of the roberts court. this is a story about the roberts court in general and specifically about these four cases. and it is also a struggle within the country. you see it playing out almost every day over the meaning of certain provisions of the constitution but i would like to tell you about why i chose the four cases that i did. they cover four areas race race, guns, money and elections and health care. initially was looking to do something that i thought the supreme court to books don't do that either focus on the nomination confirmation process or what is happening or happened in the supreme court itself but i really wanted to tell stories of how cases get to the supreme court italy and at the courthouse door fully grown it takes a lot of commitment with people involved and a lot of strategizing by the lawyers it is a long haul to the lower courts although some king get there quickly depending on what happened in the lower courts spinning people may not realize it takes wondered 2% of those cases. >> t

the supreme court. i found bunches of cases where if the party that lost only ask the supreme court to hear it, they probably would. i went to the lawyers in those cases and said i can help you get in the door. the first work that i did at the supreme court, i did basically for free. i argued my first eight cases of the supreme court over the course of three years. i was paid a total of $8000 to do all of that legal work over three years. >> why would do you that? >> well, it was the only way to get from there to here. there was -- nobody would take a young lawyer with the level of experience and knowledge that i had and said i want to give you an important commercial supreme court case. i needed to learn more about what i was doing, ashow i was capable of doing it. over the course of three years, we started the blog after that long and also i had the idea -- i had cornered by then the work on free supreme court litigation. it turns out the supreme court litigation will not pay the mortgage. i had to mo

>> didn't go to court. >> that's what a bench warrant is. >> what you have to go to court for?> probation. >> how long have you been on probation? >> i've been on probation for, like, five years. i'm not really too worried about these court dates. i don't know. now that i'm 18, legally they can't hold me no more than 120 days. as soon as i get this legal trouble out of the way, i know i'm going to have a good life. i have all the essential tools and capabilities to carry me anywhere i want to go, but it's just me finding a way to use them. >> monday morning means court is back in session. those detained downstairs in the detention center are shackled for their own safety and the safety of those bringing them to the juvenile court wing. >> no talking in the hallway. >> on the judge's docket today, two very different but equally heavy hearings. the case of two young brothers who have been in detention over and over but still could face years in the juvenile system. and then there's devon who at 18 will stand in the judge's courtroom one last time. if he gets locked up again, it w

he wrote to the supreme court of the united states. >> the supreme court they have cases brought to the court by people who are too poor who are able to pay for their fees. gideon's was a hand written document online prison stationery. you couldn't imagine a simpler more elementary way to get to the highest court in the land. >> why would the supreme court decide to hear the case of a poor man already in prison. because the constitution allows even a poor man to be heard. lightning strikes from the ground up. it may have been sparked by gideon but they were on the court's justice ready to catch it. >> he was the most influential person in the courtroom system of all time. people should not be disadvantaged in getting justice because they are poor. the judge was viable for the constitution. it had the best constitution in the world and if we were tolerant it would be all right. on the morning of march 18th, the decision was announced from the supreme court. they said justice black said i have an announcement the decision and opinion of the court gideon against -- vindication for 20 years

it's very collegial court. it's not 94 beans in the bottle. >> woodruff: that's all ahead on tonight's "newshour." >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> more than two years ago, the people of b.p. made a commitment to the gulf. and everyday since, we've worked hard to keep it. today, the beaches and gulf are open for everyone to enjoy. we shared what we've learned so that we can all produce energy more safely. p.s al committed to america. we support nearly 250,000 jobs and invest more here than anywhere else. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. our commitment has never been stronger. >> support also comes from carnegie corporation of new york, a foundation created to do what andrew carnegie called "real and permanent good." celebrating 100 years of philanthropy at carnegie.org. of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasti

