by ruth bader ginsburg, stephen breyer, sonia sotomayor, and elena kagan. boating with the majory,

ginsburg, stephen breyer, sonia sotomayor, and elena kagan. also voting with the majority anthony kennedy, often called the swing vote. three conservative justices voted against it. the decision makes a major victory for the obama administration on health care. the president spoke at the white house earlier today. president obama: today after more than 50 votes in congress to repeal or weaken this law, after a presidential election based in part on preserving or repealing this law, after multiple challenges before the supreme court, the affordable care act is here to stay. my greatest hope is that rather then keep fighting battles that we have settled again and again and again, i can work with republicans and democrats to move forward. let's join together and make health care in america even better. charlie: public opinion of the law has improved, but it remains

elena kagan. phil: what is interesting, in the wake of comments like that, you think about the gravity of what just occurred anything about for the country, what it means. you always want to flip it back to politics but we have seen this become an issue in some of the statements that are not as finely tailored as jeb bush's statements. you have seen scott walker, bobby jindal, folks who are taking this and combining it with what happened yesterday and said, this is why i need to be president because i would never whennt justices like this i'm in office. i think this is a key component. there are going to be supreme court appointees in the next administration, it is almost a certainty. this has now become a political issue. john: here's the great thing about the court. frankfurter thinks he is a

paola rpuestasi es, un repte legal publicado esta sa senala que las jueces rutginsburg elena kagan deben del caso pq ambas han realizado ceremonias de casaento y aun cuando el caso estpendiente ante la cte suprema,ostensiblementeafectando su imparclid...ju an francisco. juan fran --pasamo"san jos" donde varias lles seencuentran bloeadas a causa dun hombre que se encr deno de una gra de constrcin. take 2boxes --hacemo enlace con "damin trujillode nuestrestacin herman"n-b-c" para contarnos co valas negociaciones ent el seto y la polica... dami ke daman live damian live --jn francisco. ya son nueve horas que te hombre ha estado encerrado la cabina. --todo ici ay a eso de las ocho y media de lahe cuando la polica se vio lada a cerrar importanes tramosn el centro de la ciud. take vo...como la cal 6, entre lascalles "santa ara" y "st. john". --agentes se han tadcomunicando con elujetopero hasta ahora no halogradoconvercerlo de qubaje. --el superinndente de lcompaÑa de construin pidi a sus 100 emeadosue hoy no vengan a tbajar. --la grua ubicadal otro ladode la calle de lalcalda desan jose estar

elena kagan and job roberts were both 50. imagine these three justices stay until they were 90. the age in which john paul stevens stepped down. that's too much power to be exercised by a single person for too long a period of time. also, too much terms on the history. richard nixon had four vacancies in his first two years as president. jimmy carter terms would mean every president would have a vacancy every two years. that would be far better. >> you want to take that on? >> i don't have any objection to term limits. 18 might be too long, maybe two might be better. you could have rotating circuit judges serving on the supreme court for two years a piece. that might be even better. >> i think that i'm opposed to term limits. here are some arguments against them. one would be the constitution of the united states right? there is article three section one which talks about the tenure the justices have. assuming one were even able to have a constitutional amendment which i think would be required to bring that about, that seems incredibly unlikely. i worry about the costs of the c

so sotomayor and elena kagan. >> reporter: what is justice sotomayor's first name? >> maria?an has been chosen to replace andrew jackson on the $20 bill, great choice, but another nominee was wilma mankiller? do you know who that is? >> the first female chief of the cherokee nation. >> reporter: heart. who is the richest woman in the world? >> the walmart heir. >> reporter: how much is she worth? >> around $41.7 billion. >> reporter: how do you know this? who was the first u.s. female treasurer? >> georgia clark. >> reporter: i am thinking of a number between one and ten. what is it? >> three? >> reporter: and a color? >> orange. >> reporter: oh, gosh! so, joanne? >> yeah. >> what happened? not only was it not funny, it made us look bad. we were supposed to expose america's ignorance. >> i would apologize to the network and you and the millennials. i let my generation down with that one. i did everything you said. i went on wikipedia. i found the most obscure questions i could find. >> i didn't even know the answers. and i went up to people holding selfie sticks. if it's like

