kagan: there is a veto at the end of this. clement: if you think it doesn't, then you should decide that case in the favor of the state legislature. kagan: this is what we are going to have to do for every time they set up some process further -- for where there is some independent commission involvement. what we have to ask is what exactly? clement: whether or not it is consistent with the constitution -- kagan: tell me exactly how we are going to decide all these cases in which an advisory commission plays some role but -- not just some role, but a very serious role and a little piece left of the legislature? clement: i don't think it will be that hard. let's look at commissions that exist in the world. we have some that are purely advisory. there's nothing that suggests they are constitutionally problematic -- global -- problematic. a backup commission comes in when two sides can i get it done. kagan: what if they commission says we will give you two maps in the legislature has to pick one and only one? clement: i would say

kagan: there is a veto at the end of this.ment: if you think it doesn't, then you should decide that case in the favor of the state legislature. kagan: this is what we are going to have to do for every time they set up some process further -- for where there is some independent commission involvement. what we have to ask is what exactly? clement: whether or not it is consistent with the constitution -- kagan: tell me exactly how we are going to decide all these cases in which an advisory commission plays some role but -- not just some role, but a very serious role and a little piece left of the legislature? clement: i don't think it will be that hard. let's look at commissions that exist in the world. we have some that are purely advisory. there's nothing that suggests they are constitutionally problematic -- -- problematic. a backup commission comes in when two sides can i get it done. kagan: what if they commission says we will give you two maps in the legislature has to pick one and only one? clement: i would say that's pro

[applause] >> thank you justice kagan and mrs. carter. -- ladies and gentlemen, ash carter. >> thank you, chairman dempsey secretary perry justice kagan thank you for your kind words. distinguished guest's, so many distinguished guests, members of the administration, friends and family -- thank you for being here today. the bastide of weeks have been an opportunity to reconnect with the many fine public servants at the pentagon and you're in washington. -- and here in washington. and there are few finer than chairman dempsey. i sleep better at night with him on the job. i'm sure we all do. marty, our men and women in uniform are fortunate for your leadership, and our country is stronger and safer for it. thank you. justice kagan after two days of congressional testimony, it is nice to spend some quality time with a different branch of government. [laughter] you have made remarkable contributions in academia, policy, and on the bench. and i also know as the dean of harvard law, you were a fierce advocate for the school's veterans community

justice kagan: exactly the policy that is in gilbert? there were lots of other things except for pregnancy that got excluded in gilbert. if a man had a vasectomy, if someone got into a bar fight, it got excluded. if someone had facial surgery. gilbert was much more. ms. halligan: this court and congress clearly described the principle in gill birth. justice ginsburg: it overturned gilbert. but the result in gilbert and as justice kagan pointed out you could point to a lot of other people who are not getting this benefit. ms. halligan: the result of the petitioner and the government suggests is to say you can have any distincton you want. far more con torted. that's what -- justice ginsburg: is it true, you said that one position -- ms. halligan: not least favored nation. is there another distinct group of employees who are treated the same as the petitioner. justice ginsburg: this case was off on summary judgment. and told us that there is not in this record a single instance of anyone who needed a lifting who didn't get it except for be

please. >> just very briefly, justice kagan. very much appreciate it. to respond, we've already talked about context. section 1311 is a key part of this context. it says in the strongest possible terms we want states to run these exchanges. if you give unconditional subsidies, then, of course there is absolutely no incentive for states to do it, and you have fundamentally undermined that distinct statutory purpose. whereas if you condition subsidies, congress accomplishes both of its goals. widespread subsidies, plus state-run exchanges. in terms of terms of art, again, there is language in the statute which says "exchanges," "exchanges under the act." those phrases naturally encompass both hhs exchanges and state-established exchanges. and, yet, the solicitor general is coming here to tell you that a rational, english-speaking person intending to convey subsidies available on hhs exchanges use the phrase "exchanges established by the state." he cannot provide to you any rational reason why somebody trying to convey the former would use the latter formu

