tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX March 31, 2013 10:00am-11:00am PDT
. >> chris: i'm chris wallace. the debate over gun control heats up. ♪ >> chris: 100 days after newtown, congress gets ready to vote on new measures to prevent mass shootings. but is the call to action starting to fade? we'll ask a leading voice in the debate, former astronaut mark kelly, husband of gabrielle giffords. a fox news sunday exclusive. then how w will the new pop change the catholic church? as the world celebrates easter, pope francis must shepherd the church out of scandal and confront challenges to catholic doctrine, we'll talk with the
archbishop of washington, cardinal donald wuerl. and north korea enters a state of war against south korea. we'll ask our sunday panel, have the fiery threats reached the danger point. and our power player of the week. the untold story of how a doctor saved the life of ronald reagan. all, right now, on fox news sunday. ♪ >> chris: and, hello, again, and happy easter from fox news in washington. well, after months of debate, the senate is finally ready to vote on new gun control legislation. one of the people at the center of the issue is mark kelly, retired astronaut, navy captain and the husband of former congresswoman gabrielle giffords who was shot two years ago. captain kelly joins us from tucson, arizona. captain, after newtown, there was national outrage over these acts of mass violence but that has begun to change. cbs has a new poll, just after
the massacre, 57% supported stricter gun controls and now it is down to 47%, and, senate majority leader harry reid says the bill real introduce the week after next will not include a ban on assault weapons and won't include a limit on high capacity magazines. question: should president obama have moved faster to bring it to a vote before the call for action began to fade? >> well, i think, after something like, you know, 20 first graders being murdered in their classrooms, you know, it is important to take action. and the american people are demanding action now. you know, the timeline of that, you know, sometimes, especially with a polarized congress, these things can take a long time. but, it is clear -- and you say that, you know, there is less support and i want to address that for a second. when you use words like gun control, you know, gun control doesn't poll well but we do know over 90% of americans support a
universal background check. and, there is incredible momentum in congress and around the nation to get this done. >> chris: well, you say incredible momentum. five republican senators say that they are going to filibuster any additional gun restrictions. we have them up on the screen. what do you say, for instance, to marco rubio and rand paul? >> well, first, i would say to marco rubio that 94% of his constituents support a universal background check. for senator rand paul, it is about 83%, in kentucky. so, they should listen to their constituents and, certainly, shouldn't be getting in the way of the process, which is to debate the bill and to vote on the bill. i mean, that doesn't make any sense. and, i imagine that at some point, if they actually do this, their constituents will hold them accountable for those actions. >> chris: why do you think there is, in poe -- there are a couple
of things going on in the polls, harry reid, the senate majority leader, is not even going to include the high capacity magazines or the assault weapons ban on the bill, they'll be part of the amendments but not part of the bill. what is going on? >> well, certainly, you know, in this country we have a very powerful gun lobby and the leadership of the nra has done a very good job over many, many years of controlling the debate on this issue. but, one thing that is different now, is the fact that we had 20 first graders murdered in a classroom along with six educators. i mean, that is unacceptable and the american people, you know, want something done on this. 92% of americans support a universal background check. it is 74% of nra members. i would hope at some point, the leadership of the nra would listen to their membership on this issue. >> chris: we're going to get to the background check in a
second. one last question about the senate. republicans say they are going to offer an alternative bill that would crack down on gun trafficking and would beef up school safety. it would not include the background check or an assault weapons ban. what do you think of what is called the grassley alternative? >> well, you know, i think it is a mistake. any bill that does not include a universal background check is a mistake. it is the most common-sense thing that we can do to prevent criminals and the mentally im from having access to weapons. i mean, the system we have right now, we have 40% of all americans who buy a gun, buy it without a background check and that is probably where most of the criminals and the mentally ill are going. we know from a poll that has been done with criminals in prison, that over 80% of them get them through that loophole. so, it would be a mistake not to address the thing that 92% of american households support and 74% of nra members support which
