now, taney was one of seven justices in the majority in this case and each justice wrote an opinion, but it was taney's opinion with his infamous words "they have no rights" that most offended african americans. the events of 1861 and 1862 contributed even further to this close identification of chief justice taney with the court's dred scott decision. lincoln was elected president in 1860, and when white southerners feared that the rights to hold slaves would not be protected under the incoming president they succeeded from the federal union and the civil war began. the northern war effort began as an attempt simply to restore the union as an attempt put down the southern rebellion. but by 1862, union policy changed largely because of pressure exerted by african americans, but also because of the republican belief that liberating slaves helped the union cause, emancipation started to become the policy of the union government in washington. in a span of several months, congress enacted legislation forbidding slavery in the territories in defiance of the dred scott ruling and ending s

but we're all entitled to justice. the clauses don't just say justice.hey talk about right and justice. there weren't many rights about in 1215, but over the centuries our rights have come to be established and you find the preservation, the entitlement to a court system that will preserve your rights is there, found within the charter. and i regard the insistence in the charter on right and justice has been its second most important legacy to us. because again, here in the office of chief justice of the united states, the office i once held in england, we are there responsible for seeing that justice is available to all our citizens, even if they're taking on the president or they're taking on the government, the prime minister in our case, all the great local body, great local authority. these rights are recognized in the charter. the barons weren't thinking of us. the barons weren't, you know, full of ideas about voting of . of course they weren't, but as our country developed and then yours did from ours in the constitutional arrangement these , thin

justice' at lunch, -- why have i forgotten -- our previous is -- our previous justices chair.that is not by seniority, but that chair has been sat on by all the judges. when someone moves, you feel a lot of eyebrows raise. why are you sitting there? i have fallen prey to that stop what are you doing here? it can be overwhelming at times, the tradition. i think there are two reasons the justices don't use technology so much. one is tradition and the other is some of them don't know how. >> then there is that. >> the almost 90-year-old justice when i came to the court, justice stevens, did use e-mail. you could send him something and he would respond, but it was very short, so i knew he wasn't a great typist, but colleagues who you might be otherwise surprised -- i think the most computer savvy justice is clarence. >> in his defense, justice stevens was my ally in automating the agency. he was a very productive man. people used to make fun of him when he went to florida but we dreaded when he went to florida because he would start churning all of this stuff out and he was always

no justice is as fearless as justice clarence thomas. appointed to the court in 19 91 at the age of 43, he has been intellectualurt's conservative path breaker. passionately defended his convictions even when few agreed until gradually, and in no small part due to the force of his reasoning, his views have made their way into the legal mainstream. been compared to john marshall harland. someone else has suggested that he should be counted alongside holmes and marshall as a visionary. court watching is always a tricky business and no one has made that clearer than our second nominee, samuel alito, who, in his prize-winning note, analyze the behind the scenes negotiations in the early clause cases like maccallum. in that note, he catalogued, and i am quoting him, "a long list of outwardly plausible but that they mistaken interpretations badly mistaken interpretations that resulted from attempts to discern." understood that outsiders cannot begin to guess at the negotiations and the endless compromises involved in constructing an opinion fo

>> yes, justice kagan. there's no restriction on the initial granting of recognition by the president, but by the same token, the congress has the ability afterwards upon deliberation to decide if they disagree with that recognition. but in the case that justice kennedy -- >> has that ever happened? in the history of the united states were congress, after the president has declared that it , was not recognized and someone -- has congress ever recognized? >> yes, justice sotomayor. in 1898, congress passed the joint resolution for the recognition of the people of the independence of cuba over the initial opposition of president mckinley. and that ended up recognizing the independence of cuba. >> you were careful to say at the outset this is not recognition. the court of appeals decision -- i think it was in the judge taylor concurrence, said that both parties urge upon us that they -- the power of recognition is involved here and congress has done it and then of course the attorney general takes the opposite

