christ and continue to make a stand and i am blessed we have all of these folks behind me standing but that's because i am an example that people can change. i lived the lesbian life for 14 years. the day i get married i will shout from the mountaintops. i am so excited. for now the lord has a single. before i die, i will be married and i will show people you can have a nice marriage, successful marriage. change did not happen overnight. this has been a process. change is possible.

mr. scarborough: we will close the formal part of our press conference. if you have a question, we are glad to entertain. i kid you not call for taking time out of your busy schedules to cover this information. god bless you all. [inaudible conversations] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the supreme court hears arguments today in two cases regarding same-sex marriage. the case is from michigan and ohio will determine whether states are required to issue licenses to same sex couples. and whether states must recognize marriages performed in other states. we'll be live outside of the court and possibly comments from the dispenser. beginning at 4:00 p.m., we will bring you the audio of the arguments. that is live on c-span3.

>> coming up, the swearing-in ceremony for the new attorney general, loretta lynch. then charles grassley speaks at the national press club at the department -- about his department's agenda. that is followed by the oral arguments that the supreme court will hear regarding same-sex marriage. homeland security secretary jeh johnson testifies tuesday before the senate judiciary committee. he will take question on or security, cyber security and counterterrorism efforts. live coverage starting at 10 a.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> during this month, c-span is pleased to present the interest

and this year's student camp competition. it is an annual competition that encourages students to think critically about issues that affect the nation. students were asked to create their documentary based on themes, the three branches and you. to them straight how a policy by the three branches of the government has affected them or their community. mckinley layer is one of their finalists. mckinleigh: my parents are owners of this business. this issue could be reversed if we were able to paddle in the arkansas river.

unfortunately, we are unable to do this and to a large extent this has to do with the army program. >> if you live in tulsa, you are going to drive along the riverside drive. you're going to see this river. unfortunately, it is empty. this little river is where we paddled for a grand total of 100 feet. we need 18 inches of depth to paddle safely because of-hits the bottom, we go in. today, there is maybe half a foot which means most of the riverbed is dry. there is no water. mckinleigh: if something like this affects my parents business, it is important to me. it also affects our community economically. >> the one thing people forget

about when they are putting together a program to encourage industry to move from other places to tulsa is the beauty. the livability. they want to move where they can enjoy life. it is something that is often overlooked when you look at how we can encourage people to come in with profitable businesses that can offer jobs to our people. >> there is a correlation between outdoor recreation and quality of life. people want to live and work for they have something to do. >> the arkansas river is a big economic stimulant for us. you sit outside, the mood, the ambience completes the picture. >> we want to feel the sun, the air. we want to know if it is hot or cold. we want to be in contact with nature. >> healthy lifestyles and a relationship in the community is valuable. having water in the river would benefit. people expect to see water.

mckinleigh: over the years, many people have put the blame on the army corps of engineers, which manages the dam. >> i was the manager for 10 years at keystone. my friends were always getting me, they were always like, -- >> keystone dam has authorized hydropower, navigation, fish and wildlife and recreation. >> a lot of our lakes -- so all the other things are important. recreation. >> my perspective as one who has lived in flooding is we must move carefully and deliberately as we look at the prospect of trying to put water in the

river. >> having more water in the river would have many positive impacts. many benefits are made possible through the water development act, which gives the u.s. department of engineers the authorization to work with communities to help manage projects having to do with the arkansas river. >> the first bill i will sign today is the water authorization act. it will put americans to work modernizing our water structure and restoring some of our most vital ecosystems. >> this gives the corps of engineers the authority to look out for flood control for other things having to do with the waterways. i am an advocate because i look at the opportunities and tall so -- in tulsa that we are not doing.

mckinleigh: the current determiner of water level is keystone dam. when releasing water, they carefully consider how much they let out to ensure people safety and well-being. they must account for the wildlife of the area, prevent flooding, and an sure ultimate hydropower. but it is often minimal. when the downstream portions do not receive water, large parts of the dam become via both -- visible. the community is currently proposing a series of low-water dams. it would promote more dependable water levels. >> the development of dams is long-term essential to getting people to be able to be on the water and make it or use of it. mckinleigh: this would open up the water to a new market. where will be funding come from?

>> this funding can be done, first of all, by the increase in the value of the land. they have not tried that, but that can be part of it. from the generous benefactors. federal funding. local funding. mckinleigh: in terms of establishing and maintaining a partnership between the community and the corps of engineers, but unfortunately florida will not far -- the funding coming from the local and federal government in addition to funders. there is a 350 million dollar funding of the gathering place one of the largest and most expensive privately funded parks in the united states. to fund loan water dams, we need to develop and find -- as recreation flourishes, there will be a bigger tax base which will mean more money for local

state, and federal government. it is possible that legislation can ultimately pay for it self. >> i travel around and i see other communities that have a river resource that runs through the town, and how other communities are able to capture that and utilize that resource. i would very much like to have that as in option here. ♪ >> to watch all of the winning videos and learn more , go to c-span.org, and click on student camp. tell us what you think about the issue that the student addressed. >> the book festivals we will be covering on c-span2. in the middle of may, we'll visit maryland for coverage of the gaithersburg festival, with tom davis. as well as former senior

adviser, david axelrod. book expo in america -- books -- book expo in america and new york city. where lot at the chicago printer . including our three hour in-depth program, with lawrence wright. your phone calls. that is the spring on c-span2. >> loretta lynch officially became the official attorney general on monday. she was sworn in by vice president biden. in a certain -- in a ceremony at the justice department. it is 20 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, please

welcome miss loretta lynch and vice president joe biden. [applause] vice president biden: i first stepped into this room during the nixon administration.

i remember walking into this holding and inking about the majesty of this place and how much we rely on it. for all of our basic rights and protections. your whole family is here today. i hope you will forgive as we used to say in the senate a point of personal privilege. i am so happy to meet your dad. dad, stand up. [applause] this is a man who never thought it paid to be silent in the face of oppression and prejudice. so many people, so many people not only in your home state of north carolina and into the country owe you so much, not just for your wisdom but the courage it took back in those days to speak out as you did. a baptist minister who always

thought his children that anything is possible. think about that. a lot of his teller children that, but in the face of jim crow in north carolina, raising a lovely, bright young woman as well as her brother and saying anything, anything is possible. the truth of the matter was, he not only taught it, he fought for it. as i understand, he made it clear they had to work for it as well. taking young loretta to the courthouse to see important cases was in those days fairly innovative. why does he have his young daughter with him in the courthouse?

at the local library, he would drop her off where there was some security. she was surrounded by all those works, just an incredible love of learning and language. this is an incredible moment. a baptist minister who preached during the sit-ins in greensboro finds himself 50 years later with his daughter in this magnificent room, now leading the march to a more perfect union. this is something he fought or -- something he fought for his whole life and still fights for. it's about time. it's about time this woman is being sworn in. [applause] it's about time.

