>> -- absolutely, justice scalia. i was just answering justice ginsburg's question about qualified immunity. >> okay. >> i imagine one point about the statute might be that the statutes, going all the way back to 1789, do reflect that this is a prosecutorial function to the extent there is any doubt. so, for example, the 1846 statute said that an attorney -- excuse me, an attorney of the united states must apply for a material witness warrant. >> so for us to agree with you on absolute immunity, we -- we would have to believe that even if there were no such statute and if a prosecutor simply detained somebody as a material witness without any check of a -- of an independent magistrate, he would be immune? >> i think that is correct, that that is quintessentially what prosecutors do in the exercise of trying to get a trial -- a trial going. now-- >> suppose -- suppose that a prosecutor reads the statute, there must be an affidavit that says this witness is material. and there is irrefutable evidence that the prosecutor

the second newest justice, justice sotomayor wrote the opinion and was six to two, justice scalia andjustice ginsburg and the purpose for which the statement was elicited the person who shot the sky was still on the loose and a dangerous situation and the public from someone who was out there with the gun during the violence, they were not doing that to get evidence to put the guy in jail said the purpose for the interrogation was a testimonial purpose is it was safety purposes. justice scalia went completely ballistic and now he is a writer as i think you know he doesn't hold back and he didn't hold back. he was being strangled by the spread of justice even though the brand new justice had five other votes with her on the finger and so i wanted to read i think it's kind of fun just decided some of the language on which justice scalia would use in an opinion and get away with it and still be friends the next day i hope. >> today's tale which is the condition of the police case is so transparently false and professing to be the that to mean this institution in its attempt to make the i

>> absolutely, justice scalia. >> let me give you this example. suppose someone believes that african-american are inferior. they are inheritly inferior. they are a bad influence on the country. a person comes up to the african-american and starts berating that person with racial hatred. now is that -- this is just any other person on any other african-american on the street. that's a matter of public concern? >> i think the issue of race is a matter of public concern. i think approaching an individual up close and in their grill to be racism gets you out of the zone of protection. we would never do that. : the more innocent there were more removed the person is the greater impact. so i think, i think your public consent issue may not be a limiting factor. in cases where there is an outrageous conduct and where there should be. >> the but again this court has given substantial long-standing protection to speech on public issues and how could it be said that the dying soldier is not on the lips of everyone in this country and it is a matter of grea

every justice that has been named to the court i believe since justice scalia has been a nonactive -- or argument of the justice he or she replaced to the point that it is getting to be a virtual cacophony up there. i'm a hat general roy cooper. the court is asking 60, 70, 80 questions in a single argument setting so there is just a rather extraordinarily intense process of asking questions. i think it is, while lacking in political governmental experience, is extraordinarily sharp intellectually. i doubt if we have ever had a court that is the equal of this one in terms of intellectual firepower across the board. i think ted is shaking his head in agreement with that. i know arguing before justice sotomayor i was arguing a case on behalf of north carolina. justice sotomayor's first term on the court, term before last and arguing against an excellent advocate carter phillips and he had a rebuttal. and he made a point that sounded really good. unless you knew that there is was a response to it, very very deep in the record and i was kicking myself for not anticipating the fact that a s

every justice that has been named to the court i believe since justice scalia has been a nonactive -- or argument of the justice he or she replaced to the point that it is getting to be a virtual cacophony up there. i'm a hat general roy cooper. the court is asking 60, 70, 80 questions in a single argument setting so there is just a rather extraordinarily intense process of asking questions. i think it is, while lacking in political governmental experience, is extraordinarily sharp intellectually. i doubt if we have ever had a court that is the equal of this one in terms of intellectual firepower across the board. i think ted is shaking his head in agreement with that. i know arguing before justice sotomayor i was arguing a case on behalf of north carolina. justice sotomayor's first term on the court, term before last and arguing against an excellent advocate carter phillips and he had a rebuttal. and he made a point that sounded really good. unless you knew that there is was a response to it, very very deep in the record and i was kicking myself for not anticipating the fact that a s