is the universal background check. >> chris: let's pick up on that. because the main feature of what is going to be in the senate bill and what you are pushing and pushing today is the universal background check. this week, you went -- rather, recently, a few weeks ago, you went to a gun store in the arizona area, and bought a 45 caliber hand egun and afterward discussed the background check you had to go through with your wife, gabrielle giffords. >> easy to do. five minutes. >> five minutes. >> we have to make sure everybody gets a background check before buying a gun to make sure criminals and the mentally ill can't get one. >> universal background check. >> yes. >> chris: captain kelly, what do you think that showed? >> well, you know, we went in there, my executive director, of our organization, and i, and in five minutes and 36 seconds, is the time it took to fill out one
piece of paper. only have to fill out one side for it to be submitted to the national criminal background check system and get an answer. five minutes and 36 seconds. so, what it shows you, is that it is not the burden that the nra leadership says, what a background check is. it is a simple, common sense thing we can do to make sure criminals and the mentally ill can't have access to firearms. >> chris: well, let's talk about that. because, in gabby's tragic case, the shooter, jared loughner, had been suspended from college, because he was deemed to be a threat to himself and to others. he went to a gun store, and got a gun, passed a background check. and, yet was able to go out and shoot gabby and 18 other people. and, the nra says the problem with the background check is that -- the kind of mental health information, in jared loughner's case, doesn't get passed on and doesn't get to be
part of the background check. >> well, it doesn't get passed on in a lot of cases. you know, you know, 19 states have included less than 100 records on mental illness into the national institute of criminal background check system. in the case of the shooter in tucson, the information on his mental illness, that caused him to get expelled from community college, that should have been in the system. his admitted drug use to the us army, who rejected him, that should have been in the system. so he should have -- if we have a system -- improved the system he would have been rejected from buying the gun in the gun store and the other problem is, the other loophole, right? the records loophole but there is the loophole to allow him to go to a gun show, on the internet to buy a gun and we need to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from doing that. it is crazy that we have a system, you know, a system that responsible gun owners get a background check, and, the
option to avoid one is available for anybody who doesn't want to do it. i mean, it is a crazy system. >> chris: different the nra have a point: if you are going to expand the background check and cover more people don't you have to make sure the mental health information gets into the system, otherwise it is a waste of time? >> they absolutely have a point. i mean, they are right on that issue. we need to encourage states to include the mental health records. after virginia tech, for instance, virginia was one of the forst statworst states on t and after virginia tech they are good about getting the records to the federal government. so i'm encouraging -- i'd love to work with the leadership of the nra and with the u.s. senate and the house to make sure we get those records in the system and close the gun show and private seller loophole, like 92% of americans want. like 74% of nra members want. >> chris: the big hold-up in the senate now over the background check is that if you do expand
it to include gun shows and private sales, do the people who sell the guns in those cases have to keep private records? keep records of those sales? and as you well know, the nra says the danger is that if they have to do what licensed dealers have to do and keep those records it could be used to form a national registry and somewhere down the line could be used to confiscate people's guns. how do you respond to that? >> well, i just don't think it is logical. i mean, right now, when you buy a gun in a gun store like i did, there is a record that remains with the gun store. it is not a record with the federal government. it is not a record that is going to one day lead to a national registry. or gun confiscation. so the system currently works with the federally licensed firearms dealers. there is no reason that same system cannot work. with the gun show, and the private seller. but, of course, this is an issue for many, you know, some republican senators and is certainly something that could be worked on. i mean, we have a lot of smart
members in the senate and they can figure out a compromise on this issue, i think. >> chris: finally, arizona officials this week released a lot of records about the shooter. jared loughner. the man who shot gabrielle giffords and 18 others. his parents knew he was deeply disturbed and tested him for drugs but did not send him to get help. what do you have to say after learning all of this to jared loughner's parents? >> well, certainly as a parent, myself, i understand. it is a tragic thing they went through as well. it would have been an entirely different situation, however, if he would have gotten mental health -- gotten an evaluation and when he -- certainly in his case, when he's taking medication, he's not as psychotic as without the medication. it would have clearly been -- would not have happened if he would have had proper mental health treatment but, you know, you can't go back in time.
