has held her off as an example of this successful professional woman. i think that is the type of voter that they are trying to bring out they are deploying her strategically. i believe she is going to ohio. that is no accident. she's not going to massachusetts or alaska. she is going to ohio, the state that has a lot of those voters and are really going to be a key to delivering democrats in some of the victories they need. >> let's move on to the tactic announced this week by emily's list which is the campaign centered around john behner. he has fairly low recognition numbers. the organization does not have a lot of money. there is a tactic to try to identify john behner and have that resonates with people when they make decisions about jobs and economics. >> as some with very low

recognition, analysts list has the ability to portray john behner as they see him very it is very good timing to start doing that. they will start telling people what he stands for and that is probably a good tactic them making the leap between what he stands for and what is happening in your district would seem to be the challenge. >> this is one of those things that amyloid's list is doing to complement the larger democratic effort. they are trying to make them well known and define him in a way and draw that contrast credit is not clear whether it plays out local level. many polls are indicating that voters still believe the republicans are bringing something new to the table. one big asset that emily's list has is maybe speaker nancy pelosi. there were one of the groups out there is celebrating the first woman speaker in american history.

you are now talking about that possibly being threatened. if nothing else, the contrast might be something they get traction from. >> citizens united decision, emily's list has been for around -- has been around for 25 years. there are new coalitions popping up. they're putting money toward races. what is it like for groups right now to get the attention of contributors with all these people that are vying for contributions to the elections? >> if you are the old model group as alice list tends to be, you are limited by campaign finance rules and different disclosure requirements and all those things. we have seen the popping of 527 groups and the citizens united case.

if you are a donor out there and try to make a difference, you might look to a group like emily's list. your choices are limited so you might also look to spread your resources to other areas in order to make a bigger splash in the electoral pool. >> you might give multiple places rather than not getting to emily's list? >> you can give more to other groups, also of. >> we have seen as more so on the republican side. we see donors or addict cited about what the national committee was doing but they have more options. >> one month ago and it will be interesting. thank you for being with us this week. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> coming up, a couple of programs on one of the supreme court's first cases of the new term, snyder verses feldspar the first oral argument in the case followed by a discussion by attorneys on opposing sides.

today, president obama delivers remarks a campaign rally in philadelphia. he will be there to support the democratic senate and the gubernatorial candidate. we will have that live at 5:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. the supreme court has started its new term. you can learn more about the nation's highest court with our latest the book. it has candid conversations with active and retired justices, reporters who cover the court, and attorneys to argue cases there. it reveals unique insights about the court, available in hardcover wherever you buy books and as an ebook. supreme court justices posed for their first group photo friday. members returned from the summer break this week with new justice elena kagan replace retired justice john paul stevens. one of the first cases on their

docket is snyder verses phelps, looking at whether anti-gay protests at military funerals are protected by the first amendment. next, the oral argument which is an hour. >> we will hear the argument today, snyder vs feldspar and mr. summers? >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court, we are talking about a funeral. the, if -- it context will matter, it has to remember -- matter in the context of a funeral. mr. snyder simply wanted to bury his son in a private, dignified manner when a respondent's they ever made that impossible. he was entitled to use the torte law of maryland. >> there was this a video that your client watch later after the funeral.

>> there was a flyer that was sent out prior to the funeral. we have a funeral at what they described as a video that was put on the internet. >> what does that have to do the funeral? >> the trial confirmed that it was a recap of the federal probe test itself. >> that is fine but it does not intrude upon the funeral. you either have to separate causes of action like the cause of the funeral and the harm caused by it viewing this posted on the internet. i don't see how they both relate to intrusion upon of general. >they were just submitted to the jury as one big lump, right? >> we had the facts of the funeral and we focused on the

personal targeted comments in the video. >> suppose there had not been a funeral protests, would that have supported the cause of action you assert here? >> i think that is a closer call. >> yes or no? >> i would say yes because we have a personal targeted at that directed at the snyder family. >> even though it is -- even though you don't have to watch it. >> that is correct. >> it is his choice to watch parenh. >> he has a cause of action and it does not mean he will win. we have a summary judgment standard. >> but why does he have a claim? after this case arose, the

maryland statute puts time, place, and manner restrictions. i read the statute and it seems to me that there was nothing unlawful, nothing out of compliance with the statutes that was done here. it was that a considerable distance and there was no importuning and one going to the funeral3 . it stopped before the funeral began a my right is that this conduct was not on lawful? >> the statute was not in place at the time. there is a complicated answer to the question because they were positioned about 30 feet from the main vehicle entrance to the church and a rerouted the funeral procession. >> didn't they do with the police tell them to? >> they told the place where they want to stand and the police said ok. they did not violate any

criminal statutes. >> did they intend to occupy the field of regulation? >> i believe the maryland legislature made it clear that they did not want people to protest the annals in general them up but they did not prohibit it. >> they did not prohibited under certain set -- under certain sour -- under certain circumstances. we are dealing with torte law. >> this applies to any protest at funerals. it could be the vietnam war or whatever. your case involves a protest of the dead soldier who was going to hell and whose parents have raised him to go to alberhell.

to say you cannot process within a certain distance is not to say you can have it within a certain distance that the defense the coarse bread that is a different issue. >> that is our position, yes. >> you knew just what was going on. this was done before didn't they take it someone in annapolis the same day at the state capital? >> yes, they did. >> they knew what they effects would be. could they have not gotten an injunction against this protest? >> i don't think they could have. we knew at the sides would be, generally, from the pattern, we could guess what the signs may have been carried it down with the signs are going to be on that -- until they show up. they had a sign that said many

hateful things. >> you could go into court and could have beens in the state capital. they might have used the same signs that this protest. >> from our perspective, the signs that say," god hates you. you are going to help," referred specifically to matthew snyder. if this was done at a public park in montana, you could logically inferred this was not directed at the family. >> did they have that size of the state capital in annapolis? >> the majority of the sides or the same data but the particular

when you mentioned, did they have those? >> yes, i believe the only ones they change was for different branches of the service. >> it sounds like that is representing the whole rotten society. >> if we are forced to except their view, yes, that is what they testified to. mr. snyder positive view is that the size of the civic and referred to matthew snyder and thank god for dead soldiers, mr. snyder interpreted that as referring to his son. >> you said the plight of found those signs targeted the family rather than the whole u.s. society? >> yes.

they could say this was protected pursuant to the interpretation under defamation law. >> do you think that the epithet as relevant as and representation -- as a representation as to these ambiguous signs that were displayed at the funeral? "you are going to hell" "god hates you" does this shed light on who "you" is? >> if you put this in the context of a funeral gore -- a funeral gore, -- g a,oer, it looks like a target. >> it means a larger group and then you have the ethic which

is directed directly at matthew snyder. cousin that tell you what you were looking at? >>the epic directly reference matches matter by name. it reverenced his parents by name current in our judgment and the defendants testified that the epic explained the funeral protested sell. >> this is about a funeral. i understand there is a funeral in it. the first amendment seems to be a broader question. did your client see the signs? i gather from the record he did not see the signs. i don't think you read anything, is that right? >> he did not read the content. >> how did your client find out

that the signs when the demonstrators were standing there with the approval of the police, how did he find out what they said? >> your honor, two days in advance they sent out a flier announcing they would protest the funeral and they have met these matters picture and they were going to protest -- >> my question is, how did your client find out these very objectionable things on the signs? how did he find out what they said? >> he find out about the specifics of the signs by going to the family wake immediately following and seeing it on the television. >> now we have two questions. one is under what circumstances can a group of people broadcast on television something about a private individual that is very obnoxious.

because of the funeral, you say i accept that. that is very obnoxious. the second is, to what extent can put them on the internet? the victim is likely to see it either on television or by looking get up on the internet. those of the two questions that i am very bothered about. i don't know what the rules ought to be there. do you think that a person can put anything on the internet? do you think they can put anything on television, even if it attacks the most private things of a private individual? does the maryland law actually prohibit that? what should the rules be there? i think i've said enough to get to talking. [laughter] >> parol we are stuck with is

for infliction of emotional distress. >> your claim is that this involved a public figure and the snyder family is not. what i got from your brief is that you don't fall under that case because you're not dealing with a public figure. >> that's correct. >> the more you say about this, the happier i will be. [laughter] >> the targeted nature of the speech is what makes it unprotected. for example, the epithets directed at the family would be unprotected. if a person repeatedly put on the website that mr. smith has aids, whether it is true or not, at somewhere in time, it might

rise to the level of intentional in flexion of emotional distress. >> you have no objection if the sign said "get out of iraq?" in other words not directed at this particular individual? >> right, i don't there are -- i don't think the constitution would bar the claim from going forward. >> the intrusion upon the privacy of the funerals out of the case? because that sign would inflect that distress. you are complaining about the personal attacks, are you? >> yes, and under a certain scenario, regardless of size, you could have a scenario where the funeral was disrupted and was disrupted in this case. >> it was or wasn't? >> it was. >> when the services of began,

