justice alito.ce alito: it was well accepted within certain bounds but do they have same-sex marriage in ancient greece? >> i don't think they had anything comparable to what we had. justice alito: they had marriage, didn't think? they had same-sex relations? >> yes. justice alito: people like plato wrote approvingly of that -- same-sex relationships? >> i believe so. justice alito: they are limiting marriage to couples of the opposite sex was not prejudiced to gay people, was it? john: justice alito, justice scalia, justice thomas -- we know how they will vote. do you have a sense of they are resigned to the notion they are about to lose? greg: there was that sense, i would say so. one other point as i reheard those comments, one thing you cannotiddid not hear was moral disapproval of. justice alito was talking that it was going on since ancient greece. that was a different tone to the argument. john: greg, thank you for being with us. next, presidential announcement news. we will be right back. ♪

justice alito: you're saying that -- justice sotomayor: well, they -- justice alito: you're saying that the laws in some states the states that you're referring to that recognize only opposite-sex marriage are pretextual? mr. hallward-driemeier: the their nonrecognition laws are pretextual, yes, because the longstanding practice of these states is to recognize marriages that are validly celebrated elsewhere precisely because of -- justice alito: well -- mr. hallward-driemeier: the fundamental -- justice alito: other than the distinction we have the distinction between same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage. what is the next most dramatic variation that exists in the marriage laws of the states? mr. hallward-driemeier: well, at the time, certainly interracial marriage when -- justice alito: at the present time, what is -- mr. hallward-driemeier: well justice alito: most the next most dramatic difference? mr. hallward-driemeier: well, i think that, if i could, the antimiscegenation laws actually are the closest analogy, but what's different between them if i could because it goes to

justice alito talked about cultures. if you read the about the kalahari people or ancient peoples, they didn't have a government like this. they made it themselves and it was man and a woman. ms. bonauto: there were certainly prior to there were marriages prior to the united states forming and we recognize that. but when our nation did form into this union in 1787 and then when it affirmed the 14th amendment in 1868, that's when we made our nation collectively made a commitment to individual liberty and equality. justice breyer: well, what maybe you're doing that, but i would like to hear the precise answer to the question you've been asked several times. ms. bonauto: ok. justice breyer: and to me, it takes the form, the opposite view has been the law everywhere for thousands of years among people who were not discriminating even against gay people, and suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don't want to do it to change what you've heard is change what marriage is to include gay peop

justice alito: i think they came very close to that. until the epa to make its judgment after considering results of the ready. -- the study. they told them to study anything that went to health hazards. the reason they used appropriate and necessary language is because congress, when it was legislating, and instead there might well be uncertainty at the end of this analysis that congress directed the epa to undertake. there might be uncertainty about the effects of acid rain. justice sotomayor: i think that is what the legislature said. donald verrilli: the way that acid rain regulations unfolded they were at the same time as 7412. but they unfolded over a 10 year period. epa had to make a long-term projection. when i think with congress with saying, you may need to exercise judgment here. and epa did exercise judgment. justice breyer: there are two parts to this. the argument very much depends on -- don't worry because there is a way to take into event account cost. it is a lot of money, $9 billion. if you divided it, you have $30 per

justice alito was talking that it was going on since ancient greece.t was a different tone to the argument. john: greg, thank you for being with us. next, presidential announcement news. we will be right back. ♪ mark: super fun weekend at bernie's this weekend. this thursday, senator bernie sanders will announce that he is running for president and will run as a democrat. expect a short statement this thursday. next couple of weeks, the kickoff in vermont. john: we have a trifecta of programming notes. tomorrow, brian grazer joins us. on thursday, time for the minister of silly walks, monty python's john cleese. and then a conversation with larry flynt. mark: until then, sayonara. ♪ pimm: hello, i am pimm fox. this is what i am "taking stock" of this tuesday, april 28, 2015 -- it was an earnings snafu for twitter. the company results were made earlier than scheduled and the performance was disappointing. the stock fell sharply at the end of the trading session losing 18%. twitter posted first-quarter revenue that fell short of earnings and cut its sale