and let me address these laws justice kagan, and also be responsive to justice kennedy. i think if you look at the various laws that are put in the appelee's appendix not one of those state constitutional provisions purports to on its face redelegate authority away from the state legislatures. and to the contrary many of them, roughly half i counted 27, actually delegate authority to the state legislatures to implement them. so if you want to look at the north carolina provision on -- >> well, they're not delegations or non-delegations. all they are is laws that are passed not through the legislate legislative process. >> exactly. >> not through the legislature. >> we don't think that's the defect here. >> my gosh, i would think that if your primary argument is legislature means legislature that there has to be legislative control. in none of these laws is there legislative control. there's no legislative participation at all. >> see, justice kagan, we distinguish two situations. we could be here saying the problem with proposition 106 is that simply it was done by an in

. >> just two quick responses to that, justice kagan. the first is the state is always going to say that complying with federal law was a top priority because federal law is supreme. >> this is much more than that. this is very specific saying -- where the two legislators principally in charge of this said this is what we understand the requirements are, that we're going to maintain the black voting age population in each district. >> that brings me to my second point which is that imagine that we had done the same thing the plaintiffs are suggesting and we had a higher political science telling us that 55% should be the target. i don't think we should say race dominated in that circumstance just because we had a different target. they are bringing effectively a circumstantial case here. they have the fact that we said this is our objective under section 5 -- >> justice kagan's question points out the fact that the defenders of this plan did not rely on the fact that it was a political gerrymander and, of course, they said there was the

. >> host: you have a blurb on this book from elena kagan. people may be surprised. >> guest: i am delighted and honored to have justice elena kagan's endorsement. >> host: is she a friend of yours? >> guest: we are not close friends but we are friends. i have great respect for her and honored she would say such a nice thing about me as what she said in that blur. i have never had difficulty having good friendships across ideological lines. i learn from people on the other side. i don't regard them as my adversaries. i regard them as my friends in a common project of truth seeking. for example regularly teach on teaching now with my colleagues and dear friend professor cornel west. professor west sees the world rather differently from the way i doing very many ways, he is very much a man of the left among conservative side of the spectrum. yet i learn a lot from him and pays me a compliment of learned a lot for me and our students learn a lot from the engagement they witness between the two of us. we have a bond stronger than what divides us

justice kagan: just to clarify.categories one way, the minimums are down here, you categorize another, the minimums are up there. it can make a huge difference in terms of minimums. mr. smith: right. there is a notice and comment process. they put out proposed categories. they tell them -- they get comments and make different categories. justice alito: how can we tell the degree to which costs without knowing the criteria for creating subcategories? mr. smith: it is in the statute. justice alito: no, the 12% came into play after you created the category. mr. smith: right. justice alito: how do i know they create the subcategories? mr. smith: you can see it in a notice of proposed rulemaking. what happens is people comment and say, we are so different from that category. we have special problems. justice kagan: it is a rulemaking after the rulemaking that applies to the listing, is that right?

please. >> just very briefly, justice kagan. very much appreciate it. to respond, we've already talked about context. section 1311 is a key part of this context. it says in the strongest possible terms we want states to run these exchanges. if you give unconditional subsidies, then, of course there is absolutely no incentive for states to do it, and you have fundamentally undermined that distinct statutory purpose. whereas if you condition subsidies, congress accomplishes both of its goals. widespread subsidies, plus state-run exchanges. in terms of terms of art, again, there is language in the statute which says "exchanges," "exchanges under the act." those phrases naturally encompass both hhs exchanges and state-established exchanges. and, yet, the solicitor general is coming here to tell you that a rational, english-speaking person intending to convey subsidies available on hhs exchanges use the phrase "exchanges established by the state." he cannot provide to you any rational reason why somebody trying to convey the former would use the latter formu

today, several justices including elena kagan pushed back against that narrow wording. she said, "it's not the simple four or five words. it's the whole structure and the context of the provision" but justice scalia said, "it nonetheless mean what is it says." meantime, a potentially good sign for the white house. justice anthony kennedy who could cast the decisive vote telling the challengers who want to gut the law "there's a serious constitutional problem if we adopt your argument." . the other big question today, what is chief justice john roberts thinking? today he was notably quiet. apparently keeping his cards close to the vest. outside the court, a raucous scene with protesters on both sides, many of whom have been personally helped by the law. >> i got diagnosed with oral cancer and i lost -- after medical school i lost my medical insurance for six months until obamacare went into effect. >> i would not be able to pay without the subsidy. it would be impossible. >> i am an ovarian cancer survivor and if it wasn't for the exchange i would not be standing here be

