during his career, he wrote more than 1,300 opinions. 495 opinions of the court, 249 concurring opinions, and 572 descents. imposing as they are, numbers are hard will you the measure of his contribution to the operation of the institution. in white's memorial service, chief justice rehnquist explained, given the force of his powerful intellect, his breadth of experience and his institutional memory, justice white consistently played a major role in the court's discussion of cases at its weekly conferences. his comments there reflected not only his meticulous preparation in rigorous snanding of the court's precedent baring on the question, but also expressed his sense of the tactical effect of a given decision. for those not familiar with the chief justice's testimony, which was echoed by several other justices, white's mark on the court will always be measured by what hard evidence remains. the opinions he wrote. to lawyers who follow the court, white is probably best known for his work in field's critical to the economy, but unworthy of splashy headlines and television. anti-trust law,

it should not be an opinion. i did -- do not know if i answered your questions on this three witnesses. i would be happy to try and add. thank you. >> man just speak briefly to the measure of beverly upton -- i do not have any questions. thank you. chairperson hur: that is exceptionally rude. is there an officer outside? >> that is 11. >> if you could stay and if there are people who are making recurrence during our attempts to conduct these proceedings, if you could instruct them to leave, i would appreciate that. are the commissioners in agreement that we do not need beverly upton? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> do we not need elizabeth? >> yes. >> what about chief still -- still? >> i am in agreement. >> as an expert. >> it sounds like we will hear about running the jail system here. i do not think we need her. chairperson hur: do we need nancy lemmon with respect to domestic violence? >> i would like to hear from her. >> so would i.. >> i would as well. i would like to hear from effort number one or two for the r

that does not bind you to the expert opinion, but it is not an inappropriate opinion to make. it certainly is admissible under the evidence code. under criminal law, that is different. you cannot give an opinion about the ultimate issue, or the fact of the defendant picked up. under this setting, it is appropriate. it is not something you need to exclude from the record. there is a code section that makes it admissible. commissioner hayon: -- chairperson hur: my response to that is, to me, it is not the ultimate issue problem. i just do not think she is uniquely qualified to help us determine whether the acts relate to the sheriff's duties, or whether the act constitutes official misconduct, or even domestic violence. maybe i am wrong, but there should be illegal answer to that question. i do not think she is uniquely qualified. i do think she is uniquely qualified on other parts, but not for this. >> i would like to then address those foundational concerns. first of all, miss lemmon is actually here. i am happy to cross-examine her on the basis of her expertise, to talk about

it should not be an opinion.i did -- do not know if i answered your questions on this three witnesses. i would be happy to try and add. thank you. >> man just speak briefly to the measure of beverly upton -- i do not have any questions. i do not have any questions. thank you.

it was opinion. the case for the war was opinion. there wasn't an objective reason to go to war with iraq. that was an opinion of the people around the president, the neocon community. they wanted that war. that was an opinion. it needed to be looked at critically with other opinions. that isn't the objective fact that we have to cover, like, tokyo's the capital of japan. this administration wanted to go to war. i don't believe ronald reagan would have gone to war in iraq the second time. that's an analysis. i think you can look at history and see that. that's an argument. the idea that we shouldn't be argumentative when cable -- i tell you, we need to be in-depth. this idea of the embedded thinking is scary. it just says the president said today. well, this isn't heily telling us what to do. we're supposed to question. we're supposed to criticize. that's what journalists do. >> it's very clear when people see chris, they know he's giving his opinion, there's no doubt about that. that is very clear. [ laughter ] >> that's right. >> t

an opinion of a historical proportions, a constitutional opinion is coming down today that's it all overe news. i remember right after the opinion came down, i looked up on drudge report, the shot heard around the world or something like that. it's a tremendously exciting day. and, you know, going back to the leak thing. i wouldn't have dreamed of leaking that. i don't think any of the clerks here would think of doing that. >> you called him your justice. scalia was controversial three days ago going after the president of the united states and rhetoric many people thought way outside the legal arguments of the court. the liberal clumist this morning of "the washington post" said he should resign. tell us how he views the politics of justice. >> he doesn't view it as a political game and the idea to resign or outside the bounds of things justices said is ludicro ludicrous. if you go back and look at his record as a justice, i think people from the aclu and liberal organizations would agree with this, he's one of the justices most likely to break from what you would think of as the politi

