in my mind, as plaintiffs, in my mind and i think the history of the act bears this out, this percentage share encourages a relater to pursue a case until they can recover an amount equal to the entire impact of the fraud as opposed to settling when the case goes too long. perhaps because you know there is a hard cap and they can only recover so much money. though the chamber argues that a hard cap would save the government money, i have to wonder how many cases it would deter or at least reduce the recovery for the taxpayers. in today's world where some of these cases recover billions of dollars, if a cap deterred one such case, it would be a hefty cost for the taxpayers. in 1986 and in revision since, proposals to enforce our hard cap have not been well received. of course, there are reasons the defendants fighting key suits would want to limit damages, but i'm more focused on what works best for the taxpayer. i believe what we have now is working well. i sent you a letter on this subject last -- earlier this month, but i wonder if you could share some thoughts with me now about whethe

be rewarded between 15% and 30%, depending on certain factors such as if the government joined as plaintiffs. i think the history in the bears this out. it encourages the relator to pursue a case until they can recover an amount equal to the entire impact of their fraud as opposed to unsettling when the case goes too long. they know there is a hard cap and they can only recover so much money. the chamber argues a hard cap will save the government money. i wonder how many cases it will deter or reduce the recovery for the taxpayers. in the today's world, some of these cases recover billions of dollars. it a hard cap was in one such case, it would be a costly endeavor for taxpayers. when we consider the false claims act to amend and in 1986 and the revisions since, proposals to enforce a hard cap have not been well received. there are reasons the defense would want to limit damages. i am a more focused on what works best for the taxpayer. i believe what we have now is working well. i sent you a letter on this subject earlier this month. i wonder if you could share some thoughts with me now abo

they also raise the same issues as the other plaintiffs about the commerce clause and the excessive regulation of individu individual, but i'm a strong believer in state rights. the fundamental reforms enabling young people to stay on their parents's policy and stopping discrimination because they have preexisting continues or billing them into bankruptcy because of the lifetime and limits. those are core reforms that in no way implicate powers or rights. i declined to join that down the line. >> was there ever or when you look at this, do you feel like any part of a law goes to the line? in your view of challenging state rights where -- was it a close call for you? >> for me, no. never a close call. the challenge if we can be blunt was more political than legal in the driving force. i think we have seen that because the core questions for the court have more to do with the commerce clause and imposing some limiting principal on the individual mandate. i think that's the issue most in contention. can the government require people to buy a product? going into the legal issues there, but the sta

the law automatically lists women as plaintiffs in class actions when lawyers sue employers, thereby opt out of litigation with which they don't agree. businesses would be treated as guilty until they're shown to be innocent. you cannot be projobs and antibusiness. this is just another example of democrats' war on free enterprise while americans suffer with joblessness and underemployment. in fact, under this president there are 766,000 more women unemployed today than when he took office. i truly wish today's discussion was about leveling the playing field, ensuring pay equality and improving the economy. but years' old legislation mired in politics won't get us any closer to either ending gender discrimination in the workplace or ensuring that all women who want to have a job. this proposal couldn't pass when democrats controlled both chambers of congress, yet here we are today voting on the same measure again and again, and those who are actually victims of workplace discrimination are only getting lip service from washington. like many of my colleagues, i worry about this proposal

the law automatically lists women as plaintiffs in class actions when lawyers sue employers, thereby equiring female employees to opt out of litigation with which they don't agree. businesses would be treated as guilty until they're shown to be innocent. you cannot be projobs and antibusiness. this is just another example of democrats' war on free enterprise while americans suffer with joblessness and underemployment. in fact, under this president there are 766,000 more women unemployed today than when he took office. i truly wish today's discussion was about leveling the playing field, ensuring pay equality and improving the economy. but years' old legislation mired in politics won't get us any closer to either ending gender discrimination in the workplace or ensuring that all women who want to have a job. this proposal couldn't pass when democrats controlled both chambers of congress, yet here we are today voting on the same measure again and again, and those who are actually victims of workplace discrimination are only getting lip service from washington. like many of my colleagues

