rehnquist's memo makes startling reading today. it states the supreme court is not a good place for ruling on individual rights. the memo suggests that neither the bill of rights nor the 14th amendment can be enforced by judicial review in communities where asserting those rights is opposed by the majority. that is they can't be enforced at all. quote, in the long run, rehnquist wrote in the long run, majorities will decide what the constitutional rights of minorities are. so there is we can discern a distance on behalf of equal rights. both ways of thinking deny african-americans equality, but to rehnquist black zitcitizens cannot enforce their rights anywhere a majority of whites oppose it. to buckley where the blacks are in the majority, a minority of rights has a duty to take any measures necessary including illegal measures to prevail against them. fit tightly together, those opposed positions perfectly close african-americans out of the political process. but by 1964, those positions weren't fitting tightly together, strategi

i'm thinking rehnquist, o'conner, tcruz in the background. this is the making of a good porn. need kathy baits walking in with a big bag of swedish fish. >> that what they do, they bring fish in. >> doesn't everyone have their own personal porn oh, in their head that they would make skpimpt think there's probably an audience for this. >> the porn has a pizza delivery guy or something. he is usually kind of similar. he is like a you're type of guy. isn't is he? the surprise porn character? well, i mean, that is what a lot of people like to see when they watch their pornography, a handsome looking fella, i'm surprised that thomas was not there. prethomas post online porn? >> cruz said he was a young buck, he knew all about the internet. right? he was not a hard core porn guy, he pound the bikini girls on aol. >> i am impressed they had the librar am librarians that can look it up. >> i'm leaving to work him. >> why were they putting on a porn tutorial? >> they were working on a a case. i thought about my worst night then he i thought, if they were trapped in the room with scalia

rehnquist's memo makes startling reading today. it states the supreme court is not a good place for ruling on individual rights. the memo suggests that neither the bill of rights nor the 14th amendment can be enforced by judicial review in communities where asserting those rights is opposed by the majority. that is they can't be enforced at all. quote, in the long run, rehnquist wrote in the long run, majorities will decide what the constitutional rights of minorities are. so there is we can discern a distance on behalf of equal rights. both ways of thinking deny african-americans equality, but to rehnquist black zitcitizens cannot enforce their rights anywhere a majority of whites oppose it. to buckley where the blacks are in the majority, a minority of rights has a duty to take any measures necessary including illegal measures to prevail against them. fit tightly together, those opposed positions perfectly close african-americans out of the political process. but by 1964, those positions weren't fitting tightly together, strategi

how did your time with chief justice rehnquist come about?ed cruz: coming out of law school i had applied to the supreme court and chief justice rehnquist hired me. that was an unbelievable experience. he was an extraordinary man. william rehnquist was brilliant and was a staggering intellect. he was deeply principled. he also had a humility that was the most startling aspect of him. he was unbelievably down-to-earth. i am convinced that william rehnquist would not have interacted with any be -- if people any differently. he was born in milwaukee. when he was 18, he went to new york. he was in north africa in world war ii. he was an enlisted man, a sergeant. what a wonderful statement about our country. the chief justice the united states was an enlisted man. one of his colleagues, lewis powell, had been a colonel in world war ii and powell used to get him and say -- i outrank you. the chief would say -- not anymore. he was just a wonderful man. i interviewed him. the interview was very short. it was 17 minutes long. the chief -- he had been

justice rehnquist wrote a very famous dissent which started off by saying this decision was in 1979 but would have been more appropriately written in 1984 because the court's activity here is quite orwe willian. big brother has told the pop lass that words have no meaning in fact they mean the opposite of what they say. so at that point i sort of got interested in this whole question of how you're supposed to go about interpreting statutes. i read another title 7 case called grigs which is directly relevant to the texas case. and there again, the operatives language of the statute is you can't discriminate against any individual because of race or sex or other prohibited criteria. and it was undisputed that the plaintiff on that case had not been treated any differently he had been treated precisely the same therefore not differently because of race. again, a straightforward plain language meaning you have been discriminated against because of race you shouldn't have a claim. in fact, the supreme court uses the race because of race. when it tries to describe what they mean by intentiona

graduate of princeton and started in politics as a law clerk under supreme court chief justice william rehnquistelieves in being seen and not heard. his voice has ricocheted largely around the senate chambers including with a 21 hour filibuster of obamacare. he is a national security hawk and opposes most of obama's policies. he is pro-military, and he opposes the supreme court decisions to uphold the affordable care act and gay marriage. senator cruz, thank you for being with us. senator cruz: thank you for having me. al: you are a new senator, a first-term senator, not a lot of experience. what makes you a good candidate for president? senator cruz: if you of looked at who has consistently stood up and led on issues and on constitutional issues and national security issues, i think a lot of voters are frustrated with politicians who are campaign conservatives. they talk conservative on the campaign trail but when they get to office, they don't actually honor the promises. that is what an awful lot of politicians in this town are. al: let's start with foreign policy, you would dismantle the ira

