supreme court justice samuel alito came back to hamilton new jersey to perform an important duty. >> of the duties of the office of mayor of the township of hamilton. >> according to the best of my ability. >> according to the best of my ability. >> so help me god. >> so help me god. >> congratulations. >> thank you very much. >> justice alito administered the oath of office to hamilton 's new mayor. she was overwhelmingly reelected to a full four year term. >>> coming up on "action news" tonight bill cosby speaks out for the first time since his arrest. ahead the tweet that he posted to followers. >>> and meet baby new year if you will. we'll introduce you to one of the region's newest residents born moments after midnight. adam. >> monica we think it's cold now but you look to the north you could see teens for high temperatures. there is heading in our direction. we'll let you know how cold it's going to get and when in that seven-day forecast. >> all right, jaime apody with more on the interim head coach who will take the field with the eagles sunday when "action news" continues t

justice alito: before you get -- mr. dumont: if -- justice alito: before you get into that, could i just ask you a preliminary question that came up earlier in the argument? do you think that the california teachers association is an agency of the state of california? mr. dumont: no. i think a union that becomes an exclusive representative, under the perry case, has an official place in the functioning of the school district. but it is not -- it does not become an organ of the state. and that's actually a very important point. precisely because of the company union concern, what's delicate about this, from the state's point of view, is that we want if we're going to have collective bargaining, we need to have a system where there's one representative that we can deal with, and that representative has to be both a good partner for us, from our point of view, but also perceived by the employees as representing their interests, which is why -- chief justice roberts: but it's not -- mr. dumont: we can't take it over. excuse

justice alito could be seen mouthing the word's "not true".in the 2016 campaign -- - many peoplplsay what the president predicted came true. in that same speech -- president obama took aim at don't ask dont tell... tell... "this year i will work with congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay americans to serve the country they love because of who they are. it's the right thing to do." do."."don't ask, don't tell was repealed in september of 2011. in 2013 -- president obama tried to shame congress into action about gun control -- just weeks after the shooting in newtown connecticut killing 20 elementary school children. children. vote...because in the two months since newtown, more than a thousand birthdays, anniversaries have been stolen by a bullet from a gun...they deserve a vote. gabby giffords deserves a vote.e.he families of newtown deserve a vote. the families of arora deserve a vote. even with all that cheering -- increased gun control still wouldn't be a reality.but in 2015 -- the president was back to a lighter tone. tone. "i have no more campaigns

>> justice alito, the third circuit has a rule discussed in a brief adopted in a case called galley that says you do have the right to be politically apathetic. the reason the case is so bizarre is that the other side, for its own reasons, decided not to assert that right. now, i will say that it does, nonetheless, matter. because there will be other kinds of cases where you have a public employee that is not asserting any rights at all and does not involve, say, environmentalism or gun rights or whatever. and the public employer, if it's thought just to have perceived the employee as having been involved in some association, then is subject to a claim. >> sorry, you have to -- you have to show some facts to draw that inference. and you just can't say, i'm involved in this, and the employer fired me because of that. you have to show some connection between the firing and -- >> his support of spagnola is discussed in the chief's office, right, and then he has to be reassigned. and the chief has to really worry that he's going to be sued. that my point is this. the set of cases that you ha

you look at the last set of nominees, roberts was 50, kagan was 50, alito and sotomayor was also 50. what the presidents were incentivized to do is find somebody who is very ideologic and already has these entrenched views. most of the justices in the supreme court worked in a presidential administration, whether it was reagan or ford or obama, most worked in a presidential administration, i don't think you want third parties deciding how to interpret our laws. >> this latest era that gabe defines really start with clarence thomas who was young was ideologic could be expected to be around for a long time on the bench ? >> well, i do think it started about that time. and clearly, it's become the trend . i think in the past 30 years or so justices started to search 20 years or so. president saying i think it's good thing to nominate somebody who's only he going to be on the court for a decade or so, the whole system is structured to incentivize someone who can stay on for a long time. i can't blame the president for wanting to do it. i can't blame senators who are under pressure from s

