>> there is, justice alito. of course, there's also title x, which provides for contraception coverage, which is another least restrictive alternative. but i do want to get on the table that it is not true, that we have not suggested that the accommodation provided to religious employers, like nonprofit hospitals, that's not something i invented at the podium. if you look at page 58 of our brief, the red brief, we specifically say that one of the least restrictive alternatives would be the most obvious least restrictive alternative is for the government to pay for their favorite contraception methods themselves. later in that paragraph, the only full paragraph on the page, we say, "and indeed, the government has attempted something like that with respect to certain objective employers objective employees employers," and we cite the federal register provision where there is the accommodation provision. >> will your clients claim that filling out the form, if you're saying they would claim an exemption like the ch

>> there is, justice alito. of course, there's also title x, which provides for contraception coverage, which is another least restrictive alternative. but i do want to get on the table that it is not true, that we have not suggested that the accommodation provided to religious employers, like nonprofit hospitals, that's not something i invented at the podium. if you look at page 58 of our brief, the red brief, we specifically say that one of the least restrictive alternatives would be the most obvious least restrictive alternative is for the government to pay for their favorite contraception methods themselves. later in that paragraph, the only full paragraph on the page, we say, "and indeed, the government has attempted something like that with respect to certain objective employers objective employees employers," and we cite the federal register provision where there is the accommodation provision. >> will your clients claim that filling out the form, if you're saying they would claim an exemption like the ch

leaders of state and environmental agency and they are being offered a tour and they will meet in sol alito. >>> they are checking the texture of the grass and it is located at interstate 5 and highway 9917 miles south of collin kaepernick's home town, it is a sign and he will be used at the new 1.3 in santa clara and the turf is expected to be transported to the new stadium sometime in the next couple of weeks. >> i never thought about where the grass has drone. >>> coming up next in just a few hours, leyland yee will continuer this and the new information we are learning about a prominent san francisco leader. >>> and a car smashed into it and the suspects police are looking for in the similar destruction in the same business in the past. >>> we are looking at highway 24 to the caldecott tunnel we will let you know where. >>> thunderstorms not only today but tuesday, what could be low snow levels. . >>> leyland yee is headed to court, the deadly shooting that start add year ago and we will have that investigation. >>> march is going out like a lion and we will give you all the details. >>

i didn't get an answer to justice alito's question and it's an important one. there are of -- there are currently criteria of pollutants under the statute. one that does cause harm to ambient air quality not already covered and if you cover a n.a.q. for that, you decide you want to regulate at a different threshold, just like here, is this a particular assertion of authority only with respect to greenhouse gases or does it only -- >> if you are going to use the n.a. -- naaqs source then you would be under the rules of naaqs pollutants. but -- >> can you publish an act for greenhouse gases? >> i think it would be within e.p.a.'s authority to do so but there are significant problems with trying to regulate that way. it's important to understand, mr. chief justice, that the p.s.d. program applies to more than just naaqs pollutants. >> ok. if there is a pollutant that isn't currently regulated and science advances to the point you think it should be, could you change the threshold for that? >> i guess i would say e.p.a. would find itself in exactly the same circums

the four conservatives on the court, or the three that spoke, samuel alito, antonin scalia, and johncontraceptive mandate, with alito even suggesting that there might be something wrong with the corporate form if an innin m innamnant object can't have links. here's how they put it. the supreme court in a one-hour, 28-minute session on tuesday staged something like a two-act play on a revolving stage. first, the liberals had their chance and justice anthony kennedy gave them some help and then the scene shifted entirely and the conservatives had their chance, and again, kennedy provided them with some support. and that turns out to be a trend. in a court that's basically split down the middle, 4-4, kennedy is the ultimate swing vote. the one ring to rule them all. kennedy has voted with the majority in 5-4 rulings more often than any other member of the court. and the roberts court has had more 5-4 decisions than any supreme court, ever. in texas in 2003, kennedy sided with the liberals in striking down anti-sodomy laws. in 2008, he shellacked the bush administration and congress for