>> absolutely, justice scalia. i was just answering justice ginsburg's question about qualified immunity. >> okay. >> i imagine one point about the statute might be that the statutes, going all the way back to 1789, do reflect that this is a prosecutorial function to the extent there is any doubt. so, for example, the 1846 statute said that an attorney -- excuse me, an attorney of the united states must apply for a material witness warrant. >> so for us to agree with you on absolute immunity, we would have to believe that even if there were no such statute and if a prosecutor simply detained somebody as a material witness without any check of an independent magistrate, he would be immune? >> i think that is correct, that that is quintessentially what prosecutors do in the exercise of trying to get a trial going. now -- >> suppose that a prosecutor reads the statute, there must be an affidavit that says this witness is material. and there is irrefutable evidence that the prosecutor said to colleagues and others, i do

>> i believe your cases give good light on that justice scalia. there may be in some peoples minds and element of subjectivity. >> you think that is solid? absolutely with a fighting words whereas what is an outrageous statement is very much different from what is a fighting word? i don't see the difference. besides which is that the in it the case that in order to recover for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional injury, you have to substantiate the entry injury with some physical manifestatioe plaintiff here had. and my goodness for fighting words you don't even need that. you can just say you know these words angered me to the degree that i would have been inclined to fight. at least for this tort, you have to have physical manifestation. isn't that a very objective standard? >> well, because the court said it was inherently subjective in the falwell case and i think the language that justice kagan brought forth and there are a few more paragraphs that follow identified rights inherently subjective and the way this case was tried indi

, every justice that has been named to the court since justice scalia has been [unintelligible] justice he/she replaced. it is getting to be a virtual cacophony of there. the court is asking 60, 7, 80 questions in a single argument, it is just an extraordinarily intense process of acting -- actinasking questions. while lacking in political, governmental experience an extraordinarily short intellectually, i doubt we have ever had a court that is the eagle of this one in terms of intellectual firepower across the board. arguing before justice sotomayor , her first term on the court, i was arguing against an excellent advocate. he made a point that sounded really good, unless you knew that there was a response to its very very deep in the record. i was kicking myself for not anticipating the fact that a skilled advocate would do that in rebuttal, when i would have no opportunity to point out what i of the flaw on that point was. justice sotomayor said but in the third kossel to the second codicil --third hostil the weedso down into of the case. it was just an example of how extraor

>> absolutely, justice scalia. i was just answering justice ginsburg's question about qualified immunity. >> okay. >> i imagine one point about the statute might be that the statutes, going all the way back to 1789, do reflect that this is a prosecutorial function to the extent there is any doubt. so, for example, the 1846 statute said that an attorney -- excuse me, an attorney of the united states must apply for a material witness warrant. >> so for us to agree with you on absolute immunity, we would have to believe that even if there were no such statute and if a prosecutor simply detained somebody as a material witness without any check of an independent magistrate, he would be immune? >> i think that is correct, that that is quintessentially what prosecutors do in the exercise of trying to get a trial going. now -- >> suppose that a prosecutor reads the statute, there must be an affidavit that says this witness is material. witness is material. and there is irrefutable evidence that the prosecutor said to collea

supreme court justice on on the wrong side of the law, justice scalia has been ticketed for causing aileup. he was driving to work and collided with a vehicle in front of him. that triggered a chain reaction. the justice's car was towed from the scene. ka l he was ticketed for following too closely. he can pay a small fine or n coe in cot. we're back in a moment with the big game between the giants and a's tonight. stay with us fmpltz ♪ that airline is gonna nail that frequent flyer with restrictions when he tries to use his miles. ♪ that's a lot of red tape! step on it! [ tires screech ] ♪ i can't escape the red tape! now you can with rapid rewards! come on! [ tires screech ] [ male announcer ] join rapid rewards and enjoy unlimited reward seats, no blackout dates, and no red tape. ♪ >>> good evening. they were about half the fans in oakland tonight, but with the a's hosting the giants, still a nice showing. about 20,000 on hand. the second of three exhibitions before opening day. the giants aren't the only team with trophies. the a's showing off their hardware. he gets this pitch. j

and justice scalia told that walmart's own training materials included the statement that men are more aggressive in seeking advancement, blurted out, "if you have an aggressive woman, promote her." outside, a walmart executive echoed the company's argument that the experiences of just a handful of women, even if true, are just not typical of what happened to more than 1 million other women who worked at walmart and so cannot be the basis for this gigantic class action against the company. >> what's wrong with this case is that three plaintiffs are trying to represent more than 1.5 million associates. i've had a very positive experience at walmart like thousands of other women. >> reporter: betty dukes, one of the women who is trying to bring this case, on behalf of so many others, was undaunted. >> they rule against us, the fight has just begun. >> yes. >> yeah. >> just begun. >> reporter: well, this court has generally been a pro-business court, so the women that brought this case may face a real challenge winning it, even with three women justices up there. >> what a day on the cour