one of the questions justice alito asked in the second half of the argument, when they were talking about whether states had to recognize other states marriages, even if they did not recognize marriage equality in their own state, justice alito said, maybe they have enough of an interest to not have them performed in their state but not enough to prevent recognition for faith and credit to other states. he said that is possible. i thought it was interesting, to see justice alito, who i think a lot of people would say would be against marriage equality, trying to find in the civil rights area some middle ground. charlie: where is the middle ground? david: i don't need to suggest he was going to come out here. the middle ground was one between not having a right to marry any particular state, but that state has to recognize your marriage. that was the second question they had for review. when the chief justice asked maybe this is a violation of gender quality, because one man can marry a woman but not another man, that is purely a sexual distinction which has a high bar to be justified. a n

opinion thought it was interesting to see justice alito who i think a lot of people would say would be against marriage equality in any form trying to find in the civil rights area some middle ground that he could be comfortable with. >> rose: and where is that middle ground? >> i think the middle ground he was suggesting -- i don't mean to suggest he's going to come out here -- but i think the middle ground he was asking about was the middle ground between not having a right to marry in a particular state if the state doesn't want you to but that state has to recognize your marriage if you have been married someplace else. that was the second question the supreme court had set for review. and when the chief justice asked, well, maybe this is a violation of gender eequality because one man can marry a particular woman but could not marry another man and that is purely a sexual distinction which obviously has a very high bar to be justified. so i think it was interesting to see that a number of the justices that i think some people might have said were just going to be almost all automa

justice alito said, that reveals great information about us for a month violates our expectations of privacy. ken mentioned that jones emphasized that there's an important element of trespass in jones where the gps was affixed to the bottom of the car and justice scalia made that the center of his opinion, but it sounded to me you were reading the tea leaves thinking maybe four or five justices if you add justice sotomayor and maybe some of the others, as well, might think that 24/7 drone surveillance crosses a line. although, you like justice scalia are worried about the slippery slope. and there was an interesting exchange where he said a month is too long, but a day is okay. what's the magic line? that leads me back to ahmed. tell me one more time why you thought it would be okay in light of the persuasive arguments your colleagues have made on the other side. >> well, i think in joan, this concurring opinion that greg referred to, the alito's concurrence had more to do with aggregation than individual collection. and so, again, you know, to what extent is the -- is there a drone

. >> justice alito a known conservative wanted to know if they'd also allow four people enter a polygamous marriage and if legal organizations would have to provide housing for the gay couples. brier called marriage a fundamental liberty. >>> it could be flowing a bit faster later this week. tenacious topper is tracking a nor'easter and how much rain it's going to bring. >> i'm stephanie ramirez at the national zoo where we're learning the complications behind pregnancy are not exclusive to humans. >>> sure it looks nice now. but there's a yellow alert on the way. >> we have issued one for thursday. we have not yet for friday. we may be able to salvage friday. let's talk about something you can see tonight if you look to the west. the moon and jupiter actually going to be perfect tonight about 11:00. so check that out. live look outside at our live michael and son weather cam. 70. winds north northwest at 14. a fantastic evening and a very nice night. pleasant tonight, temperatures about average. bus stop temperatures, 42 to 58. that's 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. so light jacket probably a good idea

justice roberts will be siding with the court's three most conservative justices scalia thomas and alito. >> the chief justice would say no constitutional right to marriage, but interesting whether you have a right to have your marriage recognized if one state is going to allow you to have it. chief justice is a very conservative justice, but he's coy in arguments, makes sure to explore the issues with both sides, very hard to predict. >> let's pivot here and talk about something happening today, another controversial issue before the high court decision. the lethal injection drug combination increasingly being used in executions all over this country and whether it violates the constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. tell us a little bit more about what the justices are hearing this morning. >> sure, the justices have said we can have capital punishment in this country and can do it by lethal injection, but now we get into the details. the justices have said you can't have unnecessary and undue pain and suffering, you have to find an execution method that is as humane as pos