justice kagan asked the solicitor-general of texas, mr scott keller - could texas issue a licence plate saying vote republican but refuse to issue one that says vote democratic. he had no good answer. basically the implication of his position was yes, we could do that the first amendment does not apply. >> on the other hand for the other side we have the lawyers of the sons of confederate veterans. they filed suits arguing it's free speech for the individual that owns the car. they were backed into the corner by the justices because it forced the lawyers to say that their free speech position allowed for swat stickers or calls. are there limits to free speech under the circumstances? >> well, that was the answer that the justices really wanted from mr george repeating the confederate veterans and justice kagan put it to him saying imagine the worst racial slur you can think of. does the state have a duty to put it on a licence plate on request - and mr george said yes, there were no limits. the individual a speak, they can say what they want and say it on a state-owned licence plate. ei

. >> two things, justice kagan. our opposition is not that somebody else got to the legislature's land and were doing something about the legislatures. our problem is that once they got to link, they decide to arrest legislature from that process on an entirely permanent basis. the answer question, i wouldn't vote this court's case was dealt with an analogous cause an article to that gave state legislatures the authority to prescribe rules for presidential electors. escorts in a practical view of the matter which is at the state legislature lets other parts of the state do something, we are not going to jump in. we can think of those as delegation of authority. but in the legislatures the, it means something in the constitution and and protects the legislature from other parts of the state coming in and permanently resting that authority. >> i thought that are sufficient of powers and jurisprudence application is as inconsequential as aggrandizement. if there is a problem, the problem continues to exist irrespective

>> justice kagan, our position wouldn't allow that -- >> why wouldn't it? >> the establishment clause the equal protection clause due process clause other constitutional bars. >> this is not an establishment clause issue. i'm curious what constitutional constraints you think there are and how they would play out as to the kind of hypothetical i just gave you. >> absolutely, justice kagan. there could be other constitutional bars such as equal protection clause. the oregon supreme court -- >> all you had to say is whatever prevents texas itself in all of its other activities never mind license plates. from saying vote republican. right? >> absolutely. >> you put the same question. what stops texas from saying it -- its election literature it passes out. vote republican. i think something prevents that and whatever prevents that would prevent it on the license plates too. no? >> that's correct, justice schoola, which is why the issue is government speech in general but the court recognized unanimously the government speech doctrine does not -- excuse me -- th

not, the guy shows up with a beard, i will not hire him. >> that is the hard question that justice kagan is asking and i think it is a tougher question. if your policy is that you have a work rule you are concerned i think that for the reasons thus far, it is all said. if someone comes to the office with a beard and i think it is unkempt, i will not hire them if they comply, that is the situation, one thirds or two thirds but it is not the one presented here and the cases that we see. the much more or the work role -- are the work rule. >> you could avoid that was what the court of appeals did -- with what the court of appeals did where the burden is on you to say i am wearing the headscarf for a religious reason or i am wearing the beard for a religious reason. that eliminates all the problems once you notify the employer. then you have them. >> did the employer tell her that they have this policy that the headscarf would violate? oguchi as for something when she did not -- how could she ask for something when she did not know? >> that is exactly the issue. it is not the case that the s

