he socializes with antonin scalia's spends new year's eve that justice ginsburg. ustice scalia and most recently with elena kagan. they know him. when i have conversations with them they will often refer to him by his first name. they pay attention when he speaks just like they pay attention to a lot of the regulars there and he has certainly -- he has been on 60 something arguments before the justices. he has different quirks of which watches the where the how he argues in this fascinating to watch them and how the respond. they respond to many of the former solicitors general just like seth waxman who was the solicitor general for bill clinton and has been no for george w. bush. >> host: does he play to the justices? >> guest: we all know justice kennedy who is often in the swing vote position and they know which justice might be the swing vote in that case whether it's same-sex marriage or if it's on a pension case. these lawyers know who they need to condense. >> host: you talk a little bit about this in "breaking in." how often can the justice have a personal

dissenting from that decision justice antonin scalia said the court had made it easy, inevitable for lower courts to take the next bold step and strike down state laws that banned same-sex marriage. but it's not inevitable that the supreme court will take that step and, charlie, the stakeses are huge. if the justices rule there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage, well, that would throw into question marriages legalized in many states by those lower courts. >> rose: jan thanks. before the court's announcement today, pope francis made an apparent reference to same-sex marriage and the church's opposition to it. visiting the philippines the pope warned catholics to be careful of of what he called ideological colonialization that is trying to destroy the family. one week after the terror attacks that left 17 people people dead in paris western europe is going on the offensive. more than two dozen people have been arrested in france, belgium, germany, and ireland. belgium police alone conducted more than a dozen raids after a firefight last night left two suspects dead. charl

religious zealots' intent was to reverse a 1990 supreme court ruling by that heretical justice, antonin scalia, that approved the constitutionality of generally-applicable laws that burden religion so long as they didn't specifically intend to discriminate against religious people. that is, if objectors wanted an exemption, they would have to take it from the legislature not from the courts. now, courts are supposed to look at, first, whether the government action at issue actually imposes a significant burden on religious exrs. if it -- exercise. if it does, then the government must show it nevertheless is pursuing a compelling interest and is using the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. the burden here is clear, the government didn't even contest there was substantial burden on the greens on hobby lobby. the court ultimately assumed that the government's asserted interest was compelling. and by the way, the way that the federal government litigated this case was curious. it didn't say there was a compelling interest in free contraceptives or something like that. all they sai

he socialized with antonin scalia. he spent new year's eve with with the gators -- ruth bader ginsburg. they know him. when i have conversation with them, they will often refer to him by his first name. so that they attention when he speaks, just like they pay attention to a lot of the regulars up there. and he has certainly let's see he's been a sixtysomething arguments before the justices. he has some different quirks of which watched he wears, how he argues, how how we does but it's fascinating to watch them and watch other justices respond. they respond especially to many of the former soldiers and generals, just like seth waxman who was solicitor general for bill clinton. as we know ted olson was the solicitor general for george w. bush. >> and does he play to the justices? >> they all know to argue to justice kennedy who was often in the swing vote position, or the know which justice might be the swing vote in the particular case, whether it's on something like same-sex marriage that he is doing now, or if it's o