it's very similar and almost identical and the point that justice sotomayor made is that it's in coded by the natural d.n.a. so what the humans do is they just basically use a process that has been patented years ago and that's very standard to generate a sequence that dictated by the natural d.n.a. says scientists don't you know don't do anything innovative they basically just read out. code for the gene the code is a natural code and they do not insert any changes or. other than to basically snip out a part of a natural gene and but the c.d.'s because it's generated. in the lab it's not naturally occurring and therefore they're claiming that that's. that can therefore be patented do understand that part. yes that's part of the argument but i don't think it flew with the supreme court justices or at least not with most of the arguments that i read. the. it was interesting justice sotomayor she suggested she used an analogy with baking you have salt that's natural in butter that's natural in other ingredients so you can make cookies and you can patent your way of making cookies but the

it's very similar and almost identical and the point that justice sotomayor made was that it's in coded by the natural d.n.a. what humans do is they just basically use a process that has been patented years ago and that's very standard to generate a sequence that dictated by the natural d.n.a. so this is scientists don't you know don't do anything innovative they basically just read out. a code for the gene the code is a natural code and they do not insert any changes or. other than to basically snip out a part of a natural gene and but the c.d.'s because it's generated. in the lab it's not naturally occurring and therefore they're claiming that that's. that can therefore be patented do understand that part. yes that's part of the argument but i don't think it flew with the supreme court justices or at least not with most of the arguments that i read. the. it was interesting justice sotomayor she suggested she used an analogy with baking you have salt that's natural in butter that's natural in other ingredients so you can make cookies and you can patent your way of making cookies but th

president obama asked me to testify for justice sotomayor for the confirmation hearings and that wasing my honeymoon. [ female announcer ] this is your moment. the delightful discovery. the sweet realization that you have a moment all to yourself. well, almost. splenda® no calorie sweetener. splenda® makes the moment yours™. splenda® no calorie sweetener. as soon as you feelon it, try miralax. it works differently than other laxatives. it draws water into your colon to unblock your system naturally. don't wait to feel great. >>> there are only three people who were born in the u.s. who the catholic church has canonized at saints. one was a mohawk woman who died before the united states was founded as a country. one born in the 1770s, the other in the 1850s. other people were canonized as saints because of things they did in the u.s. but as far as actual american saints go, that's it. but just a few years ago an investigator from the vatican traveled to kansas to look into whether there might be another american saint named sometime soon. an important part of the formula for saint hoo

president obama asked me to testify for justice sotomayor duri for the confirmation hearings and thating my honeymoon. >> oh! >>> the camel is coming up at the top. employees are being forced to do more with less. and the need for capable leaders is greater than ever. when you see these problems do you take a step back, or do you want to dive right in? with a degree in business from capella university, you'll have the knowledge to go further in your career than you ever thought possible. let's get started at capella.edu s like etfs ars e s evs erywhere these days. tdd: 1-800-345-2550 but there is one source with a wealth of etf knowledge tdd: 1-800-345-2550 all in one place. tdd: 1-800-345-2550 introducing schwab etf onesource.. tdd: 1-800-345-2550 it's one source with the most commission-free etfs. tdd: 1-800-345-2550 one source with etfs from leading providers tdd: 1-800-345-2550 and extensive coverage of major asset classes. tdd: 1-800-345-2550 all brought to you by one firm with tdd: 1-800-345-2550 comprehensive education, tools and personal guidance tdd: 1-800-345-2550 to help yo

president obama asked me to testify for justice sotomayor for the confirmation hearings and that wasoneymoon. >> oh! >>> the camel is coming up at the top. [ female announcer ] total effects user kim scott still looks amazing. but with kids growing up fast, fighting seven signs of aging gets harder. introducing total effects moisturizer plus serum. for the ninety-two practices, two proms, and one driving test yet to come. she'll need our most concentrated total effects ever. you'll have to pay five hundred bucks for your deductible. the truth? at allstate, you could pay zero. allstate gives you a hundred dollars off your deductible the day you sign up. then another hundred off every year you don't have an accident. let the good hands reward your safe driving with a deductible that goes away. ♪ deductible rewards. one more way you're in good hands with allstate. ♪ othto fight chronic.in goosteoarthritis pain.te. to fight chronic low back pain. to take action. to take the next step. today, you will know you did something for your pain. cymbalta can help. cymbalta is a pain reliever fda

if you look at justice sotomayor's concurrence, and she says i don't think this third-appeared -- third-party doctrine serves us well. she is a wise latina. i think she got it right because it is not serving us right in the digital age. olito kind of skirted what i think was the big question, if his concurrence was the majority opinion, which is how many days of tracking triggers the warrant requirement? well, what a lot of people don't know is when this case was moving up, the lower court called it the mosaic theory where you are pulling together different pieces of data to create a picture of this person's activities. i think when you look at it objectively, it shouldn't matter whether the tracking is perspective or retrospective. when we were looking at this, what became the digital due processor coalition, i went to the advocates making -- one of the advocates of making a distinction came around when he thought about his own activities. he said, you know, i go running pretty much every day. i take pretty much the same route. if you look back on my 30 days of running activities, you would

