the supreme court supreme court has said congress could not regulate in this way.how many children were maimed injured or become even died as a result of the supreme court case of? this is an example of so many. when the states and congress try to put minimum wage laws for the maximum workers before declared unconstitutional. these were declared unconstitutional. when congress tried to protect consumers like through the price support this was declared unconstitutional. when congress tried to regulate the subsidies this was declared unconstitutional. the president franklin roosevelt was called court packing. but the key to remember is for you to take a long period of time by et 95 to 1936 the supreme court could unconstitutional all of these laws designed to protect society. so during the many periods that you discussed failed to protect minorities against the oppression by popular majorities the problem seems to be the office of the supreme court putting the will of the democratic majorities all of whom are in each of the law protecting consumers and protecting chi

we should go back to the supreme court. their view was we should go back to the supreme court and challenge the defense of marriage act. in 2009, we filed the first challenge, the law that said if you are married in massachusetts, the federal government will not treat you as a married couple. the arguments against that were supposed to be pretty strong. state rights being protected against interference. that case took a while to get from filing to the supreme court. we ended up with a different case for reasons that are probably not worth six point. the windsor case was in 2013. in between, we had the challenge of prop 8 in california. those cases wound their way up simultaneously, coleman aiding -- culminating in decisions two years ago. that is a brief history from 1972 to 2013. ms. howe: you mentioned the prop eight case. the decision to file the case was not necessarily well received. was the thinking that it was too soon? mr. smith: the groups that had been working together for the last 20 years on the sodomy issue and

when this goes before the supreme court and the supreme court rules, that definition will have to behanged. you are redefining what a marriage is. it is not going to stay between a male and a female. it will say between a male and a female, a male and a male, or a female and a female. to say that, you are not trying to redefine marriage, i think that is absolutely ridiculous. i think you need to re-examine that again. guest: for many decades, women were not allowed to vote. we fought hard in this country about that. women wont the vote. it did not redefine what voting is parity did not change voting. met more people were able to vote, as they always should have been. this is not redefining anything. of course, dictionaries do reflect the law is. the law in this country and in 20 other countries is that in most places, kate -- gay people can now share in the freedom of marry. it does not change what marriage is more people are doing what marriage is. on the first point, when president obama and his second in ogg real address in this state of the union, talked about freedom to marry as

the supreme court said it has less binding effect in the supreme court but with respect to both courts, i think -- judge daughtrey: that is the -- the this came out of the minnesota supreme court, did it not? mr. murphy: is that [inaudible] i may be a little confused. you have to address standing because jurisdictional if without that party is not a case. if you have other parties, one doesn't have to address it. mr. murphy: i think you do. the rule that you are talking about only applies when they are seeking the same relief. the relief that the plaintiff sought was as applied. i think according to the nra case, it says that is the general role that when they are not seeking identical claims they would have to -- >> one claim, you cannot attack more broadly. >> the injunction would be more forward-looking. with respect to that i think it is pretty straightforward. there is the third-party standing doctrine that there has to be a close relationship. while skate cash i think that is on [inaudible] i would hope that a lawyer's relationship with the client -- judge daughtrey: those are pe

it was in the supreme court chamber and he is introduced by supreme court justice anthony kennedy. this is just under an hour. [applause] justice kennedy: thank you again for coming. my remarks will not trespass on those of our distinguished speaker, saying to make two different points. one is to introduce professor michael rose. the flash ross -- ross. but first, to note that we should all feel privileged to be here this evening. this is the first in a series of lectures that have been renamed. these are now called the leon silverman supreme court lectures. leon was simply wonderful. he was the president of the supreme court historical society in the early 1990's. i think in 1991 until 2002. he was a fascinating man. he is to say at these events people don't want to talk to me. , they want to talk to the justices. if you knew leon, i think there is considerable doubt about that. he said despite my wit and charm, they want to talk to the justices. i think they wanted to talk to leon. he was a dynamo of energy. he is one of these dynamos who had great professionalism and dignity and

the california supreme court.meant that with people there was no option rather than to go for the federal claim. and it was the dilemma of everybody faced in 2009 after the 2008 election. and there was disagreements pretty strong disagreements. i will go ahead and ask the supreme court to recognize equality in that year. so the movement afterall was still a cutely aware of the generation to overcome the decision that almost won in 1986. and it took until 17 years later to have that decision. so when you lose in the court. it will make it worse if you had never gone there in the first place. that is was apart of the disagreement and i would say that the disagreement over the issue and pretty much the experts that had been done. prepared in the state cases. and traditional day rights groups. and an as soon as now that john davidson had said this that somebody was going to bring that challenging proposition. at least it was did not by the high quality legal team that was put together at the time. so those issues are

