Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Interview with Rep. Laurel Lee (R-FL): GOP Holds Hearing on Judges Amid Claims They're Blocking Trump Agenda; Retrial Begins for Woman Accused of Killing Police Officer Boyfriend; Controversy Around Torpedo Bats Ignites Widespread Discussion. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired April 01, 2025 - 15:30   ET

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

[15:30:00]

REP. LAUREL LEE (R-FL): ... is that new parents can serve and mothers can serve. But there's a difference when we start talking about proxy voting. So you're right, during Speaker Pelosi's tenure, proxy voting was used during the COVID pandemic.

But once the pandemic ended, it really is the belief certainly of Republicans in Congress, most of them, that we have a constitutional responsibility to be here in the nation's capital. That's what our founders had in mind, that we would all come from all across the country, from our communities, and engage here in discussion and debate and policymaking. And that it's important to have that presence.

That being said, I'm a mother, I understand absolutely the need for us to be concerned and try to accommodate the needs of working families and new mothers. So I think what you'll see next is a broader conversation in the House about how we can be hearing and meeting those needs that is short of enabling and enacting proxy voting. There's really no limiting principle if we start doing proxy voting about, you know, what should the conditions or circumstances be.

So that's something that we really, I believe, should have hearings about, have a thorough conversation about, and formulate an approach that incorporates really all of the members of the House of Representatives.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yes, it is quite the disagreement to watch, I will say. But we did have you here. I wanted to talk about this hearing today and this discussion about the judiciary.

As you are all saying, there is judicial overreach that is happening. And one of the specific and big issues that you all are talking about is this idea of injunctions. When a district court judge can pause a policy while they are maybe ruling against it or they are taking further action to see where they land or another court ends up landing on it, when should a district court judge, in your opinion, be able to issue a nationwide injunction?

LEE: So the question of the nationwide injunction has been the focus of the hearing all day. And I will say, I am a former judge in Florida. I care deeply about the independence of the judiciary. But it's also true that a judge's authority in jurisdiction is typically limited to the people and the parties and the controversy before that judge. And so the question here is whether the judges who are issuing these nationwide or universal injunctions and effectively stopping a policy -- and that's true whether it is coming from the White House or a law that's passed by Congress -- are overreaching or if that is too expansive a view of the role of a single district court judge.

And the policy proposals being discussed today included potentially taking those cases to three judge panels, expediting appellate review, things that would still afford the opportunity for those cases to be heard in court, but provide greater assurance that they were being considered in depth outside of that temporary injunction stage.

And also noteworthy is that this is not the first time this issue has been in front of Congress. The kind of structural changes we're talking about really are applicable regardless of the party that's in the majority or in the White House.

KEILAR: The case in the forefront right now, though, has to do with this case that Judge Boasberg is overseeing, which has to do with these deportations to El Salvador, specifically we saw of Venezuelan citizens.

I do want to ask you, though, because there was a case last year where a Texas district court judge temporarily blocked the Biden administration from granting legal status to undocumented immigrants who were married to American citizens. There was a nationwide injunction in that case.

And in that specific case, the ruling was in favor of 16 Republican states who were suing the Biden administration, and they were joined by the Trump-aligned America First Legal, which was then led by its founder, Stephen Miller.

Stephen Miller had sought relief from the district court judge. He certainly did not complain in that instance that this nationwide injunction took over the role of the executive. But he is in this case with Judge Boasberg.

How is this current argument against injunctions by the administration, by Republicans then, a principled argument?

LEE: Well, and I would also point out that back in that moment you're talking about, when it was an injunction against the Biden administration advocated for by Mr. Miller, Democrats in Congress and Democrats out in the public square were complaining about the overreach of these nationwide injunctions.

So the reality is --

KEILAR: Sure and he had talked about that --

(CROSSTALK)

LEE: -- when we talk about structural changes --

KEILAR: -- but I want to ask you on the flip side here, Republicans, and you are one, so talk to me about that.

LEE: Well, and that is why when we talk about examining the role of the courts, the independence of the judiciary, the separation of powers, the proper functioning of each of those three branches of government, it should be something that we think about in nonpartisan terms.

[15:35:00]

Because whatever we do, and it is a proper function of Congress to think about the bounds of judicial -- about jurisdiction, about the role of the courts, it is a proper function of Congress.

But we need to think about that with this view in mind. It should absolutely be a nonpartisan analysis. What should the role of the courts be? What should the structure of the courts be?

What are the procedural requirements? Or when does appellate review available? That should be something that we're thinking about with the long-term view that is going to be fundamentally the system that works the best for the public that we can get these cases heard and we can get results, and we can get clarity, but it needs to be something that works in this administration, works in the next, regardless of who is in the White House.

KEILAR: OK, so something that is different here is you have the White House calling Boasberg the radical left. He isn't. He was initially appointed to the bench by Bush, right?

You have them calling for his impeachment. That is something we didn't see on the other side. But I do have to ask you, because to be clear, to your point, Democratic administrations have also taken issue with injunctions.

