thank you for allowing me to bring you the news for the past couple of hours and the breaking news that tony harris now will continue in the "newsroom" with, tony. >> yeah. quite a morning. t.j., great job on the breaking news. we'll pick it up from here. have a great day, my friend. the breaking news from the nation's highest court, supreme court justice john paul stevens saying he is retiring. that announcement coming 11 days before his 90th birthday in a letter sent to president obama this morning justice stevens says he will step down when the court finishes its work for the summer. this gives the president his second opportunity to appoint someone to the nation's highest court. among the possible nominee, federal appeals court judges diane wood and marek garland and

janet napolitano, we haven't mentioned the solicitor general, elena kagan right now. joining us from washington right now is cnn's john king and on the phone is our senior legal analyst, jeffrey toobin. my friend, we were talking about this in a series of e-mails after your appearance on fresh air with terry gross. there were clear signs that this day was coming and coming soon. >> yes. i interviewed justice stevens for "the new yorker" earlier this spring and on march 8th he told me that he would make up his mind about resigning in about a month. here it is, april 9th, true to his word. he has made up his mind. he has decided and a major, major tenure on the supreme court, 34.5, years comes to an end and a great opportunity comes to president obama. >> justice stevens, when you think of his career appointed by gerald ford in 1975, what comes to mind?

the kind of justice he has been? >> an unexpected liberal. someone who moved to the left as the court moved to the right. someone who became the leader of the liberals on the court, a staunch defender of abortion rights, a staunch defender of affirmative action after being skeptical earlier in his tenure. probably the opinions he will be best remembered for are those that struck down the bush administration's treatment of the detainees in guantanamo bay. another decision he will be remembered for is the dissenting opinion. he wrote the lead dissent in bush v. gore, a decision that rangels him to this day. >> and you asked justice stevens, in your tenure have you changed or has the court changed? how did he answer the question? >> he said the court had changed. he said the court had moved to the right and he had stayed in the same place. i think there is something to support that view.

there are certainly areas of the law where the court has changed. i also think he has changed. he was a really uncharacteristically bitter dissenter in january of this year when the court decided its citizens united case. the case that said corporations have first amendment rights essentially equal to that of human beings. that level of bitterness was not something we are used to seeing from justice stevens and i think was indicative of the fact that he really feels out of sorts with the court majority at this point. >> let's bring in john king of john king usa. as i mentioned at the top here, not unexpected. >> not unexpected. a fascinating challenge for the president of the united states, the gift, if you will, if you view it from the view of the president of another legacy to pick so early, and he a point the first latino in justice sotomayor, to have the opinion in the detainee case, that

proves he was a negotiator on the court and he was able to bring people together. you have a strong conservative case with justice alito and justice thomas and the new justice roberts. what will the president of the united states want now? when you know the court still in a democratic administration has a strong conservative base, who do you pick to get into that mix? who do you pick that you think might be a good negotiator, someone who can bring someone to the other, not just what happens in senate confirmation, but what kind of a person does he want on the court? do you pick a judge that's been on the bench for a long time or do you pick someone who has more of a political background or who might have more of the negotiating skills? >> that's a great, great point, john and let me toss to jeffrey toobin. who is that person that can bring over a vote and the vote we're really talking about here is justice kennedy.

>> this is really the anthony kennedy court. there has never been a justice that wields the justis that anthony kennedy wields at this moment, and i think john is exactly right. the job of the next justice will be to build bridges to anthony kennedy. who can do that? one of the curiosities of the current court is that all nine justices are former federal appeals court justices. there are no politicians. there are no law professors. there are no people who were in business. this is unusual in supreme court history. there used to be former senators, former administration officials, people who are used to negotiating and not just people who are used to deciding. this could favor someone like elena kagan, the solicitor general, former dean of harvard law school who has the reputation of a consensus builder. it could favor janet neapolitan o the current head of homeland security and former governor of

arizona. i think the problems with the christmas bombings may have hurt janet napolitano's chances. she was a finalist last time as was kagan. i do think president obama has said that he thinks it's time to get out of the rut of appointing only federal appeals court judges. sonia sotomayor, his first choice was an appeals court judge, but i think he will want to feel that it is time to have some occupational diversity on the court as well as religious, gender and racial diversity. >> john, let me have you address that. what are your thoughts on this next selection? you make a great point that is this going to be a pick? a person who can win the support of the conservative on the court? of the names that we hear most often, what are your thoughts on that list? >> you certainly know that the former law professor and harvard law student barack obama wants somebody like that. the president also faces the political choice of getting somebody confirmed, but to

jeff's point, i've been e-mailing some people and the last time the president went through this and in the transition to the new administration, they had an inside legal group and an outside group saying who do you think are the best people out there? one of the people just sent me an e-mail saying i would put elena kagan at the top of the list for the very reasons he said, she is now the solicitor general of the united states and she is also 49 years old. if you go back to the pictures you just showed, we have a conservative base to this court, scalia, now a bit older and been on the court for quite some time. alito, pointed as a relatively young man. ruth bader ginsburg has been on the court. so president obama may yet get another choice. he still has more than two and a half years in just his his first term. one of the things you have as as president is look at impact. justice souter no long or the court. look at the impact these

republican nominees have had. if you're barack obama you're thinking i want 20 years from now to be in retirement and looking at the faces that i put on the court the faces that are shaping american society. >> let's bring in for a moment here, i believe our cnn political director mark preston is with us as well, and i'm trying to sort through e-mails here. i know you've got a letter from patrick leahy, who is the chair of the senate judiciary committee. do you have that handy? >> i do, tony. it's actually a rather lengthy statement that patrick leahy has put out which further shows that in fact, people expected justice steve tones step down, but among other things he just talks about how his legacy on the court will be long lasting and, you know, basically he was such a good justice. we haven't seen anything in there regarding timing of hearings, senate hearings. i'll tell you what, tony, it will be an interesting summer as we watch these folks talking

about whether he should be, you know, who president obama, whoever he chooses for the court. some of these folks who are going to be opposing it and some of these folks who will be supporting it. patrick leahy will be the one who is in charge of shepherding through the nomination. a couple of other folks that our viewers will really want to take a look at is someone like john kyl, he's a very conservative republican from arizona who will play a big part. here's a name for you, al franken who joined the senate about this time last year. right about late spring and early summer last year was finally seated in the senate and it will be interesting to see al franken who is a former "saturday night live" writer, democrat from minnesota what role, if any, he sits on the judiciary committee and what role he will take in the confirmation process. >> appreciate that, and john, did you want to add something there? >> we are quickly seeing the political lines are formed. mark just mentioned the statement from chairman leahy of the committee and also orrin

hatch, jeff sessions is the lead republican in the committee and orrin hatch, another leading republican voice on these matters just issued a statement, number one, applauding the career of john paul steve sxens laying down the conservative marker saying that whoever the president appoints must not be an activist judge and that is what you will hear in the coming days as they frame the battle someone who will interpret the constitution and must not be an activist judge. that is the conservative line and remember, tony, that will be their line anyway, but we are in an early spring in a kofrn tefrpous midterm elections where both parties know, getting your core supporters motivated for the fall is the most important part of the political campaign. this choice by the president, a consequential choice for american society will get caught right up into a very contentious midterm climate. >> john, you are so right about that and let me go to jeffrey toobin. are you still on the line with us? >> i am, indeed.