>> one way to beat the opinion -- not the only way -- but one way to beat the opinion is a very narrow interpretation. if that clause would be significantly narrowed, then many other programs but also fall. as i read not roberts opinion, but the other tenors, a does quite bizarre. i think their opinions can be read as saying that, if a garment spending program gets too big, then by definition it becomes coercive. that means that any large program is therefore unconstitutional. and one could imagine -- if mitt romney gets elected and he gets his people on the court, who knows what they will do. >> in my personal opinion, it is -- no existing statute violates the commerce clause. no. 2, to be fair, the concern has always been that, in the effort to scare -- to save the full draft, folks would start enacting numerous other mandates in order to avoid pesky problems. to stave off future problems. the final point, if you read the joint descent, there are only talking about the spending clause in the context of holding in states. let them run it directly. they can raise taxes to the tune of 9

justices briar and sotomayor summarized my opinion. what is now known about shaken baby syndrome is -- uncontradicted evidence showed she possessed no danger whatever to her family or anyone else in society. in december of last year, smith filed an application for commutation of sentence with california governor jerry brown. justice at last prevailed, don't you agree? thank you. thank you. >> ruth bader ginsberg talked about the helmut case. >> no case has attracted more attention than the academy, the ticket line outside the supreme court. a line that formed three days before oral argument commenced. some have described the controversy as unprecedented and they may be right if they mean the number of press conferences, prayer circles, protests, counter protests going on outside the court while oral arguments was under way inside. >> she also spoke about press reports on the decision. >> and though our deliberations are private, that has not dissuaded the media from publishing a steady stream of rumors and fifth hand accounts. my favor

nielson in his opinion violated the city's charter by saying this is a computer. if i go in a store and ask for a telephone, they are not going to take me to the computer center. if i go to purchase a computer, they will not take me to the section to buy a telephone. >> she made an opinion. she has avenues to take. as far as i'm concerned, this is a closed issue. onthe solicitor's opinion the issue found the phone purchase was neither out of the ordinary nor in violation of the law. kim dacey, wbal-tv 11 news. >> both candidates will be using the supreme court decision to make hay this year. hallie jackson has more. >> analysts say the ruling is not a total victory for president obama. it does put mitt romney in a tricky balancing act. jan brewer says her state and law have been vindicated. >> arizona is prepared to move forward. >> we have fought so hard to defend this law. >> police will be allowed to check the papers of people that have been stopped. other parts of the law were struck down. >> the obama administration was right to challenge this. >> mitt romney

what is your opinion about the tell-all book and do you plan to read it? you can share your response on wbaltv.com, on our facebook page, or send us an e-mail to watercooler@wbaltv.com. >> they won't be getting my money. 5:12. the summer is the perfect time to take a vacation. >> more than a quarter of americans are coming up short in building savings. >> if you travel in harford county, enclosures in effect county, enclosures in effect along thousands of new good paying jobs... all without raising taxes. that's what a world-class resort casino at national harbor would mean for maryland. but it won't be built unless lawmakers give us the right to vote on it this november. call 1-800-492-7122 and tell your delegate and state senator to vote "yes" on national harbor... one of the biggest new job projects in the country. >> now traffic pulse 11 and insta-weather plus together. >> good morning. sarah caldwell checking on your morning commute. 136 is closed in harford county. 161 is a better bet. 67 on 95. problem free at the fort mchenry and harbor tunnels. on

it is being offered as her opinion. what value that has, there is some, -- >> we were not given on -- any of the facts on which she relied. we get none of the information. of course whatever she relied on would be here say. -- hearsay. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to allow it. questions from the commissioners? the objection is overruled. mr. kopp, do want to address the second objections? >> yes, in the third paragraph, and leave the portion objected to was the italian sized portion that the woman responded know. -- italicized portion that the woman responded no. that shows that she had not contacted any agencies or tried to connect eliana with them. but it could come in for a purpose of contextualizing the conversation between that woman and miss haynes and what she said -- why she said what she said. chairperson hur: mr. keith's? -- keith? >> this cannot be shown for the truth of the matter. i have doubts about what kind of context it is because the next speaker was miss madison. i do not think it serves any p

with that change your opinion? >> you do not lose guns. >> you have heard and describe the manner in which his guns were stored? >> correct. >> you do not find fault in the way that he locked them. >> i thought that was good. >> that is how you would advise any peace officer to store weapons to make sure they are not dangerous for someone to come upon, right? >> i tell everybody the same thing. lock them up at night. >> that is the gold standard. maybe law enforcement officers do not follow that standard, right? >> some don't. >> there are peace officers who may momentarily forgetting where they put a weapon? >> it is possible. i do not know any. but there may be. >> you would agree with me that the human mind, over time, you can forget certain things, right? >> there is a difference between misplacing a weapon and saying that you sold it. >> right. you based your opinion and your testimony on that issue based on what you have seen other people say about whatever the conversation was, right? >> it is the only infor