jones, such an impassioned socialist, speaking and stirring people up against justice thomas and justice scalia, justice thomas himself after one of the most embarrassing episodes in american history, the way he was treated as he went through the hearings for confirmation to the supreme court, he said himself, you know, it's a modern day lynching, high-tech lynching. and in his book, "my grandfather's son," where he describes coming out of poverty, severe poverty, and making it on nothing but hard work and his brilliant intellect, he achieved the great heights he has, and i've heard him say himself, you know, he started out in college as an angry black man, left wing extremist who came to realize more oppressive government is not the answer, but he also came to see firsthand, as he has described it, that if you're an african-american and you spout the words that the liberal left tells you to say, then they love you. but if you dare, as he points out, otherwise i wouldn't use these words, but he says, if you dare to step off the plantation and think for yourself then here comes all the groups th

by the way, justice scalia almost did not get to court yesterday. with a vehicle in front of him. that triggered a chain reaction, involving the crash of two more cars. there were no injuries. scalia was ticketed for following too closely and like all of us, he can pay the fine or contest it in court. >>> finally, comedian bill murray has reportedly gotten a new deal to play f.d.r., the nation's 32nd president. it's about the king of england's visit to new york back in 1939. five minutes past the hour right now. back over to erica, chris, and marysol. how about bill murray. >> maybe not your first choice, but -- >> love him. >> how about justice scalia and the tailgating. >> i was going to say, how about him showing up in court? >> may it please the court. >> you're not going to believe what happened to me. >> i don't tailgate at all. >> you are a very sa >>> this weather report sponsored by splenda, no calorie sweetener. it's sweet, and more. >> tnk >>> thanks so much. that's your latest weather. now back over to you guys. >> thank you very much. c

every justice that has been named to the court i believe since justice scalia has been a nonactive -- or argument of the justice he or she replaced to the point that it is getting to be a virtual cacophony up there. i'm a

cause is ramping up its efforts to bring an investigation against supreme court justices clarence thomas and antonin scalia over the weekend justice thomas issued a statement referring to his critics as people who seen bent on undermining the supreme court like he's the supreme court right the controversy surrounding thomas and scalia boils down to whether or not they accepted free travel lodging and food curtilage courtesy of the federalist society to attend political strategy meetings in california hosted by the billionaire koch brothers yeah those same brothers were involved in wisconsin and i says oversight committee they do seem to have their hands in everything these days is scalia and thomas did attend those meetings that's a clear breach of ethics that taints the high court's impartiality so what can be done about this here to talk about what we know so far and here's a vice president for programming actually arne here's vice president for programs at common cause high on tape thanks for me tom thanks for joining us what it's glee and thomas two. well they appear to have both gone to coke retreats

and justice scalia told that walmart's own management training materials included the statement thatadvancement, blurted out, if you have an aggressive woman, promote her. outside a walmart executive echoed the company's argument, that the experiences of just a handful of women, even if true, are just not typical of what happened to more than a million other women who worked at walmart, and so cannot be the basis for this gigantic class-action against the company. >> what's wrong with this case is three plaintiffs are trying to represent more than 1.5 million associates. i've had a very positive experience at walmart, like thousands of other women. >> reporter: betty dukes, one of the women trying to bring this case on behalf of so many others, was undaunted. >> if they rule against us, the fight has just begun. it's just begun. >> reporter: this court has generally been a pro-business court and so it will be a real uphill fight for the women who brought this case to win it, even with three women justices. terry moran, abc news, new york. >>> just days after an air traffic controller

it was during his time at the justice department that he was tasked with shepherding justice scalia through his confirmation process. he served both bush administration's. s. it was during the tumultuous senate commission hearings that senator joe biden compared sending john bolton to the u.n. to send in a bull threw a china shop. -- sending a bullet through a china shop. it may be the nicest thing anyone has ever said about john bolton. at a time when we have not had a full discussion -- would have to have a discussion on what america is in decline. it is critical that u.s. foreign and national security is part of the debate. we have no one better to discuss these issues and our next speaker. a big welcome for john bolton. -- ambassador john bolton. [applause] >> thank you very much. they a of you for staying here all day. i want to thank steve king where the opportunity to join you today. this has been a fantastic events. you have heard from a lot of fascinating speakers. i would like to turn the discussion to national security. i want to assure you that i am acutely aware that me and tha