>> did you hear that line about not wanting someone who would be an activist judge and i thought of you immediately because there is a pretty strong argument being made in some quarters that the more conservative members of this court have been, in fact, activist justices. >> well, activist is one of those epithets that's thrown around when it comes to supreme court justices, but as it turns out, everybody likes a certain kind of activist. liberals like roe v. wade which was a decision to overturn abortion laws in many states in the union. that is certainly an activist decision, but conservatives like activism, too. they like the heller decision that overturned gun control laws and democratically passed and democratically elected officials passed gun control laws and the supreme court struck that down. the supreme court struck down part of the mccain feingold law. that was certainly an activist

decision. so there are liberal activists and there are conservative activists. i think that term should be retired, frankly, because it's not terribly helpful, but i don't have high hopes for it being retired. >> one more quick one, jeffrey. there is a pretty important case pending here. we'll get a decision on it soon. mcdonald versus chicago, a case examining the chicago handgun ban. why don't you set up what's at issue there, and i know you've got some thoughts on the difficulty the court is going to have in squaring a decision here with the decision that came down on the d.c. case. >> correct. in the heller case two years ago, that was the case that said the district of colombia which is considered part of the federal government may not ban handguns under the second amendment which speaks of the right to keep and bear arms. the question in the case that

you menchtioned is may the stat of illinois ban handguns because the bill of rights speaks directly to the federal government? the amendments say congress shall pass no law, shall make no law, but over a series of decisions the justices have applied many, not all, but many of the provisions of the bill of rights against the state. so the question is may states as well as the federal government be restricted in passing gun control laws and given the oral argument, given the way the courts are going, the court has been going i think the answer to that case will be yes. states will also be banned from passing gun control laws, but it's one of the many, many contentious issues a new justice will have to face. >> john, before we wrap up this segment, any thoughts from you on this decision from justice john paul stevens? any additional thoughts? >> i think it's -- number one, we should pay tribute to his

service whether you agree or disagree in the country with the decisions he's made over 34 years, he's had a remarkable imprint on the court and a remarkable imprint in american society. we often forget that to who is next? this is a man who has left his mark on american society for generations to come, my last observation is that the president is in such a remarkable political climate. he thinks the new health care law is part of his legacy. that is being debated across the country and he's appointed the first latino justice of the supreme court. now in just his second year, a former law professor himself is looking both at his long-term legacy and at short-term political climate and it is a fascinating spring here in washington, d.c. >> what amazing times we are living in and what a privilege to be doing the jobs that we do during these amazing times. john king of "john king usa," thank you very much. we'll be talking more with our senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin later this hour and to

mark preston as well. let's take a quick break. you're in the cnn "newsroom." we're back in a moment.

okay. he cast a crucial vote to pass health care reform and he came

under fire from the right and the left. now democratic congressman bart stupak is calling it quits. our senior congressional correspondent dana bash was first to report this story for us and she is live from marquette, michigan. good to see you. great reporting, by the way. how much of a role did the fallout over health care reform play in stupak's decision? >> reporter: well, let me tell you what people close to him are telling me that he'll announce at this podium just behind me in a little over an hour. they say that he is going to say that the role that health care reform played in his decision is that he first ran in 1992, 18 years ago on the promise of trying to reform health care and now that it is done he feels that it is okay for him to retire from congress. that is what he is going to argue. having said that, there is no question that these last several weeks, particularly the last several days at the end of march when bart stupak gained so much notoriety and as you said, a lot

of vitriol from the left and the right for his health care vote that had to have been weighing on his mind. before he left he told me and others that, you know, the issue and the atmosphere, you know, was very difficult. there is no question about it, but he is actually somebody, tony who unlike other democrats who are in real trouble because of their health care vote and just because this is a really bad year for democrats, he wasn't considered really vulnerable here in this very, very big first district of michigan up here in the upper peninsula. he's won by huge margins in the past. last time around he won by 61% in 2006 69%. he is someone that has fit the district. it is a conservative district and he's a conservative democrat and as we well know, an anti-abortion democrat and because of that particular vote and because he got squeezed on the abortion issue, people who traditionally supported him who

were anti-abortion thought he sold out because of the restrictions he got on health care weren't tough enough and on the left, not a lot of people on the far left in the district, but there are some who said that they thought he made sure there were too many restrictions on abortion in this health care bill. >> that's interesting. so in that sense what you're hearing from support sers he may say something in the order of my work here is done. i came here essentially. i wasn't a one-issue politician, but i came here to get health care done and i've got 10 done and now i'm moving on. >> that's the gist of what we are told he is going to say. we are told he made this decision actually formally with his family and with his son and his wife at the final four last weekend at michigan state played butler and that's when he made the final decision. this is something that we are told by sources that he gave a head's up to to democratic leaders and i'm told that the president himself called just a couple of nights ago and really

begged him not to do this because just politically, look, they've certainly had their issues with bart stupak and the democratic leadership. no question about it, we witnessed it, but politically they have felt that he benefited them for a lot of reasons, but primarily in terms of november there is deep concern here in michigan. i've been here for the past couple of days and also in washington that without bart stupak who really has developed a reservoir of good will here in this district, it could go republican. people are registered democrat. about half of them are registered democrat, but they very much have conservative leanings socially and fiscally. one thing we should not forget to mention is the irony of this timing is not just that it is april and a couple of weeks after the health care bill and pretty close to the deadline here. it's also that the tea party express is here in his district, and i was with them. the whole reason i'm here is i was with them a few hours away when they started their first of

what they had planned on five rallies to try to push bart stupak into what they call early retirement and bart stupak is doing it for them. >> so are they likely or have they already claimed victory on this? >> oh, yeah. >> oh, yeah. >> claiming victory big time as you can imagine. they've announced the remaining four rallies that they're planning in this district which i can't emphasize enough, it's huge. it's the second biggest district land mass wise east of the mississippi and they'll turn those into victory rallies. for a reality check here. i was at the rally last night and there were 300 or 400 people and they seemed to be all locals coming to the rally. reality check here is it still was -- the tea party movement was still very much untested. it's untested around the country and untested in the district whether they could have much of an impact and how many people who were there were potentially going to vote for stupak or going to vote for a republican no matter what. at some point you have to stand for something and you have to

put forward some positions that you want to run on and you can't be an opposition movement. dana, good stuff. appreciate it. our senior congressional correspondent dana bash for us. bob stupak has represented the commission since 1993. his, as dana just mentioned, is the second largest district east of the mississippi and includes the upper peninsula of michigan and the northern part of the peninsula. the district is more than 93% white and 2% american indian and eskimo, and about 1.4% african-american. once again, our big story today, justice john paul stevens announces his retirement and bart stupak will say he is not seeking re-election. next hour we're covering the stories with the best political team on television right here in team on television right here in the cnn "newsroom." ocharging,

let's get to cnn's political director mark preston. he is in washington for us and he has more reaction to the news that justice stevens is stepping down, retiring. >> sure, tony. fast and furious right now. people are reacting to justice

stevens' decision to step down from the court. a court he served on since 1975, and in fact, tony, in his resignation letter what he says is that he is doing so because he would like to have this done well in advance, before the court comes back into session later in the year. so justice stevens says he will step down at the conclusion of this term ask he would like to try to get this process moving as quickly as possible because he would like to see the court fully stocked come october when it comes back in. in addition to that we are seeing reaction from capitol hill and also from interest groups and in fact, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell has put out a statement among many things including the kind words he offered for justice stevens. he also says as we await the president's nominee to replace justice stevens at the end of his term, americans can expect senate republicans to make a sustained and vigorous case for judicial restraint and the fundamental importance on an

even-handed reading of the law. now, tony, going back to what john king has been talking about this morning, judicial activism. republicans are laying down the law right now that they will demand that the next justice of the supreme court is not a liberal and not somebody who just interprets the constitution. >> mark, we are just getting word that president obama will address this when he returns to the white house at 1:20 -- about 1:20 this afternoon and we'll, of course, bring the president's comments on this story to you when it happens right here in the cnn "newsroom." mark. we appreciate it and we'll talk to you in a couple of minutes. >> get ready to meet an incredible young woman. mackenzie lives with an agonizing and incurrable disease yet she spends time easing the pain of other children by sharing her secret for relief, reading. she is our cnn hero of the week and she is only 16 years old. man! >> i was in the fifth grade when i hurt my knee. >> ready?