. >> and let me address these laws, justice kagan, and also be responsive to just kennedy. not one of those provisions purports to delegate state authority to the legislature. and to the contrary many of them, roughly half, i counted 27, actually delegate authority to the state legislatures to implement them. so if you want to look at the north carolina provision -- >> well they're not delegations or non-delegations, they're just laws not passed through legislature. >> exactly. we don't think that is the defect here. >> my gosh i would think if your primary argument is legislature means legislature, there has to be legislative control, in none of these laws is there legislative control. there is no legislative position at all. >> justice kagan, we distinguish two situations we could be saying that the problem with proposition 106 is simply that it was done by the legislature. we would have the same objections if this were imposed by a gubernatorial edict we know the rules imposed are not that the legislature could definitely do things on a one-off basis. >> how do you make

justice kagan has identified some information in the record. another option might be to articulate the correct district-specific standard and leave it to the district court to sort out -- >> but you don't deny that a statewide policy can refer to every district or every majority minority district in the state? >> no we don't deny that, but that's not enough -- our point is it's not enough to trigger strict scrutiny. you have to look and see whether it's implemented in a matter that is in der gaigs of traditional districting criteria district by district. >> but again, and i don't want to press it if you've given me your best answer to it. if a policy says we're going to prioritize this particular criterion, which here was the mistaken understanding of retrogression, if a policy says we're going to prioritize this over everything else, it seems to me that that's pretty good evidence of a violation. >> only if, again -- i guess i am just going to repeat myself. but if it's in derrogation of traditional districting criteria. >> but the policy says

i am proud to introduce to you today justice elena kagan, a woman for all seasons. much secretary. i promise not to tell any of my colleagues you said that. and thank you general dempsey. most most of all secretary carter for asking me to be here. it's an honor for me to be here to all the men and women who make this department work and most of all to all the men and women in uniform who sacrifice for us on a daily basis. thank thank you for giving me the opportunity to be part of the state. if you walk around this town and talk to people what everybody says is exactly what the general and the former secretary said which is he is the perfect man for this job, the consummate public servant the person who, by virtue of his experience and his judgment and good sense and his brilliance will be able to deal with the challenges that this important office as and so i feel very privileged to be able to swear un today. .. >> >> of the office that i am about to enter. >> of the office i'm about to enter. >> so help me god. >> so help me god. >> congratulations and. [cheers an

>> justice kagan and i had a candid exchange of viewpoint. at the end i am sure i persuaded her. i would remind you that there are nine justices. >> many people have talked about rewriting the law as a whole. >> across -- i very much want them to read the statute as a whole, because that reinforces our point, principally, the point that a clear purpose of the statute was to encourage states to establish their own exchanges, which is dramatically undermined and frustrated by the irs rule, which would -- which provides subsidies require -- regardless of what the states do. >> how concerned were you about justice kennedy's question about how your reading of the law would be about the federal government coercing the states into creating exchanges? >> i said, after the conversation, i think it became weary to everyone -- clear to everyone that this be less colors of than the version of medicaid statues they have just upheld, and it would be a greater intrusion on state sovereignty to accept the government's positions because that would allow the government to unilaterally enforce the

[laughter] >> host: you also got a blurb from justice kagan spee rick is she a friend? >> not close friends but i am honored she would say such a nice thing about me in that book. i never have had difficulty to have good french ships along theological blindside learn from people on the other side i don't regard them as why adversaries of my friends. for example, dash teaching with my friend cornell west he sees the word did differently in very many ways it is odd of left paillette i'll learn from him and he pays compliments and i think the students learned awful lot with the engagement between the two of us. the bond of wanting to get that the truth and engaged with each other with the goal of getting closer to the truth to see what is really going on with our deeper understanding. to gain so wisdom from our interactions. but very often i a fat aunt it is the position that it is misunderstood. and he will not understand. >> until they hear the argument that is not a formal public debate but the class related night but to hear the argument with each other. i feel the saf

>> so, your honor, i don't intend to fight justice kagan hypothetically, and on the facts of this case, i think it's really quite easy. the reason why i'm trying to separate the two is because i think the situation here is the easy case, and i'll get to the hard case and why i'm sort of -- >> you're confusing me nor mousily. >> okay. >> would you tell me what it is you want? you just say he understands. that doesn't do anything for me. what, he understands, knows believes suspects? what other verbs do you need? >> so, your honor, the tests that the courts have adopted for more than two decades which is the test that we asked this court to adopt is that the employer needs sufficient information from any source about the employee, about the applicant's religious needs -- >> that. >> -- to permit the employer to understand the -- >> that's -- >> that's the test that the courts of appeals -- >> i don't care what they've used that doesn't make any sense to me. >> but, your honor the reason why i think it makes sense in this case is because it's sufficient knowledge for you to actually act u