the protesters stopped? >> i think it was about eight minutes after the funeral started that the protesters left the area. >> did they come in through a different entrance? >> according to all the witnesses, yes, >> the funeral goers came in three different entrance. this to avoid a peaceful express that all private figures -- >> he would not have objected to this of their warranties nasty signs, right? >> i hope i said that under the right context -- there is a sign out there that says "god hates america" i don't think we could have a claim there. they disrupt the funeral, i'd think it could be a claim. >> clan -- counsel, i am trying

to tease out the importance of whether the person is a private or public figure. does it make a difference if i am directing public comments to a public or private figure? >> in the context of defamation, we had the rosenblum -- >> i am talking about in terms of emotional distress if i am talking to you as a marine, if you were a marine, and i was talking about the iran war and saying that you are perpetuating the are is that america is doing and said other things that were offensive, would you have a cause of action because you are being called as a perpetrator of the american

experience? >> i think there would have to be more facts in ball. involved. >> use a speech on a public matter is directed to a private person should be treated differently under the law? i think that was part of what justice breyer was asking. is that your position? >> public speech even directed to a private figure should be treated differently than as directed toward a public official. >> what theory of the first amendment would we do that? what case with stanford the proposition that public speech or a speech on a public matter should be treated differently depending on the recipients? >>gertz vs welch treated this

differently. >> that is defamation. >> the only other case we have which clearly dealt with a public figure. the states have interpreted this case has not applying to a private figure. >> have they done in the context of differentiating between public and private speech? >> yes, there is an illinois case we cited in the brief or is this of a police said was a matter of public concern. they said the plaintiff was not a public figure therefore he has to meet the elements of intentional infliction. >> i was talking about a supreme court case.

this would depend on the person to whom it was directed. >> dun & bradstreet says this. >> do we look at the words, alone or do we look at the entire context of what all the other side said the demonstration to determine whether or not the speech here was public or private speech? >> i think you have to look at the particular signs because of you don't, and when, with a -- anyone could come off with public defamation. >> i am a little concerned at the apparent acceptance of the proposition that if one comes up to a marine and says you are contributing to a terribly unfair war that that alone would form the basis for the

intentional infliction of emotional distress. what are the requirements of that? i thought it had to be outrageous conduct? >> it does >> why except that is parallel to what you are claiming here? >> what i meant to say is that there would have to be more facts involved to rise to the level of a intentional collection of emotional distress if you told in marine corps soldier that they weren't an instrument of war. >> you show that it was intended to and did influx serious emotional suffering. you show that any reasonable person would have known that

likelihood. and then the defendant said yes, i did that, but it may cause. -- in a cost per --in a cause. i think the first amendment night -- might not leave this alone. we need an approach or something to tell us how the first amendment in that instance will begin to enter into it and force a balancing. do you want to say no punitive damages in such a case? would you insist on a particularly clear or reasonable connection between the private part of this and the public effort? have you thought about that all? that is where i am thinking. >> i think this standard should

not apply. >> the case you mentioned as defamation. it is intentional infliction, i'm sorry. >> the ruling should not apply to a public figure unless they act -- unless there is compelling information there. in this case, they don't claim there is a connection. they use this moment to hijack someone else's private event when their grieving over a 20- year-old child's funeral. >> there is one sentence that is key to the whole position and it goes like this," outrageousness in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subject in this about which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors tastes, views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression."

how is that sentence less implicating in a private figure than a public figure? >> we had a traditional area of public discourse. what we're talking about here is a private funeral. i would hope that the first not enacted to allow people to disrupt at a private funeral. >> let's go back to the question that was asked previously. suppose you had a general statute that said there will be no disruptions of any kind at private funeral. you can keep your distance. it would be something that would not refer to content or ideas but just made it absolutely clear that people could not disrupt private funeral.

what harm with that statute not addressed in your case? >> ne statutory case, they have the option to penalize the vending party and torte provide a remedy for its citizens. mr. snyder has no remedy, and none. he is a private figure, a grieving father, and he is left without any remedy whatsoever. >> we have other instances where this meets the terms of the statute. and yet there is an award of damages permitted. >> i believe the case i mentioned that several torte claims the but -- but there were

no criminal charges. >> i'm asking you for example where a federal case where the conduct was permitted by the statute, by the police who were there, and yet there was a damage award them a i am not aware of any case like that. >> if someone sued someone for defamation, they're probably not be a statute violated. >> i am talking about this intentional infliction of emotional distress claim that you're bringing. >> i do not have any federal cases to cite for you >> is this a situation in -- where it all conduct applies with the maryland funeral protest statute being lawful?

has the maryland the legislation said these are the close of regulations that apply here? >> perhaps you would like to answer the question. >> i believe you could commit this and still be in compliance with the criminal code. >> suppose i don't think you have a cause of action for invasive. a private .

>> they contested the constitutional issue, but not whether, we met the elements the tort. >> all >> okay. >> sir. thank you. council. >> mr. phelps. >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court, when members

of the westboro baptist church entered a discussion and wide array of activities. taking place in direct connection with the deaths and funeral of soldiers killed in iraq and afghanistan. they did so with great boundaries that have been set by the precedence of this court. >> mr. phelps. suppose your group or another group or find a wounded soldier. demonstrates that the work place, his church. basically saying a lot of the things that were on these signs or other offensive and outrage

out things and follows this person around day to day. does this person not have a plan for intentional emotional stress? >> any nonspeak, following, nonconfrontati nonconfrontational. >> demonstrations outside of the person's home. demonstrations not disruptions but saying these kind of thing. you are a war criminal. whatever these signs say or worse. >> my answer, just kagan is no, i don't believe that person should have a cause of action. and couldn't give that cause of action without direct reference to the viewpoint, which is exactly what happened in this case. >> we did have a doctrine of fighting words. you acknowledge whether somebody said things such as that to his

face? that wouldn't be protected by the first amendment >> we agree that fighting words are less protected under the first amendment. >> i will go with unprotected judge scalia. fighting words require eminence. proximity and a lack of those words being part of a broader -- >> is that so? isn't the criterion of the fighting words there be an actual fight? certainly not that? is it a requirement that it be a potential for a fight? i doubt it. where do you get the notion that it has to be an imminent fight? >> i get the notion from the series of cases starting within seven years of the brandon case.

>> the person was too remote. the fight was not eminent? >> the definition, the working definition of fighting words they have to be words, which by their nature are going to insight an immediate breech the peace and not occur in the context of some social, artistic political, kind of speech and if i may hasten to add, justice scalia, these respondents were not charged with fighting words. no element of the tort under which liability attached including fighting words. the words that were at issue in this case, were people from a church delivering a religious viewpoint on the discussion that was under way in this nation about dying soldiers >> ms. phelps. there's no question that these signs, i mean, the signs like

that, we saw during the vietnam war, but, you had to demonstration at the capital. and you had the demonstration at annapolis. this is the case about exploiting a private family's grieve. the question is, why should the first amendment tolerate exploiting this bereaved family when you have so many other avenues for getting across your message the very same day you did? so several pieces to that just ginsburg. >> when i hear the language exploiting the bereavement. i look for the principle of law thats and from this court. as i understand it is, without regard to viewpoint, there are some limits on what public places you can go to to deliver words as part of a public

debate. if you stay within those bounds, and under these torts even, this notion of exploiting it has no definition in a principle of law that would guide people as to when they could or could not, if i may --? >> isn't your argument the intentional inflection -- infliction of harm. >> not under an inherently objective speech. it was adverse emotional harm. >> justice kagan give you one example. let's say there is a grandmother

who has raised a son who was killed in afghanistan or iraq by an i e. d. she goes to visit her grandson's grave. she's waiting for a bus. someone approachs to speakers to her in a vile way. do you know what i. e. d.'s happen. i only wish i could have taken pictures of it and on and on. now, is that protected by the first amendment? there's no false statement involved? it's purely speech. >> and, it may give rise to some fighting words depending on the proximity and context. >> but it's an elderly person. she's really not in a position to punch this person in the

nose. >> she's a quaker too. [laughter] >> let us assume the grandmother had not done what mr. snyder did. from the moment he learned of his son's death went to the public airways multiple times in the days immediately before and immediately after -- >> what is your answer to justice alito's question? do you think the first amendment would bar that cause of action or not? >> it would have to be a narrow situation. >> you think there's a tort of intention of emotional distress for a matter of public debate. >> i understood the hypothetical. the person disagreed with the war in iraq and the sending of

american troops there. >> knew this elderly woman was the grandmother of a soldier. why i was making reference to what mr. snyder did >> that person selects the mother because he thinks that will give maximum view to those views. >> if the grandmother entered -- >> just alito proposed. he didn't enter the public discussion at all. i'm anxious if you think the first amendment supports that? >> i am reluctant. >> you gave the answer before. you said stalking, isn't this comparable to talking? >> that's what i was trying to liken it to. that's what it sounds like. >> do you think it satisfies the normal tort against talking

for someone to come up to an individual and engage in discussion? i thought a lot more was required >> mr. chief justice, i would not file that claim for that elderly grandmother. i'm not prepared without knowing more to say absolutely there could not be cause of action. what i'm prepared to say there was much more than that. >> i thought you were beginning to say that my hypothetical is different because mr. snyder made his son into a public figure. and the question i wanted to ask in that connection, whether every bereaved family member who provides information to a newspaper for an obituaries. >> not the diseased person. we don't allege the young man