"let's be honest about what's going on here," said justice samuel alito. "the court is being asked to help wage a guerrilla war against the death penalty." 32 states have the death penalty, but it's increasingly difficult to carry out. justice antonin scalia says that's because of the abolitionist movement, putting pressure on the companies that manufacture drugs to stop making them available for executions. and that's what happened in this case. a drug company stopped providing two other sedatives, which forced oklahoma to use this alternative. or it could do, scott like utah recently did and bring back the firing squad. >> pelley: jan crawford at the supreme court. jan, thank you. now, have a look at this. >> yesterday december 7 1941 ... >> pelley: f.d.r. the day after pearl harbor asking congress to declare war on japan. today nearly three-quarters of a century later, the prime minister of japan stood in the very same spot and expressed condolences for america's war losses but shinzo abe stopped short of an outright apology. the death toll from saturda

tensions rising on both sides, conservative justice alito calling this a guerrilla warl on the death penalty. liberal justice saying it equates to being burned alive from the inside. the debate will continue. >>> now, to a growing congresser for children across america when the school bus pulls up. we showed you that video this week. the close call. the bus driver opens the door and then the suv there plowing by ignoring the stop signals. the children were okay. but tonight in dallas alone, 92,000 tickets issued in just the last three years, drivers plowing by those buses. abc's ryan owens with the startling new images tonight. >> reporter: just as the school bus doors open, tragedy nearly strikes. a white suv is inches from mowing down three children, including this 5-year-old. >> it kind of ran over my shoe a little. >> reporter: the bus's cameras catch the speeding suv from three angles as the driver passes the bus on the shoulder. tonight, investigators in washington state are offering a reward to find that driver. >> when we knew our kids were okay the anger set in. i took off r

i don't deny that, justice alito. it is going to be an issue. >> one question. i see your time's going up. i'm interested in your comments which says we should have to define a fundamental right in its nayrrowest terms. a lot of the questions that we're asking your colleague in the earlier part of the argument had that in mind i think. what do we do with the language that says we have to define it in a narrow way? >> justice kennedy, forgive me for answering the question this way. we do recognize that there is a profound connection between liberty and equality, but the united states has advanced only an equal protection argument. we haven't made the fundamental rights under that case so i'm not sure it would be appropriate for me to comment without having briefed it. >> can you tell me why you didn't. >> we see there is this profound connection but we do think for reasons like the ones implicit in the chief justice's question, this sounds like equal protection as we understand it because it is a conferred status and institution. if i could in the little time i h

. >> but you heard what alito said he said justices allowing same-sex couples to wed doesn't open ther that polygamous relationships be regarded in the same way. interesting question. >> and even though homosexual relationships have been condoned back to plato. however, polygamy goes back and there are plenty today, and so we think that that may be the next domino to fall in the definition of marriage. >> it's very very fascinating. especially to hear their own voices as they're discovering it and arguing about it. >> they're also by the way, trying to sway each other, the justices during the course of those arguments. the way they communicate to each other. they're using their litigants as sounding boards. >> guys have a great day. >>> you have up for whatever? that's the king of beers new marketing campaign. guess why it's got folks fired up. >>> welcome back to the real story and the power panel. anheuser-busch apologizing after the marketing ploy it set off alarms. labeling bottles with the tag line the perfect beer for removing no from your vocabulary for a night. it's part of th

