justice alito, do you want to lead off? >> when i think about summers when i was young, they seem to have lasted forever. that is what my friends and i would do all summer. we played baseball. we collected baseball cards. unfortunately, my strategy then was not to collect a lot of mickey mantle cards or willie mays cars, -- cards, which would now be valuable. i would trade my extra all-star cards for the card of some guy who played one game. [laughter] so i would have a complete series. and i remember going to games with my family. in those days, we would go to a doubleheader on sunday, i think, for under $15. we could drive to philadelphia park on the street, i tend to -- attend two games, bring our own lunch. we had a special spot where he was almost an obstructed view seats, but not quite, so it was a good bargain. and we tried to get into the two games before the sunday curfew in philadelphia. you could not in those days start an inning after 6:00 on sunday. but i'll be darned. christine brennan, how about you? >> yes,

clearance thomas, samuel alito and sonya sotomayor. with lots of the device cases you get these unusual alignment. there is a decision that the book deals with in some detail where kennedy led a 5-3 majority and was refused for striking down most of arizona. scalia wrote a dissent that called the court's decision mind-boggling. he went out of his way and outside of the record of the case to attack obama for something unrelated to the case. his use of executive power to favor the immigrant children known as dreamers. the "washington post" that usually selects the president or senator or cabinet member for the owner bestowed the worst week in washington prize partly because he was out voted in the obamacare decision that came down. those are just some examples in the book and it deals with them and explains them. it's not just of the cases as a bare majority that exposed the fallacy of the increasingly common description of the roberts court in the right-wing political hacks. there are plenty of rulings which accounted for nearly half of

justice alito, do you want to lead off? >> when i think about summers when i was young, they seem to have lasted forever. that is what my friends and i would do all summer. we played baseball. we collected baseball cards. unfortunately, my strategy then was not to collect a lot of mickey mantle cards or willie wouldars, -- cards, which now be valuable. i would trade my extra all-star cards for the card of some guy who played one game. [laughter] so i would have a complete series. and i remember going to games with my family. in those days, we would go to a doubleheader on sunday, i think, for under $15. we could drive to philadelphia park on the street, i tend to games, bring our own lunch. we had a special spot where he was almost an obstructed view seats, but not quite, so it was a good bargain. and we tried to get into the two games before the sunday curfew in philadelphia. you could not in those days start naming -- start an inning sunday.:00 on but i'll be darned. -- >> i'll be darned. christine brennan, how about you?

justice alito said,, no that's not the case. there is a compelling government interest in enforcing those laws. there is no less restrictive way to do. so so i think it's incumbent on those who think it's broader than judge alito says it is needs to make a case. >> woodruff: why doesn't what the majority justice says hold? >> i think it would be great to take the roberts' court at their word, but look to the legal reasoning. with respect to limiting it to closely held corporations, the majority opinion actually doesn't expressly limit the recognition of corporate free exercise rights to closely held corporations. they say that it's unlikely or improbable that a publicly traded corporation would be able to make these similar claims, but they could still bring them in court. they might lose, but it's still a right that is so broadly extended in an unprecedented manner. >> woodruff: why couldn't this happen again or something... why couldn't a case similar to this, kevin bane, be brought say on behalf of a firm with employees with

alito is the last person the union wants to write this opinion. a couple of years ago he wrote an opinion that was a serious blow at least symbolically to unions and they fear he could be writer here. if it's sam alito, it is a bad day for unions. >> we are reading through the opinion. we're going to do it over the break. all of you stick around. we'll be right back. mayo, corn dogs...you are so out of here! ahh... the complete balanced nutrition of great tasting ensure. 24 vitamins and minerals. 9 grams of protein... with 30% less sugars than before. ensure, your #1 dr. recommended brand now introduces ensure active. muscle health. clear protein drink and high protein. targeted nutrition to feed your active life. ensure. take life in. (vo)cars for crash survival,ning subaru has developed our most revolutionary feature yet. a car that can see trouble... ...and stop itself to avoid it. when the insurance institute for highway safety tested front crash prevention nobody beat subaru models with eyesight. not honda. not ford or any other brand. subaru

