the supreme court of the united states today has no protestants on the supreme court. isn't that interesting? we basically have catholics and jews. >> i have been very worried about that, i will tell you. [laughter] >> i mentioned it because i thought it was keeping you up at night. the fact is that i have no doubts that they each will do what they said in their nomination, which is they would apply the law, and what justice roberts said is really probably a similar statement. judges are supposed to call balls and strikes. that does not mean that they don't understand -- as a matter of fact, why do you have a diverse jury? the appellate court is just another type of jury, right? the supreme court is a very different kind of jury because the supreme court, and having only had one case before them, i learned very quickly that president -- precedent is not as important as the justices, who will decide what the law is. they will change what the lot is if they get a majority of their sisters and brothers to go along with it. to have a jury made up of diverse cultural views

with, this however, the court assumed that there was robust transparency that would also act as a mechanism. two months after citizens united was decided, the d.c. court of appeals speech now and i promise i'm getting to the point. here the big question was decided. i'm a political action committee. i only want to spend money on independent expenditures. i'm not going to coordinate under the campaign rules with any particular candidate. therefore, it is unconstitutional for the government to still restrict the money coming into my organization. there's absolutely no answer -- so the argument goes, there's no anti-corruption benefit to restrict the money coming in if the money coming out is per se noncorrupting. the court agreed and tossed the limits on contributions to these types of pacs aside. and so from this decision the fcc created a new category of entity and it's a mouthful and i believe it was recoined here by our friend here as the super pac. >> i know why i came up with that term. >> the other name was so catchy. so let us move on to our other panelists. but from that creation story as it is, i just want to unders

states -- the united states domestic courts and domestic law is very quickly applied. i can't foresee -- imagine any circumstances in which the united states -- the united states would have to be hold for the international criminal court. it's the rule of law here. >> i don't think anyone here should forget the last three years in the time that this administration has been in place, the administration has shifted its position from -- the united states position toward the international criminal court from one of hostility to engage participation. the united states has attended every meeting the assembly and the states party to america. the u.s. government has made pledges in support. the united states has supported first at the end of the bush administration the referral of the sudan case and then the referral of the libya cases. at the moment the united states is supporting and cooperating with the court on every case that's ongoing, kenya, congo, central africa and the republic. and sudan and that on these issues -- and david can attest to this, the view is that the un

the administration has shifted its position from the united states position toward international criminal court from one to hostility to engage participation. the united states has attended every meeting of the assembly of states parties. the u.s. government has made pledges in support. the united states has supported first at the end of the bush administration the referral of the sudan case and the unanimous referral of the and is cooperating with the court on every case that's ongoing. kenya, congo, central africa and the republic and sudan and on these issues and david can attest to this, the view is that the united states is very much a part of the process. now, it may take us a while for us to become a party. it took us a while to become a party to the international court of justice and other international institutions. but i don't think anyone should kid themselves that the atmosphere between the united states and the court at the moment bears any resemblance to where it was back in 2003/2004. the mood is very fundamentally changed. i have colleagues here from the state department -- when

it wasn't until 1972 with the landmark supreme court decision issued in u.s. v. the united states district court that the supreme court began to restrict the state's power to wire tap without limits. sectly, i think we need to try to find a way to assess american's attitudes. it's always difficult to assess public sentiment about issues at any given time. americans, of course, do not generally know about the nixon administration secret anti-dissent policy until the investigation of the watergate but this tells us something about how americans felt about civil disorder and especially street heat. civil unrest, urban revolt and protests, an overwhelming majority of americans polled in 1970, 76% said they did not support the first amendment right to government policies. blaming the press for sensationalizing protests and this disorder, a majority of those polls polled did not support the freedom of the press. nixon's anti-dissent rhetoric did not seem to offend the americans who elected him by a landslide in 1972 when he earned a greater margin of the popular vote than he had