in my mind, as plaintiffs -- in my mind, and i think that history of the act bears this out, this percentage share encourages a relator to pursue a case until they can recover an amount equal to the entire impact or fraud, as opposed to settling when the case goes too long. perhaps, because they know there is a hard cap and they can only recover so much money. though the chamber argues that a hard cap would say the government money, i have to wonder how many cases it would deter or reduce. in this world, where some cases recover billions of dollars, it would be a very costly endeavor for taxpayers. when we consider it the false claims act amendments in 1986, and in revision since, proposals to enforce the hard cap has not been well received. of course, there are reasons that key suits would want to limit damages. i am more focused on what works best for the taxpayer. i believe what we have now is working well. i sent you a letter on the subject earlier this month, but i wonder if you could share some thoughts with me now about whether the department remains committed to relators being awarde

essentially the pilgrims crossed an ocean to avoid this kind of religious harassment as one of the plaintiffssaid. you know, this program was targeting individuals and essentially tire community, restaurants, businesses, mosques, cab drivers, veterans, school groups, they weren't going after criminal leads as law enforcement ought to do or after suspicious leads but rather entire community based solely on the religious affiliation and political opinions. >> do you believe there is a compelling state interest in protecting the security of the united states of america? absolutely. i believe this is not the way it should be done. >> so when we know for a fact that whether we're talking about the men who plotted to blow up fort dix in new jersey, the new york city subway plotters. the would be terrorists who met at the albany mosque several years ago, the fact that we know that al qaeda and al qaeda's affiliates used the platform of the mosque to recruit and to radicalize and to gain adherence and supporters and sometimes money by the way. those cases are well-documented that the nypd should just

the lawsuits, lawsuits by congressionally terminated california indian tribes in which the plaintiff tribes as the federal district court to restore their government relationship, and in which court cases the department of interior acquiesced to those requests. represent a constitutionally impermissible use of congressional authority. under the constitution, congress alone has the authority to reestablish a government to government relationship with tribes following the termination by congress. congress specifically exempted this tribal restoration power when it delegated other powers to the department of interior, but despite this very clear separation of powers the department of interior facilities restoration by inviting terminated tribes to sue the department. and then the department stipulates to a settlement restoring the try. in this way the department of interior achieved through orchestrated and unopposed litigation what you have not given them permission to do administratively. it is de facto a violation of the separation of power. we understand that there are tribal representatives

>> he has to make the claim as a counterclaim in response to the plaintiff's case against him civillybut the judge in the case in the sunshine state must be hitting the moon shine because i can't for the life of me see how this case is continuing, why a motion to dismiss this counterclaim was not made and granted by this judge who is inept for not granting it. this men pled guilty to criminal manslaughter. he was going 86 miles an hour when he hit the plaintiffs in this case. he drove the plaintiff's vehicle 40 feet from a dead stop with that impact. he was whacked out on drugs and alcohol. he has a prior history of killing someone while driving a vehicle. this is an absolute outrageous lawsuit here. it does not belong in the court. there is no offset. there's no counterclaim here. this guy pled guilty criminally, the burden of proof criminally is much higher than in a civil case. it's over and out. avery, you should agree because this is over and out the case -- >> he should lose the case, but he should be allowed his day in court. that's the distinction between criminal and civil. >

but now the law will go into effect and you can expect lawsuits from plaintiffs to say, hey, my constitutional rights were violated. >> as everyone has said we'll be back at this thursday when the next big decision comes down on health care. savannah guthrie, thanks. always a pleasure. >>> there were two other supreme court rulings today, including a case originally brought from montana, a state that has largely managed to keep outside money out of its politics, but not anymore. the justices said their controversial ruling in that citizens united case that opened the big money flood gates applies to montana and every other state. also, the court ruled today that juveniles can't be given mandatory life sentences without parole. they say that's cruel and unusual punishment and, therefore, unconstitutional. >>> also in the news we are covering tonight a tropical storm in the gulf of mexico pummelling the florida coast line, not notable for its power as much as its size and its slow, meandering track. tropical storm debby has dumped 10 inches of rain in the panhandle in just over 24 hours. 20 counties have been declared disa