we should have 100% confidence level or you could say as i take it just as alito's point was well look the burden of proof is on the defendant here. so what 95% confidence level seems awfully high. we should ratchet it down to 80% so why this purpose do we have to go with a test makers determination that five is what get you a 95% confidence level? >> so the fact that two sem's issue 95% confidence level is a statistical fact. i take your question to be wide our professional associations using that? >> that is not really my question. they might use it for a wide variety of purposes. the question is why is their determination that it's useful for a wide variety of purposes to have 95% confidence level why is the states that with that for this purpose? >> because this goes to the reason that they use it. the reason that they use it is because of the inherent in rescission and testing in general but in particular testif something like relative intellectual functioning. there are so many -- it is so common for people for a righty of reasons obtain a 71 or 72 in fact to have mental retardat

>> justice alito, very few of these claims have been brought. very few of them have succeeded, and that's notwithstanding the fact that all of these statutes we're talking about apply to employers generally. and it and none of those claims have been brought or they haven't succeeded notwithstanding the fact that the government concedes that sole proprietorships and partnerships and nonprofit corporations are all protected by rfra. now, millions of americans are employed by proprietorships, partnerships, and nonprofits. so if these statutes really were on a collision course, i think we would have seen the collision already. >> well, with respect, mr. clement, i think that that's probably because the court has had a different understanding of what rfra does and the kind of analysis that it requires courts to perform than you're arguing for in this case. that if your argument were adopted and there was a strict scrutiny standard of the kind that usually applies and a least restrictive alternative requirement, then you would see religious objectors

heidi and alito who believe beijing the director of the us federal bureau of investigation james kelly says the fbi technical team will shortly be able to retrieve computer data deleted from the whole flight simulator of the captain of flight in history saturday he suggested that the deleted data may provide new clues to the investigation but kelly did not say what he expects gold results to be. only if and when evidence of the missing plane his own investigators will be focusing on finding one thing the plane's black box recorders. whatever they are all wherever they are they should be sending out signals known as paintings to help the search crews find them for those things can only last for a limited time and will end in just a couple weeks. the black box batteries run out. so the waste is definitely on the us is now said specialized equipment to help find a black box. cctv correspondent jim stillman has been out to find out what the black boxes and about their secrets. the key to finding out what happened to legionnaires three seventy me like people in the indian ocean. how importa

. >> and they are meet ago key note and they will be meet being in solyndra alito and this afternoon, the group is being offered a tour of of his life. the children pledge to become passionate and thought full citizens. they talked about how chavez followed in the steps of jesus christ and pointed out the up justices of those times. >> all of us, that every human being. >> and we can not longer compete. >> reporter: they later became the united farm workers' union and the food, annual p-200 people are expected to, donate and one in 16 are 6 people in alameda depend on the food bank for food. >>> it is am -- and it is a threat that could affect the game and the cleanup from over the weekend. >>> good morning, right now we are looking at a commute which still looks good on the san mateo bridge heading out to the high-rise and we will tell you about the bay weather. >> no rain or cloud but and we will have all of your details coming up in a few minutes. . >>> welcome back, time now 544 testimony a search for the plane turned out to be fishing equipment. passengers in china, the wait for

, they get that north wind and that's the only reason i did that. 74 sonoma 71 venetia, sol -- sol alito as well, bring lip oakly, antioch, shout out 74 for gilroy, milpitas cupertino, d.c. and pacific. i have not heard from brandon early, brandon what is going on over there. we say hello to spring, not as warm and it will still be sunny. >> thank you, steve. >>> consume fur prices and because of prices for food and huesing. they want to well into the old customers and trading ideas giving customers for trading in older electronics. >>> and into the recreation area, the four things that will be upgraded all because of a lawsuit. >>> and going uncover to recover stolen bikes. the complicated sting operation involving bart police. [doorbell rings] hey. hey. what's this? it's u-verse live tv. with at&t u-verse... you can watch live tv from your device. hey. hey. anywhere in your home. [doorbell rings] hey. hey. so you won't miss a minute of march madness. call now to get a u-verse bundle for the same great price for 2 years. guaranteed. . >>> time now 5:54 the rolling stones canceled their