And that's something that actually made me think of another story that we're covering today, which was the use of the tush push in the NFL. I know you've been busy, but stay with me here, because I promise I'm going to make it germane to our conversation. It's that controversial play that can give a team advantage when used effectively.

How can Americans take any of you seriously, but especially Republicans today, when the rhetoric is certainly different, when you're only against the tush push, when the other team is using it to advantage?

LEE: Well, I will just acknowledge that I have no idea what the tush push is. But what I do know is that when the Supreme Court issued the Dobbs opinion, there were absolutely, absolutely calls from Democrats for impeachments, for reviews, for throwing them out of office. There were even threats of violence made against the justices.

So unfortunately, and I am a believer that we all need to think about the independence of the judiciary. KEILAR: But on the issue of injunctions.

LEE: It is not true that this is a Republican issue. This is something that has been discussed by Republicans and Democrats alike, depending upon what the courts were doing and what the rulings at issue were. And what I think that says is that this cries out for, really, bipartisan analysis and solutions that are going to work for Republicans and Democrats and the public, regardless of what the issue of the day.

And that's the key about really effectively being on the bench, is that you're there to apply the law, what the law says, regardless of whether it's an easy day or a hard day or who the party is that's in front of you. That is really the mark of a judicial system that's working, is when it's the same, regardless the judge's political beliefs are set aside at the door and the law should operate the same.

KEILAR: All right, we'll see if you all come together against all injunctions. I suspect that may not happen, but Congresswoman Laurel Lee, thank you so much for being with us.

LEE: It was great to see you.

KEILAR: We'll be right back.

[15:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: A Boston woman is back on trial for the murder of her police officer boyfriend nearly a year after her first trial ended with a hung jury.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: And now the process of finding a new jury is underway. Karen Read returned to court today to face charges of second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. She's accused in the 2022 death of Boston police officer John O'Keefe.

Read has pleaded not guilty, claiming the police killed her boyfriend and then framed her for it.

CNN's Jean Casarez joins us now with more on the back story. And, Jean, given the publicity, how hard is it going to be to find an impartial jury this time around?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, let me tell you this, Boris. The judge said about a week ago that it's going to take a long time to get a jury. Now, we've got some numbers here.

This came out this morning in open court. We heard it ourselves. Two hundred and seventy-five potential jurors are going to come every single day, Tuesday through Friday. So that's a little over a thousand this week.

Now, the judge asked the group this morning some questions, important questions, one being how many of you have seen, heard or talked about this case with someone else? Seventy-eight hands went up.

And then how many of you have formed an opinion on this case? Forty hands went up. What about, she says, that you have actual bias on this case? Sixteen hands went up.

Doesn't mean they're going to be excluded, but that's about half of the people that came today. And the judge is very aware that there are so many people that are just set in their ways of who they are for in this case.

They have already formed an opinion, and she confronted it with the potential jurors there because the supporters are out there for Karen Read. There are some supporters for John O'Keefe's family, but the judge made no bones about it, telling prospective jurors the decision is made in court. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE BEVERLY CANNONE, MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT: There are people advocating for one outcome or another with intensity, but without the benefit of having heard or seen any evidence at all. The law works in a different way, and the difference is crucial to our system of justice.

The jurors selected for this trial will hear and judge the evidence. They will decide what the facts are and where the evidence is contested. They will determine where the truth lies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: And, of course, the Commonwealth is saying that Karen Read drove her car backwards after dropping her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe, off at a party, and she hit him, and that caused the skull fractures, and that caused his death with an oncoming blizzard. He was out there on the front lawn of the home.

[15:45:00]

But the defense is saying, no, he went in the house, and the police officers in the house had an altercation with him. They killed him, and then they deposited his body out in the front of the house. And the defense will be able to use that third-party culprit defense in naming some names of people in that house that they believe could have killed John O'Keefe.

KEILAR: All right, Jean Casarez, thank you. We'll be watching.

Straight ahead, the rising star of the new baseball season is not a player, it's a piece of equipment. We're going to break down the game- changing physics of the "Torpedo Bat" when Neil deGrasse Tyson joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(VIDEO CLIP OF THE FILM, "THE NATURAL")

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[15:50:00]

SANCHEZ: Of course, a clip from the film "The Natural" about a magic bat called Wonder Boy that seemingly takes over baseball. And while it may not be magical, there is a bat that has everyone talking in this young MLB season. We're talking about the "Torpedo Bat". Its legend grew even larger last night after the Elly De La Cruz hit not one but two home runs with the bat, driving in seven RBIs.

KEILAR: The Yankees even got in on the big bat action, hitting 15 home runs during their opening three-game series, tying a major league record.

So let's talk about it. What makes this thing so special? We have astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson with us. All right, Dr. Tyson, we love it, don't we, when physics and baseball intersect as we're talking about this bat. Can you explain to us what's the science here?

What is it about this bat?

NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON, ASTROPHYSICIST: So just a couple of points in the story, The Natural, his bat actually breaks, and then he has the bat boy get him a winner, brings back a whole new bat he's never used before, and he still crushes it. So the magic of the bat was more the magic of his hands.