i mean, you know, the only thing we can do is move forward. and try to make sure that the dangerously mentally ill are not only getting treatment for their mental illness, but, let's make sure they don't have access to guns. let's make sure criminals don't have access to guns. i mean, our organization, americans for responsible solutions, we are really focused on this, every, single day. to make sure we fix this problem, and we address gun violence in this country. >> chris: i want to pick up on that last point. after newtown there was a lot of talk about making it easier for authorities, a school or a family to commit a jared loughner, an adam lanza, the newtown shooter. before they got access to guns and acted out in this horrible way. but, that seems to have been forgotten in all of the debate about gun control. >> well, i don't know if it has been forgotten. i mean, certainly, the debate in the senate is going to -- going to include some aspect of help
for the mentally ill. what that is, you know, i'm not -- i don't know what those details -- how that will turn out but it is certainly an important component of this. to address mental illness in this country. to get those records of mental illness into the system and to make sure there is not a loophole or clearly dangerously and mentally ill can get access to a gun. >> chris: captain kelly, thank you, thank you for joining us and we want to wish you and your wife, the very best, sir. >> thank you, and, happy easter, chris. >> chris: happy easter to you. up next on this easter sunday, we'll discuss the new pope and the shallichallenges he faces a talk with one of the men who elected him, washington's cardinal, donald wuerl. i tuned it all out. with unitedhealthcare, i get information that matters... my individual health profile. not random statistics.
they even reward me for addressing my health risks. so i'm doing fine... but she's still going to give me a heart attack. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. and every day since, two years ago, the people of bp made a commitment to the gulf. we've worked hard to keep it. bp has paid over twenty-three billion dollars to help people and businesses who were affected, and to cover cleanup costs. today, the beaches and gulf are open for everyone to enjoy -- and many areas are reporting their best tourism seasons in years. we've shared what we've learned with governments and across the industry so we can all produce energy more safely. i want you to know, there's another commitment bp takes just as seriously: our commitment to america. bp supports nearly two-hundred-fifty thousand jobs in communities across the country. we hired three thousand people just last year. bp invests more in america than in any other country.
in fact, over the last five years, no other energy company has invested more in the us than bp. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. today, our commitment to the gulf, and to america, has never been stronger. how old is the oldest person you've known? we gave people a sticker and had them show us. we learned a lot of us have known someone who's lived well into their 90s. and that's a great thing. but even though we're living longer, one thing that hasn't changed: the official retirement age. ♪ the question is how do you make sure you have the money you need to enjoy all of these years. ♪
♪ >> chris: today at the vatican, pope francis celebrated his first easter mass as leader of the world's 1 billion catholics. in the traditional easter message, the pope called for a political solution to the civil war in syria. as well as peace on the korean peninsula. as his papacy begins, francis set a humble tone in contrast to the corruption and scandal in some parts of the church. but, how much does the new pope intend to shake things up? earlier i asked the archbishop
of washington, cardinal donald wuerl what he thinks pope trans will do. >> chris: your eminence, happy easter and welcome back to fox news sunday. >> thank you, great to be back. >> chris: from the moment he took the world stage, pope francis talked about serving. the poorest, the weakest, the least important. on holy thursday, he followed the tradition of washing the feet of 12 people, and instead of 12 priests as other popes have done, he washed and kissed the feet of a dozen young inmates including women and muslims. question: what message is the pope sending about what he is going to do? >> i think his message is a very clear one. that you bear witness with words, but you also bear witness with actions. and i think what he is trying to say to all of us is, if we really are trying to introduce people to the gospel, if we are really trying to tell believers how important the gospel is,
can't you do that as well, maybe even better, with actions as well as words. that is what he is trying to do. >> chris: there is a widespread sense that the church has problems. governance problems. there is corruption inside the church, there are turf wars. one of the first things the pope has to deal with is the secret investigative report about the vatican leaks. why did the cardinals believe that pope francis was the right man to clean things up? >> i think you are probably -- a couple of ideas that were going around as we were talking about who might be the next pope. who would be the best person to choose. one, when we talk about the church, we also want to make sure that we distinguish it from just the operation of the vatican. i think we were concerned about who will keep the momentum of
the new evangelization going and who will keep the energy the church is seeing among many of our young people around the world. who will keep that going. at the same time someone has to address the administration of the holy see. somebody has to take a look at what is working and what isn't working. i can't tell you what that means, because we didn't have the report. but, the very fact that we recognize there needs to be some change. that was a part of the thinking. can envision someone better than pope francis and the credibility he brings to whatever he decides, in the vatican, is going to be enormous. but, in the meantime, he is keeping the focus on the rest of the church. where there is an awful lot of good going on. >> chris: but on the inside game, how aggressive a reformer, how revolutionary, if you will,
do you expect pope francis to be -- not on dock -- doctrine, b necessarily? >> you see that, and, there are a lot of changes, and we'll get back to something that will be a little more direct and maybe contact with the pope will be a little easier, and, that was one of the things that we cardinals talked about. the need to find ways in which there is a lot more communication between the rest of the church and the pope. >> chris: all right. you were there. we saw all of the pictures. take us inside. this is your first conclave. take us inside the sistine chapel. they closed the doors, the 115 cardinal electors are all there and you are choosing the head of the church, for 1.2, 1.3 billion catholics. what is that moment like?