remember what she is to say? i'm tired of being tired. we got tired of this weight. -- we got tired of this wwaait. you showed such grace and humility during this process. this is a woman who is incredibly qualified, just like eric holder whom i have known for 30 years. he is among one of the finest attorneys general we have had. he has been in this environment such of political hostility, he has stood his ground on a principle and he has been right. [applause] the reason he was always so nice to me is he was on the committee

to choose vice president. [laughter] he owed me for what he did. that is a joke, press. that is a joke. [laughter] a great honor of my life. for the past six and a half years, eric sat next to me in cabinet meetings. there is a protocol where each seat is. you will sit on my left during those cabinet meetings. eric sat there and i do know how -- i do not know how many meetings we have had in the situation room. he served the department with distinction and our country with

honor and i thank him and his wife and his family. he has a beautiful family of brilliant kids. [applause] i want to thank them for their service. i have confidence that loretta lynch will exceed the high standards. she is cut from the same cloth. they embody the mantra of their predecessors, the man after whom this building is named. "the purpose of life is to contribute to making things better." five generations, your brother is also a baptist minister. they will teach you how to make things better. as i read, your dad taught you

to stand up for what's right and speak out for what's just and get up when you get knocked down and move on. if there is anything you need to know about loretta lynch, she excelled in everything she has done. she has never been limited by lower expectations of others. she has always exceeded the expectations set for herself. she was at the top of her class in high school. she decided she wanted to go to harvard. she did well as in this hiring longline your. for 30 years she has been a fair-minded independent lawyer and prosecutor. she has shown the resolve to jail terrorists, mobsters, and gang members.

she has shown fidelity to the law. she rooted up public corruption. she summoned determination to bring down a financial rosters and child abusers. she has shown a dogged pursuit to bust human trafficking rings that she is encountered. she is shown in an unyielding commitment to the rule of law and basic human right. she forged striving for accountability in the crucible of genocide in rwanda. as a top federal prosecutor, she has worked with and learned from law enforcement officers and. you are going to have a great partner in this one, director. she has unimpeachable credibility to strengthen relations between law enforcement and communities.

folks often say that i trust those people who arrive at the right decision not through an intellectual examination of the argument but when it's starts at their gut and goes to their heart and is articulated by a fine mind. that is who this woman is. that is how loretta gets it right. the president and i can't wait to start working with her. she will enhance the capacity to combat cyber attacks and cybercrime. she will prosecute those who prey on the most in need of our protection. she will continue to lead with her humble yet fierce

determination to stand up for what is right, do what is just and not yield to anyone. i will close with this. i imagine being the daughter of an english teacher, maya angelou's words have never been far away from her. maya angelou once said, "if someone shows you who they are believe them. if someone shows you who they are, believe them." it's profound. she has shown us her entire life who she is. believe her. i believe her and the president

believes are and all of the people in this department will believe her. you have shown who you are and everything you've done. you've upheld the values of the oath you are about to take. we believe you. to the staff of the department of justice, you are the best of the best and with loretta, you have the best of the best as your leader. all the qualities she brings to the job of attorney general are because of what she has learned as a federal prosecutor. she is one of you. to the american people who are blessed with another remarkable public servant to lead this department, i am now going to swear you in. the whole family, come on up here.

ok. all right. you are going to stand here. i want to put your left hand on the bible and raise your right hand. loretta lynch: i will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic. i will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. i take this obligation freely without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion. i will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the

office on which i'm about to enter. so help me god. vice president biden: congratulations. [applause] loretta lynch: here we are. [laughter] i have to say as i looked out on all of you gathered today, it seems like such an understatement to say my heart is full.

it is full of the most deep and profound gratitude. i must thank so many people who made it possible for me to stand here. i have to thank the president for his faith in me and asking me to lead the department love. -- the department that i love. mr. vice president, thank you for your comments today. thank you for your support and your wise counsel through this process. it is been quite a process. [laughter] i have to thank senator schumer and senator leahy. thank you so much for being here. thank you for your support not just today but over the years , and for doing what i thought was impossible, making the senate a welcoming place for me and my family. thank you so much. thanks to my wonderful family.

we are quite the force multiplier. many of you have come to know my father throughout this process. he has been in every hearing and every vote. it did not just start now. i remember looking up and seeing him in the gallery at my first trial. he was there for everyone. he has encouraged me in all things, even when my choices were not ones he would have made for me. he has been the best of fathers and i thank him. [applause] i hope you know that without him, i would not be standing here before you today having just been sworn in as the 83rd attorney general of the united states of america, just one week

after his 83rd birthday. [applause] my mother could not be here today, but she is never far from my thoughts. she grew up in a world where she was told what she could not do. or who she could not be. she knew that she could soar. she did. she raised a daughter she told whatever the dream, to be a lawyer, a prosecuting, or the attorney general, of course you can. i thank her as well. i have to thank my wonderful husband who has supported all of my choices in my dreams. i would not trade his love and support for all the riches in the world are in a to me, they are all the riches of the world. [applause]

thanks to my colleagues and friends here in the department of justice in the eastern is to give new york and beyond. tremendous thanks go to people who could not be here today, the thousands of people, many of whom i never met personally, who expressed their support through this process. from the sisterhood of my sorority and all greeks who came together, to the churches and schools who wrote letters and made calls, two people on the street who stopped me and sometimes said just a word or two, please know that those words made all the difference to me as i traveled this road and i thank you. i thank you as i prepare to join the outstanding people of this department of justice. it has been the honor of my life and a privilege of my profession to have stood a shoulder to

shoulder with you twice before. you are the ones who make real the promise of justice and redress for all americans. i am honored beyond words to step into this larger role today as your attorney general as we continue the core work of our mission, the protection of the american people. all of us at the department are here because at some point we said, i want to be a lawyer. i want to be a law enforcement officer. i want to be a federal agent. i want to be someone's hero. at the heart of that, whether attorney or agent, staff or principal, is the desire to leave the world a better place for us having been part of it. the challenge in that for all of

us that love this department and the law is to use the law to that end. to not just represent the law and enforce the law, but to use it to make real the promise of america, the promise of fairness and equality and liberty and justice for all. i have been reminded that we are all just here for a time whether it's in this building or on this earth. the values we hold deal will live on long after we have left the stage. it's our responsibility and our mission while we are here to breathe life into them and imbue them with the strength of our conviction and the weight of our efforts. i know this can be done. i am here to tell you that if a little girl from north carolina who used to tell her grandfather in the field to lift her up on the back of his mule so she

could see way up high, we can do anything. [applause] we can imbue our criminal justice system with both strength and fairness for the protection of those victims and the rights of all. we can restore trust and faith in our laws and in those of us who enforce them. we can protect the most vulnerable among us from the scourge of modern-day slavery so antithetical to the values forged in blood in this country. we can protect the growing cyber

world and we can give those in our care protection from terrorism and the security of their civil liberties. we will do this as we have accomplished all things great and small. working together and moving forward and using justice as our compass. i cannot wait to begin that journey with all of you. i thank you for being here today. not just in this room, but in my life over the years. thank you so much. i look forward to working with you as we make real the manifest promise of this, our department of justice. thank you. [applause]