justice for everyone. justice takes a strong district attorney office. george who is team is here today, liz, sam and all of the attorneys and advocates that make the families comfortable as they are going through what can be a long, long, process. and we work together, and it was lucasa and do an excellent job to help everybody navigate that system. >> greg suhr and the department and to make the tough decision and help every day and they save lives and help the community heal and they help all of us stay connected that is what part of the justice is. and the next one and mary and we have a family friend here today who will talk to you about bary and we are beginning this process begin with her family, and so while we did go 44 months, we do have 3 new homicides and we have to take care of these families and we must take of these children and when we talk about talking care of folks and we talked about advocacy and that is the advocates in the da's office and the police department and as the advocates wit

was the justice department involved with that decision? given your earlier comments about inhibiting news coverage, what is your opinion on that? i don't know an awful lot about what the nature of the request was and how impacted news coverage and helicopters and things of that nature. what i will say is the transparency is always a good thing. the american people need to whatstand what happened, was happening, what is happening in ferguson. anything that would artificially inhibit the ability of news to do what they do is something that needs to be avoided. >> over the summer, president obama said that we should not prejudge the investigations in ferguson. last week you said there would be whole scale change. did you prejudge the investigation before its conclusion? >> no. i'm aware of the investigation that we have ongoing. comments i made are consistent with the briefings i have received. [indiscernible] the faa was complicit in certain targeted flight restrictions. if you were a news helicopter, you could not come in. if you were on ap

they do want to do justice but they believe doing justice is by convicting the person or persons they believe is guilty. so i think many of the suggestions made here for reform have been welcome, and i think it would be a step in the right direction. the fairness in evidence and disclosure act is a good idea and should have been passed before the debacle of the stevens prosecution which not enough can be said about how bad that situation was, but it's not enough because the statute if passed would still put on prosecutors the responsibility to winnow out evidence that they believe is exculpatory. and once again as professor rodolfo pointing out, at that point this is not an adversarial process. there is no one telling the prosecutor look at this from the perspective of the evidence. look at this piece of evidence that looks innocuous to you, here is what a good defense lawyer could do with it. it's not there. i would favor and again i'm speaking only for myself, i should and i'm speaking for myself, not my court reporter or anybody else, but i have served as a court of appeals judge.

>> i don't want justice for the officer. >> well, you don't want justice for the officer?your mind. >> no. >> you tried, you convicted him. you don't want justice for the officer? >> what he did was wrong. like i said again -- >> you don't know if it's wrong. you don't know anything. you don't know if it's wrong. wait a minute. stop here. why don't you just want justice, period, whatever way it comes out? i want justice and fairness. if the officer shot him in the back, if it turned out he acted in a wrong manner, didn't obey the law, fine. but if it turns out the other way, then the officer should go free. why wouldn't you support justice for him? >> listen, though, you got to remember, though, if he was in fear of his life and he was mike brown if they were saying why didn't he get on the radio and call for officer need help, officer need aid. >> apparently he tried but he might have been on a frequency that actually didn't go out when he thought it was because he was in the moment and, you know what, he just hit the wrong frequency. >> these things happen so fast and wi

the refrain from the protesters, they want justice, but don't trust the justice system to carry it out what happens now? what justice are we talking about? we have a reporter on the ground in ferguson. in terms of defining, we hear the refrain yesterday, what does that mean to protesters? specifically what would they define as justice in this case? >> a number of protesters are hoping for an indictment, but it's still unclear what the decision will be. they're also calling for justice not just in mike brown's case, but for police brutality all across the country. they're taking his case to stand for a national issue that they want to say black lives matter. and so they're taking to the streets already. we're seeing small crowds gather in front of the ferguson police department and we expect the numbers to grow as night falls. and as authorities said earlier today, they reiterated they wanted peaceful protests, they wanted things to remain calm, but they also said they do not want to see damage to property and they will not allow any type of violence. so we'll see as the night falls. >>