But I'm a baseball fan, as are many people. I was born in the Bronx, so I'm an authentic Yankee fan. I will add here that Aaron Judge's four home runs in that game were hit with a regular bat, not with a Torpedo Bat, just to clarify that.

So what they're calling a Torpedo Bat, I'm wondering, somebody should have invented this decades ago, because in retrospect, it looks quite simple. So I brought a sample bat here. It's a Nerf bat, so we'll deal with it for the moment.

Notice in the bat, we have the same width for a big part of the length of that barrel, and so that allows you to hit it at almost any part of this bat and get sort of maximal, quote, wood behind it.

Now, there are other factors that are involved here. For example, the bat actually goes into a vibration mode if you hit it at the tip of the bat or if you hit it up near the handle, and that's never good, and that's how sometimes you get a sting on the bat when you swing.

But what they've decided and figured out is some players always hit the ball in a particular part of the bat, and if that's the case, why don't you concentrate the sweet spot into that one place? Take the sweet spot wherever it would otherwise be spread and put it where that batter normally makes contact with the ball. And so if you do that, then when they make contact, the ball will go farther than it otherwise would if it didn't have that specially tailored sweet spot for them.

SANCHEZ: And why is it that the ball then goes further? TYSON: Yes, well, so if I make the part of the bat where I normally hit the ball wider than other parts of the bat, then I'm not wasting wood in parts of the bat where I'm not making contact with the ball. That's the first point.

Second, if I move the center of mass of the bat closer to my hands, two things happen. I can actually swing the bat faster, and I have more control over the bat. It's not that different from back in the days when they used to choke up on the bat. You remember that?

You're bringing your hands closer to the center of mass of the ball. Many of the batters that choked up on the bat had very high precision with how and when they hit. But regardless, if you're a slugger and you put the mass closer in, I will not only be able to swing faster, and if I make contact with the widest part, then I will be able to put more concentrated mass from the bat behind the ball, and you should have higher exit speed off of the bat when that happens. And anytime you have higher speed off the bat, the ball's going to go farther.

KEILAR: So you're like marshaling your energy and your accuracy. That makes sense. But I guess the question then is, is it fair? I mean, is this an unfair advantage?

TYSON: Well, you want to stay in the rules, and the rules don't say where you put the thick part of the bat. It says, you know, it gives a rule for how much it weighs, for how long it is. It's supposed to be rolled out of one piece of wood, and so they'd have to come up with a rule to make it illegal, and that would, personally, that would be stupid.

Not stupid. That would be -- everyone has access to this bat. It'd be something different if it was some secret formula and nobody else had it. Then that would be unfair.

Plus, Judge hit four home runs, and he didn't use the bat last night. So yes, you still have to know how to hit home runs. You still have to be good at that. And so, but I will add that so many other advances in sports have made it much more interesting to watch.

[15:55:00]

And the diet, exercise, weight training, distance training, all the physiology that we have altered, enhanced over the decades, that's in the human body. I don't see any reason why, if we can improve the action on the field with the equipment that's used, that we shouldn't do that as well.

SANCHEZ: We'll see if there's a similar push in baseball to get the "Torpedo Bat" removed the way that there is in the NFL now. This argument about the tush push, any opinions there about the Eagles' tush push trying to get outlawed by the NFL owners?

TYSON: I have complete opinions there. So suppose you, on the basketball court, there was a spot where Michael Jordan was 98 percent deadly accurate every time he was there. Would you outlaw him from ever reaching that spot on the court to take a shot? No, no. You would try to defend against it, but that might be hard if I get an open man and he becomes the open man, because some people are better at something than others when you have full access to the play, just because you haven't figured out how to do it yet. It's not some secret.

Well, it could be if you don't know physics. If you don't know physics, it looks mysterious.

SANCHEZ: Good point. I will say I'm all good for it as long as my team is benefiting from it. If not, we should make it illegal.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, appreciate you sharing your expertise.

TYSON: Thanks for having me.

SANCHEZ: Stay with CNN NEWS CENTRAL. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: It's the well-known motto of the U.S. Postal Service. Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds. You know it by heart, right?

KEILAR: That's right.

SANCHEZ: Then they want to add turkeys to that list. There was a mailman in Cape Cod who ran afoul of some mean gobblers.

KEILAR: Ring camera video captured the carrier just doing his job delivering packages.

[16:00:00]

This mad trio of turkeys surrounded him and then gave chase. And here's what the mailman said happened next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WAYNE WHITE, MAIL CARRIER: Once I got out, they came after me. You saw, you know, me defend with the boxes and whatnot. And then when I got to the step, it's like, OK, here we are. We got to get back, make a run for it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: And the turkeys just wouldn't give up. They followed him as he made several more stops along his route. Maybe he had a package they needed. I don't know.

SANCHEZ: We'll see how tough they are on Thanksgiving.

KEILAR: Yes. "THE ARENA" with Kasie Hunt starts right now.