no court is perfect. we grow. what i meant in that interview was i was not born a justice and that is what john paul stevens was saying. he grew into a legend after 30- odd years in the court. he was saying to me to become a legend. that gives me a lot of confidence in knowing that i was growing. not besions today will as good as the ones 10 years from now. they will not be as good as the ones tomorrow. let me go to the other side so i play fair. the young man with blond hair. >> i am just to a from a colorado springs. very cute outfit. [laughter] >> thank you. you noticed? >> on the whole you have a lot of problems in our life with diabetes and everything. that is really hard to get past. what drew inspiration from that? these little things add up and in your case they want so little. >> they can be overwhelming at moments and they feel that way a lot of times. there was one gift i got from my diabetes. it was the gift of understanding how pressure shapes you. diagnosed, over 50 years ago, taking care of the dise

we saw the court make a u. turn in favor of big corporate interests over the public interest in the bush appointees . boy i would love to get into a discussion right now both margaret and judicial review but. i'm not going to go there we don't have the time david what has changed in america in american jurisprudence is this is this just the natural evolution the natural consequence of of the palmetto nepal being put on the court leading to things like buckley versus vallejo and first national bank versus bloddy or is this you know is this huge i mean john roberts was a two million dollar your corporate lawyer before you put on the court is this just the consequence of having a republican president at a time when two openings appear on the court. you know it it's not just that it is a consequence yes having a republican on the court it is a consequence of the twenty five years since the palmetto where this ideology and not just a business ideology but a corporate ideology has begun it's a consequence of living i

that the court has right now the supreme court house right now make that top ten list two of those the most conservative two would be a leader in chief justice roberts are both bush appointees so whether you want to say that they are more subject to special interests you know that part's arguable but the current course that we have right now is definitely will. pro-business than any than any court that we've had in the past and the what you get as a result of this is legislation like citizens united like you pointed out a second ago but also what you're seeing is that the court itself is evolving it's you know up with the times able to know how to manipulate not manipulate but maneuver around media and and in speculation of a case in point is earlier this month you were hearing oral arguments about gay marriage all the while you were seeing the case against comcast which is this is a print court the highest court in the land it's you know it's got to be a big deal for a case to actually make it to the supreme court so this was a case against comcast overcharging customers the supreme c

court because it is the d.c. jurisdiction and covers federal issues and disputes against federal agencies they get to decide cases about regulatory bodies like the e.p.a. in the labor department another reason the d.c. circuit is so important is that many of its judges go on to serve in the supreme court for. the current members of the supreme court first served on the d.c. circuit ginsburg roberts scalia and thomas because the d.c. court had four vacancies and even with a four to three majority until just this week it has also been at the center of a battle between the president and the republicans over executive appointments republicans have filibustered obama's nominees to keep the conservative majority on the d.c. court although they had no problem with george w. bush appointing four judges who all breezed through the senate by the republican judges on the d.c. circuit have declared war on obama in january they threw out the president's recess appointment of three national labor relations board nominees accus

. >> i'd like to invite the chief executive office for our supreme court court system thank you four joining us. good morning >> i'm basically here to answer any questions you may have i want to thank you for calling this hearing and thank you to the budget and analysis office for including the court who is not a city entity but a border empty to be part of the audit. as the prior speakers have said this is a grounded breaking part of criminal justice throughout the state and the court is certainly going to be perpetrated to do our part to hear the post hearing starting july 1st hopefully, we're wrapping our planning phase. we'll have several interactions with the sheriff and we've spoken with parole and we will be talking to the public defender and district attorney for their input as well so we'll be perpetrated to increase take that task on july 1st to meet the deadline from the statute. we do have one recommendation in the audit its the one we disagree with on page 22 of the audit that states that i the chief executive of the court should assign a pattern to the community and we

court and the roberts court. what we see is a steady progress where the chamber is becoming more successful before the supreme court over time and that the highest number is the roberts court. >> so the chamber of commerce interceding as a friend of the court. >> exactly. >> in case after case after case? >> exactly. >> the roberts court, basically, open arms to almost anything they want to be part of? >> well, i mean in the end over the course of john roberts' time as chief justice and when sam alito am joined, the chamber winze wins the vast majority of the cases. if you are to look at >> bill: so it wins 69% of the cases in which it intervenes? >> yes. >> whoa. 69. who else comes close? >> i am not sure. we haven't looked at sort of every group. >> that's a staggering number. the other thing to understand, bill. the period before justice scalia joined the court, they were participating in about 4% of the cases per term whereas now this particular term, soo whatever we are see something a busy heavy document. t