. >> there's president obama, samuel alito, citizens united. into that 90 page dissent, you know, the money just expands and extends. >> at that time, time to let you guys go. thank you for coming to be with us in person. okay, guys, can see casino gaming. i want to wanted to get ready to cash in on this rebound excellent looking below the surface, researching a hunch... and making a decision you are type e*. time for a change of menu. research and invest from any website. with e*trade's browser trading. e*trade. opportunity is everywhere. if you have a business idea, we have a personalized legal solution that's right for you. with easy step-by-step guidance, we're here to help you turn your dream into a reality. start your business today with legalzoom. ♪ ♪ charles: it's time to help you make some money. the last couple of days, things have come on strong. here is the ticker symbol. i think this is one of the reasons of that the stock has been under pressure, obviously virtually overnight became the gambling mecca of the world. cracking down f

justice alito handles this quite well. he talked about changes in marriages taking decades. i think it is too early to tell on the first day -- when the first state to recognize marriage was in 2004. judge daughtrey: what would've look like if alito was in the the majority, written the windsor opinion? mr. murphy: he makes a distinction that he does not think that the federal government decision was based on animus and i think that he would have distinguished romer on that ground. i think it is a different question and the main focus of windsor was on the unusual nature of a federal intrusion into marriage. that would be the case. judge cook: the method by which you think about the methods by which -- if we are interested in the federalism idea -- the methods by which states adapt to changing mores? i am not just speaking about local aspects that people let folks in the general assembly or whatever legislative body who there have asked -- whom they have asked to move things along locally. mr. murphy: yes. judge cook: i do not think we are talking about that so much. we're ta

justice sam alito.is it legal to have 2008 but then the first drug used was a barbiturate, that induced a deep coma like sleep. did not feel the next two drugs one to paralyze breathing the other to stop the heart. but to substitute medazelam does it really work? the oklahoma attorney general argued this will lead them in unconscious, in 60 to 90 seconds. justice soang yah sotomayor says it doesn't mean you can't feel it. >> more so than the use of medazelam in the execution process. >> reporter: whichever way the court goes, the justices need to give clear direction. >> this is the second lethal injection case we've had in seven years. if the supreme court doesn't give clear guidance no matter where they fall, it doesn't give clear guidance to states, there's going to be continuing litigation. >> reporter: now states are already looking for other alternatives. utah, for example has approved the use of a firing squad which the state had used previously and the state of oklahoma has approved the use of n

a ton of cash and a stock that we reduced to next to nothing after it spins off its stakes to a alitoallya be a. you merge grubhub with post mates and instacart, who you will hear from in a bit and you have a one stop shop way to get anything you want delivered right to your door in one easy app. anything. nothing sure which place to order from? acquire yelp. you can have reviews alongside the app. both yahoo! and priceline need so badly to expand into what i call the last mile the one from the retailer or the restaurant or any other kind of store to the customer's house. how do i know this will work? i got an in. from my perspective as an inn keeper/restaurateur, i can tell you how important the combination would be for both enterprises. just like twitter is in the discount aisle, so are grubhub and yelp that put up disappointing numbers. you can't buy when they're soaring. you buy them when they get crushed, which is now. of course not all these companies are seller. you could make what i call a god father-style offer that can't be refused. the deals, they will get done. just to be sure

justice alito brought up example if the government needs a good idea why can't it tell cell phone companiesth phone you produce give it away to someone who can't afford it? we'll have decision by end of june. >> that cell phone question is an excellent one. thank you for teeing this up. rachel. >> the question is, who is better at deciding how raisins should be produced or how many should be produced? should be a bunch of centralized bureaucrats and special interests in washington or should be millions of consumers and farmers who produce the raisins? i think you look at even the telecom industry that used to be very heavily regulated, it is much better now and there is a lot more options and prices when you get the government out of these things and leave it to the people. >> charlie, i want to go back to the question shannon just brought up though, are they picking on little guy with farmers? they're not making hand over fifths but telecom communications people are making hand over fifth? >> agriculture is regulated much different way than telecom which is heavily regulated for different