life fighting the case, he continued to fight for justice, and he brought his case to the united states supreme court. he received a $40 million jury verdict, and in april, the united states supreme court overturned that, even though in this case, there were three prosecutors who have -- who were found to have intentionally withheld evidence that would have exonerated him. plus, and this is a great lesson for all of us, it was a prosecutor who was the hero. he stood up and came forward and told everybody what the other two prosecutors did. when he did that, his efforts were rebuked by the district attorney. as a result, he left his job. it tells you that there are heroes everywhere. people are standing up for justice everywhere. we have to reach everyone everywhere every place in order to solve this problem. we do have a plaque to presented -- present to j.t > as a result of everything he has been through, but more importantly, to help him in the future -- present to j.t. as a result of everything he has been through, but more importantly, for everything he will do in the future. you can support the

so one of the results of the citizens united court decision was to basically free multi-millionaires and billionaires to give large amounts of money. $5 million or $10 million to so-called super pacs which then can run electoral ads designed to either elect somebody or try and defeat someone. in my view, this is one of the worst supreme court decisions that we've ever faced because as we've already seen in election year 2012, the super pacs are running the negative ads in this campaign. just one interesting comparison. when you look at the ads from this campaign run by romney, according to the cantor media firm, only 52% of his own ads have been negative but 91% of the romney super pac ads have been negative. many of the ads that people are objecting to and think are overly harsh or misleading or taking information out of context are these super pacs that essentially were authorized by the supreme court decision. >> not even dealing with presidential races, if you're running for congress, often there are ads on the air from groups that even as a candidate you may not know who they co

it wasn't until 1972 with the landmark supreme court decision issued in u.s. v. united states district court which was the so-called keith decision, that the supreme court began to restrict the state's power to wiretap without limits. secondly, i think that we need to find a way to assess the american public's attitudes about dissent in the late 1960s and early '70s. it's always difficult to assess public sentiment about issues at any given time. americans, of course, did not generally know about the nixon administration's secret anti-dissent policies until the senate investigation of the watergate break-in. but a 1970 public opinion poll conducted by cbs news tells us something about how americans felt about civil disorder and especially street heat. weary of civil unrest, urban revolts, and protests an overwhelming majority of americans polled in 1970, 76%, said they did not support the first amendment right to assemble and protest government policies. blaming the press for sensationalizing protests and fomenting this disorder, a majority of those polled did not suppo

guaranteed to be explosive in american society and moved the conversation up to the level of the united states supreme court where, in fact, it was found against him and second when he could not a sheef what he wanted on the surface. he resorted to suban techniques, most particularly starting a plumber's unit within the white house which was actually the first -- how should i say? the first active move in the colossus of sub trainian forces that acted throughout the watergate period and undermined his own leadership and presidency, ultimately force him to resign. so in a very real sense, you can trace the downfall of mr. nixon and in the context of the leak of the importance of the pentagon baerps, moved as an american political document is not simply an -- of the vietnam war. >> nixon's concern wuasn't abou the papers aside from the emotional response to it, it's that it would undermine his effort. >> that was alexander hagues' argument. >> which nixon expected. this jude an right here, he adopts all thing the the pent acknowledges to write in secret. >> to nixon's anti-dissent policies because nobody look

that's why we're here this week int of the united states supreme court. we feel very confident that tomorrow we will hear another day of argument on the severability, on the medicaid expansion. we felt very comfortable with the questions that were asked and we firmly believe this is unconstitutional, and as the justice said, this would be such an overreach if the federal government can do this, they can force us to do anything. and that's why we're with eveth. i would like to introduce my colleague, attorney ne from soud the next united states senator. >> first of all, i want to say thank you so my colleagues. we have six states, we started with 13 states. many said is this case will never end up in the s defeat this legislation in court. here we stand now and i can tell you, i feel a lot better after witnessing two hours of argument than i felt when we started. all eyes were kennedy. justice kennedy was very, very skeptical of the mandate and the constitutionality of the mandate and that makes me feel better alwt chances. s hard to predict what they're g

