those are the words of associate justice to the supreme court, antonin scalia.aid that and a whole lot more during a headline grabbing appearance at princeton university that included a q&a session with students. it was then scalia was asked about his past writings on gay rights, including a 2003 case, lawrence versus texas which likened sodomy to among other incomparables, bestiality and incest. in that high case the court ruled that statescan not outlaw sodomy among consenting adults of the same sex. disagreeing, scalia wrote in part, texas' prohibition of sodomy is unsupported by a rational relation to a legislate state interest nor denies the equal protection of the laws. emphasis added. i dissent. scalia continues the texas statute seeks to further the belief of the citizens that certain forms of sexual behaviors are immoral and unacceptable. the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery and bestiality. when questioned on those comments comparing sodomy to murder, by a freshman who is gay, scalia doubled down, reaffirmin

make your mark with ink from chase. >>> justice scalia versus glenn beck.ho wins this fight may have long-lasting effects on civil rights in this country. that's coming up. aspirin, really? i haven't thought about aspirin for years. aspirin wouldn't really help my headache, i don't think. aspirin is just old school. people have doubts about taking aspirin for pain. but they haven't experienced extra strength bayer advanced aspirin. in fact, in a recent survey, 95% of people who tried it agreed that it relieved their headache fast. what's different? it has micro-particles. enters the bloodstream fast and rushes relief to the site of pain. visit fastreliefchallenge.com today for a special trial offer. visit fastreliefchallenge.com customer erin swenson bought so, i'm happy. today. sales go up... i'm happy. it went out today... i'm happy. what if she's not home? (together) she won't be happy. use ups! she can get a text alert, reroute... even reschedule her package. it's ups my choice. are you happy? i'm happy. i'm happy. i'm happy. i'm happy. i'm happy. happy

supreme court justice antonin scalia is causing controversy for comments he made while selling his book at princeton. the associated press reports a gay student asked about the justice's comparisons between anti-sodomy laws. the associated press reports a guy student asked about the justice's comparisons between anti-sodomy laws and laws against murder and bestiality. scalia replied i don't think it's necessary, but i think it's effective. it's a form of argument that i thought you would have known. >>> i'm page hopkins. we're following that breaking news story out of portland, oregon. a masked gunman entered a mall. right now we're hearing from the clackamas county sheriff's office. two are believed dead. let's take a listen. >> the shooter is still alive. >> the shooter has been neutralized. i don't have the exact information on that. i will give it to you as soon as i have it. >> do you have any officers inside and out estimate? >> i don't have an exact count. but there is probably -- there is county, multiple cities, state, federal law enforcement. so dozens and dozens and dozens of

rights with public welfare, and we can do the same. >> eliot: in terms of the false originalism of justice scalia the paragraph where you refer that even scalia recognizes there are certain exceptions and carve-outs in the case that has rewritten our understanding of the second amendment her even he acknowledges there is no question that congress can legislate meaningful restriction with respect to gun possession in special places. now i think that's right. i don't think it's right that he articulates, but where does he find that in his originalist world? does he read it in the amendment that the rest of us have been missing? >> absolutely not. it's true that the founding fathers had gun control but they didn't have the gun control that justice scalia points to where he says of course nothing in the second amendment calls into question laws banning felons from possessing firearms or mentally ill possessing firearms. the founding fathers did not have laws like that. it doesn't mean that we can't have laws like that. the second amendment is about balancing rights with the public welfare. i think th

>> i don't think justice scalia is a swing vote but that wasn't news.s, he was restating almost word for word his dissent in the 2003 case on sodomy laws. so, you know, there is a lot of trepidation in the gay community about how these arguments right-hand side and decisions going to go now that the supreme court has in an unpress dented move taken these marriage equality cases but i don't think that nervousness focus on which way scal eia is going to flip. >> who does it focus on? >> potentially, kennedy, although he has issued some pretty strong -- >> bill: he wrote the decision. >> in lawrence and he's known to be sort of a libertarian. so there is some feeling that if he is the swing vote and he tends to be things could go is their way. there are the two cases there is the defense of marriage act case. they feel aboutgood about that. the appel at that time court decisions have all or almost all gone against the constitutionality of the defense of marriage act. the administration isn't even defending it anymore. >> bill: right. >> then there is the p

all those years my dad was in columbus, there was guys like justice scalia around.the picnics, christmas parties. my dad's best friend gene shields played his helper. the guy who did that stunning somersault coming down the aisle of the old church hall declaring santa claus is coming. yes, i know guys like scalia. faithful guys who hung out with the boys for whom monday night was holy named and friday night was bowling night. they were old fashioned guys.

