well i'm tom armin in washington d.c. and here's what's coming up tonight on the big picture on tuesday in his dissenting opinion to the arizona immigration case justice scalia lashed out at president obama for does not doing enough to enforce immigration laws with his blatant impartiality and total partiality rather and total disregard for the institution supreme court isn't time justice scalia was impeached also the republicans want to take us back to the eight hundred s. and what happened to the liberal bias in the mainstream media all that more into nights alone liberal rumble and the u.s. has begun to hand out permits to companies to do exploratory digging and drilling

in the arctic for natural oil for natural gas and oil but with other nations laying their claim to the vast resources and one of the world's last unexplored frontiers what happens when the arctic is tapped out to pose that question and more to michael klare special edition of conversations with great lines. you need to know this way back in one eighteen zero zero three supreme court justice samuel chase really stepped in thomas jefferson was present the united states at the time of his supporters in congress call themselves the democratic republicans today we call the democratic party jefferson's chief political rival was john adams whom he had defeated in the election of eight hundred and adams led the federalists against the democratic republicans the federalists fought hard to protect the wealthy elite succeeded succeeded in eliminating the direct election of

u.s. senators by we the people back during the constitutional convention well you can't compare them apples to apples the federalists are basically the days are public. party at least in their belief that society is best organized when there's a wealthy ruling elite at the top samuel chase who was appointed to the high court in seven hundred ninety six proudly call himself a federalist so thomas jefferson was already a little on easy was same as a supreme court justice and after chase joined other federalists on the supreme court to create judicial review in the eighty three marbury v madison case that gave the court the power to strike down laws passed by both congress and the president making the supreme court the most powerful and unaccountable of the three branches of government jefferson's anger with the core and samuel chase just went nuts so later in eight hundred three when samuel chase was in front of the baltimore grand jury and publicly criticized president thomas jefferson and the democratic republican party for trying to expand voter rights jefferson it had

enough chase argued that the policy has been advanced by jefferson in the democratic republicans to give it universal suffrage another reason everybody the right to vote would quote rapidly destroy all protection of property and all security to personal liberty and our republican gods intuition would sink into mob ocracy the worst of all possible governments the modern doctrines by our late reformers that all men in a state of society are entitled to enjoy equal liberty and equal rights have brought this mighty mischief upon us and i fear that it will rapidly destroy progress until peace and order freedom and property shall be destroyed this was a blatant political attack against president jefferson by a sitting supreme court justice who was supposed to be politically impartial. it was just the latest in a long series of politically motivated decisions by samuel chase in seventy nine hundred sixty made several partisan campaign speeches for

a federal fellow federalist john adams that would be like a supreme court justice right now going on the campaign trail and telling people to vote for mitt romney and chase openly supported passage of the alien and sedition act of seven hundred ninety eight which gave president adams the power to jail his political rivals he put benjamin franklin ben franklin's grandson in prison because he had written a newspaper op ed saying that the adams was old querulous and balding chase even used his power as a judge to give harsher sentences than jefferson's democratic republican supporters in court so after chase went out and publicly ridiculed the president nine hundred three over voter reforms expanding the voter franchise and jefferson and his allies in the house of representatives basically ok enough is enough in one thousand nine hundred four the house of representatives impeached samuel chase on charges of judicial misconduct and to this day samuel chase is the only supreme court justice

to ever have been impeached ultimately chase remained on the bench escaping being kicked off by the skin of his teeth in the senate failed to muster up the two thirds majority needed to remove him from the supreme court he was not convicted in the senate although it was a peach of the house he would serve seven more years on the bench before dying of a heart attack nine hundred eleven and that's the end of samuel chase's story. but in one thousand nine hundred two samuel chase was reincarnated when ronald reagan appointed anthony scalia to be a justice on the supreme court and on tuesday in his dissenting opinion against the majority's decision to strike down three out of four provisions in the arizona controversial anti immigration laws justice antonin scalia had his samuel chase moment he went in and publicly ripped president obama for not enforcing immigration laws the way scalia thought they should be just a few days after the president had announced that the nation would no longer deport young undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children and are now in