>> there is a solemnness that i really wasn't prepared to experience as fully. when you hear that door closing, you hear it, and the -- that bolt is locked, then you realize, this is really a liturgy. we're all wearing what we would wear if we were presiding at a mass, somewhere. not as the celebrant but as a cardinal. the absolute silence. and the one thing you are supposed to be doing is listening with your heart. before i went in, i talked to one of the older cardinals, he's 90 years old. he came to one of those general meetings, just so we could chat. i have known him for 40 years. and i said to him, cardinal, i am feeling a little bit overwhelmed by all of this. he said, when you get into the
sistine chapel and they close that door, just listen with your heart. and you will hear. and it turned out to be true. there is a solemn oath you take, and, then, when the moment comes to write a name on the ballot. there is nobody there but you and, i like to think, the holy spirit, guiding that pen. >> chris: i'm fascinated. there were five ballots and the 5th ballot you chose the pope. after a ballot, and they tell you, so-and-so, bergoglio, pope francis has so many votes. do you mill about and talk and -- >> no. this is the interesting thing. they count the ballots and that in itself is rather solemn. three people look at each ballot, and go through the whole thing, so... once it is clear no one was elected, nothing is
said. there is this moment, quiet, and then, you just write another name on the next ballot. it is as if the holy spirit is saying, look, now you know the direction, okay. you will have to whittle this down. this is the power of the part, though, chris, you have your ballot in your hand and you have to stand there in front of that fresco of the last judgment, and say i call on christ the lord, who will come to judge me that this ballot is for the person i believe should serve and lead the church. and it is really powerful. but, there is no milling about. there is no discussion. it is altogether different than anything that you and i have experienced in our life here, politically. there are no nominations, no
candidates. it is all open to the action of the spirit. >> chris: not exactly like pulling the lever on election day. the big story in washington, this week, as you well know has been the supreme court's consideration of the issue of same sex marriage. if the court finds that there is a constitutional right, what will you say to gays, who are good catholics, attend church every week, who say, who believe that god made them that way, and who want to commit to a partner? >> we are always welcoming of everyone. the catholic church welcomes everyone. but, the catholic church also reminds all of us there is a moral law. the commandments of god, and we have to do our best to live by them. we announce that from the pulpit
and, meet them where they are and walk with them in life's journey. the church is probably, with 20 centuries of experience, probably the most understanding of the human condition of any institution. but, at the same time it does remind, not only gay people, but heterosexual people, straight people, you are not supposed to be following a moral law apart from what christ has said to us. we do that all the time -- >> would you say, would you say to the good, gay catholic... >> i think we try to work with them, whatever situation they find themselves in, the goal is to hold them as close to the church and to christ and the sacraments as possible. a lot depends on how well we're able to communicate, how well we're able in a pastoral situation to look at each person's life and see where we are.
