district court which then may lead to supreme court review. besides south carolina and the two redistricting cases there's also this case out of the city of kingston, north carolina, which is challenging the constitutionality of section five, where the department of justice denied preclearance from a move to non-partisan elections there so i think those three objections or four objections includ texas so the only sort of indications as to what the new section five means and a lot of the cases, texas is an example as well as the two redistricting situations i mentioned they make the argument there's a discriminatory purpose that is underlying these voting laws or redistricting controversies. >> there's obviously the question of the constitutionality question five the supreme court will get back in the next term at the latest. in the meantime it's clear that section five has been working, that is there has been very little retrogression and in the place where there has been retrogression they have rejected or in texas litigating the retrogressiv

supreme court the supreme court has no enforcement mechanism the supreme court doesn't have an unforced mechanism but i don't want to live in a world where states are deciding on their own what the wall is and you know we see a lot of conservatives invoking patient theories to say oh we can just ignore the affordable care act we can ignore you don't think they'll do it i don't think they'd bill do it and frankly i don't think they should i think citizens united should be overruled and i think it's you know i mean legally i'm totally in agreement i was curious with him thanks so much for dropping by tonight illuminating this topic so thank you simple fact is that as long as citizens united stands than our democracy is corrupt time to go to move to amend or to fight for a constitutional amendment to kick corporations out of our elections. coming up after the break it's been one year since the protests against governor scott walker's war on unions began wisconsin what's happened since what is the state of the labor movement and where do we go from here. he just put a picture of me when i w

supreme court proceedings. senator grassley there in the middle of your screen of iowa the cosponsor of the legislation s-1945 along with democrat dick durbin of illinois. the markup session should get under way in just a little bit. also on capitol hill today the senate's in session and later today we'ill take a vote on whether to work on the surface transportation bill. in the house meanwhile they're voting on the stock act. a slightly different version than what the senate passed last week and that is under way now. votes should be imminent in the u.s. house. you can follow that on c-span. >>> senate judiciary committee member chuck grassley of iowa one of the cosponsors of legislation that would require televising supreme court proceedings, this ahead of a major court case in march, the health caremedi organizations including c-span have asked the court to cover all five and a half hours of that court case, looking at the president's health care law. the bill, again, s-1945, sponsored by senator dick durbin

supreme court -- supreme court decisions affect everyone. there is no justification for such a powerful element of government to operate outside the view of the american people. senator leahy, the chairman, made a point earlier. the supreme court considers many important things. they will consider affordable health care access, which literally touches the lives of every single american, every family, every business. i think it is important that as our hearings and deliberation on that measure are open to the public, the arguments before the supreme court should be open, as well. on this point, there is bipartisan agreement, despite many of our sombrous agreements -- many of our strong disagreement. democrats and republicans from both chambers have urged the court to permit live video and audio broadcast of health care reform organizations. i think the centers for their leadership on these efforts. some argue that the supreme court is officially open and accessible. the kaur releases audio recordings at the end of the week. -- the court relea

court. anybody want to further expand that? so here's the idea. he is terrified the supreme court's going to do what? pretty much strike down, particularly the wagner act or the social security act, the two pillars of the new deal. right? these are the two most important things, both substantively and politically, and also the wpa, very substantively and politically, as well. the wagner act and the social security act are kind of the real strong, stout pillars of the new deal. one establishes labor power, the other establishes the new welfare state and entitlement programs. he cannot afford to have those struck down. and he's very fearful the court's going to do that. and he thinks the only way he can stop it, look, i just got elected with 46 states, 4 in those years. 46 or 48 states. i've got three-quarters of the votes in the congress are democrats. i can do what i want. i can even go after the courts. we discussed another president who went after the supreme court, didn't we? who was that

supreme court has held that if state courts and federal courts both have cases in front of them, the federal courts are supposed to wait until the state courts adjudicated the state claims before they step in and adjudicate the claims on top of that, leaving aside section five for the moment which is an immediate injunction, and so i would predict that especially when it comes to a lot of local elections you'll see people going into state courts rather than into federal court, even on plans that could have been judged on federal court grounds on the assumption that will give them two bites at the apple. >> i'm trying to think what's happening around the country. 34 states are in litigation in their redistricting plan. >> that's low. >> new york when i did, i was working for the federal court drawing a plan ten years ago and there was simultaneous proceedings in the state court, i guess this is being taped, what the hell, you know, they took basically the plan we drew and then you know did a little tweaks here and there and you should see what they billed the state for that, but it wa