>> on the next washington journal, we look ahead to the supreme court oral arguments in cases examining whether states can man same-sex marriage and whether states are required to recognize lawful same-sex marriages performed in other states. first we hear from ryan brown president of the national organization for marriage and evan wolfson. after that, our guest is david savage a supreme court reporter. he will discuss the cases and what a ruling either way could mean. washington journal is live every morning at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span eight can join the conversation with your calls and your comments on facebook and twitter. >> homeland security secretary jeh johnson testifies today before the senate judiciary committee. he will take questions on border security, immigration policies cyber security and

counterterrorism efforts. live coverage starts at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span. this weekend, the c-span cities tour has partnered with cox can indications to learn about topeka, kansas. >> when the act was signed in 1954, the very act of signing it signing that piece of paper was viewed by missourians as an act of war. when northerners decided if popular sovereignty would decide the fate of kansas, we will send people to battle. that was viewed as an act of war by many missourians who assumed it would all be theirs. there was back and forth between the kansas border almost immediately. in may of 1856, john brown, his sons and a couple of other followers, dragged five men from

their cabins along the creek and they were shot and hanged. that effectively cleared the area of southern settlers. >> in topeka, if you look at the school standing outside, you would be hard-pressed to determine whether white students or african-american students attended because the school board did provide all of the same materials that the white schools offered. what is even more interesting for most people when they come to visit they find out that after graduating from elementary school, african-american students attended integrated middle and high schools. while i certainly -- there were certainly no supporters of segregation and the injustice of having to attend separate elementary schools the african-american community was very proud of their school because these were excellent facilities. while there was support for the idea of integration, there was

some resistance, especially from the teachers and the local chapters of the naacp who feared the loss of these institutions and jobs. >> watch all of our events saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv and on c-span3 at 10:00 on american history tv. >> senate judiciary committee chair chuck grassley spoke to come reporters about the upcoming work on the juvenile justice act. he answered questions about the nomination of loretta lynch to the attorney general. from the national press club this is one hour. bob: hi, everybody. if we are all ready. welcome to the national press

club. i am bob weiner of the newsmakers committee, and i will be moderating today plus his news conference with senator chuck grassley of iowa, chair of the judiciary co i am bob weiner of the newsmakers committee, and i will it is open to club members and we want to thank c-span and other media for coming today. in addition to chairing the judiciary committee, senator grassley serves on finance budget, agriculture and joint tax. cochair of the caucus and also a founding member of the senate

whistleblower caucus performed in this congress. senator grassley has pressed for judicial nominations alternatives to teens in jail, courtroom cameras, antitrust drug control, human trafficking protections, and encouragement of american agriculture appeared a couple of major pieces of legislation he has authored that became law, a protection act in the medicare prescription drug benefit. he holds a record for not missing a vote for any senator in the office. he lists his occupation as a foreigner. -- farmer. he is known for his no-nonsense style and he strives for bipartisanship. he served in the house to 1980 when he was first elected to the senate and has served since. he will be running for another term. his press says his critics call him to conservative or too liberal. he is one of the few who does it just about right. i am proud to host senator grassley today. when i was chief of staff, senator grassley was a new house member on the committee.

they first thing he did was to ask me to have breakfast with him a couple of times. he said, you are a liberal and i am conservative but we have a lot in common to her tort. he and the chairman worked together to abolish mandatory retirement for seniors. the major senior rights bill passed in the house and senate. despite the opposition of the big labor unions and the roundtable, it was quite an accomplishment. fast lowered 15 to 20 years when i was a spokesman for the white house drug policy office, i saw senator grassley, now in the senate, make methamphetamine and requirement -- it plummeted in america under his leadership at the senate narcotics office -- caucus.

a campaign helped cause youth drug abuse to plunge 30% in three years. and the general sends a one hello to you and thank you for all you have done. we have all seen senator grassley exposed abuse in the government. it is nonpartisan oversight at its best. and it is going and going and going. a few years ago, we are at the capital challenge and he says you're running increases your lifespan at 10 years. he joked back that yard he got back. the staff, who did a great job in organizing today's event, told me he is still running. i want to say it is 10 years after the run that you keep extending your life. i also want to thank penny, who have known for years. i want to thank john hughes, the chairman of the national press club. come and say hello. the chairman of the newsmakers committee, joann, national press club staffer. all of them healthy today's process. our national press club senior he will be taking the mike that

will be used for questions by the audience. let's see. also, is eric here? if you can stand, they have had several months at an internship and have done a spectacular job. [applause] this tony here? no. ok.

my wife, if you would raise your hand, the george washington university medical center, from iowa. the senator is at the center of the action. having sent to the floor the recent human trafficking law and the loretta lynch nomination for starters, we just learned loretta lynch is being confirmed today at 10:30 this morning. sworn in. that is right. if time permits, he could discuss the rationale for the timing, also the collection, which the press recently

reported you are at the center of. a swirl of activity at the club today on that. maybe how that relates to edward snowden, a complicated ring. executive actions he did generate. and you will solve all of this what to do about police after american killings, overall minority disparities, teens in jail, judicial confirmations immigration, and you get to do all of that in an hour. we wanted to hear about all your alternatives to teens in jail. we understand you had news on that. senator grassley will speak for 20 or 30 minutes. i will moderate the questioning. please identify yourself and your organization. just a quick note, on may 7, we will bring in the director of aging on the national institute of health who will talk about a fascinating sus -- subject whether human lifespan extended in our lifetime. and what doesn't look like in

the future and what are the reasons for that? senator grassley, it is an honor to have you today and the floor is yours. i do want to mention senator grassley is a little under the weather today. there was a possibility he may not be a will to come because of his cold, so we all really appreciate him being here on that basis. senator grassley: i seldom get sick so it is surprising to me as well. thank you for the introduction. good morning, everybody. glad to be reminded you're from iowa. i became chairman of the senate

judiciary committee in january. pundits made a big deal about the fact i'm a first nonlawyer in the history of the senate to be chairman of that committee. i would like to think of the fact i'm a nonlawyer, that that is a way to inject a little bit of iowa common sense into the chairmanship. most people do not realize the judiciary committee is the one committee i served on continuously since i have been collected into the senate. many committees dive deep into a narrow set of issues that are important, of course, but not always on the forefront of the mind of all americans. the dish area committee, by contrast, hester's diction over a broad set of issues that are often fundamental to our national identity, issues sewn into the great and diverse fabric of american democracy. many of the topics we debate invoke deeply held views. the committee oversees a

judicial system that seeks justice for the injured and the accused. it upholds america's's reputation as a welcoming matt to the world by ensuring our immigration system is inviting to illegal immigrants who share a love of freedom and respect for the rule of law. it fosters ingenuity and innovations that grow our economy by deciding the rights of intellectual property. he holds the key to the constitution, the document that is able blueprint for a thriving democracy and is a guardian over individual rights and our liberties. the founding charter of freedom helps guide america through our darkest hours, and paves the way to our most triumphant achievements.