♪ ♪ have you been to jail for justice ♪ ♪ then you're a friend of mine yeah! songs in one conversation. has it been worth it all these years? all the sacrifice and all? >> oh, yeah. well, for me, i have to say i have more of a balance in my life than peter. peter is the flag carrier, man, you are out there operation respect. >> very, very, it's intoxicating, but at this point, you know, being 76, and noels a few months older than i am. i don't feel, the only thing that's going to hold me back, the limitations of my health. because for me, this is heaven. i miean, why would you not do something that is so incredibly rewarding. >> let me ask you that, because today the on way we define reward is in money. >> that's right. that's right. >> that's where, that's the real, the real trouble. let me give you another, another piece. i believe what we're dealing with is the black hole of empathy in our nation. if we want to reconstruct what we need in order to have a policy in terms of the environment, so that we don't continue to catastrophic climate change, which is a

and the first two parts justices don't have life tenure. look in the constitution they can be impeached. we know that. the second part is the claim the justices have salaries that are protected is also not true. congress cannot lower their salaries while they're sitting on the bench but their salaries zero because of inflation there is no requirement that the congress increase their salary. so innocents congress can lower the seller by failing to increase. can the third claim that this is independent that is what i set out to answer. there is a lot of new the gritty have reduced the drug that is true? how you can measure things or deal with the fact we don't have nye's randomized controlled trials so there is a lot of that and i approach is to be as transparent as possible. so i really suggesting a lot of what we teach introductory class is in high school is probably robbed. so i want to be sure to have as much of this i am happy to tell you that that portion of the book is to say here is how you can replicate this. but the court appears to

chief justice.think congress each time has looked at this situation and has said every single time, we need more whistleblowers to come forward, because that's the human failsafe against a machine bureaucracy. >> congress i mean, i know people don't want to bring this up. but actually the staffs of congress do consider these roblems. they write them down. they say what the answer is and the members are informed. now, in this particular case, if you happen to read the conference reports, you get the answer. it says, what does it mean not specifically prohibited by law? and then in both the house report and the senate report, it tells you, go back to what we passed two years ago, namely, the foia exemption, and that's what it means. and so that's why i got the thought that maybe that is what it means. and once you have that thought, you then see the country isn't oing to fall apart because they wrote in the presidential exemption as well. so reading what the staffs actually wrote, perhaps i'm biased i

chief justice, may it please the court. in a country dedicated to the rule of law, governmental officers should be presumed to know the law at least as well as the citizens are. that being so, when questions about individualized suspicion arise under the fourth amendment, they should be addressed against the backdrop of the correct interpretation of the law, not simply any plausible reading an officer might have. >> so suppose that this state, north carolina, did have a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule? what would you be arguing today? >> we would still be arguing if that were the case that not only the fourth amendment was violated but that the good faith exception didn't apply. but you would haven't to reach that question in this case. and i would concrete so you, justice kennedy, that would be a debatable argument. >> why would it be any more debatable than the argument you're making here? i more or less anticipated your answer. i think that has to be your answer. i think you have to tell us even if the good

we want to pursue justice like we pursue justice for everyone else. the community would have had a better sense that the fact that maybe justice might be on our side in this situation. yes, there's going to be people on all sides. in is why we have leaders. this is why we go to the poll and elect folks. >> until the end appeared we're going to release the information, you know, in darkness as if to cloud our or conceal what would happen. thank you so much for your time. you're a tremendous guest. >>> more reaction to the grand jury decision and protests that continued even today. after a night of demonstrations that one official called the worst yet. up next i'll talk live with congressman gregory meeks, a member of the congressional black caucus who said he's deeply deserved by the decision and urging attorney general holder to take action. >>> the investigation into michael brown's death. here is msnbc chris hayes reporting last night as the gunfire erupted. >> we're hearing some more it sounds like gunfire nearby. [ gunshots ] we're told to fall ba

we will note in the justice's experience in his broad activities related to the justice system. they had experience in every aspect of the justice system. he's married to dewey parker with us this evening and graduated from the ucla law school and received her degree from the university of virginia in the graduate program for judges. to show the variety between graduation from law school and her appointment to the federal bench she served first of all in every branch of california government. she drafted bills initially in the first experience in the legislative counsel's office dealing with the state legislator as she served in the attorney general's office which is almost a separate branch in california. she was a deputy secretary at secretary of the general counsel at a general council of the states business transportation and housing organization and then ultimately was a legal affairs secretary to the governor pete wilson. she then had experience in private practice in one of the state's distinguished law firms and then went on to her experience. on the california supreme c