supreme court justice samuel alito administering the oath of office.e graduated from princeton university. she was reelected last november to a full four year term. she's held the office since 2012. >>> 2016 is here, looking ahead to the stories that will be making headlines in the coming year. more on that. plus, worrier workout. what prompted a gym to raise money and donate equipment to a military base in iraq. >>> all right. welcome back. bundle up this morning. temperatures below freezing in many, many spots, feeling like the 20s in a lot of spots. this is good news. we're making snow in the pocono mountains, real stuff too in some parts. light snow is falling, flurries in the poconos. we love to hear that and love they are able to make snow in the cold temperatures. looking at temperatures 10-15 degrees colder compared to this time yesterday. 10 degrees colder in philadelphia. 12 colder in millville, and 5 degrees colder in mount pocono, feeling like 15 degrees now in mount pocono. mainly below freezing in the area, 31 in philadelphia, 29 in chest

justice alito: how often will it be the case that an employee will be unable to allege any expression or any association that is protected by the -- the first amendment? it seems to me quite rare. and it may be that this case comes to us the way it does because the plaintiff was dealing with two things, one was the first amendment, and the other -- i mean one was the issue that's -- the question of his motivation, and the other was this alleged policy prohibiting any kind of political activity. even in the -- the person who is just apathetic, is there not a -- a first amendment right to be -- say, i don't -- i don't like politics, i don't want anything to do with politics, i'm not going to register, i'm not going to vote? mr. goldstein: all right. so justice alito, the third circuit has a rule discussed in the brief -- brief in opposition adopted in a case called ghaly that says you do have the right to be politically apathetic. the reason the case is so bizarre is that the other side, for its own reasons, decided not to assert that right. now, i will say that it does nonetheless matt

the only supreme court opinion today came from justice sam use el alito who wrote the murder of miss harrison was conscience less and unnecessarily torture us in light of this evidence it defies belief to suggest that the jury would not have found the existence of either aggravating factor if its finding was binding. the high court has sent her case back to the florida supreme court now to determine whether hurst should get a new sentencing hearing. there are 390 inmates on death row in florida right now. 91 have already been executed under this system since 1976. we'll take a closer look at the possible impacts of the supreme court decision starting at 5. cbs 4 news. >> thank you very much. >>> more breaking news right now, where rescue crews are at the scene of a party city. several shelves inside the store on palmetto park road and powerline road collapsed. teams are inside the store it's not known how many people have been hurt but initial reports are there may be up to ten people injured we've got a crew othe way to the scene and we'll have much more on cbs 4 news at 5. >>> righ

supreme court justice samuel alito administ administering the oath of office today for a former hamilton resident and graduated from princeton university. mayor yooety was elected to a full four-year term. she's held the office since 2012. >>> on this new year's day, the philadelphia fire department is looking back on a history making year for fire safety. 12 fire deaths happened in 2015, the lowest number in the fire department's recorded history. that's compared with 32 deaths in 2014. and 52 people died back in 2006. the highest number in the last decade. the fire department installed more than 10,000 smoke alarms in 2015. >>> we're getting a firsthand look at the scene last night as flames engulfed a dubai skyscraper. a temple alum took this video and sent it to nbc 10. he was in the mall right next to the hotel when the fire started. and this was the scene today as crews continue to battle smoke and fire more than 12 hours after it started. at least a dozen people were injured from the fire or wildly evacuated. investigators are still trying to figure out what caused the fire to sta

k owo a owthtrrsewsintenud daoh ol ters n ceemry ve stntoo alitoe r orasg detoiboe als weth hoit res nan'st r dehabstngthfofie thw,d y r ing th gn stothto w s us tharnoapwithwath ua irry g leq thy eyoi at, y d'tkne nt ws ng e inr n io ngldt tonk hodictofal tst sttithtuioe dehame #f clseat ndno iadi>>gonerdthr, oeeaveowgr noler. gngthrttbi. tat k gitrotheecpeeite eas ablolwn rihrew feila fitshpcingtatsfee ciy-cenhiing nedthit de der d aimaploush t cahacotow ves itgstrameit urju thwe>>vehi toontnet daeas 0 esanclnrifrfeuel, eabangre foiod l ishetoirsi t t socostntk.oulia fne>>o e n. opal osthunpwino75iopobaac. d h nd fo. x 11vinouth erans thre. thprecowinl iolls ou ref oput d ch t lievyoel ldke ha. tno gke linpe dithstrng uge.> t'lhoanere ss ol yonoy che gas.> l usstacs e fo s e ty toke>thisress ahthlryanss dohathoy. symhay n drd llslaatryo ne ths 3 hss the thlry> enreuss m bee iy sss un hilaerwobefiofing heloy heveat etr e vainmmon> u w,reeloofe-s so nes.l eosutihn rirene ldp duoasl t spvito acs fo rd jtot otwing ll, pee ielus onr . i han fo 17aan lunu i t le ayamta s >> ucasg hou k l

