states supreme court justice. i am going to refer you to blood versus cohen, which, involved kurt blood, a st. louis cardinal and the majority opinion was written by justice blackman. however, it's fairly unique amongst the opinions in that he wrote a sort of valentine to baseball that the rest of the majority opinion did not endorse. the first section included a lengthy list of baseball players, hall of famers mostly. and i cite this for the proposition that it is not unusual for a supreme court justice to have an interest in baseball or for that matter bar president. so as a tone of our appreciation, we are selected a baseball themed gift for you. it's obviously this baseball bat engraved with your name, may 16, 2007. and we'll be enjoying, of course, the baseball game later this evening. thank you very much for joining us. >> thank you. [applause] thank you. i will certainly treasure this. this will go into the baseball shrine i have in my office. i am just as enthusiastic about baseball as justice backman was.

i did also right that the supreme court, california's supreme court might have some reasons for revisitingbut under the optical president it was a straightforward case. straightforward in the sense that property should be upheld and that this was a as was a popular position with some of the applicants, and it was i think a correct reading of the law. and the california supreme court ultimately agreed. >> thank you, and my time is up. thank you, madam chair,. >> senator lee, you are up the next. >> thank you, and thank you, professor liu, for coming in a bring your family to join us today. i like to start by talking about the commerce clause. on page 72 of your book, "keeping faith with the constitution" you wrote as follows, the court has declared certain subject off limits of federal regulation by attempting to draw a line between economic and noneconomic activity, referring presumably to the lopez and morrison line of cases. a line that looks much more like the oldest issue between what directly affects congress and what touches it only indirectly. in its incoherent and in advocacy in ad

and here's what's coming up tonight on the big picture members of indiana supreme court are planning to scrap the fourth amendment you know the one that protects people from on lawful entry or searches inside your own so if the high court gets their way who are the people who is your state trust meanwhile in south carolina the little financial assistance to unemployed residents is about to be slashed from twenty six weeks of benefits to only twenty weeks so this is fair for a state that has about ten percent unemployment higher than the national average and more light is shed on the secret lives of bank stars details on how they made billions wrongfully taking people out of foreclosed homes. the idea of a supreme court is working around the clock to undo the fourth amendment of the constitution last week the high court ruled that police can now enter someone's home without a warrant and without probable cause and in doing so people of that state do not have the right to keep police officers from arresting them without cause on and in their own property in case of him focused on a man

now house but we can now include the supreme court not category c. the supreme court justices have said that they would not hear the case of muhammad versus jefferson data plant and the case was originally brought before a san francisco court in two thousand and seven rules on in two thousand and nine the five men alleged that the cia had them shipped to foreign countries or they were tortured which could have been part of what the cia practice most commonly known is extraordinary rendition which has been dubbed torture by proxy and many circles and we also to point out that this wasn't brought against the u.s. government or the cia now rather it was brought against the bowling arm that actually transported these men to other countries or the torture was reportedly conveyed it and the five men in this case. binyam mohamed bashir al-rawi and muhammad for. all claimed they were captured in one country and then shipped to another two of them later to get mo using those boeing planes and in two thousand and nine the san francisco court chose not to hear

you want to be on the supreme court?> it would have been very nice. >> could still be very nice, actually. >> could be. >> yeah. what, what, what makes it so appealing? you look at the folks assembled on that court sometimes and it looks like it's nnt a particularly fun job. >> i wouldn't say that. i mean, obviously people come from different backgrounds but they do in my court as well, whichhis. >> right. >> .two people more than the supreme court. but hat makes it fun and interesting is the court gets the chance to choose the 75 most interesting 10,000.ut of a pool of about >> right. >> .that it can hear every year. >> yeah. and o if you, if you care about this stuff as obviously as you do, having served for so long, this is the ultimate opportunity to, to. >> right. >> .weigh in and to affect everybody. we all get affected by what happens at the court. >> absolutely. >> yeah. what does it mean to be on the short list? they ask for you to submit materials so they can do a background check and then they contemplate you,