unfortunately, samuel alito was replacing justice sandra day o'connor. i couldn't help but wonder, what is justice o'connor thinking today now that this decision has been written? justice ginsburg quotes this line from planned parenthood versus casey. controlling reproduction is an important part of women's liberty. that was co-written by justice kennedy and o'con author. >> that goes to the doctrinal hole here, which is the best argument on the side of hobby lobby and alito is the idea that corporations ultimately operate to extend people's desires, right. that's their best argument. in the free speech matter or when you look at newspaper and media companies that still get first amendment rights, which a lot of us care about, you see that to a point. we've never seen that in the religious context because corporations don't pray. even if you take that logic, you say, why then does that extension of the right only go the owners but not to the employees? who decided that? because a lot of americans would say, huh, i relate more as an employee to my corpora

chelsea clinton talking about the words of women in leadership roles. >> supreme court justice samuel alito took lace and -- took part in a recent discussion on baseball. the other speakers included a usa today port called this -- sports columnist. this is a little over one hour of stop >> good afternoon. as belle allen used to greet his audiences, hello, everyone, and how nice to see you. how wonderful it is to see you and wonderful to welcome you to the luncheon on the subject of baseball, america's game. some people seem confused. they actually think pro football is america's game, but it's not. baseball is america's game. this is sponsored today in part by the boston red sox. i chair for the red sox. [applause] i chair for the red sox the great fenway park reuters series. this is an extension of that series. the red sox are the only team in professional sports that sponsors a literary series. i'm also president of the city club of san diego in the denver form -- and the denver for,

that is not the case, the decision will be read by justice alito. is the first time a high court has ruled a profit-seeking business can have a religious viewpoint under federal law. religious institutions obviously contested this initially and the administration said basically we will find a loophole for you. we don't expect the catholic church to provide contraceptives. push it back for themselves the purpose of this. they're also saying that can apply to private company in this case hobby lobby and the furniture company in pennsylvania as well. let's bring brit hume in with your reaction to this. >> this decision applies to closely held corporations the company like hobby lobby, which is family owned. that narrows the scope of the decision here. if general motors so we announced by virtue of some vote of the board decided it had a religious objection, that would not apply here. it is 5-4, so to some extent this is obviously a win for hobby lobby and other closely held companies whose owners have strong religious convictions that would apply, sinc

yes. 5-4 justice alito writing the opinion. >> i'm not surprised. i would say oral argument reflected some of this view. this is a court clearly that believes that it is consistent with our first amendment to apply these protections to corporations as well as persons or what normal people call humans. >> that term, closely held company, for folks not familiar with it. what does it mean? what is a closely held company? >> well, let me get to that in a second here, but, you know, just like a family company. not publicly traded. i think a key part of this decision here, it seems apparent from last 20 seconds i've had to look at it is sort of an ancillary question that was involved in the case. so there's a sort of a multipart analysis in this case. first of all, does requiring these companies to pay violate their religious believes? can they have religious believes? does the religious freedom restoration act count here? the court says yes. but then the second part of the able cities is what the government wants them to do important enough and is it nar

. >> this was another decision written by justice alito. also 5-4 and the decision was that home health care workers who are not -- who are covered by a labor union contract but don't want to join the union don't have to pay dues. and the reason this case, i think genuinely is narrow decided is because justice alito's opinion said this really only applies to home health care workers who have a peculiarly sort of public role but sort of private role, and it doesn't apply to all government employees. that really would have been close to a death nell for public employee unions in this country. it didn't address that issue so that one is still coming down the line. >> another blow to unions. jeff, thanks so much for -- analyzes. >> he wants his city to make sure his keys still work. that's him right there. rob ford returns to work after being in rehab for two months. >> everyone has a bad day once in a while. what if facebook intentionally tried to make your day worse or better? how the social media giant set people off by manipulating its cont