justice scalia, thomas and alito authored similarly scathing dissenting opinions. justice scalia charged, for example, the majority's opinion lacks even a thin veneer of law and that it is, quote, a naked judicial claim to superlegislative power fundamentally at odds with our traditions and our system of government. justice thomas added that the majority's decision threatens the religious liberty that our nation has long sought to protect and evidenced a deep corruption of constitutional interpretation. so, who is right? the mere fact that five is more than four does not necessarily make the five correct even though it makes the law. so, who was right? let me offer a few observations. first, the fury expressed by the dissenters in their condemnation of the majority's opinion is completely unwarranted. there are reasonable grounds to disagree with the court's decision, and i'll get to them in a moment, there is nothing about the decision itself that merits the screeching charges of judicial usurptation of the democratic process hurled by the four dissenters. indeed

kennedy, itoks like doesn't look like justice alito is in play but if justice kennedy is asking a lot of questions, i think that's a sign that it is seriously in play. >> what about you? regard to the extent that they are asking questions about the implication of pulling , thatk out of the wall will reveal some reluctance to overreaching in this case. one thing we haven't talked about a lot are the tremendous interests of disruption that would flow from the decision. and from the district of columbia. there are laws governing public sector labor management relations that would be undone. we've got other states, like the state of wisconsin, other states that would find themselves within a limited context and trouble terms of the governing rules. we have got those thousands and thousands of contracts. justice kagan alluded to that in her dissent in the harris case. but i don't think -- i hope that they will not be receptive to the assertion that these would severed and business would continue as usual. i don't think that's the case at all and we have seen a huge amount of reopening and

. >> justice alito the third circuit has ruled you do have the right to be politically apathetic but the reason it is so bizarre the other side decided not to assert that by. there are other kinds with the public employee that are not asserting any type of rights settle with dendrites. it even is thought to have perceived with some association. >> you have to show some facts to draw that inference you just cannot say involved in this the employer fired me because of that. >> but it does show a connection between the firing. >> look at the hypothetical and his support in the chief's office then he has to be reassigned then he is worried it he will be sued. but the downside risk. >> of somebody had come into me to say if the first amendment prevents the government for punishing a person because they do not share the government's views, of course, that is the whole point. now you tell me it does not prevent the government if they don't share the government's views? and if that person could not care less they don't vote or don't pay attention they don't know who is running. if the govern

>> probably the last, justice alito. when the court characterized substantive rules most recently -- >> is there's a different between much less likely and much, much less likely? >> i would butt it in words the court used previously. the court said previously that a substantive rule creates a significant risk that the person is serving a sentence that's not appropriate for that person, maybe not even legally available for that person. did not say absolutely conclusively proves it. it said "significant risk." in contrast, when the court has talked about procedural rules, rules that govern the manner in which a case is adjudicated. it has said that the likelihood or potential for a different outcome is speculative. i think, if you put this case on the speculative significant risk axis, this case falls in the significant risk domain precisely because of the reasons why the court said it was deciding miller. the reasons why the court decided miller had to do with the reduced culpability of youth and the capacity of youth to

samuel alito graduated from steiner high school in hamilton township mercer county. he will administer the oath to the mayor of hamilton township. >> 6:06. the markets are closed for the new year. when the bell rings on monday, many hope things will turn around in 2016. s&p 500 and the dow averaged lowest for the year. the nasdaq closed up 5.5% for the year helped bye-bye -- bio tech stocks except for apple which turned in its first negative year since 2008. >>> mcdonald's or land will be replaced by 19,000 square feet. it has been a tourist attraction of sorts, it's open 24/7. it was shaped like a box of french fries, it featured bowling and arcade and more. >> i drove by one time, but i didn't go in. >> i was overwhelmed. >> reporter: my kids would like that, bowling arcade all that, wow. >> reporter: storm tracker 6 live double scan, around the area we're dry for this new year's day that's gz good news for the mummers and everybody that wants to watch. sky6 live hd is looking live at philadelphia international. we have no weather issues flying out of town. lots of

