justice scalia: you said that in your brief, didn't you? justice kennedy: also hypothetical is that the state of arizona has has a massive emergency with social disruption, economic disruption, residents leaving the state because of flood of immigrants. let's just assume those two things. does that give the state of arizona any powers or authority or legitimate concerns that any other state wouldn't have? general verrilli: of course, they have legitimate concerns in that situation. and, justice kennedy justice kennedy: and can they go to their legislature and say, we're concerned about this, and ask the legislature to enact laws to correct this problem? general verrilli: they they certainly can enact laws of general application. they can enforce the laws of general application that are on the books. they already as a result of 8 u.s.c. 1621, it's clear that they are under no obligation to provide any state benefits to the population. but i think, most importantly, they can and not most importantly, but as importantly, they can engage in coop

instantly stirred, justice scalia said, i like to get out of the work to tell the truth. arguments often proceeds at a clipped rate, so rapid that it is sometimes hard to get a word in edgewise. justice kagen as the junior justice takes great care not to step on the questions of her senior colleagues, but one time, she tried to enter the fray, only to be silenced by louder voices. and at last, justice bryer instructed council, go back to justi justice kagin and don't forget her question. and many minutes lapsed and she said, i've forgotten my question. see what it means to be tjunior justice. the term has been more than usually taxing. some have called it the term of the century. perhaps that explains why the funniest justice, called council's argument extraordinary, no fewer than ten times. some of us think that jaw city scalia is extraordinary is, perhaps, becoming rather ordinary. the argued case this is term numbered 80. that's a decrease of six from last term. but the decline was offset by per curiam decisions issued in cases decided without full briefing or any oral

scalia's own decision in citizens united. so what's the point of all this the point is that justice antonin scalia needs to be impeached just as justice samuel chase was impeached way back in one thousand nine hundred four for demonstrating a similar lack integrity and impartiality while serving on the high court if we're truly going to have an independent judiciary with the task of impartially interpret in the constitution and there's no longer any room for justice scalia on the court it's time for congress to do its constitutionally you find a job in article three section two and regulate the high court and not just their impeachment actually four places in the constitution it's time for congress to impeach and justice antonin scalia is a much better fit inside the koch brothers political machine anyway. it's wednesday are you ready to rumble joining me for tonight's lone liberal are adam bitly editor in chief of net right daily and mark hare a libertarian commentator attorney and author of the book observations of white noise and as a test for the first amendment thank you both for joining me tonight thank you glad to have

justice roberts, alito, thomas, scalia, that's the kind of judge i like. >> 76-year-old justice antonins spent a third of his life on the united states supreme court. the job is apparently starting to get to him. he confessed today in writing, in a strange, even-for-him opinion that his mind is, and this is his word, "boggled." the most peculiar thing about justice scalia's dissent today is that he reached far beyond the record of the case, far beyond the arizona statute, and cited material that was never considered in the case. it seemscalia is very upset with president obama recent announcement restricting deportations of people under 30 who may be in this country illegally. scalia alone, among the justices, snuck that little bit into his thinking about the case. the president said at a news conference that the new program is the right thing to do in light of congress' failure to pass the administration's proposed revision of the immigration act. perhaps it is, though arizona may not think so. but to say, as the court does, that arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing application

i don't mean to single justice scalia out, but he wrote a really sustained attack on the independent counsel law, and the basic argument is that this law was unconstitutional because it allowed judges rather than the president to appoint the independent counsel and not only barred the president from removing the independent counsel, but also grounds in which any independent counsel could use for removing an independent counsel. this is the essence of justice scalia's disent, so let's focus on one interesting aspect of that dissent. in the course of lamenting the demise of what justice scalia called our former constitutional system, he cited watergate as an example of a more acceptable arrangement. hoos that the political branches could deal with wrong doing, but if you look carefully at that example, there might be questions about whether justice scalia or the other critics might be entirely satisfied. but the independent counsel was subject to remooul for cause, to remove for cause by the attorney general. an executive branch official who is directly accountable to the attorney gene

