chuck cooper. chuck cooper. to the google, right? on the first page of google search results for chuck cooper, you will not find what you are looking for. the first results is this very nice website, i think we've got it, yes, for the broadway actor named chuck cooper. he is very talented, very famous on broadway. he is not the chuck cooper making the anti-gay rights argument at the supreme court tomorrow. other first page results for chuck cooper will teach you about the first african-american player to be ever drafted by the nba. an amazing history, an amazing biography. there is a foundation in his name, but he is not the chuck cooper making the anti-gay rights argument at the supreme court tomorrow. flip over to the second page of google search results, you will find chuck cooper the nature photographer from tennessee. he is also not the chuck cooper making the anti-gay rights argument, neither is the chuck cooper who is an insurance agent in mississippi, neither the chuck cooper who is a real estate agent in california, neither

that argument is in boats at the conclusion of the reply brief of chuck cooper representing prop. 8. what kind of impact do you think that clear change in the political world is likely to be had? >> it makes manifest that rather than imposing on the country another roe versus wade, this is a matter that is being addressed through a robust of a credit debate. the debate will continue. i have no illusions that my preferences are going to prevail everywhere. >> the genius of federalism is that things work out. and satisfies our people's interests. there is more a sense of this has been a fair fight. the legislative process is also far better coming up with accommodations, protections for religious liberty, all sorts of compromises and the declaration of a right which anyone who supports traditional marriage is the equivalent. >> do you think keith precludes the statute you refer to? >> look. the very rhetoric says the position that president obama had until a year ago is akin to racial bigotry. look. we know how to deal with racial bigot in this country. we stigmatize and deprive them o

about older people, what about people who can't have children or don't want to have children and chuck cooperwant to engage on that question very much. and finally justice kagan said could the state of california pass a law that says people over 55 can't get married because they can't have children. and he said what about older people, the man could have children will. and justice kagan said i assure you, if two 55-year-old people get married, they are not a lot of children coming from that marriage. >> joe john, i want to get color as to whether it seemed as though they may be inclined towards not deciding, whether there is jurisdiction to start with with the people who took up the banner to uphold prop 8. because that's one of the building things here. >> it's as if the justices were trying to find an argument that they really liked. and it didn't look like they found any arguments they liked that much. the thing that struck me and i think struck both of us was justice kennedy who a lot of people said could be the swing vote and wrote a previous decision on gay rights, he was questioning wh

. >> reporter: that was the exchange of justices kagan and kennedy with chuck cooper who is the lawyern behalf of the prop 8 proponents today. you certainly had some liberals on the court who are willing to strike down prop 8. and some conservatives willing to uphold it. going back to the beginning, the first bit of sound that you played from justice kennedy who could likely be the deciding vote here. and remember, he is the justice who has written the two most recent and possibly the two most important gay rights rulings in the supreme court. he said today, you know, maybe there is no clear answer here. maybe this case should not have been granted. that is sort of code the supreme courts, if we can't find a majoritiering with dismiss it as improv dentally granted. a strange little term here. it is likely, what would that mean? it would mean the lower court ruling would stand that declared the lower court constitutional. marriage could resume in california but it would not have no impact anywhere else and probably have very little to say about gay rights one way or the other. tomorrow

and you heard chuck cooper, the lawyer for prop 8 say that's not our burden. all we have to say is that it is enough. there's a rational reason for setting marriage aside for traditional couples. that's the fact that they can produce children. but the court's liberal justices were very skeptical about that as a justification. what if the state decided to say if you're over 55, you can't get married because you're not likely to have any children. that would seem to be a nonstarter. but justice kennedy who may be the pivotal vote here seemed to be very skeptical about whether the court should have taken this case at all. here's what he said. >> the problem with the case is that you're really asking, particularly because of the sociological evidence you cite, for us to go into uncharted waters and you can play with that metaphor. there is a wonderful definition, a cliff, whatever it is. but you're doing so in a case where the opinion is very narrow. basically, that once the state goes halfway, it has to go all the way or 70% of the way. and you're doing so in a c