>> chris: you would allow him to continue in the church but would not recognize his marriage? >> we do that with people who are married, divorced and remarried. we say you are still part of the family but we can't recognize that second marriage. we do that, we've done that -- and it has never been a great problem. it is painful for all of us to have to realize that making our way through life is difficult. and, that we can't always be as perfect as away would like to be. i look to the church to say to me, look, walk as close to christ as you can. that is why we are here. come to mass. participate in the life of the church. >> chris: i want to ask you about the legal situation. canada, legalized same sex marriage in 2005 and there have been legal problems. there was a case of a knights of columbus hall that had agreed to hold a reception for a married couple, until they found out
that it was a same sex couple and they had to pay a fine and there are questions, about a catholic university that has housing for married couples, what will they do if it is a same sex couple. how is the church and the -- writ large, not just the church but the whole religious constitution going to deal with that and doesn't it get a little bit to the issue you have with the administration, about the mandate of insurance policies, including with control? >> shouldn't there be enough space in a society as mr pluralistic and free as america is to be able to work all of these things out in a way that everybody can be who they are, and carry on their activities? i'm thinking for example when we talk about changing the definition of marriage. there is going to have to be a lot of adjusting, because the whole world has always understood marriage is the word you use to describe when a man
and a woman commit to each other for the rest of their lives, and, generate and educate children. once you change that arbitrarily, there is going to be downstream from that, all kinds of questions. we're going to have to deal with them one by one as we come to them and that is why the church keeps saying, make room for everyone's faith. the only thing i worry about is someone saying to see, you, because you believe that sex is intended for marriage, and because you believe that marriage is indissolvable and is between a man and a woman, that how you don't belong here. that somehow, this is bigotry or this is hate speech. that is what i worry about. there has to be room enough in the society as large, as free and as pluralistic as america,
to make space for all of us. >> chris: finally, for all of the controversies, this is easter which has a very joyous meaning. what is your message, easter message, for our viewers. >> the easter message for every christian is christ is risen and we say, alleluia, come to mass, and for the rest of the world, easter is also a reminder of hope. there is always hope, individually, collectively, societally, we should never give up hope that we can make things better. that is the story of easter. for the believer, it is alleluia, for everyone else, it should be, there is hope, there is a possibility to make it a better world. >> chris: and it is a beautiful spring and flowers are blooming and all is right with the world. cardinal, thank you so much. >> you are very welcome. thank you, chris. >> chris: the archbishop of washington, cardinal donald wuerl. up next, a threat to peace in
the pacific. we'll ask our sunday group how serious is north korea's drum beat of war? ♪ i love making money. i try to be smart with my investments. i also try to keep my costs down. what's your plan? ishares. low cost and tax efficient. find out why nine out of ten large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal. no they don't. hey son. have fun tonight. ♪ ♪ back against the wall ♪ ain't nothin to me ♪ ain't nothin to me [ crowd murmurs ] hey! ♪ [ howls ]
ok. [ male announcer ] the wireless receiver. call to get u-verse tv starting at $19 a month for 2 years with qualifying bundles. rethink possible. ♪ >> very provocative actions. and, belligerent tone. it has ratcheted up, the danger. >> chris: defense secretary chuck hagel responding to north korea's threat of war against the u.s. and south korea. and, it is time for our sunday
group, bill kristol of the weekly standard. mara liasson of national public radio. republican strategist ed gillespie and charles lane, of the "washington post." well, kim jong-un the young leader of north korea was quoted friday as ordering his missile units to be ready to strike the u.s. and south korea, and the photo was released. kim meeting with top north korean generals with a chart showing the trajectory of their missiles, hitting major american cities. what is his game? bill? >> who knows but it's not good. i mean, murdered, starved millions of their own people, that regime and now, proliferated nuclear weapons, and, once again, the israeli strike on the syrian nuclear weapons plant in 2007, that was given to them by north korea. and, even if you discount north korea, they are containable and will not destroy the regime by attacking us, they can proliferate weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons and missiles and iran and north korea have a relationship and
now, is short of cash and can sell the weapons to terrorist groups and the threat of north korea is very real. >> chris: why do you think they -- he is ratcheting up the tension. >> the explanation is it helps stabilize and secure the situation at home, and maybe that is true. but, the speed at which, you know, they've created real -- he might think he's being games like his father and grandfather did, i guess, and, you know, they can pull back at the key moment. but south korea and japan are sitting there, nervous -- a few years ago, they killed, what, 45 south korean sailors and attacked the ship, and japan, brought missiles over japan and it is dangerous. >> chris: let me pick up on that, mara. the north koreans, as bill points out like to bluster and sabre-rattle, by their standards, though it is extreme what is going on now, and if you have been in seoul's, it is an
hour's drive from the dmz and they'd be right on the front line, the danger is it gets out of hand. >> and that crazy map behind kim jong-un which showed the lines of the missiles hitting the mainland of the united states an exposing their, quote, battle plans might be a fantasy but they can be tremendous damage to south korea and, he's announced also the armistice doesn't hold anymore. back in a state of war and nobody knows exactly what he want to done and i don't know if he knows what he wants to do but it is a dangerous situation and i don't think the united states has a clear idea of what to do to stop him. >> chris: let's talk, ed, about the u.s. response. because first, chuck hagel, the defense secretary announces we are beefing up our missile defense along the border with alaska and this week -- in alaska, along the border with russia, and, then, this week we spent, as you can see there -- sent a pair of b-2 stealth
bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons, and exercises over south korea. >> it is a sensible reaction and not to bolster ore own missile defense but to support japan and south korea with missile defense, i think, bill's point, they are nervous, understandably and doing everything we can to reassure people would be helpful and, obviously, you know, trying to get china to engage in their own region in a way that would be helpful, i think, with kim jong-un would be important, too. >> chris: i'm going to pick up on china in a second. your thoughts, though, chuck about the u.s. response. what we have done so far and what more we can do. >> i think president obama, with north korea throughout his presidency, essentially, has been for him not to rise to the bait and that has again a good approach, and sending the b-2s, sending a strong signal.
