justice of the supreme court and thomas jefferson's second cousin and chief political enemy in the marbury vs madison case took unto himself said we the court have decided that we can strike down laws prior to that if the president was constitutionally could veto it if the legislature did then what the president did was they could override it and this is how thomas jefferson president of the united states responded to that case he said if this opinion then indeed is our constitution a complete failure to say legally a suicide it is latin for leases it for intending to establish three departments coordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another. if this decision has given according to this opinion to one of them alone that would be to the supreme court the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others and to that one too which is unelected by an independent of the nation there were another was the supreme court has this power and they're not even like that by anybody. if you're going to give it to one of the three branches of government at least you know

without appeal and frankly if we roll back a supreme court decision we should start with no three marbury decision and take from the court this incredible power on the other hand given that the court is holding this power it's really important starting in two thousand and twelve as the core source of change we have a democrat in the white house. it's time for a daily poll your chance to tell us what you think here's today's question what banks are only go to jail nowadays if he tries to rape a hotel maid your choices are yes now he has to be done to hold the bankers accountable or no they'll start throwing bankers in jail for fraud like reagan did with the s n l s so far every one of us voted yes tragically log on to tom harkin dot com tell us what you think the polls. up until tomorrow morning. crazy alert crazy alert watermelon mine fields acres of watermelon fields in eastern china have a rapid spewing watermelon and that's as far and wide in the hopes of making extra money for their watermelons farmers spray their crops of growth chemicals unfortunately most of applied too much becaus

the board of education -- marbury vs. madison. the clerk stands up at 10:00 a.m. and announces "all rise." the first case is called. the audience looks on with anticipation. and then the lawyers and the justices began to talk about something that is incredibly arcane, technical, and for many downright boring. the truth of the matter is -- and this is the first item on my list -- most of our cases are not about the great issues of constitutional law. in fact, the great majority are not about the constitution at all. less than three-quarters of our cases are not about constitutional issues. they are more often about statutes and rules promulgated by the federal agencies. this term, we have had cases surrounding statutes including the four-r act. is there anyone who knows what this is? >> [unintelligible] >> you get a door prize. what is it? [unintelligible] -- >> [unintelligible] >> you really deserve a door prize for that. but only one person in this room of accomplished lawyers. we have also heard cases involving the federal arbitration act, the national childhood

they have heard about the great supreme court cases of the past, marbury vs. madison, born vs.oard of education, etc. the marshal of our courts council promptly at 10:00 a.m. and announces that all rise and the chief justices and the associate justices of the supreme court of united states. the first case is called. the audience looks on with anticipation and then the lawyers and the justices began to talk about something that is incredibly archaic, technical, and for many i suspect, downright boring. the truth of the matter is, and this is the first item on my list, most of our cases are not about the great issues of constitutional law. in fact, the great majority of our cases are not about the constitution at all. last term, 3/4 of our cases were not about constitutional issues. they are mostly about the interpretation of statutes enacted by congress or rules promulgated by one of the federal administrative agencies. we have had cases involving all the following federal statutes. among others, arisa of 1974. is there anybody in the room who knows what they four are act is? >>

well, first, under the marbury v. madison decision was -- had the famous line that a judge's role is to say what the law is. but you go quite a bit further from the, and then in your writings and then when asked aboutit, you give a statement that justice scalia could give about the role of a judge. doesn't this go far beyond what you just said? >> senator, i think that's a first time i've been accused of channeling justice scalia so i will take that as -- >> that was a pretty good statement. but it's not consistent. i think with what you wrote. >> senator, i don't recall -- i would be happy to look at the passage more carefully if you would like. >> i didn't misquote it i think. >> i think you quoted accurately. i think the passage if i recall it correctly was trying to say that judges cannot decide cases, whether it's in this area, welfare rights, or any other area, on the basis of some independent moral theory that they have about what people are entitled to. if anything. and so, that statement is part of an argumen