as i said, this is the essence of justice scalia's dissent. so let's focus on one interesting aspect of that dissent. in the course of lamenting the demise of what justice scalia called our formal constitutional system, he -- could deal with wrongdoing. but if you look carefully at that example, there might be questions about whether justice scalia or the other critics might be entirely satisfied. it's true that the special prosecutor was not barred for all practical purposes from dealing with the attorney general, as the independent counsel was under the ethics act. but -- but -- the independent counsel was subject to removal for cause, removal for cause by the attorney general. an executive branch official who is directly accountable to the attorney general, to the president. look at the regulation that set up leon jaworski's office which says that the special prosecutor would be removed -- could be removed only for extraordinary improprieties and then only if the president consulted with and received consensus agreement from the majority an

today specifically, justice scalia.e issued bench statement with his opinion that took a shot at the obama administration's new immigration policy not to deport some young people brought here by their parents. scalia said it boggles the mind because federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem and, indeed, have recently shown that they are simply unwilling to do so. joining me now, a lawrence harvard professor who argued bush v gore for al gore. it is good see you. good morning. >> good morning, chris. >> so i'm not a constitutional scholar, international airport a lawyer, i don't want to play one on tv, but the thing that struck me when i read this statement from justice scalia that one of the footnotes actually mentioned an article in the "new york times," not a point of law, not a court case but the "new york times." i'm wondering what you made of that and this statement. >> well, it wasn't so much the reference to the new york times that boggled my mind. it was the fact that justice scalia went out of hi

justice scalia voted against the majority. he believed all of arizona's law was constitutional. since states have the right to protect their borders. but scalia went one step further and criticized president obama in his written didssent. here is the quote. but to say as the court does that arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the immigration act that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind. end quote. our expert on the u.s. supreme court is here, jeffrey toobin. hi, jeff. >> hi, carol. >> so when you read this did dissent, did your eyes bug out? >> it was even better than that. because when the justices are very agitated about a decision of their colleagues that they disagree with, they read their opinion from the bench. they don't just file the written dissent. so justice scalia dissented from the bench, and even his colleagues were sort of looking up at the ve hemmence of his rhetoric. at another point in his dissenting opinion, he said, you know, if this decision had come about in the 18th century, the entire united states would never have b

>> two responses, justice scalia. if we look at severability they'll find that the test differently. one of them talks about congressional intent. but here is the other -- >> that's true, but is it right? >> here's how i answer your question. when congress includes severability class company addresses the abstract. it doesn't seem to matter which provisions he strike down we absolutely positively want what is left. >> the consequence of your proposition kumble congress have enacted without this provision, okada the consequence. that would mean that if we start down nothing in this legislation that, with the code, the cornhusker kicked back, okay, we find that to violate the constitution proscription of venality, okay -- [laughter] when we strike back down, it is clear that congress would not have passed it without that. it would've been means of getting the last necessary vote in the senate. and you are telling us that the whole statute would fall because the cornhusker kicks back kippy wright. >> justice scalia, i th

justice scalia read a summary of his dissent from the bench. basically he said that states have always been considered sovereign entities. it is inherent in sovereignty that you have the power to exclude from your territory people who don't belong. if arizona can't do what it wants to do here, then he said we should stop talking about states as sovereign entities. the other thing he pointed out was he disagreed with many of the government's arguments for preempting the arizona law. for example, the government had said... >> woodruff: the federal government. >> the federal government, i'm sorry. the federal government had said it was important to be able to allocate scarce resources in immigration enforcement. that's when justice scalia mentioned president obama's recent program for allowing the children, young people of illegal aliens to remain in the country temporarily. justice scalia said he was sure that the administrative costs of that program would be great and would take away from enforcement of immigration law. and he said it boggled th

justice scalia volunteered, "i would like to get out of the work, to tell the truth." arguments proceed at a clip rate, so rapid that it is sometimes hard to get a word in edgewise. justice kagan takes great care not to step on the comments of her colleagues. at one time, she tried to enter the fray, only to be silenced by louder voices at last, a justice briar instructed them to go back to justice kagan. she smiled and said that, i have forgotten my question. the term has been more than usually taxing. some have called it the term of the century. perhaps that explains why the funniest justice called the argument "extraordinary" no fewer than 10 times. some of us believe that justice scalia's extraordinary is perhaps becoming ordinary. the argued cases this term numbered 80. that is a decrease of six from last term. but the decline was offset by the decisions issued in cases decided without full briefing or any oral argument. summary disposition of that kind already numbered 10, more than twice the number at this time last year. too many? i leave that for you to judge.

