. >> my name's gay hardwick. >> and my name's bob hardwick. we've been married 41 years this august. happily married 41 years. >> bob and gay hardwick were a couple living in stockton, california. >> we had picked out a home in one of the little picture perfect, tree-lined streets. we were just happy in our new home, living together. the day of our attack was march 18th, 1978. and we were attack number 31. we had gone out to dinner and a movie. normal friday night. and we came home around 10:00 and went to bed. later that night, we were awakened by very bright light right in our faces and a voice saying, "wake up, wake up." >> the attack on bob and gay hardwick was much like all the other attacks in that he confronted bob and gay when they were in bed. he ordered her at gunpoint to bind bob. >> nothing you can do when there's a .357 magnum pointed -- >> at your head. >> at your head. >> he then bound gay. he retied bob. >> turns him over, put the plates on his back as a warning device. >> things would go silent for a period of time. and then a

vote yes on prop 25 to end money bail. >>> we are back with omari hardwick.in the terrifying new horror movie "spell" all in time for halloween. so, omari, good morning. thanks for being with us -- >> good morning. >> before we talk about "spell," i want to say, go, dogs, sic 'em. >> go, dogs. there you go. >> a fellow -- >> i don't know what happened to us with the freaking crimson tide. >> let's talk about 'bama. it's too soon. i can't talk about 'bama. we've got redemption coming this weekend, so we'll see what we can do. >> it's coming. i appreciate it, you fellow alum. >> speaking of colleges your niece is a broadcast journalism major at howard university and i know that you hosted yard fest together. you had to do it virtually, so how do you get students excited during these times? >> well, we did a little bit of swag surfing, let's start with that. that kind of helped. my niece put me on to what that really entailed and we didn't have 10,000 of us doing it. we only had two of us doing it but hoping 10,000 students were watching. it's kind of hard. you

as i was mentioning earlier, bauers versus hardwick held that certain conduct between same-sex partners was illegal and lawrence versus texas overruled that. my guess is you think lawrence versus texas was correctly decided, so i don't think that your position would be that no precedent should ever be revisited. >> correct. i do think in grievously wrong cases, it is appropriate to reach back as a number of members have discussed around brown versus board and i did note that exchange earlier. but in terms of reliance interests and the significance of reliance interests, in reading that 2003 colorado law review article, you wrote that reliance should count much less, if at all, when a litigant convinces a court that precedent conflicts with the statutory or constitutional provision it purports to interpret. i was struck by that language, because i know you choose your words carefully. you've acknowledged reliance interests exist and they're part of the supreme court and its approach. but in this article it seems to me you're giving your own views about whether reliance should matter. and

as i mentioned, maybe it was to flowerslahey earlier, versus hardwick held certain sexual conduct between same-sex partners was illegal. it was criminalized. lawrence versus texas overrule that. my guess is you think lawrence versus texas was correctly decided, so i don't think it goes with your opinion that no precedent should ever be revisited. coons: agreed, i did note that exchange earlier. but in terms of reliance interest and the significance of reliance interest in reading that law review article, you wrote that reliance should count when ass, if at all, litigant convinces a court that precedent conflict with a -- i was struck by that link which because i know you choose your words carefully. you have acknowledged reliance interests exist, but in this article, it seems to me you are giving your own views about whether reliance should matter. you are unequivocally stating it shouldn't. it should matter less, if at all. approach toginalist reading the constitution says this is wrongly decided, that is why to me, the concern about reading the constitution through a scalia lens rather