i didn't get an answer to justice alito's question and it's an important one. there are currently [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] of -- there are currently criteria of pollutants under the statute. one that does cause harm to ambient air quality not already covered and if you cover a n.a.q. for that, you decide you want to regular late at a different threshold, just like here, is this a particular assertion of authority only with respect to greenhouse gases or does it only -- if you are going to use the n.a. -- naaqs source then you would be under the rules of naaqs pollutants. but -- >> can you publish an act for greenhouse gases? >> i think it would be within e.p.a.'s authority to do so but there are significant problems with trying to regulate that way. it's important to understand, mr. chief justice, that the p.s.d. program applies to more than just naaqs pollutants. >> ok. if there is a pollutant that isn't currently regulated and science advances to the point you think it should be, could you change the threshold for that? >> i gu

it is a top priority as investigators try to rebuild the piece of data that were deplete alitoed more than a month ago according to malaysian officials. sources say fbi agents are already combing through the hard drive from the flight simulator from the home of captain shah. confirmed files had been deleted before february 3rd. >> oftentimes are able to retrieve files that appear to have been deleted, but weren't. they were artifacts of those left on the hard drive. >> while experts of the lab in quantico, virginia are trying to retrieve missing files from that hard drive, they're looking at how the data was deleted. >> if you were just deleting files to provide more room, you'd just delete it once. you wouldn't go through and completely destroy the file. >> many in u.s. law enforcement are baffled because they left is simulator in the house for a week before retrieving, but officials say only some of the data was deleted and there's no indication that the pilot was trying to cover his tracks. >> that the passengers, the pilots and crew remain innocent until proven otherwise. >> while

we should have 100% confidence level or you could say as i take it just as alito's point was well look the burden of proof is on the defendant here. so what 95% confidence level seems awfully high. we should ratchet it down to 80% so why this purpose do we have to go with a test makers determination that five is what get you a 95% confidence level? >> so the fact that two sem's issue 95% confidence level is a statistical fact. i take your question to be wide our professional associations using that? >> that is not really my question. they might use it for a wide variety of purposes. the question is why is their determination that it's useful for a wide variety of purposes to have 95% confidence level why is the states that with that for this purpose? >> because this goes to the reason that they use it. the reason that they use it is because of the inherent in rescission and testing in general but in particular testif something like relative intellectual functioning. there are so many -- it is so common for people for a righty of reasons obtain a 71 or 72 in fact to have mental retardat

i would like to start by responding to your question justice alito about what you do if multiple scores and in fact in this case we are not talking about someone who had one or two iq scores. when you look at the weschler test which is the petitioner claims is the gold standard via test scores of 71, 72, 73, 74 and 80 and as we understand what the petitioner would have this court do is to take some of those lower scores and subtract five points from them. that is not consistent with the materials you cited in the footnote and if we look at the example here they do apply statistical principles to arrange of supporters that they did not simply simply take the lore schooled and subtract five points. the logic i would submit is fairly obvious. he you couldn't have a situation where taking this case where you have a low iq on the weschler of 71 and a high iq on the weschler of 80 and at the same time there's a 95% chance his scores between 75 and 85 and also a 95 95 -- >> one justice decide this case and establish the principle, the very significant principle where you have a criminal defend