decision of the century, it is inconceivable to me that a person with such strong views as justice rehnquist would not have had a view regarding the correctness of the decision. brian: joe biden, looking a bit different. ray: i guess we will talk hair for a moment. he looks better today, i think, hair-wise. i think he had a hair transplant or something, as i recall. but he was then on top at that time. -- thin on top at that time. personally, i admire him a great deal. in his career in the senate, and his role as vice president, as a public person, he is a fine human being and i have always admired joe biden. brian: how is he elected at age 29? you have to be 30. don: he turned 30 by the time he was sworn in. his wife and one of his children were killed in a car accident at that time. his other children were injured in the accident. for a while, he thought he was not coming to washington. the secretary of the senate allowed him to travel to done -- the secretary of the senate traveled to delaware to swear him and in the hospital. he commuted on amtrak every day to the senate from delaware. i

. >> that's the one i would like to do the rehnquist suggestion. we'll get to that one tomorrow. >> you know, you do your best to report the bottom line and then you have to parse through that. i remember ages ago, there was one of those renditions with everybody joining in part and this part and david souter disappeared. there was no part that he ended up with. it was like what happened to him? that actually -- usually there are a couple each term like that, but not ones we need to report immediately so fast. you can take the time to figure it out. this is such a reading job. people think of what kind of reporters we are in washington, d.c. so much of our beat has to do with taking out a yellow highlighter and going through the opinion carefully. >> the scary thing is the one we all remember from three years ago in a health care case where john roberts writes the opinion that says, this law cannot be upheld under the commerce clause. a big section. another section is, but it can be held up. there is the potential for all of us to rush forward with

justice justice rehnquist wrote a very famous dissent started off by saying this decision was in 79.big brother has come down until the populace the words have no meaning. that time i got interested in this question in another similar case directly relative to the texas case. and again you can't discriminate against any individual because of race or sex. .. >> >> and some members of the supreme court like the decision they made about banning discrimination against any people on the basis of race so they changed it to say against non minority individuals and then you must to do with under the test. there is no difference in proportion to the availability of minorities that has a prohibited discriminatory effect. so what you see is the opinions that only favored groups are treated equally but that now that is turned into a right to proportional representation on the business necessity. and with a basic american notions and i thought in the subsequent theory going along way to the judicial revision of statutes on those of enacted law. how was true in does precisely lake whether the majo

he clerk for supreme court chief justice william rehnquist. in the two and-a-half years he's been in the senate he has ignored the old dictum that freshman are supposed to be seen but not heard. the cruz voice has ricocheted loudly around the chamber chanting conservative clauses including a 21-hour filibuster of obamacare. he is a national security hawk, opposes most of obama's foreign policies, paramilitary and has been very critical of the supreme court decision up holding the affordable healthcare act and same sex marriage. he's the author of a best selling book, ted cruz a time for truth. senator cruz thank you for being with us. >> it's good to be with you. >> you are a first term senator not much executive experience. you're conservative, so are the other 16, at least they say they are in this deal. why ted cruz? >> well i think there's a sharp difference. there are a lot of good and talented in the race. if you look who has been a consistent conservative, stood up and led on social issues, on constitutional issues, on national security

i was a law clerk to chief justice rehnquist. >> as you would say it's in the book. this is the book, "a time for truth." now you're for retention elections. you've had to raise a ton of money to run for president. you'll be in the debates. should judges have to raise $37 billion to run for election? how can you put judges out there and make them politicians? >> i am reluctant to call for retention elections but i have done it because i believe that a majority of the justices are not honoring their judicial oaths. >> is that the solution, elections? >> look, if unelected judges are going to seize every major policy issue of this country. you know, there was a time -- >> they seized the presidency in 2000 and you did not complain. the supreme court said no to the state of florida. you can't recount even though it's a close election. you are not allowed to recount. we're giving this to our guy, 5-4 republican vote in the supreme court. if there was ever a case of partisanship or ideology getting out of hand it was 2000 and you loved it. you loved it. you were cheering

there is a classic story of the prior chief justice rehnquist after one day in june when they got seven or eight opinions on the same day, hundreds of pages we went to him and said could you please spread them out and he said, why don't you just save some for the next day? [laughter] shows great understanding of how journalism works. the new chief may be more sensitive to this but maybe others have different views. >> i thought the chief try to have fun at our expense when at the end of last day, there were three decisions that were big and we knew we would be writing about and when he finished he said i have two retirements to announce and i felt like i would throw up. but it was justice scalia's secretary and someone else. >> the deadline was no picnic we had three decisions enemy afternoon the decided to let a bunch of abortion clinics in texas stay open. that is five legit stories. the very biggest two cases did not come on the same day. i cannot member a new term for the biggest case didn't come at the end of the same day. there we were on thursday of last week and friday getting s

