up first: justice scalia's controversial comments does supreme court justice antonin scalia deny women's rights? some women's groups think so. in a recent interview published in "california lawyer," justice scalia said the 14th amendment which grants equal protection to citizens under the law does not protect women from gender discrimination. neither does he believe it protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation. scalia explained, "if the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws." while the 14th amendment does not explicitly mention gender, some legal scholars argue the amendment grants women protection from discrimination. this isn't the first time the 24-year supreme court veteran has stirred up controversy regarding women's rights. in 1996, scalia was the only justice to vote against allowing women to attend the all-male virginia military institute. accidents of. >> this some of your colleagues said this comment was proofed that it was time to introduce the era, constitutional amend tom

well, what did justice scalia do. he put in a series of examples of laws that are presumptively constitutional. why do you suppose he did that. does he violate his premise that we do not normally put lots of dicta in there? i don't think so. i think he did it for one very big reason. that's how he got five votes. because some of the members of the court woulhave been decidedly uneasy with not saying anything else about it. as it was, the victors in the case, that i do congratulate the victors in the case, were able to say, well, see, we haven't wreaked complete havoc on the universe yet. all these laws are protected. all right. so this dicta is terribly serious as a problem for the reason i'm about to come to, which is, how does he decide that these laws are okay. he doesn't tell us. he just simply announces his conclusion. and so usually what we do is we can tell whether a law is okay becae we have a standard of review. how strictly are we going to construe the constitutional right in this particular case. indeed, th

scalia tries to do it as any originalist must. but his analyst is full of fallacies and obscurities. he provides no explanation of the meaning to the reference in the militia in the constitutional text, and he provides no evidence of any kind about the proper scope of the people's right to keep and bear arms. the most difficult textual question with scalia never addresses is how codifying the right to arms could have been expected to preserve, promote, or prevent the elimination of a well regulated militia. i believe there's a perfectly good answer to that question. but no answer of any kind will be found in scalia's opinion. and that is a very, very serious short coming in a judicial opinion that proports to rely as heavily as scalia's does on analysis and original interpretive principals. scalia's failure to identify any textual or historical evidence about the scope of the second amendment right has spectacular effects when he addresses the principal question at stake in the heller case itself. namely what other d.c. handgun ba

well, what did justice scalia do. he put in a series of examples of laws that are presumptively constitutional. why do you suppose he did that. does he violate his premise that we do not normally put lots of dicta in there? i don't think so. i think he did it for one very big reason. that's how he got five votes. because some of the members of the court would have been decidedly uneasy with not saying anything else about it. as it was, the victors in the case, that i do congratulate the victors in the case, were able to say, well, see, we haven't wreaked complete havoc on the universe yet. all these laws are protected. all right. so this dicta is terribly serious as a problem for the reason i'm about to come to, which is, how does he decide that these laws are okay. he doesn't tell us. he just simply announces his conclusion. and so usually what we do is we can tell whether a law is okay because we have a standard of review. how strictly are we going to construe the constitutional right in this particular case. indeed

say >> justice scalia, let me say twdio things.first -- >> we don't know whether that's true or not, and we're never going to know it's true becausei you came in and blew the whistle and said state secrets privilege.aid, >> can two things. that impossibility claim was separately litigated along with 18 other claims of theirs ins al defense to the $1.35 billion1.64 we've been talking about. they've had massive opportunities to litigate almost all of their challenges with the one exception being the superior knowledge aspect of this case. and much of that has taken case in a highly classified environment. >> are you saying it was not impossible to do it at that weight? t >> i'm saying -- well, the tha initial weight we thought it was impossible, and those are the citations in the government's brief. so -- contracted for. >> and then we, at the weight contracted for we had warnedhe w them that it wasn't, and then later we relaxed to that weight specification.t, a so i'm not sure that is reallyex present one way or the other.amn but ou

>> well, to be sure, we would be much more comfortable in a world that just articulate, justice scalia. with interest. [laughter] and certainly we think that is the minimum that we should be entitled to, and maybe to some extent you could say we're being a little greedy, but the reality is the standard rule is that if the contract and say you cannot make a determination that the contractor has been guilty of default, then that contract should be in basic contract law and this agreement that he would converted to a termination for convenience. >> you mentioned that you get to keep the $1.35 billion. but there was also another figure. 1.2 billion you would get on top of that. >> no, but the $1.2 billion was with the additional amounts of money actually expended by the contractors that were reasonable, allocable, and allowable for their claims on this agreement. and it would be the standard operating procedure. if you have a termination for convenience where the government says, look, we decided we don't want these airplanes any more, let's call it off, which they have the right to do, th