>> i'm ready. >> the doctor diagnosed me with reflex synthetic dystrophy. when something touches it it's like a bomb goes off in my knee, even though i've tried many different treatments, the only thing able to get my mind off the pain was reading. >> do you guys like to read? >> my pediatrician told me about a home for abused children. any child being in horrible pain like this, they need something and something that i knew that helped me was books. okay. this is called "screaming millie." but the people in these shelters are just like you and me. they need things to get their mind off of whatever they're going through. i put flyers in mailboxes and i set up a website. >> thank you so much for donating. my original goal was to get $300 bucks. before i knew it i had 3,000 books. my total right now is 38,000

books. i deliver books to libraries and reading rooms and 27 different shelters in six states. >> take as many books as you want. >> they're reading books i've given them and that will help them in school and just turn their life around entirely. i really think that reading can do that for someone. >> boy, so far, mackenzie has donated almost 40,000 books to shelters in six states. if you would like to nominate someone you think is changing the world, here's how you do just that, go to cnn.com/heroes. 20 minutes later, she'll bring one into the world in seattle. later today, she'll help an accident victim in kansas. how can one nurse be in all these places? through the nurses she taught in this place.

johnson & johnson knows, behind every nurse who touches a life... there's a nurse educator... who first touched them. ♪ you're a nurse ♪ you make a difference one month, five years after you do retire? ♪ client comes in and they have a box. and inside that box is their financial life. people wake up and realize i better start doing something. we open up that box. we organize it. and we make decisions. we really are here to help you. they look back and think, "wow. i never thought i could do this." but we've actually done it. [ male announcer ] visit ameriprise.com and put a confident retirement more within reach.

okay. let's do this. let's get back to john king, the host of "john king usa." john, i know you've been able to make sense of the letter from john paul stevens to the president. i've had a difficult time pulling it up through the e-mail system, but i know you have it. why don't you share this with us? >> this is one of washington's

gait rituals. at 10:30 this morning a clerk from the court delivered a letter over to the white house and it's a simple one paragraph and you can't see it on the screen, but at the top left it says chambers of john paul stevens, not many people get that letterhead and it says very quickly, dear mr. president, having concluded to have my successor appointed and confirmed well in advance of the court's next term, i shall retire from regular active service as an associate justice under the provisions of 28 united states court and he lists effective, the next day the court rises for the summer recess. a very simple one-paragraph letter addressed to my dear mr. president, with that john paul stevens serves notice that after 34 years on the court he's ready to go home and retirement in the summer. you were talking to dana erle combrer about bart stupak. how is that connected to this? john paul stevens was the guy in the middle of the court. he was left of center and he ended up left of center and he

negotiated back and forth and helped cut deals on pretty big decisions. where is the middle in american politics right now? bart stupak feels pressure to leave. bob bennett, a conservative republican in utah facing a challenge from the right people saying he's not conservative enough. blanche lincoln facing a challenge from the left. people saying she's not liberal enough. a union starting to form a third party in north carolina because it believes democrats there aren't akin to working americans aren't liberal enough and they a big debate in our country right now being dominated and pushed by what i'll call the left and the right extremes and the question is if you're in the middle, if you describe yourself as a moderate as john paul stevens would, as some of these other political figures would, can you survive in today's age and that will be the framing of the big political debate over once the president picks a nominee in the week ahead, that nominee is going have a very interesting time before the senate judiciary committee some time later this fall. >> oh, john, you have tapped into the debate in this country

right now so beautifully with that statement. i've often wondered just how wide and deep is the middle in this country right now, and i know that the extremes on either side got a lot of attention, they rally and they jump up and down and they scream, and i feel that there is a wide and deep middle in this country. those voices are being squeezed out a bit. i think you have tapped on it and what is your sense of that middle right now as you talk about these issues every night on your program? >> well, we need to define where the middle is and the middle shifts with our politics. there used to be a term the radical middle which is in and of itself an oxymoron where if you're a moderate you're not ideological and you're trying to be a mag mattist. you're trying to figure out, let's get this done. we agree on 50% of this, let's get that done and we'll argue the rest tomorrow. we saw it throughout the bush

presidency and in the clinton presidency before that that it's very hard for the middle to solidify and to be the dominant force in our politics and right now, tony, and this is not to criticize anybody, don't get me wrong because one of the great gifts we have in this country is the free speech and we have the tea party movement which is to the right, anti-establishment, less government, get washington out of our way and you have people on the left that said the president gave up on the public option and the liberals aren't doing enough to fight for labor unions and they're the people who can raise the money, who have the dedicated foot soldiers in this mid-term election and as we watch the debate over justice stevens and the primaries going into the spring, summer and into the fall. that is what you want to watch. who's coming up, because those people out in america who are motivated will influence the positions, senators take here in washington as it comes to the president's next pick for the supreme court and how contentious that fight will be. >> you know, another point to bart stupak, brings me back to

it with your comments there and we have no way of knowing this, but i wonder to what extent it really was the heat that he encountered over this decision. if you listen to dana's reporting, what you're saying is he came to washington to essentially pass health care reform and in some respects he feels like his work is over. do you think that it is the vitriol that he has felt in the aftermath of that vote? any idea whether he had the war chest to fight to move through another campaign and whether he felt he owed it to himself and the vote he had cast to fight for it, to make the case and let the chips fall where they may. >> he could have raised the money as an incumbent to somebody. his wife and family were getting threats after this health care vote and he didn't like that. i had him on the program as we were just launching show the and we had an interesting conversation where he said i hope in a couple of week, both the left and the right would

have calmed down and said the health care bill is not perfect, but give it a chance and if we have to go back and fix something, then we'll fix something, but everyone should calm down. in his district, people have not calmed down. when the interview was over and he was leaving the studio, he was one of many politicians who have told me in recent years, it's just not fun anymore. he's a former police officer. their he is not a career politician and he used to be a police officer and he's from a rural district, a place from smalltown america where those miners have unfortunately perished. a place very different, but yet the same. they rally around each other and he says you know what? it's not that much fun anymore and a lot of people in the town say that. >> i'm looking at the note now from justice stevens from the president. you made note of it a moment ago. my dear mr. president, this justice spoke admiringly of the president. is it pretty clear to you that justice stevens wanted barack obama to make this choice? >> yes.

because he doesn't know who will win the next presidential election and he believes, justice stevens was appointed by general ford who was a republican, but a middle of the road republican and a republican who became president after the tragedy of watergate. so a relatively middle of the road from western michigan and not very far from where bart stupak is from appointed john paul stevens to the court and justice stevens very much wanted a man who, like justice stevens was born in chicago. barack obama now calls chicago home, a man who ideologically much closer to justice stevens, that what might have happened if barack obama loses his re-electi re-election. you know he could have gone through it three more years. you do it at a moment when someone you like ask respect has a chance to name the replacement. so justice stevens is giving a great gift. a chance that every president wants to pick a legacy pick of the supreme court. this will be number two for president obama and remember, he

still has two and a half years left in his first term and justice ginsburg could well step aside by the time we get around to late 2010, 2011 and into 2012. >> john king, the man knows his stuff. the host of "john king usa." thanks for your time. you've been generous with us. you've been generous with us. let's take a break. pot reserved.

>> lose your job, you can file for unemployment. more people did that for the

first time last week than the week before and even though the number of people who filed continuing claims dropped pretty sizeably, states are still finding it tough to help. christine romans of our money team is here. the reality is states are just running out of money to pay for unemployment benefits. >> many of them already ran out. they're simply broke in their funds for jobless benefits and they've been forced to go to the federal government and borrow money from the feds to make sure that they're still paying it out. 33 states, tony are insolvent, four are on the brink. they borrowed over $38 billion from uncle sam. to make sure your unemployment benefits are warranted. >> who are the states in the most trouble? it's the usual suspects. it's the states that have had terrible, terrible budget problems, tony, and awfully high unemployment. michigan, ohio, new york,

pennsylvania, california. the people who follow this point out some states are doing better than others. there are more than a dozen states that are fine at the moment either because they have very low unemployment or because during the good times they were socking the money away and they always had a reserve equal to the worst period of unemployment in the preceding recession. so you can see those green states doing a little bit better than everyone else like north dakota, montana and some of those. so this is a pretty serious situation, if you have unemployment continuing to stay at 9.5% to 10%, the problem is not going away. it means the states have to borrow from the feds, who have to borrow from someone else to make sure that the money is still flowing in those check, tony. >> and the federal government has to make sure it passes these resolutions to make sure that unemployment money is in the system, correct? we've seen how difficult that has been the last couple of