played out differently and that is because we are talking about the human body we haven't had justice sonia sotomayor saying that the leaves of plants or gold naturally found in nature that they are made in nature that they are naturally occurring and therefore you can't put a patent on those substances so. it seemed as if the justices were leaning towards the plaintiffs in this case now we should point out that times on human genes they have been happening for decades so a decision in this case could have huge implications on medical research for decades. in decades to come a ruling in this case is expected before the end of summer and for the supreme court here liz well. all right we want to go back now to that breaking news that's coming out of boston two explosions went off this afternoon near the finish line of the boston marathon it happened at around three pm and we just got word from the police commissioner that there was another explosion outside of the j.f.k. library in the boston area as well now here's some new video that we just got into our team newsroom the boston police department twe

played out differently and that is because we are talking about the human body we haven't had justice sonia sotomayor your saying that the leaves of plants or gold naturally found in nature that they are made in nature that they are naturally occurring and therefore you can't put a patent on those substances so. it seemed as if the justices were leaning towards the plaintiffs in this case now we should point out that times on human genes they have been happening for decades so a decision in this case could have huge implications on medical research for decades. and decades to come a ruling in this case is expected before the end of summer and for the supreme court here liz wall r.t. well just six weeks after a long time venezuelan ruler although chavez passed away voters headed to the polls to elect a new leader at this past weekend and what is being described as a razor thin victory chavez's handpicked successor nicolas maduro won the election sunday night beating opposition leader in the u.k. so i don't ski fifty point six percent to forty nine point one percent motto now begins a six year term and

and what the, you know with, you look at justice sotomayor's concurrence, and she's saying, you know, i don't think that this third party records doctrine serves us well in the digital age. she is a wise la tee that. [laughter] latina. i think she got it right, because it's not serving us well in the digital age. and alito's concurrence was, you know, he kind of skirted what i think would be the big question if his concurrence was the majority opinion which is how many days, how many days of tracking triggers the warrant requirement? and a lot of people don't know as this case was moving up, the lower court called it a mosaic theory where you're pulling together different pieces of data to create a picture of this person's activities. i think when you look at it objectively, it shouldn't matter whether the tracking is prospective or retrospective. when we were looking at this at digital due process or what became the digital due process coalition and one of the advocates of making a distinction came around when he thought about his own activities, he said, you know, i go running prett

and even justice sotomayor. u.s.ourt has said we need to consider that and think differently about it. >>alisyn: it sounds like a handsome loophole the i.r.s. is able to use. thanks so much for coming in and explaining this to us. up next on the rundown, jesse watters heads to detroit to find out why it is a city in chaos. >> it is a crime that you can't get e.m.s. >>alisyn: can the motor city make a comeback? talk about a success story, he posted a video on youtube showing off his amazing kicking skills. now he signed an nfl contract. contract. just ahead. i'm the world's worst cleaning lady. i'm here in your home, having a pretty spectacular tuesday. ♪ but i don't notice the loose rug at the top of your stairs. and that's about to become an issue for me. ♪ and if you got the wrong home insurance coverage, my medical bills coulget expensive. so get allstate. [ dennis ] good hands. good home. make sure you have the right home protection. talk to an allstate agent. we all have one. that perfect spot. a special place w

and you look at justice sotomayor's concurrent. she sang i do think that this third party doctrine serves us well in the digital age. she is a wise latina. [laughter] i think she, she got it right because it's not serving as well in the digital age. and a leaders conference was, he kind of started but i think it was a big question if his concurrence was the majority opinion, which is how many days, how many days of tracking triggers the warrant requirement. and a lot of people don't know, this case was moving up, the lower court called it the mosaic theory where you're pulling together different pieces of data to create a picture of this person's activities. i think when you look at it objectively, it shouldn't matter whether the tracking is prospective or retrospective. when we are looking at this, one of the advocates of making a distinction came around when he thought about his own activity. he said, you know, i go running pretty much everyday. i take pretty much the same route. if you look back on like 30 days of running activi

justices. affirmative action played a key role in the lives of two of them, sonya sotomayor and clarence thomasferently. sotomayor called it a door opener. both cases could end up as 4-4 ties. so what does that mean? how could these two cases change affirmative action programs in this country? steven joins me now. first of all, help me understand why the court before deciding texas decided to take on michigan? >> well, the timing is strange. they could well have waited, and i think it was widely expected that they would. the issues in a sense are different enough that the justices probably felt they should go ahead. the texas question is about a specific affirmative action plan. the michigan question is about the power of voters to ban the use of affirmative action. the only direct connection is if they're taking the michigan case kind of assumes that they're not going to abolish affirmative action. >> i was just going to say, is that what you take out of it? that if they made that -- that that's probably what's coming. >> there would be no reason i think to take the michigan case if they were

