. -- it discriminated against them, prompting justin antonin scalia to ask her attorney if what she reallyted was preferential treatment. >> it's a most favored nation provision, a potential interpretation that worries a number of business owners and the groups representing them. concerned about the obligations they'll face if young wins. >> as justice scalia referenced in the argument, they would give most favored nations a superemployment status. because there would be no limitless on what employees could ask for and require employees to -- >> when justice ruth bader ginsburg said to the attorney representing u.p.s., quote, you said that young's position is most favored nation. well, yours is least favored nation, right? the attorney quickly dismissed the suggestion, maintaining that ups followed both the law and the union agreement that was in place at the time. the case is bringing together some unlikely allies, bringing together a planned parenthood with more than two dozen pro life groups, say they're united in their peamessage that a woma should never have to choose between pregnanc

i should bring up that supreme court justice antonin scalia has jumped on this, he said that we have laws against torture, the constitution though says nothing whatsoever about torture. and he continued by saying listen, i think it's very facile for saying torture, knows location of a nuclear bomb that has been planted in los angeles and will kill millions of people. you think it's an easy question, you think it's clear you cannot use extreme measures to get that information out of that person? that's the extreme case. in a situation what is that? >> in that case it shows how ridiculous the argument is. because that extreme case never occurred and certainly not during the enhanced interrogation techniques that were utilized by the cia. we have stopped them for seven years and we haven't had a disaster have we? well in fact there hasn't been anyone who said since 2007 we stopped them and we've lost all sorts of vital intelligence. that's an extreme case. if you it shows you on what thin ice you are skating. and the last observation i'd make -- >> some would argue that in the philippin

she said he was on stage with antonin scalia and he asked him cut into her devices be construed as a personal effect and be covered by the fourth amendment and furthermore, that is one question. another thing that i would point out is in the private companies getting the metadata there is a level of consent that i could opt out of the private sector that i could not opt out of pragmatically in relations with united its government being a u.s. citizen. i can't just pick up and get citizenship somewhere else pretty easily were pretty cheaply. that is another issue i can opt out so there are the two. the last thing that i went on as if i do not have a proper understanding of issues where there might be a contradiction between the espionage act and the first amendment what is the premise the most first amendment about that or am i misunderstanding that? spinnaker may be >> there may be several chapters involved here. >> i will answer the last which is one which is the supreme court decided that there wasn't a absolute journalist privilege in 1972. so, the conflict that you've received is

it was antonin scalia. >> thursday, president obama made a surprise call to a massachusetts radio show or lose it bonus question. i have in my hands a question somehow related to the one you just answered. for an additional 200 point us risk the points you just won or pass on this all together. i have the use it or lose it bonus question here. what do you want to do? >> geez. what should i do, paul? use it? let's do it. >> all right. here it is. he's taking a chance. >> 200 points on the line here, craig. your related question is this. deval patrick will be succeeded next month by massachusetts fifth republican governor in the last 24 years. name him. >> i can't remember. what is the new governor of massachusetts. i don't remember. >> we're going to call time. it's charlie baker. >> that costs you. you are still in the lead, though. we get the clock back in motion. 200-point tossup is in this week governor scott walker shipmented his stance on education backing off the call for the wisconsin legislature to fully appeal the standards as -- >> common core. >> on wednesday, alan dirschwit

the basis of human health was affirmed in a landmark supreme court decision penned by justice antonin scalia who probably affirmed that it is they saw and responsibility of the epa to establish health-based ended for ozone on the basis of whether the air in our communities is safe to breathe. we know as others have already commented that it is not safe to breathe on the basis of the current health -based standard. the clean-air scientific advisory committee established by congress to give epa rigorous independent advice on the scientific foundations of the national health-based air quality standards has concluded that the current health a standard is not adequate to protect our children's health, our nation's health and we do reduce need to strengthen the standard in a range between 60 and 70 parts per billion and further recommended a standard in the lower range would be appropriate and questioned whether a standard in the higher range we carry out administrator responsibility to protect human health with an adequate margin of safety we know that the effect of ozone are profound. there is d

he socialized with antonin scalia. he spent new year's eve with justice ruth ginsburg and most recently with elana kagan. they know him. when i have conversations with them, they refer to him by the first name. they pay attention when he speaks, just like a lot of the regulars out there. she has certainly -- let's see, sixtysomething arguments before the justices. he has some different quirks of which watches she wears, how they benefit, so it's fascinating to watch and then watch how the justices respond. they respond especially to many of the former soldiers generals, just like that flaxman who was the solicitor general for bill clinton and ted olson was for george w. bush. >> host: does he play to the justices? >> guest: they ought not to argue to justice kennedy in the swing vote position. or they know which justice might be the swing vote in that particular case aired something like same-sex marriage that he's doing now for the pension case. these lawyers know who they need to convince. >> host: how often and yuta