. >> i must respectfully disagree for three reasons, justice kagan. in the first place, of course, you where else would you expect a tax credit except in the tax code? that's where this was. you wouldn't put it in 42 u.s.c., which has nothing to do with taxes. it's the only place where exchange is limitations placed. you have three audiences here, not just states. you have to tell taxpayers what they're entitled to. you have to tell insurance companies when these subsidies are available. and you have states. so you have to put it in 36b. so the argument, i guess, the government is making is what you should have done is put half of it in 36b and half it in 1321 which, of course, would have confused everybody. 36b would say, exchanges period. then you'd go to 1321 and say when we said exchanges in 36b, we meant established by the state. >> mr. carvin, if i were a state official and i was trying to decide whether my state should establish an exchange, and i wanted to know whether individuals who enrolled in a plan on my possible state-established exchang

>> ity kagan don't think our position would allow that. >> i would wouldn't it -- >> the establishment clause, the equal protection clause other independent constitutional bars could aemploy. >> this is not an establishment clause issue. i'm curious what constitutional constraints you think there are, and how they would play out as to the kind of hypothetical i just gave you. >> absolutely, justice kagan partisan speech, candid speech at jew citizen stevens concurrence in suma and justice -- the could be other bars the oregon supreme court -- >> all you have to say is whatever prevents texas itself in all of its other activities never mind license plates -- from saying, vote republican. right? >> absolutely. >> the same question. what stops texas from saying -- look at the election literature. vote republican. i think something prevents that. and whatever prevents that will prevent it on the lance plates, too. no? >> that's correct, justice scalia, which is why the issue is one of government speech in general. the court has recognized unanimously the government can speak, the governmen

at one point justice kagan called it a liberal saga. (t) cato's michael kahn on, and cei is funding the suit. >> critics have argued this is just a way to pay down obamacare. >> i don't believe had a. more important what the irs is doing to take down the rule of law. >> but have made no secret about their disliek for dislike for obamacare. >> do i not care how this is done. whether it is dismembered whether we drive a stake through its heart. >> first mother jones magd and magazine or about wall street journal do they have a right to sue? the issue was raised in court today. it is unlikely the justices will dismiss the case on standing. they'll decide it on merits. we tracked down doug king. and before he asked us to turn off the camera he explained his reason for joining the case. >> it's never about insurance it never has been it's about the law. the government cannot make law and break law basically. i can't -- >> that's how you view it? judge that's how i feel. >> what everyone is waiting for now is how the justices feel. in a numbe

dean of the harvard law school but justice kagan. although we disagree about most of the great issues that divide liberals and conservatives and constitutional law and politics, she is a person i learn from. >> host: is your joint class with cornell west a sellout? >> guest: yes. it's oversubscribed. we do it as a seminar and that's too bad because we have to restrict it to 18 students and many multiples of that number want to get into the seminar but the seminar format does serve to enable us to engage each other in a very deep and serious way. i don't think we could do what we do with and for each other if we were performing in front of a class of 700 or 800 students which i think is what we would get if we turned it into a large undergraduate lecture type class. so we have kept it as a september -- those who participate will get the benefit of a rather deep engagement. >> robert george something you talk about in your book but does the judiciary branch have too much power? >> i think it has claimed too much power and the other bra

. >> and let me address those justice kagan.u look at the various laws that are put in the appellees appendix, not one of the constitutional provisions purports to on its face we delegate authority away from state legislatures. to the contrary, many of them -- roughly half, i counted 27 that delegates authority to the state legislatures to implement them. if you want to look at the north carolina provision on its choice of his -- >> all they are is lost past by, -- laws that are passed not through the legislative process. >> exactly. we do not think that is the defect. >> my gosh, i would think that if your primary argument is legislature means legislature, there has to be legislative control. in none of these laws is there legislative control. there is no legislative participation at all. >> we distinguish to situations. --2 situations. the problem with proposition 106 is that it was done by initiative and not by the legislature. but that is not our position. we would have the same objections here if this was imposed by guberna