supreme court about same-sex marriage. we talked to adam liptak of the "new york times" and david boies, the attorney. >> if this issue can be resolved democratically at the polls through ballot referendums through elected representatives and legislators, the supreme court could be a little wary of stepping in and putting an end to what chief justice roberts called a fast-moving debate. he referred to the public opinion polls and said this is getting settled on the ground. is it really for us nine unelected judges unrelated to the ballot box to step in and tell the american public what each state has to decide on these issues? and that point was echoed by one of the liberal justices justice stephen breyer. this shift which is without precedent is mostly a sign the court is likely to rule in favor of same-sex marriage. >> rose: we conclude with part one of a two-part conversation with the iranian foreign minister javad zarif. what happens if these negotiations fail? >> well, it won't be a disaster, but it would be a very im

but with respect to the loving analogy, the supreme court, if the supreme court wanted to say that theom to choose who to marry wasn't limited to someone of the opposite sex and they had the opportunity to do that, they didn't do that, that question was directly presented to that. so that shows there was a different between race which does not go to the heart of what marriage is. judge daughtrey: but you would have to concede that there were in terms of what the electorate wanted, the loving decision went against what the electorate wanted in much of the south when it was announced? mr. lindstrom: i think it did not. when you talk about the electorate wanted, the electorate passed the 14th amendment to end racial discrimination. the electorate that wanted to end -- judge daughtrey: you might be understood in knowing that as recently as 1978 the tennessee constitution provided, "the intermarriage of white persons with negros, mulattos or persons of mixed blood descended by a negro to the third generation exclusive or living together as man or wife in this state is prohibited. the legisl

here is where the supreme court enters the story. i have just discussed republicans placed great faith in the power of the civil war amendments to create and protect a new social order in the south. a new order that would justify the cost and sacrifices of the civil war. as we all know, the power and purpose of constitutional amendments are subject to interpretation by courts. the 14th amendment for example was written using broad language. what were the privileges or immunities of national citizenship? what constituted due process? would the supreme court interpret the amendment in a way that conformed with the goals of the radical republicans or would they give the 14th amendment more constricted meaning? on this point, many historians and scholars who view the class of reconstruction as a tragedy and unfinished revolution, do not paint a pretty picture. they argue the beginning with the slaughterhouse cases in 1873 and then a long line of decisions spanning from cruickshank versus louisiana to plessis. the majority of justices in

supreme court? carole stanyar: fundamental constitutional rights may not be submitted to popular vote. they depend on the outcome of no election. judge sutton: assuming you win, my question is assuming you can win on this, i'm asking you a question, why do you want this route? it's not 100% obvious to me why it's the better route, it may be the better route for your clients and as a lawyer, you have to keep the focus on that but it's not 100% obvious to me it's the better route for the gay rights community, that's not obvious to me. carol: -- carole stanyar: i'm not at all optimistic that we could get that in michigan secondly, the government made that same argument. they said, just wait for the passage of the e.r.a., that would be better. that was 1973. we would still be waiting now. it brings injury here, marriage provides unparalleled social legal, and personal meaning, commitment, mutual reciprocal responsibility, dignity. it is security, it is a status it is stability. it goes well beyond the d

lower courts, versus the binding affect on the supreme court -- the supreme court has quite clearly, as you can see, said it has less binding affect in the supreme court. with respect to the lower courts -- judge: that was from michigan. i am sorry, the minnesota case. came out of the minnesota supreme court, did it not? eric murphy: that is true, your honor. judge: whether he has standing -- is that -- i may be a little confused here. you have to address standing because it is jurisdictional, if without that party, you would not have a case. if you have other parties that clearly do have standing, one does not have to address it. to we have to address it? >> i do think you do. the rule you are talking about only applies when they are seeking the same relief. his relief is more -- the relief the plaintiffs sought was just as applied -- he wanted broader injunctive relief variant you can put it on the death certificates of any future clients. the general rule, when they are not seeking identical claims -- judge: as applied to one death certificate, but without it, you cannot attack mo