. >> let's stick with justice alito's hypothetical. they find a business card or something which shows car services and they turn the card over and read it and they are not looking for a pin or explosive. they are trying to read what's on the card. >> i think nothing else once it's in their hands justice kennedy. >> what if they turn the card over? >> that's fine under the categorical rule. the rule obviates these exact difficult case-by-case determinations. you could make an argument that if i knew to if it were a diary or billfold case he might be up to make an argument that the court wisely decided in the robinson that we need a categorical rule that's easily admissible in the field. when you have digital evidence that categorical rule hasn't the exact -- opposite direction. it implicates vast amounts of information not just the photos themselves but the gps location of data linked in with it, all kinds of other information that is intrinsically intertwined in smartphones. >> including information that is specifically designed to be

alito says the decision covers tonal contraceptive mandate. but ruth bader ginsburg, said, can vaccinations and, medications derived from pigs? based on an employer's sincerely held religious beliefs? at the white house the president declined to comment but his spokesman said mr. obama feels the decision puts women's health in jeopardy. >> we believe the owners of for profit companies should not be allowed to assert their religious beliefs to deny their employees federally mandated benefits. >>> republican leaders called it a victory for religious freedom and a defeat for what they feel is government overreach by the obama administration. those representing hobby lobby insist the decision is a narrow one. >> this opinion is very focused on closely held family-owned businesses that have a religious objection to the contraception manatov. it doant appl -- doesn't apply m and exxon mobil. >>> still, to make sure all women get full contraceptive coverage. now, today's decision does not have any impact on the broader affordable care act, what the s

conservative justice alito actually kind of suggested that. let the government pay for it.t the democrats are likely to do is bring this up on the floor of the senate. why are they going to bring it up? they know that republicans are going to stand as opposed to it and they want to bring it up on the floor of the senate because they can talk about the old war on women which we've heard about before. and which will become a campaign issue not only in 2014. if you listen to hillary clinton, sure sounded to me like a candidate for president. >> sure. she's talking so much about women. >> by the way, maybe she would not support a nominee for the supreme court who would have ruled as alito ruled. >> alito was almost defensive saying hey, look, i want you to realize that there is a path here. >> you can cover this. >> for the president. they've done it already with religious institutions. he said you can do the same thing with hobby lobby. you can have them get tear contraception coverage with a government paying for it. >> so conservative justice talking about big government pay

justice alito dismissed that notion but justice ginsburg and many around the country feel this ruling could limit women's affordable healthcare. the court, instead of asking employers with religious objections to pay, the taxpayer could pick up the tab. >> terry, thanks. >>> to another breaking headline involving women and their health tonight. this involves a visit to the doctor many make every year. it's about one exam in particular tonight, the pelvic exam. we have reported here before on "world news" on another big change, that was for pap smears. instead of every year, the new recommendation every three years. dr. jenn ashton is with us and she's going to break it down. you were telling me this afternoon this is significant. >> it is, david, and here's why. this is coming from the american college of physicians. they're now recommending no annual pelvic exams for the average woman. this is for women who are average risk for cancer or other pelvic diseases who are not pregnant and having no symptoms. this test is not that good at picking up cancer. >> even though they're saying yo

get reinvented that way you know what i thought very interesting is the split number one we've got alito school and thomas who are actually going with this and on the other side you've got actually roberts siding with what you would call the liberals of the court did that surprise you that it came out that was roberts didn't so much because roberts has always been the bigger the corporation the more he likes them i mean roberts was a two million dollar your corporate lawyer so shocking top drawer firm i forget the name of it but you know he always sides and you look at his decisions you're going to entire career he always is on the side of whoever is the biggest most powerful you know force out there and in this case that's the telecommunications industry or the broadcast industry so that that on its face didn't surprise me. he's he's going to have a weird just like you see you know the this whole roberts court thing it's you know every court wants to at the end of the day you know roger tanny we had to be rolling over in his grave you know. rehnquist. i think he was horrified by citizen