arguably, quite like nothing else, our constitution promise of justice and equal rights under the law offers hope for the victims of injustice in our society. as chairman of the judiciary committee, i believe our panel bears a unique responsibility to uphold that promise for all americans, for americans struggling on the downside, for troubled youth who wonder if the struggle to climb america's is lateral -- ladder of opportunity and to stay on the right side of the law is even worth it hear it for the innocent victims who see the government as a big goliath, for the poor defendants wondering if they truly have a chance when they appear before the courts. i see my chairmanship as an

opportunity to help secure america's's blessings of freedom and liberty. the words we the people applies to all americans. i cannot think of a better platform to embrace and expand opportunities to victims of injustice fan on the senate judiciary committee. i plan to make the most use of the next two years of the 114th congress to make a difference in the lives of americans. let's start with the youngest of those facing the criminal justice system. the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention act was originally enacted in 1974.

while it has been reauthorized several times since then, and has received funding, it has not really been revisited and updated since 2002. this is a program that not only helps prevent at risk youth from entering the criminal justice system, but also, one of the miners already in that system. i am leading a reauthorization effort in a bipartisan way, the white house of rhode island. we introduced a bill last commerce to start a starting point. last week, we held a hearing in the judiciary committee to focus on fixing issues within the juvenile justice grant program that whistleblowers brought to my attention. whistleblowers testified to widespread mismanagement and failures. they cited instances of fraud and neglect and core requirements for these

taxpayer-funded programs. the justice department's negligence relates to an implementation of four criteria states must meet in order to receive funds. according to these whistleblowers, a few states meet all the grant eligibility criteria. but the office of justice program, which administers the program, turns its head the other way when states are not in compliance. worse yet, states know about the blanket amnesty. apparently, they did not even try to follow the law. after i wrote four letters on this issue, the justice

department finally owned up to some of these problems. they admitted having a policy in place way back since 1997 that allowed states to obtain several funds in violation of the law. they assured me they will end the practice. other issues remain. we are going to start writing these wrongs this week. the white house and i plan to introduce juvenile justice and legacy prevention act, reauthorization, and this week our bill will respond to issues highlighted by whistleblowers at last week's hearing by increasing accountability and oversight in the office of administration of the law. the bill also seeks to improve the treatment of youth under the act, improving conditions for

juveniles, and incorporating new science on adolescent development, we are also looking to update programs already established by the law and authorize funding for a five-year time. another reform area has been in the press both nationally and in my state of iowa, through the writing of the register. investigations by journalists and civil liberties advocates have exposed perverse incentives that have nudged enforcement of these laws way off kilter with basic fairness. these laws are important crime-fighting tools that enable law enforcement to seize cash or property considered linked to illness -- the theory behind this is to choke off the funding stream used and that could be drugs human trafficking, money laundering, among other things. i agree it is a worthy an important public policy to help for the crime this way. it seems that sometimes, this tool is increasingly being used

as a funding source for the government with thin regard of people's's civil rights. i'm working to draft bipartisan reform to fix the flaws. for starters, the quid pro quo and funding should be limited to law enforcement agencies operation should not be funded based upon assets. in addition, real procedural reforms must be enacted for people whose assets are seized including prompt timelines for government action, and the ability to challenge promptly before a judge and individuals who cannot afford a lawyer, to guide them through the system should be provided one. part of addressing the problem

lies in reversing the recent decision in the supreme court that allows the government to prevent people from showing that they need access to their funds for the simple reason of defending themselves by hiring a lawyer. we also need to codify changes in the use of the program, and structuring cases were small business owners like one that got national attention, iowa's carol, getting unfairly caught up in forfeiture for depositing money in the bank without indication of any underlying crime. a poor lady running a small respite that did everything cash wise, deposited the funds, and she was suspected of laundering money, because she was near $10,000.

i am also looking at an area of law to help defendants not being provided with consult, as the constitution's sixth amendment requires. that amendment -- it calls for any defendant charged with miss demeanors, faces a positive jail sentence to have a lawyer appointed to represent them. the supreme court established this floor -- this rule for more than 40 years ago. we are learning states and localities regularly failed to comply with this requirement. as a result, potentially innocent individuals plead guilty to crimes. they also accrue a criminal

record, which causes them adverse consequences, including difficulty finding a job, and cradle criminal history -- greater criminal history that would be considered in any future sentencing determination. some misdemeanors are treated as felonies in the legal system if a person becomes a repeat misdemeanor offender. if some of those earlier misdemeanor convictions were un-counseled, somebody might be convicted of a felony who did not actually commit a felony. the committee will convene a hearing in the coming weeks to explore the problem and look at potential solutions. along the same lines, let me explain another issue we are working to address.

we are seeing studies that show 32% of american adults have criminal records if arrest records are included in the figure. it means a lot of people are often put in unfair situations because those records are sent to the federal government for inclusion in a database and searched for background checks. if an employer uses a database for hiring purposes, the records could be inaccurate. the database includes arrest records that never resulted in a conviction. it is not fair that an arrest not resulting in a conviction is included in a criminal background check. while there is a process i which people can contest their records, being in the database there are flaws in the process that need to be looked and changed.

over the last several months i've been accused of being a roadblock to sentencing reform. let me be very clear on this point. i have told my colleagues and also had a discussion directly with the president of the united states that i would like to sit down and talk about how we could move forward. i am ready to address some of those issues. what i'm not willing to do as an across-the-board cut in mandatory minimum spirit i agree some should be cut, but i also think some should be raised. let me give you examples. with a heroine epidemic strangling some american communities, and white-collar criminals getting paltry sentences, the last thing we need is to take away a tool that law enforcement and prosecutors

used to get the bad guys. let me end with this. when i first became chairman, i talk a lot about the dual roles at the legislative branch. our constitutional responsibilities do not just include writing laws. we are also responsible for ensuring those laws are faithfully implemented and carried out by the executive branch. it is something i do not think we in congress do enough of anybody who knows my efforts understands why the judiciary committee has such a heavy focus on this vital function of the legislative ranch. i think i have a reputation as someone who does equal oversight

of both republican and democrat administrations. i want to make it clear this is not about the current residents of 1600 pennsylvania. the previous of menstruation was not fond of my letters and oversight either. we need to keep the federal government working for the american people and not the other way around. after immersing myself in the legislative and oversight jurisdiction of the senate finance or senate judiciary committee for the last 34 years, i look forward to chant being -- championing these ideas or others and making eye -- the difference in the lives of americans are i am happy to take your questions now. bob: and you will make it big -- a big difference, senator. thank you, especially for coming under the conditions of your voice and your cold or you did great. -- cold.