putting somebody to death, we should have 100% confidence level or you could say as i take it justice alito's point, the burden of proof is on the defendant anyway so 95% confidence level seems awfully high, we should ration it down to 80% so why for this purpose do we have to go with the testmaker's determination that 5 is what gives you a 95% confidence level? >> the fact that two sems gives you confidence level is a statistical fact. why do clinicians and professional associations use that? >> that is not really my question. they might use it for a wide variety of purposes. the question is why does their determination that is useful for wide variety of purposes have a 95% confidence level, why is the state stuck with that for this purpose? >> because this goes to the reason they use it. the reason they use it is because of the inherent imprecision in testing in mineral but in particular testing for the presence of something relative intellectual functioning. there are so many -- it is so common for people who for a variety of reasons obtain a 71 or 72 in fact have mental retardation and be

no one will ever predict what roberts is going to do after the last time, but alito was clear and sotomayor was clear and hagen, so it's going to come down to justice briar, what roberts is going to do. we have to wait until june, right? >> the exemptions, how many were profiting corporations? none. you're lumping a profit-making corporation in with religious groups. >> no, he's saying there are waivers, unions getting waivers, delays. there's states, whole states asking for delays. why shouldn't a company as opposed to a nonprofit, why shouldn't they be afforded the same. >> this is about a law that was passed that was able to protect your religious rights. and no law could infringe upon that. it's infringing upon the owners of the company, and they're saying therefore, all 16,000 of us are infringed upon. >> the justices may have to look at the long run in terms of what slippery slope it could provide in the future, however, hobby lobby does provide for the coverage of 16 different types of contraception. it is 4 out of the 20 that are available that they have an obje objection to, and it

ginsburg, kagan and sotomayor, but justice roberts and alito seemed to accept the idea of personhood. citizens united meanwhile justi justice briar remained quiet and clarence said nothing. once again, the decisive vote likely to fall on justice anthony kennedy. the court is expected to reach a decision in late june. joining me from washington the elise hogue and in los angeles, california state senate candidate. you were in the courtroom today and there seemed to be two issues here. one is whether corporations do the, are entitled to religious freedoms as protected in the u.s. constitution and the second is whether the contraception mandate represents some sort of burden. on the second point, i'm curious to know what you thought of the arguments because at one point from what i understand, hobby lobby actually offered its employees a plan that would have covered the very thing they are saying is an undue burden, coverage of plan b pill. what did you think of the argument on that point in particular? >> i mean, let me start by saying thank goodness for justices ginsburg, sotomayor and

then you get people like justice scalia or justice alito who are adamantly opposed to women having basic health care like birth control and they're able to swing things their way. it's really upsetting and very, very disappointing. i do note the women on the supreme court were absolutely on point with their questions. and they actually were willing to look at individual women's religious rights and religious freedoms and the men were all hung up on the mysterious cellular workings of fertilized eggs and women's uterus walls. >> yeah. i hear you. that was striking there. it's striking that it's not only happening sort of in the corners of some sort of media echo chamber but really all the way up to where very serious legal thinkers and political thinkers are. again, not just debate over ideology, people of goodwill have long disagreed on where government and abortion should fit in. although we have a precedent in row. terry o'neill, thank you for your time. >>> coming up, a major change in the world of college football that could have a profound effect on ncaa sports and unions in general

two years upstream in five years on the prism and then against alito. that's the rule. >> correct. >> then on top of that then you discover through analysis and viewing it but it was inadvertent with incidental collection on the u.s. person and you must immediately purge this. >> there's a difference with inadvertent and incidental and to use those terms. it never refers to a collection that was not authorized by law. that is encouraged. >> person lost. >> dimension there are certain exceptions and i'm certainly not able to recite them but they do exist and they are fairly narrow. incidental is authorized by law. and then at that point the rules relating to u.s. persons kagan is you determine that has no intelligence value or will be purged. >> what is your response to the argument and to be think it's valuable you can keep it and if you don't think it's valuable, then you purge it. i mean, it is like lawfully collected. >> fair enough. >> but if it is a interest to you. >> if it can be useful to providing intelligence to policymakers need against threa