justice alito, mr. alito, actually took a swing, a case of many years of -- thank gooded in it is still the law. >> congressman, i want to switch topics, earlier today, president obama noungsed a major move on immigration reform. the president of course is convinced that republicans will not pass immigration reform this year. so in regard, the president said today he's using an executive order to move resources to the border. here it is. >> the failure of house republicans to pass a darn bill is bad for our security. bad for our economy. and it's bad for our future. so, while i will continue to push house republicans to drop the excuses and act, and i hope their constituents will too, america cannot wait forever for them to act. that's why today i'm beginning a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as i can on my own without congress. as a first step i'm directing the secretary of homeland security and the attorney general to move available and appropriate resources from our interior to th

writing for the majority, justice alito wrote we hold the regulations that impose this obligation violate rfra, which prohibits the federal government from taking any action that substantially burdens the exercise of religion unless that action constitutes the least restrictive means, adding later, quote, hhs has not shown it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases. responding to today's decision, hobby lobby co-founder said her family was overjoyed adding the court's decision is a victory not just for our family business but for all who seek to live out their faith. >> the court issued a careful ruling, a narrow ruling and it squarely rebukes the administration that americans lose their religious freedom when they go out and open a family business. >> justice ginsberg called the majority view radical and decried that the law demands accomodation of a for profit corporations religious beliefs no matter the impact the accomodation may have on third parties who don't share the r

it was blues in this city at least that we've got you know that alito. tom's didn't so completely given the fact that you know yeah oh yeah i was you know kennedy was kind of he's always a wild card you know you never know where he's going to fall but we're going to leave it there go and thank you very much that's all for now from always hear a boom bust thing for watching we'll see you next. you know general macarthur once said americans never quit that was when there was something worth fighting for before fraud was the only way of life post gold standard abandonment and bankruptcy before the population grew morbidly obese downing bargain cans of processed food bought at the company's store wal-mart where their food stamps what the furthest before the air raids were filled with patriotic scoundrels demanding perpetual war which can never be funded by a low wage high food stamp economy. school system to. people. like. this you're preaching everything to. me. oh oh oh my oh my. skis is. explain sometimes for nothing. just keep still. just if you see a st

it was pleasing this see at least that we've got you know that alito. school ian thomas didn't sell out completely given the fact that it's you know yeah oh yeah i was you know kennedy was kind of he's always a wild card you know he you never know where he's going to fall but we've got to leave it there guys and thank you very much that's all for dell from always hear a boom bust that except for watching will see you next. to the. show thirty five can just spend over fifteen billion euros on culture she says should be one hundred fifty million degrees with some talk among still to sell something peacefully to friends we'd chumbley such as the song. we've got the future of coverage. his name was joseph he was nazi germany's minister of propaganda the myths that he created exist to this day. hubris burbles propaganda was actually trying to denigrate other nations while at the same time raising ordinary german self-esteem who. keep its. new precisely what the masses need to hear in order to make them follow him he was like the pipe a prayer from the fairy

it was blues in the sea at least that we've got you know that alito. schoolie and thomas didn't sell out completely given the fact that they didn't sit and you know yeah oh yeah i was you know kennedy was kind of he's always a wild card you know he you never know where he's going to fall but we're going to leave it there and thank you very much that's all for now from always hear a boom bust that except for watching we'll see you next. i'm out in martin the stories we cover here we're not going to hear any right other big stories that have struck headlines same time there's a reason they don't want you to know nothing are important. now let's break the set. the folks. in effect that means you can jump in anytime you want. coming up on our t.v. water water everywhere but not a drop to drink in detroit water services have been cut off to thousands of people who haven't been able to pay their bill and now the traders are reaching out to the u.n. for help a report from detroit just ahead. and the supreme court has spoken today the high court handed down tw