the court would do so she provides the sixth vote and then you have three votes in the minority justice scalia, chief justice rehnquist and justice thomas, justice scalia right and announces from the bench of vehement defense which see she says basically the court has taken sides in the culture war, not behaving in a fashion that can be tied to the constitution in any way, this will mean a slippery slope to things like bigamy and widespread obscenity and gay marriage and justice thomas writes for himself saying while he believes these laws are and commonly silly to use his expression quoting from earlier justice, if he were a texas legislator he would vote to repeal the laws, he is a judge and not a legislature and there's nothing in the constitution protecting a right to privacy so he provides a clear dissenting vote. >> host: the kennedy-scalia division is interesting. they were ronald reagan appointees from the 1980s, both of them catholics, born in the 1930s, had similar backgrounds, but on these types -- a lot of things on criminal cases, corporate -- on the culture war cases justice kenn

he had the justices and scalia just comes around and says, so i think when the justices are in public and they are being asked questions they might be willing to say no and give them credit for it sometimes. and so, you know, we can - some information as to the clues of what really goes on. >> if you want to talk about the difficulties, try calling the justice and say i'm going to write a beach book legal thriller about how someone all the justices. [laughter] >> so, i of course didn't do that, and but i did rely on the great work that is out there, which is total coincidence. i took a lot of pride in trying to get the supreme court history and procedure right even though it is a legal thriller, and i read hundreds of articles and books and in my note section at the end of the book i pointed out the articles or books that were the most helpful in that regard, and i think about tony's great reporting and every one of the panelists prior books which i rely on as complete. so i think they do a great service to educating the public and writers and a free but he also not the court. >> i sh

>> well, it seems to me if justice kagan can recuse herself from the boston case, justice scalia needsing himself. he is obviously not unbiased. he is clearly biased in this situation. so how can he look at the issue and make a judgment fairly? i really do think first of all, that statement was a repugnant statement to equate homosexuality with murder. any justice who has so little thought before he speaks should not be participating in the ruling on the cases involving doma or proposition 8. >> george, one thing we know -- >> i'm not a lawyer. >> but you are quite the social media guru. you might not be a lawyer but you mastermind twitter and facebook. you tweet a lot of things. this one caught me by surprise that i really loved. i want to get it up there for everybody. so the name of the judge performing midnight wedding services for same sex couples in washington, mary yu. the judge was named mary yu that got the honors to perform those services which i think is just awesome and fascinating. there she is. but what do you think about the approach you have been able to have and the in

justice scalia also talked about the enshrinement of our constitutional right to bear arms.n any event, i think the areas will really focus on enhanced reporting of mental health issues and hopefully better mental health treatment because that really should be the number-one focus to preventing crimes such as what occurred up in newtown, because i think most people who are licensed to carry guns or who possess guns are not going to get involved in the types of crimes and mass slaughters that we've been reading about. but certainly limiting the capacity of the clips, taking a simple hunting rifle and adding a 30-round clip to it, making it an assault rifle, is another area fruitful for discussion, for banning those types of clips. they were banned before, and they were upheld. i think that ban is coming back. but in any event, what a tragedy in newtown. everyone's reeling from it still. but, miguel, if congress doesn't act now, time will be the healer and all of a sudden this will fade away like so many cases in the past. >> that's the question for both of you, i guess. avery