the supreme leader says, now. mr.if: sanctions must be lifted as soon as iran implements its agreed part. we have an agreement. that agreement provides for the lifting of sanctions. economic and financial sanctions. those sections are lifted. the logic is clear. if you want an agreement, you have two options. you cannot mix them. it is as if iran once to keep some part -- charlie: will you grant me this? what the supreme leader said and john kerry said is different. mr. jarif: what i can say is what we have agreed upon. charlie: doesn't agree with what secretary kerry said? mr. jarif: i allow him to say what he wants to say and defined the agreement. what i say, is what will be at the agreement if there is one at the end of the day. it must be based on this logic. very clear. you cannot have two bank opposing tracks running at the same time. charlie: what are the opposing tracks? mr. jarif: one is to have an agreement and the other is to impose pressure. the counterpart to pressure would be iran building more centrifu

allow me full to quote the supreme leader directly. united states activities since the announcement which the framework has been deceptive, it is lying, it is devil issue. on two particular points he said ires military sights cannot be inspected under the excuse of nuclear supervision and all sanctions should be removed when the deal is signed. is it that your opinion mr. president, that this is pure posturing and should be disregarded by your government and you and your secretary of state and if so, could you help me understand to whom the supreme leader would be posturing? because under my limited understanding of iranian politics that's not a job description usually applied to the supreme leader. >> that is a well crafted question major. let me just suggest that even a guy with the title supreme leader has to be concerned about his own constituencies and the issue is not whether i have to take his word for whether that's his understanding because we've got work until the end of june to see if we've got a document that works. and if

if you read what the supreme court said in that case, there is really no other way for the supreme courtt's up for argument on tuesday. the first part of that case is whether states have to recognize the rights of individuals who wish to get married in that state. i think that will end the debate right there. >> seems obvious. going to the states rights argument the federal government going no, no, no, you have got to recognize the way it works. >> what the supreme court said in the federal case, they mentioned states' rights but they were talking about the impact on the individuals in a relationship and the children of those relationships, how it took away their rights, it made their relationships less equal, second class. and those sorts of things -- and we don't do this in this country. we don't take away the rights of individuals and put them in a box and save it there less equal than other people. >> what about the -- and you hear this argument from the right that says okay same sex marriage is going to become constitutionally legal if the supreme court does this, then can you const

the supreme court is not always been right. in 230 cases it is overruled itself so the previous decisions were wrong. let me look at two of those decisions that no one will debate. in the 1800s, the supreme court a racist and bigoted judge collided over history and ask for rights as a citizen and as a black american. he was denied those rights and when the case went to this racist jurist, there is no justice for you at this high court because we believe blacks are inferior human beings. close quote. how bigoted, racist and wrong is that decision? it is not the rule of law now. it is repudiated in everyone's mind today. it was not the rule of law at the moment it was panned as a decision. buck versus bal, under the commonwealth of virginia, a victim of the eugenics movement taking place around the country. three previous generations had low iqs so the commonwealth of virginia was taken into a facility and forcibly sterilized her. she sought justice before this high court and infinite justice, she got an opinion from the famous j

they are already in agreement and the supreme leader if the supreme leader decides something, especially this current government, i mean parliament would approve it, definitely and right now they approved. the supreme leader has created a new term which was you know, very, very new for us, at least in here and i think also for you, and the term is so-called heroic flexibility, and so that is finished, and all in the same page, but in here, we don't have such a system, more a democratic system we have here, and between administration and the congress, we have a lot of difficulties so let me ask you, please accept from the panel access idea of comprehensive deal. we have much more problem. secondly, i don't agree expressing the idea about the idea we extend six months or 12 months again to negotiate and negotiate and negotiate because two important elections is coming and going to be escalated, and here in the next presidential election and in iran, two important elections at the same day and time, february of 2016 election for parliament and assembly, which is very very important this mom

the supreme court is not always been right. in 230 cases it is overruled itself so the previous decisions were wrong. in the 1800s, the supreme court, a racist and bigoted judge collided over history and ask for rights as a citizen and as a black american. he was denied those rights and when the case went to this racist jurors, there is no justice for you at this high court because we believe blacks are inferior human beings. close quote. how bigoted, racist and wrong is that decision? it is not the rule of law now. it is repudiated in everyone's mind today. it was not the rule of law at the moment it was panned as a decision. buck versus bal, under the commonwealth of virginia, a victim of the eugenics movement taking place around the country. three previous generations have low iqs so the commonwealth of virginia was taken into a facility and forcibly sterilized her. she sat just as before this high court and infinite justice, she got an opinion from the famous justice oliver wendell holmes who wrote the infamous decision. no