months. >> right. >> you've got the senate that went home for the easter break, leaving 200,000 people to roll off their benefits. we are told they'll address that first thing when they come back on monday, but tony, you're also starting to see a renewed discussion about how long ex10ed unemployment benefits are going to continue. you can give benefits in some places up to 99 weeks. the average length of unemployment is 3 two weeks. at what point do you have a vigorous discussion about how much it's costing to keep people on benefits for 99 weeks and at what point they stop with all these extension, but for now, they'll start talking about it again next week. >> appreciate it. see you next hour. thank you. >> sure. america, as you know, is drowning in massive debt. what will happen to our economy if we don't change course and how can we change course in the current economic climate? cnn looks at these issues in a

two-hour special iou.s.a. on saturday at 1:00 p.m. and sunday at 3:00 p.m. eastern time. checking top stories now. after 34 years, justice stevens is stepping down. in a letter sent to president obama justice stevens says he will retire after the court finishes its work in the summer. s it before he turns 09 years old. bart stupak calling it quits after 18 years in congress. he is expected to make it official next hour. stupak has come under attack from both conservatives and liberals after his 11th-our deal to support the health care reform bill. the ft. hood shooting suspect is out of the hospital and in a texas jail cell. army major nadal hasan was wounded in a shooting spree in november. he is charged in the deaths of 13 people. hasan faces trial in the military court system.

all right.

let's get you to our white house correspondent dan lothian and dan, when did the white house learn of the decision to retire from justice stevens, and was it expected? >> reporter: well, yeah, first of all, with your second question, it certainly was expected. white house official his been saying for quite some time that this is something that they have been working on, although as you would imagine they have not released any interesting names as to who the president might be looking at. in terms of when the white house found out, according to senior administration official, the white house got a letter from a supreme court representative this morning at around 10:30 and the white house counsel's office reached out to the president at 10:45. he was obviously on air force one returning from prague and this is when he was notified by this. it was added late this morning to make some remarks in the rose garden upon his arrival here on the west virginia mine tragedy. so now we are being told by officials here at the white house that the president will

add to those remarks and say something about justice stevens as well. so this, not something that was unexpected at all. the white house fully working on this, but now with the formal announcement, you can expect this will go into high gear and, of course, you know, the names will be even more pronounced now as we begin that guessing game p. >> that t. name game, we like that around here. >> yes. dan loath then at the white house for us.

tax day is coming. for those of you who filed online or plan to, you can get your refund in as little as ten days. like the sound of that. i like the sound of that. so, how should you spend all that money? assuming that it is all that money. our stephanie elam joining me with suggestions, good stuff here, stephanie? >> yeah. you know if you're getting a refund you need to know about that, tony, right? >> yes. >> ways to -- ways to use it, right? and nearly 90% of americans are expecting refunds from the irs this year. 90%. that's a lot. with eight in ten workers living paycheck to paycheck, this is according to a survey by career

builder, those refunds will be a much-needed income boost. 56% said they will pay off bills. 34% say they will put the money into savings. only 7% said they would invest the money from the refund. others plan to improve their homes, go on vacation, pay people back. yeah, that's up. and 2% say they plan to head to the car dealership. look at that chart there, majority of the respondents are totally on point. instead of going on a shopping spree, paying down your debt is the best thing to do with the money. pay off bills with the highest interest rate first. don't just think about credit card debt. consider your student loan, car loans, even your mortgage. you want to tackle the bills, tony. >> look, let's applaud the folks who are talking about putting the money into savings and paying off debt. >> sure. >> how about the folks who are putting the money into savings. that's a pretty good idea. come on. >> no, there's nothing wrong with that. we always talk about having a financial cushion. >> all kinds of information from

folks saying we need to spend, spend, spend. 70% of this economy -- we need to save, too, stephanie. >> that's true. i don't know if each person needs to take on that burden themselves. >> good point. >> i don't think one person can change the course of the economy. that is true. we do need people to spend in general here and tl. as far as your own financial cushion and health, nothing puts you on a path to financial security faster than having a little extra in the bank. good time to start an emergency fund with the tax refund. most financial planners recommend you have an emergency fund, with enough money to live for three to six months without any income. everyone do the math. do you have that money? think about it. so if you haven't already established this type of savings, start with that chunk of change from the refund and a cushion is a nice thing to have. >> according to the survey not many people plan to invest the money from their refund. is that the case? am i read that correctly? >> yeah. no, that is the sad reality here. close to 78% of those surveyed admit they are living paycheck to paycheck.

that is up from last year when -- in may, we saw 61% as the number. people are scaling back their 401(k) contributions as well. so this all shows us people are really holding on tight to the money. the survey found that more americans that are working, plan to use the refund for daily expenszs rather than saving it for a rainy day. but you really got to keep in mind that investing is the key to your future. it's a lot easier to put away for your retirement now than having to do it later. tony? >> give us a preview of what's coming up on this weekend's "your bottom line" hosted by stephanie elam, please. >> yes. yes. indeed. hosted by me and we are talking about the fact, tony, that this is the last weekend you have to do your taxes. so we've got some last-minute tax advice. answering some of the questions you've sent in to us. we're also going to tell you tricks to keep your credit score where you want it to be. good little basics you need to know to keep your credit score where you want to. and also the lesser known measures in the health reform law, how they will affect you,

targeting your wellness and prevention programs. all that coming up on "your bottom line," 9:30 a.m. eastern right here on cnn. >> have a great weekend. >> thanks, tony. you, too. >> thank you. here's what we're working on for the next hour. more on the story cnn was the first to report michigan congressman bart stupak expected to announce his retirement. we'll look back on what led up to this decision and losing his democratic seat from a sprawling conservative district could mean to the democratic party. the new face of the blue collar worker. as old manufacturing dies, high-tech smart jobsz are finding their niche on the factory floor and in the office. it is my report on where the jobs are. that's next hour right here in the "cnn newsroom."

time now for your top of the hour reset. i'm tony harris in the "cnn newsroom." it is noon in washington where the supreme court's longest serving justice announces his retirement. in michigan, democratic congressman and tea party target bart stupak tells his constituents this hour he won't run for re-election. in west virginia, another setback, rescuers forced to call off the search for four missing miners due to a fire. let's do this. let's get started. in 11 days supreme court justice john paul stevens will be 90 years old and he says it is time to do something else. after 34 1/2 years on the nation's highest court, he is retiring. in the letter he sent president obama, justice stevens says he will step down after the court

finishes its work this summer. at the white house, cnn's dan lothian and our senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin is in new york. jeffrey, i want to start with you because i love talking to you and i don't get an opportunity to do that nearly enough. justice stevens, you know, what are your overall impressions? and then i want to talk to you about his dissent on the court's campaign finance decision, because it was a very strong dissent. and i'm wondering if that might have been a final straw, had he had enough of, you know, pushing back and forth trying to win consensus on this conservative court. but a couple hours after the decision, us being aware of it, you certainly weren't surprised. what are your thoughts? >> well, you know, just in sort of looking at justice steven in historical perspective, one of the things that was true about the united states after world war ii is that world war ii veterans dominated our public life, whether it was john f. kennedy or george herbert walker bush, that was the defining experience for public people,

mostly public men, in the late 20th century. john paul stevens is the last world war ii veteran in a position of great prom nance in american life. he's really the last member of the greatest generation to pass from the public scene. i don't mean that he's going to die by any means, but he is leaving his public post. and i think that just shows his perspective was different from a lot of people who are in public life now. you know, one of his uncharacteristic decisions during his tenure was in the famous flag burning case, because he tended to be more liberal, he tended to believe in freedom of expression, even unpopular expression. but he voted that flag burning could be a crime. and in his dissenting opinion in that case he talked about, you know, the sacrifices that american service members made in iwo jima on the beaches of norman normandy. it's a patriotism and life

experience that is different from most of us today. you know, you spoke of the last major decision that he participated in, the citizens of the united indicaticase where h the longest dissenting opinion of his career. 90-page dissenting opinion saying the supreme court in justice's opinion had reversed years of precedent and had gone out of his way to be an activist judiciary and overturn the mccain-feingold bill. and it was a level of bitterness we hadn't seen before. did it push him into retirement? frankly, i doubt it. you know, 90 isn't the new 80. 90 is 90. and we don't have -- we don't have many 90-year-olds working full-time jobs anymore and i think stevens correctly decided it was better to leave when he was still on the top of his game than risk getting feeble on the bench. >> was he? was he still pretty much at the top of his game? >> you know, when he announced