school or the military or working in keeping their nose clean scully has to say as the court does that arizona contradicts federal law enforcing applications of the immigration act that the president declines to enforce bottles of wine is secured territory in this fashion is not within the power of arizona we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state and no i'm not exaggerating his tone that much actually so eight hundred three samuel chase criticized the president for trying to expand voter rights and got impeached in two thousand and twelve antonin scalia criticized the president for trying to save young undocumented immigrants from deportation pretty unlikely with the republicans controlling the house he'll be impeached but it goes beyond scalia's comments. immigration the guy has a history of tarnishing the integrity of the supreme court scalia's the justice who went on a hunting trip back in two thousand and five with vice president dick cheney the night before tea or the week before actually deciding the case against dick cheney

and then ruling in his favor scalia also want to hunting trip with the dean of the kansas law school and then agreed to hear two cases in which the very same dean was the lead attorney according to federal law any justice must recuse himself from a case where his or her impartiality might be question like justice alaina kagan just did in the arizona immigration case because she was the u.s. solicitor general in the federal government so the arizonan and just like house just the same chase refused to recuse himself in cases dealing with his political allies the federalists ultimately leading to his impeachment justice scalia is guilty of the same this behavior chase was also slammed for campaigning on behalf of john adams but scalia today has attended and spoke at a political conventions hosted by the koch brothers major supporters and founders of today's modern republican tea party party and scalia refused to recuse himself from the citizens united case despite the koch brothers ties to political advocacy

groups which benefit immensely from scalia's own decision in citizens united. so what's the point of all this point is that justice antonin scalia needs to be impeached just as justice samuel chase was impeached way back in one thousand nine hundred four for demonstrating a similar lack integrity and impartiality while serving on the high court if we're truly going to have an independent judiciary with the task of impartially interpret in the constitution and there's no longer any room for justice scalia on the court it's time for congress to do its constitutionally you find a job in article three section two and regulate the high court and not just their impeachment actually four places in the constitution it's time for congress to impeach and justice antonin scalia is a much better fit inside the koch brothers political machine anyway.

it's wednesday are you ready to rumble join me for tonight's alone liberal our adam bitly editor in chief of net right daily and marc harrold libertarian commentator attorney and author of the book observations of white noise and as a test for the first amendment thank you both for joining me tonight thank you glad to have you with us the los angeles times is openly questioning whether justice scalia has jumped the shark my phrase not theirs in his political rant against president obama on tuesday this would just be the latest incident of judicial misconduct he went to duck hunting with dick cheney and then decided a case a couple weeks later in cheney's favor same deal with the dean of the kansas law school he's attended and spoken at several koch brothers political conventions fundraisers this is not just on seemingly this is had any federal judge done this they would be off the bench maybe in jail but the supreme court has chosen mr scalia himself has chosen to say that the rules don't apply to him the judge at the federal code of judicial conduct is no time for congress to impeach him and i think

that's a clown question i mean this is an absurd statement to make you know we're looking at whether or not because he will. hunting trip with dick cheney three weeks before a case whether or not that's true cheney was the defendant in the case if a judge was was trying somebody for murder and and they went to dinner with that person three weeks before the case would you doubt their impartiality well listen this isn't a murder case but a bank robbery. but ok we're still dealing in the role of absurdities here let's we'll charge of the crime it what is he going to brought out kagan recused herself she did the right things on the holidays there's no code of ethics what about on this obamacare case are going to be tomorrow morning kagan that wasn't involved in obamacare. she was she to not let it get that as as solicitor she did litigate the provided advice he provided advice the administration that's not the normal this is this is. ok if she did than take her out to i'm saying that apply the judicial code

of conduct to these judges what's wrong with that mark this is to me no he should not be impeached i don't believe that and skule should be impeached what's happened though is it's become so political from bush v gore to citizens united to what we're going to see tomorrow the supreme court people forget once justice scalia was confirmed it was almost unanimous i think it was unanimous and maybe somebody's work i mean it was almost unanimous i don't like for the for the people to know as the kind of people that were going to be put on now and they you know can you imagine everyone her age you can have anybody now in the confirmation is a political fight i didn't agree with the president called out the supreme court of citizens united with them sitting there and you're right it doesn't matter right or wrong we can argue about it all now that i don't think they were wrong but the fact that they were sitting there and they can't react the president called the mound the two thousand and ten state of the union this acrimony between separate branches of government to me is the problem more than look you know he should not be i'm sure in my opinion if you and i if we were dragged before any judge in this country we would expect impartiality. you have an agreement on this so shouldn't the

