if i could just -- >> but there's no article iii jurisdictional problem in justice alito's hypothetical, that this is a remedial exercise of the court's power to explain the consequences of its judgment in this case. >> but -- this court had said that one has -- has to have standing for every degree of relief that -- that is sought. that was in davis, that was los angeles v. lyons. >> mr. kneedler - >> daimler/chrysler - >> don't you think it's unrealistic to say leave it to congress, as though you are sending it back to congress for congress to consider it dispassionately on balance, should we have this provision or should we not have provision? that's not what it's going to be. it's going to be, these provisions are in effect; even though you -- a lot of you never wanted them to be in effect, and you only voted for them because you wanted to get the heart of the -- the act, which has now been cut out; but nonetheless these provisions are the law, and you have to get the votes to overturn them. that's an enormously different question from whether you get the votes initially to put them

and i do think -- i think it's a very important -- justice alito raised the question of these categories of people. i think it's -- it is quite important to get clarity on that. the -- if you are -- if you have come into the country unlawfully, but you have a pending application for asylum, a pending application for temporary protective status because you would have to be removed to a country to which you can't be removed because of the conditions in the country, if you have a valid claim for relief under the violence against women act based on your treatment, if you have a valid claim for relief because you are a victim of human trafficking, if you have a valid claim for relief because you are the victim of a crime or a witness to a crime, all of those persons are in technical violation of 1306(a). and -- and it seems to me they -- they are in violation of 1306(a), so my friend, mr. clement, just is not correct in saying that those are people who aren't in violation of 1306(a) and, therefore, aren't in violation of -- of section 3. they are in violation. >> well, maybe 1306(a) ought to

justice alito and chief justice roberts made it clear that the majority was not saying that it is always reasonable to strip search someone. they wanted to emphasize that, that there may be exceptions down the road. >> warner: bottom line here is that the majority rejected the contention that you can draw a line between who might be dangerous enough to be strip searched and who wouldn't. >> that's true. it's always been the case, i think, that the court has genelly deferred to prison and jail officials when it comes to matters of security. they did struggle with how you draw that line during the oral arguments in the case. >> warner: what will be the practical effect of this? justice kennedy said in his opinion that something like 13 million americans are actually taken into jail each year? >> that's right. it's also estimated that 700,000 of those are arrested for minor offenses. there were at least seven federal appellate courts that had required reasonable suspicion for people arrested for minor offenses. that's no longer the case in those states in which the federal appellate courts

justice leith -- alito irritated. right when the justices are sitting right there. >> bill: about what? >> about campaign finance. >> bill: yeah. you shouldn't have done it. >> justice alito said no in response to the president's characterization. >> bill: the camera went on him. >> that's the biggest outcry, outburst we have ever seen from a supreme court. >> overturn of obama care, right? >> i said it's very very tough to say. if you are going it force me i would say the way the argument went 5-4 in favor of striking it down. >> bill: just the fact it's 5-4 because you know the liberal justices are going to go along with president obama no matter what he does. that's a little bit disturbing. can you make the same argument. >> it's not they are going to go along with president obama. >> bill: they were trying to help him in the hearing. >> philosophy that is adheernt to what he believes. >> bill: that the constitution doesn't really matter. >> not going to rule and the conservative justice has a different philosophy.

their explanation would be coming out of left field and it would take justice stevens or sometimes justice alito or prier who would see the note of incredulity on my face to lean over saying this has to do with the peccadillo that has to do with x, y, z, that hadn't been argued by the parties and i hadn't anticipated being part of the reasoning, and that went on frequently. and i remember the first time when justice kagan came in and leaned over and said what are they talking about? and there was some sense of satisfaction that after a year i could actually explain something. but it is when you're working with the same nine people, with the same other eight people, the same nine people are working together, it is a long running conversation at times, and moments coming into the middle of it. >> very interesting observation. i remember justice brennan saying he had been on the court for a couple of decades at that point, and he said the thing about serving so long is that you've seen all these cases before. the issues are very similar that come up year after year so the ongoing conversation, that