his dissenting opinion in the citizens united case on january 21st, when he read it from the bench, he was uncharacteristically stumbling over words. but, you know, i interviewed him in march several times. he was in great shape. every morning that i interviewed him, he had played tennis, singles, that morning. >> wow. >> so i think he is an extraordinarily fit 89-year-old, but i think he also recognized that 89 is enough. and very importantly, a president is in office, his fellow chicagoan, barack obama, is in sync with him so he felt comfortable turning over this precious seat to barack obama. >> was he a -- was he a great disappointment -- he was appointed by a republican president. buzz he -- did he turn out to be a disappointment to republicans? >> i think that's a clear yes, but it's also worth remembering

the moment at which he was appointed and who appointed him. 1975. social issues were not on the agenda the way they were now. you know, he was the first justice appointed after rowe v. wade was divided in 1973. he was appointed in 1975. the controversy over abortion had not become as big as it would later become. gerald ford picked him because, after he had pardoned richard nixon, he wanted someone who would not create controversy. and john paul stevens was confirmed by a vote of 98-0. and that was the success of his nomination. so he was always known a centrist. he was never known as someone who was going to be a strong republican on the bench. but just how liberal he became, i think that is a surprise to many people. >> well, did he change? was he being true to himself all along? did he change or did the court

change? >> well, you know, this is a question i put to him when i interviewed him in february, in march. he insisted that it was the court change. that the court simply became more conservative. when you had, say, william rehnquist and sandra day o'connor replaced by john roberts and samuel alito, that is a significant move to the right on the part of the court. and i think that's correct. but i also thinknevens changed. when you look at his early decisions on issues such as affirmative action, he was very hostile to the idea of any sort of racial preferences. by the time of the famous university of michigan law school case in 2003,where he joined justice o'connor's opinion, supporting affirmative action, he had moved substantially on that question. on some issues, he didn't move. but i think on race and civil rights, he definitely did move to the left. >> jeffrey, yopt you to go anywhere because i have another question for you. >> i'm not going anywhere. tony, i work here.

>> i work here. okay. paycheck from these people. i'm with you, brother. we've got dan lothian standing by and we also have kate baldoun standing by as well. why don't we get to the white house now? i love this multiple balls up in the air. let's get to the white house now and dan lothian. dan, this decision from justice stevens was expected by this white house. correct? >> it was. you know, tony, we've been reporting and other organizations have been reporting, as well, named various different names, all of them left leaning. the white house would only say over the past few weeks that this is something that they have been working on, but certainly not tipping their hand to -- as to whether or not there were particular names the president was really focused on. but, yes, this is something that they were prepared for, but that letter that they received this morning from a representative from the supreme court arrived here at the white house at 10:30. and then the white house counsel's office reached out to the president. he's flying back, obviously from

prague. he was notified of this letter at 10:45 a.m. he was expected -- this was a late add this morning after arriving here later this afternoon, he was expected to make some comments in the rose garden about the west virginia mine accident. now we are told by senior administration officials, that in addition to that, the president will also be making some remarks about justice stevens' retirement. >> way too early to be talking about names on a list at this point? >> it is. it is. but you know we like that game here inside the beltway. >> we do. >> and there's certainly -- this is going to be something to be watched very closely because, as i pointed out, you know, the names that we've been talking about now for quite some time are left leaning. so you can expect that the come firm immigration p c confirmation process will be interesting. >> the you have had information about the confirmation process

right now. what is your thoughts about this moment in time for this president to make a second choice to the court, and the environment in which he makes that decision? >> well, it is, of course, a very polarized moment. the mid-term elections are coming. but it is also worth remember that there are 59 democratic senators now. that's a big majority by contemporary standards. it hasn't been since the 1960s that a president appointed someone when the senate was in the president's party's control and that nominee lost. so, the odds very much favor anyone that president obama nominates. now, it is true that there could be a filibuster. it only takes 40 for a filibuster. but there has never been a successful filibuster against a spleem court nominee. there sort of was one in the late '60s against dave for ttis but not really. the votes will be there for ni nominee, which is not to say it

won't be a big fight. >> one more question for you on cases pending and decisions that we're waiting for from this court. but i want to get to cnn's kate baldoun. she's at the supreme court right now. and, kate, if you would, take -- you've been taking a look at some of the cases that could be impacted this term by justice stevens' retirement. what do you have for us? >> well, it doesn't get any bigger than guns and religion, tony. that's the easiest way to set it up. as we've been talking about, justice stevens, he is almost 90, turning 90 on the 20th of this month. he's served in this court on the supreme court for almost 35 years now. his retirement plans have quickly turned the focus to everyone asking, what's next. it's one of any president's longest-lasting legacies, filling a supreme court vai answer si. and for president obama, a second chance to do just that has arrived. liberal justice john paul stevens hinted at the possibility for months, speaking to the "new york times" last

week, justice stevens said, quote, i do have to fish or cut bait, just for my own personal peace of mind and also in fairness to the process. then to the "washington post," he said, i will surely do it while he, meaning president obama, is still president. >> president obama can't move the supreme court to the left in any way. rather, he can cement his impact on the court with his nominees serving for decades in the future. >> reporter: stevens' retirement announcement comes less than one year after the president's history-making nomination of the first latino justice sonia sotomayor. >> justice sotomayor brings to the court both a mastery of the letter of the law and an understanding of how the law actually unfolds in our daily lives. >> reporter: sources close to the process tell cnn the white house has been quietly but actively preparing to fill the spot. among those talked about for the job, solicitor general alina cagan and judge diane wood in

chicago. all left-leaning choices with ch could mean a tough confirmation fight ahead. >> i think the president will nominate a qualified person. i hope, however, he does not nominate an overly ideological person. that will be the test. if he doesn't nominate someone who is overly ideologicaideolog don't think you'll see them in engage in a filibuster. >> we're talking about determining the constituti constitutionality of laws that relate to abortion, to affirmative action, to gay rights, to the separation of church and state. the stakes are incredibly hi. >> reporter: and with his retire announce announcement, the white house will try to get a name in place and confirmed at the beginning of next term, october. before then, as we were alluding to at the top of the piece, there are some big cases still facing this court. the last week of the term is scheduled to be near the end of june.

that is coming upon us in the next couple months. >> good stuff. kate, appreciate it. back totoobin for a moment. one of the biggest cases we're keeping an eye on that you've talked about a lot here is the mcdonald versus chicago case. this is a case examining the legality of chicago's handgun ban. set that up for us and where do you think the court is likely to come down on it. >> two years ago the supreme court decided that the federal government, in this case, the district of columbia, could not ban the possession of handguns. that was the yeller decision written by justice ask lillia. the question in the current case, the federal government can't do it, how about the states? chicago has a very tough gun control law. is that law constitutional? what makes that case so significant is that most gun control laws in this country are not by the federal government,

they're by states and localities. so this decision could decide whether all these gun control laws are unconstitutional. plus, it's going to have to decide what kinds of gun control laws are constitutional. for example, is it constitutional to possess a stinger missile? is it constitutional to have a tank? these are questions that these second amendment cases have not yet addressed and they're going to be in front of the courts s decades. >> let's bring in dana bash on the politics of all of this. dana, how difficult is it going to be for president obama to get a supreme court nominee through the senate? >> reporter: well, look, jeff mentioned this. this is not unimportant. there are still 59 democratic senators. that is huge. but, guess what, you need 60. look, historically supreme court nominees have not been filibustered. some of the most conservative

republicans, the last time around with judge sotomayor was nominated said we don't think it's appropriate to filibuster. but in terms of the bigger picture and politics here when it comes to the democrats, tony, that i think is what's going to be really fascinating. and that is look at the climate that we're in. we are just a few months awhey from november's election. and you have a lot of democrats who are in the senate fighting for their political lives. not the least of which is the senate majority leader harry reid. it would not be surprising to hear about some quiet back channeling and probably has already been happening. look, mr. president, don't send us somebody we're going to have a lot of trouble defending in terms of somebody too liberal. it would not be surprising at all that that is happening. i'm hearing from sources there is a concern about that politically. and then this also from the perspective of the republicans, you know, there's no question that they feel that they have public opinion on their side in terms of the tea parties that we're seeing here in michigan and elsewhere across the

country, in terms of the fervor to just basically be antianything at this point. and that there's no question that that is going to play into what's going on. also, in talking to conservative groups leading up to this, know that justice stevens was likely to resign, with judge sotomayor, justice sotomayor, now turned out to sort of fizzle in terms of the political fight, there's so many conservatives champing at the bit and this whole issue of the politics of the supreme court is so potent that it's hard to imagine that it will do the same in terms of fizzling this time around. >> we should tell everyone that you are in michigan for the other big story of the day. concerns congressman bart stupak. why don't we do this? we're going to tease that you'll come back and you'll talk about the importance of this announcement scheduled sometime in this hour, in just a couple of minutes. we will rejoin our senior congressional correspondent dana bash in michigan. right now, quick break.

