we have had cameras in the supreme court proceedings. i can cite no instance, the example where in any way the decision making of the court has been altered by the presence of cameras during an oral argument where i've thought twice about asking the question in the sensitive case to follow closely by the public. >> there were times they had the courtroom that i thought twice about -- >> you know the work that you are doing is being examined more carefully by more people. >> that's the thing here when we are already doing all the every - friday or a few days after the hearing. it's just really one step away come in yet it would make it so much more accessible for so many people. how about some restrictions. do you have limitations like we have in the durban grassley bill the would say the majority of the justices could decide the due process reasons that would not be filmed? >> we do have restrictions and we were very concerned about those restrictions when we first implemented the cameras in our court room. but it is as if the restriction

supreme court judge. rs hector to this committee where he has spent many, many hours. i will introduce the panel after the members make their opening statements. today we will be discussing the proceedings of the united states supreme court in a bipartisan bill that will televise the proceedings. there have been hearings and proposals in the past on televising all levels of the federal court. although i have supported those proposals i do recognize as a former prosecutor that there are more complicated factors when you're dealing with charles and the lower courts and that there should be discretion in those matters. my focus today, our focus today will be on the supreme court, and i would like to begin with a quote from the court itself. in the richmond is the provision, which upheld the public right of access to the courts under the first amendment , availability of a trial transcript is no substitute for a public presence at the trial itself. as any experienced appellate judge kenneth test the call recor

second, over time, the supreme court has become more accessible. it has embraced the internet to enhance access to its work. lawyers briefs, court's opinions, transcripts of oral argument, audio recordings of oral arguments are all available on the court's website free of charge. its opinions are online as soon as the decision is announced. third, each of our three branches of government is responsible for its own deliberations and self- governance. the separation of powers underscores the considerable latitude that should be afforded each branch in determining its own internal procedures. deciding whether to televise oral arguments at the supreme court goes to the heart of how the court deliberates and conducts its proceedings. those of us outside the court all have individual and institutional interests in the decision, but we do not have the responsibility to decide these difficult cases of national importance. the justices do. they are the ones most familiar with the operation of the court. they understand the dynamics and nuances of supreme cou

actually the legislative branch has the power to regulate the supreme court it reads the supreme court chill have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact with such exceptions and under such regulations as congress shall make period end of sentence no where in the constitution can you find the power given to the supreme court to strike down laws or to create a whole quasi bizarre legislative doctrines like the idea of corporate personhood no where and not only that the supreme court has to operate under such regulations as congress shall make at least according to the constitution. so the point is newt gingrich's campaign will likely flame out in fact it's already flame you know but let's not let his message about the too powerful judiciary flame out as well because the nine kings on the high court many of whom have ties to the federalist society and are in the pockets of corporate power are the biggest threat to our democracy today the last president who tried to use article three section two of the constitution which gives congress the explicit power to regulate the supre

but he made no move against the supreme court. he did issue the most famous executive order in history the emancipation proclamation directly challenging the court. the justices did not overturn lincoln and they could have. newt gingrich is correct when he says that federal judges must be held accountable. it can't be lebleg lated the. the court of public parkway. intelligent legal challenges to rulings and expertly written laws can all blunt judicial craziness. but stuff like roe v. wade is the price we pay for checks and balances in a raucous democracy. that's the memo. reaction first up conservative pundit ann coulter who is an attorney. the perception of newt gingrich is that he is impeerist. if he ever get the power of the presidency he would run rough shot over a lot of different things. i think that reinforces that perception i think that it's he makes these wild overstatements for good causes you you a you say. some enraged i doesn't make the right point. bombastic, he opens conservatives to ridicule and nothing ever gets d

>> yes, the supreme court has separation u

next year, the supreme court is going to take up obama's health care proposal. what if they throw it out? can president obama then say, "i'm sorry, boys, i'm just going to go ahead and implement it." could he do that? >> the key question is what would the congress then do? because there are three branches. >> schieffer: could he do that? >> he could try to do that and the congress would then cut him off. here's the key. it's always two out of three. if the president and the congress say the court is wrong, in the end, the court would lose. if the congress and the court say the president is wrong, in the end, the president would lose. in the president and the court agree, the congress loses. the founding fathers designed the constitution very specifically to have a balance of power, not to have a dictatorship where any one of the three branches. >> schieffer: let me just tell you what several people have said about this. when the "des moines register" announced it was supporting mitt romney, one of the reasons was because he does not pander to extremes with attac