justice alito even referred to that, saying that the legislative body needs to be involved and engaged. the american people trust us. but you don't trust us. >> it is not that we don't trust you, mr. chairman. it is attorney-work privileged information designed to provide -- >> privileged from the american people. that is what i have a problem with. >> let me get down to the bottom here. it one of your concerns that the ongoing investigation? >> yes, there are ongoing information. they do discuss investigative techniques. legal arguments would make for those techniques we are concerned that these techniques are disclosed that criminals could use that information to avoid detection and law enforcement efforts. the bottom line is that you don't trust us. >> it's not that we don't trust you. saying wew, if we are would like to see this information in confidence, and make commitment will not disclose, then what would be the reason, i mean, going to what seems totaid -- that ake away-- >> we would be happy to continue those discussions. >> i want to actually read it. you given to all the fe

and as justice alito's opinion for the court in united states versus rodriguez recognized, even the top of

so i know alito after the one state of the union where he was seen saying that's not true. pretty much vowed off of going to the state of the union addresses and some have talked openly butabout how they think they've become political pep rallies and it doesn't feel right for a supreme court justice to be there. if in speech would feel that way. it might be this one. our reporters have said it's going to be his vision for the future. >> gutfeld thinks he wants to get up and walk out, not come to the table because i'm here. >> he likes ropes. >> he likes ropes. that's true, he does like robes. >> shortie robes. >> i wish you your continued success and you're welcome. >> i'm, the people that get there early. to shake hands, how early do they get there to stake out that place and how do they handle their hygiene needs? >> do they purell? >> i think they have pureell. elliott abrams? they post up. it's hours before to get the seat along the aisle so you're seen interacting with the president as he comes in he's probably going to take a long stroll in and out since it's his last

news protestors testimony straight during today's mummers parade and supreme court justice samuel alitoew jersey for a special ceremony at a. but the big story on "action news tonight is the frantic search to find a missing five-year-old boy in allentow allentown. jayliel vega was with his family celebrating new year's eve at a relative's home when he suddenly took off. trish hartman live at south and aubrey in allentown where investigators are coordinating their search efforts. trish. >> reporter: monica, folks have been gathered here at the command post all day long either waiting for information or offering to help find five-year-old jayliel vega, the chief says police will search throughout the night. the autistic boy has been missing for 17 hours now in very cold temperatures and his family is praying for his safe return. >> i don't even know what he's going through. like i'm really scared that something happened to him. >> reporter: she says she hasn't slept since her five-year-old brother jayliel vega went missing. police say the boy ran from a relative's house during a new year'

. >> so justice alito, let me separate out what i am calling the selection decision, that is the weighing of ags and mis and the eligibility decision, which is where all the elements of capital murder have been found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury and therefore when the sentencing jury is done you are eligible for the death penalty, leaving aside the eighth amendment question whether the constitution then requires the jury to make the intensely moral judgment about whether the penalty should be life without parole or death, assuming that a judge can do that, so long as the jury is not told that its input, which is how the florida supreme court has put it, so long as they are not told that it's advisory, so long as they're told that you as the finders of fact have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that this capital crime was committed which includes the following elements, including one of the two specified aggravators, the constitution is it satisfied. the caldwell problem is an eighth amendment problem. it was an eighth amendment case and in caldwell, i mean what the jury is told he

inequitable, it is grievable, the second thing is the attempt provision, which was discussed, and justice alito is right, that there are broader civil rights under new jersey law. the court, in cases -- >> do you agree that the petitioner is entitled to relief under that provision of the collective bargaining agreement? >> if his allegations of the facts are correct, yes. >> in your hypothetical about stopping the person from crossing the street or they think entering the parade, the individual has no right to insist that the government doesn't make a first amendment judgment about his activities? >> that's correct. justice kennedy -- >> in other words, the individual in the citizens of the united states have no right, have no injury, have no interest in making sure the government doesn't evaluate everything they do from a political standpoint? >> i think they have an interest, justice kennedy. i'm not saying that. we are concerned that people be able to have conscience. that they be able to make their own personal private judgments. but what we're talking about here, in the context in which th