i saw a report about a talk elena kagan gave at a law school.aid that there are two kinds of conferences. one or the once about the big cases that make the front page of the new york times. those are very short. nobody discusses the case at all. they say how they will vote. if they have to explain or discuss the case, they would annoy each other, so what's the point of that? she says there are long conferences and those are about the cases that nobody except lawyers pay attention to. those often go on for a long time and they spend their time trying to figure out what the right legal answer is and they try to work it out. my proposal would be that congress do a few things to encourage more long conferences and fewer short conferences. i have larger proposals i worked up with my colleague. congress could require all opinions -- that would include the concurrences. second, they could expand the jurisdiction of the court. right wingers going for the straight station -- jurisdiction stripping cases. there is a no longer used statutory mechanism by w

there was reason i saw a report, talk that elena kagan gave at a law school where she described the conferences. and she said the only two kinds of conferences. one are the ones about the big pages that make the front pages, -- page of the "new york times" and those conferences are very short. nobody discusses the case of all. it to say how they're going to vote, and i guess she said they all think if they explain to discuss the case with each other they just i know each other, so what's the point? but then she said to our long conferences and those are about the cases that nobody except lawyers who specialize in the field is paying attention to purchase it often does go on for quite a long time, and they spend their time trying to figure out what the right legal answer is and they don't come in with subtle views and they try to work it out. so my proposal would be that congress do a few things to encourage more long conferences and fewer short conferences. and i have four proposals which i worked up with my colleague, regularly come and i regularly come and post it to conclusions without getti

the patent holder lost in this case but supreme court justice elena kagan, a comics fan, made not one not three, but i think four different spider-man jokes in her ruling today. she's previously referenced dr. seuss and the tommy tutone song "867-5309" so the spider-man thing should not have been a surprise but still awesome to see things like this, patents endow their holders with certain super powers but only for a limited time. yay for spider-man. yay for having an awesome comics nerd supreme court justice. here's the thing i want to know though. the court usually issues its rulings in june. this is june. usually they issue their rulings on mondays. okay. it's monday today. it's already june 20 something, 22nd, right? they've got seven more rulings to hand down nape already expanded their ruling days to not just mondays but also thursdays. and then today they said they're also going to issue rulings this week on friday. why are they doing that? does that mean anything? what does it mean, if anything, particularly about the giant cases their about to rule on on the obamacare and sam

chief justice john roberts, anthony kennedy, ruth bader ginsburg stephen breyer sonia sotomayor, elena kagane justices voted against, antonin scalia clarence thomas and justice alito. let's go back to jake tapper. >> reporter: i was just talking to jonathan turly about the blistering dissent being given by justice scalia in which he says we should start calling this law scotus care instead of obamacare, standing for supreme court of the united states. i want to bring in kathleen sebelius who joins us from the phone. this case used to be king versus sebelius. now it's king versus burwell because, of course miss burwell replaced kathleen sebelius at hhs. kathleen sebelius joining us on the phone. what's your initial reaction? you must be excited. >> good morning, jake. i think it's a very positive decision for the 6.5 million people around the country who now have affordable health care based on the framework of the law that provides tax subsidies and i think it gives them really an opportunity to make sure that the law continues to grow not only having more people with affordable care but the

atlantic council, tom huntsman and the vice president and director, frank doney and all of us at the elena kagan, welcome to the launch of the task force. we are pleased to be joined by some of the task force's senior advisers and many of our friends from middle eastern and european diplomatic communities. as you can see, we have a full house and a virtual full house. welcome, also, to viewers around the world. this event is live streaming on our website in arabic translation as well. and a full video of today's event, both in arabic and english, will be posted on the council website following the event. this is the first event we have done with live translation, live streaming, from the center. we now have this capability and will do this more often. we encourage you to interact online by following @acmideast and tweet using #mcacst. i want to welcome and salute the founder of the center for the middle east, baha hariri, who is with us for the launch of this group. on behalf of all of us, i want to thank you or your vision. without which this center would not exist and this task force would not