at the united states supreme court on the other hand the reaction was somewhat more measured. under benson's court had been badly divided over brown versus board of education the justices worst duck over how to proceed. so divided for a day of what to do next that felix frankfurter devised a stall. he succeeded in putting the case over to the next term by asking the lawyers to respond with a series of queries from the court. when benson died in september of 1953 frankfurter remarked of the first solid evidence he received of the -- of god. he was and acerbic guy. so benson's death created eisenhower's first vacancy on the court but eisenhower had not contemplated making foreign chief justice. he contemplated giving them the first vacancy for associate justiceship so he did not immediately tender the nomination the warren believed was rightfully promised to him. in fact ike send it out john foster dulles about his interest in the post but dole so just been named secretary of state and hadn't aspire to become secretary of state declined. after some fencing row now eventually pers

the obama administration was begging the supreme court to resolve the uncertainty. e court had little choice but to take the case. the fact that two conservative federal judges, very respected conservatives, have upheld the health care law recently, makes some people optimistic or at least cautiously optimistic that perhaps the supreme court will, in fact, uphold the individual mandate. >> i want to go back for a moment to this tenth amendment point. because the commerce clause sounds like it's about something sort of boring and dry. and yet it seems like it's at the core of so many of our basic civil rights and other issues. can you once again just sort of help the viewers to understand why this clause is so critical? >> absolutely. it's not boring at all. it has to do with the basic contours of congressional power. does congress have the power to regulate the economy? to regulate guns and schools, as you said? and in this case, to pass the individual health care mandate. ever since the new deal period, the supreme court has said if something has even a small impact

supreme court. they represent the president's most lasting legacy. in 2005 i invited john roberts to my office. i had been attorney general for just a few months. the judge and i sat down alone in my office. bush had been reelected a few months earlier. we anticipated, finally, after four years in office, the president would give the opportunity to appoint people to the u.s. supreme court. judge roberts was on our so- called short less, developed after multiple conversations. as he was recommended in 2001, much like i had recommended that judge crier, before i could be comfortable recommending his lifetime appointment, i wanted to question him on his ideology and philosophy. we talked for about an hour. and when it would be appropriate for a judge to override president. how the personal views of judge should play a role in the judging. and how he would interpret a constitutional power between three branches. we debated how judge could give the latest in a history of signing statements and if it was

i think the supreme court is often an election issue. the balance of power on the court is almost always at stake in a president shl election a new president or a continuing president usually has the chance to appoint somebody. so there's that. but i do think you have to go all the way back to 1936 when franklin roosevelt was facing his first re-election fight to find a supreme court docket in an election year that was as packed with political dynamite as this one. >> ifill: marcia, in order for something to get to the court, there has to be disagreement in the lower courts. in the case of the redistricting case in texas, how did it end up coming to the court? >> the redistricting case is very complicated procedureally because it's playing out right now in three different courts. it came to the supreme court because the state of texas challenged a federal court in san antonio texas which had drafted what is known as an interim redistricting plan. the texas legislature drafted a redistricting plan after the 2010 census. texas is what is kn

him as the president of the supreme court. and basically when he took his vows to be president, he chose another judge instead, even though in history it has always been that of the supreme court who does this. there is no love lost and there is another escalation between these different sides of government. >> how much of a gamble is this? putting the executives against the judiciary? >> this is a large gamble. this is the first time that of the supreme court has been impeached. the president is very popular. a recent opinion poll says over 70% of people in the philippines support him. over half of the members of house of representatives voted for the impeachment. he does have a lot of support. but there is no precedent for this and we have to see what happens. it was hard enough getting thousands of troops into afghanistan, but it may be more difficult getting them out of the land-locked country. this is made even more difficult by the recent pakistan blockade, which will not be lifted for weeks. this air base has been used

the supreme court basically threw out these laws and in doing so it cited opinions by among a european court of human rights in strauss burg, and the people arguing this case it is been a tradition of the united states to pay a decent respect to the opinions of others. >> who is the chief justice in massachusetts >> it was margaret marshamarsha. >> originally from south africa >> an antiapartheid been marrieo the former new york city tony lewis. >> not only the echo and the language of the courts ruling didn't she a peel separation of the human rights she. >> she talked about canada. >> the appeals of some canada ontario. >> yes. so you feel that willy-nilly -- and it's going to seep into our institutions. i think what he's saying steven into our institutions notably the supreme court the massachusetts and even the supreme court itself on the reversal on sodomy. >> absolutely. i don't think it's willy-nilly. i think activists at the yale university law school who're very consciously doing this. they are tied to activists in europe, and they are developing this whole body of law that th