>> justice alito, the third circuit has a rule discussed in a brief adopted in a case called galley that says you do have the right to be politically apathetic. the reason the case is so bizarre is that the other side, for its own reasons, decided not to assert that right. now, i will say that it does, nonetheless, matter. because there will be other kinds of cases where you have a public employee that is not asserting any rights at all and does not involve, say, environmentalism or gun rights or whatever. and the public employer, if it's thought just to have perceived the employee as having been involved in some association, then is subject to a claim. >> sorry, you have to -- you have to show some facts to draw that inference. and you just can't say, i'm involved in this, and the employer fired me because of that. you have to show some connection between the firing and -- the prittical belief the political belief. >> his support of spagnola is discussed in the chief's office, right, and then he has to be reassigned. and the chief has to really worry that he's going to be sued. my point

>> there is none, justice alito, in my view. and i know that there was some argument a moment ago about the evidence suggesting that someone else may have committed the crime. we cited in our initial brief in the florida supreme court where they said without any contention this is a two-ing va tor case. it was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel. >>> he doesn't question the seriousness of those grafters either. his focus, instead, acknowledge all of that which is on proportionality review. >> can i ask you two separate questions on this? number one, whenever have we said that a jury waiver on an issue is based on the lack of a challenge by a defense attorney? don't we require them to be explicit? >> absolutely. this goes to more like the element of offense and the court held in washington versus reqino that the aprendi error is not. >> we take plenlt of appeals where people are saying, assuming the state of facts, i'm entitled to x, and then when they go back down, they argue that assumption is wrong. >> they cited other thin

forward almost 40 years, the supreme court has two cases, one in 2012, another in 2014, both by justice aliton whether that 1977 decision was really good law and, into that doubt steps smart lawyers, anti-union lawyers who created a case that would challenge that 1977 decision head-on and that's the case the court heard today. >> woodruff: tell us the main arguments and how did the justices respond. >> first up would be the ten california public school teachers who are objecting to paying any fees to the union. the -- i saw in the court what i would call a clear ideological divide. you had the more conservative justices being very skeptical of the union's claims that the interests served by the 1977 decision really did comport or really did justify the first amendment encroachment by the agency shop fees. justice kennedy was the most critical voice, i think, during the arguments. he said this was compelled speech and what the unions were doing were creating compelled writers, not free writers, but compelled writers. you also had the chief justice and justices alloto and justice scalia questio

. >> do you think if this went before the supreme court including members like scalia and judge alito and judge thomas, would they go with original intent or go with this practice -- like we let george romney get away with it for at least a while while he was running. will they be tough or rigid about this and say, no, this is not what the founders intended? >> i can't tell you that. scalia and thomas are especially what they call originalists. they tend to cherry pick their history. so i'm not sure if they actually went with real history, cruz is not eligible. but i can't predict how they would go. >> okay, thank you so much, mary, of widener law school. there's new evidence that the attack has hurt cruz politically. according to a reuters/ipsos poll, one quarter of voters believe he should be disqualified based on his canadian birth. i checked all the front pages today, all the leads. every lead in the first paragraph it has either the canadian-born cruz or a reference to this debate. this is not good for cruz, the fact that he has to defend his qualifications to run, let alone get

alito grew up in brooklyn, new york it was in baltimore shared she wrote in 2009 at the age of 40. sometimes her writing follows the "seinfeld" model of no burning, no hugging. other times it involves a lot of those. she was in a life, liberty and happiness at her blog the worthington post. her work also appears that the broad side salon purple clover compiler and more. her piece for the broad that they regenerate the door one place of the year award in 2013 and she also won additional voice of the year award in 2015. last but not least is jennifer hawley. jennifer is a filmmaker and writer. her firm feminists is an independent film about the women's liberation the win. she has worked for many years in hollywood it visual effects reduce or an editor and many homes including forrest gump and pirates of the caribbean two. she was named as one of the global ambassadors for the global media monitoring project. she grew up in atlanta and staten island, graduated from hampshire college and now lives in los angeles, california. welcome our panel of contributors. [applause] so what i thoug

