lochner is obviously outs of it. but this fellow is chillingly -- when he's been questioned and all some it's a -- a more appropriate comparison, but the real issue is here is the larger issue of multi-cultural and debate immigration that's been tearing european politics apart. >> what about immigration policy and whether it conceivably feeds into an endangerment of the population, if it is regarded as and is too lax? are we -- you know, multi- culturessism attacked now, particularly in great britain and elsewhere. >> it's a huge issue in europe. muslim immigration is a huge issue in europe. in france and it's been that way -- when i was a student in france, it was a huge issue back then. it's a huge issue in germany with the turks. they have three million turks who are living in isolated communities. it's one of reasons germany would never accept turkey into the european union. so it's a very critical issue to european politics. >> it's a seminole moment for the right wing party in europe because they've been exploi

i agree with that but it is interesting that justice breyer i think drag out the lochner comparison indescribing one of these commercial speech things. and there is i think an argument that is going to develop on the court. there are some cases in which businesses are winning first amendment cases and some of them strike is core first amendment issues. citizens united i think there is a core first amendment to the political speech component to the corporations for some that some of them seem like, they don't seem to have much to do with self-governance or self-expression. when it is somebody trying to put together a line of information about who is taking which prescription and witchdoctors are prescribing which one so they can market their drugs more effectively, it is a first amendment case but it doesn't feel like a first amendment case to me or apparently to justice breyer. >> but you will note that the same justices who dissented or at least several of the justices including the female justices who defended the vermont case joined scalia's extremely broad commercial-free speech ca