once volume is an appellate court judge and later when justice alito is on the supreme court.our guest was in private practice in 2010 when he started the political establishment at the feet of robert bennett for the gop senate nomination from utah. the almanac of american politics that he was the youngest senator when he took office in january 2011. the senator's new book is called the lost constitution the willful subversion of america's founding documents. it is a second look. the first was the freedom agenda white balance budget is necessary to restore constitutional government. now the mechanics as always we are on the record here. please no live blogging or treating at short. no filing of any kind of the breakfast is underway to give us time to listen to what our guest says. knowing her go when the session ends. to help you resist the rwanda search, we would e-mail several pictures to blog reporters here as soon as the breakfast and. as regular attendees know if you'd like to ask questions, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nod threatening signal and i

also justice samuel alito in an article specifically said that the former opinion of oliver wendell homesddressed and it's outmoded. >> it was holmes in 1922 who gave the exception. he said he doesn't talk about legal issues. in the meantime san jose's city attorney points out wolf is intdz in the five-acre site and the caltrans stadium. >> and that option is good for her for another six-plus years and it is further complicated whether oakland can keep the raiders moving to l.a. and the meeting was held between the nfl and the presidents between the oakland city council and the alameda board, and if they leave, oakland will be hard pressed in san jose, abc 7 news. nah that is it for abc 7 news at 4. i'm ama daetz. >> i'm larry beil and abc 7 news begins with dan and cheryl. >> cal professor robert reich is among the hundreds protesting for higher pay and we are live as demonstrators march through berkeley right now. >> a controversial vaccination bill generates intense opposition. >> we strongly oppose this bill. i strongly oppose this bill. >> it took two hours for advocates to finish. d

let's be honest what's going on here said justice alito. 32 states have the death penalty but it is increasinglycult to carry out. justice scalia says that's because of the abolitionist movement putting pressure on the companies that manufacture drugs to stop making them available for executions. >> reporter: that's what happened in this case. drug companies stopped providing other sedatives which forced oklahoma to search for an alternative or they could just find another method like utah today when it brought back the firing squad. jan crawford, cbs news, the supreme court. >>> this morning superintendent of fairfax county schools karen garza is blasting the board of supervisors for failing to fully fund the school budget. the deficit this year is only about $8 million. that's out of a $2 billion school budget. garza is warning that a likely $100 mill shortfall next year is going to force cuts to programs she says makes them excellent. everything outside of the core curriculum will have to be considered for cutting. the teacher pay has remained flat. the only thing left to cut she says will be

he clerked for several judges, twice for samuel alito once when he was an appellate judge, and later on the supreme court. our guest was in private practice in 2010 when he stunned the political establishment and defeated robert bennett for the gop senate nomination from utah. the almanac of american politics says he was the youngest senator when he took office in january 2011. the senator's new book is called "our lost constitution: the willful subversion of america's founding document." it is his second book. so much for biographies. on to the mechanics. no live blogging or tweeting. no filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway. there is no embargo when the session ends. to help you resist the selfie urge, we will e-mail several pictures to all reporters as soon as the breakfast ends. as regular attendees know, if you would like to ask a question, do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nonthreatening signal, and i will happily call on one and all. we'll start by offering the guest an opportunity to make opening comments and then moved to questions from around the ta

that in all three branches, which will end up with i don't know, 7, 8 supreme court justices like alitoor do we have a moderate democratic administration where, yes, there is going to be a lot of typing and pulling within the party within congress over which issues are to be brought to the floor, with the president's position will be, what she should do if she is president? that, to me, is a better situation for working families and all americans -- by the way people around the world -- than the idea of a president rand paul or president ted cruz or somebody who is going to dismantle every for texan working families in this country -- >> what about president elizabeth warren? >> what about it? she isn't running, bob. >> but why to encouraging more progressive person to run. for god, dennis kucinich. anyone. you'll have to answer the question, joe, why are we stuck with someone like hillary clinton who is a proven record of betraying the progressive ideas? a michelle goldberg, do you want to get a word in here? we have to go to break in and come back to this discussion. you're watching,