my disagreement rate is highest with justice thomas, and mix with justice scalia. but last year justice thomas and i agreed in 61% of the cases, and scalia, 62%. so it's not as though it's every case it's the usual suspects, or majority opine. important questions like campaign finance, we have different views. but we know that this institution, which i think is like no other in the world, is something none of us prize beyond any of our individual egos. and so to make it work, we have to be working colleagues, even friends. the supreme court is the most -- place i've ever worked. and i'll give you -- you mentioned osha the gore. it was perhaps the most intense time i was at the court. because we had a review of the florida supreme court decision. the oral argument on monday, decisions were out tuesday night. and there were sharp divisions. it was late at night. i told my clerk to go to justice kennedy's chambers and watch the news report with his clerk. he was on the other side. and then i got a call in my chamber, and its justice scalia, and he said ruth, why are yo

more welcoming to media attention, but they came of age in a world where they -- remember, look, justice scalia has written a book, justice thomas has written a book, justice breyer. william o. douglas, justice sonia sotomayor is writing a book. i think it's great when they go out in public and write books and talk about it and become a little more accessible. >> it's funny about "the brethren" because the law clerks born before "the brethren" feel that byron white's relationship with this clerks changed bought he was furious about the leaks, determined to figure out who leaked and the clerks think something changed and the rules in the chambers and conversations with the justices, et cetera. i don't knee whether the justice -- all their attitudes have changed but when you look at newspaper articles that were written at the time to disclose chambers, written by eddie has lazarus, and sure surrogates who were saying this young man should be tarred and feathered, and scalia said if any of his law clerks did that, he would hunt them down. i think some would be just as furious if it happened today.

. >>> supreme court justice scalia raising eyebrows with a comment he made about murdered and homosexuality. if we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality can we have it against murder, can we have it against other things? our big question for you is should a supreme court justice equate the morality of human sexuality with murder? tweet me at thomasaroberts or find me on facebook. anncr: some politicians seem to think medicare and... social security are just numbers in a budget. well, we worked hard for those benefits. we earned them. and if washington tries to cram decisions about the future... of these programs into a last minute budget deal... we'll all pay the price. aarp is fighting to protect seniors with responsible... solutions that strengthen medicare and... social security for generations to come. we can do better than a last minute deal... that would hurt all of us. when you lost the thing you can't believe you lost.. when what you just bought, just broke. or when you have a little trouble a long way from home... as an american express cardmember you can expect some hel

recuse yourself and not on the lower courts but on the supreme court, it is up to the justice himself or herself. so scaliadecision. >> right. that's right. we've seen kagan's cues herself from one case. i believe it was an immigration case, i'm not sure. justice thomas was also -- a lot of people on the left were saying he should recuse himself on healthcare. >> bill: he did not. >> exactly. >> bill: of course, we famously in 2004, justice scalia and dick cheney and the duck hunting trip down to louisiana. and scalia says the proudest thing he's done on his time on the bench was not to recuse himself in that case. even though cheney energy task force case was before the court. >> that's right. >> i don't think that's the proudest thing he's ever done was to be a jerk to keep himself on. >> bill: i think the bottom line is the chances that scalia will recuse himself are probably zero to none. >> remember, he wanted to be chief justice. he was almost openly campaigning for it. so i just think that you know, roberts probably is wincing when he sees those reports of scalia going out there and making those com

in 2003 justice scalia saw gay marriage coming. [♪ "world news tonight" theme ♪] >> stephanie: [ inaudibleokay. [♪ "world news tonight" theme ♪] >> stephanie: the court ruled that states may not outlaw sodomy. justice scalia knocked down the legal basis for outlawing gay marriage. [ screaming ] >> stephanie: oh no! he said today's opinion dismantels the distinction. anthony kennedy's majority opinion does not involve whether government must give formal recognition to any relationship that any homosexual person my enter. retort? do not believe it! [♪ dramatic music ♪] >> stephanie: he accused the majority of taking sides in the culture war and signed on to the homosexual agenda. it's all legal ease, but it's interesting. ten years later, public opinion as shifted dramatically in support of marriage equality. this reasoning leads on pretty shaky grounds [ inaudible ] to same-sex couple. ♪ nah nah nah nah nah ♪ >> but then he took a few steps back yesterday. he said if we cannot have moral feelings about homosexually can we have it against murder or other things ? >> stephanie: oh yeah. you a