kevin turn you are was diagnosed with als also known as lou gehrig's disease in 2010. he is one of the plaintiffs> new york post may be hard to put down but this is one place you really should wait to read it. a metro north engineer busted reading the paper as he drives the train to new york's grand central station. not even taking his eyes off it as he reaches for the controls. an angry passenger taking the video we hear the engineer john cooper has been caught on video texting. he is now suspended without pay. there is no comment from cooper. those are your five headlines at 5:30. >> scary stuff. >>> there are still more questions and answers this morning about how and why a series of leaks got out of the white house. >> doug luzader live now in washington for us on the outrage on what some people say is purely for political gain. >>> that is kind of the central question here republicans and democrats are hopping after a series of national security leaks. this is a rare show of bipartisan unit on capitol hill. the white house doesn't deny there have been leaks but none of them have been politic

remedial power to limit the court to addressing provision has been challenged as centcom to shawl and anything else that the plaintiff seeks as relief. >> when you say judicial restraint, you are echoing the earlier premise that it increases the judicial power if the judiciary strikes and other provisions of the act. i suggest you may be quite the opposite. we be exercising judicial power when one provision in the stricken and the others remained to impose a risk on insurance companies the congress had never intended a reason of this court, we would have a new machine that the congress did not provide for, did not consider. that seems to me can be argued at least to be a more extreme exercise the judicial power than to strike when striking the whole. don't accept the premise. >> i think not, justice kennedy. on the font. this exactly the situation. the court identified the questions that were briefed before the court as important ones, but said they affect people with rights and obligations of people who are not below the force. >> move away from the issue of whether the standing question or not. make the assumption

apply only to the handful of plaintiffs in the suit but now the judge says no this is to be applied broadly to all americans to discuss what this all means for your rights as carl mayer he's the attorney for mayor a law group policy representing the plaintiffs and joins me now live from new jersey hi correlates to have you on the show. disagrees with this just want to get your reaction to the judge's ruling well we're honored to stand sentinel in these cases to ensure that journalists such as yourself are not held indefinitely without a trial without benefit of tyranny and it will quote the device to you. the very important ruling that judge forrest issued in order yesterday stated in no one certain terms that her order and her injunction applies everywhere in the united states of america and to all persons any journalist any activist not just the plaintiffs that we represent in this case we represent christopher hedges whose appeals are prize winning new york times reporter daniel ellsberg of pentagon papers fame and several other activists from other communities like occupy wall street occupy london it cetera but the import of what judge forrest has done

no we urgently need your immediate support to help us document testimony as evidence in support of our case more witnesses plaintiff and evidence will build a stronger case and result in more protection for us all there is no reason whatsoever. to expect the r.m.c. or state g.o.p. parties to comply with the law after they openly threatened and injured ron paul republican delegates expecting fair treatment for a thousand forcing the law amounts to insanity so that is basically saying don't expect the g.o.p. or a state aren't seen to you know do anything abiding by the laws and the fact that they have disenfranchised ron paul delegates for so long and why why why why are the ron paul supporters still trying to work within the system that will continue to disenfranchise the libertarians and supporters well that's a really good question that a lot of libertarians say that they shouldn't be trying to work within the system some rather some libertarians are saying it's time to go third party some libertarians are saying that it's not it's not time to vote this is a very dark day there are these are very dark times for li

as you watch. the marines are supposed to be anan elite unity and two of the plaintiffs against the military are feature i told him don't wear any makeup, the marines will think you want to sleep with them. i thought that's just ridiculous. >> the atmosphere off the bat in the marine barracks in washington was horrible. people asked me what sexual favors had i performed to get my orders there. >> there was a senior officer in my command who said, the marines here are nothing but objects for the marines to. [ bleep ] >> cenk: whew, and when you talk about the overall cases the numbers are huge. in 2011, according to the department of defense there were 19,000 cases. only 14% were reported. that's such a low number. so many of it unfortunately people get away with it and less than 6% convicted. leon panetta realized the scope of the problem and here's what he said. >> the first policy gives victims who report a sexual assault an option to quickly transfer from their unit or installation. we will also require the retention of written reports of sexual assault to law enforcement to be retained for a period