american people expect the highest court in the land of the court that that arguably has not argued the court that have. as more power than the legislature or the president the legislature the president can't strike down laws i mean just just unilaterally they can't create new that wild card with a good chance not to enforce actually they can't but i think they can write them down but they could just choose not to force them apparently i mean you know you know but but shouldn't there be at least the appearance of impartiality should scalia not be doing koch brothers gigs and shouldn't clarence thomas' wife not be you know e-mailing people dread the day the bush v gore gets taken by the court and saying hey you want to job in the bush administration before bush has even been given the presidency but that's a different question that's about the appearance of impartiality what i understand i'm going to what i understand you said that some things actually an opinion to don't agree with because of the tone or whatever but that's an impeachable offense if you're talking about impartiality or actual misconduct it's not a high crime or misdemeanor that's why we have life terms i don't think he should

be impeached people can have their opinions and there's only nine people in the supreme court people going to have strong opinions and everything seems to be five four maybe maybe not impeachment that's enough impeachment is too much more rubble after the break.

wealthy british style. that's what i'd like for. markets why not. find out what's really happening to the global economy with max kaiser for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into kaiser report on our.

on the act it's nights alone liberal rumble joining me tonight are adam bitly editor in chief of net right daily and marc harrold libertarian commentator attorney and author of the book observations of white noise an acid test for the first amendment to read that book says sounds like a great title anyway back to it this time another it's another wacky republican platform last week it was the iowa republicans and they came out for banning pornography yes one of the taliban but this time it's the texas republicans and they're saying oh i made the income tax instead have everybody pay twenty percent

sales tax right because the millionaires and billionaires they just put the money in swiss bank so they want to pay anthony thing that is this crazy debt of do you really think the republicans are going to win let's tax working people on every penny they are earning but i'm irani well let's back up if mitt romney's in texas he's going to pay well because because because he made twenty three million dollars last year and even if you spend in like one hundred thousand dollars a day there's no way you could spend all that money but i mean somehow he then you must get your head have some ideal number that you want to pull for right out of his pocket you know that people are going to roll back the yeah i'll give it to roll back the reagan tax cuts will tell me that's going to be where you really well for forty years because every regular every time we hear from people that oh if we just raise this tax on the millionaires in this country the top one percent so to say that we're going to solve these problems not the millionaires the top one percent that's over three hundred twenty five thousand also but but the the fact of

the matter is that from the one nine hundred forty s. until the one nine hundred eighty s. we didn't have deficit problems we didn't have these crises we didn't have banking problems with the money one large difference from that time to today is the growth of spending is through the ceiling it is gone up dramatically yet it was the reagan strategy even if you will where we have to have some strength he went after the top one percent rate attacked. your ideal rate which would need to be over one hundred percent you're still going to be in the whole reagan era right reagan exploded federal spending so you know we got to do something about that reagan did do that and yes you can going to do it as the president is going to tax your right and so you have to look at the other half of it when ronald reagan came into office corporations are paying twenty nine percent of the cost of federal government right now the paint seven percent so there's two pieces to this first of all going after income tax is the problem there is really rich people don't always make their and they don't make their money through income distribution value here is just really not that much the bigger let's do away with capital gains tax that was the one of the reagan was the guy who said do you think that a millionaire in the us a bus driver should pay shouldn't pay the same tax rate he

