CNN "State of the Union with Jake Tapper" - Transcript Interview with Tom Cotton

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Joining me now, Republican Senator Tom Cotton from Arkansas.

Senator, thanks so much for joining us.

So, Democrats are vowing a fight. Senate Democrats are vowing a fight. How confident are you that Democrats are not going to be able to derail this confirmation before Election Day?

[09:15:05]

SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): Good morning, Jake. It's good to be back on with you.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett is an outstanding jurist, one of the finest legal minds of her generation. So, I commend the president for yet another excellent nomination to the federal courts. I look forward to voting for Judge Barrett. The Senate will confirm

her to the highest court in the land next month.

TAPPER: Next, so in October.

In 2016 you opposed President Obama's efforts to fill Justice Scalia's seat. I want to play our viewers some of what you said back then.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COTTON: In a few short months, we will have a new president, and new senators who can consider the next justice, with the full faith of the American people.

Why would we deny the voters a chance to weigh in on the makeup of the Supreme Court? There is absolutely no reason to do so, or at least a principled reason to do so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So, that clip from the Senate floor in March 2016 was eight months before the 2016 election.

Right now, we're five weeks out from the election. Why was it so important back then to let the voters have a chance to weigh in on the makeup of the Supreme Court, but, today, it's not?

COTTON: Yes, Jake, it's not so much about the timing, but how the voters had spoken.

They had delivered a split decision to the president and the Senate at the time. They elected Barack Obama in 2012. They elected me and a lot of others in 2014 as a break on the Obama agenda, most notably on his far left judicial nominees.

That's not the case now. In 2018, we had about as clear a national referendum as we could. Just one month after the Justice Kavanaugh confirmation, in which Democrats threw everything but the kitchen sink at him, they didn't just reelect a Republican majority. They expanded a Republican majority.

That includes defeating four Democratic senators who voted against Justice Kavanaugh, reelecting the one Democratic senator who voted for him. So, it was a clear mandate for a Republican Senate to continue confirming this president's outstanding judicial nominees.

And that's what we're going to do with Judge Barrett next month.

TAPPER: That is true that that's what happened in the Senate, but, in the House, the American people gave it to the Democrats by a fairly overwhelming margin.

But, moving on, in that same speech from March 2016, you argued that the dramatic ideological differences between Justice Scalia and President Obama's nominee made it all the more necessary to get input from voters. Take a listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COTTON: Should Justice Scalia be replaced by philosophically liberal justice, the implications for the rights of Americans and the direction of our nation will be profound.

Because the law of the land may take such a dramatic turn, the members of this chamber must first get the input of the American people on what the direction of our country should be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Again, that ideological difference certainly exists between the late Justice Ginsburg and Judge Barrett. It's perhaps even more of a stark difference, frankly, considering Merrick Garland was center- left.

So, again, to apply your 2016 principles, which I'm not sure are any longer operative, shouldn't the American people get the chance to weigh in? Polls indicate that that's what the public thinks, that whoever's elected November 3 should pick the Supreme Court justice.

COTTON: Jake, again, we go back to the split decision they had delivered.

In 2014, they elected a Republican majority to help put the brakes on the Obama agenda, including his traditional nominees. Now, though, we are operating under the clear mandate we received in 2018.

And, Jake, you know the old political line about the only poll that matters is the one that happens on Election Day. We had an election on this very issue in 2018. And the voters didn't just reelect a Republican majority. They expanded a Republican majority, and they defeated those Democratic senators who voted against Brett Kavanaugh.

I don't think it could be any clearer than that.

TAPPER: Earlier this month, after President Trump listed you among his potential Supreme Court candidates, you tweeted -- quote -- "It's time for Roe v. Wade to go," clearly indicating how you would vote on that key issue.

Now, President Trump said this morning that he has not discussed Roe with Judge Barrett, but he signaled that he thought the court could overturn it with her on the court.

Do you think Judge Barrett should follow your example and be similarly forthright and candid with the American people about how she would vote on Roe v. Wade?