>> justice kagan and i had a candid exchange but there are other justice. as i said approximately four types i very much want them to read the statute as a whole because it dramatically reinforces our point principally the point that a clear purpose of the statute was to encourage states to establish their own exchanges which is dramatically undermined and frustrated by the i.r.s. rule which provides subsidies regardless of whether the states do that required task. >> how concerned were you about justice kennedy's question about your reading of the law would be the federal government coercing the states into creating exchanges? >> right, but after the conversation i think it became clear in everyone's mind that this reading would be far less coercive than the sthroferingse medicaid statute they'd upheld in nfib and it would be a greater intrusion on state sovereignty to accept the government's positions because this would allow the federal government to union latrlly impose the employer mandate on state and local employers as well as other employers in the

kagan said it's not fair you focus on just a few words in the phrase.ourt looks at the phrase in the context of the entire statute to see if it's harmonious, if it makes sense. justice sotomayor claimed under the act there would have been consequences congress could not have intended and, in fact, the law was designed to avoid. would federal subsidies on federal exchanges those exchanges would have no customers. there would be a death spiemplet healthy people wouldn't buy insurance and insurance costs would skyrocket. >> woodruff: what was the government's response? >> the government represented by solicitor general vonl varilli and he agreed with the more liberal justices that the traditional way to interpret a statute is to look alt the phrase at issue in the context of the entire statute. he said the consequences that justice sotomayor enunciated clearly show that this was -- that the challenges interpretation was not the statute congress intended, but he faced his toughest questioning from justices scalia and alito. justice scalia said it may not ha

>> yeah, justice kagan. i don't think our position would necessarily allow that, but i think that -- >> why wouldn't it allow it? >> because of the establishment clause, due process clause other -- >> this is not an establishment clause issue so i'm curious as to why -- what constitutional constraints you think there are and how they would play out as to the kind of hypothetical i just ghei you. >> absolutely justice kagan. i think partisan speech candidate speech, justice stevens concurrence and justice calea's -- and a scalia's -- >> so all you have to say is whatever prevents texas itself in all of its other activities never mind license plates from saying vote republican. right in. >> absolutely. >> you've put the same question, what stops texas from saying in all of its election literature that it passes out vote republican? i think something prevents that. and whatever prevents that would prevent it on the license plates too, no? >> that's correct justice scalia, which is why that issue is one of gover

the secret service was also there, because supreme court justices sonia sotomayor and elena kagan were in the crowd. alison: possible reforms for the fairfax county police department following the death of john deregeer, who was not armed when he was shot by a police officer. richard reeve has the story. richard: there are police attorneys, mental health experts. also, the best friend of john gereer. the panel promising reforms, but there were heated exchanges. >> there is a lot of conjecture that this commission is just political cover for the elections coming up in november. richard: he did not mince words, talking about the 2006 shooting of his son by fairfax county police officer. >> my son would be alive today if the officer who shot him did not make a serious poor decision. >> when the police are investigating themselves something has to change. richard: commission member jeff stewart has a personal stake in the issue. his best friend, john geer, was shot and killed by officer to raise in 2013. >> there is always going to be bad police officers who abuse power. it is what we do o

kagan. very much appreciate it. to respond. we've talked about the response section 1311 says in the strongest possible terms we want states to be on the exchanges. if you give unconditional subsidies there is no incentive for the states to do it and you have fundamentally undermined that statutory purpose but if you give it widespread subsidies plus state-run exchanges. in terms of art again there is language in the statute which says exchanges -- exchanges under the act. those phrases naturally encompass both hhs exchanges and state-established exchanges but the solicitor general is coming here to tell you that a racial english-speaking person contended to convey exchanges available on hhs use the exchanges establish by a state and he cannot provide to you any racial reason why somebody trying to convey the former would use the latter formulation. >> mr. carvin why don't you take an extra ten minutes and we'll let you give -- give you an extra chance to talk. >> well then let me ask you a