>> senator as with all supreme court justice precedents, absolutely, i would uphold that of the supreme court. >> what if it's incoherent, what do you do? >> i think that the court grappled with that case, and where there was a similar characterization issue whether marijuana grown and used for local boundaries and was an activity that could reached in the clause. and the court made an accommodation, though not an economic activity, it belongs to a class of economic activity. and the rule seems that noneconomic activity that belongs to economic activity and reachable in the commerce clause. the point of the book was to suggest that definitionally that these things like all distinctions in the law, when you press hard on them, there are gray edges. and the main these are workable in will role i would be filling if i were confirmed. >> in the wake of gonzalez versus raying, and can you identify limits on federal authority that exist outside of lopez and morrison? >> senator, it would be difficult to present a hypothetical when one doesn't know what views will be limited. but my understand

supreme court. and on the point of hollywood that people keep bringing up, it seems to be the 800-pound gorilla meth. if you go anywhere people will say as the 2,000 people live here, how many movie stars do you know? and people say, what is it like? they don't mean what is it like to live in greater los angeles but hollywood. then it is a little bit offensive to think that everybody here is in that part of the industry when there is so much that goes on. other industries and businesses and concerns, some interlocking, some entirely separate. if he did devon diagram hollywood may not be a big part of that, but it becomes this massive overhanging mythology that does influence even people who don't have anything to do with hollywood. >> the doubleness of branding in general. branding makes you more visible, familiar. but it is also incredibly reductive at the same time. but i think, you know, one of those things about branding in terms of los angeles, it's interesting that this effort to create a myth

. >> supreme court justice samuel alito gave a top-10 list of things you don't know about the supremeourt to the bar association of metropolitan st. louis earlier this month. he said that while ord -- oral arguments are one hour, preparations often involve reading over 500 or more pages of legal briefs and as a large part of the justice of work. his remarks were part of the association's law day celebration celebrating the role of law and american society. this is about 45 minutes. >> it would not have surprised any of his classmates to learn, have they been able to foresee this fact, that today he would be one of the real stars of the federal judiciary. i want to thank dwayne for the great introduction and all of you for the warm welcome and i want to thank the bar association for all of the courtesies that have been extended to me. it is a great pleasure for me to be here and have this opportunity to talk to you this afternoon for many reasons. among other things, i welcome this opportunity to congratulate your bar association for its century-long commitment to providing equal acces

and the next court immediately under the supreme court of america. with that, i suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be divided equally. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: in any event, i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order the senate will resume to executive session to resume to the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, goodwin liu to be united states circuit judge for the ninth circuit. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order the time until 2:00 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i am very honored to speak in favor of the goodwin liu nomination and to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to cast a p

carolyn helen and steven spalding who's organizing a rally in indiana indiana to protest the state's supreme court decision and we've got a special presentation from luke. about the chicken whisperer i know talking about economic exploitation by the government can get tedious at times but at some point in trying to rework fruit the american news the obama campaign is going to run into something like we'd love to help and thanks to the high unemployment we've got plenty of time but now that we understand a little bit about economics we're supporting ron paul and that's the importance of a good education the kind you'll never get from the government but only from watching adam vs the man. in case you haven't noticed our government is broke worst when the treasury department has a fourteen point two nine trillion dollar debt ceiling on monday obama decided that instead of borrowing more money or say would you sing government spending the treasury would raid federal pension funds to maintain current government spending levels but what about assets the government must. something of value as colla

setting up a government agency to do it we'll see if this might be his worst idea to date that his supreme court made a surprising ruling the police can ensure your home without a warrant if they smell marijuana and if they hear of you destroying that evidence so should we be concerned that justice is now given that kind of power to local law enforcement and more importantly is this the end of the fourth amendment as we know it then us manufacturing isn't just a thing of the past we'll take a look at how the era of american industries die and will determine what it will take to bring it back all those stories plus happy hour on tonight's show but first let's move on to our top story. now if you thought the relations between the u.s. and pakistan could only move up after the osama bin laden raid then think again this a day after senator john kerry made a trip to his law about to mend ties and negotiated for the tale of the stealth copter to be given back to the u.s. a firefight broke out between nato and the pakistani military now the details are still fuzzy with a nato helicopter which man