let's get back to our other big stories here in the "cnn newsroom." congressman bart stupak under fire for his vote in support of health care reform expected to call it quits in just a couple

of minutes. dana bash is with us from michigan. and, dana, if you would, a couple of questions for you. how much of a role did the fallout over health care reform play in stupak's decision here? >> well, i'll tell you what we are told he is going to say with regard to health care reform. what we are told he's going to say, that ten minutes from now he's going to be at this podium behind me here in marquette. that he is going to say that he first ran 18 years ago, in 1992 rks when bill clinton ran for the first time for president, on the same promise he did, which is reforming the health care system. and that now that it is completed, he has voted for in a very public way, very notorious way, voted for health care, he feels it is an okay time for him retire. we have been told by several sources close to bart stupak as we have heard the rumblings of this that it is possible, he has considered this several times before, considered retiring. and for various reasons he has not done it.

he's been convinced to stay in office. i can also tell you from democratic sources that was the same case this time. president obama called him a couple nights ago, the house speaker called him, the house majority leader to try to convince him to stay in congress. and you know, you might think, he's somebody who is an antiabortion democrat who very publicly gave them all a very, very difficult time in passing the president's signature issue, that's health care, because of his demands of restrictions -- strict restrictions on the taxpayer funding for abortion. well, politically, the main reason is because this very, very sprawling district of michigan, we're in the upper peninsula of michigan, it may be on paper pretty okay in terms of democrats, but it is very socially con zservativconservat. conservative in fiscal issues and government. bart stupak, until this health care vote, i think from the perspective of many people here, really did fit this district when it comes to his

perspectives. >> let me fire a couple of questions at you here. a difficult we re-election campaign doesn't mean you can't win a difficult re-election campaign. did he have the money in the war chest? could he have raised money and run for re-election? and is there any sense that maybe from other democrats that he should have run for re-election and defended the vote on health care and, at the same time, promote the health care reform he helped to pass and let the chips fall where they may? >> absolutely. as i said, you know, the house speaker, the president, they really wanted him to run because they felt that that was the best chance at keeping this district in democratic hands. concern it would go republican. you know, in terms of whether or not he could have won, look, the tea party express is here, in this district as we speak. they came here specifically with one goal in mind. they said to force bart stupak in early retirement so they are gloating here big time because they feel they had a part of it.

whether or not that's true, we'll hear in a little bit. but bart stupak is actually not one of the typical democrats that the tea party and republicans felt that they really could topple. legitimately topple this year. he's not been historically vulnerable. he has won big, big here. 65 and close to 70% of the vote here in this district. that is why there is concern politically in terms of the numbers of democrats in the house that they could lose this seat along with bart stupak. >> i got more questions for you but i know you've got to go and take your seat. appreciate it. dana bash for us. let's get to top stories. nato is trying to determine the cause of a crash that killed three american troops and a i haveville ian worker in afghanistan. the u.s. air force osprey went down last night while nato says the crash -- the cause of the crash is not known just yet. they say they shot down the aircraft. in central asia, the first of two days of mourning for protesters killed in

anti-government riots in kyrgyzstan this week. opposition forces claim they controlled the government after they were were to flee to his strong hold in the sosh part of the country but he says he is still very much in charge. two space shuttle "discovery" astronauts worked on replacing ammonia tank used in the station's cooling system. it will take two more spacewalks to finish that job.

love this segment. we are following two developing stories related to politics. the major one, announcement from supreme court justice john paul stevens retiring. great to have him back, former

cnn bureau chief and director of school and media of public affairs at george washington university. and cnn political editor mark preston is with us again. boy, let me start with you, frank. what are you thoughts on this day? who is -- who was justice stevens as a supreme court justice and what was his role in the court? jeffrey toobin called him kind of a consensus builder. >> first of all, let me answer your first question. it's a huge day here in washington. huge day for the white house. good news/bad news day. a long-time democrat in the house is stepping down. one more seat we're going to have to grind our way to try to save. the good news is you have another shot a the supreme court here to put somebody here is young. as far as stevens and what kind of justice he was, yes, a consensus builder. yes, for the most part, a solid

liberal. and he showed up on that side of the issue dependably from, as we've heard, abortion rights to campaign finance to the death penalty. >> did president ford know what he was getting when he appointed justice, nominated, appointed justice stevens in '75? >> no. and i think that this is really the case that we see again and again here in washington. not always, but in many cases where centrists are appointed and they evolve over time. they change with times, with the issues. justice souter has had a similar trajectory, disappointing many conservatives. i think it's just, you know, part of it is human nature. it will be very interesting to see whether president obama, with his highly charged political environment, some of which shaped the stupak decision, i'm convinced, goes with somebody who is, in fact, highly ideological or another centrist, to try to sort of calm things down. i would rather doubt he's going to take that tact, by the way. >> mark, i talk about the politics and reactions you've

received at your desk. we're hearing from republicans are saying we don't want an idealog or an activist from the bench. >> what we hear from democrats on the other side is that this confirmation process should be respectful and that the confirmation process should move swiftly. senate majority leader harry reid who dana earlier said is in a tough re-election fight himself, put out a statement and really the key comment that senate majority leader harry reid said was this, tony. i encourage my republican friends to conduct respectful hearings and swift confirmation of the president's nominee. we're hearing these words now from democrats, coalescing around the idea that republicans need to be respectful, they need to be quick. at the same time, what republicans are telling us, tony, is that president obama better not send somebody up to congress, up to these confirmation hearings, somebody who is considered a judicial activist. >> let me one more for you mark

and jump back to frank in just a second. bart stupak is known for a long time, this is the other big story we're following out of washington, michigan, today. and that the vote on health care reform would be a controversial vote, difficult vote, a vote that could cost him his job. he knows the demographics in his district better than anyone. what do you think was the deciding factor in this decision not to run for re-election? >> you know, tony, i think we'll probably put a lot of weight on the fact that he was very much involved in the health care debate that he was getting it both from the left side and the right side of the political spectrum. in the end i think bart stupak made this decision on his own. everyone i've talked to that knows him points out that, you know, stupak isn't somebody who really shies away from a fight. he was a former police officer. in fact, he suffered a great tragedy about ten years ago, tony, when one of his children, his son, died at the time people thought that bart stupak would leave. however, he decided to stay. so i'm not quite sure that bart stupak was actually pushed out

by the tea party express as they are saying. but i think it probably had a little bit to play into the fact that he said 18 years in congress is enough. >> yeah. you know, i watched him in a couple of the post-health care vote interviews. i know you did as well. the man looked whipped. frankly looked whipped. have you gotten a sense of the toll of the debate, the year long debate has taken on him on his family? >> yeah. i mean, let's even broaden it beyond him as well. you're right. heading into that health care debate, bart stupak was constantly talking to the white house, constantly talking to republicans, constantly talking to democrats which way he was going to go. if you talk to democrats off line, they'll say, bart stupak is the reason why health care reform passed. he delivered those very critical votes at the 11th hour that allowed the house of representatives, that allowed nancy pelosi to have that big win. overall, though, tony, i think it's fair to say that house democrats and even senate democrats have gotten really beat up over the health care issue, and certainly taking a lot of the criticism for the