neera but i also want to get your thoughts on whether or not you see any clues what you make of justice scalia'soncurring opinion in their raich? does that by tim? he goes into necessary proper clause in that decision and justice kennedy was also on the majority in the raich? do you see any clues on how this court to approach these issues and come out? please answer that. i know you have speeded i don't see any clues because since the raich the roberts court has not had any enumerated powers? that is on all fours with morrison. and so we haven't had any true? that will give us an insight into that. the closest perhaps we can do that is the big campaign finance case in which the conservatives on the court held their own, drawing a blank on the name of it now. citizens united of course. and there of course they didn't stand the ground even is a popular way that came from congress and from mccain-feingold. i will just respond to two of the points that neera made in her -- personal, she said that we have lived with 30 or 40 years of conservative supreme court, and they haven't done much to upset wha

the analysis that justice scalia applied here, he wrote the majority opinion, was a very essentially from very common agency principle that a principal, here, the employer is responsible for the acts of its agents. it may well apply under the nation's major job bias law, title 7, and other job bias laws as well. >> woodruff: let's talk about the other decision today. this was over whether corporations have a right of personal privacy. this is the at&t case. what was at issue? >> at&t wanted to block the disclosure of certain investigative records and documents that were held by the federal communications commission when a competitor com-tell sought disclosure under the freedom of information act. at&t claimed that these records fell under an exemption from disclosure for records that could reasonably be considered to lead to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. so the court had to decide whether corporations had personal privacy rights under the freedom of information act. this specific exemption. and the court said no. >> woodruff: what's the significance of that. >> first o

justice antonin scalia pressed the plaintiffs' lawyers asking, doesn't your class include women who were underpaid and women who weren't? is that commonality? >> i think there was good questions asked on both sides. it was a good argument and i think it covered a lot of ground. >> reporter: wal-mart lawyers pushed even harder urging the court to halt the case because, quote, many women thrived. 544 the plaintiffs are female store managers. if the class auction lawsuit moves forward, wal-mart could be forced to pay billions if they lose. if not, lawyers for the plaintiffs argue women everywhere could suffer the consequences. >> it's sick for all women across the kun -- it's significant for all women across the country because it's going to affect how companies respond to claims of pay discrimination and discrimination in promotions. >> reporter: now, wal-mart has maintained throughout this entire process that they have plenty of programs that support diversity and inclusion. we'll hear from the supreme court on whether or not this class action lawsuit can go forward by june. elizabeth? >>

>> senator, i think that's the first time i've been accused of channeling justice scalia so i will take that -- >> it was a pretty good statement. >> thank you. >> but it is not consistent i think with what you wrote. >> senator, i don't recall -- i would be happy to look at that passage a little more carefully. >> i didn't misquote i don't think. >> i think you quoted it accurately. i think the passage, if i recall it correctly, was trying to say that judges cannot decide cases, whether it's in this area, welfare rights or any other area, on the basis of some independent moral theory. that they have about what people are entitled to come if anything. and so, that statement is part of an argued i think in the article that says what judges have to do is they have to set aside their independent moral theories, and not import them into the law. i think the supreme court has been absolutely clear in this particular area, that there is that danger that judges unelected and unaccountable, based on their own conceptions of justice, might try to write that into the law. and i fully respect thos

>> reporter: one and that was by justice scalia and this injures the family members and the loved ones because they want to have a peaceful funeral for their loved ones. so clearly one dissension there and high, high emotions, surrounding the entire subject on all sides. i should mention even though chief justice john roberts and the majority of justices voted in favor of first amendment rights, they still say they don't necessarily have to agree with what speaker is saying. >> all right. certainly very true. all right. sandra endo live in washington, d.c. for us. thank you. >>> 7:47. after the supreme court's decision, the westborough church is now targeting a san jose school. tom church members will picture gunder son. and play about mathew shepherd. members of the local gay, less we upand transgender say there will be a -- lesbian, transgender say there will be a protest. even more counter protests are planned on social networking sites. student actors have been told they could opt out of this play. so far, none has chosen to do that. tomorrow night is the last performance of the pl