host: not to mention how the gets paid for. -- men's and justice scalia you mentioned some justice scaliawhat is it constitutional original the iism? guest: what an interesting topic. constitutional or regionalism is the belief that it should be interpreted in light of the original understanding of its framers and ratify hours. justice scalia has been suggesting the universe might have to change if original was were resurrected. there would be no death penalty restrictions. you could -- no restrictions on banning abortions. he said the framers of the 14th amendment did not think it protected sex discrimination or sexual orientation. the court was wrong to ban both of those things. this article try to pass, what else would have to change? justice scalia said there are some things he would not resurrect. was approved, and justice scalia said he did not want to bring back flogging. justice clarence thomas is willing to go further than scalia. both scalia and thomas believe the first amendment did not agree to have a complete wall of separation between church and state. he did not want a ban

by sex hey we have things called legislatures and they enact things called laws wow really i think scalia just said that women who have back one hundred years or so i mean let me remind you right if we're going to talk about the fourteenth amendment the equal protection clause which requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction has passed an eight hundred sixty eight at the time it was addressed specifically for discrimination against blacks but well now it's applied to everyone else in this country times have changed but still even saying no actually sorry you can't expand it leave that to the legislatures so if a legislator decides in the future to make discrimination towards women or mexicans or chinese legal they can just go ahead and do that if they please the constitution doesn't protect them from that's going on weren't you cool with its. handing the constitutional right of free speech to corporations and then allowing them to spend on political campaigns way to show your true colors there i'm just scared i'm sad the justice on

one, in response to dennis' remark a moment ago about scalia having said that bans on concealed carry go all the way back to the founders. it's true he tried to suggest that. he didn't quite say it. he included a long string site in his opinion to add to that impression that he was saying that, if you go actually read the case, it doesn't establish any such thing. the other short point i want to make is in response to alan morrison's comments about the standard of review. for those of you who aren't lawyers and aren't familiar with this, the standard of review is basically a formula that courts use to express how much deference is given to legislatures when reviewing the constitutionality of various challenged laws. and they've developed a whole kind of hierarchy of standards of review. the lowest one -- the highest one is strict scrutiny. the lowest one, the one that gives the most deference to legislation is rational basis. then they have rational basis with bite, and one with two and a half bites. that's a joke. and intermediate scrutiny and all of this stuff. members of the suprem

but it's not the first time justice scalia has said this. he made similar remarks back in september. >>> let's get some remarks on the weather because roberta, i was once told a woman's place is in the house and the senate. >> okay. i like that. you know, i was once standing next to the microwave over here in our cbs 5 kitchen and somebody said, why are you standing next to the microwave waiting for your food to cook when you could be setting the table? >> oh!! >> no respect. >> slap 'em. >> this is our live cbs 5 weather center. sundown at 5:04. we will see clouds developing in the form of some valley fog seeping into the northern portion of our district. also the east bay. we'll see dense fog there right now. from you out and about now, temperatures between 55 degrees for the most mild spots to 50 for the coolest and tonight, very similar temperatures to last night when we will hit freezing levels. last night however, did dip down to 27 degrees in santa rosa. tonight it will be freezing there. also freezing throughout the tri-valley. 41 eq

justice scalia lead that talk. can certainly be constitutional objections. we will hear from witnesses. there is a role for us, the executives, and the judiciary. i look forward to our witness testimony, working with the chairman and our other colleagues on the subcommittee. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> at thank you, and i think you as well for your generous remarks at the opening. statements of all members will be made a part of the record without objection to rely and told that mr. smith and connors would like to make opening statements to be at recognize distinguished and a man from texas, the chairman of the full committee, mr. smith. >> thank you mr. chairman to be sticky for chairing this particular hearing which i thint important of the year. as you said, i also welcome our former colleague david mcintosh. david, i hope we get to talk more later on, but i appreciate your being here, too. the american people in november voted for real change in washington. one change that they want is to stop the flood of regulation that cost jobs and smot

minnesota representative michelle balkman, the founder of the house's tea part caucus invited scaliak on january 24th. the los angeles times reports some constitutional law experts say the meeting suggests an alliance between conservative members of the court and conservative members of congress and it's not appropriate in this highly partisan environment. members of both parties are welcome to attend. >> a few moments ago we got a look at that 7-day forecast, and as far as you can see, we don't have any rain. >> exactly. it's going to be dry. typically happens in the middle of winter even when we've had one that's been as wet as this one. >> yeah. >> definitely. let's take a look outside. it means high pressure is governing our sky. having a hard time talking this morning. so coooold outside! it's fog. let's talk about temperatures, too. we have 31 santa rosa and fairfield. 33 concord and livermore. kind of highlighting those areas because that's where some of the fog is forming, the frost. that's where we could have black ice. it is chilly around the bay shore. upper 30s all the wa