dead was a public figure. >> but the grandmother called the local paper. let me tell you something about my grandmother. he liked football and camping. that makes him, her a public figure? >> it's getting closer. justice alito, if she went on to say, how many more parents like me and my ex-wife are going to have to suffer this way. i have gotten congressman on the phone and i'm against the war and proceeded to repeat that question on the public airways. then a little church where the servants of god are found say, we have an answer to your question which you put on the public airways. you've got to stop sinning. >> your response to justice alito is dwelling on the facts

of this particular case. i'm interested in knowing what your position is on the broader question. can you imagine the circumstance where this same type of discussion is directed at an individual? and yet would give rise to a tort of emotional distress. >> i can imagine there would be a circumstance, a hypothetical, where there was not this level of involvement. it was out of blue. up close, if i may use the term. >> so if you recognize there can be a tort of emotional distress. i don't agree with that. you have taken an inherently subjective standard with the absence of these non-speech misbehaviors and now back to only the only barrier between a

person and their first amendment right to robust public debate including this court has said. outrageous statements. that subjective statement of emotional impact. this court has said repeatedly >> does it make a difference, which seems to me to be the case here. mr. snyder was selected because it was a way to get maximum publicity for your client's message? >> that's not accurate with due respect >> assuming it is. does that make a difference? >> the motive of a speaker to get maximum exposure which ever public speaker strives for and is entitled to, does not change the legal principle at law. >> it might affect whether or not is inflicts emotional stress

to the individual. if the person is selected because, as i indicated, gives maximum publicity rather than a particular connection to the dbl -- debate. i wonder if that makes a difference. >> how tied the words they speak to punish are to his role in that public will discussion. i think that's how you get to the point. >> ms. phelps. let's say we disagree with you as to whether mr. snyder injected himself to this contrary or it's feared the father of the fallen soldier had not said anything to anybody. a group knew this funeral was

taking place, and was there with the same signs. same -- are you saying that makes a difference? there there would be a claim? >> i'm saying it does make a difference. there would not be a claim. >> it's not a difference that matters. >> i believe the umbrella that this court has established. speech -- sometimes you get under that umbrella because it's a public figure. the umbrella is speech on public issues. when a plaintiff comes to your court and says, i want $11 million from a little church because they came forth with preaching i didn't like, i think it does make a difference for the court to look at what role

did that man have. >> your argument depends on the proposition this is speech on a matter of public concern, is that correct? >> absolutely, justice alito. suppose someone believes african-americans are inherently familiar and a bad influence on this country, so a person comes up to an african-american and starts berating that person with racial hatered. this is any old african-american on the street. is that a matter of public concern? >> i think approaching an individual up close could be racism. gets out out of zone of protection and we would never do that. >> that's simply points out that all of us in a pluralistic society has components to our

identity. whether democrats. christians or atheists. we are single, married. old or young, any one of those things you could turn into a public issue and follow a particular person around making that person the target of your comment and in your view because this gives you maximum publicity. the more innocent, the more removed the person is, the greater the impact that justice alito hypothetical in the grandmother case. i think you're public concern issue makes, may not be a limiting factor in cases where there is an outrageous contact >> again, this court has given substantial, long standing protection to speech on public issues and how could it be game

set that the dying soldiers is not on the lips of every person. how god is dealing with this nation were you to consult the joint appendix is see, at the very same funeral, right outside the door with people with flags and churches -- >> your position you can take this and follow any citizen around at any point. that was the thrust of the questions and justice alito. >> and seems to me, you should help us in finding some line. >> yes. i will help you justice kennedy. >> we don't do follow around. we were a thousand feet away. out of sight. out of sound. not just standing where the police were standing -- >> but the hypotheticals point

out there can be an intentional infliction of emotional distress for harassing speech >> there's never been an allegation that the words of westboro baptist church were of low speech >> certainly, your fighting words is a very subjective call, isn't it? >> i believe your cases give good light on that, justice scalia. >> you don't think it's subjective? >> there may be subjectivity. >> i think that solid. what's the fighting word. what is an outrageous statement is very much different than a fighting word.

besides which, in order to recover for the tort of -- >> intentional affliction of words you have to have a manifestation which you plaintiff had. my goodness. your fighting words, you don't even need that. these words angered me to the degree that i would have been inclined to fight. you have to have physical manifestation. isn't is that an objective standard. >> well, because the court said it was subjective in the falwell ways. there's a few more paragraphs and the way this case was tried identifies why it's inherently subjective. although two signs and then three were identify as

actionable by a strained reading of the words all of the signs at that picket, all the signs at other pickets and doctrines went to a jury. >> your point depends on the proposition that what is outrageous is more subjective that what is fighting words. >> well, justice scalia, i am not a fan of fighting words doctrine. i just don't think it applies in this case. >> the court made that a very narrow category. you have not allowed to have the fighting words. you say that to me. i am immediately going to punch you in the nose. i think the point is rejected spreading fighting words beyond

that. i think that he would have suggested in language, you have not gone that way in any of the cases. again, i have to reiterate. you have to require immdediacy and intent. i do understand that hasn't been pinned down as a requirement. the intent, your purpose is to mix it up with somebody. not to go out and say, nation, hear this little church. if you want them to stop dying, stop sinning. that's the only purpose of the church. >> we're still worried about the statements on television and the internet. i'm starting -- i'm trying to get the same answer i was trying to get from your colleague, brandize said the right to say the words is the most important. with interference with privacy.

the first amendment doesn't top state tort laws in appropriate circumstances. emotional injury deliberately inflicted could be one. and i think it is one. but i see that in some instances that could be abused to get out a public message. therefore i'm looking for a line. let my suggest a few. you could have the judge make the decision since the first amendment is involved. the judge could say, whether in this instance. it was reasonable for the defendant to think that it was important to interfere with the emotional life of that individual. you could say, if that was so, there would be no punitive damages. you could remove all protection from the defendant in an instance where the defendant

nonetheless. knew they were going to cause emotional injury irrespective of their message. i'm suggesting a number of thoughts of ways of doing what i'm trying to accomplish. to allow this tort to exist, but not allow the existence of it to interfere with an important public message where that is a reasonable thing to do. now may be this is impossible, this task. but i'd like your thoughts on that >> thank you. justice breyer. i believe i can demonstrate a compare and contrast. you have the law that come under the body of law. you can read those cases from which you conclude it's narrow, limited and there must be some

actual physical, sound, sight intrusion. if you're talking about invasion of privacy. at the other extreme, for compare and contrast is what they seek in this case. what the trial judge gave them in this case, which is, in an unspecified period of time. the individual will call their morning period. no one, any place, any matter they say any word that mourner says caused me emotional distress. >> why around the members of the victim a captive audience? >> they might have been if we were outside. your body of law about captive audience, in colorado, madison, taking the picketing, where they said. this is isn't about content.

you got to be, again i'll use the term "up in your grill". confrontati confrontational. you can't be a captive audience to someone you can't see. >> picketing a person's house is not protected. >> directly in front of can be regulated. >> what's the difference between that and picketed around the sight of a funeral? >> proximity, because it's stretched out and those abortion picketed cases, was it possible for person to avoid it. imagine is observable. the only objection you can have is content. get up and close the blinds. >> doesn't have to do whether this is what you characterize as a public as opposed to a private

funeral. >> i'm relying on proximity. i do think you can have a public event where there wasn't an element of vulnerability. you might let them up in your grill. we don't have to worry about that >>. councillor, i am following your argument and it involves public speech. what you have not explained to me is how your speech directed at the snyders constituted public speech or speech about a public matter. you're talking about them raising matthew for the devil. teaching him to i think defy the creator. at what point and how do we take personal attacks and permit those as opposed to fully talk

about any political you want. what's it is line between doing that and personalizing it and creating hardship to an individual >> i believe, just sotomayor, the line was in this case. the father used the occasion of the son's death to put a question out repeatedly. >> so if we disagree that made him a public figure, if we view him as a private figure, is that enough to defeat your argument? no. justice sotomayor >> so the mathews are a private figure. how are you protected by the first amendment? >> without regard to what label is put on to a person steps out

in the public >> we assume he's a private figure. you made a public statement and directed personal comments toward a private figure. >> i don't know, just sotomayor, i don't know i can give you a definitive answer as you framed it. i think the court would have great difficulty in making a rule of law, you, not the person you're mad at, you step into public discussion and somebody wants to answer you. >> so, what if -- did mr. snyder, the father, become a public figure simply because his son was killed in iraq? >> no. mr. chief justice >> so. if he didn't take out the usual obituaries notice.