said that's crazy that a millionaire paid less than a bus and this is i'm thinking of what's wrong with just having two parties here this is what we've got into this is just mudslinging at election time this is not going to get done we have real problems they need to be solved so what do they do and the g.o.p. trying to get rid of pornography the g.o.p. is going to get rid of the income tax these things are never going to happen but you're going to see how you win elections now you go after these big social issues and you get in front of people and say i'm going to get rid of the income tax you cannot do it no i do you appeal to you appeal to people who are so they want these things to happen they know they can't happen these aren't solutions to any real problem they'll never get done but this is how you win elections i'm going to rise and i say impeach school luau but here's something that is not only because of the out there to this is probably close to your heart mark i mean as a libertarian you know on the republican texas or the texas republican platform they want to go back to the gold standard and now you know that would break this country just like that if you said ok you can't have a flexible economy more if the economy grows sorry you can't you know you can't create more money to compensate for its economy shrinks sorry can't can't

compensate for that either every gold standards don't work there's a reason why and why f.d.r. in the nixon took us off well let's just say this to just having a general feel currency doesn't work we're seeing that all around the world right now where people are basically saying just trust that the money is worth what it's worth and disagree. when we've sat there already is doing just our live dollar look at the value the dollars roll really and what eligible queries go on are doing really well well into the mexican peso overall relative to the euro where i always say to people that expect to make a dollar all year yes it's doing relatively well or not much inflation. ok but we don't have enough that is we're not of what it has to the republicans to hold and inflation below three percent it's all going to five percent each year we're going to that dollar fall in value i want to follow and since that since we put the fed in place because substantially yes but at the same time the sky's growth is just at times yes so what's your solution to maintain the value that well i would say if we

really wanted to value the dollar correctly then we probably want to go towards like a mixed basket of goods which to peg it against silver or gold many different wheat . or something like that so let's say you know what you know what i don't know the end result but it's never going to happen market well it's never going to happen and once again this is one of those things never going to happen if you logically i think the gold standard does have advantages over the system we have now but the bigger problem it's not the it's not the instrument the money i don't think it has much to do with the fee out of the gold i think it has to do with the over regulation with the fed it has much to do more to do with the way the fed controls everything and the regulations that get in the way the federal is ation of all this much more than the actual instrument that i use it once again going right in there that i turn to is gold states that the only way that the fed can buy federal bonds and influence the interest rate is to do it through the new york banks it's like the banks make off make out whatever the case of the needs of problem it is i mean

i think i don't know i don't disagree ok let's talk about voter id laws they've been they've been saying for years that they've been these things are being rigged to favor the republicans and now one of the top republican lawmakers in pennsylvania just admitted it here's pennsylvania house majority leader mike. bragging to his colleagues about a recently passed voter id law. in that state and what it's going to do for that area's. voter id which is going to allow governor romney to win the state of pennsylvania done. daryn. several studies including one by the nonpartisan brennan center for justice and found the voter id laws do take away the rights to vote from tens it could be for more than ten million americans who don't own cars particularly particularly hard hitting low income people minority people college students and elderly voters people who generally tend to vote for democrats here's what paul wiring the guy who ran the reagan campaign ran the george herbert walker bush campaign advisor the george w. bush campaign founder of the american legislative exchange council and co-founder

of the heritage foundation here's what he had to say to a group of republican christian activists in one thousand nine hundred dollars taxes. how many of our request to have what i call but goose them grown good government they want everybody to vote i don't want everybody to vote elections are not won by a majority of people they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now a matter of fact our leverage in the election is quite candid like goes up owning. our leverage goes up as the vote in any as he said that he was working on the reagan campaign tell me this has not been a thirty year campaign but ok well i think it's i think it's quite the stretch to suggest. footage from one thousand of paul ryan were connected to the fellow from pennsylvania today as some sort of conspiracy talk just died a couple of years ago he was and yet soon i saw in the republican party right over through paul was i doubt he was actively working with these little state

legislature alec alec wrote these laws he founded alec this is the guy and different people and they all went out and did this no i left it ok again i already doing that he's clearly with we want to because there are others. again we're dealing with a lot of conspiracy this is this is akin to conspiracy it's why shouldn't i is it absurd to suggest that in an election we know who votes that we know that the people who vote do you know what you want to do away with secret ballots. will we know the people who voted when they get out now i'm asked not suggesting we need to know who they voted for and suggesting that we know who comes in to vote a fair election would be run as it says us citizens if we know who our people are last time i voted i had to show actually it was an organized and at the one i registered i had to show my id but back before that i lived in vermont new hampshire michigan and georgia whenever i voted i had to sign something and they compared that signature with my signature on file there was no doubt that it was