no justice is as fearless as justice clarence thomas. appointed to the court in 19 91 at the age of 43, he has been intellectualurt's conservative path breaker. passionately defended his convictions even when few agreed until gradually, and in no small part due to the force of his reasoning, his views have made their way into the legal mainstream. been compared to john marshall harland. someone else has suggested that he should be counted alongside holmes and marshall as a visionary. court watching is always a tricky business and no one has made that clearer than our second nominee, samuel alito, who, in his prize-winning note, analyze the behind the scenes negotiations in the early clause cases like maccallum. in that note, he catalogued, and i am quoting him, "a long list of outwardly plausible but that they mistaken interpretations badly mistaken interpretations that resulted from attempts to discern." understood that outsiders cannot begin to guess at the negotiations and the endless compromises involved in constructing an opinion fo

they want justice in some way or another, and that brings me to my longtime thesis: justice can openthe door to healing. but we have to get it first. >> what was king's great quote, the arc of justice -- no, the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice? >> thank you. >> yeah. >> our nobel peace prize winner from 50 years ago, october 1964. >> right. >> yes. almost coming up on 50 years exactly when oslo made that announcement of the youngest man at that time, i believe 35 years old, to ever be awarded the nobel peace prize for his beliefs in nonviolence and his belief that we could be a better nation without all the bloodshed. where has that philosophy and principle gone? we could use it right now. >> yes. >> in the back. microphone first. >> i hear people always talk statistics about america, and we need to, we need this done and that done, but nobody -- i never hear anybody say how do you do it. i mean, come up with any partial solutions. you know, i just don't. you know, you're always throwing out statistics, which we all know by heart now. but where do you begin doing

sotomayor and justice breyer, justice story recognized that authority of congress to review, justice story also said if such recognition is made, it is conclusive for the nation unless, indeed, it can be -- an act of congress repudiating it and said further if the president rae fuses to recognize, then he said congress may, not with standing, solemnly acknowledge the sovereignty of the nation of -- >> and i suppose you could also say hamilton in 1787 or whatever it was trumps story in 1830, right? he said pretty much the exact opposite, that the recognition provision was really a trivial formality. >> hamilton also switched his position for he was in the administration an after he was in the administration. what that would seem to show, mr. chief justice, it is not clear the history -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> in any case this is not your main point, is it? you're being -- either forced into or willing ly yield yoursef to arguing against the proposition that if this is recognition, it is invalid, but your main position is this is not recognition, it just has a effect on the state

justice delayed is not what is wanted. but justice can still come even in this situation. michael brown's family, although initially there was some very difficult reaction, has basically said that they want peace and calm. and that must happen in this community somehow under all these circumstances. the final thing i'll say on that, one of the things that might be considered that might be helpful in the future is civilian oversight, which police might be against, and civilian review boards, complaint and review. and the final thing would be police cameras, cameras that policemen wear, body cameras. all of those are things that we probably need to consider at this time in our nation. >> what is your message to the looters, those who set buildings on fire, cars destroyed, what's your message to those folks who are expressing that anger in that violent manner? >> my message would be that, somehow we have to find a way to constructively channel that energy that resulted in negative results. violence may seem the work immediately, but it really will not yield the most effective

king said that the arm of justice is -- the arm is long and it bends towards justice, right? >> yes. >> but some of us are starting to wonder, does it bend towards justice, those of us who are older, right? i'd like to see a young brother come on up and have all of this enthusiasm and idealism and the desire to lead but those of us who have been doing had for a long time we might start to get discouraged when we see young man after young man after young man, and occasionally re ranisha mcbride a young woman, killed. at the same time as a criminal defense attorney i know that the law is on the side of darren wilson. >> explain that to me? >> because he has the right to defend himself in certain circumstances as a police officer, in the state of missouri, the law of self-defense is very broad even if he's not a police officer. in the case of trayvon martin -- >> even if the evidence suggests that michael brown was running away and -- >> well, the witness he are in conflict. and the state of mind is the state of mind of the shooter. not of the reasonable person. the objective re