what we are dealing with here is the third generation of a family business over there in north korea and the business is building up this whole military structure, building up as bill suggests, the capability to proliferate and conducting terrorist activities, people forget years ago they blew up a group of south korean diplomats, in burma of all places and the purpose of the family business is through the constant threat, constant belligerence, constant menace, to extract money, concessions, and everything else you can get by blackmailing the other side. whether the ends game of the family business is to actually go to war in south korea, i doubt, because i think people are -- need to remember, north korea would not win that war. at the very least would come out badly damaged. so, i think what we are seeing here is a generation of war hysteria to control themselves
inside and generation of threats, especially toward the new, more conservative, less concession-minded government in south korea to see what they can extract. as they have now for 20 years since the nuclear issue began. >> chris: one of the concerns here, and, that does seem to be different, bill, north korea seems to be ignoring the warnings from its main, far and away biggest sponsor, china, which warned the regime and kim jong-un not to make the threats against the united states and not to make these threats against south korea and yet proceeded with them. why would kim risk alienating the country that literally, you know, talk about biting the hand that feeds you, that literally feeds its people. >> china never seemed willing to pull the trigger and stop feeding his people or stop providing other kinds of aid to north korea and they've gotten away with it in the past and the chinese have been unwilling to risk undermining the north korean regime to be undermined
and, fall, and, it is dangerous to them, and why, i don't know, but, they will not invade china but they don't want communist regimes falling on their border. and, we spent about 1.5% of our defense budget on missile defense. the obama administration having cancelled the ground base interceptors, and restored them just, what a couple of weeks ago, and said we're going ahead on this, basically, under both parties but the democrats, a haphazard announcement from the ronald reagan, 30 years ago, maybe we should defend ourselves from nuclear weapons and not accept them as inevitable and in a post-cold war war, we don't know where the north korean regime would be 10 or 20 years ago, they could have missiles and, proliferating them and i'm not sure we'll know or the israelis know where will be proliferating and, to invest in serious missile defense... >> chris: the president flipped on missile defense. when he first came in he pulled
back on some of the deployment of anti-missile interceptors. now, one of his first steps, he and chuck hagel at the pentagon, was to beef up or interceptors system up along the alaska coast. >> like i said, they should be commended for that and one exception, bill, president bush did make a priority of missile defense and one of the first things the barack obama administration did was to reverse that and now they've reversed it again and recognizing an important strategic reason for it and i'm glad they reversed themselves but i wish they hadn't reversed the policy in the first place but we have -- this is an example of why we need missile defense and why we need it or for you friends, as well. >> we have to take a break but after the historic supreme court hearings on same sex marriage where does the issue stand now? ♪ impact wool exports from new zealand, textile production in spain,
and the use of medical technology in the u.s.? at t. rowe price, we understand the connections of a complex, global economy. it's just one reason over 75% of our mutual funds beat their 10-year lipper average. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. request a prospectus or summary prospectus with investment information, risks, fees and expenses to read and consider carefully before investing. [ clang ] my house is where plants came to die. but, it turns out all i was missing was miracle-gro potting mix. it's got what a plant needs like miracle-gro plant food that feeds them for up to six months. you get bigger, healthier plants, guaranteed. who's got two green thumbs thanks to miracle-gro? ah, this gal. boom! with the right soil, everyone grows with miracle-gro.