fact that the economy continues really to be down in the dumps, unemployment is almost at 10%. and they're starting to feel the heat from voters and they're very much concerned heading into the midterms that they're going to lose, perhaps control of the house and seats in the senate. >> we have a live picture from michigan now. and we're expecting to hear from congressman stupak in a moment. you see him there in the shot. is there any sense that, from other democrats, i doubt we would hear something like this from congressman stupak. is there any sense that he owed it to the debate on health care reform to fight on, to, if he had the money in the war chest, to run for re-election, defend the vote, and make the case for health care reform and to let the chips fall where they may? >> you know, tony, i think that's probably some of the conversations that he had with president obama and house speaker nancy pelosi, who in

their private conversations probably said, look, we didn't agree necessarily on everything in the health care reform but we did agree that you should have your say and we honored that. you know, at the same time, they probably told him that he was a very important member of congress and certainly was a very important member of the democratic caucus. but you know, let's not forget these are human beings. bart stupak is a human being. i think oftentimes we put too much on politicians here in washington, d.c. to carry the flag, to really be the big proponent for the party. at some point you have to look inward and say, you know something, for the good of my family, i have to leave. >> is the tea party movement claiming credit? have you seen the e-mails for those decisions today? >> i tell you what, can you see me smiling because there's no question -- look, they're in his district right now and of course they're claiming credit. saying they're the ones that pushed him out and, you know, it's just, you know, timing is everything. happened to be in michigan, holding rallies against him. as dana reported earlier, the fact of the matter is, bart stupak won easily re-election

back in 2008. republican strategists are telling me they did not have a prayer of winning the stupak seat if bart stupak decided to stay in. i don't think the tea party movement can take credit for this. >> it's interesting. on a lot of issues you would think that bart stupak and the tea party might have been aligned. he's a conservative. he's a conservative democrat. but on the key issue of -- it seems to me that what the tea party wanted was a democrat, any democrat who would be willing to side with them and their view on big government and health care reform and working with them to squash the bill and that bart stupak and like-minded democrats that he filled the bill. >> well, he certainly has some of the politics, tony, that the tea party folks are pushing. but, you know, there's this big argument about what the tea party movement is about and whether they're aligned with the republican party. and in the end, would they prefer to have all republicans

in congress. i think that's an argument that you have to take a close look at. that's not to say that everybody in this tea party movement, which is not a centralized movement, you know, doesn't have distrust for government in general and would rather have democrat or republican there as long as they subscribe to their views. overall, i think it's fair to say the tea party movement is certainly closely align with the republican party, more so than the democratic party. >> i think you're right about that. let's bring in our chief political correspondent candy crowley, also the host of "state of the union" here on cnn. what are your thoughts? i know you've been following this announcement. boy, you certainly have been following the story of bart stupak. what are your thoughts on this announcement expect in just minutes no now that he is not going to run for re-election? >> you know, i think that a lot of people tend to say, oh, it got rough and tumble. he remarked when he was going back and forth, trying to get the abortion issue settled over

the health care bill. that it had gotten really uncomfortable and just sort of getting it from both sides. i think that there's this desire to sort of say, well, it got too rough and he's getting out. he's been there a while. i have talked to any number of congressmen like congressman stupak, who say it's not as much fun anymore. these are people who can go out and do other things. they've got families. and being in congress tends to, in fact, be very hard on family life. and i think you add to that. that certainly this might have been a tough race for him, but i think we also ought to sort of point out that he's won fairly handedly in past elections. so i think when they go to make these decisions, we try to make it about one thing but it tends to be the totality of things that weigh on them when they come to this, especially after they've been there a while. >> before i lose you and we sneak in a quick break, i would love for you to set up where you are right now in new orleans, and the gathering of gop

officials, leaders, and the true believers, the faithful there, if you would, please. >> yes. southern republican leadership conference here in new orleans. what you can see behind me, these are largely arktist, not necessarily people you would recognize, people you would recognize are up on the stage. it's a little bit of what we used to call a cattle call for 2012. newt gren grich yesterday was getting prepared for sarah palin who i suspect will get a warm welcome here. basically this is table setting. this is hearing from some of the movers and shakers inside the republican party, about 2010, when all of the house 1/3 of the senate is up for re-election, like here's how we're going to win this, here's what i think we should do. it's just really rousing that base because, after all, the bulk of people who come out to vote in non-presidential years tend to be the base of the parties, the more enthusiastic you get your base, the likier they are to go out. what the republicans hope is to change the dynamic on capitol hill. >> there she is, chief political

correspondent, candy crowley and host of "state of the union." thank you very much. and let me just see the shot again from michigan. i just want to see if i can judge for myself -- it feels like we're getting here. we still have folks who are making remarks. let's try to do this. let's snooek eak in a quick bre.

let's get a reset.

two stories throughout the day here in "cnn newsroom." to the screen of your right you can see we are rate for a news conference from michigan. congressman bart stupak, that is his wife who is going to introduce him in just a couple moments. the other story we're following is the announcement of retirement of supreme court justice john paul stevens. we are joined now by cnn supreme court producer bill mears. bill, this is terrific stuff. are you kidding me, you were having breakfac breakfast with citi citiesis stevens' daughter. >> just chatting politely about her father. i get a call from the supreme court saying, yeah, he announced his retirement. of course, you can imagine, she was very surprised. he had not told his own a family, his own children that he had planned on doing this. >> amazing. had you broached the subject of when your dad might announce his retirement?

>> very delicate. it was a kind of thing she didn't want to ask because she didn't want to be put in a position where she would have to answer a lot of questions from friends and family and reporters. that's typical of justice stevens himself. he's a private man. when it comes to a decision like this it's something he makes on his own. he didn't talk very much with his friends and colleagues about it. it's something he kept very close to the vest. it was a surprise to everybody. >> so how did she react again? did she go right to the phone, to the blackberry, what did she do? >> well, i quickly had to rush back here to the office so i didn't have much chance to talk with her. i think one of the first phone calls would be to her father. he was down in florida. he has a second home in the ft. lauderdale area. that's where he is this week. he's not even here at the supreme court. >> bill, very quickly. maybe we can squeeze a picture of the press conference that's set to get under way in michigan so i can be kept honest what w. what's going on with bart stupak. look, you're our supreme court producer here. what are your thoughts on this

day, this announcement from justice stevens, that he is, in fact, retiring? >> no surprise. we knew he had been thinking about it for quite a number of years, actually. he's going to be 90 in a couple of weeks. and everybody knew the day would come. the question is what kind of justice is going to replace him. he's been quite a power on this court. quite a strategist, helping to maintain and build that liberal coalition that he leads. it's going to be tough to find somebody who has that institutional knowledge and ability to work together with his colleagues, from the left and the right, to maintain that power base. >> man. just having breakfast. oh by the way, your dad announced he's retiring. appreciate it. thank you. we're going to sneak in a quick break. the fact that bart stupak, congressman stupak from michi n michigan, is planning not to run for re-election. let me listen just a moment. don't want to go to -- here we go.

let's take you to michigan now for the announcement. >> i told him not to let lori go last. she does a great job and it's hard to follow her. thanks to dr. wong, mike lovelace, mike lotti, to all my friends and supporters throughout the years who are here with us today, special li my good friend tom baldini and my wife lori. the people of northern michigan have provided me with the honor of representing them in congress for the past 18 years. i'm truly grateful for their support. i have the distinct honor as serving as your congressman longer than any other member in modern times, longer than bob davis, phil roppi or john bonnet. when i first ran for congress in 1992, i campaigned on a pledge to make affordable quality

health care a right, not a privilege, for all americans. i promised the people of the first congressional district that i would not accept the insurance that members of congress received the federal employees health benefit package, until all americans could have access to the same quality of care. for the last 18 years, i have kept that promise. since the day i took office, i have fought to improve the quality and accessibility of health care for people throughout northern michigan and our great nation. despite many setbacks, due to partisan divides and washington gridlock, i never gave up hope and i never gave in. as a result, we've made significant progress. here in northern michigan, today veterans, we have 11 community-based out-patient clinics to provide veterans with the care they need and deserve. broadband access for northern

michigan hospitals serves as a model for a country of how to improve quality and efficiency in health care while lowering the costs in rural areas. we've improved emergency rooms here in the district and provided updated diagnostic technology leading to improved medical treatment and critical prevention services. and last month, we finally accomplished what i set out to do 18 years ago. we passed comprehensive national health care reform. throughout the past year i've worked alongside my colleagues to achieve health care reform and i'm proud to have helped bring it across the finish line. as a result of that work, today we're on the path to provide health insurance for 32 million more americans, including 38,000 people living here in northern michigan. today, because of these reforms, all american families, including