. >> justice scalia with a disastrous analogy on gay rights. >> a lot of us are campaign professionalswant to do everything we can to help our side and sometimes we think that's voter i.d. >> a great admission on voter i.d. >> i get out the chains, i get free i save my wife and i kill all the white people in the movie. [ cheering ] >> how great is that? arguments to feel confident in their positions. i want them to have the data and i want them to have the passion. [ piano plays ] troy polamalu's going deeper. ♪ ♪ and so is head & shoulders deep clean. [ male announcer ] with 7 benefits it goes deep to remove grease, gunk and flakes. deep. like me. [ male announcer ] head & shoulders deep clean for men. ♪ ♪ the chill of peppermint. the rich dark chocolate. york peppermint pattie get the sensation. ññttttv >> cenk: jimmy foxx was doing a monologue about his new movie and the theme was how black is that. this got fox news very angry. let's watch. >> it is good to be black. black is the new white. i'm telling you how black is this right here? nice fly here. i play a sleigh. how black is

justice scalia's said that doesn't mean you can have any arms isn't give you the right to have assault weapons and these other military style weapons so the court did not rule on the side of having whatever weapons you want ok roger do you want to reply to that go ahead. blood over sure that that's what the court did rule with respect to what richelson are you agree entirely this is a perfectly effective at least in many cases a perfectly affective way to go about it and i would support that but there are some jurisdictions in the united states where that use illegal ok but you can have a gun but you cannot get i want to censor it's amazing it's very it's amazing ok rachel go ahead we'll see this is the issue that this is the issue that i have and i wrote about this this particular subject this week for my column with the tribune newspapers across the u.s. and that is that the main cultural difference between a country like the united states and for example canada has less gun crime guns are still legal is that there is there are a battery of tests that are executed whenever somebody a

even justice scalia in the opinion that said everybody has a right to own a gun said that there should be no doubt that this should not interfere with putting limits on what he called unusual weapons. >> any constitutional right, any constitutional guarantee, the first amendment, you can't yell fire in a crowded feature theert. second amendment, reasonable restriction against fells expontz others are there. in the it next few years, there are going to be dozens of lawsuits brought to say what is and what isn't reasonable restrictions. we'll argue those, and we're perfectly willing to. today, bob the question isn't how many bullets are going to fit in a magazine. is the gun somebody has got ugly or not ugly? the question is can we keep guns out of the hands of people who are potential killerses. that's hard because they're hard to identify. and can we protect ourselves kids? that's what it's about. that's what we're trying to respond to. that's what the public wants. it's something that's been proven. it's something that bill clinton has suggested. it's something we think is necessary.

the supreme court justice scalia said that if you can carry it, it is considered an arm. >> bill: oh,t opinion. that's really brilliant. justice scalia. >> caller: that's a supreme court justice. >> bill: yeah, and he's an idiot. >> caller: bill, i went into a gun store yesterday. because i'm looking to buy an ar-15 myself. they are flying off the shelves. i've gone to online retailers. they're out of stock. >> bill: okay. fine. then why should congress do anything? why should the president do anything? if people are buying them. therefore nobody should do anything about gun control right? is that what you're saying? >> caller: bill, what i'm saying is the weapons are already out there. >> bill: of course. >> caller: so banning the sales of new ar-15s or ak-467s or other so-called assault rifles isn't going to do anything. >> bill: that's just a lame ass excuse for doing nothing. the president said it again yesterday. this is not easy. this is a complex issue. but that's not an excuse for doing nothing david. i've heard all of the excuses before. it is b.s. >> caller: the president di

