're my friends. And there's no doubt in my mind, I'd win reelection if I chose to run again. I've chose not to.
MALVEAUX: So, Dana, let's talk a little bit about that district that he is referring to. It's a very unique place, as you know. It is rural. It is fiscally liberal, but socially conservative -- very much anti-abortion; predominantly white, with some Native Americans.
How -- how difficult -- how concerned are Democrats about potentially losing his seat to Republicans now? BASH: They are concerned. That's why the president himself and other Democratic leaders called Stupak and urged him to please stay in office, because they are worried that -- look, he did fit this very -- as you said, very unique district. It is socially conservative, not just that, it is huge. It is sprawling. It takes about eight hours to drive from one side to the other and there's no media market to communicate with voters.
He knew the voters already. And that is something that people who are running, especially Democrats, will have a hard time overcoming, especially given the fact that this seems to be a more Republican- leaning or conservative district. It will be hard for -- for Democrats to win.
And I'll just tell you, it's the fact that it's so sprawling, that is the reason why Stupak insisted he was leaving. It was just a lot of wear and tear on him. He insisted it's not because of the health care vote.
MALVEAUX: All right, Dana, thanks very much.
I know you've been traveling throughout that sprawling district throughout the day today.
BASH: Yes.
MALVEAUX: So thank you very much, Dana.
The Tea Party movement had already targeted Stupak and declared victory after he announced his retirement.
Well, I want to bring back our CNN senior political analysts, Gloria Borger and David Gergen and ask, more broadly, what kind of influence does the Tea Party have now?
We saw what happened with Stupak.
Could it happen to many other vulnerable candidates?
Either one, jump in.
BORGER: Well, I...
GERGEN: Gloria, go ahead.
BORGER: I think it -- you know, I -- I think it could. I mean you heard what Dana was saying, that Stupak said it's not the Tea Party movement. But clearly, I think, what we're seeing is Republican candidates pay a lot of attention to the Tea Party movement. And that may be where we see the most deal of impact, because in the Republican Party, they're -- they're raising candidates who can challenge Republicans in primaries and split the Republican Party.
And as we were talking about before, in this next Supreme Court fight, we'll see the influence of the Tea Party and how Republican senators behave toward the nominee. So I do think you see a real influence there.
GERGEN: And let me just say, Suzanne, that we should be clear about one thing. Even though he was being hit both from the left and from the right, Bart Stupak, had he remained in the election, very likely would have won.
BORGER: Right.
GERGEN: He's been winning in there -- in that district -- since 1992 by around 57 percent on a regular basis. He would have been a solid candidate, a solid favorite to win.
This confluence of the Tea Party coming in one night and him announcing it the next day does give the Tea Party something to seize on. It's a -- it's a symbolic kind of victory for them. And I do think this -- it comes at a moment when the Tea Party influence is growing.
They've just formed this federation, you know, some 21 groups have come together. They're trying to coordinate their message better than they have. This gives them a great day for messaging.
And I do think. You're going to see their influence grow. But I don't think yet that they're at a place where they can a national election. But they may be able to draw Republicans to the right at the Congressional and presidential level and they may exercise vetoes and -- in a fair number of places in the country over who Republicans nominate.
MALVEAUX: All right, we'll see.
BORGER: You know, I think...
MALVEAUX: All right, Gloria, you're going to have to make it real quick here.
BORGER: I was just going to say I think David's point is really good, which is that the next step for the Tea Party is a message and a clear message. And that's something we don't see at this point.
MALVEAUX: All right. Thanks so much, Gloria and David.
Transcript from CNN's The Situation Room aired on April 9, 2010