he's not a plaintiff he's actually been following the case though david segal executive director of demand progress joins me now live from rhode island hi david as much better just want to get your reaction to the judge's ruling. we're thrilled but just as we were thrilled by your first ruling a few weeks ago so in may judge forrest determined it definite detention is unconstitutional the obama administration moved for reconsideration of that ruling and to the extent to which he reconsidered anything she decided even more strongly in favor of the plaintiffs made it clear that religious ruling applies not just to the seven play disequilibrium but it was brought to the civilians across america and i believe we do have a quote from that ruling let's bring it up there it states quote the supreme court has made it clear they want to plains of claims that a law spatially vague and violates his or her constitutional right to due process that party seek to vindicate not only his or her own right but those of others who may also be adversely impacted by the statute in question so they would want to talk a little bit more about the implications of that. t

these are fallen heros that fought to defend the constitutional freedoms that the plaintiffs are using asown. >> shannon: we will keep an eye on this and maybe it will end up a couple of blocks away at the supreme court. we'll see. >>> take a look at this. controversial. two military moms breast feeding their babies while wearing military uniforms. they are underfire for agreeing to the specific lay yacht. the air national guard does object not to the use itself but rather using the military uniforms to promote an outside cause. you have been flooding our facebook and twitter with your take on this. joe writes if the kid is hungry they want to eat now. teeth da adds this, it is a nonissue they are women first. military should stand down and or support. >> shannon: how companies are justifying snooping. that is one of the more popular store relationships online. more on those coming up. as promised the other republican candidate running for the senate seat in texas,ig ted cruz joins us next. with a new continuous spray wand. and a fast acting formula. so you can kill bugs inside, and keep

plaintiff or for the defendant. no one can tell you that your point is not important. now we also use it as we continue to use it traditionally for distant resolutions. anybody and everybody can bring a case. now the ministers also used that system. you have education, having a policy in the kgotla. anybody can stand up and say we do not agree with this policy for the education system. >> does it get messy? >> no, it doesn't. id get very orderly. that is part of the culture to criticize, and to respect somebody. in kgotla, you are allowed to say your different opinion but with respect. >> how is the culture there in botswana, so estimating, how is it so different than in other african countries even in the geographical area in southern africa? >> a lot of them do not have the kgotla. i do not know why botswana has this. in south africa, they came to botswana and they also develop the house of traditional leader which we call the house of chiefs. that is how traditionally botswana was democratic before it it got its independence. >> it was democratic before it became democratic. is that true

. >> as a mom i'm willing to do whatever it takes. >> reporter: she's become the lead plaintiff if a landmark case to challenge the law of buying and selling bone marrow illegal. >> it's a major federal law, never been tested before. >> her attorney is with the institute for justice. bone marrow is just like anything else in the world. it's valuable. if you compensate people for it, you'll get more of it. it's just that simple pinches you can watch more on the story tonight at 10:00 on nbc's "rock center." the story is raising some interesting questions. >> yeah, it is. >>> turning back to our backyard were summer series, what a day for it? >> and they couldn't have picked a nicer afternoon or a nicer meteorologist. >> reporter: oh, thank you, wendy. did you get my check in the mail? >> no, not yet, but i will be looking for it. >> reporter: yeah, you double postmarked it so you should be fine. a great day out here today in montgomery county. we have a great family and an even better community hoar. the community here we are at today, they all came out. everybody say hello. and with

as a last resort. >> they are trained to use force depending on the threat level that they perceive. >> oakland's assistant plaintiff police chief says the city has an epidemic in terms of the amount of guns out on the street. police say they recovered 400 firearms this year alone. >>> more students could be banned from tomorrow's graduation ceremony in brent wood because of last week's senior prank. graduation practice is scheduled for today, but school administrators met last night to discuss suspending more students. they're accuse of vandalizing the school and chaining up a 6 month old lam. 50 students have been suspended and won't be allowed to walk. >> i don't think the crime fits the punishment that they can't walk. this is for the rest of their lives. >> but the district superintendent says students participating in senior pranks that are harmful or destructive are liable for damage and will not participate in commencement exercises. >>> two lanes of renee sha valley road in walnut creek are still closed to pg and e can repair a natural gas line. the other two lanes are expected to reopen at 6:00 this mornin