again, it shows the gravity of the opinions. so 20 years from now or so when we are assessing what chief justice roberts has done, this will be front and center. >> all right. fascinating. >> u.s. senator barbara boxer, and this ruling a victory. she says the decision is great news for the millions of californians who have already seen the benefits of this law, including the 6 million who now have access to free preventative health services. 355,000 young adults who now have coverage on their parents health plans, those 26 years old and younger, and 320,000 seniors who have received help in paying for their prescriptive drugs. she also says, we will continue to fight republican efforts to repeal these important health benefits. >> just a short time ago we were all sitting here listening to matt romney as he responded to what the supreme court said. let's listen to some of the criticisms he made. >> you might imagine i disagree with the supreme court decision, and i agree with the dissent. what the court did not do at its last da

however, she did break from the majority opinion on key issues. she wrote could be characterized form of dissent, that she was in the minority at some point. law supports say the opinion proves that roberts is truly functioning at the umpire he promised to be in the come finmation hear -- confirmation hearings. calling only balls and strikes. >> the affordable care act opinion goes a long way toward saying that the roberts court is not just motivated by politics. at times they can put the law and good of the country above the personal political preferences and do what the constitution requires. >> plenty of pressure in play in the weeks the case was argued in march and release of the opinion on thursday. the president's april state in the the rose garden he was confident the court wouldn't take the "unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning the law." public lecture by bob le leaheyo put the brakes on what he calls political. >> chief justice is the chief justice of the united states. all 320 million of us. >> it worries about the public per

what other people's opinions are? will the somehow hamper our limit capacity of congress to use the commerce clause to implement social or economic policy? >> let's go to the first part. we can paraphrase it. can the states -- are we making this states eat broccoli or do the states have the option to eat broccoli if and when they want to? >> i think that is a very good question. here is what the statute says. beginning in january 2014, this new group becomes a and a group under the program. it is a group with limited enforcement powers. federal financial participation for this group is available according to the schedule that is laid out. that is in the several procedures. it is under%. it drops in the years after. -- it is 100%. it drops in the years after. there'll be this concept of flexibility. it will be clear that the states have flexibility, at least to the year it comes in. the funds that will be available will be the bonds that would have been available in that fiscal year. if you do not come in until 2020, y

and that's where you conflate fact and opinion. and when you descend into sensationalism, you actually make it not an issue about honest mistakes or matters of judgment, but about evil intentions. and so you can laugh about it now, and i do laugh about it sometimes. if you pick up a newspaper and you find that you've failed to bow at the senator, that is an example of how he doesn't care about our troops in afghanistan. first of all, the story wasn't true and, secondly, that's not the conclusion that should have been drawn. you have then a story before that, you fell asleep at the -- [inaudible] you're actually praying and bowing your head, and one newspaper decides this is an example of someone falling asleep and dishonoring the troops. again, you don't care. you then have a letter you send to someone which is a mark of respect to someone who's deceased, and you are told that you have 25 misprints in that, and then a handwriting expert appears and says this shows a lack of empathy. and it goes on and on and on. and that is the ide

as legal scholars continue &pto digest the opinion, some asseet thattthe dissent's many references tostice ruth "dissentt is telling - because she didn't write one per se. however, she did break from the majority opinnon on key issues - so what she wrote that looks to be a concurring opinion could be fairly charrcterrzed as a form of speculation that she was in the minority at some point. the law's supporters say the opinion imply proves that poberts is truly functioning as the umpire he promised to pe during his confirmation hearings - calling only balls and strikes.wydra "i thiik that tteeafforrabll are act ppinion goes a long way toward saying that the roberts ccurt is not jjst motivated by politics. and that at times, they can put tte law and the thhir personal, political preferences, ann do what the fox nnws polling done after - &pthe arguments in march showed sixty-seven percent of those surveyed belleved politics would definiteey impact the washington, shannon bream, fox news. the justice department says it will ánotá prosecute u-s attorney general eric holder... ...one day aft