. >> justice scalia with a disastrous analogy on gay rights. >> a lot of us are campaign professionals we want to do everything we can to help our side and sometimes we think that's voter i.d. >> a great admission on voter i.d. >> i get out the chains, i get free i save my wife and i kill all the white people in the jennifer >>>> i want the people who watch our show to be able to come away armed with facts and the arguments to feel confident in their positions. i want them to have the data and i want them to have the passion. but it's also about telling them that you're put on this planet for something more! i want this show to have an impact beyond just informing. an impact that gets people to take action for themselves. as a human being that's really important. this is not just a spectator sport. ally interesting days. >> we have a few. first of all rowdy? never. >> you can get j.r. riled up. actually anna is the rowdiest. >> this may get you rowdy. we know what went on with voter i.d. laws. we know about the voter suppression history. today, the pew foundation, scott cantor, his twe

that is the culture i've got to figure justice scalia sees things through when he talks about same-sex marriage and gay people. it's when he talks about the constitution, when he talks about the law, talks about base human freedom that he crosses into troubling territory. why? because the culture he came up in and it's not everybody's. nor is it required to be everybody's. he sees through those eyes that it adheres to his own culture. in a soit that values liberty and equality you should the law. and that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "politicsnation" with al sharpton starts right now. >>> thanks, chris. financed this thing. this has been going on not just this year but for the last two years. >> leo gerard is at the international conference in geneva today. he tells me the north american unions will unite and fight this tooth and nail with every legislative means at their fingertips. teachers joined the protest in lansing today forcing two michigan offices to close. governor schneider is still blaming labour for focusing -- for forcing him into this position by pushi

i think justice scalia's pretty much a bully and -- has some issues of his own that need resolution.ink he would argue is that there is a -- that the government has the right to outlaw or make illegal behavior that it considers immoral. >> stephanie: right. >> caller: there's really no dispute. we have a set of codified morality already. the problem with his argument, however -- >> stephanie: he wasn't comparing gay marriage. he was comparing homosexuality itself to murder. >> caller: right. i understand that. that leads to the two problems with his argument. the first problem is that to the extent we're talking about gay marriage, it is just a contract. and anybody who wants to make a distinction between marriage and civil unions is just really missing the boat. >> like nobody's going to get fined or handed a ticket for saying we were married last week. no, you were civilly joined. $50. >> caller: that's exactly the point. the second problem which is a little bit more insidious to his argument is once you start outlawing things like homosexual relations between people, that leads to

lesbians should not be trampled upon by the federal government and it was that ruling that set off justice scalia who said in 2003 that because of what the majority wrote in that opinion, setting it up for legalization of same-sex marriage. what could happen here, the windsor versus the united states case, keep in mind, edith windsor is legally married. she was legally married in canada. she lives in new york for marriage equality where it's legal. her suit against the united states isn't asking to be legally married. it's to have the federal government recognize her legal marriage. >> right. >> vis-a-vis the internal revenue service. because when her partner of 42 years died, she owed $363,000 in federal estate taxes that she would not have to pay if her spouse had been a man. >> and that's a great point because she was legally married in canada, lived in a state that marriage equality is legal. so we're not asking in this case for them to affirm the marriage. it's just for them to affirm where she is legally married that the federal government has to respect that, rich around. >> yes, that's tr

but justice scalia seems up in the air about it.an indication of how much the heller can case has thrown all of these rules up in the air and i wouldn't want to be in a position of guaranteeing one way or another how the supreme court is going to rule on gun control at this point. >> and neither would i. jeffrey, thank you very much. jeff toobin is our senior legal analyst. >>> sandy hook students may dread the day they must return to school, at least some of them. now officials are trying to give them a little bit more time to cope with this tragedy. let's say you want to get ahead in your career. how do you get from here... to here? at university of phoenix we're moving career planning forward so you can start figuring that out sooner. ln fact, by thinking about where want your education to lead, while you're still in school, you might find the best route... leads somewhere you weren't even looking. let's get to work. five days later, i had a massive heart attack. bayer aspirin was the first thing the emts gave me. now, i'm on a b

justice scalia was i remember a meeting of those opinions and it is just such a stark divide because kennedy spoke about the importance of giving respect and dignity to gay and lesbians, that their relationships deserve the dignity of the relationships. it is such a sympathetic portrayal in so much in line the importance of relationships for gay couples. he said this is not a case. -- sex case. this is about religion. justice calleja sort of cut through the air with the strong dissent. i wanted to mention that he did make this point, don't be fooled by what anyone tells you. this is going to be about marriage, about same-sex marriage. to that extent, justice calleja's prediction has turned out to be largely correct, has meant in the year since then? >> guest: is quite possible. we'll see what the court does it marriage case if it takes the marriage case, which it has discretion to decide about. he did say that the court had taken out the constitutional substructure, the basic underlying principles that allowed the state to distinguish between heterosexual marriages and marriages for