COTTON: Well, Jake, I'm pro-life, and I have long believed that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, in part because it took away a vital question for the American people to vote through their elected representatives, be they Congress or their state legislatures.

Now, that said, I mean, I can't speculate about hypothetical cases that may happen years from now, probably not even filed yet.

But I am heartened that the president nominated Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court, and that Judge Barrett explained yesterday that the late, great Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy was hers as well.

[09:20:01]

She understands the judge's role is not to impose her own preferences, not to cast her wishes as the law of the land, but, rather, to uphold the Constitution and the law as it is written. That's exactly what I expect her to do.

TAPPER: I know, but I guess the question is, like, you were honest about your position on this.

It's kind of this weird part of American judicial Kabuki that justices come before the Senate and pretend that they have never talked about or thought about Roe v. Wade, which is obviously a very significant piece of legislation, whether you're for it or against it.

Don't you think she should just be as honest as you were and just say: I oppose Roe v. Wade?

COTTON: Well, Jake, the big difference between me and most of the people on the president's list is that I'm not a judge. I'm not a sitting judge. I'm not bound by canon of judicial ethics. So, I can speak my mind on the great public questions of the day.

Judges obviously cannot, just like Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor, President Obama's picks to the Supreme Court, did not either.

Now, one way we could have this conversation is if Joe Biden would release his list of potential nominees. He hasn't done that, I suspect, because they would be radical left-wing activists that obviously wouldn't just uphold the right to abortion, but uphold a right to taxpayer-funded abortion up to the last moment before birth or even after it.

Joe Biden ought to put his names for the Supreme Court out for the public to assess them. I suspect he won't because it will reveal just how radical the Democrats have become on this question.

TAPPER: As I have said before, in the name of transparency, I think Biden should put out a list. I think Donald Trump should release his tax returns.

Let's turn to another topic.

President Trump repeatedly declined this week to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he should lose in November. I want to play our viewers what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Will you commit to making sure that there's a peaceful transferal of power after the election?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, we're going to have to see what happens. You know that.

QUESTION: Will you commit to making sure that there's a peaceful transferal of power?

TRUMP: We want to have -- we have to have -- get rid of the ballots, and you will have a very -- we'll have a very peaceful -- there won't be a transfer, frankly. There'll be a continuation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Now, that alarmed a lot of Republicans, as you know, and Democrats too.

The number three Republican in the House, Congresswoman Liz Cheney, with whom you agree on a lot of issues, she called the peaceful transfer of power -- quote -- "fundamental to the survival of our republic" and said -- quote -- "America's leaders swear an oath to the Constitution. We will uphold that oath."

Do you agree with Congresswoman Cheney?

COTTON: Yes, Jake, we have been transferring the office of the presidency from one person to the next since 1796.

I'm confident it's going to happen again in January 2025, after President Trump finishes his second term.

TAPPER: But you are not at all disturbed by what he's saying about, if the ballots aren't counted, then I will -- I mean, it's really quite alarming to a lot of Republicans his refusal to say, of course, if I lose, I will abide by a peaceful transfer of power.

COTTON: Well, Jake, what the president was saying is that he is not going to concede in advance, especially when you have so many states changing the rules at the very last minute for mail-in balloting.

He's since said that, if there is a clear winner, if the court settles the contested election, that, of course, he will.

But the premise of the question that you just played me is the president's going to lose. I don't think the president is going to lose. The president is going to win.

This is just another case where the Democrats are projecting some of their own intentions onto Donald Trump. It wasn't Donald Trump who sicced the FBI on his opponent. That was Barack Obama and Joe Biden in 2016.

Hillary Clinton is the one that said Joe Biden should concede under no conditions. And it was Hillary Clinton's former campaign chairman who projected that, if Joe Biden loses, he would recommend that California and Oregon and Washington threaten to secede from the union to change the results. TAPPER: All right.

COTTON: The Democrats are the one who should be pressed on whether or not they will accept a loss in November, because it doesn't sound to me like they will.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source