superior court. for too long the american people have been effectively prohibited from observing the proceedings and open sessions of the supreme court. think about our extra effort to make certain that the nominations process and the hearings before this committee on supreme court justices are available to every american on a real time basis. we believe that is a valuable part of our decision process. i think the same standard should apply to supreme court justices once approved by the senate when they cross the street. our bill would require televising of all open sessions of the court with one notable exception. a majority of the justices of the supreme court can determine that the public televising of these proceedings would violate due process rights of one or more of the parties before court and make that decision and literally close the cameras. for those who argue that it is the best interests of justice in some cases, not to have the proceedings televised, we provide senator grassley and i p

superior court. for too long the american people have been effectively prohibited from observing the open sessions of the supreme court. think about our extra effort to make certain the nominations process are available to every american on a real-time basis. we believe that is a valuable part of our decision-making process. our bill would require televising all -- a majority of the justices of the supreme court can determine that the public televising of these proceedings would violate the due process rightses of one more or of the justices of the supreme court and could literally close the cameras. there's just no justification about such a powerful element of government to argue such a view outside the american people. the supreme court considers many important things and soon they will consider affordable health care act, a measure which literally touches the lives of every single american, every family, every business. i think it's important that as our hearings and deliberations on that measure

a senator asked white for the supreme court legislates. he replied, i think it's clear under the constitution that the legislative power is not vested in the supreme court. it is vested in the congress. and i feel the major instrument for change of laws in this country is the congress of the united states. the business of the congress is that of changing the law. afterward, a reporter asked white to define the constitutional role of the court. his reply was chilly. to decide cases. a bystander later recalled the statement was both a brushoff and a statement of philosophy. you could tell by the way he said it that it carried a fundamental belief for him. byron white cleaves to the view he had at the threshold of his career, which spanned 31 years, one of the longest in the history of the court. he served with 20 justices, including three chief justices. during his career, he wrote more than 1300 opinions, 495 opinions of the court, 249 concurring opinions, and 572 dissents. in posing as they are, numbers are hardly the measure of his contri

supreme court decision. if the california constitution had provided that there will be, you know, racial segregation, as you suggest, in connection with schools, the federal constitution would outlaw that, and it wouldn't matter whether there had been an intervening supreme court decision from california also outlawing it. the point really is simply this. if proposition 8 had been enacted before the california supreme court ultimately invalidated traditional marriage, if it had been enacted before that, the constitutional case that would come to you is the same as it is coming to you now with proposition 8 having been enacted to reverse the california supreme court. because under crawford, the people of california retain the authority to reverse their supreme court unless the federal constitution is violated then and there by what they did. >> if you're taking away a right from a particular class without sufficient reason, that's to say without a standard, without any reasonable reason, and it's done for a r

court will not t.j. placed in detention yesterday february 27th, 2012 and the hearing has been conducted within the 24-hour period. before the court will be the issue whether or not under the rule that the child taken into custody shall be placed and continued to be placed sheltered care or if not considered to be a threat, returned to his home. before we get to that specific issue, i believe there are some other discovery and other issues pending to come before the court. court will recognize prosecutor joyce, do you have a motion? >>> i move to take an order participant in this matter. >> thank you. do you have any objection to that motion. >> no objection, your honor. >> the motion has been made by the state and not objected by defense counsel the court's admonition talking to the media before i issued that order. i do want to note we're going to talk about the media's access to the proceedings as they go forward. the court understands the interest of the public due to the serious nature of the allega

of the court. the roemer case i want to share you the passage "yet amendment 2 in explicit terms does more than repeal or rescind these provisions. it prohibits all legislative executive or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the named class, a class we shall refer to as homosexual persons." the point is that amendment 2 was unprecedented. it was extraordinary, and whether it had repealed anything or not, standing essentially in its own shoes without with regard to the history behind it, it was unconstitutional, it would have been unconstitutional if it singled out and made a stranger to the law any class of persons. again, your honor, thank you very much for your indulgence. >> thank you very much.indulgen >> thank you very much. thank all of you for a fascinating argument. the court will stand adjourned. >> all rise. >> court is adjourned. >> what? >> follow me. how many in your party? >> here on c-span 3 we're live on capitol hill at the dirkeson senate