[applause] >> it's now my pleasure to actually say the supreme court precedent to a supreme court justice, and i will refer you to flood versus coon, which involved curt flood, a st. louis cardin cardinal, and the opinion was written by justice blackman, and it was unique as he wrote a sort of valentine to baseball, that the rest of the majority opinion did not endorse the first. and it included with baseball players, and hall of famers and it was cited as precedent and it's not unusual for supreme court justices to have an interest if baseball. and as a token of our prees appreciation we have decided on a baseball item and for this date, 2011 and enjoy the baseball game later this evening. thank you. >> thank you. >> i will treasure this, it will go into my baseball shrine i have in my office. i am just as enthusiastic as baseball as justice blackman. and i will joined that, and so you know that's the truth. when the marshalls drove me to the hotel last evening after they picked me up at the airport. i had a request and they may have thought it was strange. and i gave them a street addre

next, remarks from supreme court justice samuel alito.hat preparations meant reading legal briefs and documents. he spoke recently at at a metropolitan bar of st. louis' lunch. this is 40 minutes. >> fellow judges and attorneys, and a non-attorneys who have managed to infiltrate the room -- [laughter] i hope there are a few of you. thank you for the wonderful introduction. he and i were law school classmates, it seems like a couple of years ago. he was one of the stars of our law school class. it would not have surprised many of his classmates to learn, had they been able to foresee this fact, that today he surely would be one of the real stars of the federal judiciary. i want to thank him for the great introduction and all of you for the warm welcome. and i want to thank the bar association for all of the courtesies that had been extended to me. it is a great pleasure for me to be here and have this opportunity to talk to you this afternoon for many reasons. among other things, i welcome this opportunity to congratulate your bar associat

fork cases where the person has two prior convictions, they would go to the california supreme court for further review, and four justices on the california supreme court would need to approve the governor's action in that case. the california supreme court spends over 1/3 of their time working on death penalty cases, and they are under enormous pressure financially. the entire judicial system is. while we do not know what the supreme court would do, it would certainly be a huge relief to them to have these death penalty cases go away. after the death sentences had been converted to life without parole, it would be a question of reclassifying the inmates and moving them into other high- security prisons across california. then, the question of where they were in the appellate process would have to be addressed by the courts. in fact, both people -- most people on death row are still waiting for attorneys to be appointed, so in most cases, their appeals have not even begun. not most, 45%. they do not have habeas counsel, and many do not even have their first appellate attorney. a lot

also, supreme court of oral arguments. on the weekends, you can see our signature programs including "prime minister's questions" from the british house of commons. you can watch our program anytime at c-span.org. c-span -- washington, your way. created by america's cable companies. >> last month, a group of former nasa space shuttle commanders share their experience and a national symposium hosted by the space foundation. this is one hour. >> because we want to give each commander as much time as possible, i will keep the introductions brief. there are more detailed bios in your brief right there. the leadoff commander earned his astronaut wings in the x-15 rocket powered research craft, flying to a maximum altitude of 280,600 feet. in 1977, he flew pioneering approach and landing tests in the and powered spatial prototype at edwards air force base. he later commanded to orbital missions aboard columbia and discovery. representing the flight test vehicle enterprise is the retired air force major general, joe engell. with

now still to come tonight we have my own flood or supreme court issues a limitation when it comes to the use of state secrets but will this limitation really change the questionable buddy buddy relationship between the supreme court and the government and then stick around for happy hour after each other who predicted the rapture is that still going to happen and should we could he be declared a world heritage site by the u.s. parties lauren lyster and risking her as our join me for some time in just a minute. we. heard. we haven't got the. ready for freedom. hey guys welcome to shellings tell me alone a show we've heard are just shocked to say on the topic now i want to hear audio just go on to you tube video response i want to twitter first thought of the question the police host on you tube every monday and on thursday the show is gone the sponsors leave your voice. for. fun to. get up sometimes to see a story and it seems so poorly you think you understand it and then you've lived something else and you hear or see some other part of it and realize that everything is ok if you do

as of yesterday the supreme court decided it was ok for cops to bust down your door if they are toilet flushing if they claim it is on the grounds that they suspect you may be destroying evidence specifically drugs our legal system is now a complete failure in other news the attorney general of the united states is completely delusional and we have the exclusive footage to prove it we'll get reaction from two members of law enforcement against prohibition executive director neil franklin foer d e analyst on down again so far molyneux our friends in the north joins us to get an understanding of what's behind this decision to make a fourth amendment to the constitution of the united states of america effectively are relevant and in times like these you can be glad you're watching the adam vs the man. in an eight to one decision yesterday the supreme court of the united states decided that law enforcement officers had the legal right to kick down your door. if they suspect that you are destroying evidence in almost every case in which this is been relevant specifically drugs standards of