you did great. why don't we tackle the elephant in the room. then we can get into everything else. what is your feeling on the delay of the lynch confirmation until just today? wasn't it sort of annoying to you that national leadership decided they would play the politics of using one bill to force the other, and six months of a delay in the confirmation of attorney general? what is your thinking on that? general grassley -- senator grassley: some of this will be a push back of the political party. i want you to know that as part of this. it was a long time, but let's subtract two months out of that

time because this administration and the democratic congress in november and december could have decided to do that. i also admit that we republicans said it would all be held older, but they had a bigger agenda that they were glad to be held over because they wanted to get 13 judges approved and a couple of pieces of legislation out of committee while they were still in the majority. that is their choice, but i do not think republicans should be blamed for the first two months. they could have gotten the job done. there is no eu could have filibustered it. -- no way you could have filibustered it. let's go over my role as committee chairman we would have the nomination up for consideration a second time because all of these nominations go back to the white house. they come back up. as senator leahy asked me, i said on january 20 seventh we had the hearing on january 27. i said we will be put on the agenda as soon as all of the written responses to our questions come back. i forget just which week that was, but then there was a week of congressional recess that came in between.

i citizens we get to that recess, we would voted out of committee. so we did that. i kept my promise to the democrat leadership of the judiciary committee, that we were going to move her when i said we would move her. it gets out to the floor of the senate and at that particular point, it is not chuck grassley who decides when the agenda comes up. it is someone else. i except -0-- i accept the majority leader's deciding when it comes up. i object to it. after the human trafficking bill came up, it got out of committee 19-0. then the democrats decide to filibuster a bill that came out 19-zero. as long as the filibuster when

on, we could not get to the nomination. why filibuster a bill that came out committee 19-0 come i do not know. but that is what held it up and that is all i can say. when it came up in the senate, other senators, not mine. bob: i will go in order of a few media here. chris, asked a question if you would like. chris: thank you, senator. i want you to just comment on

some of the issues that are happening in various minutes of colonies across the country. baltimore, your general reaction to it and what you think needs to be done by congress or on the local level? general grassley: i do not have a specific answer. i am not one of the people who would like to federalize everything. i would use it as an example of what is wrong with people in law enforcement. most of them highly trained and i'm not the guy facing some

person. i hate to second-guess what people i expect to protect me might be doing something right or wrong, but we are going to have some discussion at the staff level and see whether or not anything be done, and you could maybe ask me in a month or two and i would be glad to respond to your question more appropriately. it may be we will do not decide -- will not decide to do anything. >> is there anything you might be looking at, at least in the early stages? senator grassley: whether to federal relies -- federalize, to give a presumption when a minority is killed by policeman, that that should institute a federal intervention. bob: an interesting answer. why don't we go to bloomberg.

still here? do you have a question? >> can you talk about any plans to reintroduce the political intelligence will? you offered it as an amendment it was added in the senate and then taken out of the final bill. where is that now? senator grassley: i still have conversations on that. i think she has introduced a bill in the house of representatives. i did not introduce the bill originally appeared it was an amendment to another bill. i do not think i have to introduce a bill to show my interest in it. i think the people involved in political intelligence got a lot smarter now.

that don't me don't need legislation, but it is much more difficult to sort out what they are doing. it was very obvious when i got the amendment through the united states senate. >> you mean it is more complicated to try to come up with legislation? >> not only that, but a lot of things he had done in congress particularly on oversight, when you have got a good working relationship between journalism and those of us in office, it really helps to get things done. it was highlighted quite a bit and was not difficult to sell that transparency ought to be involved here because transparency brings accountability. it is not quite as obvious now as it was then. bob: why don't we go to "the washington times." senator grassley: we will get omaha. do not worry. that is ok. question is bouncing off what you said a couple of minutes

ago, preliminary stages of deciding whether to federalize when a minority is killed by policeman, are you suggesting we should do away with internal investigations, that they cannot be trusted? that is what i hear a lot. senator grassley: my answer was, some of the things turn out there for consideration, i do not think i would do away with internal investigations, as long as there are roles for oversight for the justice department and most of these are in a role. sometimes the justice department stepped in and sometimes they have not. you already have federal oversight of that. >> i degree. you -- i agree. something else we also see if there is a friction now between the police and the department of justice, especially after, as eric holder made in ferguson. i've heard about this as well.

can you speak to some of the friction now? senator grassley: i do not think it is a question of doing things differently. you do not throw gasoline on a fire. bob: the senator from omaha, you said? there we go. senator grassley: he just got engaged here. >> you mentioned possibly after you guys look at this at the staff level, and option might be doing nothing. how concerned are you about the level of anger out there on these incidences and the protests you would see. how that be seen if congress

does not take action, and who is it up to then? senator grassley: you have asked me to do exactly what chris has to read i cannot be more specific than what i am. i just cannot be. i think it is something you have got to think about and not have hasty action. it doesn't mean we will have to take action. but i think common sense among law enforcement. but i'm not one to pile on police. when the decision has to remade and you are not there, but some of the stuff used young television is very nerve-racking, and very

difficult to say, even when you do not have murders, minorities, but you have got a policeman chasing somebody that probably did a misdemeanor, we have had these cases in iowa. someone's hands are up in an automobile accident. you have got to use common sense in your work as a policeman. bob: ok. please identify your name and organization. >> e mentioned the active little while ago and another part of that was to reinstitute parts of the on a services fraud overturned and the house took that out at the last minute. do you see that coming out anywhere going forward? very close to you reading the indictment, a lot of attorneys are telling me it is very difficult for the justice department to bring some of these cases because the court narrowed fraud.

thoughts there? i spoke to it -- senator grassley: i spoke to it in my remarks. white-collar crime is being soft pedals. -- soft peddled. intended to increase white-collar crime. it is an area we are looking at to make sure there is more equity in the area. that is one of the areas i am suggesting maybe we needed increase in mandatory minimums. yes. classical. i was wondering, do you believe with the passage of the whistleblower protection act

there is enough legislation now on the books to adequately address those issues, as long as implementation is done correctly, or do you believe additional legislation is needed? senator grassley: i would not rule out additional legislation. i go back to i think carrying out the spirit of the laws we arty have. it is like i told people in judiciary committee last week. i said a perfect example, we had two whistleblowers testify. are they going to be punished for testifying? one of them is still in a position with nothing to do. i said to the assistant attorney general, this is exactly what is wrong. it reminded me of the grandfather of all whistleblowers. he is testify before congress and then in the nixon

administration. mix in --nixon did not like it. he said, "fire the s.o.b." then when he got his job back, he was up in the attic of the pentagon. last week, there was an example. the agency does not matter. his move from their own office to the closet, you know, the message out there is, there is a great deal of peer pressure going along. do not make us look bad. all contrary to the principles involved in the whistleblower protection act. i asked every president of united states ought to have a rose garden ceremony honoring whistleblowers. from the top of government to the bottom, that whistleblowers is legitimate. if we did that, we would have 3000 whistleblowers come out of

the woodwork. that is what you want. assistant attorney general. you have got all of these. you cannot know what is going on. if you have got somebody telling you something is wrong, you ought to do something about it. if you do not, you come to us and then get punished in violation of the law, even in violation of a specific law that says you do not get punished for testifying before congress. we all work for the same taxpayer. so i do not think you need any more law. some court decisions you may