ashleigh, i must say that i've covered a lot of supreme court decisions, certainly since bush versus gore, gore versus bush in 2000, maybe citizens united these sums, this is the most important issue before the court right now. there is so much at stake. >> you know, i asked an expert earlier, the author where he puts this in the array of significance, he said take bushes have gore 2000 add watergate, add it up, still bigger. so we have a lot more to come on this story and we also have a rundown of what's going to come up shortly. first let me get to jeffrey toobin who is our chief justice correspondent who has been able to get out of the supreme court hearings, get to a camera position to talk to us. he's live on the steps of the supreme court building. you can hear me? if you can, go to it. >> i hear you fine. >> tell me everything. >> this was a train wreck for the obama administration. this law looks like it's going to be struck down. i'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong. justice kennedy, the swing vote, was enormously skeptical. justice alito, jus

the court was so unified yesterday on the issue of the procedure that now is the time to decide the case. most importantly i mean the most important fact about the liberals on the unitedpreme court is there are four of them, not five. it takes five of them to decide, takes five justices to win a case. if the four liberals got up on friday morning the day they have the conference to discuss the case and say by the way, we now agree the case should be put off it's still only four votes. so i mean, i appreciate your fiendish imagination, ashleigh, but i don't think that's going to play out that way. >> i never heard it called fiendish. i heard it call clever or calculating. thank you for that. we've got a lot more questions to ask you. i am going to get back to you on that health care exchange and the public option. first a quick break. i get it...guys weekend. yeah! if you're looking for a place to get together, you came to the right place. because here at hotels.com, we're only about hotels. yeah! yeah! noooo. yeah! finding you the perfect place is all we do. welcome to hotels.com >>> the most controversial part of the health care reform law is front and center at the

a great privilege to be able to present our case to the united states supreme court, obviously. a great privilege to argue and share the podium with the solicitor general of the united states, who did a terrific job. so this is all been something where we really feel like this is a process that started back in florida at the very beginning when this law was passed. it was challenged. we worked our way through the 11th circuit. the idea all along to get the opportunity to present our case to the supreme court of the united states, we've now had that opportunity. we're delighted to have had the opportunity and, of course, now, the case is under submission to the supreme court. >> any idea how justices -- >> all we have to go on is the questions that asked today. at the hearing at the morning and afternoon and yesterday, you can tell from the questions as in every other case, i never argued, the justices are focused on the case, asking hard questions of both sides. i would never get in the business of being a prognosticator. i think the one thing pretty secure is that the justices a

a small number of united states citizens who have decided to commit violent attacks against their own country from abroad. based on generations-old legal principles and supreme court decisions handed down during world war ii as well as during this current conflict, it's clear that united states citizenship alone does not make -- does not make -- such individuals immune from being targeted. what it does mean is the government must take into account all relevant constitutional considerations with respect to united states citizens, even those who are leading efforts to kill innocent americans. and of these, the americans. of these the most relevant is the fifth amendment's due process clause which say that is the government may not deprive a citizen of his or her life without due process of law. the supreme court has made clear that the due process clause does not impose one size fits all requirement, but instead mandates procedural safeguards that depend on specific circumstances. in cases under a due process law including the case of a u.s. citizen captured in the conflict against al qaeda, the court applied a balancing approach, weighing the private interest that

a modern day united states supreme court, they give you an hour of oral argument. we have been begin six hours over three days. >> this is the first time in 50 years that the high court is allotting oral arguments over three days and six hours; did that surprise you that the cower was open to the scrutiny? >> it confirmed for us that the court sees that it is a case of great national experience it is one of the biggest cases of our lifetime. >> so, are you optmistic with your expectations high before the oral arguments begin? >> we firmly believe we are positive and believe it is unconstitutional. and the first day is going to be the antiinjunction act as to whether or not it is a tax and whether we can proceed. we are confident we will prevail. day two is the man date that is important to our constitution and rights and states. and on day three, we'll argue the severability issue. whether or not the entire act rises or falls if the man date is unconstitutional. it is so intertwined that without the man date they have to go back to the drawing board and we'll argue