it was losing this see at least that we've got you know that alito schoolie and thomas didn't sell out completely given the fact that it's you know yeah oh yeah i was you know kennedy was kind of he's always a wild card you know you never know where he's going to fall but we've got to leave it there and thank you very much that's all for now from always hear a boom bust the next approaching we'll see you next. her. on larry king now being printers for leaving ted fed all revolution in the making it's taking virtual objects and being able to produce those. in atoms real physical material in being used in industry for a long time and now it's becoming personal by down the line one of the really strong growth areas for the three d. printing today is in the medical field researchers in princeton and just kind of the bio on the here there's a million times more sensitive than in the first major fully functional organ the liver is expected to be coming within will three d. printers make dones assessable that will body i thought you could use to be a forty's which claim you know really powers

even with that being the case, alito and roberts had very different reasoning.alk about that. >> as i said, alito has a cautious, traditionalist sensibility. he suggested and was more of a prosecutor in his previous life in law enforcement. his approach was i can't come up with a better rule today, i'll go along with this. let's go slow and if technology evolves, let's rethink. one of the big concerns is what happens if people try as soon as they get arrested to signal in some way so all of this stuff gets wiped from the phone. the majority says we'll think about that later, case specific rules about exigent circumstances. who knows when we'll have new apps for wiping phones. >> pete, another ruling about same-sex marriage with a big effect in utah. tell us about that. two rulings actually. >> one ruling from indiana, an unbroke even string of judges that struck down bans on same-sex marriage. that becomes the next case in that line. the far more significant one was a decision by a three-judge panel of the tenth circuit court of appeals ruling that utah's ban on

>> 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

well the thing with with blagojevich was more that this was the argument by alito they were obligated to to getting elected got a lot of money from unions and what he did is what he came into office he signed a law that said these types of workers who are working in the home getting paid by the state caring for a family member we're going to call them under our state law employees as employees therefore have to pay the fair share. i think we have a clip don't we have a leader on this i know and i was sent over to you guys say we don't know but anyway so she did that and then the then the states. they hadn't passed a law that they didn't enact it is an executive decision but illegals are you know was well isn't this isn't this you know your democratic politics getting along with unions and you know patting each other on the back and i'm going to figure out a way to make this you know unaccustomed yeah that was what did it and absolutely astounding remark from the leader of the media and and you know when during oral arguments when he you know he said is basically isn't this about rod b

there is a limitation with reference to the way the police behaved as justice alito points out. it's limited just to this evidence. >> let me say a couple things about the warrant requirement and justice alito's question. this court has said time and again the mere fact that the police could have gotten a warrant and didn't. let me say a couple of things about the warrant requirement. >> it just goes to the fact that this is searchable under the fourth amendment standards. >> with the warren justice kennedy and me talk about why warrant is important. it poses a neutral observer and between the citizen and the police officer. perhaps more importantly it does two very big things. one is taken particularly requirements of the magistrate can say this is what you can look at in remember in this case the prosecution ultimately introduce photos and videos but that is not what the detective testified to in the trial. he said in. shay: m11 we looked at a whole lot of stuff on the phone and that was what in his words cautious side. >> you recognize and you just told justice kennedy that a

justice alito said that for-profit companies should have these safeguards to protect the of theus liberties humans that own those companies. of course we are talking about hobby lobby, a multibillion dollar chain of craft stores. the owners of those companies believed that to specific types of contraception were a moral -- immoral. ruth bader ginsburg worried that this could open the door for employers to object to the morality of all sorts of things. today major pro-choice groups echoed that. at the same time we heard from the lawyer from hobby lobby, calling this a narrow ruling. they have opened a pandora's box and set a precedent and we just don't know where the road ends, which is why every single american should be disturbed by this decision. >> justice alito's decision said that this did not grant those rights and that oath cases could come later and that they decided later it would not be read into something so broad here you today's decision was narrow and careful. >> i am hearing from sources that senate democrats may be considering a legislative fix here. the white house spokesma

