guest: john roberts said, "we had to sit there expressionless." samuel leto clearly did not do that. -- samuel rubin alitalito cleart do that. the supreme court overturned a century of law. most people think it is either 100 years or 68 years. congress had said corporations and unions could not spend money on electioneering. alito describe this as a recent thing. in the early '90s, the supreme court had a decision that said there was no first amendment right for corporation. he took the view this was a recent thing. as soon as somebody starts to say "this is a century old," he starts to say it is not. it is a strange dispute. he does not agree with the criticisms. host: from minnesota on the democrats' line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i think the supreme court is dismantling the mccain-feingold bill. i also think they are taking the boys away from the people -- taking be athe voice away from the people and putting it in the hands of corporations, foreign or domestic. most of them only have the interest of their corporation in mind. they do

member of the government literally surrounding the supreme court while the court has to sit there expressionless and this is very troubling the. to the extent that the state of the union has degenerated into a political pep rally, i'm not sure why we're there. >> thank you for coming to see us. you mentioned how the ground forces the board of education was written briefly so the average person could read it. what other virtues are there? >> that is a good question that a senator could ask. it should be accessible to intelligence laypeople. this is an important decision. on a case like brown on the big and important public interest cases, it should be interesting. it should give an adequate explanation. that is what we have to do. congress does not explain why they're doing something. the president does not have to explain to you. you can throw them out of office the next time they are up and dow. it should not be an 80 page opinion with 100 page footnotes which is impossible for people to understand. it should be something that the public can understand, explain what you are doing, let them make

expressionless. i heard alito speak in the argument. the president began by saying the supreme court overturned a century of law. most people think it is either 100 years or 60, depending on how you count it. he described this as a relatively recent thing. in the early 1990's', there was an amendment about that. he took the view that this was a relatively recent thing. why is everyone saying that this is a century-old law? it is a strange dispute, but he does not agree with the criticisms. host: minnesota. bob on the democrat line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think the supreme court is dismantling the mccain-1 gold bill -- fine gold -- feingold bill. they are taking away the voices of the people. their voice will not be heard, and it is putting it in hands of corporations that could be foreign or domestic. most of them only have the interest of their corporation in mind. they do not care whether their policy making is damaging to the public or not. an example of that would-be health care.

cheering and hollering, while the court, according to the requirements of protocol, has to sit there expressionless think is very troubling, and it does cause you to think whether or not it makes sense for us to be there. to an extent, the state of the union degenerated into a political pep rally. i'm not sure why we're there. >> woodruff: in response today, white house press secretary robert gibbs again criticized the campaign finance decision. >> the president disagreed, and polls show 80% of the country disagree with that decision. the president would have said that in that room had they been sitting in that row, or not been there at all. >> woodruff: a rare instance of out-in-the-open tension between these two national institutions- - the white house and the supreme court. and to examine that tension, we are joined now by tom goldstein, a lawyer who has argued many cases before the supreme court, he's also the founder of scotusblog.com. and jeff shesol, author of the upcoming book, "supreme power: franklin roosevelt vs. the supreme court," he's also a former speechwriter for president bill clin

cheering and hollering while the court, according to the requirements of protocol, has to sit there expressionless, i think is very troubling. and it does cause me to think whether or not it makes sense for us to be there. to the extent the state of the union has degenerated into a political pep rally thomas i am not sure why we are there. >> thank you very much for coming to see us mr. chief justice. earlier you mentioned how the decision was written relatively briefly so the average person could read it. i was wondering what other virtues you think a well written decision as a work of writing has? >> well, that is sort of a good question i think a senator could ask, and my answer-- [laughter] my answer would be first of all i think it should be accessible to intelligent laypeople. who don't have to be lawyers. if they want to find out, this is an important decision, what do the supreme court say they should be up to pick it up and understand it. they are not going to care for it is the case that talked about earlier where there is a contract on the interpretation of the bankruptcy code but in a

cheering and hollering while the court-appointed requirements of protocol mean we have to sit there expressionless, it is troubling. it makes the question whether it makes sense for us to be there. the state of the union has degenerated into a political pep rally. i am not sure why we are there. >> thank you very much for coming to see us, mr. chief justice. you mentioned how when a decision was written briefly so the average person could read it -- what other issues do you think -- what other attributes to you think a good decision, as a piece of writing, has? >> that is a good question is senator could ask. -- a good question a senator could ask. [laughter] it should be intelligent to -- it should be intelligible to intelligently people who are not lawyers. they should be able to pick it up, read it, and understand it. they are not going to care if it is a case where there is a conflict on interpretation of the bankruptcy code. on a case like brown, and the other important public interest cases, i think it should be accessible to them at least at some level. they may not have to follow all the n

expressionless. i heard alito speak in the argument. the president began by saying the supreme court overturned a century of law. most people think it is either 100 years or 60, depending on how you count it. he described this as a relatively recent thing. in the early 1990's', there was an amendment about that. he took the view that this was a relatively recent thing. why is everyone saying that this is a century-old law? it is a strange dispute, but he does not agree with the criticisms. host: minnesota. bob on the democrat line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think the supreme court is dismantling the mccain-1 gold bill -- fine gold -- feingold bill. they are taking away the voices of the people. their voice will not be heard, and it is putting it in hands of corporations that could be foreign or domestic. most of them only have the interest of their corporation in mind. they do not care whether their policy making is damaging to the public or not. an example of that would-be health care.