the attorneys involved in this case, the ones who are arguing on the side, on one side, we have chuck cooperon the other side, ted olson, along with boyes. both arguing prop 8 should be struck down just as another landmark ruling, loving versus virginia, which overturned a state ban on interracial marriage. 30 states have amendments banning marriage equality. what will those states be watching for in today's arguments? >> i think it's up to the supreme court justices. they'll decide whether everyone should be treateded equally under the law or not. i think that we've even seen, going back to public opinion, polling in states that have a ban on same-sex marriage, ohio 53%, a poll showed yesterday they favor reversing their ban on same-sex marriage. we'll have a clearer lay of the land at the epd of the summer after the ruling is clear, but beyond that, we'll just assess at that point. >> jimmy, today also marking the ten-year anniversary of the landmark case on gay rights, lawrence v. texas. justice kennedy writing the majority opinion. he also seems to be pivotal in this case. "the washingto

uld be sort of a they could uphold proposition 8 and do as chuck cooper wants them to say and say we're ready to decide whether there's a right to gay marriage. for now we're going to uphold proposition 8 and we're going to leave it to each state to resolve the matter. another possibility would be to did and 9th circuit find the only way to decide this case, the 9th circuit said that what was wrong with proposition 8 is that the voters took away from gays and lesbians a right they had won in the state court. remember this sequence. so the court could say that's what was wrong with prop 8, it took away a right and therefore it's uninstitutional. the nice thing about that from the point of view of the tactician is that that would knock down proposition 8 but only to california. it wouldn't affect nebraska or missouri or any other state. there's another, the obama administration is arguing what people call the eight state solution. that all the states that have given gays and lesbians all the legal rights, civil unions, but not marriage, that there's no justification then for not saying ok

chuck cooper came to the reagan administration in the 1980's. a conservative guy, he is representing the sponsors of proposition 8. he's got 30 minutes to argue that this is a matter of great national debate and it should be decided by the voters in every state. he is basically going to tell the supreme court, you should stand back and not decide this as a constitutional issue agreed it is being decided state.by- then ted olson is up for 20 minutes to argue that it is a matter of equal rights and you, the supreme court, should not only decided in a narrow way, you should rule it as a right to marry. that donald overly -- verrilli joined the case on olson's side. he's got 10 minutes to argue, as he did in the brief, that discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation is constitutionally suspect. there is no good reason for it. he will say, you, the supreme court, should rule that this kind of discrimination as unwarranted, and so proposition 8 should be struck down on the grounds that it is discriminatory. host: what is the role

equally, i was -- with respect to chuck cooper and our opponents, i was not surprised at all that theyition 8 on the ballot? is it okay to discriminate against lesbian and gay individuals? he had nothing but this nebulous responsible procreation argument that somehow denying marriage to same-sex couples is actually to help heterosexual couples become more responsible when it comes to their procreative activities. he had absolutely no answer whatsoever. that has been the case when we first started to put discrimination on trial in the district court and continuing in the appellate court. those are the issues i focused on. >> stephanie: dennis, some people are saying they obviously think from the tone of the oral arguments that this is not going to -- that we're not going to have marriage equality nationwide. they won't go that far. other people have cautioned that you can't, you know, read everything into just what questions are asked in oral arguments, right? >> i would agree with that sentiment. the best example i can -- listen, i understand. it is like the parlor game trying to predi

that argument is in boats at the conclusion of the reply brief of chuck cooper representing the prop. 8. what kind of impact do you think that clear change in the political world is likely to be had? >> it makes manifest that rather than imposing on the country another roe versus wade, this is a matter that is being addressed through a robust of a credit debate. the debate will continue. i have no illusions that my preferences are going to prevail everywhere. >> the genius of federalism is that things work out. and satisfies our people's interests. cooler is more a sense of this has been a fair fights. process is also far better coming up with accommodations, protections for religious liberty, all sorts of compromises and the declaration who right which anyone supports traditional marriage is the equivalent. >> do you think keith precludes the statute you refer to? >> look. says therhetoric position that president obama is akin to year ago racial bigotry. look. we know how to deal with racial bigot in this country. deprive them and of all sorts of opportunities. that is the path of wh

amid karzai accusing the united states of cooperating taliban inside afghanistan. chuckusly denying the claims. he met with president to continue to support inside that country. venezuela a pposition leader, reportedly will announce his run for president against the hand picked successor of former president hugo chavez. chavez died, as you know, last week after a battle with cancer. venezuela has the largest proven oil reserve will vote on the 14th: and on wall street as the dow jones industrial average continues an amazing run, another key set of stocks approaching record territory. fox news senior correspondent and anchor of "bulls and bears" brenda buttner with more. >> the dow sets a record, sounding like a broken record. four days last week, record finishes, but it's likely another benchmark. the s & p, we care about that broader market a big part of many 401(k)'s and close tower a record as well, just 14 points away when the opening bell rings tomorrow. a strong jobs report for february kept the buyers working and the bulls running and has small investors eager to