>> you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones and the internet? we do not have the ability to see the future. >> the states said, because we think, the focus of marriage, really should be on pro creation we will not give licenses to anyone any more, where both people are over the age of 55. would that be constitutional? >> chris: samuel alito and elena kagan delivering on whether the court should intervene on the issue of same sex marriage. we're back with the panel. after a rare two days of arguments, bill, where do you think the court is on the constitutional question of same sex marriage and also, on the defense of marriage act, which denies federal benefits to same sex couple, who have been legally married in their states?
>> part of the defense of marriage act, on the federalism grounds, -- >> the state issue, not a federal issue. >> right and the federal government in a way is putting a thumb on the scale by preferring traditional marriage to states that -- preferring states that have chosen traditional marriage over states that chose same sex marriage and looks as if the court will not have a universal same sex right to marriage on the nation. and i hope they won't -- >> leave prop 8 alone and, let's say, deny it on procedural grounds, the plaintiff didn't have standing or you think they might decide, yes, prop 8 stands or falls in california but different impact other states. >> i can't tell, it is hard to read. and maybe others know better than i do what the court will do. >> chris: all right, we'll go down the list. down the row here and see. but, one of the points, mara, several justices made, is that public opinion is changing so quickly on this issue, both in
the polls and, four states in 2012, legalized same sex marriage, perhaps the court should stay out of it, and leave it to the political process in the states. in that sense, could the supporters of same sex marriage be victims of their own success? >> yes. i think they could and i think the best outcome for democrats and even proponents of same sex marriage is if prop 8 is upheld in california, but, there is no sweeping constitutional finding that same sex marriage is legal all over the country -- >> prop 8 is upheld, it means same sex marriage is banned. >> no, i'm sorry, the lower court ruling is upheld which means prop 8 is overturned. i'm sorry about that. but if they want to in california, now they could put up prop 8.2, legalizing same sex marriage and it would probably pass, it is more meaningful and profound to kind of adjudicate divisive social issues by voters
and legislators and not supreme court judges and will be more lasting political change if you do it at the ballot box and it means you will not have a huge backlash and i agree with bill, i don't think the court is going in the direction of legalizing same sex marriage on a constitutional basis. >> chris: as a former chairman of the national committee, isn't it a problem for the g.o.p. as we say, public opinion is moving in the direction of support for same sex marriage, especially among young people, 70, 80% of all persuasions, under the age of 35, 40, support same sex marriage as a legal right. but, the polls show that republicans still overwhelmingly oppose it, only 27% in one poll, i saw, supports same sex marriage. so, where does the republican party go? you have a lot of your base still very much opposing this. but you can see the pendulum swinging for the country. >> chris, i don't see the republican party or most
republicans, obviously, changing in terms of believing that marriage is between one man and one woman. i do think that in the context of the debate, as in so many other debates, republicans have been cast in the negative, you know, to say we are opposing something that as opposed to talking about what most republicans are for. most republicans are also for the benefits of marriage in the legal system, that are afforded the protections like, for example, hospital visitation rights or survivorship benefits and i think you will hear more republicans making that point, that we can do those things without having the government sanction same sex marriage. >> chris: looking at the polls, and, particularly, looking at where younger people are going, would you have any problems in 2016, with a republican party platform saying that marriage is between a man and a woman? >> i wouldn't have any problem with that. i think one of the questions, i believe the platform now, calls for a federal constitutional amendment to ban it.
there may be a debate about that -- >> ban of same sex marriage. >> i don't think you would see the republican party platform say we are in favor of same sex marriage but there may be a question, i think to mara's point, the federalism aspect of the supreme court debate is interesting, because a lot of conservatives felt for a long time that roe was wrongfully decided and imposed -- >> roe vs. wade, 1973. >> and the issue of abortion should have been left to the states, for people to hash out in a more civil manner. a lot of conservatives found themselves arguing in this instance the court shouldn't impose a federal mandate that it is legal. so there has been a bit of a shift i think in terms of republicans saying we should allow this to be worked out in the states not imposed by courts or federally. and, it will be interesting to see how it shakes out, the platform as it is today says a federal constitutional amendment to ban it. >> chris: we should point out it isn't just conservatives who
feel roe was wrong in the issue, ruth bader ginsburg, a justice of the supreme court appointed by democrats, liberals, very much an abortion rights supporter, says that she thinks it was a mistake and moved the court too quickly in this direction in a judicial fiat instead of leaving it to the states. and, hearing what your fellow justices say on the court, your thoughts about the debate and where it leaves the issue and the political implications. >> as to the debate, not to sounds pollyana-ish, it was refreshing and useful for the country to listen to two days of discussion among nine intelligent people with various views who are not running for office, you know? and aren't obsessed with the short-term political consequences of this. and they are wrestling with it in a serious way and in that regard i think it was a helpful occasion in the whole debate. because they've had the sort of
guts to go through a lot of difficult questions, about, is it really like interracial marriage? what are the social science consequences and so forth. and what is crystallizing as a result of this is a distinction is developing between the substance of whether this is a good idea or not, and the process of how we as a country are going to decide. and, in that respect, i think that there is a -- a kind of a consensus on the court that the procedural -- optimum way to handle it is to let the states decide and give more time to the democratic process to work it out as opposed to having the judicial branch slice through the -- >> what about the argument, for the sake of argument, what about the argument, look, we don't decide constitutional rights, that way. we don't decide whether schools can be segregated that way and don't decide interracial marriage that way. >> and i think the answer, i heard from the court was, we're not ready to say this is a constitutional right.