and another decision which came down 7-2 with even justices breyer and kagan going over to the conservative side and only sotomayor and ginsberg holding out as the two minorities, saying that would be too coercive and to punitive, so states if they want to excuse -- which they didn't have to come which suddenly threw open the possibility that many states which is not the case will resist extending medicaid even if it is in their financial interest. it was more of a question of ideology that was positive concrete benefit for their citizens. and so the real policy, and my last cartoon, is this one which the most recent in a book came out in july, 2012. nick anderson, that's the real policy of the red state, dumping the patients who should have been, would have been, under possibility of being covered by the affordable care act under medicaid extension, instead dumping them at the door of the emergency room which, of course, will have rebounding and cascading effects negatively on the whole health financing arrangements and on all of us. it's a very poor policy. thank you. [applause] >> all right. i want to warn you

sotomayor. clearly what is your view of where we will come out en masse? it's such a mystery. >> i just think this idea that justicesturn out differently is a myth. that was the eisenhower presidency, which was a long time ago. you're absolutely right. since then the number of surprises is very small. look at all nine justices on the supreme court. >> she's going to be a solid liberal like the other democratic courts and i think she has taken a particular interest in the criminal docket. i think that the fact that she was a federal district judge in actually dealt with cases in a nonacademic way, it adds a tremendous amount to the court. >> she seems to me to be more of a -- kind of trying to come out with a correct decency, whereas many of these cases -- it's like what is my position and how i get there and. >> one last question. >> all of you justices,. >> anything close to the microphone. >> okay. >> many of you have had and the political dealings. talking directly. i'm wondering if there was one justice that you'd like to sit down and have a cup of coffee with, whether it is due to intrigue or you enjoy their co

and another decision which came down 7-2, with even justices breyer and kagan going over to the conservative side and only sotomayor and ginsberg holding out as the two minority, saying that that would be too coercive and too punitive. so states, if they want could choose to accept the fund but they didn't have to, which, suddenly threw open the possibility that many states, which is now the case will resist extending medicaid, even if it is in their financial interest. more a question of ideology and opposition than it was positive, concrete benefit for their citizens. so the real policy states, in my last cartoon, this one which is the most recent in our book, came out in july, 2012, by nick anderson. that is the real policy of the red states. dumping the patients who should have been, would have been, are under possibility of being covered by the affordable care act under medicare extension instead, dumping them at the door of the emergency room which will have reunder boing and cascading effects negatively on the whole health financing arrangements and on all of us. it's a very poor policy. thank you. [applause

sotomayor. clearly what is your view of where we will come out en masse? it's such a mystery. >> i just think this idea that justices turn out differently is a myth. that was the eisenhower presidency, which was a long time ago. you're absolutely right. since then the number of surprises is very small. look at all nine justices on the supreme court. >> she's going to be a solid liberal like the other democratic courts and i think she has taken a particular interest in the criminal docket. i think that the fact that she was a federal district judge in actually dealt with cases in a nonacademic way, it adds a tremendous amount to the court. >> she seems to me to be more of a -- kind of trying to come out with a correct decency, whereas many of these cases -- it's like what is my position and how i get there and. >> one last question. >> all of you justices,. >> anything close to the microphone. >> okay. >> many of you have had and the political dealings. talking directly. i'm wondering if there was one justice that you'd like to sit down and have a cup of coffee with, whether it is due to intrigue or you enjoy their c

justice kennedy actually -- made a good comment in that opinion. i don't know. i don't know what -- i listened to him. i could not make heads or tails of what they were talking about except for sotomayor stuff for years for fund-raisers for democrats. because everybody -- you know talks about her and speculates about her. what is she like in person? >> she's all woman and she's all there and she's completely present. she's tough as nails. >> stephanie: yeah, one would get that impression. but i think you know, there is such a ground swell it is hard to ignore it. i think somebody was saying, we want to skip -- and just get to the hillary 2016. >> i think that this guy here should have his chance. he's laid another trap for them. we should let it play out. >> stephanie: who is this? >> obama. >> stephanie: oh, yeah. >> i happen to really like him. i think what he's doing is he's doing a little mouse and cheese with the cpi. >> stephanie: oh. i have a happy clappy. take that. we're going to get into that with stephen stills when we continue and also, he's got a new album out. i've gotten to hear it. it is fabulous. we'll talk about all of that. 17 minutes after the hour. big commerce, k

sotomayor. clearly what is your view of where we will come out en masse? it's such a mystery. >> i just think this idea that justicesturn out differently is a myth. that was the eisenhower presidency, which was a long time ago. you're absolutely right. since then the number of surprises is very small. look at all nine justices on the supreme court. >> she's going to be a solid liberal like the other democratic courts and i think she has taken a particular interest in the criminal docket. i think that the fact that she was a federal district judge in actually dealt with cases in a nonacademic way, it adds a tremendous amount to the court. >> she seems to me to be more of a -- kind of trying to come out with a correct decency, whereas many of these cases -- it's like what is my position and how i get there and. >> one last question. >> all of you justices,. >> anything close to the microphone. >> okay. >> many of you have had and the political dealings. talking directly. i'm wondering if there was one justice that you'd like to sit down and have a cup of coffee with, whether it is due to intrigue or you enjoy their co