it should come out the other way. >> he went far beyond that >> let's say he does nothing but bury his son. >> we don't picket him. >> it's not publicized, you don't get the maximum publicity your clients are looking for. >> if he simply buries his son, is he open to a public following >> i don't know if i can give a difintive answer to that. it was not an issue of seeking maximum publicity. it was an issue of using an existing public platform to bring a viewpoint that was not being articulated for two years this church -- >> after this, he puts in the information and called by the local newspaper and asked for a comment. he says or she says. i'm proud of my son because he died in the service of my

country. is she stepping into a public debate. >> however you call it, justice alito, a church is able to answer that question >> thank you. ms. phelps. you >> mr. summers you have four minutes. >> can i ask you to go back to an answer you gave to one of my colleagues. you said a more standard anti-war demonstration. get out of iraq. war is immoral at this funeral, same distance. same size signs, a more standard anti-war demonstration would be protected from the first amendment, i'm wondering why that is. if you think that what his, what causes a lack. protection here is the kind of glomming on to a private funeral. the exploitation of a private

person's grief. the appearance for no other reason than to gain publicity. if that's the problem, why doesn't it also apply to a standard, you know, get out of iraq. war is wrong kind of demonstration. >> justice, kagan. i see that as a much closer call. two, i would look to the facts of the case to see if the funeral itself was disrupted. that isn't the facts of our case. it was disrupted and two, it was personally targeted assaults on mr. snyder >> suppose, i know, you can attest to these facts. you'res wasn't disrupted. they stopped when you started. they were a sufficient number of feet away from the funeral. we're talking buyer people that who are appropriating and taking advantage of a private funeral

in order to express their views and they're in compliance with the content neutral laws. >> i would say that is a closer call. >> why is it a closer call. it's not the personal-targeted nature of the snyder family. >> now do we have to read each sign. war is wrong, but you're a war criminal falls on other side of the line. >> yes. the district court would have to look at the signs the district court did in this case and which ones he believes were directed at the family. all the signs were presented by the respondents, not by mr.

snyder. >> i guess that kind of a call is always necessary under the tort you're relying on. the content has to be outrageous. that always requires that kind of call. it's unconstitutional as plied -- applied with words. >> i assume the situation in which the jury found was war is wrong. the jury did find that outrageous. the question was, were we going to reverse that jury verdict because the first amendment prohibited that. >> i would say, yes, it's more likely the constitution would

prevent that claim from going forward. >> i say -- >> thank you. mr. summers, the case is submitted. >> after wednesday's oral argument, opposing attorneys join us us on "washington journal," this portion is 25 minutes. >> from kansas city, mississippi. margie phelps and timothy nieman on behalf of the snyder family. >> if you would state for our audience, the argument you made to the supreme court yesterday on behalf of the westboro baptist church

>> sure. the seven pickets were a thousand feet away from the furn and they were other people engaged in expressive activity. no one going into the funeral saw or heard the westboro picketers. when it was time for the funeral to start, they left. so by any definition or rational, there was no invasion of privacy. as to the disagreement with viewpoint, because that's what the case is really b. they don't like the core message that your soldiers are dying for your sins. using outrage or offense and only claiming an emotional, adverse emotional impact from word system not sufficient to override the first amendment

right. all the nation is talking about these dying soldiers. the majority view like 310 million of you to 60 of us. the majority view is he's a hero and god is blessing america. our dissenting view is he put on the uniform of a nation that is fast chasing same-sex marriage and every kind of his policies. and god is not blessing america. the dissenting view is protected by the first amendment >> mrs. phelps, one of the arguments you stated earlier, there was no invasion of privacy. do you think the case would be different if you have been seen during the funeral in the snyder family had seen you.

>> not if we had been seen. taking the line of cases about a -- abortion picketers. if we walked into the church, liability maybe appropriate. everyone knows, that's not how we do business >> thank you. ms. phelps. timothy nieman. briefly state your opinion >> this case isn't about being able to avert your guys. the argument made on behalf of mr. snyder. the question was summed by justice ginsburg. this is a case about exploiting a private family's grief. why should the first amendment

tolerate exploiting this marines life? the snyder family did not ask for the westboro church to come to the funeral. mr. snyder was not a public figure. despite what the westboro church might say about that. merely trying to put his son to rest. had the unfortunate situation. you cannot re-do a funeral or a burial. that sacred time was turned into a circus by the presence of westboro baptist church. as justice ginsburg so eloquently put it. exploiting a private family's grief. and it was from a fallen soldier. >> that's why the vfw got

involved. >> ms. phelps. >> it's undisciplined language. mr. snyder. i will use that language exploited his own grief when within two days of his son's death, he began holding force in multiple media interviews complaining about the war, the dyi dying soldiers, asking how many more people would have to die and suffer. you don't get to start a public discussion and that fashion without letting other people answer and if you don't want that discussion to take place on the occasion of the your son's death or funeral. don't start the discussion on

that occasion. they have turned these funerals of these soldiers into patriotic pep rallies. more expressive activity going on outside. long after we were gone, on the whole 15 mile route to the cemetery. we don't go to cemetery or follow the procession. others do. you can't open up a public dialogue and then tell one viewpoint to shut up. if you think exploitive. stop doing it. when soldier's funeral are private. when you invite the media and all the public, including putting your obit iary in the baltimore sun, when you got no connections to baltimore. they did all that on public to have a big, giant splashy public display. because they want this nation to

come and bow down to those dead soldiers. >> timothy nieman. putting an ad in a newspaper. every single american citizen that has a family member die whether they are a military member or common everyday guy, opens themselves to this sort of protest. it was put in the baltimore sun because of the funeral was held within reasonable proximity to baltimore. not as if it was put across the state. you can turn any single item into a matter of public concern. for example, i know on your show. you have a republican line.

democratic line and independent. you can open that up to all kinds of disruptive protests because they happen to be a registered democrat or republican. there's no end if we allow this to go forward. timothy nieman is an attorney for the vfw. margi e is a graduate of wash burg university. school of law. first call for our two guests. oakford, pennsylvania. barb. independent line. >> hi. >> please go ahead. >> thank you. i think this is just so wrong what this woman and baptist group is trying to do. i mean, a funeral is a private

event. i don't understand how the law can see it any other way. there must be a way to make the case this is a private event. and -- >> mr. nieman. is this a way to make this a private event? >> i do, that's the primary approach we took in our brief. the supreme court as carved out an exception which is called the "captive audience doctrine". if you are a captive audience. in your home, or a hospital. if you're in a situation where you can't leave. the house described is the last form of refuge. the court says. you can put restrictions on that. bar pickets on people's houses. limiting picketing in front of

hospitals. the vfw and other people that filed briefs in this case. the captive -- if attendees at a funeral, you're a captive audience. you only have one opportunity tolay your friend. husband. wife son to rest. you have to be at that church and that location in order to do that. you don't get to do it twice. i believe that the captive audience doctrine is a way to adopt that. for the court to reach a decision in a constitutional way that's been articulated in the pa past. >> the court has been explicit. forward for the captive audience doctrine to apply. the picketer has to be right up

front. in your grill. confronting you and making it impractical to get in your car. a thousand feet away. out of sight. out of sound. how irresponsible to suggest that apply to that situation. they couldn't even see the picketers. that funeral went out without a hitch. the priest testified he didn't know they were pickets there. no one was a wear of them got in their cars with our picketers long gone. >> was this the first time to argue in front supreme court?

>> it was my first time. it was absolutely marvelous. i felt honored to represent this church. the justices are familiar with their cases and gave the church a fair opportunity to be heard on their conscientious, faithful ministry. >> what was this like for you? >> i did not have the pleasure of arguing the case yesterday. i would like to say, i thought she did a great job. i may not agree with her position. but did a great job in front of the court. it was a great experience. the justices seemed extremely interested in the case and knowledgeable and honed on to the issues here. they could have argued much

longer. >> john in leaseburg, pennsylvania. >> good morning. thank you for giving me the opportunity. i am a veteran for the u.s. navy. in this case, and all these cases, the church would go to somebody's funeral that gave their life for this country. they gave up everything. all their -- they individual gave up everything they can give. i don't think the right of freedom of speech should be used to make the point they're trying to make. they just want the public forum to get their message out >> you don't think they should be able to use it. should they have the right use it? >> i don't think. >> where do you draw the line? >> on the funeral of military people that gave their lives for

county. >> 48 states have filed laws against what the westboro church did. george bush signed the national cemeteries act in response to what your group has been doing. is, are those in your view constitutional laws? >> well, in incidentally, a picketed president bush within ten minutes of him signing that law. by the way. i read all those laws. 80% are grossly unconstitutional. almost none of them put united states as far away as we are ourselves. we can continue to function and left a stand. look at this inconsistency. you got these soldiers going over to afghanistan and iraq which has nothing to do with our

constitutional democracy. even in you assume they're dying for the right to speak and you get this military folks and we get this on the streets all the time. i died for your right to speak. don't say words that i don't like. how unamerican could that be? if they died for our right to speak. shut the hell up and let us peek. >> thank you. peter. good morning attorney phelps and nieman. please allow me to ask a very brief question. attorney phelps. i think you're an extremely intelligent person. i saw you on television. especially yesterday, i was

stricken by how much courage you have despite the controversy. i have to admit. many of us are going to hell. i do believe that, the court will uphold your right regardless of how terrible it is. i wanted to ask you, would you consider extending your campaign or protest to come to some of the black inner cities in america to protest the black on black crimes. >> you know what? >> overwhelmed the protesters and shot and killed one of funeral members. >> margie phelps. what is your response?

i read about that case. it's a symptom. we don't as a rule focus our publi publishing on symptoms. the young people are dropping like flies. no, i don't think it would be likely we would show up in a funeral. we're trying to go to tell people, the military in this nation are putting on uniforms that represent same-sex marriages. one of god's weapons is to get your young men on the battlefield and kill them. just ginsburg asked where are they there? where the major trauma is, is where god has your attention. the message has to be delivered there. i am very sorry about that

incident at that funeral. it should not have happened. these symptoms, it's too late. >> mr. nieman. >> yes. i would just like to follow up on what justice ginsburg did say yesterday. when she asked this question about exploiting the marine's funeral. she asked the question, there are so many other places where you can express these opinions. this case isn't about the content of the their speech despite what ms. phelps say. what right does this church and these protesters have to interview and interrupt and take away from a private mourning family, the right to bury their son or daughter whether that son or daughter was killed in military action, whether they died of some other issue? but, it's not the content. as just ginsburg said.

they can go say this somewhere else. can they say it in this particular place? >> chicago. hi. >> hello. >> i notice the protesters have a sign saying fag and protesters. what does that have to do with the victim? i never see them -- i like to see them come to the west side of chicago and do the same thing. see what happens. >> all right. >> and margi e. go to a gay pride protest.