now still to come tonight we have my eye on flood violence or supreme court issues a limitation when it comes to the use of state secrets but will this limitation really change the questionable buddy buddy relationship between the supreme court and the government and then stick around for happy hour preacher who predicted the rapture he says it's still going to happen and should work if he'd be declared a world heritage site by the u.s. artie's laura lister and christine for his hour join me for some time in just a moment. we. will. show you. the freedom. hey guys welcome to shell and tell the obama show we part of our just stop to say on the topic now i want to hear audio just go out you tube the video response or the twitter profile of the questions that we post on you tube every monday and on the first day of the show going responses. fun fun fun. fun. you know how sometimes you see a story and it seems so poorly pleat you think you understand it and then he lives something else and you hear see some other part of it and realize everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm s

so briefly -- it's always fun to talk about the supreme court, it's the supreme court. they decide 80 cases a year, of cour, appeals decide about 45,000 to 50,000. in the lower courts, the federal courts, the state courts even more than that. a lot of the action is happening a little bit below the radar. one of the areas where i think there is an increasing amount of litigation is over access to public benefits. the famously restricted the eligibility of many legal immigrants for all sorts of federal, state, and cooperative federal state benefits programs. there was some litigation over state restrictions and federal restrictions, but not the tide of lawsuits that were expected, largely, i think, because states declined the federal invitation to substantially restrict. unfortunately, i think, under the current economic times, which are especially challenging at the state and local levels where there's no borrowing, there's balanced budget requirements, and there's, of course, tremendous economic pressure -- the -- we're seeing more state restrictions now than we didn't

>> well, we have a 1944 supreme court case followed bit 1945 act which says -- >> health care? >> health insurance would be later than insurance in general. >> you have health insurance, i'm talking about health care. there is an enormous amount of involvement by the federal government in health care. >> there is certainly involvement in the health care industry and so forth. this act says that congress will primarily allow states to regulate and license insurance and defer to the states. that's what we have done since 1945. >> it is congress' determination, you recognize that there is a supreme court case that congress under the commerce clause has the authority to regulate insurance. you don't challenge that, do you? congress doesn't have the authority to regulate commerce? >> not in interstate there are other commerce related insurance. certainly not. i don't challenge that. going back to the points in comstock -- >> congress does have the authority to regulate health insurance, does it not? >> it has the authority to regulate those who participate in health insurance. comst

board of education was decided by a unanimous supreme court in 1954, the supreme court of the united states has recognized the legitimacy of state action to desegregate schools. in fact, the supreme court upheld the use of race as one factor in admissions decisions in the 2003 case gruder v. ballinger. although some -- some -- on the far right of the supreme court have argued that both brown and gruder should be disregarded to the extent they recognize the permissibility of efforts to achieve diversity in public institutions, it is, i would argue, those justices out of step with the mainstream of federal jurisprudence and of the constitutional tradition of this country. even in its most recent case on point, the 2007 supreme court decision, parents involved v. seattle school district, which struck down a specific desegregation program, five of the nine justices that made up the majority opinion agreed with liu that achieving diversity remains a compelling governmental interest. the notion that somehow professor liu is an ideologue on these issues is belied by his actual record. as a

when justice stevens step down from the supreme court, he expressed his opposition. he said this process has made the death penalty fundamentally unfair. >> i will let you answer these in order. can you share any sense that you have a death sentence -- that the death sentence inmates were for themselves as human beings? and how could you bear to preside over an execution and how would you handle this? please describe a situation where you would bring so many charges against a prosecutor for job-related conduct? >> as you have both said, this is determined before the execution takes place, this goes from 10 and on up. one of the strangest things that happen to me when i was first sent to death row in was that they were getting ready to execute a guy. and during this course of the execution, they prayed for the victim and their families. this was shocking to me. i am innocent. but everyone here, they will pray. death row in louisiana, you cannot see outside -- you can see outside, and you can see the front gates of the prison, so on execution nights, you can see the pe