. >> as a mom, i'm willing to do whatever it takes to help make that possible. >> reporter: so doreen flinn has become the lead plaintiff in a landmark case to change that law. >> bone marrow is just like anything else in the world. it's valuable and if you compensate people for it, you're going to get more of it. it's just that simple. >> reporter: doreen's need for bone marrow is particularly dire. years ago doctors told her the best chance for jordan was a transplant from a sibling donor, so doreen and her then husband turned to invitro fertilization to conceive a healthy child who could be that match, but in a cruel twist of fate twins georgia and julia now 7 were born with the same deadly disease as their sister. >> i was so upset. i blamed myself. >> reporter: why? >> we chose to bring them into the world and all i did was bring in two more sick kids. >> reporter: according to the world's largest bone marrow registry there is no shortage of people willing to donate for free. >> we have 9.5 million people on the u.s. registry willing to be that match for that patient, so we are not in a situation where we need to a

megyn: there is a separate group of plaintiffs that is challenging the law as a violation of civil rightsama administration declined to challenge the law on that basis. >> because it has not gone into effect yet. megyn: now you're shifting your argument to say why you didn't. a minute ago it was that they did. >> if arizona -- let me just -- out-and-out invaded by mexico. >> we've seen sheriff joe. megyn: it's sheriff joe. chris plant i have to give you the last word. >> look, this is an administration from the beginning has decided what laws they will enforce and not enforce. this is old school thug-style politics. it's we'll punish you as the president said, the univision, you punish your enemies you reward your friends. we sue states that we disagree w. they enforce what they want to enforce and they don't enforce what they don't want to enforce. >> the borders have never been more secure than they are under this president. how do you explain that? how do you fit that with all this rhetoric going on out there. megyn: i gave chris plant the last word, i'm sorry i had to correct you chri

essentially because oliver brown the plaintiff, the father of linda brown came first on the alphabetical role. in other words his name came up before the others and as a result all of this was lumped under brown. what's interesting about the campaign in topeka is not just that topeka is involved in a lawsuit against segregation or in favor of desegregation what's interesting is this is not the first lawsuit. the very first lawsuit filed by black parents in topeka, kansas to challenge racial segregation, racially segregated schools was filed in 1879. the very first suit was filed in 1879. folks, this is long before the naacp existed. so the naacp is hardly responsible for this. freight, i'm not going to get into a lot of detail here. you know the rest of the story. the supreme court will make its decision. that decision is hand down on may 17th, 1954. and that decision is going to be monumental. legal scholars consider it one of the three or four most significant decisions by the supreme court. i'm only providing bit of this here. but that decision would send shockwaves through american society and in some ways, in some ways we're still dealing with

. >> plaintiffs lawyers claim they are making america safer but i would argue they are making them less safe. as they become so long we tune them out. the warning labels we need to read is getting lost in the jumble the one on the scooter, this product moves when used. [ laughter ] >> john: talk about long labels, if have you ever birth control label. i happen to have one here. this is tiny fine print, both sides of the page. the doctor doesn't read it. this doesn't make us safer. if you did read it you wouldn't want the pill anymore. >> if you did read it, you would fall asleep you and you wouldn't need the pill. >> john: so we don't read the things that might make us safer. stepladder, they have 41 warning labels. take a look at the stepladder you have a at home. >> three foot stepladder because it's not long enough to put all the warning labels on. >> john: last year's winner was a dust mask that warned will not provide oxygen? >> it's a common dust mask. who would think that. but we were told by the lawyer they could be sued. >> john: 30 years taught lawyers that a lawsuit is expensive, long

. >> plaintiffs lawyers claim they are making america safer but i would argue they are making them less safe. as they become so long we tune them out. the warning labels we need to read is getting lost in the jumble the one on the scooter, this product moves when used. [ laughter ] >> john: talk about long labels, if have you ever birth control label. i happen to have one here. this is tiny fine print, both sides of the page. the doctor doesn't read it. this doesn't make us safer. if you did read it you wouldn't want the pill anymore. >> if you did read it, you would fall asleep you and you wouldn't need the pill. >> john: so we don't read the things that might make us safer. stepladder, they have 41 warning labels. take a look at the stepladder you have a at home. >> three foot stepladder because it's not long enough to put all the warning labels on. >> john: last year's winner was a dust mask that warned will not provide oxygen? >> it's a common dust mask. who would think that. but we were told by the lawyer they could be sued. >> john: 30 years taught lawyers that a lawsuit is expensive, long