it's not justice until you arreim

justice systeml completely devoid of mercy, which makes us devoid of justice.e to do better. >> young people in prison. talk about the significance of, for example, the story of joe sullivan who is sentenced to life at the age of 13. >> one of the more tragic things that we have done over the last 40 years is we have put thousands of children in the adult prison system. we now have 250,000 people serving long sentences for crimes committed as children. some 3000 children sentenced to die in prison, some as young as 13 and 14 years of age. it is horrific. i was hearing about the defriest story which is compelling, but there are thousands of children in similar situations. i represented 13-year-old in the state of florida who were also put in solitary confinement. some had been there for 18 years. joe sullivan was convicted of a non-homicide at 13 and sentenced to die in prison. we want some supreme court decisions that made it easier to challenge some of the sentences, but we still have a lot of work to do. we create a these judgments were we said some children

at the department of justice in washington. one of the longest serving attorney generals for the criminal division in history. closer to me is paul fishman, the united states attorney in new jersey. paul served at least one term as the chair of the attorney advisory, an executive committee of u.s. attorneys who meet regularfully washington and provide leadership in that role. next to paul is ken fleet. ken is the united states attorney in the eastern district of louisiana, which is new orleans. ken has been u.s. attorney for about a year. i was just remarking to him that he has accomplished more in his first year as u.s. attorney than many of us hope to accomplish in our entire term. just really done some great programs down there, going to talk about this morning, and so ken, it's great to be here with you. next to lanny, with the striking white hair is my elder colleague, barry griffin. the united states attorney in kansas. people say what is wrong with kansas, i said, not barry grissom. we came in together in the same orient

justice system california in many ways is the alpha and omega of these issues. we have been confronting these problems and these issues for years, actually decades now. they are our solutions we have been implementing that i was going to talk to about today because i think it really symbolizes both where we have been but where we can go and in many ways is emblematic of where the country has been and where it's going. as i mentioned a moment ago california in many ways is distinctive for many of its -- the great things it produces for the country with its innovation and agriculture. but we lead another distinctive ways as well in criminal justice and issues related to incarceration and that's unfortunately definitely the case. to give you some perspective on what is happening in the country and in california one statistic for us is particularly telling. one in 10 people who are incarcerated, he resides in the state of california. that should tell you something about the scope of the problem on a national level but also as it exists in the countries largest state

ginsburg is the oldest justice on the bench. she plans to be back on the bench on monday. >>> coming up on the "morning news," opec puts the brakes on oil prices and an airbag company faces new pressure to expand recalls. this is the "cbs morning news." you think you take off all your make-up before bed. but do you really? [ female announcer ] neutrogena® makeup remover erases 99% of your most stubborn makeup with one towelette. can your makeup remover do that? [ female announcer ] neutrogena® makeup remover. can your makeup remover do that? our hearty all-natural turkey chili is back in season. slow-cooked with turkey raised without antibiotics, tart tomatillos, chilies, carrots, edamame and more. the savory spice of the chili pairs perfectly with the black bean hummus and the fresh crunch of napa cabbage blend in our southwestern chicken flatbread. and it all comes together in a you pick two made just for you. only at panera bread. sir, we're loaded and getting ready to go... ...we're going to need you on the runway. (vo) don'

justice white dissented from that and he was the only justice to do it.the whole thing has been followed consistently. in the following -- excuse me. in the years following that decision the court has been consistent in holding that limitations on campaign expenditures are impermissible and if you're with the total quantity of speech that is used in campaigns. and i think in order to correct the error in the citizens united case itself, we basically have to correct the prohibition on the use of expenditures. but which does require in my judgment a constitutional amendment because the court has been almost unanimous in the prior year's in its prohibition against limitations on expenditures. >> host: the great power of this chapter is that inside you just shared by there's a difference between voters contributing in their own election and nonvoters including corporations and foreigners contributing to other people's elections. that was central to your criticisms in the mccutcheon case which the supreme court decided recently to the court began by saying thi

. >> that is not justice. it's not justice until you arrest him for murder. >> and why the fires ignited by this flashpoint spread to other cities from coast to coast, even to the gates of the white house. why so many americans are angry about the decision. >> black people everywhere - michael brown can happen in our city, and has, we just haven't heard about it. >> and why so many vow to fight on. >>> good evening, thanks for joining us, i'm joie chen. we begin with the heat of the moment, and it is rising, even on this cold nights in ferguson, missouri, as the state of missouri hardens its line against protesters, seething over the decision not to indict darren wilson over the death of unarmed teenager michael brown. you are looking at pictures outside the police department where many gather, facing off against the state's national guard troops. the state tripled the number of national guard troops on the streets. protesters gathered in dozens of other cities across the country. the anger is growing. we lear