197 families here in northern michigan, will see their costs lowered and receive important consumer protections, so they no longer have to live in fear of being one illness or one injury away from bankruptcy. today, children can no longer be denied care because of a pre-existing condition, and no insurance company can drop you for your family from care or cap your insurance coverage due to a serious injury or chronic illness. today, because of reforms, seniors will be able to afford their prescription drugs and americans will receive preventive care that they need. and today, small businesses can receive tax credits to make employee insurance coverage more affordable. after 18 years, together, we have accomplished what you sent me to washington to do, health care for all americans. my friends and family know that

during the last several election cycles, when it seemed like health care reform was impossible in washington, i considered retiring from congress. i wish to spend more time with my family and begin a new chapter in my career. but in each of the past several election cycles, i chose to continue to serve the people of the first district because i felt we still had work to do. in 2004, after i voted against the war in iraq, i worked to elect john kerry so we could bring the illegal, immoral war to an end. in 2006, when it seemed possible for democrats to regain the majority and put this country back on the right track, i worked hard to make that happen, and we did it. and i became chairman of the oversight and investigations committee. the most fascinating subcommittee in all of congress. over the past four years on our committee we launched

investigations into high-profile issues such as border security, nursing home safety, security breaches that are nuclear weapons labs, food and drug safety investigations, excessive energy speculation, discriminatory practices in the health insurance industry, and the recent toyota sudden unattended acceleration problems. but two years ago, i saw an opportunity to finally enact health care with the election of a new president. i thank president obama and speaker pelosi for their leadership to put us across the line as we fine ally have healt care a reality in this country. while legislative accomplishments have been a significant part of my career, perhaps the thing i'm most proud of in 18 years is helping you, my friends, my neighbors, and my constituents. my staff and i have helped tens of thousands of constituents resolve problems and cut through the red tape, problems such as

helping secure benefits through the veterans or social security administration, or helping with a tax problem at the irs, or securing the medals of a service member who valiant ly served ou country. we helped people obtain passports, secure local mail delivery service and obtain funding to weatherize our homes to save money. these may seem like little things, but to me and my staff, they are some of the most important things we do. i want to thank the members of my staff, past and present, both here in northern michigan and washington, d.c., especially those individuals who have been with me from the beginning of my congressional career. my chief of staff, scott sclegel, district director, tom baldini, ann fix, amy whiskey, and sue narkowsky, i thank them for their dedication, loyalty

and hard work. i spent more than 30 years in public service, police officer, michigan state police trooper, a state representative, and now a u.s. congressman. my service to the people of michigan have been one of the greatest honors of my life. but it's time to begin a new and exciting chapter. last night and early this morning i informed democratic leaders and tea supporters that i would not seek re-election to congress. i will always serve the people of the first district but i've chosen not to continue to serve as their congressman. i'm committed to helping the democrats retain this seat, as i believe we must continue to fight for our working families and small businesses, for our economic and national security, for our great lakes, and for our quality of life. by announcing my intentions here today, potential candidates will have ample opportunity to organize campaigns and collect the necessary signatures before

the may 11th filing deadline. i want to thank the people of northern michigan for putting their faith in me. for 18 years i've traveled to district, from the bay to grand traverse bay to saginaw bay and all the points in between, to hear your concerns and share in your joys and disappointments. i've enjoyed almost every minute. and i fought for you and your families, each and every day. but now it's time to spend a little more time with my wife lori who we've been married for 36 years and whose love and commitment has sustained me through the years. with our son ken and his family, and my extended family and friends. thank you, thank you for all being here today. thank you very much. >> i don't believe there will be questions. just hang on. let's wrap this up -- okay. there we go.

i think the first question goes to dana bash. >> that really came about last 3 6 hours. as i said, i've struggled with this decision. i wanted to leave a couple 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 pamphlet. it's one of my first election things. health care reform right now, i believe every american has a right to health care. we did it. it took us 18 years. i felt that main mission, my main goal, legislative goal, was accomplished. i have been doing this for 30 something years in public service. i'm young enough, i'm at the cross roads in my life where i can do other things. i look forward to those new c l challeng challenges. so it wasn't one thing, it was a number of things. you've been in the district a little bit. about 20% of my district understands. so you can imagine when i come home, my biggest regret now,

exciting 16, 14 years ago, but now i come home and see lori for 12 hours, i jump in the car, i'm gone. a different motel room every night. a different airport i fly out of. it just came to the point where i said, i've accomplished what i wanted to do. either i run again and i'll be there forever or time to make the break. it's time for me to make the break. it's time for me to move on. todd? >> on wednesday you sounded like somebody who might still be willing to run again. was there a conversation that you had with lori between wednesday and now where you said i made my decision, i'm ready to -- >> well, yes, we spent this last weekend at the ncaa final four. we're big michigan state fans. my son ken was the manager of the 2000 basketball team that won the national championship. of course, we're great friends with the coach of the spartans.

we were down there. my son flew in. allowed my family, three of us, to sit down and there was a lot of windshield time between, 444 miles, to be exact. we had a lot of time to talk. we do it every year. every two years we compare notes. what do you think? is it time to go again? time to step aside? my son said, dad, it's time. you put your time in. let somebody else do it. you've been there longer than davis, all these guys. do something else. he encouraged us. so after a disappointment in indianapolis i had -- it took me a day or two to get overer it, then i made the final decision. really, wednesday night we just, this is it. let's go. i talked to the party leadership. it was time. we've been struggling with this, todd, for about six years. yes? >> do you think extraordinary pressure in the last couple of weeks, voting on the health care

bill, the death threats to your house, can you talk a little bit about that? >> well, you know, i have taken tough votes before. in my extraordinary time in the office, 18 years, i've seen everything. you know, when 1993, when we did the president clinton's deficit reduction package and passed by one vote and vice president al gore broke the tie in the senate we got all kinds -- that was my first election. that was a lot of pressure. we had the impeachment vote, we had -- geez, i know i've taken on the national rifle association up here, which is real popular. they were popular. i wasn't real popular when i did that. i voted against the war in iraq, which wasn't popular with a lot of print media in my district. i'm not afraid of tough votes. with it, you get all this outside noise. as lori said, those threats, the 3:00 in the morning phone calls, threatening us, things like

this, that's people outside the district. that's not my district. if you look at my elections, i win by huge margins. i know these folks. they wouldn't do that. so you sort of just ignore it and move on. and so -- you know, it didn't really play a big part. this was the decision lori and i and ken made, what is best for us. i'm at the cross roads. i want to do new things, new challenges, new opportunities. i look forward to it. >> congressman -- there you go. mish again congressman bart stupak saying he ran for congressional seat 18 years ago to pass health care reform and that with the passage of that reform his work is done. and he is not going to seek re-election in november. the congressman has been targeted by conservative groups for caving on his opposition to health care reform and by democrats for delaying and obstructing by demanding stronger language, banning federal fund for abortions. he was able to get an executive

order from the president supporting his position that no federal money should go to pay for abortion. after 18 years, congressman bart stupak announcing he will not seek re-election. make that decision on wednesday eping. live shot there quickly before we get to ali velshi. andrews air force base, the president back from pg. beautiful. there we go. speaking shortly to make a couple of statements here on the decision from justice john paul stevens to retire at the end of this term and a statement on the west virginia mine disaster. quick break, as quickly as we quick break, as quickly as we can. national, i go right past the counter...