have to overwrite that is bad, but you have got to have people in the bureaucracy just do their job. the job is, if something is not right, change it. but was a lowers the government to do what is right and what the law requires and how the money should be spent. bob: let me jump back in because it begs discussion of another element in the room -- elephant in the room. edward snowden considers himself a whistleblower and considers himself patriotic. he says he went through the process and knew he would be prosecuted, so he felt, he says, and those who write about him say, that he could not do it any other way. as a result of what he did congress and the courts and the white house have made significant changes, though the legislation is still pending in terms of accepting or rejecting. many in the white house press corps feel it is not the

substance of the calls, but the listing of the people in the calls, your friends and sources, the problem in the book collections. there is that side of the election. because edward snowden broke the law, is he a whistleblower, or is he someone who was actually simply an illegal criminal? it is a difficult question. i do not even know. senator grassley: right now, the latter. the legislation got to the house of representatives which would apply whistleblowing laws to national security people because they are exempt now from whistleblower protection laws. he could have gone the whistleblower route. but when he did not have that, he violated the law. you can suffer the consequences when you violate the law. bob: ok. >> hello. what are the prospects for getting legislation passed to address litigation abuse, and he see it going a two-pronged attack dealing with the letters and the actual post-filing kinds of issues? senator grassley: it will be more comprehensive than just dealing with demand letters.

it is getting close to a final agreement and maybe in two or three weeks, we will be introducing a bill. maybe before that. it will be comprehensive, but it will not be like the house bill. it will have some of the house provisions in. but for example, there will not be a presumption, and probably less strict on pleading and discovery. the letters may be about the same in the case of demand letters. that is a little more controversial. but to be -- the most important thing is, you want to know who is suing you and you need to know how your patent is being violated, you see. bob: front row and we will swing

back around. >> your leadership introduced the patriot re-authorship last week. questions on whether these straight no added safeguards could pass the senate. would you put an alternative through your committee at this point? i know you're talking to intel leaders. i wonder if there have been any -- senator grassley: i am still talking to members of the intelligence committee. for a long time, my staff and i were talking and senators were involved in those negotiations. i decided to not go along with

what the house has put in. maybe the house is going to drop that bill last week and they did not drop it. i would have to say it is pretty much in flux at this point. i am still seeing what we could do with a compromise between judiciary and intelligence. bob: either order. click a two-part question on the same issue. can you talk about the prospects for possible immigration bills that may be coming through, and part two, and you're prepared remarks, you talk about other issues besides immigration. is it fair to say those issues would take a high priority? senator grassley: you know how it is in the united states senate. getting bipartisan bills is pretty important.

on all the other issues you are talking about, we're trying to take off from where we left off last year, things that did not get done last year, moving along that line. juvenile justice reforms is another example. i did not make it clear my opening remarks, but i did say almost from january that i was going to wait until i passed a bill to it was a matter of efficiency. passed a bill or bills, i do not need to pass everyone of those bills. it would trigger us may be doing something.

but we work for three months on that because years ago and in the house did not do anything. so i figured i want to use my time and the committee's time where we could accomplish something. rather than spending three or four months on immigration and have it die in the house. i think the house might act, but there is a feeling around town that the house may not do anything. then you could understand i would spend a lot of time that could be spent, and probably the president did not sign that project. >> going to the voting rights act, there was a thing last year, introduced, and again this year. do you have any intention of bringing voter rights act fixed to the committee? now that you have gotten control

to both houses, what about cameras to the supreme court? senator grassley: it depends on what you want to fix if you want to fix. if you want to fix more minorities voting, more are already voting. the supreme court throughout the section of the voting rights act, if there is some other reason for being involved in doing something for the voting rights act, i will take a look at it but it seems to me it has got to be different than the original of the voting rights act. in the last 50 years, it has made great progress. >> what about supreme court cameras in the courtroom? senator grassley: i am sorry. i guess i did not hear that. let's hope the bill will get passed. i'm a firm believer in it. our two justices said they would rather, over their dead body. it happens i do not want those two supreme court justices to die, but i believe that we could and hands people's understanding of the court system by having

the supreme court, very much and so on. it divides both republican and democrats. a bipartisan group to get it pass in a bipartisan group against it here not quite as easily printable. >> senator grassley, i thank you for being here. i had lobbied congress. my name is jane. i'm a freelance journalist. we were working for the federal legislation on whistleblowers. one of the issues that came up and i bought you with your recent investigation. private universities are recipients of a huge amount of federal tax dollars.

and yet, grant recipients who blow the whistle are not protected. i myself amongst another group of scientists, i lobby congressmen. we were disenfranchised, lost. rear and jobs. at least $400,000 were put into training. because i stood up for waste fraud, and abuse, and fabrications come falsification of data and all of that, we lose our careers and there is nowhere to go in the private sector. can you tell us if there is any hope for translating whistleblower protection at the private university level where

federal tax dollars are involved? senator grassley: we have done a lot of times with the private sector, whether it is nonprofit or for-profit him it would not make much difference. we have legislation. it is not general legislation. if we had that, you would be affected. a lot of times, we get legislation passed, wall street reform, where risk -- whistleblowers get protection. i would be willing to look at that. bob: other questions, hands raised? great. clients hello. i am with the union of concerned

scientists. i have another whistleblower question. which is, the military whistleblower system is not as strong as it should be. there are some efforts to strengthen that. public health employees including scientists. i wondered if you considered supporting efforts this year to strengthen the military whistleblower protection act? senator grassley: i will be glad to look at it. i wonder if you could be any more specific than a member of the military has a right under law already, to talk about congressman, if they want to? can you do better than that? obviously, the senator probably has got a way to do it but i cannot speak to her specifically. but again, you get back to something, are you going to look or something by passing the law? getting these laws the way they were intended to be carried out. bob: ok.

other questions? answer raised. >> a quick one. i was just wondering. president obama renominated -- to be head of the federal regulations authority. i was wondering, i believe your committee looks at that. is there any schedule, she has been authority for a number of years. is her confirmation on schedule? senator grassley: we will have a hearing next week but i do not know whether she is on that. we usually have four or five at one time. i do not know if she is on that list were not. i want you to know we take them up the way they come up to us. particularly, it is true of judges, as an example. the priorities are what we

received from the white house. >> you getting from the democrats -- what is your plan this year and how fast you are getting them to the floor? >> this year, there is no change. but i suppose, come july of 2016, there will probably be cut off after july, because you would allow those judges to be filled by a new president. were you asking judicial nominations? >> yes, they said you only have done two this years. -- this year. but in terms of open to that point, how many do you expect a week, or how will you handle it? senator grassley: we will handle them on the same basis we have. one thing you want to remember and this gets back to the question he asked me number one. the answer i gave there, they decided they did get them approved.