>> at one point justice alito referenced guerrilla warfare.ke sure the two drugs states used previously to induce the coma-like state won't be available and then when states are forced to use less reliable drugs they get sued. justice scalia jumped in saying to the inmate's attorney, quote you want to come before the court and say, well this third drug is not 100% sure. the reason it isn't 100% sure is because the abolitionists have rendered it impossible to get the 100% sure drug. well the question becomes if you can't be sure a prisoner is unconscious and unable to feel pain is the entire protocol then unconstitutional shep. >> the critics are claiming this can be a very painful way to die. >> yeah and justice kagan repeatedly emphasized that and said if the first drug that is supposed to put you in a coma-like state, the second drug gives the person the feeling of being burned alive from the inside. and the attorney arguing on behalf of oklahoma said, quote, suppose we said we're going to burn you at the stake but before we do we'll use an

. >> i too have trouble like justice alito about the telephone or whatever. some every fifth car -- you have answered that question. what is the basis? this thing which this -- distinguish this. >> this is a government program and governs quality timing of sales. it is important to recognize that is all that is going on here. the reserve raisins are set aside by the handler after the producer has voluntarily turn them over for later sale. petitioners concede the government can regulate when the manner and the channel of the sales. that is what the reserve program does. they are turned over to the handler, the handler sets them aside and then the committee decides when and where to sell them. >> this is a historical work you have to defend. you could achieve the government's objectives just as you do in most other cases through a volume of limitations that do not require physical taking. for whatever reason, this was set up differently. so, we are here dealing with the classical physical taking. we are not going to jeopardize the marketing the agriculture depa

. >> i agree justice alito, that congress proposed different treatment for power plants. but that doesn't answer the question. that just asks the question. the question is what different treatment did congress prescribe? now, what petitioners are arguing is that what congress prescribed and mandated was a cost-benefit analysis that does not apply to any other source of hazardous pollutants. but that's not what the text or statute says and that's not what the history reflects. what the text of the statute says in 1a is even though for every other source regulation would proceed immediately, for power plants there was uncertainty about whether power plants emitted hazardous pollutants at a level that would cause problem, whether the acid rain regulations would solve the problem, and whether there were alternative control strategies available. >> this -- >> if i may, i'm sorry. >> yeah, sure. >> what congress told epa to do was to study those three things. those go to health considerations. and then once epa made a judgment about that it was to decide whether to list power p

justice samuel alito: june lethal injection was jump held by that the court in 2008, but the first drug used was a barbituate that induced a deep coma like slope so the inmate did not feel the next two drugs one to paralyze breathing the other to stop the heart. states have had to substitute a sedative for that barbituate. the question is does it really work. the oklahoma solicitor general argued this dosage will render these petitioners unconscious in no more than 60-90 seconds. justice sotomayor wasn't buying it: >> there have been 15 executions in the u.s. using the drug. after the hearing oklahoma's attorney general said this lawsuit isn't really about the drug itself. >> fundamentally i think that's what it is. the petitioners are fundamentally attacking the death penalty more so than the use of the drug in the execution process. >> one expert said the justices need to give clear direction whatever the outcome. >> this is the second lethal injection case in seven years. if the supreme court does not write an opinion that gives clear guidance no matter where they fall, if it doesn't

the experience is that there has typically been -- >> i too am troubled by justice alito about his prefix. you have answered that question. what is the basis. >> because this is a comprehensive government to program and that governs quality. governs timing of sales and it is important to recognize that that is all it is going on. the reserve raisins are set aside or set aside by the handler after the producer has voluntarily turned them over for later sale. petitioners concede that the government can regulate the manner of sales which is exactly what the reserve program does. they decide when and where to sell the. >> this is a historical work you could achieve the government objective just as you do in most other cases through volume limitations that do not require physical taking. this was set up differently. we are here dealing with the classical physical taking. we're not going to jeopardize the marketing. and the better view you said earlier it is the reason or you will have a lot of trouble. make the.that these committees are government. >> we are not saying the committee is not the