they are inscribed over the supreme court of the united states. "equal justice under law." it doesn't say "equal justice for the rich and powerful and privileged." equal justice. "under lock" the meet -- needs the rule of law under the constitution. -- "under law" means the rule of law under the constitution. when i was leaving cuba, we were taken off the plane and held incommunicado in a private room. there were just locked rooms. you didn't know if you would ever see your family again. it only takes one night of that to change your life forever. in many ways, i believe that was the moment i decided to be a lawyer. i never wanted to feel so helpless again in my life. i also knew what was happening there was wrong and that somebody should care about it. if i ever had an opportunity to make a difference, i would do that. i believe that that moment is one that emphasized to me the importance of the rule of law and why we have to preserve our system of justice. most importantly, i remember that night because of a conversation i had with my grandfather. we have learned that the

he is a former law clerk to the honorable steven rooen heart in the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit. a graduate of yale law school in oxford, university. in may of 2006, 11 month leaders and community groups filed a joint request to the fbi for all records in the surveillance and investigations of themselves or their group since january of 2001. none of the individuals has ever been charged or convicted of any crime. they hope to shed light on practices implemented by the federal agents to spy on mosques. they also shed likt on the other practices. so welcome to the panel. >> thank you. and thank you for allowing me to do this by skype. can you hear me okay? >> perfect. >> great. so, thank you for the introduction. what we learned more than anybody else is the fbi was surveilling a lot of political activity of members of the muslim community in southern california. but to some extent we had already suspected that. obviously talking about section 55-c. the quote/unquote exclusion. i want to say how we learned that those were likely an issue in the case. when we file

[laughter] >> guest: voters fraud is real and united states supreme court ruled that voters id laws are constitutional and texas believes it has the same right other states have to require a voters id. >> mike: i tried to ask democrats and i am sincere. i don't want to keep anybody who is legal to vote from voting. i don't want to do anything to supriss the vote and i don't think you do either. are there specific thing that is the justice department pointed out that would create voters suppression. >> guest: it was a concern that was addressed by the supreme court that it may suppress votes in the minority. the supreme court said it is not discrimnatory and look at the state minor voters turn out increased and not decreased. >> mike: really. we don't ever hear that? >> guest: of course you will not hear it. we make it simple. we don't even require for seniors or disabled. if you don't have a photoid, we'll give you one. there is no excuse or question when you carb your check or go to a bank and fly an airplane can't be require to show one to vote. >> mike: sounds like the state of texas

court cases, and, yes, we won the supreme court -- the final case, and a lot of people say oh, well, you were just given the presidency on a 5-4 decision of the united states supreme court. that's simply not true. the vote on constitutionality in that case in the supreme court of the united states was 7-2. justice breyer, a democrat, voted with the republicans and justice souter voted -- voted with a dissenting democrat, i think justice ginsberg so in fact you had a bipartisan decision on constitutionality and then they took up the question of remedy after they said that the scheme that the florida legislature has put in place for recount is -- is illegal, unconstitutional, and then they said the time has expired for further recount because by gore's own admission, the critical date was december 12th and this was december 11th. they said there's no longer any time to count. the gore campaign made a big mistake when they asked for recounts in only four counties, and they were pro-democratic counties, all of them, very heavy democratic counties, and they asked for a recount instead of a statewide recounty this should have come in. when they did that,

so it's the result of the worst decision the united states supreme court has made in many years, citizens united decision where out of naivete and sheer ignorance, the majority of the supreme court just released all money now. there will be scandal, david. there will be scandals and then maybe we'll reform again. >> senator mccain also criticized the republican presidential candidates for their strong focus on social issues, said it's bad for the party. do you think there is something of a war on women among republicans? >> i think we have to fix that. i think that there is a perception out there because of the way that this whole contraception issue played out, we need to get off of that issue in my view. i think we ought to respect the right of women to make choices in their lives and make that clear. and get back on to what the american people really care about, jobs and the economy. >> perhaps taking a cue from mccain romney is said to deliver a speech on economic freedom today at the university of chicago. santorum also will be in illinois although will leave for pennsylvania before