those went back to the white house and carried over. they would have been approved by now. they changed the rules after election generally, judges do not get approved at that point. they go over to the new congress. i kind of resent the fact they are saying we do not pull out the number of judges they did. if you look overall just over 300 judges have been approved by republicans under this president. only two have disapproved. you're in a situation compared to what bush h this time, 270 something, as an

example. i think the numbers we could talk about are very positive. bob: in the back again. >> i had a follow-up question. going back one more time to you are in the process of thinking

about how to deal with minorities being killed by policeman, there are a lot of minorities killed by policeman and i lived in baltimore. 20 of officers. i wonder if doj might struggle with that kind of a large-scale undertaking? senator grassley: what was the question? bob: would doj struggle with the undertaking of a large number of killings, is that your question? >> right. senator grassley: you're talking about six or seven different states in the last months. the justice department has the legal authority to do it and they have the responsibility to do it if they feel the federal law has violated and they could

investigate. they already decided to get their son was drowned. he was not properly tied in to his life jacket and he drowned. they would like to have a federal investigation. economic decision for the attorney general. i will do the investigation if it needs to be done. >> one or two more questions. go ahead. >> i wanted to follow-up on sentencing reform.

the u.s. leads the country and people in prison and a lot of people are in there for nonviolent offenses. he said he wanted to dr. the white house. do you think this bigger issue of sentencing reform will be moving at all this year? >> i told a lot of people that are for sentencing reform that i want to sit down and talk with them. there is some talk going on. but i'm willing to do some legislation in that area all stop -- area. >> as far as anonymous companies, the u.k. has passed a law for that end.

>> what is the law? >> i don't have the specifics but it would create a registry of beneficial owners for corporations in the u.k.. >> i think i don't know whether the issues are the same for the u.s. but i think it is perfectly legitimate that you know who was running a company. transparency brings accountability. >> senator, thank you so much for a wonderful presentation. it was a lot of fun. i think we covered every issue on that list and we did it in an hour. thank you very much. we are adjourned.

>> coming up c-span, the oral arguments in two cases being heard later today. first, it the ban on michigan's gay marriage. then recognizing same-sex marriages outside borders. later, the swearing-in ceremony for loretta lynch.

>> homeland security secretary jeh johnson testifies today before the senate judiciary committee. he will take questions on cyber security in counterterrorism efforts. live coverage starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern he here on c-span. wednesday, japanese prime minister will address a joint meeting of congress. you can see his speech live at 11:00 a.m. eastern, here on c-span. this weekend, the c-span cities tour has partnered to learn about the history and literary life of topeka, kansas. >> when the act was signed, the very act of signing it, just signing that piece of paper was viewed by missourians as an act of war.

so, when northerners decided that popular sovereignty would determine the state of kansas that was viewed as an act of war by many missourians who assumed this would be there. there was a great deck and forth across the kansas border almost immediately. in may of 1856 john brown, his son, and a couple other followers dragged five men from their cabins along the creeks and they were shot and hacked to death. that effectively cleared that area of southern settlers. >> here in topeka, if you looked at the school's just standing outside you would be very hard-pressed to determine if white students or african-american students attended. the school board did offer all materials that the white schools

offered. they found out after graduating from elementary school, african-american students attended integrated middle and high schools. where there were certainly no supporters of segregation and they saw the of being in separate elementary schools, they were very proud of their schools. these were excellent facilities. so while there was a support for the idea of integration, there was support from the teachers and local chapters of the naacp who feared the loss of institutions and jobs. >> watch all of our events from tip peak on c-span's book tv on sunday at 10:00 on c-span three. >> at washington post.com on this monday, high-stakes as the supreme court considers the

same-sex marriage case and oral arguments getting underway tomorrow morning. thank you for being with us. >> pleased to be with you. >> what is this case, or should i say these cases all about? >> one is whether the constitution allows same-sex couples to marry and the sex and question is -- to marry and the second question is if marriage can be performed in other states where it is illegal. they kicked these two questions because a batch of questions coming to them, some states had wrecking vision issues, other states had licensing issues. the court will look at both. but obviously, if states decide they must issue licenses to same-sex couples, that will take care of the second question as

well. >> if you look at the arc of this issue, just going back five or six years, i cannot recall an issue that has changed in the public's mind as quickly as this one. >> pollsters say it is something they have never seen either. the change has been driven by a generalization difference. young people are very much supportive of same-sex marriage. they really do not see an issue. it is interesting when you look just that young people, there is not really a partisan divide, while young people who are democrats favorite more, republican young people favor same-sex marriage also. >> what will this mean for those states that right now do not allow gay marriage? >> it will mean the constitution

protects their rights, meaning that it would not the up states to determine whether or not they want to issue same-sex marriage licenses. some people compare it to the court's decision in the 1960's. that was the case in which the court struck down state bans on interracial marriage. those who opposed same-sex marriage said that is not the right analogy, that to in that case we are still talking about a marriage between a man and woman and there was no reason for there to be racial barriers on that. but a number of judges, as this case has gone through the court system, many more judges have said there is a right for same-sex marriage. they do make that comparison to the case.

>> i want to point out your story below the fall -- full. you write about justices kennedy and scalia. they were born in the same year chosen by the same president, ronald reagan, live on the same street, served together on the supreme court, and on one issue how the supreme court separates gay citizens divides and defines the two like none other. >> yes, this has been very interesting. three major decisions favoring gay rights. each one of those, justice kennedy has written majority of the opinion. each one of those, justice scalia has written a fiery dissent. in, it really crystallizes the they the two of them look at the constitutional change. the real question is, what do you do about constitutional protections in a changing society? justice kennedy would say that

the constitution and expands and it can recognize rights that we did not see before. and justice scalia says no, the constitution protects what is in the constitution. in, if we want to expand those rights to include other things, that has to be done through the democratic process. and so it is a real difference between the way the two of them see the constitution. >> having returned from the supreme court, people lining up outside the chamber to come inside. the oral arguments will be 2.5 hours. the public is very interested in this. give us an idea of what you will be looking for inside the courtroom. >> obviously, the key to these cases is justice kennedy. i think that we feel pretty sure about which way the floor and liberal justice will go before the conservatives have already

made that clear two years ago when the court ruled that the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages that was in the usb windsor court in which they struck down part of the defense of marriage act. we saw that justice kennedy, once again cast the deciding vote. so, this case in one way seems like an extension of what justice kennedy has done on gay rights but i think the obstacle for those same-sex marriage supporters is that he is also a very big lever in state rights and federalism. and this is one of those cases that requires a balancing act. i think everyone will he listening to the questions that justice kennedy asks. drags it is interesting that he was not ronald reagan's first, second or even third choice.

but she has defined 70 cases over the last 30 years. >> it would be a different story if his first choice, if he had been confirmed rather than the senate turning him down that would have really changed the supreme court in a major way. >> robert burns, his reporting is available online at washington post.com in did in the front page of today's paper. they keep for being with us. >> my pleasure as always, steve. >> the first circuit court of cincinnati upheld marriage bans in michigan, kentucky, ohio, and tennessee. it was the first major law and a victory creating a split in the up would courts, thereby setting up a review in the supreme court. this course -- this case is about a michigan couple. later, they amended it.

this oral argument is one hour. >> good afternoon. on behalf of the people of the state of michigan. and please the court. as justice kennedy explained just a few months ago, it is a fundamental premise of a democratic system that he people can be trusted to decide even divisive issues. that's what this case is about. it is about who gets to decide what the definition of marriage is. it is about who gets to decide on two different levels.