. >> the supreme court hears oral arguments today in two cases regarding same-sex marriage.he cases from michigan and ohio would determine whether states are required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and whether states must recognize lawful same-sex marriages performed in other states. we will be alive with the sights and sounds outside the court beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern and beginning at 4:00 p.m., we will bring you the audio of the oral arguments all of that on our companion network c-span 3. >> here are a few of the book festivals will be covering on c-span 2. in the middle of may, we will visit live coverage of the cape verde -- the gaithersburg book festival with david axelrod. then we will close out may in new york city where the publishing industry showcases their upcoming books. on the first week in june we are live for the chicago tribune printers row fest, including our live in program with pulitzer prize-winning author lawrence wright and your phone calls. that is this spring on c-span 2's book tv. >> live today on c-span, "washington journal"

how does the modern supreme court read the first amendment? unfortunately, instead of seeking to read the 45 words of 45 words of james madison's first amendment, the six textual clauses, punctuation and all is a coherent whole that should function as democracies best friend the majority of the current court tears ten words, congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech for the first amendment's full 45 word text, discards three untidy words, the freedom of as an inconvenient man-made legal concept that requires us to think a little too hard about what should be inside or outside the freedom of speech and reads the remaining seven words as though the entire first amendment read congress shall make no law abridging speech. the resulting constitutional command is immensely powerful but ultimately fruitless first amendment that mandates the deregulation of virtually all efforts to deal with the processes of communication without accepting any judicial responsibility that the institutional consequences of wholly unregulated speech. to

was to raise awareness about the supreme court case.ple were trying get the word out to come to city hall later today for another rally. >> there are rallies and vigils being held in support of marriage equality to sew -- show that there's broad support throughout the land for equal rights for all citizens. >> and the gathering at san francisco's city hall will be at 5:00 tonight. and we brought in our kpix 5 legal analyst melissa griffin caen to break down what will be the historic decision. >> that's true it will be and we kind of already know where five justices stand on this issue. it's that swing voter that everybody's watching today. the main one justice kennedy. even though he's a republican he has authored several pro gay rulings. he asked the second question just minutes into today's arguments. he wanted to know why the court should up end the long-standing traditional definition of marriage. >> this definition has been with us for mill linea. and -- it's very difficult for the court to say oh well, we know better. >> well, i d

it is right for couples to go to the supreme court and ask that they be vindicated. i think the court will be on the right side of the law and the right side of history here. >> brian, i know you and others believe that there are distinguishing facts and legal considerations with regard to some of the cases that elizabeth cited. what is your best counter? >> the supreme court was right to strike down the -- race has nothing to do with what marriage is there are no good arguments what so ever to suggest that race had something to do with marriage. that's not like the debate right now. the discussion now is about sexual complementarity. everybody thought it was a man and a wife, a mother and a father. appealing to the equal protection clause of the constitution doesn't tell us at all whether or not marriage needs to be redefined. when the court struck down the bans on interracial marriage they said there was no good arguments whatsoever to support those. there are very good arguments for thinking marriage is between a man and a woman, or genderless. the constitution is

the supreme court decided the contract to lobby was against public policy. because there is no evidence of bribery, that if we allow this gentleman to hire a lobbyist while the great corporations of our day while all higher adventures. and that will make their case in the state houses and every right-thinking man would call that corrupts. so that gradually fades away and then the shakespearean dirty seconds we are now in the 1970s. benjamin franklin thought it would last 200 years. didn't think you'd be so precise. and the supreme court for the first time strikes down limits on campaign spending, limits every european country has. they take it for granted you can limit campaign spending. the last 40 years we've had the site about whether congress can pass what congress can do theirs anticorruption laws or not. the court especially in the last 10 years has been striking them down because the court says they are not anticorruption laws. limits are not anticorruption laws. limits on corporate spending are not anticorruption laws and limits in some places are no

went to the highest court in the land as the supreme court justices heard arguments inside. large crowds gathered outside to show their support on both sides of this issue. >> a very important stake in this fight. part of the lawsuit that's before the court today. got married in delaware but was living in ohio when his husband william died. since ohio doesn't recognize the same-sex marriage they refused to put his name on the death certificate. but his case, not an isolated incident. >> even though it is recognized in pennsylvania new jersey and delaware couples could still find themselves in legal limbo. nbc 10's deanna durante explains. >> very frustrating. and i know a lot of people don't understand, we're not hurting anyone. >> they've been a couple for 16 years back when nbc 10 first met them, they said they didn't want to travel to any other state for a quote legal marriage. the couple married after being granted a license in montgomery county, one of the first places in the state despite a same-sex marriage ban where the licenses were being made available. last month,