commissioner renne: what effect, if any, does that have on your opinions? >> it is my belief that the standard of behavior, the ethics, is exactly the same, whether you are a share for police chief, elected or appointed. -- a sheriff or police chief, elected or appointed. commissioner renne: you do not think the matter in the case of an elected official is any different than an appointed official? >> in some counties, who do not have the ability to remove somebody other than a recall process. but the standard, the ethical conduct, the integrity, being the same person on duty and off duty, the trust we talk about is exactly the same. your the head law enforcement person. -- you what are the head law enforcement person. commissioner renne: thank you. chairperson hur: any other questions for chief lansdowne? >> i want to go back to your testimony about what you believe the sheriff affirmatively needed to do, with respect to the press and media attention that ms. madison was receiving. i want to give you a hypothetical, since you are an expert. >> yes, sir. >>

think the decision is a little hard to understand because he says at one point, quoting from his opinion, "the law makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes like buying gasoline or earning income," and i think it's hard for people to think that not doing something is something that can be taxed and especially when you consider that in part of the opinion it says, you know, for purposes of another law, which says you can't sue about a tax until it goes into effect, it's not a tax, but it's ok under the taxing authority. that's awfully slicing it awfully thin. gwen: you mention it's debatable, the taxing authority. president obama in 29 2009 gave an interview in which he said adamantly that was not the case. he bristled when abc's george stephanopoulos, said the mandate was, basically, a tax. >> no. that's not true, george. for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. what it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right

he is reading this opinion.is a conservative, but does does not mean the law is being struck down. he could have formed an alliance with some of the liberals. many people believe they had an obligation to write this decision in this monument case and he is announcing the ruling in the court at this moment. we now have a copy of the decision, scott. and i'm going to look through this. as you can see, here's the decision at this moment. there are multiple, multiple opinions in this case. it appears the decision has been affirmed in part and reversed in part. and it also appears, scott, based on our quick summary, that the mandate, the individual mandate, the individual mandate at the heart of this case may be in jeopardy under one provision of the constitution but they may have upheld the mandate under another provision. a very complicated ruling. but it appears they are analyzing different parts of the constitution and the mandate may be on firm ground. we will get back to you in one moment. >> jan, thank you ver

and in that opinion, in the other supreme court opinion, the one that carried the day, governor jan brewerher finger at the wrong president, lost very, very badly. jan brewer and the losers are in the "rewrite" tonight. >>> what kind of a judge will you appoint to the supreme court? >>, you know, there's some justices i think we all like pretty well. justice roberts, alito, thomas, scalia, that's the kind of judge i like. >> 76-year-old justice antonin scalia has spent a third of his life on the united states supreme court. the job is apparently starting to get to him. he confessed today in writing, in a strange, even-for-him opinion that his mind is, and this is his word, "boggled." the most peculiar thing about justice scalia's dissent today is that he reached far beyond the record of the case, far beyond the arizona statute, and cited material that was never considered in the case. it seems scalia is very upset with president obama recent announcement restricting deportations of people under 30 who may be in this country illegally. scalia alone, among the justices, snuck that little bit

in 2008 the review released another opinion about the protect america act. there is precedent for the release of legal reasoning in these opinions with the redactions of legitimate sources and methods. everybody is in agreement that some of the opinions are likely to be sensitive and the government has interest in keeping that secret. it's a different story than what they are keeping street is legal reasoning. >> pfs, let me close with this observation. we have been told that we can't even tell how many people are being subjected to this process located in the united states. we don't know and they can't tell us. i think we can get a little bit closer. there could be reasonableness there to give. it's this kind of vagueness that creates in those of us in the congress suspicions that are negative rather than suspicions that are positive. we don't know and we can't be told. >> the gentlemen's time is expir expired. >> do you mind if he responds. >> the witness will respond. >> i agree. as i said in my statement, when you create authorities for the government, y

just to clarify, it is not that i have no ideai am not coming wf opinions to disclose. i have some idea what they will say, based on a preliminary conversations. on this short time line, we are not able to do this sort of expert disclosure you would see in civil litigation. >> mr. wagner asked specifically to speak to chief smith. do i have that title right? sheriff smith. the chair has just indicated the view, which i share, about each side having a standard of care expert. if you have a specific objection to sheriff smith, as opposed to a general one, say that now. i do not want the mayor to choose among three and then learn later there were reasons she would not be appropriate that might not apply to the other two. >> thank you. to make sure i have these clear, we are talking about chief landsdowne and sheriff smith. >> that was your request with you stood up. >> i stood up to make an objection to share of smith, a general objection. as to some -- as to specifically, there is nothing the city attorney has said which goes to which charge specifically. i make that poin

