bill rehnquist, by bill rehnquist wrote the opinion and said it's not much of an intrusion into the president'swers. i happen to run into justice scalia and i've worked with had when i was on the white house staff shortly after that decision. i went up to hand and i said not entirely tongue-in-cheek, really disappointed in the decision. he said i dissented. he said yes, but we didn't push you on the court for your vote alone. we put you in the court because you are supposed to influence other justices. he was not amused. he sat down. in an interview not five years ago, he was asked what case in his entire career on the supreme court was the most disappointed in and he said this very obscure case called moore cindy olson because it was obama decided. if the court had known within the vote, what is said "the real watergate scandal," the decision would come down that way. i would love to have an independent prosecutor investigate democrats. any democrat. [applause] but it's no fair. imagine what we would uncover. is unconstitutional. it shouldn't be done. you could have a dedicated prosecutor. not

but what rehnquist said in his opinion was "we have rejected the challengers' argument that diversity is too open-ended, ill-defined and indefinite to constitute a compelling state interest." so they've accepted this interest with full recognition that it's open-ended, ill-defined and indefinite. so then how do you do narrow tailoring? and what the courts have done thus far is they have said narrow tailoring, what you can realistically require is no racial quotas, consideration of race-neutral alternatives, a wholistic consideration of each individual, no sort of set-aside categories, and race being only a modest factor not a predominant factor. that's the definition and that's essentially what kennedy said he would accept as narrow tailoring in his concurrences in the michigan cases and that's essentially what texas has shown. they have shown that they attempted race-neutral alternatives, more than michigan did, but michigan did not adopt a 10% plan. they have -- they engage in holistic all things considered assessment, they use no quotas and race is only a modest factor. it doesn't

and bill rehnquist wrote the opinion and said it's not much of an intrusion into the president's power. i worked with him after that decision and i said not entirely tongue-in-cheek i'm disappointed in the decision and he said i defended. but we didn't put you on the court alone. we put you because you were supposed to have flowed for other justices but in an interview not five years ago he was asked about what case was he most disappointed than. i think if the court had known will come at the decision wouldn't have come down so i would have loved to have a special independent prosecutor investigate democrats. [applause] but it's no fair. it's unconstitutional. we could appoint a dedicated prosecutor not fun with total independence. that was the key to the prosecutor that it does into the independent prosecutor statute. but the -- you have a case for the cinderblock so i have a question that comes from that particular angle let's assume all of the prosecutors were also of ethical quality and assume that judges up and down there was no resignation or pardon what charges against presiden

but what rehnquist said was we have rejected the challenges argument that diversity is to open ended, ill defined and indefinite to constitute a compelling state interest. they accepted this interest with full recognition that it's open-ended, ill defined and indefinite. so then how do you do narrow tailoring? and what the courts have done thus far is that they've said well, narrow tailoring, which can realistically acquire is no racial quotas, consideration of race-neutral alternatives, a holistic consideration of each individual, no sort of set aside categories, and raise being only a modest factor, not a predominant factor. that is the definition of narrow tailoring and that is essentially what candidate he said he would accept in his concurrence is in the michigan cases. and that's essentially what texas has shown. they have shown that they attempted race-neutral alternatives, more than michigan to because michigan did not adopt a 10% plan. they engage in holistic all things considered a suspect they use no quotas, and race is only a modest factor and it doesn't add a huge amount

illegitimate, including the decisions ted cruz helped write when he was a clerk for chief justice william rehnquiste last year, four supreme court justices dis agragreed with the supreme court's decision. but ted cruz said this about that decision. today the supreme court handed our nation a landmark victory for religious liberty. many americans disagreed with the court's decision on campaign finance in the citizens united case, including four members of the court. but ted cruz applauded that decision by those five unelected lawyers. and, of course, many americans disagreed with the court's decision in bush v gore in 2000. four members of the supreme court disagreed with that decision. but ted cruz loved that decision. ted cruz was working for the bush campaign in 2000 when the supreme court in effect decided who would be the next president of the united states. not a peep out of ted cruz then about that decision being issued by five unelected lawyers, including ted cruz's former boss, who then, of course, had the honor of swearing in the new president. >> i george walker bush do solemnly swear. >>

today it was reaffirmed by the supreme court which chief justice rehnquist after having criticized itepeatedly said it came to be accepted by the culture a statement that caused justice calia's head to explode. he was not happy with it at all. let's look at the text of the fifth amendment in particular, the self-incriminatation clause and then i want to ask you about miranda. the fifth amendment says -- members of the audience and c-span viewers you can sfifind constitutioncenter.org. no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself and the supreme court interpreted that to require the reading of the miranda reits. what do you think of the miranda decision? >> at the time of the 1966 i was an assistant district attorney here in philadelphia and it was a, really a very revolutionary opinion. another 5-4 decision in which the supreme court reversed a conviction but not only reverse ad conviction but enunciated a series of rules that police officers have to give certain warnings to defendants who are in custody before interrogating them. and there's really no precedent for th

confronted that argument in michigan the challengers argue diversity is an that quote from justice rehnquist opinion to open-ended ill-defined and indefinite to constitute a compelling state interest. what he said in his opinion is we have projected the challengers argument that diversity is to open-ended ill-defined and definite so they have accepted the centrist with full recognition that is open-ended, ill-defined and indefinite. so how do you do narrow tailoring and what the courts have done thus far is they have said narrow tailoring what you would realistically require is no racial quotas, consideration of race-neutral alternatives, a holistic consideration of each individual in set-aside categories and race it being only a modest factor in not a predominant factor. that is the definition and that's essentially what kennedy said in narrow tailoring in his concurrences in the michigan cases. that is essentially what texas has shown. they have shown that they attempted race control alternatives more than michigan did that michigan did not adopt the 10%. they engage in holistic all things

i started clerking for william rehnquist on the united states supreme court, one of the most principledists. we have an out of control court. i give you my word, if i'm elected president every single supreme court justice will faithfully follow the law and will not act like philosopher king in imposing their liberal policies on millions of americans who need to be trusted to govern ourselves. >> thank you, senator. governor huckabee, i want to bring you in very quickly if you could. will you have a litmus test when it comes to appointing supreme court nominees? >> you better believe i will. i'm tired of liberals having a litmus test and conservatives are supposed to pretend we don't. i would ask, do you think the unborn child is a human being or is it just a blob of tissue? i would want to know the answer to that. i would want to know, do you believe in the first amendment? do you believe religious liberty is the fundamental liberty around which all the other freedoms of this country are based? and i would want to know, do you really believe in the second amendment? do you believe that