justice scalia volunteered, "i would like to get out of the work to tell the truth." arguing often proceeds so rapidly that it is sometimes hard to get a word in edgewise. justice kagan, as the junior justice, takes great care not to step on the questions of her senior colleagues. but one time she tried to enter the fray only to be silenced by louder voices. justice byron instructed counsel, go back to justice kagan, don't forget our question. many minutes. had minutes by then -- many minutes had elapsed by then. and justice kagan says i have forgotten my question. she sees what it means to be the junior justice. the term has been very taxing. some have called it the term of the century. perhaps that explains why the funniest justice called council's argument extraordinary no fewer than 10 times. some of us think that justice scalia's extraordinary is perhaps becoming rather ordinary. [laughter] there was the decline offset by a decision issued in cases decided without full briefing or any oral argument. summary dispositions already no. 10, more than twice the number i

and justice scalia and justice ginsberg, one on the right, one on the left both just dropped what couldsibly be a hint on the supreme court's upcoming healthcare ruling. we'll try to read between the lines. brand-new evidence in the george zimmerman case shedding light on some conversations between mr. zimmerman and his wife. some of it is good for him, some of it is not good for him. we will take a look at the tapes and discuss why they reveal more than just their financial situation. >> i can't remember what the dream was, but it was really nice. i bought you something that you always wanted. i don't remember what it was. >> oh, honey. you don't need to worry about that, cutie. >> i wish i could remember, it was like a nice scarf or something. >> you're so cute, i love you so much. >> i love you so much. you can prevent gas with beano meltaways, or treat gas with these after you get it. now that's like sunblock before or sun burn cream later. oh, somebody out there's saying, now i get it! take beano before and there'll be no gas. wouldn't it be nice if there was an easier, less-expens

justice anthony scalia who is part of the right-wing block of the court. e are four conservatives, four liberals and one center right justice and that would be kennedy. scalia is in the right block of the court. he wrote in a scathing descent that he would have allowed the entire arizona law to go forward and deem it constitutional. he singled out the recent white house decision to block deportation of some illegal immigrants, writing, quote, there has come to pass, and is with us today the specter that arizona predicted, a federal government that does not want into force the immigration laws as written, and leaves the state's borders unprotected so the issue is a stark one. are the sovereign states at the mercy of the federal executive's refusal to enforce the nation's immigration laws? joining me now julian epstein democratic campaign consultant and former legal council for the house judiciary smitty. and jay sekulow. as you read this decent he seems flabergasted that in his view the feds are not enforcing the immigration laws as written. forget if you wa

>> justice scalia, it is neither -- >> is the government's attack on this that it violates the fourth? >> no. of course, the federal government, that also has a lot of immigration arrests that are subject to the fourth amendment, is not making a fourth amendment claim here. and it's neither an immigration law concern or something that should be the basis for striking down a statute on its face -- >> that's a different argument -- >> but i do want to -- but i do want to be responsive and make the point that i think the factual premise that this is going to -- 2(b) is going to lead to the elongation of a lot of arrests is not true. >> all right. can i make the following statement in the opinion, and you will say that's okay? imagine -- this is imaginary. "we interpret" -- imagine -- "we interpret section 2(b) as not authorizing or requiring the detention of any individual under 2(b), either at the stop or in prison, for a significantly longer period of time than that person would have been detained in the absence of 2(b)." can i make that statement in an opinion, and you'll say, that's