our federal court is vacant. we have 26 districts under federal emergencies, judicial emergencies. we have 18 judges come out with no opposition on either side, and it wasn't a political issue. could not get one of them through congress. you know, when i talk to the graduating students, i just went through that season and had a chance to talk to many, many graduating law students, and i talked about those four words come and i said, you have read millions of board to get to today. you only have to think about four words. they are inscribed over the supreme court of the united states. "equal justice under law." it doesn't say "equal justice for the rich and powerful and privileged." equal justice. "under lock" the meet -- needs the rule of law under the constitution. -- "under law" means the rule of law under the constitution. when i was leaving cuba, we were taken off the plane and held incommunicado in a private room. there were just locked rooms. you didn't know if you would ever see your family again. it only

i believe even state courts, including state supreme courts have been televising their proceedings for years. i know that some of the justices are not having their proceedings televised. i realize two or three members of the supreme court may not be in favor. a couple of million americans may be on the other side, however. i understand they don't want to be made to -- public service all the time. it's not particularly pleasant, but it's part of our democracy and those of us who don't have lifetime positions, we try to counter misstatements by making sure the record is available to fair minded people and is not left to rely on distortions. last october, members of the senate judiciary committee held a hearings to consider justices under the constitution. we were joined by justices skal lee -- to people who represent different philosophies of the court. i appreciate their willing participation in the hearings, i thought their discussion was informative and useful. senator blumenthal had a hearing, to quote senator blumenthal--the discussion of paul, justice briar responded, there may com

supreme court. today we got the ruling fra that circuit court. they found proposition 8 does violate the united states constitution. it is unconstitutional. the court found that proposition 8 served no purpose and had no effect other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in california. joining us now for an exclusive interview is one of those two famous lawyers that got that big win today, former solicitor-general ted olsen. >> i'm no expert on these matters especially compared to you, but the ruling seems to be narrowly construed to aapply just to the situation in california, to not assert a right to marriage equality more broadly. is that the way that you see it, and did you expect it to come out that way? >> actually, i think it's a very broad decision. let me explain that. in the first place, the court said that california was somewhat unique in that as you said a few moments ago proposition 8 took away the rights of same-sex persons on to get married. but the right exists in many other states now, and people are at

court is going to rule on this matter but should the high court go along with the lower court and the corporations and the consequences frankly could be disastrous as second core second circuit court judge pirro laval wrote last year in his dissent warning of the consequences of that court's rulings . so long as they incorporate businesses will now be free to trade in or exploit slaves employ mercenary armies to do dirty work for despots perform genocides or operate torture prisons for a despots political opponents or engage in piracy all without civil liability to victims so what kind of atrocities are corporations up to overseas and how might the supreme court let them get away with it joining me now is b.b.c. investigative journalist an internationally best selling author greg palast his most recent book is vultures picnic and pursuit of petroleum pigs power pirates and high finance carnivores if you don't have a copy to get one right away it's an amazing read you can put it out greg welcome back to the program. glad to be with you tom so greg what exactly are these corporations up

the court will note that t.j.on at 1645 hours yesterday february 27th, 2012, and this hearing has been conducted within the 24-hour period. before the court will be the issue of whether or not until the rule that the child taken into custody shall be placed -- continue to be placed in detention or shelter care, or if not considered to be a threat returned to his home. before we get to that specific issue, i believe there are other discovery and other issues pending to come before the court. the court will recognize prosecutor joyce. do you have a motion? >> yes, your honor, i'd like to move this honorable court place an order refraining all participants from this matter in discussing this case any further with the open media. >> thank you, mr. joyce, mr. farinacci, do you have any objection to that motion? >> no objection. >> the court will note that the motion made be the stay, governs the court admonition to the lawyer. before i issue that order, i do want to also note in a minute we'll talk about the media's ac

twice of the interwar courts of the 1920s and the 1930s. judicial restraint is dead. byron white is gone and largely forgotten. the fruit of self effacement is not enduring glory. from the beginning of his tenure on the supreou