. >> justice antonin scalia was answering questions about his legal writing. >> a student on monday askedlia in past writings has compared sodomy laws to laws on beastiality and murder. >> jon: scalia! good old slippery sodomy slope scalia. ruff laugh aka antonin, aka lips manlis from the dick tracy movie. totally a pairing, you see on one of those web sites where the people look like other people. and then you click on it. (laughter) anyway, another standard bull [bleep] slippery slope argument. don't worry i'm sure antonin scalia has a much more-- of explaining it. >> it is a form of argument which is called a reduction to the absurd. >> if we can to the have moral feelings against or objections to homosexuality, can we have it against anything? >> i'm surprised you weren't persuaded. >> jon: yeah. i am surprised you aren't persuaded, gay student who asked why i cate is his love life with murder. no wonder scalia never lets himself be recorded. now the court won't hear arguments on the matter until the spring. and probably won't decide until next summer. you guys better hurry it up. bec

you've studied justice scalia. you have studied the law.alks about the reduction to the absurd. >> well, it's actually a very interesting controversy that may be changing before our very eyes, wolf. because historically one of the grounds that congress can pass a law is they say, we morally disapprove. moral disapproval is not an aprop pree grounds for a government action but over time the court has said certain kinds of moral disapproval is no longer allowed. you can't simply disapprove of blacks and whites going to school together and pass a law. the question now is, is moral disapproval of homosexuality a legitimate ground for the government doing anything? that's really one of the main issues in this case coming out. >> that's his argument, that that's why he's opposed to it? is that what you're saying? >> well, what he's saying is that the legislature, whether it's a state legislature or congress can say we morally disapprove of homosexuality, thus we will say they can't get married the way heterosexuals can. that that's a legitimate g

. >> regarding the justices and justice scalia, you have the article in politico talking about the response or lack thereof of members of the gop and you have advocates or conservative advocates who say and have noted the silence so this is not coming from the quote/unquote mainstream media or liberal media as some say but conservative advocates. >> i think what you are seeing is a couple of things here, tamron, and that is that recent polls have showed that the public just isn't hot on this issue. they sort of think that there should be rights for gays and so, you know, the lawmakers do not want to use their capital on it probably. i'm guessing. the other thing is the fifth vote on romer versus evans for gay rights was justice kennedy and he is often the swing vote. also what goes unreported a lot is that justice roberts actually worked on romer when he was a lawyer at hogan and hartson and he worked in favor of gay rights, so all of this taken together maybe they see the handwriting on the wl and think maybe the court is going to not uphold doma. >> is it possible for the gop to remain ra

justice scalia said in the heller decision, like most rights the second amendment is not unlighted. -unlimited. he said, it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purpose. from the high priest of the supreme court of conservatism himself. why doesn't that create some room for current conservatives like ronald reagan did in 1994 to back an assault weapons ban? >> the issue is, are you going to be punishing law-abiding gun owners with these kind of regulations? there are plenty of people who own these guns who have a right to own these guns who are not part of the problem. are you punishing those people who have a right to own those guns because there are crazies out there that you are not affecting with an assault guns weapon? there is nothing about this that touches mental health -- >> do i really need so shoot 30 bullets at one time? is 10 okay? >> who is presumptuous enough to determine what that number is for law-abiding gun owners? >> again, this is part of its own issue. -- this whole issue. when you say high-capacity magazine