and so -- justice alito: what is the difference -- justice alito: i didn't mean to interrupt your -- >> well, i was just going to so i think there is a very real way in which you would say, you know, at the end of the day, the car dealer's providing cars to the public, the valet parking service is not. it's providing a parking service. chief justice roberts: why isn't and i don't want to stretch it too but why isn't it like a public garage in your own garage? i mean, you know, if you can park your car in your own garage or you can park it in a public garage. you can go to radio shack and buy an antenna and a dvr or you can rent those facilities somewhere else from aereo. they've got an antenna. they'll let you use it when you need it and they can, you know, record the stuff as well and let you pick it up when you need it. >> mr. chief justice, that's not an implausible way to look at this. that's exactly the way that this court looked at it in fortnightly decision. but congress in 1976 decided it was going to look at it differently, and it said that if you are providing a service, ev

>> i think that's right justice alito and i didn't mean in answering justice kagan's question to fully except the premise that there's no limit on the treaty power whatsoever but i do think it's important to recognize in the context of nonself-executing treaties are said opportunities to leave for another day whether the treaty itself is valid because sometimes the treaty is nonself-executing precisely because the senate recognizes it >> if you had been the president's counsel would you have advised him that it was unconstitutional to sign this treaty lacks. >> no, absolutely not justice kennedy because it's a valid nonexecuting treaty by its terms. it doesn't do anything to directly regulate individual conduct. if i were the president's counsel i would have said honestly mr. press and i don't think this requires us to have any law that applies to garden-variety assault with chemicals but if we need that to discharge trudy obligations of states are ready and able to shoulder that task. there's no state in the country that doesn't have a general assault statute that would be covered by

>> 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 or 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 c

this led them to rely upon what alito referred to in the oral argument as speculative hypotheticals. even justice breyer's dissenting opinion allows three hypotheticals to suggest an inch could relist router will go to great lengths to obey the base limits if there is no aggregate limit. two quick responses. persons knowledgeable about the campaign-finance laws and regulations, as many of you are, will see that gestures prior best -- moreover, even under the aggregate limits as they existed until they were struck down, picked routers could give the maximum amount of money to nine candidates. if contributors were able to channel excessive contributions through other candidates or committees to a preferred candidate, there should be evidence, one example in the last four decades, one would think, of this channeling in prior election cycles. had no suchrnment evidence. first amendment rights should not be restricted based upon so much speculation. the aggregate limits made no sense and the court correctly struck them down. my second point is that mccutcheon like citizens united did not

. >> in writing today's decision, justice samuel alito says it is limited to contraception and doesn't apply to other insurance conversation mandates that might conflict with an employer's religious beliefs. >>> facebook is doing damage control after negative public list to from an experiment to influence users' moods. it happened years ago. kpix 5's mark sayre live in san jose with reaction from some facebook users. >> reporter: well, frank, facebook says the point of the study was to see if emotions can spread from person to person without any face-to-face contacts but this has definitely concerned facebook users, who are already concerned about their privacy. when you scroll through your facebook newsfeed you may expect to see both good news and bad news. to see what impact the postings of your friends had on your mood, in 2012 facebook manipulated the news feeds of 700,000 of its users over a one week period. it removed good news from some feeds and bad news from other feeds, with the goal of seeing if it changed the mood of the user based upon future social postings. >> i don't li

. >> let's stick with justice alito's hypothetical. to find a business card of something which shows a car rental service. and it turned out over? they're not looking for a 10 or explosive, they found a card. can they do that? can, but ithey really don't want to apply -- >> can they turn the card over? i think what you have in robinson is a categorical rule that obvious these case-by-case determinations. you can make an argument that if i needed to and it were a diary case of billfold case, but i think the court wisely decided under robinson that we need a categorical rule that is easily administrator both in the field. digital information, even the notion of flipping through photos and a smartphone, implicates vast amounts of information, not just the photos themselves, but the gps locational data that is linked in with. , all kinds of other information that is intrinsically entwined in smartphones. >> including information that is specifically designed to be made out like. what about something like facebook or a twitter account? any