of cooperating with the taliban. chuckagel strongly denies that as does the taliban. >>> cardinals gathering in rome took a conclave break to hold mass today. the first meetings to elect a new pope will happen tuesday. >>> nelson mandela has been released from the hospital. now back to "caught on camera." >>> welcome back to "caught on camera." i'm contessa brewer. ever look up at the window washers working on high-rise buildings and wonder, how can they do that? this is one dangerous job. the work requires no fear of heights, nerves of steel and, as our next story shows, a tight grip. downtown denver, strong winds sends a scaffold careening out of control with two window washers holding on for dear life. >> everything just happened quick, man. >> we turned around, what the hell's going on here, you know? >> it's november 30th, 2005. onlookers stand in disbelief outside the denver plaza tower. >> i'm still shooken up just watching all that happen. it was so freaky. it was scary. >> sudden wind between 25 and 30 miles an ho

cooperation in that regard. >> should i ask secretary chuck hagel if it makes sense for dob to participate over there? " i would have to establish order is a relationship. whether they have personnel and what we have to shore there is the exchange of information and intelligence. >> pipa thank you, mr. chairman. it's nice to see you, director. thank you for the superb job you been doing at the fbi for a long time. we have spoken in the past about using dna technology to solve serious crimes. 2007 was a time around /2008 when the crime lab had an enormous backlog of samples. it was a lot of work, but by using technology and with the support of this committee, the fbi has cleared the backlog. a report from 2010 found there was a substantial fbi dna case or a backlog, but an update published in september found the backlog is now very low and well managed. in both cases, i commend you and your staff for their hard work in bringing that up to date. have no doubt that by improving turnaround time for dna evidence, that we are solving serious crimes and preventing additional people from becoming victims. the

mayor ed lee, santa clara's jamie matthews and san jose's chuck reid talked about a effort to land the superbowl. that kind of inter-agency cooperation present after they decided in favor of the south bay. >> i've turned the page on the 9ers building the stadium here. in fact i'm glad to see this going as well as it is, because it is really a commitment to the economy of the whole region. >> we have one of the largest, most important economies in the world. san jose is excited about it and we are happy to participate and we are looking forward to filling up our hotels and restaurants and facilities with people here to visit the superbowl just like in san francisco, and santa clara and many other cities around the area. >> reporter: 95% of the structural steel is already in place. as of today, the entire project is described as 35% complete and on time for its scheduled opening, the beginning of the 2014 season. three metropolitan areas. the bay area, south florida and houston will be bidding for two future superbowl venues. the the bay area group figures it is time for one of the world's biggest sporting events to return to northern

after the election, lindsay graham called chuck schumer, let's get the band together, the gang of eight. this is the one place we're seeing cooperation lindsay graham and john mccain are senators, if you look at the naughty house republicans, they have, they have these districts where thus far west they have put their own re-election, their potential primary challenges ahead of the national party and its interests. i wonder whether this time it will be different. because as the mood nationally is different. >> i think it is going to be different this time and for this reason -- because there's some other numbers that also matter in the larger conversation. one is the fact that when we talk about comprehensive immigration reform. we're not just talking about h 2 a and h 2 b visas. we're talking about larger comprehensive reform. it's not just about seasonal workers, but also about people coming to get advanced degrees and are forced now to go back to their home countries. >> it's a huge deal in the tech industry. and in fact the cap on the h 1 b visas is lower now than it was in the late '90s, early 2,000s. the question is will that h

chuck hagel getting a crash course in a rocky relationship with afghanistan. his first official visit to the region and what a welcome from afghanistan's president hamid karzai. he's accusing our country of cooperating with the enemy to spread chaos across this country. just a little context for you here, and a reminder, not that you need it, we lost 2,170 american lives and more than 540 billion dollars spent over a decade trying to make life better for afghans with the taliban targeting any kind of help or hope we could give them during the war. the taliban of course killed countless people and previously provided safe haven for osama bin laden and today afghan president saying our military is working with the taliban. it appeared we might learn exactly why he said that. we've known president karzai to be rather unpredictable in the past. secretary hagel was supposed to hold a joint news conference today with the afghan leader, but then it was canceled for what were said to be security reasons. the two did meet, we're told, in private. peter doocy now with the news from washington. peter? >> reporter: harris, afghan president hamid karzai made a sensational accusation against the united states thi