high court will operate within. the use of the word regulation of congress or within basically within rules defined by congress for it the exact wording wouldn't be possible and the last president to really seriously take this seriously as franklin roosevelt. would have been possible instead for congress to pass a law saying that the supreme court does not have the power to say that corporations are persons well you know that even more politically impractical in my view it is more politically impractical because it's asking congress to do something but i also actually believe that the supreme court it's a dynamic process so yes the supreme congress has the ability to define the jurisdiction of the supreme court congress has some ability to define the numbers of justices on the court which is why we had franklin roosevelt's so-called court packing plan there is a healthy tension that the elected branches should bring. to the supreme court from the president to the congress and you know when president obama called out

that is what the trial court does. the supreme court looks at it and takes them on the record and then determines if the law has been correctly applied. the supreme court made findings of fact. they made the finding of the fact that unlimited corporate spending and elections does not create corruption or the appearance of corruption. that is a preposterous finding of facts are and policy. maybe that is a problem that europe's when you have members of the supreme court that have never run for office before. but i think that there was an ulterior motive here. that critical finding of the fact of the wrong as it was was the linchpin for the rest of the analysis. if that finding of the fact isn't there, the entire decision falls to pieces. and so i think we need to be careful about attacking that finding of fact. the previous case of the over will have plenty of the findings to the contrary. legislative hearings have developed plenty of findings and experience tells you the contrary. whether it is the company that comes in

that he'd been a member of our court, the new york court of appeals, a supervising judge in the state, the justice of the appellate division in new york and a graduate of cornell and hailing from livingston county, lavonia, actually. and when you're from hemloch, lovonia is the big apple. i got to know him before the new york court of appeals building was reconfigured. at the time we were the new kids on the block and on the third floor and the big shots, the important judges, the other five were on the second floor. we were up there on the third floor and i got to know him pretty well. and not only was he a great judge, saged, wise, hard-working, scholarly, but he left me with one thing i'll share with you that has resinated with me for a long, long time. every once in a while he'd say this maybe once a year or twice a year as we were going around the table, each of us giving our impression of a particular case, giving our input, seeing whether we agree and how the court breaks down and so forth. and once in a while it would sort of hesitate and one of us would say, what is it? and h

that was appealed up to the circuit court, one level below the u.s. supreme court. today we got the ruling from the circuit court, they found it do violate the constitution. the court found that proposition 8 served no purpose and had no effect other than to less the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in california. joining us now for an exclusive interview is one of those famous lawyers, former solicitor general ted olsen, congratulatio congratulations, thanks for your type, nice to see you. >> my measure to be here, thank you, rachel. >> i'm no expert on these matters compared to you, the ruling seems to me narrowly construed to apply to the situation in california, not try to assert a right to marriage equality more broadly. is that the way that you see it and did you expect it to come out that way? >> i think it's a very broad decision. let me explain that. in the first place the court said that california was somewhat unique in that proposition 8 took away the rights of sex persons to gmarr d married. the right exists in other states, this precedent

for the court's review. it's appropriate to keep the facts straight in this matter, the court then would authorize such release of information. is that correct? >> yes, your honor. that is correct. >> is that correct? >>s that correct, your honor. >> that brings one other issue before we get to the detention issue. multiple media sources, i believe we're up to 47, have asked to participate or appear during these proceedings. the court is well aware of the case law on this issue including the case that involved this court 12 years ago. members of the media should have received a copy of the order that the court issued this morning, february 28th, 2012, that spells out the rules for media participation in the court as well as should have filled out a form, an application, and received a copy of the local rule 13. under the order that was issued today, first of all, the court has determined that the media will participate in the proceedings subject to the limitations of that order. does the prosecution have any

so when the case finally went to the united states supreme court in 1866, the supreme court ruled that milligan should not have been tried in a military court and should not have been held therefore and therefore was released. actually milligan cheated the hang man, president johnson commuted his sentence five days before he was to have been executed and ultimately then the supreme court vacated his conviction. milligan thought what any good law-abiding lawyer would do, he thought regress of his grievance in court and brought an action against the jailer for $5 million of damages. so apparently milligan and the defense against milligan's claim was indeed that he really was attempting to subvert the union's efforts and, indeed, he was deeply involved. i think that the lessons that we learned from these cases are that they are examples of country of extremists. it's very hard. i was very interested in the last part of the discussion at the table. your comments about really very hard to have an appreciation of the type of circumstance which lincoln faced. i don't think on a national exper

