. >> an argument stevenson pressed in court to a skeptical justice antonin scalia. >> i think the easier rule to write would be that there is a categorical ban on all life without parole sentences for all children up until the age of 18. >> how do i come to that decision? what, do i just consult my own preferences on this matter? something like 39 states allow it. i mean, the american people, you know, have decided that's the rule. they allow it, and the federal government allows it so i'm supposed to impose my judgment on what seems to be a consensus of the american people? >> john neiman, alabama's solicitor general, says life without parole is a reasonable alternative to the death penalty, even for juveniles. >> the theory and the thought is that if someone doesn't deserve the death penalty for that particular crime they deserve life without parole. that's the appropriate way to express society's outrage at these sorts of aggravated murders. it is reasonable for legislatures to conclude that they're going to draw a line in the sand with respect to aggravated murder, such that as a flo

as we have already heard, when a parallel issue came before the supreme court in 1990, justice antonin scalia, a famously staunch catholic, authored a majority opinion holding that the ceremonial use of paote in native american religious rights warranted -- did not warrant exemption from drug laws of general application at the heart of his majority opinion in employment division versus smith was the concern that such accommodation creates a system in which, quote, each conscience is a law unto itself. the legislature may if it chooses, write specific accommodations into law. but in the absence of explicit provisions under law, individuals may not claim exemption from the law as a matter of right. this principle implies that if congress had not included religious exemptions in the volstad act, neither catholics nor jews would have had a valid first amendment claim against it. i have long argued that justice scalia's opinion was deeply misguided. nonetheless, the court has not overruled it in the two decades since it was handed down. the reactions it has sparked as you've heard not only the rel

the supreme court justice antonin scalia and brian gardner, editor-in-chief, explain the process of judicial decisionmaking in reading law:interpretation of legal tests. these titles in bookstores this coming week and watch for the authors in the near future on booktv and in booktv.org. >> next author interview at the campus of u.s. c is basketball great kareem abdul-jabbar his latest project is "what color is my world?: the lost history of african-american inventors". tell me about this project. >> the project started, in 1996. in one of the chapters, lois -- made the life of the invention. checking out what in vendors did in the nineteenth century made me aware of the fact there were a lot of black inventors people did know anything about. i got the germ of the idea from that experience. i would do a book on inventors related to children because they are unaware of these things. >> interested in gaming and videos, the video of a book to get children interested in the story you tell. >> a book has the ability on different levels, a lot more in depth and random access. they could go to any p

as we've already heard, when a parallel issue came before the supreme court in 1990, justice antonin scalia, a famously staunch catholic, offered a majority opinion holding that the ceremonial use in native american religious rights warranted -- did not warrant exemption from drug laws of general application. at the heart of his opinion was the concern that such accommodation creates a system in which "each conscience is a law unto itself." the legislature may, if it chooses, write specific accommodations into the law. but in the absence of explicit provisions under law, individuals may not claim exemption from the law as a matter of right. this principle implies that if congress had not included religious exemptions in the act, neither catholics nor jews would have had a valid first amendment claim against it. i've long argued that justice scalia's opinion was deeply misguided. nonetheless, the court has not overruled it in the two decades since it was handed down. the reactions it has sparked, as you've heard not only the restoration act of 1993 and the religious land use and institutiona

supreme court justices antonin scalia, clarence thomas, alito, they've all been there to these meetings of the corporate chieftains, and this one two days before the book came out, they raised $100 million in one weekend to defeat barack obama this year for president. now, think about that. if you look at the super park z for -- pacs for romney and santorum and ron paul and newt gingrich, up until super tuesday they had spent a total of $53 million. and in that one weekend they raised $100 million. so they are, they are huge. they were out there, and they will say and they will do anything. of course, um, a lot easier for them now since citizens united. because you cannot only raise unlimited corporate money, but you don't have to report which corporations are paying which bills. but they also couldn't do it without the assistance of the nation's media. and that's what drives me crazy. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> here's a look at some books that are being released this coming week.

supreme court justice antonin scalia and brian garner, editor-in-chief of black's law dictionary, explain the process of judicial decision making in "reading law: the interpretation of legal texts." look for these titles in bookstores this coming week and watch for the authors in the near future on booktv and on booktv.org. >> the world's a big place, but certainly the most powerful additives are these huge corporations, corporations like goldman sachs, for instance. because i spent so much of my life in the developing world, places like africa, latin america and the middle east just to give you a small example, i saw what happened when commodity futures were bought up by corporations like goldman sachs and wheat, for instance, which it has in the last year increased by, its price increased by 100%. i saw the human consequences of that. the children who were malnourished and even in some cases died of starvation because they couldn't afford to eat. um, you know, we -- the wars in both iraq and afghanistan have very little populist support, and yet for a handful of of corporations -- lock

but as we have heard, when a parallel issue came before the court in 1990, antonin scalia famously authored a majority opinion holding that the ceremonial use of peyote in native american religious rights warranted -- did not warrant exemption from drug laws of general application. at the heart of this majority opinion the concern that such a combination creates a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself. the legislation -- legislature may write specific accommodations into law, but in the absence of provisions under law, individuals may not claimed exemption from the law as a matter of right. this principle applies that if congress had not included religious exemptions in the 1929 act, neither caps nor jews would have a valid first amendment claim against it. i have long argued that sculley a's opinion was deeply misguided. the court has not overruled it in the two decades since it was handed down. your actions it has sparked, not only the act of 1993 and of 2000, but also a well of judicial decisions at various levels of the federal system testify to the unresolved debate over

white house and the democrats and the solicitor general as he went back and forth with justice antonin scalia>> you're going -- in the health care market, you're going into the market without the ability to pay for what you get getting the health care service anyway as a result of the social norms that allow that to which we've obligated ourselves so people don't -- >> don't obligate yourself to that. >> i can't imagine that the commerce clause would forbid congress taking into account this social norm. >> you can do it but does that expand your ability to issue mandates to the people? >> this is not a purchase mandate. this is a law that regulates people paying for a service that people will inevitably consume. host: one of the moments from the u.s. supreme court. the case was heard in march and adam liptak, you were inside the courtroom. with this case or any high profile case, what do you learn from the questions asked by the justices? guest: the justices do not hold their cards close to the vest. you can generally tell which way the justices are leaning and you can definitely tell which w

asked if already heard when a parallel issue came before the supreme court in 1990, justice antonin scalia come a famously stout catholic poverty majority opinion holding the ceremonial use of pod a native american religious right warranted -- did not warrant exemption from drug laws of general application. at the heart of the majority opinion versus smith was the concern that such accommodation creates a system in which each conscious is a law unto it solves. the legislature may, if it chooses, right accommodations and to lock. but in the absence of visions under law, individuals may not claim exemption from the law as a matter of right. this principle implies that if congress had not included religious exemptions from the full set act, neither catholics nor substitute would have a claim against it. it is deeply misguided. nonetheless, the court has not overruled it in the two decades since it was handed down. the reactions at the start as you've heard not only the religious freedom restoration act of 1993 in the religious act, but also i love to read judicial decisions at various levels