that i was me and many cases and certainly in michigan i knew the people who were who were in fact my mom was one of the volunteers who did it so you don't think it's fair for people to come in and have a requirement of prove you are reward before we hand you a bottle always had that you have to your signature has to match first of all i think some can be a conspiracy and be in the washington post but on this you know it has if it's just for authentication of these and i don't know that they're conspiracies i think there are legitimate concerns about disenfranchisement different things like this as long as it's free equally access there's no requirements to getting it all it does is authenticate it maybe it has a picture maybe it doesn't maybe it's just one step in other words there's no it's not that everybody is against any kind of authentic authentication you say the signature is ok but the the the need but you don't want the card maybe it's somewhere in the middle but compelling government interest in voting in the voting being regulated to some degree because it has to be fair and just as a libertarian might say why i don't want any kind of id card i don't think that

should be national i think it should be stay the same libertarians going to say look the power of the people comes from the vote so to some degree you have to have a system that is really i mean you can have dead people voting you can have all these folks we've all heard of elections being thrown by dead people voting and you know people haven't actually found that you know setting aside what the fellow in pennsylvania said look at it like this suggesting that simple comment nothing i mean this is true i'm just trying to have a realistic debate about just to say one word it doesn't make it the strategy of the g.o.p. everyone. and then he said if you believe he's right do you believe that if we say people must prove that they are who they are does that result in a romney win i'm not convinced i think they make it far more difficult for college students to vote for all of you people can't far more difficult get out and show up at some place that you know we're voting by absentee ballot if you make it hard on social security medicare worried about same when the republicans are trying to privatized both of them i think that if you if you say to people by already who lived in cities with particular minorities but i mean i don't own

a car i was suggesting stripping people of transportation excess we're discussing whether or not have driver's licenses because they have cars and that's one of the ideas that in many states you can use but a lot of people don't have driver's licenses they don't want to people don't use cars they'll take you don't want to there are no match these rules these laws would say that those people can't vote or if they're going to vote they're going to spend a half a day take take a day off work lose their income go down to some you know driver's license bureau pull off fifteen different kinds idea or three so you see it without a isn't a sign your name and that's good enough but you're not going to carry the right to do it you don't mean it have to i it has to be accessible has to be free i don't think you've got to take it and you know do you get to election time has to be up on the weekends what you're talking about is these two extremes keeping everyone keeping so many people from voting or not doing this at all there's an intermediate step here this is a compelling governmental interest to protect the you know how not elections take place we've been having elections in this country for two hundred thirty some odd years and it's never what i can remember this debate happening in real life and say well you know it was

a problem back in the south in the you know after reconstruction going on as it is to deny people if you have it is more watchable now because of how we live in some places some days especially in towns people knew each other they knew who each other were but there's also the fact that people didn't in the past when you know one hundred years ago have multiple residences they didn't travel they couldn't get from one state to another on the same day so there are technology nobody and nobody is flying around the country to vote twenty times in one day if they were they'd be in prison any time for the court for now when the supreme court ruled tomorrow by. i think they'll strike down the individual mandate the big questions are what they find do they find do they take the easy way out and strike down the individual mandate and then say look there's no severability clause in this law so we're not going the whole thing down or they say don't go into effect in two thousand and fourteen so nobody has standing my gut feeling is they're going to knock down the individual mandate but i wouldn't bet it very quickly i think they're actually going to keep the individual mandate well that's a choice i thought i personally think they're going to knock down the mandate and they are going to find the last several but we'll see you know when i finally just guess of the tell you that you're out of mark thank you both for being sure thank

you after the break should we be focusing more on renewable resources of energy like solar and wind rather than me going to the ends of the earth in search of the last few drops of oil left on our planet who pose that question and more of michael klare in a special edition of conversations with great minds. down the official. to go on the phone only pulled talk from the top story. one life on the good. video on demand. comes and says feed now in the palm of your. question on the dot com.

more news today violence is once again flared up. these are the images we're seeing from the streets of canada. showing corporations rule today. police.