i think we're making both a field and a conflict preemption argument here, justice scalia. and the -- i think it's worth examining the specific judgments congress made in 1986. on the employer's side -- and, after all, this is a situation in which the concern here is that the employer is in a position of being the exploiter and the alien of being the exploited -- on the employer's side, congress said that states may not impose criminal sanctions, and even -- and the federal government will not impose criminal sanctions for the hiring of employees unless there's a pattern or practice. it seems quite incongruous to think that congress, having made that judgment and imposed those restrictions on the employer's side, would have left states free to impose criminal liability on employees merely for seeking work, for doing what you i think would expect most otherwise law--abiding people to do, which is to find a job so they can feed their families. so i think that's a significant problem. in addition, congress made clear in the law that the i--9 form could not be used for any othe

that's not our position at all, justice scalia. in the health care market, the health care market is characterized by the fact that aside from the few groups that congress chose to exempt from the minimum coverage requirement -- those who for religious reasons don't participate, those who are incarcerated, indian tribes -- virtually everybody else is either in that market or will be in that market, and the distinguishing feature of that is that they cannot, people cannot generally control when they enter that market or what they need when they enter that market. >> well, the same, it seems to me, would be true say for the market in emergency services -- police, fire, ambulance, roadside assistance, whatever. goingn't know when you're to need it, you're not sure that you will. but the same is true for health care. you don't know if you're going to need a heart transplant or if you ever will. so there is a market there. to -- in some extent, we all participate in it. so can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that

that decision was one that justice scalia, until this week, had accepted as good law, but this week he chose to publish a law that says that case, wick kerr versus fill burn was wrongly decided i think the justices that decided to cut back on congress's power would not be satisfied to cut it back under just one clause. i think it is their view that the whole new deal took a turn in a dramatically wrong direction and i think if they had a fifth vote they would enact that as the constitutional law of the united states. that is why one thing that is underscoartd by this decision is the enormous importance of whoever is named the next vacancy on the united states supreme court court, because the court is narrowly and closely divided five to four on whether congress is to have the kind of powers that it was recognized to have ever since the 1930s. >> rose: what did you think of what the court said about the medicaid expansion? >> well, i was distressed. i do think that the court avoided striking it down, but for the first time having a majority say that even when congress is not using its s

>> well, i mean, justice scalia has shown aç great deal of partisan throughout all this.s clear he's been emotionally invested in wanting to see conservative policies come out. and i think b he looked physically depressed today. >> how stunned -- stunning was it and how stunned did people in the court -- in the chamber where you sat, how stunned were they when the chief justice actually shifted gears and said but as of dealing with this from a tax law point of view, it is not our role to forbid it. and people began to realize that he had actually voted with the four members of the court that people often, i included, would never think he would vote with. >> it's funny. i was sitting a few seats away from a gentleman i sometimes debate from a conservative think tank. when the chief justice started reading, he read how it couldn't be part of the commerce clause. i was slumping lower and lower in my chair and my friend was getting higher and higher in his. then he got to that part and we switched posture. so there was a definite palpable effect. let's be careful not to let t

chairman, to paraphrase justice scalia, frequently a bill raises a first amendment issue quote, clad so to speak in sheep's clothing, end of quote. the potential harm is understood only after careful study and then to quote again, but this wolf comes as a wolf. this bill represents a frontal attack on first amendment freedom of speech. the bill before us today was originally proposed by then senator obama. at the 2007 hearing on this bill, a maryland county executive complained about campaign literature and statements that were made supposedly by his opponent. in supporting this bill, he testified that he was quote, unquote, offended and outraged, that his opponent had displayed signs with what he termed a false statement, quote, we're not slaves to democrats, end of quote. that statement is core political speech, fully protected by the first amendment no matter how much it might offend and outrage politicians. unfortunately, that witness is unable to appear before us today as he is now serving a lengthy sentence in federal prison for engaging in extortion conspiracy. president obama