i know you said in your book that you agreed with the decision in the 2008 decision by justice scalia that said there's an individual right unrelated, but you felt they came up with a result for the wrong reason. >> guest: i do agree that is an individual right and i think history shows that, but with the decision says is first of all it is inconsistent it is quoting her the decision as we have said, the supreme court said previously it's not a right granted by the constitution. a few paragraphs later the conferred the right how can they not be granted by the constitution and the second amendment confers the right and he says it was primarily about self-defense. well, no where in the debate about the second amendment back in the 18th-century to you find much emphasis on the individual self-defense as we said previously that isn't the reason for. that is the reason why the second amendment was written and put into the bill of rights the reasoning is -- did it suspicious but it is an individual right 71 do you do? scalia doesn't say that doesn't mean that it cannot be regulated. >> host

and i know you said in your book that you agree with the heller decision, the 2008 decision by justice scalia that says there is an individual right that you felt that the right result for the wrong reason. >> guest: i do agree that it's an individual right and i think history shows that but what the hell are decisions that was first of all, it's inconsistent. at one point scalia's opinion says according to the cruickshank decision, as we have said kneisley, it's not a right granted by the constitution. i think that davis says the second amendment conferred the right. well, how can it not be remanded by the constitution but the second amendment confers the right and he says was primarily about self-defense. nowhere in the debates about the second amendment back in the 18th century do you find much emphasis on individual self-defense. as we said previously that's not the reason for it. that's not the reason why the second amendment was written and put into the bill of rights. so i think the reasoning is specious but the conclusion is valid as an individual right so then what do you do? scalia

justice kennedy and scalia are both 70 sixer sold. do the math.you don't always get a choice when you leave. i think if romney wins, ginsburg will try to hold off for the next four years. i think if obama wins, kennedy and scully will try to hold on, but you never know what will help them. >> is in or close of she's justice robert, can you explain when he replied the job of the justice pushes to call and strikes is supposed to change the rules. >> well, he is one to say that that is the most quoted saying he is ever so. 80% of the time critically about him, issues thrown back at him. we all come to, supreme court justices included, perceive ourselves in certain ways and like to perceive ourselves in certain ways. i don't think john roberts gets up in the morning and says any judicial act this. i'm someone who's trying to rewrite laws of the united states, to restore them to how i think they had to be. parenthetically, clarence thomas does speak up and say that. and i don't mean that in a critical way. clarence thomas has a different attitude towar

are chief justice john roberts who we talked about earlier stiffed the other conservative justices, including scalia, and upheld obama care. next, those republicans in congress who broke publicly with grover norquist to support the idea of higher tax rates on the healthy, or, bobby and wallace edwards, parents of john edwards, who trooped behind him every day to that north carolina courthouse to stand with their son. or, was it this -- >> one nation, under god, indivisible, liberty and justice for all! [cheers and applause] chris: gabby giffords who survived an assassination attempt. sam? >> gabby giffords, when she did that, my heart sank. this brave woman coming back from -- she should have been dead. how did she survive? chris: she decided not to run for re-election and she knew she wasn't up for it. >> she made the right decision. chris: what about backbone? >> a republican hasn't voted for a tax increase in congress since 1990 and in the last couple of weeks republicans have talked about and said they're for tax rate increases. that is is a huge sea change in that party, the beginning of wisdom

you said in your book you agreed with the heller decision, the 2008 decision, by justice scalia, that said there is an individual right unrelated to any militia. you said right result, wrong reason. >> i agree it's an individual right and history shows that. but what the heller decision said was -- first of all, it's inconsistent. at one point scalia's opinion says, accordingly, crookshank decision, as we have said, the supreme court has said previously, it's not a right granted by the constitution. then a few paragraphs later he says the second amount conferred the right. well, how can it not be grant by the constitution but the second amendment confers the right? and he says, it was primarily about self-defense. well, nowhere in the debates about the second amendment in the 18th century do you find much emphasis on individual self-defense, as we said previously. that not the reason for it. it's not the reason why the second amendment was written and put into the bill of rights. so i think the reasoning is specious but the conclusion is valid. it is an individual right. so then what