calabrese, there were comments that courts should make these decisions, fourth amendment which courts have been doing, applying what law-enforcement on the fourth amendment, should the courts be the answer for solving the issue of rhones in the fourth amendment? >> i think your legislation does a very good job creating a careful balance, something congress is particularly good at and the courts are not particularly good. when we think about how we would want to use a drone is clear that most of the uses, finding a missing person, fighting a forest fire, are not uses that particularly implicate the fourth amendment and your legislation is careful to carve those out and i think by creating clarity you all t good purposes including commercial purposes where people don't have to worry that that drone in the sky is spying on them so you allow the growth of the industry while still protecting people's privacy in a reasonable way so i think congress absolutely has a role landed is a very strong role and one that you are well suited to perform. >> what about the a? right now the faa decides w

the court has two more seats than the supreme court, filling the three vacancies will bring the court to its full strength of 11 judges. but filling those vacancies might require president obama and the democrats to use the so-called nuclear option in the senate in order to get those judges confirmed. "the washington post" has reported senate majority leader reid consulted with president obama on the need to revisit filibuster reform, the president told the majority leader he will support the exercising of the nuclear option if reid opts for it. the aide says reid is eyeing a change to the rules that would do away with the 60 vote threshold on all judicial and executive branch nominations. the aide says. then there was this debate on the senate floor. >> i just want the senate to work well. this republican obstruction has created unreasonable, unworkable standard, where minor issues are raised to block major nominees or require 60 vote super majority for confirmation. >> i don't know what the leader thinks advise and consent means. listening to him it means sit down, shut up, don't as

the supreme court is, you don't know what the supreme court justice is. point.t is the 't dream unless you know what the possibilities are, because dreams don't just pop up into your head. dreams are things that you learn give you hope about it something you can become. so how do you find those dreams? the way you are right now. by taking the chance and applying for a competition and hoping that you get picked, as the 100 in this room did, that the others who tried, you did something just as important. you tried. and that is what life is about. to learn about your possibilities, you have to try things that could be scary. how many of you have traveled and spent the night here last night? if your rent it teacher came with you instead of a parent, that it was a little frightening. when you go away from home at your age, the only people i ever stayed with was my family. but unless you are willing to do things that you are a little afraid of to learn new things, you cannot dream. you can dream, but you won't really know what your possibilities are. and so i a

but when you good to court, you are going to be in the same situation. when i go to testify in court to take these guys to trial, your time is going to be very limited. in that time, you're going to have to go in there and present simple, understandable concepts as to what is the foundation of your case and you have to go in there and do that to educate the jury and to educate the judge. a lot of these people and the judge have never been in front and had to deal with a gravanis type case. the information should be consistent. you have defense attorneys that start going through 2 or 3 our 4 cases and they hear the same thing and they hear somebody professing to be an expert and this guy does not know, it puts a big hole in his expertise right off so we wanted to have something consistent. now, if you properly present this information, it will easily establish the officer as a credible expert and at that point you can start rendering expert decisions. trainings that you go to should be set up in such a way that every jurisdiction has an expert. sometimes

we do have a lot of collaborative court's in san francisco of mental health court, drug court. domestic violence court. but san francisco is at the cuff of considering what measures to take in serving individuals who suffer from mental illness and also individuals who suffer from drugs, substance abuse, chronic conditions. >> i would to introduce john diaz from the san francisco paper, san francisco chronicle. i'm very pleased to introduce him now. john? [ applause ] >> thank you very much, jeff and good morning and welcome to our panel this morning on forced treatment and constitutional rights. can they coexist? i am john diaz, the editorial page editor from the san francisco chronicle and i'm moderating this modern's discussion with our distinguished panel. forced treatment as jeff node is one of the most contentious issues of mental health. as you look at our discussion there are informed and panelled views from both sides. there has been many debates on how to implement lawyer's law which consist of outpatient treatment. it was named after laura wilcox, a mental health work