court in a variety of ways. finally, nina paraez. in that role, among other things, she supervises the offices throughout the united states in the voting rights dockets. she is a particularly prominent voting rights attorney. she was the last winner of the section two case at the u.s. supreme court for the plaintiff's side. a case we discussed this morning. and she is one of the lead lawyers in the current texas redistricting case that is working through the western district of texas through the district of district of columbia and the supreme court. it's a trifecta. the panelists will speak for about 10 to 15 minutes. we'll turn to questions about changes in the world since the voting rights act. what the changes get applied. ellen. >> thank you. it is great to be here. it has been a great day so far. i want to thanks alex and slipper. i did not know that is what it was called, for organizing a terrific event. i know nina will talk about the texas case in detail, but i want to start there with a simple observation. that is that much of the mess that has been going on in texas would not have happened if john mccain was president of the

on may 10th the united states court of appeals in the ninth circuit issued a decision that was heavily critical of the care and compensation that va provides to veterans with mental illness. the court cited va's unchecked incompetence and the unnecessary grief and privatation that delays in treatment and benefits cause veterans and families. i am not here this morning to judge the court's decision. i'll leave that to others. the heart of the court's analysis of the issue is something with which all of us need to be concerned. namely, is va's system of care and benefits improving the health and wellness of the veterans that are suffering from mental illness? on behalf of a grateful nation we've invested heavily in this system over the last decade to improve access and make treatment options that expert says are effective more readily available. but the question remains, are veterans, especially those returning from combat, with the invisible wounds of war, on a road to recovery and able to live full and productive lives? recovery, restoration, and wellness. these should be the overarchi

were pleased to walk out of the courtroom today, knowing that five of the justices of the united states supreme court focused their powerful questions against the united states government on that very issue, and that is the unprecedented encroachment obama care poses on individual liberty. today is a very positive step in the right direction. not just for the state who is are bringing us lawsuit. ho i clerish liberty, who believe in the united states constitution, and want to see the rule of law introduce my colleague from south carolina, attorney general wilson. >> thank you so much. first off, what i heard today in the court was aember of the supreme court, justice kennedy say if the court up hoelz this law it will fundamentally change the relationship by which people. the government at that point tried to make the argument that we are dealing with a health care market. chief justice roberts said this could be a slippery slope in that if we can regulate the health care market, then we can't pick and choose what congress can or cannot regulate. it's an it's pandora's box. it's a slippery slope. that

entirely dead after bush v gore, it got dug up and killed again in one of the court's next high profile cases in citizens united. they went so far out on a limb that they might have had to jump onto another tree in order to stay a loft. that was the last time the court bowed to public interest in what they were doing by releasing audio in the oral arguments on the case. since citizens united the supreme court hasn't released audio that quickly until this week until the health reform arguments that have been taken up by the court. here is what some of what the supreme court argued over. >> all that sountdss like you're debating the merits of the bill. you ask really for limiting principles so we don't get into a matter that i think has nothing to do with this case, broccoli. okay. >> broccoli. it was justice stephen brier trying to put an end to the broccoli talk. every time somebody said broccoli in these arguments, you'd have to drink. i have to see what sort of shape she's in after broccoli was brought up eight times in the oral arguments. here is the overall political context for this big high profile case.

>> i think the supreme court is going to reconsider citizen's united and i think there is a great pieceegislation about amending the corporations code in california. >> state by state. >> state by state can matter. when you actually look at the facts and if you read citizens united they assume facts that are clearly untrue and proven untrue in this election cycle. i think we're going to see a second bite at the apple. >> i this i we're going to see a big bite at that. >> there's another case through the state of montana that may make it to the united states supreme court. >> to reevaluate. ok, you are going to hang on here. we're going to talk about electing women. thank you so much for joining us. we really appreciate it. we may have you back to dive into it a little bit deeper. this money stuff is not going away. >> if you are a democratic politician and a woman and pro choice, simply put you are going to be on the front lines of the social war. we're going to get stephanie's thoughts on that and more right after the break. you are in the war room, only on currentttttttttttttttttttttt

