>> first, let me comment on bush v gore. it was one-of-a-kind and the court has never site to that opinion -- crted @ opinion in any case and i hope it will forever remain that way. it happened, it is over, and that's it for bush v gore. [laughter] citizens united is something else. that was a very wrong decision. but, as a great man once said, andain't over til it's over the court will have a chance in the years ahead to correct its error. think of the free speech to descend of holems and aggrandize in the 1920's. -- bradneis now it is below of the land. when one is on the descent side, if it is something congress can fix, then you hope your descent will engage legislation. if it is a matter of constitutional interpretation, the only thing that can change it is the court will overrule its decision and you write the dissent looking toward a future court and a correction of the error in which your -- into which your colleagues have fallen. [laughter] >> do these cases ever cause worry about the court's reputation or do you fe

matters hugely, "supreme court the movie" give us the health care bill or bush v gore. mandy and antonin scalia and all kinds of good stuff behind the scenes and americans would see it. chris: they did it back the 1954 case. >> long time ago. chris: grave movie. thanks to great round table. you're on timeout leo! some things won't last 25 years. ah! woof! some things will.

matters hugely, "supreme court the movie" give us the health care bill or bush v gore. mandy and antonin scalia and all kinds of good stuff behind the scenes and americans would see it. chris: they did it back the 1954 case. >> long time ago. chris: grave movie. thanks to great round table. and that's the >>> heist, everybody. welcome to "on the money." i'm maria bartiromo. airlines and ketchup, the real deal with what they have in common. >> the state of our union is sfrong. >> is it really the president's address, what he said what he meant, and what it means for your money. >>> and then one woman's remarkable journey from a captive of communism to a queen of capitalism. as a child, what was going through your mind? "on the money" begins right now. >>> this is america's number one financial news program, "on the money." now, maria bartiromo. >>> here's a look at what's making news as we head into a new week "on the money." will it be a marriage made in airline heaven? announcing a $11 billion deal this week to create the world's largest airline. the new company will f

matters hugely, "supreme court the movie" give us the health care bill or bush v gore.dy and antonin scalia and all kinds of good stuff behind the scenes and americans would see it. chris: they did it back the 1954 case. >> long time ago. chris: grave movie. thanks to great round table. and that's the you can't move the tv there. yuh-huh. we have a wireless receiver. listen. back in my day, there was no u-verse wireless receiver that let you move the tv away from the tv outlet. we can move it to the kitchen, the patio, the closet and almost anywhere. why would you want a tv in the closet? [ both laugh ] ♪ [ fancy voice ] brilliant idea, darling. ♪ [ female announcer ] the wireless receiver. get u-verse tv for just $19 a month for 1 year when you bundle tv and internet. rethink possible. ♪ yer always after me lucky charms! whoa. i forgot how good these taste! [ lucky ] ♪ they're magically delicious ♪ the one and only, cheerios >>> right now at 5:00, tens of thousands have gathered at the vatican to see one of pope benedict's last public appear ens before he steps down. w

even bush v. gore.so however wrong i thought the decision was, there was no rioting in the streets. people accepted the transition, he would be our president, and life went on. so -- one thing that the press seldom notices, yes, we divide 5-4 in some very important cases, but we are more often unanimous. thank goodness for the ordinary cases that we hear that do not divide along party lines. so, yes, we are very much concerned about the reputation of the court, all of us. >> how difficult of a transition was it for you from an advocate? >> i do not think i made the transition. [laughter] you are always hoping to persuade your colleagues, and sometimes, you are successful. some years ago, my senior colleague signed a dissent to me. in the fullness of time, the decision came out 6-3, and my decision was the decision for six. you are hoping that your dissent is going to be so powerful lee persuasive that you will pick up another vote. it does not happen very often. it is rare, but hope springs eternal. [la

i have in mind for example, bush v. gore, the case that halted the balloting in the 2000 presidential election and citizens united, the case that invalidated the corporate campaign expenditures. in cases such as these cases which the law takes a sudden turn in a different direction, and a high pressure and high profile area, do you ever fear for the courts reputation as a result of these kind of decisions? and then as a sort of follow-up, i'm wondering a difficult is it to participate in the deliberations and to be one vote away from a very different result? >> first let me comment on bush v. gore. it was one-of-a-kind. the court has never cited that, that opinion in any other case, and i trust it will forever remain that way. it happened, it was over, and that's it for bush v. gore. [laughter] and citizens united -- [inaudible] that was a very wrong decision, but as a great man once said, it ain't over till it's over. and the court will have a chance in the years ahead to correct its error. think of the free speech dissent

even bush v. gore. so however wrong i thought the decision was, there was no rioting in the streets. people accepted the transition, he would be our president, and life went on. so -- one thing that the press seldom notices, yes, we divide 5-4 in some very important cases, but we are more often unanimous. thank goodness for the ordinary cases that we hear that do not divide along party lines. so, yes, we are very much concerned about the reputation of the court, all of us. >> how difficult of a transition was it for you from an advocate? >> i do not think i made the transition. [laughter] you are always hoping to persuade your colleagues, and sometimes, you are successful. some years ago, my senior colleague signed a dissent to me. in the fullness of time, the decision came out 6-3, and my decision was the decision for six. you are hoping that your dissent is going to be so powerful lee persuasive that you will pick up another vote. it does not happen very often. it is rare, but hope springs eternal. [l

even though we were able to get some traction during my time, things like bush v. gore, going under the 2000 election but the voter suppression, but the commission has never been the same since that time. break-in and a sense succeeded making it a body that couldn't listen to ordinary people are i wouldn't listen to ordinary people and was not independent and they kept trying to feel that they should transition. if it is there going to do that they have cabinet officers and political appointees all over the government. your job is to monitor them and tell the public what they're doing and make suggestions for how things should be improved. right now in the most recent election, on the voter suppression activity that took place across the country in the whole big debate about it, the civil rights commission should have been at the center of that debate based on its history come can experience of voting and voting and making invasions. it was nowhere to be seen. so it has subverted commission is supposed to have. what needs to happen if the converted by another kind of bo

the first, bush v. gore resulted in the choice of a president.ens united forever changed how that choice can be influenced. citizens united opened the flood gates of the come pain contributions we saw in the 2012 election. flood gates that brought $5.2 billion, that's $5.2 billion. it was just 32 super pac donors giving $9.9 million that were able to match the $13 million that small donors gave to president obama and romney combined. it took 3.7 million to race that $313 million as compared to 32 megadonors what kept the super pacs rolling. they each gave $1 million or more to comprise $91.8 million. that's how much just one couple gave to super pacs in the last election cycle, making sheldon and marian the two largest donors. in spite of that, they spent 37%. less than one-half of 1% of their net worth. to put that into perspective, if the average middle class family with a net worth of $77,300 made that contribution, it would be $285. 322,000 middle american citizens have to donate to have a voice. shaun mccutcheon $33,088 was what he gave. he

even though we were able to get some traction during my time, things like bush v. gore, going under the 2000 election but the voter suppression, but the commission has never been the same since that time. break-in and a sense succeeded making it a body that couldn't listen to ordinary people are i wouldn't listen to ordinary people and was not independent and they kept trying to feel that they should transition. if it is there going to do that they have cabinet officers and political appointees all over the government. your job is to monitor them and tell the public what they're doing and make suggestions for how things should be improved. right now in the most recent election, on the voter suppression activity that took place across the country in the whole big debate about it, the civil rights commission should have been at the center of that debate based on its history come can experience of voting and voting and making invasions. it was nowhere to be seen. so it has subverted commission is supposed to have. what needs to happen if the converted by another kind of bo