there isn't enough support in the text of the documents or the precedence of the court to say that without same sex marriage every state in the union is violating the constitution. >> chris: thank you, panel. see you next week and don't forget to check out panel-plus. where our group picks up with the discussion on our web site, foxnewssunday.com and we'll post the video before noon eastern time, and, make sure to follow us on twitter. @foxnewssunday. up next our power player of the week. ♪
>> chris: of course this is easter sunday. but, it was also 32 years ago, this weekend, a gunman tried to kill ronald reagan. today, a story you have never heard before. about how a doctor saved the president's life with what he believes was some divine help. here's our power player of the week. ♪ >> they said we need you to come over to the hospital right away. >> chris: that was how the doctor learned 32 years ago he was about to take on the case of his life. he was the head of the lung department at george washington university hospital. and ronald reagan, who had sustained a gunshot to the lung, was in the operating room. >> the bullet went through here and lodged over here on the inner surface of the lung, another inch or two and it would have been into the heart.
>> reporter: he first saw the president when he was wheeled into the recovery room. >> we put him on the ventilator right away and he was getting sedation and i stayed there until we got him off the ventilat ventilator, 3 o'clock in the morning. >> chris: he did well in the first couple of days, his condition serious but not critical and then thingsed chan -- things changed. he kept a diary. >> i was called at home and requested a return to the hospital, and i arrived at the presidential suite and asked the nurse in charge what was going on and she said the president's temperature was almost 104° and he was not looking well. that made all of us a little nervous about which way this was going to go. >> chris: when you said which way it was going to go, was his life is danger? >> at that point i thought his life was in danger. >> chris: that has to take your breath away.
>> it did. >> chris: he ordered a battery of tests, to check for infection. but the president's medical team resisted. >> things were going a little slower than i hoped. >> chris: what did you say? >> if we don't get moving i'm going to walk off this case. >> chris: the other doctors agreed to the tests but found no sign of infection. still, he was convinced that was the problem. and put ronald reagan on antibiotics. within 24 hours, his temperature went down. >> chris: honestly, 30 years later, what do you think would have happened if you had not intervened and given him this broad dose of antibiotics. >> he might not have gotten better. >> chris: he sat by the president's bedside in the morning for the next two weeks, watching tv and listening to his stories. there was no mention of politics. >> day 9, tuesday, april 7th: i went to the president's room and spoke with him for ten to 15 minutes. he looked better and his spirits were good. he continued to tell me various
stories at that time about his early days in hollywood. >> chris: months later the reagans invited the medical team to the oval office to thank them for saving the president's life. reagan always said his recovery was miraculous. the doctor agrees. >> i certainly think somebody was watching over me, all the time, making sure that it was going well. i certainly... could get any extra help i could get from the good lord above. >> chris: a spoke with nancy reagan this weekend and asked if she had a message for the doctor and she said please send him a big, big thank you. that's it for today. have a great week and we'll see you next fox news sunday. ♪ mom, i invited justin over for lunch.
good. no, not good. he's a vegetarian and he's going to be here in 20 minutes! don't stress. we can figure this out. [ male announcer ] get the speed to make a great first impression. call today to get u-verse high speed internet for as little as $14.95 a month for 12 months with a one-year price guarantee. this is delicious. ♪ [ male announcer ] save the day in an instant. at&t. ♪