>> we protest at more gay pride. we have done them in washington d.c. and new york city. we have picketed numerous times in the south side of chicago. we had hit your streets. don't pretent this isn't about viewpoint. we spent 20 minutes debating what the word "you" means in the god hates you sign. remember, while seven westboro picketers, disrupted nothing. interviewing with nothing over a hundred other people, stood right outside the front doors of church with a different message and everybody applauded them. don't pretent this is not about viewpoint. this nation does not want to

hear about its sins. but the servants of good are duty-bound to tell you about your sins and we're going to do. >> the word "you". briefly explain the legal arguments for and against using that word or what you heard from the justices? >> the essential question is, when we say "god hates you and you're going to hell". foolishly, it has been suggested that applied to the dead kid. all the westboro picketers testified they had those signs in place. it applies to anyone and everyone who will listen. which is what prompted justice ginsburg they used those signs in annapolis. i think it means and she's right, the whole society is rotten.

amen. >> what about the argument the justice the made or asked about the word "you"? i think. you in the context of outside of the funeral where the person being buried is the marine, when you have signs that say semper fi fag. this could only apply to one person. the context is really important. there's only one context here. these signs were directed at the snyder family. at matthew snyder himself. they passed out brochures to let everyone know they would be at the st. john's catholic dog kennel. it's just again more speech directed toward the individuals that were going to be involved with this protest. perhaps, if they had done the

protest in baltimore or something else. it might be a different issue. they were specifically targeting this funeral. they were specifically targeting this family. there's no other conclusion can be drawn, even in appellant court overturned they came to that conclusion. it was directed forward the family. >> our message is toward the living. it includes mr. and ms. snyder. there's nothing wrong with taking the message to a targeted audience. do you it within proper bounds. he said. perhaps if we had done it in baltimore. half of it was posted on the church website. that was written in topeka, kansas.

what the trial court said. at no time. at no place. no manner can you say something that the family of the dead soldier takes offense at. that's too broad. look where that would leave every publisher in the land >> someone called in a little earlier saying, they, thank god for breast cancer sign. his wife died of breast cancer. did he get a cause of action? one of ways we say god in his righteous earth judgments, he's afflicted this nation with breast cancer. does that man get a cause of action? ridiculous. .

and find our content any time through c-span video library.

we take c-span on the road. we bring our resources to your community, washington your way -- the c-span networks. created by kibble, provided as a public service. -- by cable. >> next to my the florida senate debate. some of the issues discussed include the healthcare lot in new financial regulations. this is from the studios in orlando, florida. it is about one hour. >> florida has never seen a campaign quite like this. charlie crist, the republican governor turned independent, now a wild card in the wildest senate race in the nation. >> we will change it up a little bit. >> marco rubio bells to fight the president's agenda and change washington.

>> the democrat kendrick meek who defeated a billionaire to win the democratic nomination, but loves to be an underdog. >> i will still be comfortable playing david. >> to not, the heart of america is a battleground state, we bring you the senate debate -- tonight. we're here for the debate between the three candidates, being broadcast live. this is the first prime-time debate for the three candidates. joining me to moderate our credit patrick from our host station and another from tampa bay. we have a list format. we will have a run of questions for each has 60 seconds to respond, and the others will have 30 seconds for rebuttal.

we want to mix it up. make sure all questions are answered. we will begin with the opening statements. gov. chris, you go first. >> i have turned into an independent because i think that washington is broken. abraham lincoln once said that the government should be of the people, by the people, and for the people. i believe that is true. not of, by, and for the party. that is why i'm running as an end in a. there is an extreme right faction and the republican party, and i think i am the only candidate who can win and crashed at the tea party in washington. it is time to have common sense back in the nation's capitol 254 fellow states citizens. when the extreme right to punish teachers and schoolchildren, a veto the bill to stop it. and the extreme-right wanted to change the way that women would be able to make a decision about their own life and force them to get an ultrasound, force them to

pay for it, force them to watch it, and then be lectured, it was too much to the right, and i used the veto then and stop that. i have done it as your governor and would do it as your senator. when extreme-right said it wanted to raise the age of eligibility and restructure how social security is distributed to senior citizens, i said no way. if you want a new voice, a better way, someone who will fight for you, the people of our state instead of the respective parties that my opponents are in, then i would ask for your vote on november 2. >> thank you. my name is kendrick meek and i am running to be your next u.s. senator. i believe that floridians will have to take a stand in the election of the next several weeks. if you want the u.s. senator who will stand with oil companies and special interests, and will

stand with healthcare companies to deny you of health care, then you should vote for marco rubio. if you want someone who will stand by and be a very weak u.s. senator, that will not be speaking when it is time to speak up, then vote for gov. charlie crist. but if you want a u.s. senator who will stand with you against oil companies, not allowing them to drill off the coast, as i have -- because i am the only one at the table who has, then if you want someone who will stand by the decisions related to health care that insurance companies do not drop you and your time of need, then you're looking at the candidate who will stand for you. if you want to make sure that we create jobs in florida working with local leaders, coming up with real solutions that will create jobs now, and not later, they were looking at your candidate. if you're looking for a u.s. senator who will stand up for the middle-class, making sure

they get tax cuts and not grab onto the ideologies that my other two opponents have embraced their entire career -- special interests and the super wealthy in the country -- some held that the dollars will trickle down to the middle class, then you are looking at the candidate who will stand on behalf of the middle-class. i look forward to the debate. i have you can make a sound decision as we continue to move forward to november 2. >> thank you for hosting the debate. america is the greatest country in history. it did not happen by accident, and will not continue automatically. what has made america great is every generation before us has confronted and solved the great challenges of the time. each generation has therefore inherited a better life and culture. but it will not continue automatically. we will have to do the same. we must confront the challenges. that is what this election is about.

the challenges are extraordinary and the direction washington is taking us is wrong. they are taking us and a direction that will double the national debt in five years, and triplet in tim. do you want to stay on the red? or do want to go in a better direction? -- want to stay on that road? if you like the way that things are going in washington, support the direction that washington is taking america, then i'm probably not your candidate. there are two other people who support the direction washington is going. but if you want a clear alternative, one to allow us to leave their children what they deserve, the greatest nation in human history, and the only one. i am asking for your vote. questioning.n the social security is an important issue. one of six floridians receive

it. gov. charlie crist put out a tough new ad estate that -- yesterday that said something tough -- it will make people work harder and longer for the money and balance the budget on the backs of the seniors. >> it is blatantly untrue. every idea i have ever of the kid would not impact a senior senior citizen. one of those senior citizens out there is my mother. she is 80 years old. she depends on social security as a primary source of income. for you to suggest that i would advocate ideas that would harm her it is outrageous, and a lie. social security is in a lot of trouble. it is already paying out more than it takes only. congress takes the surplus in raises it and uses it to pay for other things.

the result is as more retire, we will run into a big problem. there must be answers to the problem. they have better ideas? they should offer them. they should not lie about my record or ideas. >> he just called you a liar three times. >> unbelievable. in his own words to talk about raising the age of eligibility, said it was on the table. he said he would restructure how it is delivered to the people. he has talked about privatization and has been all over the mouth about this issue. he may not like what he said before and is trying to run away from it -- but facts are stubborn things. this is what he said. when he was still running he had all this hard right stuff you want to talk about all then time allow he has changed course with only 26 ways to go. but i stand by the ad which is truthful and straightforward, honest.

the people have a right to know what marco rubio would do -- he would raise the age of eligibility on the table, privatizing social security on the table. i am the only one who said that i will protect and preserve it as we know it today. my other opponent said that he wants to put it to a commission. we know what happens every time you do that. they raise the age of eligibility and restructure how it is delivered. it was a promise made. a promise that was made to seniors in our state and throughout the country. but i believe needs to be honored and respected. if i'm elected, i will do just that for you. >> i can tell you one thing. if you want to talk about ads, i was the first to put out one saying that i'm the only one who fought against the privatization of social security, always. mr. marco rubio talk about private accounts in january. mr. charlie crist was on the stage with george w. bush in 2006 when he talked about

privatization. and when he ran against other -- senator graham in 2008. i'm the only one who fought against george w. bush 21 to privatize social security in the congress. in the on the one who has stood against private counsel. -- i am the only one. mr. marco rubio -- it was interesting to see if people spin this whole discussion. but he signed pledges that said he is willing to privatize social security. charlie crist has the funding source that is really bizarre, saying that we will legalize people, then pay for it with the social security trust fund. the middle's expand class workforce of that we can pay into social security that will resolve two issues. put floridians back to work. settling cannot make sure senior citizens and those under the

magic number, 55, or whatever -- that are working hard every day, that we don't change the game on them in the middle. it is important, george, that there is only one candidate here who has a track record of standing up for such as a kid. to every floor reading, if they want to change as a security, there will have to go through me a former state trooper, and it will have to go through me. >> let's move to the next round of questioning. on the question of privatization -- yes or no --still on the table? >> it is not. i said that in march. once again, the governor has mischaracterized my position. but a single senior citizen would be impacted by any changes i have discussed.