ultimately, if the matter goes that far, the california supreme court. the way i approach these matters is that i always tried to put myself in the position of the people who will be most directly impacted by the project. i think about my parents and the kind of protections i would like to see for them if they lived in the parkmerced community. as good as the protections are, they are simply not good enough. good enough is what we are looking for here. i know that some have compared this deal to the trinity plaza agreement that was previously approved by the board. to the extent that there are similarities between the two, i do not know that i would have supported trinity plaza, given the case law that is currently before us. trinity plaza was decided before 2009, before a number of cases raised the question about the enforceability of these kinds of agreements. for that reason, notwithstanding the efforts of both sides, i will not be supporting this matter. [applause] again, i want to thank both sides for their efforts. i do want to agree with most of w

board of education was decided by a unanimous supreme court in 1954, the supreme court of the united states has recognized the legitimacy of state action to desegregate schools. in fact, the supreme court upheld the use of race as one factor in admissions decisions in the 2003 case gruder v. ballinger. although some -- some -- on the far right of the supreme court have argued that both brown and gruder should be disregarded to the extent they recognize the permissibility of efforts to achieve diversity in public institutions, it is, i would argue, those justices out of step with the mainstream of federal jurisprudence and of the constitutional tradition of this country. even in its most recent case on point, the 2007 supreme court decision, parents involved v. seattle school district, which struck down a specific desegregation program, five of the nine justices that made up the majority opinion agreed with liu that achieving diversity remains a compelling governmental interest. the notion that somehow professor liu is an ideologue on these issues is belied by his actual record. as a

involves five men who alleges the cia had them shipped to foreign countries to be tortured by the supreme court refusing to hear that case they want a federal appeals court ruling stamped that the president has the power to scuttle the men's lawsuit all because of the secrets so basically the justice docked on a very high profile case all because it was. controversial and of course don't even get me started on the story that we talked about last night where the way that they ripped apart the fourth amendment or now the supreme court has given a free rein to police to bust down your door without a warrant so just maybe clarence thomas that's why people are criticizing you in the supreme court how about you follow the law you stand up for the basic rights of everyone you stop pushing your political agenda while wearing a judge's rope calling you out for dismantling the constitution and our civil liberties does not make anybody illiterate or lazy i just think that's the way you'd prefer them to be so they wouldn't take notice of your dangerous rulings but too bad for you we do notice so expe

your door without a warrant just maybe clarence thomas that's why people are criticizing you in the supreme court how about you follow the law you stand up for the basic rights of everyone you stop pushing your political agenda while wearing a judge's rope calling you out for dismantling the constitution and our civil liberties does not make anybody illiterate or lazy i just think that's the way you prefer them to be so they wouldn't take notice of your dangerous rulings but too bad for you we do know is so expect the criticisms to keep on coming. all right it's time for happy hour this evening and joining me tonight is archie producer jenny churchill and for the first time r.t. correspondent christine fares out hello ladies you to join me tonight we talk a lot about videogames on the shell obviously and there's always a video game that causes a stir but this one is actually kind of crazy was commissioned by the chinese army and unlike most video games where you can just shoot at random guys and in uniforms that you can't tell where they're from this time they're actually shooting at men in

right you have army administration announced the supreme court's look at this last month and so it will be up to the supreme court whether or not they'll tweak it i suspect they will because this is becoming a contentious issue and as you said there's a patchwork of moving some around the country so that in some states they can use it without a warrant in some states they can't and i really think that the court's going to want to have some kind of final settlement and i'm curious quickly to the obama administration the justice department what's their legal reasoning as to why they don't need a warrant why this isn't an invasion of our privacy. what they did they couldn't since it's similar to this surveillance they don't think that it's any different police officers handling a suspect in a car they don't see that it's a privacy violation in that sense and you don't you know warrant for an officer to tail. i want to tell since that so that's the way that they do it. came i want to thank you very much for joining us today and well i'm with you and hoping that the supreme court does take t

big picture this steam is running out on board the republican crazy train i'll tell you which state supreme courts are firing back against the republican governors by shooting down the radical agenda as congress extent of the patriot act just in the nick of time tonight but there was one man who gave it its all the protect our constitution rand paul even a broken clock is right twice a day and the lone star state is putting their boot down against intrusive act details behind a bill that could jail t.s.a. screeners. you need to know this the backlash against union busting republicans is in full swing today a federal judge in wisconsin struck down scott walker's anti-union bill was passed in the dead of night with little notice of the public a judge ruled that the way the bill was asked violated the state's open meeting laws by not giving the proper twenty four hour notice for the public to review that bill in her ruling judge marion so he wrote the court must consider the potential damage to public trust and confidence in government if the legislature is not held to the same rules of transp