how does this court stack up against courts before it. >> i think if you look at the warren court in they had some very controversial issues. i think what is unique with the roberts court, it has step into so many controversies in such a short period of time. this is a young court. it will only be about eight years old in september. when i started my book, it had only been five years old and already it had changed the law in terms of campaign finance, it settled the second amendment right on whether the guarantee was an individual right or tied to a militia. that's the gun case. that's one of the reasons i took on the book. i used four cases to draw the reader through the seven years of the roberts court. so i would say it is a very bold court. a very confident court. a conservative majority on the court that sometimes it doesn't act in very conservative ways. >> it is interesting. your point about how young the court is is reminiscent of justice breyer's case. that never had so few changed so quickly. you talked about that in the book. thanks for joining us today. >> we're going to

community and we disagree due to the courts role of being a neutral party. we believe that border lines on policymaking and that's our part in the cc p. we were on the committee for the statutory community has stated and put into statute penal code 1230 was basically to enforcement and implementation plan by 2011 and that's certainly what the court was involved in and once completed the court stepped back we want to stay out of this for those specific reasons and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have >> i'd like to hear from the budget analysis their rationale. >> we did have confidence the state of the court for the directed judges not to be part of the community but we did a survey of other county and other counties do send representatives and it's important for the safety policies and procedures and that we understood not having the no representative so we maintained our remedies and we think this is the standard in most counties. >> is this the standard in most county? >> to be honest with you, i don't know. the budget analyst have advised the c

that the court system was taking.and we took a snapshot of over 2500 transactions in 2012. that comes to $23 million. and coming through us the process is that you pay your assurity or your entire bail. going through the bailbonds industry that 10% represents $10 million. >> let me make an announcement that we will take questions from the audience. if you want to ask one, there are cards that you can signal to amy who will hand you one. we would love to hear your questions. mrs. dewitt, it's been a while since you had the podium or the mic. there has been a lot said, i am wondering when you hear this talk about eliminating money bail system. is this something that can realistically happen or were we able to achieve that, there would be a move to reinstate what your organization does? >> let me first off thank you, matt, let me first say i feel like a minority among the panel. but i am not overwhelmed by it. i think we have a little misconception here and what we forget all along, the public, the taxpayers. the bail in

not you're likely to return to all future court hearings.t finds you're a threat or you're not going to return, you're going to stay locked up. what do you think should happen? >> i think i should be released on house arrest. because i have a job. i'm working. >> many times the kids say here's what i want. as the lawyer, you try to get that result, but you know at the end of the day that that's not the right outcome. because ultimately if you return a child or place a child back into the environment that led the child into the system to begin with, you're fostering the problem. you're not addressing the root problem. >> michael is being held for his alleged involvement in a recent burglary. because of his past history and his refusal to answer police questions, he was hauled into juvenile on suspicion of involvement. >> you know nothing about the burglary? >> i don't know nothing. >> you don't know who did it or anything like that? >> no. >> all right. because certainly what complicates this whole picture is if this were a first time you'd e

and the rehnquist court was more conservative than the berger court.re conservative. studies say it is slightly more conservative than the rehnquist court -- >> bill: is that because of alito and roberts being at it? >> mainly justice alito. he's more conservative than the person he succeeded justice sandra day o'connor. >> bill: by far. >> she moderated in a number of areas like abortion, church and state. campaign finance. that has changed with justice alito coming on the bench. >> bill: you mention sandra day o'connor, i was stubbed a week or so ago when she said looking back at bush v. gore, not that they shouldn't have voted the way they did they shouldn't have even taken the case she believes now. it is kind of too late. >> it's long late. but it's not unusual that justices will have second thoughts. you remember, bill, justice powell, last year, he left the bench. he said he regretted what he did in bowers versus hardlick, the case where the court upheld georgia's sodomy law and the supreme court later overruled that. so with hindsight sometimes