it's a point that justice alito made in his assent in windsor that rational people could recognize thattoo early for social scientists or philophers or historians to be able to tell. judge cook: to your point, mr. lindstrom, that the votes of citizens of michigan is that, i should think? mr. lindstrom: i definitely think that weighs in consideration very heavily to say that, for example, this is under rational basis review to say that michigan voters didn't have among them, 2.7 million of them, a single rational basis and it's not possible to have a person of good will to disagree. judge sutton: the panel are people from ohio. we might be able to accept that argument. mr. lindstrom: well, fair enough. so i think the numbers in ohio are also quite, maybe more sensitive. judge daughtrey: the dates of the lifetime the people in michigan voted was something like 10 years ago. mr. lindstrom: it was 2004 that's correct, your honor, people can change their mind in the future. judge sutton: your full rebuttal time, thank you. ms. stanyar. ms. stanyar: may it please the court, carol stanyar. for

one example is a tech shot in alexandria, virginia that darpa helped get started up little by alito workingo belong to a gym they are anyone can have access to 3-d print there's but also sewing machine and welding tools and every production equipment a wonderful machine shot. i went by to visit before christmas. i wanted to get a sense of the vibe there. one of my most engaging conversations is that the young fellow in high school who found about tech shot. he drives an hour and a half each way many times a week as often as he can break away to build things. i said what he do at these things quiet is that i put them on pages to my friends and family by then. i got his business card and i raced home. i thought maybe i would buy some and he built. it turns out i don't know anyone who wants accessories for guns to play paintball which is pretty much what he was building. [laughter] that is what is happening today. people are experimenting. if a kid who found a way to build a business. i don't know what tomorrow holds. and maybe some event brought in and have the skills and energy and creativit

i mean, the jones case at least alito's concurrence, at least talks abouting ing aggregation. but to me that's not a collection issue. it's more what you do with the data. so to answer in short, i think the current doctrine would probably allow mini drone surveillance under the fourth amendment in public spaces. >> great. and why don't you go on to flag some of the issues that you'd like for us to talk about tonight. >> i think the interesting issue for me is not necessarily the collection of information because you've heard from a lot of really smart people working on that and i think they're doing a great job. but as a criminal defense attorney i'm sort of jaded about a hopeful outcome in terms of what we can and can't collect and the idea of privacy in public space. i think the interesting issue for me is then what happens with the data. so irrespective if we win any of these challenges we're going to have a great amount of data with the government you've got technologies that implement artificial intelligence and learning. and so the goal for a lot of this big data stuff i

he clerked for a number of people, including justice alito. he is a leader in the senate. and serves on the judiciary committee. perhaps the most important role is chairman of the senate committee. you get blamed for almost everything that goes on that folks do not like when you are chairman of the committee. you need to stand up against everything that goes through that needs to be stopped. mike recently came out with a new book. it is about our lost constitution. an excellent read for those who want to really understand what it is we are losing and need to restore in america. mike, thank you for being here. senator marco rubio really has lived the american dream. he has been quiet recently. [laughter] host: that is why he is here with us. he has been a public servant for many years in florida, set an example as a state representative quickly and became majority leader. he was speaker of the house in florida. and again when he was set to run for the senate, it was a david and goliath quest. no one thought it was possible. but what we saw was the american people in florida