>> yes, justice kagan. the, there is no restriction on the initial granting of recognition by the president but by the same token the congress has the ability afterwards upon deliberation to decide if they disagree with that recognition but in the case that justice kennedy -- >> has that ever happened? , in the history of the united states where congress after the president had declared that it was not recognizing someone, has congress ever recognized? >> yes, justice sotomayor. in, in 1898 congress pass ad joint resolution for recognition of independence of the people of cuba over the initial opposition of president mckinley and that ended up recognizing the independence of cuba. >> you were careful to say at the outset this is not recognition. the court of appeals decision, i think in the judge taylor concurrence, said both parties urge upon us that, this that they, power of recognition is involved here and congress has done it, and then, of course, attorney general takes the opposite position, that this

justice department full of leaks?> we are up against a hard break. we will continue to investigate that and find out answers for our viewers. thank you for joining us at this hour. thanks. >> 49 minutes after the top of the hour. cross country chaos from la to times square. they throw their arms in the air. >> first brian kilmeade is here to talk about what's happening. >> you know what we are going to be talking about following the decision not to indict officer wilson. we will tell you what happened with steve harrigan and his crew. chuck hagel is forced to step down even though they say he resigned. we will talk with admiral john kirby live. don't miss a minute. will that be all, sir? thank you. ordering chinese food is a very predictable experience. i order b14. i get b14. no surprises. buying business internet, on the other hand, can be a roller coaster white knuckle thrill ride. you're promised one speed. but do you consistently get it? you do with comcast business. and often even more. it's reliable. just like

talk about issues related to criminal justice reform and problems, and solutions, in the criminal justice system, california in and omega the alpha of these issues. we have been con trobling these issues for years, actually decades now. and there are also solutions that we've been implementing, that i was going to talk to you itut today, because i think symbolizes both where we've been but where we can go. and in basis emblematic of where the country has been and where it's going. mentioned a moment ago, california in many basis of its, thefor many great things it produces for the inntry, whether it's innovation, in entertainment, or agriculture. in other ways as well, and in criminal justice issues related to incarceration, that is definitely the case. perspective one what is happening both in the country and again in california, one statistic for us is particularly telling. arein 10 people who incarcerated reside in the state of california. that should tell you something about the scope of the problem. on a national level, but also as in the country's largest state. california. we have

very small justice and big justice. small justice was achieved when that guy saying the project.es the world was denied the $6 billion man read boot which might have been the battlestock galactica. i can't see the $6 billion man. >> both of you will live and have other nerd stuff, trust me. >> this is my argument for concealed carry actually. in the bible it says dog says payback is mine, revenge is mine. meaning you shouldn't wait. because if you wait, that is revenge. if you fall off the face of the earth, that is justice. timing is everything. >> we should say one of the virtues which is courage is not on display. matt is over unfair. >> shout out to that. >> like a beautiful woman that doesn't come of with a summons. and out of the channel. >> overage they're practicing moderation. >> you have to goes white right on fashion. >> the difference between courage and foolhardiness. >> what? >> enough to answer a 10-year-old boy. that is a very import question. courage is when they know they have done something different and foolhardiness is when they know they don't. watch this. t

when i came to the court, justice even -- justice stevens, did use e-mail. you could send him something and he would respond, but it was very short, so i knew he wasn't a great typist, but colleagues who you might be otherwise surprised -- i think the most computers that he justice issue, .larence >> in his defense, justice stevens was my ally in automating the agency. he was a very productive man. fun of him to make when he went to florida but we dreaded when he went to florida because he would start churning all of this stuff out and he was always on his computer. 80% as productive -- he was a wonderful ally and in fact, when there was some consternation early on about automation, he was one of the people i could count on to always help me convince my colleagues to move in that direction. >> i will say something. a different view of the isolation you talk about. i have chose to be on the second floor. i am the only justice up there. i recognize it is a problem because i'm separated from my colleagues. those steps down, sometimes they seem a bigger barrier

we want to pursue justice like we pursue justice for everyone else. the community would have had a better sense that the fact that maybe justice might be on our side in this situation. yes, there's going to be people on all sides. in is why we have leaders. this is why we go to the poll and elect folks. >> until the end appeared we're going to release the information, you know, in darkness as if to cloud our or conceal what would happen. thank you so much for your time. you're a tremendous guest. >>> more reaction to the grand jury decision and protests that continued even today. after a night of demonstrations that one official called the worst yet.