>> justice kagan, our position wouldn't allow that -- >> why wouldn't it? >> the establishment clause, the equal protection clause, due process clause, other constitutional bars. >> this is not an establishment clause issue. i'm curious what constitutional constraints you think there are and how they would play out as to the kind of hypothetical just gave you. >> absolutely justice kagan. there could be other constitutional bars such as equal protection clause. the oregon supreme court -- >> all you had to say is whatever prevents texas itself in all of its other activities never mind license plates. saying vote republican. right? >> absolutely. >> you put the same question. what stops texas from saying it -- its election literature it passes out. vote republican. i think something prevents that, and whatever prevents that would prevent it on the license plates, too. no? >> that's correct, justice schoola, which is why the issue is government speech in general but the court recognized unanimously the government speech doctrine does not -- excuse me -- the g

so to mayor was terrific and kagan was terrific. for the 1st time in american history you're your taking for profit business corporations and treating them like citizens. that is not what they are not the way they have ever been treated in law coin that was a conservative dictum for a long time. chief justice rehnquist was emphatic about the issue that there is this while of separation. the problem is it is not constitutional like the first amendment amendment, separation of church and state. we have tried to build it up and statute. and the supreme court is bulldozing the wall of separation between corporate treasury wealth and public collections and somehow whether it is constitutional, and i do not for the shows that in any way, take any joy in it. people talk about a runaway constitutional convention, today we have a runaway supreme court totally divorced from the way that the rest of the public understands politics and understands corruption so somehow we need to reclaim it. if we can do it at the state level, let's do it at th

ics traffic security was on hand last night because supreme court justis sotomayor and kagan were at the game and both of them graduated from princeton and sorry they were disappointed. maryland ends the tigers' perfect season and now it's duke versus the terps the round 16 of the none -- in round 16 of the ncaa tournament. >>> stephanie ramirez in montgomery county with more. >> do you need to go to the doctor? >> he's very bright. and he remembers everything. but he can't always express everything. >> reporter: 10-year-old connor has autism which makes it that much more scary for hem when he disappears -- mom when he december pyres like he did last thursday. thankfully they found him just a few blocks away from his home. both because of the police response and what he's wearing. it's a bracelet that emits an automated tracking signal under the national program project lifesaver. police officer lori rayers issued these to people who meet the necessary cry tier have. >> completely free but you don't give them out like candy. >> reporter: no we don't. we make the placement of the brac

i would say that justice kagan made a very interesting analogy.f i asked one of my clerks to write a brief and then i ask another one to edit the brief and then i ask a third, well, if the first person can't write it doesn't have enough time, you step in and write it what is the editor supposed to do if that person steps in and writes it? the clear point is you're supposed to go in and actually edit that brief. and that is the kind of case we have here. i think that analogy clearly made it in the court. >> there's been a lot written about this and about the treasury department lawyers who may have really messed up in the way they wrote that phrase because na gave the opponents of the law a huge opening to drive through. >> you know i actually think this is why the oral arguments were so important. because i think don borelli really made is clear how it's not actually a mistake. you read every statute together. this is what justices like scalia have argued themselves. what's important about the argument about context is the plaintiffs, people bring

but to echo something that justice kagan adverted to in the original argument, we are talking about a construction of the word legislature as to all time, place or manner regulation. roberts: why didn't they just say that the rules would be prescribed by each state? waxman: as the court explained in smiley, what the framers wanted was it to be done by a legislation. it wanted a "complete code of holding congressional elections to be acted." roberts: if you had a governor doing it, it presumably would be pursuant to a delegation either from the people or from the legislature. either way, nothing happens until there is an exercise of lawmaking power by the state. it should have been sufficient for the drafters of the constitution to simply say that it would be drafted by each state, whether i referendum or referendum or legislature or by committee. to say by the legislature is totally superfluous. waxman: it is in the power of each state that makes the laws. there might be other constitutional problems arising either from the first amendment or the 14th amendment, but i think that if mr