you critized president obama's appointment to the supreme court. here it is. >> guest: inarguably activist judges. whether it was. -- not -- not amayer. >> sonia sotomayor. >> guest: sotomayor. >> chris: and then you said eight judges on the court. as you know there are nine. how do you repond to those who say i like rick perry and his values but does he know enough to be president of the united states. >> guest: i know there are nine justices. i haven't memorized all of the supreme court judges . here's what i do know. when i put an individual on the supreme court just like i have done in texas. we have nine supreme court justices in texas. they are constructionist and not activist. they are not looking for a robot that can spit out the name of every supreme court justice. and someone that is going to be perfect in every way. they are looking for someone that has values and are based with a deep rudder in the water. i am consistent in my conservative values and i have been consistent and americans are looking for someone who will make the right dec

supreme court. ll, after some years when i went abroad i was often asked, we look at decisions of your court. of course to see what you think about this hard question. and yet you never refer to our decisions. don't you think we have something to contribute to this? is into national conversation about fundamental human rights. we have engaged in this activity . if we don't listen to others, if we pay no attention to what they're doing, we won't be listening -- listened to. i think nowadays it may mean that candidates -- canada's supreme court decided in four decisions more frequently than decisions of the united states supreme court. why? because if you pick up the sessions of that court you will find that they refer to decisions of other courts. we don't very often. there are notable exceptions in the -- what was the case? the case that fund conventual same-sex relations cannot be made. lawrence. >> justice kennedy cited a leading decision of the european court of human rights from 1981. and in seve

the reaction on the supreme court was measured. the court was badly divided over brown versus board of education, and the justices were stuck. so divided and unsure of what to do next, that felix frankfurtherer deviced a stall by putting the case to the next term by asking the lawyers to respond to a series of questions from the court. when benson died in 1953, it was remarked it's the first solid evidence they received of the existence of god. he was an observant guy. eisenhower had not contemplated making him chief justice, but getting him the first justice. he did not tender the seat rightfully promised to him. dulles was just named secretary of state and aspired to be secretary of state and declined. after fencing, they persuaded ike they should deliver on the promised name nation and announced the appoint on september 30th of 1953. congress was in recess at the time and warren resigned the governorship on a friday and was at the supreme court the following week. he took his seat as a justice designate, one other interesting thi

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

this is before the supreme court. and how do you believe the president and his campaign will play this at this point? >> well, i think there's a couple of die flamices. colorado was the only state to turn back an i tempt to recall or cut back in part to the affordable care. colorado voters have already said that the affordable care act is something they support. you know, so -- moving forward the inning thing, too, about the supreme court case is you have republicans challenging a republican idea. i mean, the individual mandate they are challenging was actually republican proposal. so there -- >> the republican adds in the man who is running for president, mitt romney. >> yeah. right. exactly. it is i-ing their fill s-- they philosophically all over the place. as far as immigration decision concerned in a state like colorado where you have a substantial latino base and frankly, that's where the growth of the voting population is, you know, republicans, you know -- may be helping themselves in the primary but when it g

supreme court certainly gets the prize. first they agree to healthcare fight and hours ago there is more big news. supreme court and announcing they will not decide the arizona illegal immigration law dispute. it puts arizona against obama administration. jan brewer will be here to go on the record. and rush limbaugh and donald trump are a winning ticket. what are they teaming up for? rush tells you himself. stay tuned. this was the gulf's best tourism season in years. all because so many people came to louisiana... they came to see us in florida... make that alabama... make that miissippi. the best part of the gulf is wherever you choose... and now is a great time to discover it. this year millions of people did. we set all kinds of records. next year we're out to do even better. so come on down to louisiana... florida... alabama... mississippi. we can't wait to see you. brought to you by bp and all of us who call the gulf home. so i used my citi thank you card to pick up some accessories. a new belt. some nylons. and what