a great decision by justice alito joined by the chief scalia, kennedy and thomas, upholding the rights of family-owned businesses under the religious freedom restoration act. >> the ruling is a setback for part of president obama's health care reform law. here's what white house prs press secretary josh earnest said just a few moments ago. >> president obama believes women should made personal health care decisions for themselves rather than their bosses deciding for them. today's decision jeopardizes the health of women employed by these companies. >> we want to take a closer look at what this ruling says and what it means for companies and for obamacare. our justice correspondent pamela brown is at the supreme court. we also have our senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin and chief political analyst gloria borger here in the studio. i want to begin with pamela down at the supreme court. so the court said its ruling applies only to closely held companies. i was looking at the definition here. companies with more than 50% of their value held by five employees. how does that distinction wo

samuel alito announced protecting the free exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protectseligious liberty of the humans that own and control them. alito and court's majority said the government could try the coverage in other ways, in other words, bosses rights rule and women workers must wait for the government to craft a work around, something the administration is working with congress to figure out. while the court went out of its way to say today's decision only applies to the contraception mandate and does not provide a shield for employers who may invoke it as religious practice did not satisfy ruth bader ginsburg. she called the majority opinion a decision of startling breadth. invites for profit entities to seek religion based exemptions from regulations they deem offense ir to their faiths, raising the question how it might apply to blood transfusions and medications derived from animals and pills coated with gelatin. and justice begins burg wrote the court has ventured into a minefield. dr. ann davis and elise hoeg and emily as lon. practically speaking, what ha

[ inaudible ] alito? thomas and scalia, right? and kennedy. there's the majority opinion? which the liberals joined with the chief justice and goes out of his way to say there is no content-based law here. strict scrutiny doesn't apply. strong argument to any law to the abortion clinic is content based by the nature and any law to allow clinic employees to enter this zone that was -- this safe zone around the front of the clinic while not allowing other people to go there was content based because they could come out, accompany people into the clinic and say you're going to be fine. this is a good place to be. whereas the individuals challenging it couldn't do what they wanted to do and just to be clear, they didn't want to scream at people. what they wanted to do is approach people politely, engage in quiet conversation and say there are alternatives. i'd be happy to talk to you about them. the entire court was willing to say that kind of conduct on a city sidewalk is protected by the first amendment and we are not going to allow the city to fence off a large chunk of rea

. >> yeah, and tom, what the court did today in justice alito's majority opinion is apply what lawyers often call a two-part test. number one, is this cost-free contraception a compelling government interest? number two, does the aca provide it in a way that's not too burdensome to religious beliefs? walk us through what they decided in applying the test. >> the justices were perfectly willing to assume that contraception and getting it in the hands of women in an inexpensive way is a compelling governmental interest, but they said, look, this is not the least restrictive way to make these businesses provide the coverage or at least get the employees the coverage. the government has already shown it can pay for the coverage itself. when it comes to churches, things like church hospitals and the like, those kind of nonprofits, the law already provides a system whereby the employees of those companies, those churches, those hospitals get the care but just not from their employer. instead, it's paid for by the government or an insurance exchange. the justices said, hey, it seems us you co

>> thank you, justice alito. yes. so they haven't eliminated speech for all people. >> well, that's a -- a contested point because the attorney general reads "scope of employment" to mean getting to my job and leaving my job, and does not include speech activity. >> so on the face of the statute, i don't that -- that that interpretation doesn't do very much. >> this is the -- the chief legal officer of the state says this is a term that needs to be interpreted. the term is "scope of employment." scope of employment within this statute means getting to work and leaving work, and it doesn't mean political speech. >> so the attorney general says it's more than just getting to work and leaving work. it says it's just doing their jobs. first, i don't believe -- i don't believe that they have the authority to do that, in other words, i don't think they could go arrest somebody who happened to speak about abortion when they work for an abortion clinic. they have an absolute statutory defense. but even if they could limit it