and justice elena kagan said reading it as a whole and not just an isolation means everyone gets the subsidy. if the challenges are right that the subsidies are really are so limited, quote, you really think congress is just going to sit there while all of the disastrous consequences ensue? wouldn't it fix obamacare, he wanted to know. chief justice robert's vote said almost nothing today making prediction impossible. but did not seem as hostile as the white house had feared. lester? >> pete, thanks. >>> can you believe it our winter weary nation under a threat from snow ice and flooding is about to get hit again. 100 million americans are under winter weather advisories in 28 states with states of emergencies already declared in alabama and mississippi. nbc's john yang has more on the winter that just won't quit. >> reporter: snow, sleet and ice overnight gave way to river flooding across the northern part of the country. ice jammed streams and creeks in the ohio river valley inundating roads and communities like this one in west virginia. in ohio a woman had to be rescued after her

the philadelphia native took the oath of office administered by supreme court justice elena kagan. carter has been on the job since last month after taking over for chuck hagel. he's already traveled overseas including one visit to the troops in afghanistan. >>> we learned today that our cold weather has any other put a freeze on hiring. job growth now at its strongest in more than a decade. the labor department says the economy added 295,000 new jobs in february, the 12th consecutive month the economy has gained more than 200,000 jobs. the unemployment rate fell from 5.7 to 5.5 percent. hiring improved in the manufacturing, construction, retail, finance and healthcare sectors. >> it is not exactly how you want your ski trip to go. a gondola gets stuck stranding passengers in the air. in a moment you'll hear how this happened. >> also ahead here tonight we have brand new details about how the injured harrison ford is really doing following the plane crash. we'll hear from the doctor who was on the scene right after that plane went down. kathy. >> more record cold tonight chris befo

justice elena kagan: "we look at the whole text. we don't look at four words." conservatives indicated the four words matter. justice antonin scalia said it was, "certainly a plausible explanation," that congress wrote them as an incentive for states to establish their own exchanges. the outcome is impossible to predict. swing vote justice anthony kennedy seemed skeptical of arguments on both sides. chief justice john roberts didn't show his hand. the obama administration said it has no contingency plan if it loses this case and charlie that will put the pressure on congress and the state legislatures to try to fix it. >> rose: indeed, thanks, jan. a potentially deadly superbug linked to contaminated medical devices turned up in california. four patients were infected with c.r.e., and 64 others may have been exposed. a similar outbreak at ronald reagan ucla medical center is linked to two deaths. in a moment, celebrating the centennial of the chairman of the board. alright, so this tylenol arthritis lasts 8 hours but aleve can last 12 hours. and aleve is proven

sonia sotomayor, alana kagan, you see them all smiles but justice ruth bader ginsburg is not really thrilled about this whole selfie thing possibly. this is a supreme selfie generating a lot of buzz and, yes, of course, a lot of people are talking about that look on ginsburg's face. wasn't she just not ready. >> i'm with rbg. she's just not into that selfie thing. >> there you have it. talk about that buzzkill. another one to tell you about here, a change coming to some bottles of alcohol. >>> the survival story that no one can believe despite no pulse for nearly two hours a toddler is alive. he is baffling his doctors and parents. >>> harrowing rescue. a skier gets buried in feet of snow after an avalanche. his friends rushing to the rescue, no time to spare. >>> and just in time for spring, mortgage rates are remaining very low. the next few months going to be making up the peak home buying season but the fed has already signaled that interest rates will rise later this year. right now with a 30-year fixed loan at 3.78%, the average homes -- home buyers would pay under $1100 a month. every

some agents were already inside the arena guarding supreme court justices sonia sotomayor and elena kagan who were in attendance. fans who learned of the added security measures after the game were surprised. >> that's news to me. >> reporter: over the weekend president obama attended the princeton game against wisconsin-green bay. the commander in chief was not there last night. leslie robinson is the daughter of craig robinson craig is michelle obama's brother. anne-marie? >> susan mcginnis in washington thank you, susan. >>> texas senator ted cruz travels to new york this week to raise money for his just-announced presidential campaign. as craig boswell reports, crews kicked off his campaign yesterday by appealing to conservatives and taking dead aim at president obama's health care law. >> reporter: texas senator ted cruz says conservative christians should rise up and restore the promise of america. >> that is why today i am announcing that i'm running for president of the united states. >> reporter: he made the formal announcement at liberty university, an evangelical christian coll