a lot of stateñ supreme courts have rej third party doctrine. could build off of.ecause i think it's an alternative view. it can create a workable world to the federal regime. it may not address the national security issues,úit could address a lot of the local law enforcement issues. i think showing that you can have a an/v alternative system, what we should acknowledge are legitimate law enforcement needs while safeguards civil liberties is really useful and so, i've been very excited by what i've seen comes out of the state level and i think it's doable. >> last question. to jim.-] dual question. >> and one is his words from jim too lazy to stand upjf harper who is asking+c+Ñé@e1 panel to prognosticate on a likely outcome and significance of the city of los angeles versus pa tell, making hotel records available to law enforcement seizure on demand. and the last question, from jonathan,e1 do you see the normative inquiry playing the role ing83añ changing the third party doctrine? what types of compromise can be made that prevents law enforcement from conducting in

you mentioned the supreme leader. his health, we understand is it deteriorating, and there done seem to be in the clarity as to who would come after him. i would flip the question you had brought about the consensus internally in iran and if the supreme leader were not be with us anymore, how would that change the verification and the credibility of the deal that iran would be signing? and very quickly, also to congressman burman, i'm wondering if a deal with iran would actually help with our arab allies and those within our arab allies that are still isis fan boys and whether a deal with iran would actually help stability in the region. >> let me ask if someone has a question for jim, if we do we'll take that one ask then everyone will have an opportunity to answer a question. any questions for mr. slattery? yes, ma'am. down here in the second row. >> hi. i just wondering when you raise the issue of me the political -- the christian zionists movement as a factor in shaping the prospective success of this deal or not,

what is your gut feeling what the supreme court will do?ate equality and liberty and dignity of people making their own life choices, i think te will be hard pressed not to side about same-sex couples on this one especially because justice kennedy laid the logic in the other decisions he's authored. he's very concerned about the dignity of individuals and how they are treated with dignity by the government. and that came up in his question today. you know, it's a close call. we'll see what happens. i don't expect it will be unanimous. >> interesting. so great to have your your perspective. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >>> 8:47. new this morning, presidential candidate hillary clinton has changed her presidential campaign logo to rainbow colors. the move came less than an hour before the u.s. supreme court started to hear oral argue mortgages on same-sex marriage. two years ago she announced she supports the right of same-sex couples to get married. during her 2008 run for the white house, clinton opposed same-sex marriage. she did

supreme court will rule that is and let legal across the nation.ered in front of severances go city hall yesterday san francisco's city hall detritus get the big band struck down for the states that are not allowing same- sex marriage >> dan kerman: justice anthony kennedy is presumed to be the swing vote. chief justice john roberts could also be a swing vote sachs same-sex couples just wanted to join the red institution and robertson disagreed. >>: 71 to redefined the institution every definition that i looked up define marriage as of an agreement between a man and woman as husband and wife obviously if you 66 seed and core definition would no longer be optional >>: is still loves show and tom loves show the secondary in but tom kent and that's based because of their sex isn't that a straightforward case of sexual discrimination? >> dan kerman: the rally is continuing right now we're expecting a supreme court ruling sometime in late june even if the supreme court does not bode in favor they're not going away the book to continue to push into same

ayatollah, iran's supreme leader. he insists the deal is nonbinding and neither agrees nor disagrees with it. after months of talks iran agreed to limit its enrichment ment capacity and in return world powers would lift a crippling embargo. >> nobody has the guts to say no to a possible nuclear deal because today iran's leader said that i support the continuation of talks. i just want to make sure i am not making a mistake. >>reporter: president obama also has to convince his own skeptics, mainly in congress that he's not making a mistake. >> i'm convinced that if this frame work leads to a final, comprehensive deal it will make our country, allies and world safer. >>reporter: the deal also has its worldwide critics including israel. france and saudi arabia are also cautious. a deal between iran and the west is always going to be about more than just the nuclear issue. it marks a change in relation after decades of hostility. the next few months will bring more hard bargaining and tough rhetoric before the final deadl

we have a lot of positive feedback from the supreme court justices.comes out in june. we'll have another day of decision like we did in 2013 for prop a and doma, but we're excited. we're going to see everyone here in san francisco at city hall at 5:00 p.m. today. >> you and i were talking a little bit earlier. california, it's legal for same- sex couplals to get married, but there are states like michigan, ohio, kentucky, if you move there, you're concerned that they don't have to recognize you. >> that's the truth. if you're a married same-sex couple from a state with gay marriage and you move to one of these states or travel there, is your marriage recognized? that's the problem because we're not a united states of america. so that's what we hope to settle this time, is that once and for all nationally gay marriage, same-sex marriage and marriage equality is recognized. >> thank you so much, tray allen. obviously so many people are following it. more than a decade ago, he was the mayor of san francisco, and he was basically the tip of the sword for

