and limits in some places are not anticorruption laws because this court, justice kennedy and robert scalia believes only one statement is corrupt and that is quick for a quote fairly explicit library.

and limits in some places are not anticorruption laws because this court, justice kennedy and robert scalia believes only one statement is corrupt and that is quick for a quote fairly explicit library. so there's a lot of different ways we can respond to this. my response in this vote is to say both of the letter to the court, but a letter to ourselves that fighting corruption is one of the best parts of the american tradition and we should all not and i think of it as a post-watergate fight or really is a post war of independence by and one of the most difficult sites that will ever be involved in. .. they are making a difference. so everyone at home as well, check out emet online.org. great, great important organization, and i have to give everyone here credit for coming out tonight. there's easier and more soothing things and relaxing things to do after a long day at work than coming to hear about isis. god bless my wife, and she is here someplace in the room -- in the back i think. we talk about this issue. we talk about isis. and this is my third book. and every night when my head hit

one is sort of roberts scalia position, that any use of race or taking it into account is by definition tantamount to the old jim crow and simply indefensible. and the second is sort of compromise approach, crafted by justice o'connor and carried forward by moderate wing of the court that grudgingly approves, carefully crafted programs that take race and sex into account but only where there is evidence suggesting existence of present systemic discrimination. i have a whole analysis in the paper of how the constitutional standard of prima facia proof of a title vii violation actually means that you know, state and local governments who practice affirmative action are required to show systemic disparate treatment essentially. that's a pretty narrow construction of the factual basis that's necessary to defend affirmative action. now, why has the court moved in this direction to be so narrow? here's the key point. contrary to what we think of when we hear a term like impartiality, this approach historically and today assumes that there are static differences between racial and ethnic group

justice roberts: well, we're ready. ok. justice scalia: it was rather refreshing, actually. mr. verrilli: mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, the opportunity to marry is integral to human dignity. excluding gay and lesbian couples from marriage demeans the dignity of these couples. it did demeans their children, and it denies the both the couples and their children the stabilizing structure that marriage affords. now, the respondents' principal argument, and what we've been discussing this morning so far is whether this issue of whether this discrimination should persist is something that should be left to the political process or whether it should be something decided by the court. and i'd like to make three points about that, if i could. first, the i think it's important to -- understand that if this court concludes that this issue should be left to the political process, what the court will be saying is that the demeaning second-class status that gay and lesbian couples now inhabit in states that do not provide for marriage is consistent with the equal protection

based on that it would seem to be safe to assume chief justice roberts will be siding with the court's three most conservative justices scalia thomas and alito. >> the chief justice would say no constitutional right to marriage, but interesting whether you have a right to have your marriage recognized if one state is going to allow you to have it. chief justice is a very conservative justice, but he's coy in arguments, makes sure to explore the issues with both sides, very hard to predict. >> let's pivot here and talk about something happening today, another controversial issue before the high court decision. the lethal injection drug combination increasingly being used in executions all over this country and whether it violates the constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. tell us a little bit more about what the justices are hearing this morning. >> sure, the justices have said we can have capital punishment in this country and can do it by lethal injection, but now we get into the details. the justices have said you can't have unnecessary and undue pain and suffering, you have to find an execution method that is

justice roberts: counsel, i'd like to follow up in a line of questioning that justice scalia started. we have a concession from your friend that clergy will not be required to perform same-sex marriage, but there are going to be harder questions. would a religious school that has married housing be required to afford such housing to same-sex couples? mr. verrilli: i guess what i'd like to make three points about that, if i could, mr. chief justice. justice roberts: well, the first part -- mr. verrilli: and i will and i'll go right at the question you asked. the first one is, of course, this court's ruling addresses what the states must do under the 14th amendment. and the and the second point is that when you get to a question like the one your honor asked, that is going to depend on how states work out the balance between their civil rights laws, whether they decide that there's going to be civil rights enforcement of discrimination based on sexual orientation or not, and how they decide what kinds of accommodations they are going to allow under state law. and they could well you kno