. >> that's the one i would like to do the rehnquist suggestion. we'll get to that one tomorrow. >> you do your best to report the bottom line. and then you have to parse through b that. i remember ages ago there was one of those renditions with everybody joining this part and that part and david suiter disappeared. there was no parts that he ended up with. but it's -- that's -- that actually usually there are a couple each term like that but usually not ones that we need to report immediately so fast. you know you can take the time to figure it out. and this is such a reading job. people think of what kind of reporters we are in washington, d.c. and so much of you are b has to do with taking out a yellow highlighter and take going through the opinion. >> the one in the health care case where john roberts writes the opinion that says this law cannot be upheld under the demers clause. and then another section but it can be held up --. there's the potential for all of us to rush forward with the wrong story. and there was nothing like that that i rec

rehnquist's opinion which kennedy joined in full defines the fundamental right analysis very narrowly and very historicically. the kennedy opinion interestingly associates glutchberg which he joined with bowers and jetsens the specific historicle approach by using the marriage precedent in a very effective way. this particularly drives the dissenters crazy. they argue the dissent the justices can set the level of generality anywhere, then they are free to expand fundamental rights juris prudence. what are the limits? is this not anti-democratic? to which kennedy's response is kind of democratic deliberation has been exhausted in this case. it was just beginning in glutchberg in the aid in dying issue. and you can just see the arguments that are now used. the irresponsible procreation argument is an argument to exclude lesbian and gay couples. so the way kennedy sees this is his opinion is just a cleanup operation. it's not going to work very well in mississippi, arkansas, and some of the other states that were still outstanding and there are it is a similar number of states to clean i

there is a classic story -- prior to justice william rehnquist, after one day in june after we all got seven or eight opinions on the same day hundreds of pages, we went to him and said could you please spread them out? he said, well, why don't you just save some for the next day? [laughter] tony: it shows great understanding of how journalism works. i think the new chief may be a little more sensitive to this, but maybe other people have different views. i don't think they really care that much. arthur: i thought that she had to have some fun maybe at our expense of the end of the last day. there were three decisions that were big in all of which we knew would be writing about. when he finished, he said i have two retirements to announce and i felt like i was going to throw up for a second. it was justice scalia's secretary and someone else. [laughter] bob: it was not quite what would've made our day horrible. >> we had these pretty big decisions and they decided to take a bigger for an -- big affirmative action case and then when we were done, they let abortion clinics -- those are f

there's the classic story of the prior chief justice william rehnquist after one day in june when we all we got like seven or eight opinions on the same day, hundreds of pages we kind of went to him and the chief and said could you please spread them out? and he said well why don't you just save some for the next day. [ laughter ] which shows great understanding of how journalism works. but, i think the new chief may be a little bit more sensitive to this but maybe other people have different views but i don't think they really care that much. >> i thought the chief tried to have a little fun perhaps at our expense when at the end of the last day there were three decisions that were big and all of which we knew we would be writing about when we finished. he said i have two retirements to announce. and i sort of felt like i was going to throw up there for a second. but it was justice scalia's secretary and someone else. so it wasn't quite what would have really made our day horrible. [ laughter ] >> but the last day was no picnic. we had these three big decisions and they took a big a

that has emerged through the rehnquist court and should have survived and been enhanced under the roberts court that the law means what it says. and the constitution means what it says. and furthermore it needs to mean what it was understood to mean at the time of ratification. we do have a language that moves and changes and morphs along the way. the language that's written into the constitution, into the various amendments that are there, and written into our laws, we can't simply say that because we have a different way we utilize language today that somehow the people who ratified it had a meaning that conformed to the morphed language of the modern world. i would have thought that chief justice roberts would have been one of those who would have adhered to that. and i can think of times when the court has said to this congress, you may have intended one thing but the language in the bill that you passed and was signed into law actually means something different. so you can seert live with the decision of the court or you can set about changing the language so that the language actual