>> let's be clear about what marco rubio has said. he has said that he would erase the age of eligibility. he said that everything should be on the table. if he wants to deny it tonight, so be it. but that is what he said. i'm the only one who said we need to protect and preserve it. >> to clarify -- marco rubio said he is open to privatization and social security, and so has charlie crist. both have plans for it. i'm the only candidate here who says o to privatization. >> we have not heard how to save the system. >> how about a middle-class worked for us? creating jobs is not a plan? >> that is a goal. >> it is a great call when we have double-digit unemployment. it is very imported.

people don't political talk. >> it is very important. [unintelligible] [arguing] >> we have got to move on. >> it is important that we realize where social security is today. let's have a mature discussion. report after report says that it will be sold and intel 2037 or until 2041. i am an optimist. but i have offered a plan that will help. it is supported by the secretary of labor previously. it is simple. there are between a 11 and 14 million people, different estimates, who are not american citizens or participating in the economy. if we can find a pathway to earn citizenship for them, it would pay into the system. when it 2037 or 2041 comes, if

social security is still a challenge, we have another way to pay for that provides jobs legally and is compassionate to emigrants. >> we have to move on. >> the citizens for responsibility and ethics in the washington name what it claims of the 12 most cricket candidates. all three of you made the list. i assume you each was a you do not belong there. the governor based on everything you know, do either one of your opponents deserve to be ranked or considered among america's most corrupt? >> you have to look at the facts presented. as relates to speaker marco rubio, i worked with him when he was speaker. he put four things in the budget that i thought were questionable. it is why used the veto to get rid of them. it is for others to the side of his career. he put in 800,000 all is for an astroturf field, a flag football field that he played on in miami, and also put in millions

that he steered to university and later got a high-paying job there. also means to a hospital that ended up hiring him as a consultant. is that correct, wrong? it is clearly wrong in my view. that is why vetoed some things. he also tried to put into the budget things for a friend of his who wanted to give business on the turnpike. i had to veto it three different times in the budget to get it out of there. people want public servants there to serve you. that is how i have always conducted myself as governor, your attorney general, and as your commissioner of education. that is so i will conduct myself as your u.s. senator. you can trust me. >> let's set the record state. the things is said are not true. an independent group have found the thing about the flag football field is not true. it is not true. the second thing, he says that i steered money -- all these are false allegations. when i was speaker the florida house consistently offered a

leaner budgets than the governor's office, then the senate offered. our budget was even leaner than yours. but this stuff about corruption -- it is all politics. it is interesting that the governor wants to go to washington and get rid of the ugly politics, yet he participates fully. this should be about the future of america. these gentlemen support the direction that washington is taking our country. the governor said he supports amnesty for illegal emigrants. there is not a single serious public policy observer who thinks that is a serious solution. it has been called nonsense. i hope we debate the issues that matter to those at home. the issue but the future of our country and its future. >> it is important to look of the political discourse that has taken place. the airwaves are full of attacks of the members. governor's attacking my mother. you a lot of people who have

some different things about different candidates in the race. i can tell you, the bottom line is how we get people back to work? we started talking in the last series about the middle class task force. it is important to expand middle-class jobs and don't think it is a trivial issue here, marco. >> you don't have a plan to do it. >> that is not true. tax cuts for small businesses create incentives for local communities. you said you would vote against a stimulus, healthcare, against projects that can be supported by the office of the u.s. senator and have been local committees such as orlando, jacksonville, tampa, a tallahassee -- you name it, helping the local communities to meet the needs of individuals who need jobs now. you say that you believe in many things you should say no to.

i'm said that we should say yes to expand middle-class opportunities in this state. it is very important. you want to be elected for a national ideology for the conservative right. i am trying to resolve issues here in florida. >> the stimulus is a massive study. but the numbers from the administration, you have borrowed and spent over $150 billion for each job created or saved. >> which party you like? as you said that you like certain parts. you believe that 8000 teachers should have lost their jobs in this state? you believe we should have gone into a depression rather than this recession? >> when you pass the stimulus, is that it would create jobs. the unemployment here is 11.7%. george, this is one of the examples of the clear choice

voters have. if people are in favor of the stimulus and think it work, then vote for one of these guys. if you understand as in most americans do, that the stimulus has been a massive failure -- i am the only one running on this table that would have voted against it. [unintelligible] >> i have to let governor chris get a rebuttal in. -- gov. charlie crist get a rebuttal. >> one is a republican right, the other is the democratic left -- there are good things but parties can present to the future. i accepted the stillness. it's saved over 20,000 educators and their jobs in this state of florida. how can you let them in the eye and say you don't care about them, marco rubio? in addition there were 60,000 more individuals whose jobs were saved because of that stimulus, that recovery money. it is also important to cut taxes. the congressman is correct when

he says we need a tax cut that not only helps the middle class, but also reaches across and extends the tax cuts to those who are small business owners. it will produce jobs for people. i am the one at this table who says that republicans have some good ideas about reducing spending, cutting taxes. democrats also have some good ideas about investing in clean energy and technology. if you want him to go to washington, i am your guy. >> kendrick meek, your former house colleague recently endorsed your opponent, charlie crist, as did al lawson. a recent poll shows that charlie crist is drawn more democratic support than you are. how do you explain the democrats sought support for your candidacy and their apparent embrace for a man who only a few months ago declared himself to be the true republican in the race? >> recent polls have shown both the governor and i are neck-and-

neck in this race. the goal is to be the next u.s. senator. we cannot allow marco rubio to defederalized to represent this state. he does not represent the values that this state needs to put people back to work. robert is a personal friend of gov. charlie crist. he left office in the middle of his term, return to florida to endorse the governor. i have the endorsement not only from the mayor of this city, but from members of the democratic delegation. i have many democratic and independent supporters. the race is far from over. the governor says he is the only one. margo says he wants to bring change. i'm the only one sitting here who is willing to stand up to special interests and have a track record to prove it. democratic and independent and republican voters when they look at who will work for them will look at me. they will know in a candidate who qualified to muster the for educators, brought about smaller

class items that both of these individuals were against in the state legislature. who stood up for the increase in the minimum wage? i did. my other two opponents were against it. when you think about the middle- class, think about democratic voters, who is the pro-choice candidate? i am, 100%. in the 100% production environment candidate, protecting against offshore oil drilling. it will become abundantly clear through the debates. i cannot tell you how much i appreciate sitting here so we can get these issues on the table and that floridians can see. >> it is important that yours understand what we're talking about. it is significantly important to understand i am proud that robert wexler endorse my campaign for the u.s. senate. he is a friend, and has been for a long time ago is a great public servant who has served the people well, especially those in southeast florida.

he understands the issue of israel very well. it is important to me. the first trade mission i took as your governor was to israel because i understand the in the bond between not only florida and as your, but our country. so much so that i married a nice, jewish graves. not only it robert was an endorsement, but robert dole, a true hero, a great american also endorsed me. it also show the type of candidacy i'm putting forward. we can bring bipartisanship together to fight for people of florida. it is supposed to be a of the people, by the people, for the people. george washington address this partisanship gridlock in his farewell address. he was the first and last independent president of the u.s. in his address he said if we

continue to have this partisanship, and make the parties get stronger, we may literally cripple the country we have just created. we are there. washington is crippled. they can get nothing done, nothing done on tax cuts. the democratic president of the u.s. has proposed tax cuts. the republicans will not do it. >> kendrick meek talk about my values. my values are street for. jobs are created every day people who started a business. the job of government is to make it easier for them, not harder. washington is making it harder through policies that both other candidates support. i believe the u.s. government should not spend more than it takes in. both of these candidates have supported policies that do that. i believe america is stronger when it has a strong place in the world. his voting record is identical

to that of nancy pelosi. and the governor was a republican six months ago, and has not changed his position. he is trying to get votes from kendrick meek. people deserve a candidate who will stand up to washington and provide an alternative. >> let's get to the next round. at the big issue is health care. this is for marco rubio you marco has accused of taking six different positions. you were originally opposed. it called for its repeal. at one time you said you would vote for it, then said that you misspoke. now your position seems to be that it should be fixed. are you for mr. obama's reform, are against it? >> i am against it. think we have to fix it. there are parts that are good, and parts that need to be changed. the parts that are good and that i think ought to remain are the fact that they take away what i would call the health insurance company discriminatory policy whereby if you have a pre- existing condition you do not get coverage.