and they are going back to trying to figure out, certainly scalia is like this and alito and clarence thomas. they want to know what do those boundaries mean. isn't that an interesting question. it's not what the law has been since. the statutory giving him citizenship to people upon birth because their parents are american. it's what the constitution meant at the time. it seems to me the republican right is going to be dealing with this over the next couple weeks because there are going to be young lawyers out there and old lawyers. we had larry tribe on last night, a progressive, a liberal, all over the place saying trump's got a case. >> the interesting thing about this is it has sparked a legitimate discussion and debate among legal scholars and that donald trump has managed to do that. it was obviously a political move on his part. but it's taken hold in this more substantive type of way. the thing i found fascinating about that exchange last night was that donald trump managed to say it like it was selfless of him to bring this up. it's just about the democrats, someone's going

versus service employees union in which without particularly the question having been presented justice alito said by the way there is a case that supports the public employee unions. i happen to think it is a complete anomaly and probably should be overruled immediately the opportunity was presented to him in a case called harris versus quinn. he said due to the attorney for the union are you aware that many people thought he was wrongly decided and think it should be overturned? in his opinion the opinion is devoted entirely to trashing the precedent and saying that it is a violation of the first amendment and then there is a paragraph saying but i don'ti don't have five votes. we're going to have a more limited result which is simply of these particular workers cannot have a fair share fee arrangement. possibly some of us might be forgiven. i don't know. what i want to ask this group is, is there a chance? is this result fake? what should we look for when we read about a listen to oral argument that might indicate that something will happen that we don't anticipate. who wants to go 1st? >>

briefly it starts with the chief and justice scalia and kennedy and thomas and ginsburg and me and alitoand sotomayor and kagan. and people will add their two cents worth and a vote is taken. if there are four votes it's taken. if not, it's not. if no one listed it, denied. and if i hear something, i didn't hear before, i can always say hold it next week. and if i want it held next week, i go back and look it up and write a memo. and if i really feel strongly i write a dissent from the denial of cert and i circulate it and you only see -- if you only see the ones that have failed. because i'm trying to convince my colleagues and sometimes they do. and so i think that system works pretty well. by the way, if we make a mistake and we deny a case we should have taken, what will happen? question? what? it will come up again. you see? it will come up again. and if it doesn't come up again, i guess the country didn't need us. you see? does that give you a rough outline and that is pretty much how it works. >> [ inaudible ]. >> well, i don't see it that way because i have enough to worry about.

but if it looks like especially, you know, kennedy, the chief, i don't think justice alito is in play but, you know, if justice kennedy's asking a lot of questions about opt in, opt out, i think that's a sign that's seriously in play. >> maryann, what will you be looking for? >> certainly i agree with everything andy said with regard, you know, to the extent they're asking questions about the implications of pulling this brick out of the wall of first amendment precedent, that will reveal some reluctance to overreach in this case. but also one thing we haven't talked about at all are the tremendous reliance interests in terms of the disruption that would flow from this decision. i mean, we're talking about 23 states and the district of columbia who would have to -- their laws governing public sector labor management relations would be, you know, undone. we've got other states like even the state of wisconsin that still allows for agency fee collecting and collective bargain in many context. other states like that who would find themselves many limited contexts would find themselves at

justice alito even referred to that in his opinion saying the legislative body needs to be involved and engaged here. the american people trust us. but you don't trust us. >> it's not that we don't trust you, mr. chairman, but, again, it's attorney work product, privileged information that's designed to provide -- >> privileged from the american people. that's what i got a problem with. yes. >> let me -- again, let's try to get down to the bottom here. is it one of your concerns that there are ongoing investigations, sir? >> yes, mr. cummings, there are ongoing investigations. these do discuss investigative techniques and the legal arguments we would make in support of those techniques and they discuss the potential legal arguments to be made by defendants and we're concerned if disclosed criminal elements can use that information in order to avoid detection and law enforcement efforts. >> so, the bottom line is that you don't trust us. >> no, it's not that we don't trust you -- >> i mean, in other words, if, you know, if we are saying that we'd like to see this information in confidenc