justice leith -- alito irritated. right when the justices are sitting right there. >> bill: about what? >> about campaign finance. >> bill: yeah. you shouldn't have done it. >> justice alito said no in response to the president's characterization. >> bill: the camera went on him. >> that's the biggest outcry, outburst we have ever seen from a supreme court. >> overturn of obama care, right? >> i said it's very very tough to say. if you are going it force me i would say the way the argument went 5-4 in favor of striking it down. >> bill: just the fact it's 5-4 because you know the liberal justices are going to go along with president obama no matter what he does. that's a little bit disturbing. can you make the same argument. >> it's not they are going to go along with president obama. >> bill: they were trying to help him in the hearing. >> philosophy that is adheernt to what he believes. >> bill: that the constitution doesn't really matter. >> not going to rule and the conservative justice has a different philosophy.

of the conservative justices, chief justice roberts, justice alito, they haven't signed up for that.they will make a basis to originalism, but they are not stuck there. so, history is more important now in court arguments than it has been increasing years, because justice kelly is force on the matter. he's obviously a boat people want to get. but originalism alone is not going to win the supreme court argument. people have to come up with better arguments. >> hi. first question i have is about technological issues, like so, in congress would seem like a fight over sopa where people have technical know-how. people are voting on this legislation of this is a you probably end up seeing on the supreme court with, you know, liking and things like that where they might not, you, with a technological things are getting lost, and it's been couched as a different issue. so i don't know if that is something you could address, do you think that is something that could some of the address. and also you are not saying the courts are not politicize in your opinion, but speed i'm having trouble hea

and you can see the words uttered by justice alito, not true. watch this. >> last week the supreme court reversed a century of law that i believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations to spend without limit in our election. >> i mean, that was unprecedented. >> and he was wrong on the merits he was argue. >> not only was he wrong, and again we would like to see the transcripts from law school and college, but it really is pretty shocking to be attacking the supreme court when they are sitting right in front uv as he attacked paul in inviting members of congress over for a press en conference on the budget and attacking paul ryan. he's very rude, this president, in addition to being a very bad lawyer. and he's been trying to walk back comments on marbury since he made it. he didn't mention marbury because he's anwar of it. but the next try at that was the courthouse overruled the economic law like this, since the 30s, which is also not true. they did it in 1995 and they did in 2000 and both the violence ag

one day they are arguing it aspennalty and one day they are arguing it as tax and justice alito questioned them about that as well. but they had to argue it is not a tax because we had our president all over the news saying it is not a tax. and, of course, that is what they are trying to do is they are trying to penalize and fine us by not participating in the program. >> judge jeanine: if the individual mandate fails does the entire law fail? >> generally speaking if the individual mandate fails that is the heart, that is the heart of this statute. if the mandate fails, the federal government generally agrees with us on this. the huge portions of obama care fail as well. >> judge jeanine: we certainly will all be watching and thanks to attorney general pam bondi on certainly one of the most important cases that the supreme court will rule on in many, many years. just a thought, it is interesting. we live in a country where not everyone has to show proof of citizenship but every citizen according to obama and obama care will have to show proof of insurance. anyway, did spike lee do the rig

and it would take justice stevens, or sometimes justice alito or breyer -- what are they talking about? to lean over and say, this has to do with the peccadillo they have. i certainly had not anticipated being part. that went on frequently. i remember the first time when justice taken came in when she -- when justice kagan came in when she leaned over and said, "what are they talking about?" there was some sense of satisfaction that after one year i could explain some things. that is the way it is when you are working with the same eight people. the same nine people working together. it is a long running conversation at times. at moments, coming into the middle of that, can be like that. >> very interesting observation. i remembered justice brennan saying to me -- he been on the court for a couple of decades. the thing about serving so long, you have seen all these issues before. the ongoing conversation, that is a very astute observation. justice kagan, you are a veteran now. are there still challenges? are you adjusting? >> everyday is a challenge. i had never been a judge before. ju