. >> i understand that justice scalia had sharp words. >> reporter: i don't know. have you covered courts for years. vinever seen something like this, which is something that's such a current event wowbd up in the opinion, justice scalia referencing the president and what he said about relaxing immigration policy for people under 30, under certain circumstances and saying that any deportation would be stopped. justice scalia referenced that in the opinion and then added this, in going after the president, pointedly said, are the sovereign states at the mercy of the federal executive's refusal of enforcing the federal immigration laws? >> the one piece that was upheld was upheld by all 9 justices. and the dhs issued an order saying they would stop the arizona to enforce the immigration code for them. so they stopped it. so what is interesting, suddenly the president said, snapped his finger at the full court. he said, we are not going to abide by this. >> reporter: it is interesting because on that one point, it was anan mus. justice kagan did not take part -- so 8-

. >> supreme court justice antonin scalia goes off the rails criticizing the president. >> the big panelx and friends justice next. >> darryl issa lets the truth slip about his fast and furious witch hunt. >> do you have any evidence that white house officials were involved in these decisions, that they knowingly misled congress and are involved in a cover-up? >> no, we don't. >> and find out why republicans are breaking with michele bachmann on health care. >> obama care as we know is the crown jewel of socialism. it's socialized medicine. >> former insurance executive wendell potter joins me for that story later. >> this is it for freedom. [ morgan ] right now when you use your visa card, you're entered for a chance to win a trip to the olympic games for life. to cheer the summer athletes to new heights, starting in 2016... as you experience every moment, every emotion, every four years... for the rest of your life. visa. supporting athletes and the olympic games for 25 years. people everywhere go with visa. visa. supporting athletes and the olympic games for 25 years. ♪ with the hundr

people everywhere go with visa. >>> still to come, justice antonin scalia rails against president obamassent on arizona's immigration law. we will weigh in on the fox and friends justice and much more. >>> and later, as we await the supreme court ruling on the health care law, surprising poll numbers show even republicans are in favor of hot they call obama care. except when the president's name is attached to it. wendell potter will join me for that. stay with us. lots more coming up. [ creaking ] [ male announcer ] trophies and awards lift you up. but they can also hold you back. unless you ask, what's next? [ zapping ] [ clang ] this is the next level of performance. the next level of innovation. the next rx. the all-new f sport. this is the pursuit of perfection. throughout our entire lives. ♪ one a day men's 50+ is a complete multi-vitamin designed for men's health concerns as we age. ♪ it has more of seven antioxidants to support cell health. that's one a day men's 50+ healthy advantage. but thanks to hotwire, this year we got to take an extra trip. because they get us ridiculousl

the does sending opinion was by justice scalia and no one writes a dissending opinion like justice scaliaf on the obama administration, like mitt romney on steroids. he attacked romney -- obama's recent order about young people and not enforcing the law there. he said in something that drew a smile from some of the justices, he said, justice scalia said, if this ruling were known in advance, arizona might not have decided to join the union of the united states of america. i think a lot of people were there thinking, as i was thinking, really? you think, arizona would have said, i think we're going to join mexico instead? i think there was a little hyperbole there, but even though most of us regard this decision as a mixed result, justice scalia saw it as an endorsement of illegal immigration and he was more than usually outraged. >> when the chief justice told those of you in the room and you get to come out and tell the rest of us, sorry, folks, you're going to have to wait until thursday on health care, did he specifically mention the case? or did he just say the remaining decisions wil

justice thomas and justice alito who wrote separate opinions did that as well in the case of justice scalia today you saw that you saw the votes of politics entering directly and that's a bit ironic because he's often held up as an example of somebody held up by the right as an example of somebody who is highly principled and you know i think the principle is something other than a legal principle and really quick we're almost out of time in our just wanted you to add to that a little bit in terms of this recent announcement by obama by the president a new change to his immigration policy something a lot of people in this country have been waiting to hear for a long time does this case impact that decision does it i mean how do you think if this all plays together well i don't think this case specifically impacts that decision but that decision was a proper exercise of the administration's authority it's something that. the executive branch has done in the past there are other examples of granting us special deferred action to different groups who were worthy of that and i think to the exte