one of the other things i think is good is that it allows young people up to the age of 26 to be able to continue to be covered by their parents' policy. the things i do not like that need to be fixed are the fact that it takes about $500 billion from medicare advantage, particularly in a state like florida, that is bad. also, too much taxes, mandates, leading to the conclusion that it must be fixed and done correctly. my opponent marco rubio says that we must repeal it. he has also talked about women's rights. this is also a health issue. his talk about affect your not pro-life unless you want to repeal roe vs. wade, overturn roe vs. wade so would not have that choice and more. i am pro-life, but also pro woman. i think that is an extremist view. i think it is the wrong thing. wanting to punish teachers,

women, wanted to punish senior citizens by raising the age of eligibility -- you have been drinking too much tea, and it is wrong. we need less partisanship. >> q misrepresented my position social security. i think that the healthcare bill is a disaster. these child only policies are being dropped. low wage, a part-time workers will lose their coverage. the senior citizens are getting drop from medicare advantage. the premiums will go up. this bill has broken every promise made when kendrick meek and charlie crist supported it. they said it would not raise premiums on anybody. we know it is not true. they said would help to save medicare. it is not true. they said it would lower the cost of health care. the bill is a disaster and cannot be saved. it must be replaced with common

sense ideas that allow individual americans to buy insurance from any company that will sell it to them. that will allow small companies and associations to pool with others and provide insurance for their members. these ideas will help insure people and cost less. there would not have the disastrous impact these gentlemen support. >> i voted for it and will vote for it again if i have the opportunity. it is important to pay close attention to what marco rubio is the same. everything he identified, saying that premiums would go up, and vigils with the job -- that is what the companies did a year ago and before that. now they are using the healthcare bill as an excuse to do what they always have. they are running scared. 85% of the medicare dollar has to go towards pushing care, a discount drugs -- the fact that

we have small businesses getting a tax cut right now. when you hear marco rubio and charlie crist talk about what they're good toif the breakfast bar and pick the raisins out of the bread and say these are the parts the light -- everyone must understand, when you have a family member in the hospital looking at the ceiling, and they're sick and the insurance company cut their coverage, they need a u.s. senator will stand in the gap. charlie crist can talk all he wants to about being tough, but i will not take any advice from anyone who bailed out of the republican primary and did not face up to marco rubio. he wants to run a primary all over again. it is important that you have a u.s. senator who will be there for you in the time of need. it is important to know that both these candidates have been willing to roll back something.

something we worked hard for to protect every day people against these insurance companies. they want to empower insurance companies all over again. i am the only one here who understands that 3500 floridians lose their insurance every week. that is not fiction. when they're talking about going back, they both have insurance. >> we introduced a plan called cover florida. it says that if you do not have insurance -- and about four million do not -- or if you have recently lost your job, you can get coverage that is less expensive. it would have cost about $700 before, and afterward, it is down to about $150. how did we do? no government mandates, no tax increases. we negotiated hard. that is what you need and a good

government official. some who fights for you to get a better deal. >> just another example of what i said at the beginning of the debate. in the only candidate who will stand up to washington. if i had been in washington i would not have voted for this bill. the congressman voted for an even more radical bill that would have created public option --one step towards the single payer system. you are correct. i would have voted for an alternative. it would not turn over the healthcare industry. >> mr. kendrick meek i want you to speak about ronald reagan. he called for a leaner, more effective government. there was a quotation from president barack obama the note

did ronald reagan have it correct then? and was it not the correct message now? >> we should have a leaner government now, but it is important to note we did have eight years of and in ministers and both of these gentlemen are fighting to bring back. dick cheney and others who decided to give this trickle- down economics that will help the middle class -- the facts are that middle-class families earning 5% less since these bush policies have been in place. marco rubio and charlie crist advocate those policies. this is not a party issue. it is standing up for the middle class. when we look at this issue of health care -- and i'm shocked that marco rubio would even use the word of a" radical." he has been talk that quite a bit. when you have to look at what is happening in the real florida -- people do not have insurance. charlie crist said their talks

about "cover for the" which does everything but that. we have individuals with no insurance right now. these guys are sitting here as if it is another day at the office. we have a crisis in florida and the country, and the leaders who will stand up for every day people. when we look at this, george, we must look at it from the standpoint of who wants to go to the senate and make it work? i am leaving a very safe house seat to run for the u.s. senate because i'm a frustrated with all the no, and filibuster, all the things that have this country on lockdown and have families suffering. i think it is very important to look at fact versus fiction. we can spend this, but in the final analysis it comes down to who has health care insurance and who does not. it comes down to expand the glass opportunities. >> i believe washington is

broken in both parties are to blame. i was 30 points down when i first got into the race. the republican establishment endorsed gov. charlie crist. they gave him a lot of money that is still sitting in his bank account. i'm going there to stand up to the direction that washington is taking us. on the healthcare bill, the facts are clear. this bill is a disaster that has broken every promise. on the stimulus bill, it has been a disaster. they have borrowed and spent $150,000 for jobs they claimed that they have saved or created. this bill has grown our national debt by $800 billion. our children and grandchildren will work their whole lives to pay it off. 3 million jobs have been lost. this is yet another example -- if you like obamacare, the stimulus plan, but for charlie crist or kendrick meek.

but if you want your next senator to stand up and offer clear alternatives, i am the only one who will. >> let's talk about the facts. marco rubio just said when he was running in the republican primary that he did not get much support. things change. i want to explain to the people of florida why i'm running as an independent. he said both parties are to blame -- i agree, so i'm running as an independent. my former party said such extreme things that marco rubio has embraced, such as overturning roe vs. wade, hurting senior citizens with the social security program, not supporting public schoolteachers -- that is extreme, radical, and wrong. i cannot be comfortable with it anymore. i left the building. i'm happy to run as an independent. i have only my allegiance to you, not to party bosses in

washington. only to the people of florida if you're kind enough to send me to washington. >> marco rubio, you have called for the extension of bush tax cuts for all income categories, including those are more than $250,000 per year. even though experts have said that eliminating that tax break for the highest income earners would reduce our structural deficit by up to one-quarter. it took about the deficit being aggressive problem. if so, why are you willing to borrow hundreds of billions to provide these tax cuts to the wealthiest 3% of america? >> let's be clear. the bush tax cuts are the current tax cut. it is a bad idea to raise taxes on anybody at this time in such an economic downturn. it is not just me saying that. the gubernatorial candidate who

is democratic sink --he says that. a growing number have come to agree with this. our problem going ford is not because americans don't pay enough in taxes. it is because washington cannot control spending. this deficit will double in the next five years. it can trigger a downgrade in our bond rating. by 2015 our annual deficit could be $2.10 touring, and $900 billion of that would be interest. >> i'm not sure of your justification for adding that? >> we have to do two things at the same time. grow our economy. that is by creating a stable and affordable tax cut. that is what the current tax code does. secondly, reduce spending. i have added vacated ruling that discretionary spending and

freezing it. -- i have advocated that. we have to do both things. that is the part that washington has done wrong -- to not do both things. >> playclothes attention to what he is sane. he is willing to give the owners and--- pay close attention to what he is saying. he is willing to give both millionaires and billionaires taxpayers. it is ok to put on $700 trillion additional debt on the back of middle-class that their grandchildren will have. to have the bush tax cuts for the super wealthy came about as some sort of insert within the bill almost 8 or 10 years ago. it was not something that george bush ran on. it was something that just happened. billionaires' were not asking for it -- but they got it through the kind of ideologies that marco rubio represents, the

kind that charlie crist endorses. this on the one candidate sitting here willing to stand up for the middle class. to level the playing field. the old school politics say if you can write a fact campaign check, you get accountability. walk into some of the large comes here, but i'm the only person willing to take a responsible role. the only one here who has voted for a pay go bill that will allow us to pick up policy -- that we will show how we will pay for it. >> this is the wrong time to raise taxes on anyone. i have not voted for a new tax any time in my career. marco rubio voted to raise property taxes early in his career. we have lived within our means

in florida. our constitution requires it. as governor of the state to reduce the budget by over $7.40 billion. i signed into law as your governor the single largest tax cut in the history of florida. i understand what it is to veto earmarks. marco rubio said to me in the first budget -- he sent to me about $500 million that i had to be tough. that kind of expertise that washington of bracembraces -- yu don't need to send him, he has already gone. we need to restrain spending, exercise fiscal discipline, since someone who appreciates the value of the dollar. >> quickly gone on the question of in remarks. >> first, on the issue he has not raised taxes, is observing the he just raised them by $2