for the court you do start seeing a gentleman of hypocrisy when when you when you look at the court and how it handles business interests so what do you think of the ratifications will be we see a lot of public anger here within the u.s. right now that's critical of the citizens united ruling and the say. what is this going to mean on a global scale right now that we have a globalized economy and what does that mean is that do businesses just get free rein to do whatever they want work with every governments they want well hopefully not and what this case does leave open is the possibility for plaintiffs to sue corporate officers to get to individuals because individual liability is not in question are they only tort statute but there's a couple cases coming down the pike where the supreme court may actually even more narrow your jurisdiction to the point where there are people just be no possibility for plaintiffs to come in and sue even corporate officers for their foreign international human rights violations make sure you take a look at those mike thanks so much for joining us t

in the end those -- finally the appeals court, it did get to the appeals court. iny simply said look, you're the legal road. it is reasonable, the court said for the city of london corp. and local government to clear this area for the good of the general public. that is what is happening. i think for most of the protesters, they seem to be -- i would not say relaxed but resigned that that is what is happening. the notable exception of that small group which is still barricaded in a makeshift structure which you can see, i think you can see through the line of police officers there. >> we're seeing the the last few hours of this london occupy site. the thames -- tents were in place october 15. this is a campaign that has drawn in the church over there, conditional on this campaign. exclaimed -- i supposed the protestors would consider this to be a success or development. >> they will regard the overall campaign to be a successful one. it has brought attention to the things they wanted to bring attention to. it has a lot of coverage. it has had a lot of coverage in

and it was that the court said this week was unconstitutional. here was the court's analysis. they said california is a state with domestic partnership giving gay couples all the legal rights married couples have. spouse benefits, married children, inheritance, all of that. the court said what did proposition 8 change? nothing, except the right to get a marriage license. gwen: just the word marriage. >> the trite say i'm married, right to get a marriage slines. they said even after prop 8 was -- went into effect and stopped gay marriages, gay couples could still do all of the things legally they could do before. they said really that's all that changed is the term marriage and you can't do that in the constitution because it's clear, they said, the court said in a 2-1 vote if the real intent of prop 8 was to put these folks in a lesser social status and the supreme court constitution doesn't allow that. the decision was written by arguably one of the most liberal judges, federal judges in the country, steven reinhard. and it seemed like it was drafted to be supreme court proof

aren't these just a bunch of troublemakers going to court, clogging up the court system? does it make any difference to the business community or to average americans who don't need the court system? well, we are all going to be a minority some day in some way. we are all going to need the court system. the fact is this is as important to the business community as any other community. that is something that has not been written about and that we learned during the course of these commission hearings

supreme court is now very clear. we are confident that the law, history, and the repeatedly expressed will of the american people will eventually gain a fair hearing. and traditional marriage will be upheld and protected." the battle began on november 4, 2008. the next year, the california supreme court upheld prop 8 but in 2010, federal judge walker struck it down saying gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry. last year in california, the supreme court gave prop 8 defenders the right to appeal judge walker's decision, and today, we heard the results of that appeal. but the ruling does not mean gay marriageses can resume right away. >> the majority here strikes down the proposition but leaves in place a stay of the district court's ruling. the district court ruled it was unconstitutional as well. by leaving the stay in place, you cannot surprise gay marriage until the stay is lifted. the stay probably will not be lifted until the supreme court has an opportunity either to grant review or deny review.