those in the supreme court made clear it was now going to change to accommodate a new government. they complained, quote, so-called public law courses are organized with too much difference to separation of power, jurisdiction, due process leaders will interstate commerce, etc.. schools should recognize private inheritance would be kept to a minimum in the new society. local government law should realize what lawyers need to be trained in new forms of regional development had howard has been set up and on and on. law schools interested -- the mission of systematic training for policymaking. part of the ingenuity was schools would train you how to be a private lawyer that whole segment of society would stop being so important and it was so terrible and it was terrible on a number of levels but let me stress how terrible it was at prediction because even a policy lawyer and the alone amy street lawyer, the last thing you would want to do was substitute tennessee valley authority organization approval. if you turn to public law every single one of these concepts turned out to be vita

circuit and supreme courtsburg. justice ruth bader ginsburg.ksh, after finishing his second clerkship, c the one with the supreme court, he worked for years at the law firm ofs o'melveny and myers inth washington and then he joined the faculty at the university of california burke we law school. he has won numerous awards forsc his teaching and academic scholarship including the highest teachingrss awards givet the law school.nt so what is the point of thiswe debate? we know he is well-qualified. we know there is a judicialill s emergency that requires us to fill the seat and we should have done it a long w time ago, and when you look at his resume, it would put every lawyer including myself, to shame when youn consider all he has done leading up to this moment in his career. it turns out those who oppose him don't oppose his qualifications. they think that he has the wront philosophy, the wrong values.hio they criticize him for a handful of statements he made while he served as a professor.tinghe isn't it interesti

captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> brown: the supreme court ruled today that arizona can penalize businesses that hire workers in the country illegally. good evening. i'm jeffrey brown. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. on the "newshour" tonight, marcia coyle walks us through the five to three decision and what it means for the larger state-federal battle over immigration policy. >> brown: then, margaret warner has the latest on the arrest of fugitive bosnian serb general ccused of the worst war crimes in europe since world war two. >> woodruff: health correspondent betty ann bowser reports on the growing role of nurse practitioners as primary caregivers. >> in just a few years, 32 million americans who currently have no health insurance are going to be able to buy coverage. and the question is, who's going to take care of them? >> brown: we look at the case of arizona shooting suspect jared loughner, after a federal judge ruled him mentally incompetent to stand trial. >> woodruff: and, we continue our collaboration with "the economist" magazine to highlight the art

republican lawmakers are calling the supreme court decision a travesty, devastating and shameful. they claim early releasing -- releasing prisoners early will make communities here more dangerous and will increase crime in the states. >> people need to be outraged about this. i think our first response is, should be no. we're not going to do this. you know? if the supreme court wants to do this, then, you know, justice kennedy, you bring your keys down here and unlock that gate and you choose which ones you want to live next to your friends and neighbors. >> others argue you're the court's decision may give governor brown more leverage for his government realignment plan which calls for the transportation for of low level offenders to county jails. >>> this is an interesting story, from sewer to salvage, 72 years after a bay area man lost his class ring it's back on his finger tonight. the incredible story of how the keepsake was returned to its owner. >> reporter: in 1938, about the same time jesse maddows bought this yearbook, the class president made another important purchase.

caller: i had agreed with the supreme court decision.hose are good pictures compared to the working condition i were dead. but as i worked at. that three strikes law is the main reason we are in this situation $30,000 a year per prisoner? we cannot afford it. if that is my opinion. host: what about not letting them go free, but allowing them to go to local jail facilities, etc.? caller: lost -- los angeles county, orange county, they are just as bad. the main thing is that three strikes rule. you get guys that it picked up for stealing a bag of chips. they are angry, they are ready to hurt somebody. it is a ridiculous idea. i disagree with that, period. host: here is the "wall street journal" opinion. there decreeing how the political branches of government must be run. we will gutted john in california, san diego, a republican. caller: up to 40% of the inmate population are illegal aliens. as long as the border is unsecured, we will have a nonstop flow of potential inmates. why don't we let them all gone and ship them back to the run co