[ inaudible ] alito? thomas and scalia, right? and kennedy. there's the majority opinion? which the liberals joined with the chief justice and goes out of his way to say there is no content-based law here. strict scrutiny doesn't apply. strong argument to any law to the abortion clinic is content based by the nature and any law to allow clinic employees to enter this zone that was -- this safe zone around the front of the clinic while not allowing other people to go there was content based because they could come out, accompany people into the clinic and say you're going to be fine. this is a good place to be. whereas the individuals challenging it couldn't do what they wanted to do and just to be clear, they didn't want to scream at people. what they wanted to do is approach people politely, engage in quiet conversation and say there are alternatives. i'd be happy to talk to you about them. the entire court was willing to say that kind of conduct on a city sidewalk is protected by the first amendment and we are not going to allow the city to fence off a large chunk of rea

>> i think that is right justice alito and i didn't mean to answer the questions saying there is no limit on the treaty power whatsoever. but it is important to recognize there is an opportunity to leave for another day the question of whether the treaty itself is valid. sometimes it is non-self executing because the senate recognizes -- >> if you had been the president's counsel would you advise him it was unconstitutional to sign this? >> absolutely not justice kennedy. by its terms it doesn't do anything do directly regulate conduct. i would have said mr. president i don't think this acquires us to have any law. but if we need that, the states are absolutely ready and able to shoulder that task. there is no state in this country that doesn't have a general assault statute that would be covered by this conduct -- >> look at the irony in what you just said. you said the victim -- many times went to the state police and said please, help me. and they turned her away a dozen time. they finally said go to the post office. this doesn't -- you are arguing that this comes on the states domain.

the majority decision by justice samuel alito emphasized religious rights and marked the first time the court has allowed a for-profit corporation this type of religious exemption. it was a victory for family-owned companies like the hobby lobby chain of arts and crafts stores whose owners david and barbara green challenged the law. the court said the health care law clearly imposes a substantial burden on the green's religious beliefs because it requires them to offer coverage for specific forms of birth control like the morning after pill and the iud which the greens believe facilitate abortion it is said there are other ways the government could ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular con extra-- contraceptives making the impact on women employed by the companies precisely zero. lori windam is an attorney with the beckett fund which represented the greens. >> what the supreme court said is that families do not give up their religious freedom when they open a family business. >> but liberal just iss led by justice ruth bader ginsburg frame the issue as one of wo

and then comments from supreme court justice samuel alito. then the administration announces its plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. several lives of fence to tell you about. the center for strategic and -- live events to tell you about. the center for strategic and intelligence hosted a for him -- on national security. and environmental subcommittee on wildlife and agriculture. witnesses include the head of the fish and wildlife service. response to a recent supreme court decision on campaign the senate will consider a constitutional amendment that will allow congress and the state the authority to set limits on racing and spending money on political campaigns. >> financial journalist michael lewis. this are living through time. there are real structural problems. i am not an economic forecaster, but everything i read suggests we are going to live with unusually high levels of , a lot of pain from indebtedness. a quarter of the country is on food stamps. it's not a great depression. we are not reprising exactly what ha

that shift of alito for o'connor really changes everything.he supreme court is becoming less popular, is that just a manifestation of the polarization of our politics at large or is there something different going on at the supreme court? >> we have a fascinating shift where for decades conservatives campaigned against the supreme court where they looked at largely the liberal successes of the warren court and ran against them and roe v. wade which followed, they said activist supreme courts are bad. now you see republican and conservative groups using the supreme court as a tool to repeal the laws that they don't like to lessen regulations, to chip away at executive appointments they don't like, to chip away at statutes they don't like, that protect the interests of constituencies that are less important to them. it's interesting to see that as the supreme court has become activist but towards the right, it's also become less popular. i think that may be a recognition of the fact that we do have a deeply polarized electorate. >> bruce, justic