ambiguous and chief reports agreed with the majority and said look at the people as individuals and justice alitod the same thing so we have not seen the end of it. >>shepard: from california, five people confirmed dead by authorities. at least five. swat team going door-to-door with updates as warranted and the dow up 55 points. and in three members neil cavuto will take over to give us context, perspective and the news. this is "studio b" from new york. [ male announcer ] drinking a smoothie with no vegetable nutrition? ♪ [ gong ] strawberry banana! [ male announcer ] for a smoothie with real fruit plus veggie nutrition new v8 v-fusion smoothie. could've had a v8. or annuity over 10 or even 20 years? call imperial structured settlements. the experts at imperial can convert your long-term payout into a lump sum of cash today. and i thought "i can't do this, it's just too hard." then there was a moment. when i decided to find a way to keep going. go for olympic gold and go to college too. [ male announcer ] every day we help students earn their bachelor's or master's degree for tomorrow's careers

what's interesting, though, is that justices roberts and alito wrote concurring opinions, concurrencetten when a justice agrees with the majority opinion but believes that there's something more that needs to be said. and what chief justice roberts and justice alito suggested is that in cases where an individual is placed in a holding cell but isn't introduced into the jail's main population, it may be unreasonable to strip search that individual. and oftentimes when an individual is first brought into a jail, they're held in a holding cell x they see a magistrate -- and they see a magistrate or a judge who will review the basis for their detention before they're transferred into that general population. >> host: this blog notes that justice thomas, also part of this concurrence brief, apparently, did not want to leave that option open for a future challenge, and so that was why this was written. >> guest: the option is, i believe the option is leavitt open for -- left open for future challenge that if an individual is placed in a holding cell, is not introduced into the jail's genera

beginning to see and, you know, it's a sign that we now have president obama and supreme court justice samuel alito, using these terms in opinions and legislation that we're looking at mainstream adoption. we're seeing the rise of best practices. you know, we're now entering-- we can argue it's the second decade of social technology, such as this, and we're going to see everything from large businesses like ibm, or xerox, certainly apple, as well as major institutions like our own government and other governments. >> susie: all right. >> adopting practices like this. >> susie: just fascinating. thank you very much for coming to talk to urge i really appreciate is. >> sure, thank you. >> susie: we have been speaking to jeff howe, author of "crowdsourcing." >> susie: u.s. lawmakers aren't the only ones looking into google's business practices. in a regulatory filing, the company said it's cooperating with investigations in argentina and south korea. both are taking a closer look at its search and search advertising services. meanwhile, u.s. regulators have hired a seasoned litigator for their google

next on the decision tree would not be justice alito. they know to be justice scalia find himself -- they would be justice robert and and justice can be. you don't even get to kennedy and let you get to all the other four guys. i don't think it's going to happen but i think should happen to buy instead -- when you get to the situation on the medicaid mandate, that's a much harder thing to explain to people. because what we did in effect under this program is to say as follows. if, in fact, you want to get back your medicaid appropriations from a central government, you have to agree to things. one coming up to create to ensure all those people or 100, 138% of the poverty line, technical number, we'll do a lot of money projected there all the cost of administration. if the program goes on just have a larger fraction of this. in other thing you have to agree is not to reform cut down the benefit of existing benefit. what this doesn't affect even with modest stuff is just to square this with a huge state deficits that would not because of pe

and i do think -- i think it's a very important -- justice alito raised the question of these categoriesi think it's -- it is quite important to get clarity on that. the -- if you are -- if you have come into the country unlawfully, but you have a pending application for asylum, a pending application for temporary protective status because you would have to be removed to a country to which you can't be removed because of the conditions in the country, if you have a valid claim for relief under the violence against women act based on your treatment, if you have a valid claim for relief because you are a victim of human trafficking, if you have a valid claim for relief because you are the victim of a crime or a witness to a crime, all of those persons are in technical violation of 1306(a). and -- and it seems to me they -- they are in violation of 1306(a), so my friend, mr. clement, just is not correct in saying that those are people who aren't in violation of 1306(a) and, therefore, aren't in violation of -- of section 3. they are in violation. >> well, maybe 1306(a) ought to be amended,