we will update you on the obama care case being heard by the united states supreme court. join us with these stories and all the news breaking news today at 4:00 that is right after dr. phil. toothpaste is not formulated for cleaning dentures, the abrasives in the toothpaste actually create those micro fine scratches in the denture, and that's where bacteria can grow and thrive. these are the very bacteria that can cause bad breath. dentists do recommend that you soak your denture in polident. polident doesn't scratch the denture surface, and it kills 99.9% of bacteria that are responsible for causing bad breath. by using polident and soaking your denture every day you can feel confident your dentures fresh and clean. >>> welcome back, let's take a look at the five-day-forecast, we talk about it being cold, how about 72 on wednesday? yeah, that ain't bad, 64, 61, 65 with sun thursday, friday and saturday, that 61 looks like oh, it is getting chilly again, the normal is in the upper 50s. >> no complaining. >> no. >> just dress warm, don't miss the primetime line up. at 10:0

candy, we'll see you sunday morning. >> next week, the united states supreme court will hear the challenge to the health care reform law. it's a huge issue. it's certainly going to dominate a lot of the headlines next week as the supreme court justices consider various arguments. our congressional correspondent kate baldwin is here in the situation room. you've been doing a lot of work on this, kate. this is going to cause quite a little buzz, not only next week but in june or whenever there's a final decision. >> in short, this is going to be huge. this is an historic, precedent making case. it's something everyone needs to pay attention to. the health care law, it's about 2,700 pages, more than 450 approa provisions. it impacts every american. it's hard to overstate just how high the stakes are in this upcoming supreme court fight. >> we are done. >> march 23rd, 2010, president obama signs into law the signature achievement of his presidency, the affordable care act, the landmark and controversial health care overhaul. >> after all the votes have been tallied, health insurance reform bec

also think the super pacs, as a result of this outrageous and ignorant decision by the united states supreme court called citizens united which has unleashed these quote super pacs and people are, well, the one las vegas casino mogul is able to inject over $20 million of his own money which then leads to the negative ads which then leads to heightened unfavorable ratings on the part of the american people of the candidates. every day that goes by when there's this is proliferation of super pacs and negative ads, it harms our republican ability to keep our eye on the real or adjust our sights on the real target which is obviously to defeat president obama next november. >> senator john mccain, republican of arizona joining us on capitol hill tonight. thanks as always for being with us. >> thank you, my friend. bye. >> this is "washington today" on c-span radio. energy secretary steven chu also on capitol hill. the hill newspaper saying he wanted to make one thing clear, the obama administration does want lower gas prices. secretary chu's remarks coming amid some intensifying republican attacks on t

this has been upheld as constitutional by the united states supreme court for other states. s is legal and okay for other states, certainly it should be okay for the state of texas. importantly, if you look the united states supreme court decisions issued just a few years ago, a voter identification requirement is race neutral way of ensuring the integrity of the ballot box. >> greta: one of the things, you can go to the u.s. district court in washington. do you intend to do that? >> yes. i've already filed a lawsuit in washington, d.c. seeking pre-clearance from that court. texas is one of the state that has to get pre-clearance before we can implement voter i.d. like other states, indiana and kansas already have it implemented for this cycle but texas that is to go through this process. the oral argument before the supreme court two months ago, seems like the pre-clearance standard puts us at a disadvantage compared to other states and what is being borne out where texas is a disadvantages to get other states that gets to impose this law to ensure integrity at the ballot bo

this was a mississippi court interpreting the mississippi constitution. the united states supreme court doesn't do that. they don't tell the mississippi supreme court that they're violating the mississippi law. this case is over. these pardons are final. i think the legal process -- >> these killers have had their records basically wiped clean. a pardon wipes it clean. >> which is significant. it's not like they got out of prison. they're not convicting felons tomorrow. they can tomorrow go buy a gun, go get a hunting license. they can go vote. it's as if these people were never convicted in the first place. it is a total clean slate for them. >> amazing. appreciate it. as you heard a moment ago, ranldy walker was shot and nearly killed by one of the men now free and clear. the record of his deadly crime wiped clean. randy walker joins us now at the end of what has no doubt been a difficult day. what was your reaction when you heard the ruling, randy? >> i couldn't believe it. i couldn't believe these six justices as educated as they have to be, could interpret the