. >> i1ríÑ agree, justice alito that congress proposed different treatment for power plarnts.answer the question. that just asks the question. the questionp>i is what different treatment did congress prescribe. a cost/benefit analysis that doesn't apply to any other source of pollutants. that's not what the statute says and the history ñreflects. what the text of the statute states allfoud power plants there was uncertainly about whether power plants emitted hazardous pollutants at a level that would cause problem. whether the acid rain regulations would solve the< problem and whether there were alternative control strategies available. >> epa -- what congress told epa to do was study those three things. those go to health considerations. then once epa made a judgment about that, it was to whether to list power plants for regulation as -- whether it was appropriate and necessary to list them for regulation. >> this is what i don't understand about your position.q congress' decision to treat power plants differently, it seems to me reflects the fact that congress wanted at leas

the alito opinion in jones give some suggestion that the fourth amendment gives protection to at least prolonged surveillance of individuals movements in public because there's something about the aggregate of information that is more invasive than the individual pieces. that's a huge question that comes to things like automatic license plate reader data be collected. i do not use office the last week they released a story based on how it got given by the oakland police department 4.2 million points of data that that's it has gathered through a public records request. apparently you can just do a public records act request. they didn't release the actual database. out of privacy concerns but the point is that are databases sitting out there and if we don't have any greater protection for public movement, merely because it happens in public then that's going to be another area where the fourth amendment falls short. >> i want to turn back and as i think we all know, under the fourth amendment doctrine and also a foreign intelligence surveillance scheme there's a distinction between how

he clerked for a number of people including justice alito. he is a leader in the senate and serves on the judiciary committee and number of subcommittees but perhaps the most important role is chairman of the senate committee. when i was there, you get blamed for almost everything that goes on that folks don't like or like when you're chairman. you have to stand up against everything that goes through that needs to be stopped and mike, we really appreciate you doing that. mike has recently come out with a new book, not his first but it's about our lost constitution an excellent read for those who want to really understand what it is we're losing and what we need to restore here in america. thank you for being here today. senator marco rubio, really has the american dream, been quiet recently, haven't heard much from him. that's why he's here today with us. he has been a public servient for many years in florida, set an example as a state rep and became majority leader and very early age he was speaker of the house in florida and again, when h

the alito opinion in jones give some suggestion that the fourth amendment gives protection to at least there's something about the aggregate of that information that is more invasive than the individual pieces. that's a huge question that comes to things like automatic license plate reader data being collected. i don't know if you sawym this but last week there was a story -- it got given by the oakland police department 4.2 million points of alpr data that that city had gathered through a public records act request. so if you want to go see what this stuff looks like apparently you can just do a public records act request for it. they didn't release the actual data base i think out of privacy concerns. but the point is there are these data bases that are sitting out there and if we don't have any greater protection from public movements, merely because they happen in public, then that's going to be another area where the fourth amendment falls short. >> thanks. i want to turn back to you and ask very implicit in all of this and we all know under the fourth amendment doctrine and our f

he clerked for a number of people, including justice alito.ader in the senate and serves on the judiciary committee and a number of subcommittees but perhaps the most important role is chairman of the senate steering committee. when i was there, you get blamed for almost everything that goes on that folks don't like or like when you're chairman. you have to stand up against everything that goes through that needs to be stopped and mike, we really appreciate you doing that. a new book, not his first but it's about our lost constitution . an excellent read for those who want to really understand what it is we're losing and what we need to restore here in america. mike, thank you for being here today. senator marco rubio, really has the american dream, been quiet recently, haven't heard much from him. [laughter] that's why he's here today with us. he has been a public servant for many years in florida, set an example as a state rep and became majority leader and very early age he was speaker of the house in florida. and again, when he set about t

but from a historical standpoint, justice scalia was careful talking about society, and justice alito talks about cultures if you read about the ancient peoples, they didn't have a government rule. they made it themselves and it was man and wife. >> there were certainly prior to marriages prior to the united states forming and we recognize that. but in this union in 1787 and affirmed the 14th amendment and our nation made a commitment to individual equality. >> i would like to hear the answer to the precise question you have been asked several times. this has been the law everywhere for thousands of year among people who were not dis discriminating against gay people. and suddenly you want nine people outside of the ballot box to require states, that don't want to do it to change what you have heard is change what marriage is to include gay people. why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage? that same question has been put in many many ways in the briefs on our subject, you received it in three or four di