[laughter] >> a lot further than i intended , justice scalia. [laughter] >> the merits of the case involve a commerce clause argument, a treaty based organization. as far as the standing klaus goes, there's no difference between them. missouri vs. holland was a case this court adjudicated whether a law exceeded authority, it did that at the heads of the state, but there is no reason under places like lopez and perez that an enumerated powers argument is off limits to a criminal defendant. it's not. this case goes back down to the third circuit. a petitioner can make the argument that this law exceeds the interim rate of powers. we can rely on the clause, it's not outstanding in any way. i think the support of the judgment makes the assumption that because missouri vs. holland is good law, there is no possible claim that petitioner can make that the law would exceed congress' enumerated authority, therefore, it says this must be some sort of a special state sovereignty claim of a genera that looks like come deering. we doesn't understand to be ma

respond to near, but i want your thoughts on whether or not you see any clears, what you make of justice scalia's opinion in the race case. does that bind him, he goes into the necessary and proper clause in the decision, and justice kennedy was in the majority in the race case, the medical marijuana case, so do you see clues on how the courts will approach the case? please respond to that. >> no, i don't see any clues because the roberts court has not had any enumerated powers case on all fours with lopez or morrison. we haven't had any true case to give us an insight into that. the closest perhaps we could come is the big campaign finance case which -- in which the conservatives on the court held their own, drawing a blank on it now -- let's see -- citizens united, of course. there, of course, they did stand their ground even against the popular wave that came from congress and from mccain feingold, but to return -- i'll just respond to two of the points that neera made. first of all, she said we lived with 30-40 years of conservative supreme court, and they haven't done much to upset what she

. >> i would like to come back to the question that i think justice scalia is asking. this does not violate the fourth amendment where statutory requirements and establishing the maturity alidade are met. there is absolute immunity when a prosecutor seeks this? >> that is the way that they have historically gone about it. they do not reach constitutional questions. here you have a non circuit decision. absolute immunity can be pierced by a prosecutors bad motive. the epa is it in charge of the recovery in the chesapeake bay. i hope you take that seriously. a lot of the runoff issues that have been neglected should be addressed. i know you are trying to do that. >> would you yield? >> you're not suggesting to take money away from the guirguis sound are you? >> no, that would be wrong. i just like to see the budget debate little more help to the puget sound. we have had discussions about this. i would love to see the great lakes and in action agenda, a plan. i do not think they have a plan. a scientifically credible plan that is verified by independent sources -- that is

it was during this time that john alden was task of shepherding justice scalia through his confirmation process. he also served both bush administrations, the first in the state department then as you and ambassador to the un. it was during these rather tumultuous senate confirmation hearings that then senator joe biden compared sending boldin to the un to sending able to china shop. in a berkeley, may be the nicest thing anyone has ever said about -- inadvertently it may be the nicest thing anyone has ever said about john bolton. at a time when we have not even really had a full discussion on whether america is in decline is critical that u.s. ford, and national security is part of our greater debate. we have no one better to discuss these issues than our next speaker. a big welcome to ambassador john boldin. -- john golsonbolton. [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much. thanks to all of you for staying all day and having patience and being here. i want to thank steve king for the wonderful opportunity to join you today because i think this is been a fantastic event. you have hear

goldwater campaign [unintelligible] it was during this time that he was tasked with shepherding justice scalia through his confirmation process. he also served in both the bush administration'sns. it was during the tumultuous senate confirmation hearings that senator joe biden compared sending him to the un as sending able to a china shop. -- a bull to a china shop. it might be the nicest thing ever said about ambassador john bolton. at a time where we haven't even had a full discussion -- got we have to have a discussion of whether america is in decline. it is clear that it is part of our greater debate. we have no one better to discuss these issues that our next speaker. please welcome ambassador john bolton. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank all of you first day in all day and having patience for being here. i want to thank steve cain for having the opportunity to join you today. -- steve king for having the opportunity to join you today. i would like to joiturn the discussion to national security. ou that i am acutely aware that me and thad are the only ones standing betw

parks service gave justice antonin scalia a $70 ticket as he was headed to work yesterday morning. police say he was tailgating and rear ended a car stopped in traffic. two other vehicles slammed into the justice. he was in court when it started yesterday at 10:00. >>> let's check in with sal. you are starting in san francisco. what's going on there? >> all right. we're looking at not only the freeways, tori, because we'll look at that as well. 7th and brennan a good area to avoid. had a small building -- it was a pesky fire. it started about two hours ago. the police and fire crews are still on the soo. let's take a look at san francisco freeways, northbound 101, that traffic is looking good coming into the area. if you are taking the 7th street area that fire is not affecting you riley, traffic is doing okay there. this morning's commute in the livermore valley, slow traffic on the altamont pass. let's go to steve. >>> some patchy coastal fog is keeping temperatures -- look at that. you can't have that. the higher clouds will clear the area. 52 san francisco, 52, concord. 50, napa