it's about to who gets to decide what the definition of marriage is and what that definition must be and it's about who gets to decide on two different levels, the judicial hierarchy has felt whether a district court can disregard a directly on point holding by the united states supreme court, namely baker versus nelson and the bigger picture, it's whether federal rights, if there is a creation of a new federal constitutional right if that should be done under the amendment process or by the courts under a doctrine. there is common ground in this state that the u.s. constitution does not directly address same-sex marriage which means to turn to the question substantive due process. the right being asserted is objectively deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition and puts it in the concept of the words liberty such that you can conceive of liberty and justice without it. same-sex marriage doesn't have the deep root. >> what do you do about the fact that one could have said the same thing about lawrence?

aaron lindstrom: well, with respect to lawrence, the lawrence court didn't directly address that analysis. this court has repeatedly applied the analysis and recognizes the continuing way that you're supposed to analyze due process both in the u.s. citizen association case and lawrence, this court has continued to apply glovesburg has recognized as that as the relevant standard. lawrence doesn't override or reverse all of the cases before it simply by not mentioning it. >> so this court is still bound about it and by this court's precedence applying glovesburg post-lawrence? >> what about baker, you mentioned that early on. not a very long opinion, i think you would acknowledge, a lot has happened since then, i think you also knowledge that, so how do we deal with it? aaron lindstrom: well, this court is bound by the length of it doesn't matter because the question is a question of hierarchy, and i would say that the supreme court has repeatedly said that summary decisions that it makes are binding on the lower courts. it merits determinations and this court has reiterated that. a case specifically said that summary dispositions are still binding unless reversed by the

united states supreme court. so i think that -- >> it's a little more give and take in it than that. the doctrinal developments doctrine that has grown out of other supreme court cases, we're clearly dealing with doctrinal developments in this area of the law, are we not? aaron lindstrom: well, there are two answers to that. first of all, the doctrinal developments language in hicks is that hicks also said that courts are supposed to follow the supreme court's decisions until it overrules that and subsequent to that, in rodriguez and the cases this court has also made this point, it's a decision that the supreme court wrestles on cases and overruled. so if the supreme courts override it, but i disagree on the doctrinal development point two. for example, roemer doesn't do

anything to undermine the fundamental rights aspect of baker versus nelson. both questions were presented in baker versus nelson whether there was a due process right and also -- judge daugherty: you don't think lawrence overruling a case that came out just a few years before that indicates a doctrinal development? aaron linstrom: i think that

shows a doctrinal development in the area of right to privacy. but i don't know that that necessarily shows doctrinal development in the fundamental right to marry which is public recognng, not a right to privacy. lawrence has decided on a different substantive due process crown and doesn't have anything to say about the fundamental right to marry. judge daughtrey: what about the case that just, that the policy and the laws against ma psychological nation were not deeply rooted in our american society and yet that went by the by? >> the case is primarily about the fact that there was racial discrimination, violation of the protection clause which the supreme court recognized that the primary court component of the 14th amendment is to end racial discrimination. the fact is that racial discrimination -- >> was it not the law across huge swaths of southern states at the time, i mean that was a

vote by the people of many states against the pocket of interracial marriage and the language says the right to choose whom to marry is a fundamental right. >> to the extent that there is an attempt to analogies the question of same-sex marriage, the supreme court rejected that express analogy in the baker case. so it just doesn't matter what the supreme court has previously done -- >> what but with respect to the loving analogy, the supreme court, if the supreme court wanted to say that the freedom to choose who to marry wasn't limited to someone of the opposite sex and they didn't do that, that question was directly presented to that. so that shows there was a different between race which does not go to the heart of what marriage is. >> you would have to concede that there were in terms of what the electorate wanted, the loving decision went against what the electorate wanted in much of this when it was announced? >> i think it did not. when you talk about the electorate wanted, the electorate passed the 14th amendment to end racial

discrimination. the electorate that wanted to end -- >> you might be understood in knowing that as recently as 1978 the tennessee constitution provided, "the intermarriage of white persons with negros, mulattos or persons of mixed blood descended by a negro to the third generation exclusive or living together as man or wife in this state is prohibited. the legislature shall support this section by propose legislation. in march of 1978, the tennessee electorate was asked to appeal that provision in the constitution and they did so but they did so by a margin of only 8,000 votes out of almost half a million. >> i think the points show that the people did choose to try to end racial discrimination with the 14th amendment and did also later choose to end racial discrimination. that just showed that the people can make decent and rational decisions. it doesn't mean that history and tradition of this court with respect to an issue here which is same-sex marriage, having to look at windsor, it's very instructive, the historical analysis. section 3 of windsor talks about the history and tradition of marriage and certainly talks about the history and tradition of same-sex marriage and with

respect to same-sex marriage, it recognizes that it was only until recent years when that was even possible. judge daughtrey: that's true that's true. if we take this case to be about the right to marry and not the right to marry a person of the same-sex, isn't what is going to happen around the country pretty clear and what is happening pretty clear? brian: --

aaron linstrom: if what you're saying is people are passing laws to change the law? judge daughtrey: that's not what i'm saying. what is the issue, the issue to right to marry, dealing with the right to marry or dealing with something like, oh, what were those cases, the right of inmates to marry, the right of deadbeat dads to marry? i think it was judas kay that said fundamental rights are fundamental rights, simple as that. aaron linstrom: for example, if you're looking at whether there is deep historical roots within the definition of marriage that only people not behind on their child support payments can marry is different than only people from the opposite sex can marry. those due process, they had limitations that were not deeply rooted throughout the sthurs. -- centuries. the supreme court is talking about history and tradition of the windsor opinion. the marriage between a man and a woman is centuries and recognized as fundamental. the supreme court was talking about the fact that the marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman is fundamental to the very definition of the term. that was true to the definition of the term and function

throughout the history of civilization. >> what do we do about the reality that the marriage is always about, it changes with social morets and maybe originally marriage was encouraging pro creation channeling procreative possibilities. but you know, modern conceptions of marriage are more about love and commitment. when you think about it that way, it does seem a little harder to justify. everything you're talking about is not a fundamental right, it just is not answer the question holding in all four of these cases that it doesn't even survive rational basis for view. what do you do about the difficulty of if you think about marriage just through that lens, love, affection, commitment, it does start to get a little difficult to see the difference between the one group eligible and the other group not.

aaron linstrom: i agree, when you focus on fundamental rights, history is the focus. and i guess the preliminary question, is why is the state interested in marriage in the first place? why is the state interested in emotional connections between people? we discussed this in our brief. state doesn't have interest in regulating friendships, it doesn't regulate how many people can be in a friendship or how long a friendship has to exist. the thing that changes and the reason state has interest in marriage is because marriage leads to children, hence bringing new children into society in houses ideas going to make sure they are cared war. so it is rational for the state to have an interest in promoting marriage so that it is more likely a child will have both a mother and a father and will have the b