two years later the supreme court seems poised to make it 50. so whatever happened to abraham lincoln's pronouncement that ours is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. we make the decisions for ourselves and it's rapidly being replaced by a government of the courts, by the court, and for the court. let me get to the bottom line. if the u.s. supreme court redefines marriage to include same-sex marriage you and i know that this will not be the end of the matter. and we believe or should i say that i believe that religious liberty will be assaulted from every side. and indeed this has already happened. you may have to officiate same-sex marriages and they could be prohibited from preaching certain passages of scripture. as the years go by some are going to be subjected to prison sentences. christians who operate businesses will be required to dance to the governments tune and we have lost teen examples of photographers and pizza parlors being required to serve at gay weddings whether they want to or not or whether they hav

joining me live now, supreme court analyst who was inside the supreme court chamber for the argumentsheadline? >> tamron i don't think you could come out of the argument with a good sense of what the justices are going to do in this historic case. there were hard questions from both sides, played out much as we would have expected with the liberal justices favoring the plaintiffs here and saying that there should be likely a right to same-sex marriage for those couples. on the other hand, the court's more concerned with justices asked hard questions about tradition and how it is marriage has always been between a man and a woman. this will in all likelihood, come down as we expected to justice kennedy, who's the center of the court who's actually been a leader in the court on the question of gay rights. and he too, had hard questions for both sides. so the lawyer for the plaintiffs asked justice kennedy, what do we do with the fact this has been the law for millennia, literally, throughout our entire history as a nation that we have always had marriage be between a man and a woman, bu

from the supreme court, megan mcgrath. >>> i'm chuck bell. we have plenty of sunshine here in northwest washington. temperatures are responded nicely to the rays of sunshine. 59 in gaithersburg. 62 in washington. 61 in culpeper. nice day. mild, a bit of a braezbreeze out there this afternoon. high pollen count and pretty good chance for rain before we get into the weekend. we'll talk about tomorrow our next rain chance and the weekend coming up. >> chuck, thank you. >>> right now, president obama is meeting with prime minister of japan. the president welcomed the prime minister to the white house in a ceremony this morning. they're meeting in the oval office. they're working to strengthen economic ties. trade is one of the top items on the agenda. the u.s. and japan are working toward a 12-nation transpacific partnership agreement that would open up markets to u.s. exports. tonight president obama will host japan's prime minister at the white house for a state dinner. executive chefs at the white house showed off some of the delicious creatio

they are already agreement and the supreme leader if the supreme leader decides something, especiallyhis current government -- the parliament would approve it definitely and right now, they approve. the supreme leader has created a new term which was very very new for us at least in here also for you. the term is

it may get struck down by the supreme court in this case next week. even if it doesn't, there are almost no states in the country that actually have a way to get the drugs that are used for lethal injection anymore. that's happening in just the nuts and bolts level. it's just becoming impossible logistically to do it. then in right-wing politics, there's this broader move on the right, supported by people like the koch brothers and others to have republicans change tact on criminal justice issues, including sentencing reform and drug policy and all this other kind of broad criminal justice stuff. but that apparently extends to changing conservative views on the death penalty. it's conservative groups and republican advocacy groups that have been making progress in red states, to try to get them to get rid of their death penalty for conservative reasons. in addition to liberals being against it for all the reasons that liberals are. and in the middle of all of that, basically on the eve of this supreme court case, there's oklahoma. there's oklahoma. ok

they are already agreements, and the supreme leader, if the supreme leader decides something, specially this current government, i mean parliament would approve it differently. and right now the supreme leader has created a new term which was very, very new for us. and here i think also for you the so-called heroic flexibility flexibility. so that's finished. and all on the same page but any we don't have such a system, more democratic system. we have between administration and the congress come with lots of difficult. so let me ask you please accept from the battle ideas about comprehensive view. we have much more problem in here that iran. but secondly, i don't agree let me express my ideas about your idea that we can expand six months or 12 months again to negotiate a negotiate and negotiate. because two important elections is coming and it's going to be escalated. into the next presidential election, and in iran two important elections at the same day and same time, in february 2016 election for parliament and assembly which is very very important this moment, that second one. so i