there could be multiple opinions within the opinion. there are several different, key issues that i know you all are going to talk about more in depth that will be decided today. ultimately, it comes down to does it all stand, does it all fall? some we are going to keep an eye on two justices in particular, justice anthony kennedy. he is up used as the swing vote, and during questioning in march he had very probing questions for both sides, but he did start out part of the day in the argument on the mandate saying can you create commerce so that you can regulate it, suggesting he was skeptical of the ability of congress to do that for this individual mandate. but heal gave weight to the problem that there is a problem with the health insurance market. also the chief justice john roberts. we believe he may be writing this opinion. he also had tough questioning for both sides. i think it would be unwise to try to lock in either of their votes at this point, bill. bill: either one could be a wildcard or neither one, and that is part of the

this is a plurality opinion with a splinter here but that's what the chief justice writes in his opinion who agree with him. but the court left intact the tax, the penalties, under the law as wrirngs you bought insurance or you paid the penalty what the court has left in place is the "or you pay the penalty part." the admin station views that as a win.ç the question how many people will nonetheless choose to buy health insurance in 2014? will that be enough to give insurance companies the additional money they need in order to meet their new obligations, for example, not turning down people because of pre-existing conditions and those new obligations they have? the admin station believe it is will be enough. we will see. the court used a very similar approach on the other big question in this case, which is the new obligations that the law puts on the states to cover more people with more generous benefits under medicaid, basically, anybody who is making up to 133% of the poverty line. anyone making below that amount would be covered by medicaid, more people than now. the states argue t

and in that opinion, in the other supreme court opinion, the one that carried the day, governor jan brewerho waved her finger at the wrong president, lost very, very badly. jan brewer and the losers are in the "rewrite" tonight. welcome aboard! [ chuckles ] ♪ [ honk! ] ♪ [ honk! ] ♪ [ honk! ] ♪ [ male announcer ] now you'll know when to stop. [ honk! ] the all-new nissan altima with easy fill tire alert. [ honk! ] it's our most innovative altima ever. nissan. innovation that excites. ♪ sven's home security gets the most rewards of any small business credit card! how does this thing work? oh, i like it! [ garth ] sven's small business earns 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! woo-hoo!!! so that's ten security gators, right? put them on my spark card! why settle for less? testing hot tar... great businesses deserve the most rewards! [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet? here's your invoice. >>> what kind of a judge will you appoint to the supreme court

it's opinion by opinion, which makes it even more excruciating, not only do we know right at 10:00, we don't know until the chief justice says so, which opinions are going to come out today. >> it's a lesson in the judicial branch of our democracy. you call it e cruciating--i want to bring in our chief white house correspondent jessica yellin. when waiting for the health care rule k, waiting for the health care ruling, not only to see the decisions, but waiting for the fallout in what of course is a presidential election year. you see what is for the most part a victory for the administration, but the show me your papers, the arizona provision left in effect. is it something likely to motivate the latino community? >> they're still measuring the hue to respond to this decision, but the general take away is big picture, the federal government fought this ruling, fought this law by arizona and won, and so the sense is that they can go out and be able to say to latinos, we have stood up and fought this, and we got your back basically, this is my sense of what will happen next, john. at th

but then one of the big mysteries in this brilliant man's opinion for the majority uses the first opinion person pronoun i. anybody that's been a judge, normally you go to judicial conferences, you have seminars, you have training as writing style, if it's an individual judge, sole court opinion, then you'll write it one way. if it's a multiple justice opinion, you write it another way. you see first-person pronoun i in dissents, even though it's really not the best grammer to use pronouns in dissents, but you don't see them in well-written majority opinions and chief justice roberts is one of the best linguists we've had on the court. . >> it takes justice ginsburg a few different places to pass in the majority opinion and yet, she is one of his voting justices to support the majority. that doesn't make sense. you don't normally see one justice write the majority opinion, take off and criticize someone who is voting with him. that doesn't make sense. here on page 44, he says justice ginsburg, rejecting the commerce power argument given that it can be upheld under the taxing power. chief

that objection is overruled. >> what is that opinion? >> there are lots of victims of domestic violence and they are frightened to report it and they want to know that the police department will be responsive in a compassionate and caring way, they will not become the victims, but they will be someone that that suburban or agency or sheriff steps forward to be able to manage that and make sure that their interest in their life is protected. beijing not often see the people who do the work every single day since else that this person that you have to trust. if you have a belief that they're somehow bias or unresponsive, or not compassionate and the process, they will not report it. you want to reach out and make sure that the victims of domestic violence are encouraged to step forward to be able to move forward. >> the think it is possible to violate the standard of professional conduct for personal -- >> yes. >> do you think that sheriff mirkarimi has failed to do things that you have expected and would have been required of a chief law-