of the justice, the only secured against the program as next on the decision would probably be justice alito and then the third is going to be justice scalia who is defined himself as the fainthearted our original list and then justice roberts and then justice kennedy. you don't even get to kennedy unless you can get to the others. don't think it's right to happen. it should have in place of arguments which are widely ignored by of reveals arguing the case. when you get to the situation on the medicaid mandate it is a harder thing to explain to people because what we did under this program is to say as follows. if in fact you want to get back your medicaid appropriations from the government, you have to agree to things to read you have to agree to ensure all this be aware of 100 to 138% of the poverty line or pay a lot of the money that you have to bear all the cost of the administration and as the program goes on they have to have a larger fraction of this and then the other thing you have to read is not to reform with the cut down of the benefits of the existing recipients. what this does

justice alito, it's not our numbers. bo said that injecting my clients into the risk pool lowers premiums by 15 to 20 percent. so, justice kennedy, even if we were going to create exceptions for people that are outside of commerce and inside of commerce, surely we'd make congress do a closer nexus and say look, we're really addressing this problem. we want these 30-year-olds to get catastrophic health insurance. and not only did they -- they deprived them of that option. and i think that illustrates the dangers of giving congress these plenary powers, because they can always leverage them. they can always come up with some public policythey can alwah some public policy rationale into the power to promote commerce. >> a large part of this argument has concerned the question of whether certain kinds of people are active participants in the market or not. your test, which is a test on the activities such inactivity distinction would force one to confront the problem all the time. if you look over the history of the commerce

bill: in your opinion the court during the hearings and you used to clerk for justice alito. >> i was at the supreme court and before that on the third circuit. bill: you're listening with a keen ear in court last week and i'll ask you about that in a moment. i want you to react to me what this poll says, is the supreme court ruling based on politics or law, 50 percent say politics. only 40 say law. what does that say to you? >> i'm not sure what it says. i think americans are divided generally on the issue and some perhaps believe that the political ideology of an individual justice might affect his or her vote. at the end of the day i can tell you in confidence, with great confidence, that each member of the court is going to vote according to what he or she believes, and the law requires, and that's what's going to happen here. bill: what do you think they do? >> i think based on their prior writings and based on what i saw at argument, this case is likely to be decided 5-4 with 5 justices concluding that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. i didn't expect the message to be

corporations, to spend without limit in our elections. ( applause ) >> brown: as the president spoke, justice samuel alito appeared to mouth the words not true. the voices of dissent-- from protesters, and perhaps, the president-- may well be louder this summer, when the supreme court rules in the health care case. and we join some of these issues now, with louis michael side- man, author of the book "on constitutional disobedience." he's a former law clerk to supreme court justice thurgood marshall. and randy barnett, author of "restoring the lost constitution." he represented the national federation of independent businesses in its challenge to the health care law. and they're both professors at georgetown law school. randy barnett, i'll start with you. what struck you in hearing the president earlier this week? how does it fit into the past examples we've heard that >> well, i think what the president said on monday was flat out wrong. as evidence of that i'll cite what he said on tuesday in which he took it back. on tuesday he said something that comes closer to being accurate and it was a cleared a m

everything we've heard from them suggests that they will uphold the individual mandate, while justices thomas, alito, and scalia made it sound like they will strike down the mandate. the big questions are roberts and kennedy. which way will they go? and on the issue of severability. if the mandate is struck down, will they strike down the entire 127-page bill? it's impossible to predict right now, but we did hear them say they want to seek judicial mode modesty. they donate kn't know the answe that. is it more modest for the supreme court to go through the 2,700 pages and analyze what is a constitutional and what is not. >> sanjay, can i ask you how disruptive this is in the medical profession for the watching and waiting and the waiting game about what's going to happen with this law? because doctors i talk to and hospitals i talk to are already implementing things to try to get ahead of new health care reform and what this new health care regime is going to look like. now there's this whole question mark on everything. >> yeah, you know, i think it's been sort of approached with a fair amount of c