mr. buckley. guest: morning, greg. caller: currently the judicial branch -- 10 they only serve in a reactive role? guest: that is correct. caller: what would it take for the judicial branch to become more proactive and take a more active role in all this? guest: i don't know that you want them to.\ the judges, the federal bench wisely abstains from political decisions. you wouldn't want them to take charge. the battle between congress and the presidency -- it would be ias inor them to have a b favor of congress, but when it comes to actual policies, what we prefer would be neutrality. the desire to see that the rules are observed and nothing more than that. host: virginia. mary an outline for democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. good morning. i feel that the is the threat to our democracy is a partisan supreme court that is now ruling in favor of corporations, money for the rich people to give unlimited amounts. that is what you should be writing about. and i would like to ask you -- i keep hearing about ob

mr. buckley. guest: morning, greg. caller: currently the judicial branch -- 10 they only serve in a reactive role? guest: that is correct. caller: what would it take for the judicial branch to become more proactive and take a more active role in all this? guest: i don't know that you want them to.\ the judges, the federal bench wisely abstains from political decisions. you wouldn't want them to take charge. the battle between congress and the presidency -- it would be ias inor them to have a b favor of congress, but when it comes to actual policies, what we prefer would be neutrality. the desire to see that the rules are observed and nothing more than that. host: virginia. mary an outline for democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. good morning. i feel that the is the threat to our democracy is a partisan supreme court that is now ruling in favor of corporations, money for the rich people to give unlimited amounts. that is what you should be writing about. and i would like to ask you -- i keep hearing about ob

mr. buckley, do you want me to -- >> is that what you want? >> mr. hastings -- >> put mr.astings back in his chair until we are concluded. >> or? >> hold on until i'm done -- >> i thought you said they weren't supposed to react? >> sit down! >> judge wulle warns hastings his behavior won't help him later. >> you're really helping your case in front of the court of appeals. they're going see your record, they're going to see how you're running your mouth, your honor. bye-bye, we know how to handle kids like you, son? okay, yeah, they're going to see that too. remember, you're on record, just like me, pops. >> finally, the judge gets in the last word, sentencing hastings to the maximum, 120 years in prison. >> all right, thank you, gentleman. in my world, i deal with nothing but ugly features of the human personality. i have to find ways to not let that affect the work i'm doing, so i can provide the next person coming into the courtroom with a fair environment. >>> coming up, a lawyer is shot. a defendant goes for a gun. and there are cries of shock and horror in the courtr

buckley. >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you, your honor. >> general verrilli. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: aggregate limits combat corruption. let me start by explaining exactly how. aggregate limits combat corruption both by blocking circumvention of individual contribution limits and, equally fundamentally, by serving as a bulwark against a campaign finance system dominated by massive individual contributions in which the dangers of quid pro quo corruption would be obvious and inherent and the corrosive appearance of corruption would be overwhelming. now, the appellants in this case have tried to present the case as though the issue were whether there were some corrupting potential in giving contribution to the nineteenth candidate after someone has already contributed to -- the maximum to the eighteenth. but that is not what this case is about. the appellants are not arguing that the aggregate limit is drawn in the wrong place. they are arguing that there can be no aggregate limit because the base contribution limits do all the work. and so wh