however, now, it is my understanding, people like justice scalia talk about original understanding, not original intents. what they meant to do, doesn't count for anything if it's not in the words and, it is what the words of the constitution meant. my sense of the original understanding in a broader sense, is that the founders understood very well that the world was going to change. and the constitution had to be adaptive to those changes and even gave us a mode of adjustment called the amendment process, which is in article 5. and they had no idea that they could predict the future, and, they also had no idea slavery would last forever and they did not use the word, slaves, in the constitution, and, they put a 20-year protection on the slave trade and, after that, they understood that it was in all likelihood the -- made illegal. and they anticipated the end of slavery, and, they anticipated that there would be a lot of other changes that would be necessary along the way, in order to make the constitution serve its basic ambition, which is, of stability, freedom over time. >> bob fran

for instance, at some point, one of your other characters quotes antonin scalia, the us supreme court justicend says, "oh, i know scalia, and he thinks this and that". did you run that by him? - ah, no, but i know scalia, and it is consistent with what he very well might say. even the character the intelligence agent--we're not going to give away his role, but dennis savage is based on a friend of mine named rollie savage, who is a former secret service agent with the united states government. i did run it by him because he's a close friend and i wanted to make sure he was not unhappy with the way he was portrayed, and he got a good laugh out of it. and, you know, i do use characters who are real in my life, because, you know, i'm not dostoevsky. i can't just make characters up out of whole cloth. i am a lawyer who has to write based on my own experiences. fortunately, i have a lot of experiences that are relevant to telling a story like this. - i'm sure it made it more fun for you to insert them in there, but after publication, at least, did you send it to them? - i did, and i've gotten mixe

groups never complained about that, but they only come after conservatives on the court like justice scalia, justice thomas, who believe that the words on the page of the constitution, the pages, mean what they say. they don't change over time. otherwise you can have no consistency as a nation. so, it would only make sense that somebody up here in congress who has taken an oath to provide for the common defense would say, you know, we have noticed that every one of these terrorists in the last -- since 1991 that have really wanted to do anything to destroy our way of life, as a whole, that they seem to have a connection that they are not muslim, they are radical muslims. they are radical islamic jihadists. so wouldn't it make sense to take a look? because we know the largest percentage of muslims in america are peace loving. they don't believe that jihad means you kill your neighbor. they believe it's an internal jihad where you change your life. leave the old behind. there are disagreements on what percentage of muslims are this radical islamic jihadists that want to destroy our way of lif

the chicago school economist i won't get into, but scalia, supreme court justice, borque, robert borque. >> so david macintosh is following that crowd from the unersityf chicago law school. but you also mentioned mill milton friedman? >> right. he is of course a libertarian free marketer and so forth. he comes into the book mostly as someone for them to look up to in the 1970's, but also for somebody like clint bullock, his work on the voucher movement. he and clint kind of got involved in that. milton friedman, i don't make him a huge mentor figure in the book. >> you quote him about an interview you had with him? >> i had an interview at his incredibly beautiful san francisco apartment. s, but we talked mostly about this generation of conservatives, and how it was different from the previous generation. and he talked a lot about wha was going on in the 1970's. potholes. long lines at bureaucracies. sort of this dissatisfacon with government that was so prevalent in the 1970's. so yes, it became very easy to develop a more conservative view or anti-government view. >> who followed the

the current court has four justices who as conservatives since the mid 1930s. scalia and thomas are the most conservative justices there since the mid-1930s and roberts and sleet toe vote with him. on the other hand, there's society -- society my your. this is her first term and prior to judicial opinions to scrutinize. only wrote five major law reviews as a law professor. she never wrote pieces and made statements to the media. that could explain why where she's at. [laughter] assume that those four justices are likely to be together and the courts are divided. that leaves anthony kennedy as the swinging justice. that's why people refer to this as the kennedy court. the kennedy sides with the conservatives more than the liberals. last year there were 12 cases that were 5-4. the 4 conservatives and 4 liberals. kennedy sided with the conservatives 10 tines. kennedy sides with the conservatives twice as often than with the liberals, but still kennedy is a key swing vote for the liberals in some areas. i think there's four votes to overrule roe vs. wade. kennedy won't be