i saw a report of a talk with elena kagan at a law school where she described the conferences and said well, there are two kinds of conferences. the ones about the big cases that make the front page of the new york times command those conferences are short. no one discusses the case. they say hey now -- they say how they will vote and they think if they have to explain or discuss the case they would annoy each other, so was the.of that. but then they're are long conferences command those are about the cases that no one we will accept lawyers who specialize in that field pay attention to. they often go on for quite a long time and spend their time trying to figure out what the right legal answers. they try to work it out. so my proposal would be to congress, do a few things to encourage more long conferences that if you are short conferences. were short conferences. and i have for proposals which i worked up. i we will state the conclusions without giving reasons. first, congress could require all opinions for the supreme court majority conferring and do something to be anonymous and af

elena kagan and john roberts for 15 -- 50. that is too much power to be exercised by a single person for too long of a period of time. too much now turns on history. richard nixon had four vacancies in its first years as president. jimmy carter had no vacancies. 18 near nonrenewable terms mean every president would have a vacancy every two years and i would be far better. >> anyone want to take that on? >> i don't have any objection to term limits. 18 might be too long. two might be better. you could have rotating circuit judges on the supreme court for two years at peace. that might be even better. >> i think i'm opposed to term limits and here are some arguments. one would be the constitution of the united states. article iii section one talks about the tenure of the justices. assuming one were even able to have an amendment which i think would be required to bring that about and that seems incredibly unlikely. i worry about the cost of the constant churn of the supreme court justices. if there are a turnover every two years

there was -- i saw a report of a talk elena kagan gave to a law school where they described the conferences. she said there's two kinds of conferences. one are the ones that make the front page of "the new york times." they discuss how they're going to vote. if they have to explain or discuss the case with each other they would just annoy each other. so what's the point of that. then she said there are long conferences and those are about the cases that nobody except lawyers who specialize in that field pay attention to. often those go on for quite a long time and they spend their time trying to figure out what the right legal answer is and they don't come in with settled views and they try to work it out. so my proposal would be that congress do a few things to encourage more long conferences and fewer short conferences. and i have four proposals which i worked up with my colleague, craig lerner, and i'll state the conclusions without giving reasons. first, congress could require all opinions of the supreme court majority occurring in dissent to be unanimous. in fact, universal perk opinio

elena kagan and john roberts were both 51 who confirmed.gine that these three justices state until they are 90. the age of justice john paul stevens step down. that's too much power to exercise by a single person for too long a period of time. also too much and now turns on the action of history. richard nixon had four vacancies in his first two years as president of jimmy carter had no vacancies in his four years as president. 18 year non-renewal terms would mean every president would have a vacancy every two years but i think that would be far better. >> i don't have any objections to term limits. 18 might be too long too lengthy batter. [laughter] you could have rotating circuit judges serving on the supreme court for two years of peace. that might be even better. >> i think that i am opposed to term limits and here are some argument against them. one would be the constitution of the united states, right? there is article iii section one which talks about the opinion of the justices. assuming one were even able to a constitutional amendm

sonia sotomayor and elena kagan grinding out a 6-3 decision by the supreme court in the waning days oftheir session. with a couple more decisions left to go from the supreme court before the wrap up business which is expected to be on monday. more decisions possible to more. we will have coverage as well on the c-span network. in about an hour and half after the decision came down from the court president obama spoke to the gathering in the rose garden at the white house. >> [background sounds] >> [background sounds] >> good morning everybody. have a seat. five years ago after nearly a century of talk decades of trying i your bipartisan debate, we finally declared that in america health care is not a privilege for a few but a right for all. over those five years we've worked to implement the affordable care act. there have been successes and setbacks. the setbacks i remember clearly. but as the dust has settled there can be no doubt that this law is working. it has changed and in some cases saved american lives. it's set in this country on a stronger smarter course and today after more

majority, the others in the majority, ruth bader ginsburg, stephen breyer, sonia sotomayor and elena kagannting, chief justice roberts and justices scalia, thomas and alito. as far as the opinions go, justice kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the 5-4 decision. he said no union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love fidelity, devotion sacrifice and family, in forming a marital union two people become something greater than once they were. as some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. it would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage, their plea is that they do can respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. in his dissent chief justice roberts said in part: if you are among the many americans of whatever sexual orientation who are more expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. celebrate the achievement of a desired goal, celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitme