by choosing one over the other, ipso facto, one life takes precedence over the other. >> i agree with you that it is i important point -- guest: agree with you that it is an important point to clarify. point thatd to the you would never tell somebody you had to give your life for another person -- arrows and -- heroism to the point that you would never tell somebody you had to give your life for another person. caller: please understand that moderate conservative people like you need to be on guard against the extreme conservative people who will opportune eyes on your agenda -- who will on your agenda. what you're talking about makes perfect sense to me. they will try to push that further than you intend. my second point was about hobby legislation, you talk about not providing abortions. are you referring to plan b? guest: any drug that acts as an abortifacient. caller: the problem there, i don't like when politicians are activists speak with medical illiteracy. -- pill prohibits fertilization. it doesn't terminate fertilization. a false truth is now accepted as fact. guest: the sci

if he does have the discretion, then it's ipso facto of authority to do something many republicans argue as offensive, maybe not as unconstitutional. >> again, most of the laws passed by congress do provide flexibility in terms of enforcement and the congress and the courts recognized a president does have the discretion in terms of the execution of the law. and some point, that execution is so abusive that it is a de facto amendment, a repeal or suspension of the law. argument can be made that's what's going on here. i suspect the attorney general and the department of justice feels otherwise, and given the president the advice and, in fact, he does have the discretion. look at the previous presidents. this is so poisoned the water, the well, for actions with the republicans because one thing i do agree with the president, that is we need comprehensive immigration reform, a permanent solution to the problem that affects our economy and affects our national security, and i really fear that this action has really made that effort much more difficult going forward. neil: alberto gonzalez,

ipso facto. the press covers him or her because they're rich. the polls cover them. they can't keep them off the debates. a 3-way race. break the grip and get people used to voting for alternative candidates. >> "on reflection, what are some takeaways you have from your campaigns for president?" >> one is, a takeaway is dozens of lawsuits against us by the democrats to get us off-balance. and we've documented all that. and it's very important--when a two-party system has fangs to make them bring those fangs out publicly. so they're not hiding behind the myth of democracy and competitive elections. and the other thing is i've never seen people convey to me their sense that they've lost control over everything that matters in their life, including their children. they've lost control over their government. they've lost control over their big employers. they've lost control over their schools. they just feel they've lost control. and, of course, we campaign to combat that. but that was a very deep feeling. and that's what we got to turn around. that's what we got to tur

which other institutions of the same type do not have or at least a large majority of them, it's ipso facto bad? >> no, i don't think it's a dispositive factor, however it significantly undermines the state's showing that a similar restriction could not be in this context. and the state in the face of this example if raised in litigation would have to provide a reasonable basis for explaining why there might be a distinction between what's going on in other states and what's going on in this state. and the showing in this case is exceptionally meager. >> why does it have to show a distinction? it can just say the other states are wrong. we think it's dangerous. i don't care what other states think. >> i think a little more will be required under the compelling interest test. now, this court in cutter -- >> suppose a state just simply says this, you know, actually there's nothing special about our prison. we can't show you some special circumstance, but what we can show you is that prisons are in the business of making trade-offs between security and other values. they do that every single d

which other institutions of the same type do not have or at least a large majority of them, it's ipso facto bad? >> no, i don't think it's a dispositive factor, however it significantly undermines the state's showing that a similar restriction could not be in this context. and the state in the face of this example if raised in litigation would have to provide a reasonable basis for explaining why there might be a distinction between what's going on in other states and what's going on in this state. and the showing in this case is exceptionally meager. >> why does it have to show a distinction? it can just say the other states are wrong. we think it's dangerous. i don't care what other states think. >> i think a little more will be required under the compelling interest test. now, this court in cutter -- >> suppose a state just simply says this, you know, actually there's nothing special about our prison. we can't show you some special circumstance, but what we can show you is that prisons are in the business of making trade-offs between security and other values. they do that every single d

by choosing one over the other, ipso facto, one life takes precedence over the other. >> i agree with you that it is i important point -- guest: agree with you that it is an important point to clarify. point thatd to the you would never tell somebody you had to give your life for another person -- arrows and -- heroism to the point that you would never tell somebody you had to give your life for another person. caller: please understand that moderate conservative people like you need to be on guard against the extreme conservative people who will opportune eyes on your agenda -- who will on your agenda. what you're talking about makes perfect sense to me. they will try to push that further than you intend. my second point was about hobby legislation, you talk about not providing abortions. are you referring to plan b? guest: any drug that acts as an abortifacient. caller: the problem there, i don't like when politicians are activists speak with medical illiteracy. -- pill prohibits fertilization. it doesn't terminate fertilization. a false truth is now accepted as fact. guest: the sci