chief justice. if on remand, the district court concludes that some of these districts violated the constitution, then alabama will have to -- this legislation will get its first chance for a legislative fix and section 5 worvelt be a basis for them to take any action. >> thank you counsel. >> mr. brasher? >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. i think i should given with the district court's fact finding. because the district court found that race did not dominate. and we can avoid addressing questions about sec shichb 5 about redistricting. on page 144 of the jurisdictional statement appendix, the district court expressly found that we did not impose a quota. the court says that we imposed no -- we followed preexisting district lines, we followed roads, we followed county lines, municipal lines, we met the needs of incumbents and we preserved communities of interest. the plan that we passed is a status quo plan. the whole point of the plan was to preserve the status quo, bec

not the actual justice system.he perception of it i think it's fair to say that most african-americans say, you know, this is stacked against us. they are after us. they pull us over. driving while black means you get pulled over much more than whites. you get stopped and frisked more. and whatever. so we, blacks, are never going to get a fair shake. that's what is driving this whole ferguson thing. do they have a legitimate point? >> well, i think there are a couple things here. there is some legitimacy to that the bigger question is why are they being pulled over more? why are they being scrutinized more. blacks and minorities commit the disproportionate crimes in this country we can talk about that. >> cause and effect situation. >> breakdown of family, drugs, dependency for many decades. >> you said justice is supposed to be blind even if it's disproportionate crimes in a precinct, the justice system has to be fair in the way. >> that doesn't mean equally scrutinize whites if they are not committing crimes in t

try gaviscon®. >> axelrod: supreme court justice ruth bader g justice ruth bader ginsburg is in hospital doctors gave her a stent today to open a blocked artery. justice ginsberg is 81 and has been on the court for 21 years. she's expected to be released in a day or two and be back at work on monday. president obama rolled out an immigration reform plan last week that will allow millions of people who are in this country illegally to avoid deportation if they meet certain conditions. now comes the paperwork. here's john blackstone. >> reporter: the usually busy mexican consulate in los angeles is now much busier. the president's plan is creating a lot of business for you here. >> well, it's created a lot of interest and a lot of concerns. >> reporter: the consul general carlos sade has been in the waiting room himself, telling people they'll need birth certificates, tax records, even utility bills to prove they have lived here at least five years. this will not be an easy process for a lot of these people, a lot of things to prove. it's not a free entry. >> no, it's very complicated. >>

for justice in the case of michael brown. and we want to also see them push the law enforcement that this is not a war, it's like we're going to war and even those who are interviewed in the law enforcement department say we're going to protect businesses, we're armed, we're going to bring the national guard in. >> we've only a minute left together. i worry that you're about to further the racial divide by protesting only white businesses. frankly, businesses of any kind without knowing all of the facts but only white businesses in the aftermath of this decision. you get the final word. >> because the final word is that the white businesses have the power, they are the ones that pay the taxes that keep the state running and they should demand that justice be done in the case of michael brown jr.

surprisingly both justice story and justice brennan are identified as natural laws, but it makes little sense to put judges in the same camp with judges like brennan for the ladder would dismiss the principles to which those early judges were devoted as quaint relics of a bygone age. it's easy to trace the trajectory that has landed in this predicament but difficult to phantom why as if we act why the transformation was seamless. in 1977 yale's author reviewed the book "knowledge in politics." in the form of a memorandum from the devil identified the problem at the heart of any book on human action. he asked, how does one tell and tell about the difference between right and wrong? why are a person or society do any r particular thing rather than any other. how can one ground in the form it is right to do x in anything firmer than the quick sand of bare reiterated assertion. left is candid not only about the near term implications of the conclusion, but about the reason for rejecting the obvious solution. if there's no external source on which to ground assumptions, the answer to why x w