but on the conservative side, justice alito asked, hey, why should religious companies not get an exceptione when so many other exceptions and delays already operate under the aca? to breakdown the case, we have amy howe, who's argued before the supreme court, and taught at harvard law school. thanks for being with us. >> thanks for inviting me. >> let's start here with this line. a lot of people are looking at this case and they feel skeptical about the idea that what seemed like corporation's rights should trump individual rights. on the other hand, there is an idea percolating that this could be resolved somewhat narrowly if you said, well, here's an exception, not for all corporations, but just for small ones that basically want to be focused on religious values. can you talk to us about that? >> sure. this was a suggestion that was made by chief justice john roberts. and so, both sides really brought out the parade of horribles. when paul clement was arguing representing the challengers to what we call the birth control mandate, some of the justices, particularly justices kagan, sotoma

i didn't get an answer -- to hear an answer to justice alito's question and i think it's an importantone. there are currently criteria pollutants under the act. let's assume you find out that there's a particular substance that does cause harm to ambient air quality that is not already covered, and you publish a naaq for that, can you decide that 100 and 250, you want to regulate it at a different threshold, just like you have here. i mean, is this a particular assertion of authority only with respect to greenhouse gases or does it cover any pollutant under the act? to go undere going that -- q forn you publish a naa greenhouse gases? >> it is important to understand sd program applies to -- notick a pollutant that is currently regulated. can you change the threshold for that new covered pollutant? samea found itself in the circumstances it found with respect to the house gases, where it feels like the definition compels it to regulate. it kicks in at 250. and they could make a judgment comparable to the one they made here. that would require that -- >> why would they have to do that?

or you can take it like justice alito's point, that the burden of proof is on the defendant here anywayso a 95% confidence level seems awfully high. we should ratchet it down to 80%. why, for this purpose, do we have to go with the test makers determination that five is what gives you a 95% confidence level? >> the fact that two give you a 95% confidence level is a statistical fact. i take your question to be -- why do clinicians and professional associations use .hat >> no, that is not really my question. i understand why they might use it or a wide variety of purposes, but why is there determination that it is useful for wide variety of purposes, why is the state stuck with that for this purpose? >> this goes to the youth -- the reason they use it. because of the inherent imprecision in testing in general, but particularly testing for the presence of something like relative intellectual functioning. there are so many -- it is so common for people who for a variety of reasons obtain a 70 or 72 that in fact have mental -- because evidence of intellect and valuation of intellectual funct

or you could say, as i ticket justice alito was making a point, the burden of proof is on the defendant here. so 95 percent confidence level seems awfully high. we should ration it down to 80%. so why for this purpose to we have to go with the test makers determination that five is what gives you an 95 percent confidence level? >> so that the fact that to espn's gives you an 95 percent confidence level is just a statistical fact. take your question to be why does -- you know, why do clinicians and professional associations use that? >> that is not really my question. they might use it for a wide variety of purposes. the question is, what is their determination that it is useful for a wide variety of purposes have a 95 percent conference level? why is that stay stuck with that for this purpose? >> because the whole -- this goes to the reason that the use it. the reason that the use it is because of the enhanced in decision in testing in general, but in particular testing for the presence of something like relative intellectual functioning. there are so many -- it is so common for people,

overturn roe v wade in the current court chief justice john roberts and justices scalia thomas and alitoif a republican president select skins birds replacement the just as easily could be the fifth vote needed to allow the government to prohibit all abortions i'm i'm not all totally cranked on that i think the the roe decision actually did some harm to the in the women's rights and abortion rights movement but you know that's a whole separate argument. but i do think that i mean this is what sandra day o'connor did saturday o'connor said that she was going to resign before there was a possibility of a democrat coming into office she just said it right out loud god the whole world it's not uncommon for supreme court justices to do this yet i mean as a progressive you know that i would i would say that i you know objected from from that point of view it's i would hope gay bader ginsburg does step down just to ensure the fact that because the supreme court's play such an important role in our politics whether you agree with that or not i would hope the fact that she tries to ensure that so