the show that is waiting for the supreme court to hear its case on early morning labor laws or senior abuse. they exist, right? they should. i'm glad you're up with us this morning watching on msnbc or listening live on sirius xm radio. shoot us an e-mail at waytooearly@msnbc.com or tweet us@williegeist 1. or text the word awake followed by your response to 622639. we're going to read the best responses later in the show. the next 30 minutes will be your cram session for this tuesday, december 13th. there's a lot going on today, including an attempt by the global markets to rebound following a downgrade warning from the eu from the credit agency moods. >>> plus, a brawl breaks out during a youth hockey league postgame handshake. i guess this is how they do things in kazakhstan. we'll have the full clip later in the show. >>> first to the news live at 5:30 a.m. here at 30 rock in new york city. it's not just the recent polling that suggests mitt romney is no longer the top man to beat in the republican race. the candidate himself is now admitting as much. weeks ago, romney's campaign h

what to be a better source of the workings of the supreme court ban the supreme court itself? the supreme court stated what transpires americorps room is public property. if it is public property then it belongs to the whole public not just the 200 people who can fit inside. with today's technology no reason why it arguments could not be broadcast to be unobtrusive and a respect of manner reserving the dignity of the supreme court's work to grant access to millions of americans wishing to no more. in my state, iowa, over 30 years and has permitted the broadcast of the trout the appellate courts and i am pleased to about our supreme court chief justice mr. cady today and has come to share with this committee presiding over the court a strong proponent of transparency and continues to pioneer the way to give the public greater access. three things to be included in the record first is a letter i wrote to chief justice roberts asking for the health care law case to be televised per car would like to put that in the record. the second in third is the editorial opinions one written

public policy through our government that actually serves the people of this country given the supreme court and citizens united and the first national bank versus bloddy and buckley versus valeo and all the way back to santa clara i mean we can take it back to marbury vs madison if you want that that the supreme court has repeatedly ruled that they have the right to make these rulings and that corporations are people and money is speech. how can any party no matter how noble it's beginning. insulate itself from the attack of the assault by big money i mean let's say you start this party and let's say that a lot of people get involved a lot of people get really enthusiastic and then you know income the billionaires or income karl rove in comes karl rove or in comes a you know a saudi corporation that decides if they like you or don't like you how do you know how do you how do you prevent that and still win an election in the past money has called the shots we know that has been imposed on us has overcome that doesn't we've seen in the last few years governments overthrown because of the powe

you criticized president obama about's appointments to the supreme court. here it is. >> inarguablably activist judgs whether it was -- not to -- not mayor. >> sonia sotomayor. >> sotomayor. >> and then you said that there are 8 judges on the court as you know there are nine. how do you respond to those who say you know, i like rick perry, i like his values but i worry does he know enough to be president of the united states? >> well, obviously i know there are nine supreme court justice is. i don't know how eight came out of my mouth. the fact is i can't tell you i don't have memorized all of the supreme court judges. here is what i do know that when i put an individual on the supreme court just like i did in texas, they will be strict constructionists. americans are not looking for robot that can spitcan spit out the name of every supreme court justice or someone perfect in every way. hell of a competitor are they are looking for someone who has values based with a deep rudder in the water. i'm consistent in my conservative values. i have been consistent a

let's hear how she weighed in on judges. >> the problem is the supreme court or other members of the court have vast decisions that are not in conformity with the constitution. it is important that the people have their representatives be able to pass laws as the president would sign. what is wrong is when judges make laws in conformity with their own opinions. host: michele bachmann on "meet the press." guest: be perfect storm -- the perfect storm. we have a presidential campaign or people seem to have a race to the bottom of who can devour more parts of the constitution. they seem to be running against the constitution. james madison is like elvis to me. none of these people are james madison. the necessity of an independent judiciary for a country like ours has proven itself over and over again. i would encourage people to think about where we would be if we did not have an independent judiciary. we all as citizens share a certain covenants of faith. this is a covenant of faith. we may disagree with each other or hate each other, but it is 8 leap of faith -- it is a leap of faith.

you criticized president obama's appointments to the supreme court. here it is. >> arguably activist judges, whether it was -- society not mayor -- sotomayor. >> you said there are 8 judges on the court as you know there are 9. how do you respond to those who say i like rick perry, i like his values but i worry does he know enough to be president of the united states. >> well obviously i know there are nine supreme court judges i don't know how 8 came out of my mouth. the fact is i can't tell you. i haven't memorized all of the su supreme court judges. when i put an individual on the supreme court, just like i have done in texas. we have 9 supreme court judges they will be strict not activist judges. that's what americans talk about. they are not looking for a robot that can spit out the name of every supreme court justice that someone is going to be perfect in every way. they are looking for somebody who has values that are based with a deep rutter in the water. i am consistent in my conservative values. i have been consistent and americans are lookin