but state courts were open. one would think these issues would be litigated constantly in state courts. why not? >> there are so few examples of it. and, again, the wonderful example that i cited tonight of governor seymour throwing one of these cases into a municipal court when it involved the closing of the new york world is sort of comical because no federal court is going to hear it. and the courts in where most of this suppression is taking place, maryland, missouri, kentucky, are really not in operation. i mean, the military courts have taken over the jurisdictions. and, again, with the writ of habeas corpus now nationalized and suspended by congress, three times, lincoln has free reign to have people arrested by the military and tried by military tribunals. >> i have the privilege of having judge rosenblat who is signalling to me that it's time for us to conclude -- >> i thought he had a question. >> this wonderful discussion. let me ask you to fast forward to the end stage. everyone is a journalist today

the supreme court of the united states today has no protestants on the supreme court. isn't that interesting? we basically have catholics and jews. >> i have been very worried about that, i will tell you. [laughter] >> i mentioned it because i thought it was keeping you up at night. the fact is that i have no doubts that they each will do what they said in their nomination, which is they would apply the law, and what justice roberts said is really probably a similar statement. judges are supposed to call balls and strikes. that does not mean that they don't understand -- as a matter of fact, why do you have a diverse jury? the appellate court is just another type of jury, right? the supreme court is a very different kind of jury because the supreme court, and having only had one case before them, i learned very quickly that president -- precedent is not as important as the justices, who will decide what the law is. they will change what the lot is if they get a majority of their sisters and brothers to go along with it. to have a jury made up of diverse cultural views

if the supreme court takes this up, i believe the supreme court would issue a stay until they have an opportunity to rule on that. >> ifill: thank you both very much. >> thank you, gwen. >> thank you. >> woodruff: president obama's >> woodruff: still to come on the newshour, president obama's reelection campaign; more bloodshed in syria; italian prime minister mario monti; and photographer annie leibowitz. but first, the othenews of the day. here's hari sreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: iran today dismissed new american sanctions against the country's central bank. a spokesman for the iranian foreign ministry charged the move amounted to "psychological war." and he insisted the sanctions will not make iran give up its nuclear program. >> the actual results of these measures will be a stronger and more serious determination from our nation to achieve its great objectives within the framework of the national interest and the nation's rights. >> sreenivasan: also today, the iranian parliament summoned president mahmoud ahmadinejad for questioning over a number of charges. they include allegat

the supreme court of the united states today has no protestants on the supreme court. isn't that interesting? we basically have

supreme court. i have my theories about where some of the tension came from between the two but he also put justice brennan on the supreme court. he did a wonderful job of explaining the context that we faced as a country. i want to give you a little context about what our court system was like during this period. my father's mentor was a man named charles hamilton houston who excelled in law school, at harvard law school and became dean of harvard law school where he meantoned lawyers in the civil rights movement. charles hamilton houston was clearly a brilliant legal thinker and was a tremendous law student at harvard. to give you a clue as to how much of a pioneer and how brilliant this man was, in 1935 he gave a speech that we recently found at the library of congress where he laid out the entire desegregation cases. that's 1935. this was not a man to be trifled with. i mention thatta background because of the context of the court system that president eisenhower did so much to change. charles h

supreme court. it basically prevented any kind of special benefits or legal protections for gays and lesbians. anthony kennedy, the critical swing justice, wrote that decision striking down amendment two in colorado. i think they're hoping the opponents of prop 8 are hoping he would be on their side in this as well. >> in an odd sort of way as california continues this fight, continues and continues, in states all around us and states around the country, we're seeing more and more moves to the legitimatization of gay marriage. is this almost a day late and a dollar short? >> i think people look at iowa, now washington state this week passed gay marriage, the governor says she's going to sign it. clearly things are moving along. that raises an interesting point because it may not be in the -- time may not be on the side of supporters of prop 8. but the longer this drags out, before it goes to the u.s. supreme court, you've got now new york state has it, new jersey's thinking about it, illinois's thin

supreme court. i am very sure that that would be the consequence and therefore i am not in favor of televising it. >> but it would, for high school students or even middle school students and for the general public who are interested in an important and pressing case, provide a means for them to see what right now only a very limited audience can do because of the size of the court pierre >> but for those who are interested in it for intellectual reasons, surely the tapes are good enough. >> the tapes, with all due respect, and i understand your argument, do not convey in the same way with as much interest, the kind of debate, back and forth, the visual sense of the action in court. i know and you know really how dramatic it can be. >> it is not a whole lot of visual motion. it really is not. it is mostly intellectual motion. >> it is certainly gripping if your answering the questions. [laughter] justice briar, do you have a different point of view? " we are conservative and you would be too if you