billion only one year ago. on the issue of in remarks -- my budget was a leaner than yours both years that i was speaker of the house. as far as congressman kendrick meek is concerned, these are also on small corporations. a small business like the restaurant i was in last week's as he will not hire more until he is certain that the people in washington will not raise his taxes. all the people have decided the direction that nancy pelosi and you want to take the country is wrong. [unintelligible] [arguing] >> only 2% or 3% of those great jobs? and i will look to that. but you want to take this back to the dick cheney days. we got the car out of the ditch, but you want to give back the keys and giving these special

interest back their tax cuts. i'm here for the middle class. they pay a lot of taxes. it is important to have leaders willing to stand up to those individuals in this state -- and i guarantee you i am one of those. >> very quickly, the speaker said he did not put these earmarked items into the budget. are you telling us here to not that you did not put it under those dollars in the four astro turf on the football field you played on back home? >> not only will i tell you that, but plitifact and others said i had nothing to do with putting the then their withpolitere. re. >> i had to cut all this money of that you put in there. >> we have to move on. foreign policy. do you think the war in

afghanistan can be one? do you define victory? should president obama withdraw troops beginning next july, even of that has not been achieved the? >> the efforts going on our very own boredom. some of the minerals found by the u.s. military should be discussed. going after osama bin laden is a bottom. intelligence that we have picked up on the ground is imported. the redeployment of men and women in the middle or beginning of next year is palpable. >> the question is define victory -- is it telling osama bin laden? making sure that we bring about the taliban? it is a slippery slope.

we have military families here, many who live in florida, who need their loved ones back home. the one their fathers, mothers back come. no one thinks about them in this process. as i have run for the senate since january 2009, and i served on the armed services committee six out of eight of my years in the congress, and i talked with these individuals -- and they are live, breeding individuals -- they are concerned that we clap for them, but who is clapping for them when they sit in the va center's waiting two hours for care? that is what we need to think about when we think about war. >> the redeployment begins next july it argolis of conditions on the ground. >> our allies will redeploy at that time also. >> the congressman is correct.

we need to express our gratitude. these of the bravest and finest young men and women our country has. my brother was a special forces army during the vietnam era. the war in afghanistan is extremely important we be successful. ofcesses' providing a level secrecy on the ground. i believe the general and the president will be successful. to provide a level of securities of the afghan people can establish a government that functions. and greed institutions and a civil society that work. we don't ever want afghanistan to become a base of operations for the taliban, or any terrorists. even more frightening is that afghanistan could become a base to destabilize pakistan. pakistan is a nuclear state. the notion that if could fall into the hands of the taliban- like regime is not acceptable.

it is critical we succeed in afghanistan. >> we can all agree that we have an appropriate respect for those who serve in the military. florida has a significant number of bases, more than 20. we have a department of veterans affairs, and i'm proud that former leroy collins 7 of before he was tragically killed recently. it is important to realize what the question posed is. is it been successful in afghanistan? is it appropriate to remove troops next summer? we all agree that general david petraeus is an excellent leader. i know him personally. i got to know him when he was based in tampa. it is the correct move for the president to put him into place after general stamina crystal left. success should be defined by security, safety. -- after general stanley mcchrystal left.

we should ensure domestic tranquillity. we need to make sure that nuclear weaponry does not expand globally. we need to make sure it does not happen with ahmadinejad. he is a madman. as a friend and ally to israel, we are incumbent to monitor the situation there also. >> user that redeployment begins next july? >> we had the discussion. that was in the beginning of the first or second quarter next year. security is very important. >> you say to reassess at that time the? >> no, i think the artificial timeline undermines the mission. the enemy, if they know when you leave, how can you be successful? >> it is a proper for the commander in chief to let the american people understand when he wants to achieve the success. if at that time in concert with

the council of general david petraeus the field is the right time to return, then -- >> we are developing a high- speed rail to link orlando and tampa bay into one of the largest economic markets in the world and create jobs. you also want to cut discretionary spending back to two years ago. how can we have both? are you telling people here and now that if you win, high-speed rail may have to wait? >> there is no shortage of good programs to spend money on. nothing is more important than dealing with the long-term debt issue. it is not sustainable. that is not just me, but the president's advisers are telling him thus. this problem is not sustainable. that is a party over virtually all else. the national debt is not just a domestic issue. even people like hillary clinton and the leading military commander had said the national

debt has a significant security component. this national issue must be confronted and assault. it is perhaps the predominant issue facing us along with economic growth. >> and high-speed rail could leave this with a down payment on growth. >> there will borrow money we do not have it and leave the iou to our children and grandchildren. it is another example of the dramatic choice in this race. if you like that behavior from washington, think it is pleasing as in the right direction with that spinning, they will probably not vote for me. you should vote for kendrick meek whose record is identical to that of nancy pelosi. or for charlie crist who will go for those things if they are politically expedient. but if you want to send it to the national debt, i'm the only

one. >> when you are governor of the fourth largest in the country and realize a couple of years ago the economy literally fell off a cliff, you have to leave and strike a balance -- that is leadership. when the president came to fort myers i was proud to go there and welcome him to my state for the first time since he had been sworn in as president. we needed the funds allocated to keep us from losing jobs. 20,000 educators in our state would not be employed if that had not happened. 60,000 additional floridians tonight who might be watching would not have a paycheck coming to their home. the high-speed rail that you mentioned we worked on hard during our administration. three times a called a special session. the third try was the charm. they give is the down payment. the tax dollars have gone to washington that i fought to get back for fellow floridians to improve our transportation.

every time $1 billion is spent on infrastructure the argument is it will create 20,000 new jobs for people. it is all about jobs. you must have a blunt to do what is right. that's called leadership. -- must have a blend. >> i'm glad that we're having this debate so that floridians can see who stand on solid ground. i believe that mr. marco rubio means what he says. the fact that he is willing to make sure that people from tampa to orlando sit in traffic for the next 20 years -- he wants to make sure that he stands up on behalf of the right wing ideology. charlie crist stance on a wet paper boxes and relates to the issues. you do not know where he is. he did not provide leadership to bring back the resources. in the and the candidate who stood up and voted for the stimulus to make sure we did not go into a depression -- i am the only candidate.

the stimulus stop the depression from taking hold. it is important to understand that high-speed rail will greed over 20,000 jobs for this state. r just said he would stand with dick cheney and senate demint and all these right-wing members of congress and the federal government -- marco rubio just said he is willing to stand with them. he is not willing to stand with construction workers at home and having a not willing to take a stand on comprehensive immigration reform, to make sure they no longer take jobs from residents and citizens. >> this is for charlie crist -- where one of the few states to have a ban on gay adoptions. you supported that ban, sen a onetime you believe that a traditional mother and father to adopt is bus. the appeals court recently found

that to be unconstitutional. -- saying at one time that you believe the traditional mother and father to adopt is the best. would you clarify your position? gay adoption and the don't ask, policy.ell >> this is important. it is telling people how to live their lives. ssend a turn demint was raised by kendrick meek. it is unconscionable to say who should teach our children based on who they love. that is where he is coming from, that extreme, radical right part of the party. we need common sense and what is right for the child. when a said it was not appropriate to have that adoption it was because that was the law on the books in our state. i was the attorney general.

i understand enforcing the law. when the court changed it by the district court of appeal -- the panel unanimously changed and decided it to be unconstitutional. i am a live and let live and die -- i'm a fiscal conservative and social moderate. i don't to impose my will on others. even though i'm pro-life , a veto the bill that would have required an ultrasound. >> it is interesting to hear the governor attack me for positions that he held six months ago. of the second thing, the governor talks about leadership when he has been the governor of florida. nearly everything in florida is

worse now than four years ago. 800,000 jobs have been lost. 200,000 have been lost since you supported the stimulus. florida was once one of the strongest states in the country, and now only california and nevada are the only ones worse off. you did raise taxes last year. another thing, the dramatic choice that we have here -- the solution these other two offer is a government spending programs or tax increase. nearly every problem the country faces can be solved by either of these according to them. if you want a u.s. senator who believes in that, but for one of them. >> to clarify i think it is important to note that i indicated it at this table was endorsed by the pro-choice community because i am a pro- choice policymaker.

i am the only candidate that has stood up for the middle class and will continue to do. the reason why i will win is because it every day floridians can identify with me. it is mindboggling, beyond an explanation for the governor to stand here and to more than the potomoac two-step. when it came down to gay adoptions -- for all the kids in foster care looking for homes -- said he thought it was inappropriate. when he ran against jim davis in 2006 he said that jim davis did not have the values that he has. that was his opinion, not in state record. you need a leader who will stand in the time of need, not when it is politically convenient. marco rubio raised a good point, the fact that he is when to go along with the tea party

and everyone else. >> he just called you governor wallace. take 15 seconds to respond. >> i just said that he stood in the door on this issue. for him to turn around -- >> no one has fought harder for minorities in this state than i have. >> you stood firm on this issue of gay adoption and now you want to be a cheerleader for it. >> on the far right, you have marco rubio, and on the far left you have kendrick meek. >> we have 15 seconds left. thank you, a gentleman. thank you to my colleagues here. thank you to my colleagues here.