briefly it starts with the chief and justice scalia and kennedy and thomas and ginsburg and me and alito and soto mayerciety soto meyer and kagan and people will add their two cents worth and a vote is taken. if no one listed it denied. and if i hear something i didn't hear before i can always say hold it next week. and if i want it held next week, i go back and look it up and write a memo. and if i really feel strongly i write a dissent from the denial of cert and i circulate it and you only see -- if you only see the ones that have failed. because i'm trying to convince my colleagues and sometimes they do. and so i think that system works pretty well. by the way, if we make a mistake and we deny a case we should have taken, what will happen? question? what? it will come up again. you see? it will come up again. and if it doesn't come up again, i guess the country didn't need us. you see? does that give you a rough outline and that is pretty much how it works? [ inaudible ] well, i don't see it that way because i have enough to worry about. does ben's factors sometimes enter into my min

justice alito even referred to that in his opinion saying they need to be involved and engaged here. the american people trust us. but you don't trust us. >> it's not that we don't trust you, mr. chairman. again, it is attorney work product privileged information -- >> privileged from the american people. that's what i've got a problem with. >> again, let's try to get down to the bottom here. is it one of you're concerns that there are ongoing investigations, sir? >> yes. mr. cummings, there are ongoing investigations. they discuss investigative techniques and the legal arguments we would make in support of those techniques. and they discuss the legal arguments that would be made by defendants. we're concerned if these techniques are disclosed that, you know, criminal elements can use them. >> the bottom line is you don't trust us. >> no, it's not that we don't trust you. >> in other words, if we are saying that we would like to see this information in confidence and make it to members we're not going to disclose, what would be the reason? going to what you just said. that seems to t

who are keeping track, the justice who is decided not to go, scalia, clarence thomas and sam ymca alito>> secretary of state, who has been working very hard today to make sure that the ten u.s. sailors are released from iran. >> i was going to say, not to be a cynic, but interesting that the state department would put that information out five minutes before the networks go out tonight so the broadcast media can deal with the story saying everything is going to be fine. the sailors are going to be released. that way when the president doesn't make mention in the state of the union, it does not stand out as a sore thumb. >> as we watch members of the cabinet come into the room. the other thing we're going to hear from the governor of south carolina. carolina. >>> an opportunity tonight. she is a female. she is a minority and she has done a lot of really good work in her state. it was a very interesting choice at a time when they were often accused as being sexist. they're putting a woman out to make a response. they wanted to layout what the future could be like. we do put a republican i

justice alito even referred to that, saying that the legislative body needs to be involved and engaged. the american people trust us. but you don't trust us. >> it is not that we don't trust you, mr. chairman. it is attorney-work privileged information designed to provide -- >> privileged from the american people. that is what i have a problem with. >> let me get down to the bottom here. is it one of your concerns that the ongoing investigation? >> yes, there are ongoing information. they do discuss investigative techniques. and the legal argument's we would make in support of those techniques, discussing the potential arguments made by efendants. >> so the bottom line is you don't trust us. >> no. >> in other words, if we are saying that we would like to see this information in there fidance and make commitments that we are not going to disclose, then what would be the reason? i mean, going to what you just said. take away the reason for not providing? >> we have engaged in discussions about that route and we would be happy to continue. >> that is not an accommodation. i want to actua

versus service employees union in which without particularly the question having been presented justice alitosaid by the way there is a case that supports the public employee unions. i happen to think it is a complete anomaly and probably should be overruled immediately the opportunity was presented to him in a case called harris versus quinn. he said due to the attorney for the union are you aware that many people thought he was wrongly decided and think it should be overturned? in his opinion the opinion is devoted entirely to trashing the precedent and saying that it is a violation of the first amendment and then there is a paragraph saying but i don'ti don't have five votes. we're going to have a more limited result which is simply of these particular workers cannot have a fair share fee arrangement. possibly some of us might be forgiven. i don't know. what i want to ask this group is, is there a chance? is this result fake? what should we look for when we read about a listen to oral argument that might indicate that something will happen that we don't anticipate. who wants to go 1st? >>