host: not to mention how the gets paid for. -- men's and justice scalia you mentioned some justice scalia. what is it constitutional original the iism? guest: what an interesting topic. constitutional or regionalism is the belief that it should be interpreted in light of the original understanding of its framers and ratify hours. justice scalia has been suggesting the universe might have to change if origil was we resurrected. there would be no death penalty restrictions. you could -- no restrictions on banning abortions. he said the framers of the 14th amendment did not think it protected sex discrimination or seal orientation. the court was wrong to ban both of those things. this article try to pass, what else would have to change? justice scalia said there are some things he would not resurrect. was approved, and justice scalia said he did not want to bring back flogging. justice clarence thomas is willing to go further than scalia. both scalia and thomas bieve the first amendment did not agree to have a complete wall of separation between church and state. he did not want a ban betwee

i think that the comparison to scalia is quite right. i think there is a -- written about there's a debate about whether the constitution is a living breathing document meaning that it evolves and more fs and is interpretted by judges to say what it is wanted to say or whether it is a text that sort of anchors our views. i'm a constitutionalist in general. i think it's really a remarkable document, really one of the gre political documents in american history. not perfect but really quite amazing. and i think for libera to go after and mock the constitution, which some did when the republicans opened the first day of business as leading the house, to mock it is a plit can i perilous thing. guest: i think you can count on one hand the liberals who mocked the constitution. it's a marvelous document. it's gotten us through all these years. but just a couple points. scalia is dead wrong on this issue that the constitution has to be taken literally and it is a dead document which i have heard him say. i saw a cartoonesterday where somebody wa

it scalia will be speaking today before the tea party caucus on capitol hill. last week, the court heard a case on the limits of state secrets. top lawsuits could then expose a vital national security information. this one involves the federal government, boeing, and general dynamics. >> this is one hour. >> general dynamics versus boeing and the consolidated case, general dynamics versus united states. mr. phillips. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. the proposition is the one embraced by the federal circuit that says the united states can declare that certain of its government contracting partners have operated in default and under those circumstances can reach into the contractor's pocket and withdraw $1.35 billion of moneys that were spent by the united states, but for services that were rendered without question pursuant to the contract and pursuant to the instructions of the united states government. when the contractor seeks to defend against the claim that it has engaged in some kind of default concept, the government can insert the state secrets privileg

i'd like to know how important it is to court as a whole, justice scalia, notwithstanding, the stuff that we wrote. >> people have different views on that. my view is i will look and read it and really self-pitying remark i'm about to make. i too have a vote. and so it's different people have different views. some say no. we shouldn't read that because we are just interested in what the text says that the representative has voted on. and he says the question of that vote on a text and don't go beyond that because there's too much risk of distortion and so forth. and others like myself say i want to read whatever i can read to get enlightment about what those obvious sure words and believe me they are obscure. because if they are not obscure, what's are they doing in the court? i suspect you, like me, when we wrote it, would have tried to write something that was not going to be viewed as wrong by the congressman or senator for whom we worked. >> is there a difference between a committee report and debate on the floor where individuals members get up and opine? >> well, when there's a

this feeds back to justice scalia's question. what is unreasonable about what the officers did here? >> what was there here to make a reasonable person believe that entry was eminent and inevitable? if all that's done is to knock on the door and they say police, police, police, this is the police. maybe it turns on how loudly they spoke, or how loudly they knocked. is that the point? >> that is the point. it's relevant criteria. >> it seems to me, you are trying to change the case. i mean this is not a case where they come in and in effect demand entry. my understanding is that the issue in the case is whether or not after a request for entry they can then base probable cause in dispensing with the warrant based on what they hear from behind the door. i know you think the -- whatever they hear is perfectly innocent. but the issue is when they knock on the door, police or can we come in or whatever, and then they hear that. the activity behind the door. they have reason and can enter. now seems to me what you are argues is they di

i'm not sure i understood your response to justice scalia. if there is ambiguity, if a term can be given two meanings, and it's not clear -- and i know you're challenging the clarity question here -- i thought that congress's intent to have full disclosure would necessarily mean that where there's ambiguity as to the meaning of an exception then we should change the narrowest meaning. >> well, i think we disagree, and i think this is why. no legislation pursues its primary goal at all costs, and the foia exceptions that are at issue here protect very important values that congress deemed to warrant exceptions from the rule. so if the court were to put a thumb on one scale of that balance that congress has tried to strike, after using all the normal tools of construction, we think that would distort rather than advance the intent -- >> i don't understand that. we're not putting a thumb on the scale. we're taking account of the fact that -- that congress has many objectives in any legislation and that the limitations are as important as the sub

court rulings have also affirmed the need for transparency in these areas i mean you have antonin scalia no you know liberal lion at all stating that we need transparency in elections and that you know if you want to play in the political arena you might as well stand up and state what you're doing why it was you know if a rival green being company wants to run an ad against agree a green bean they don't have to disclose who they are why do we only have to disclose and be transparent when it comes to the most important thing going on the air if you do yours every four years and as you look at the most important thing going on so why wouldn't it be that case because you could. wrong on this because i don't care what the supreme court's ruled i care what the constitution says and the constitution does not have a transparency clause in the first amendment well the constitution may not have transparency close but the supreme. which interprets the constitution has been targeted at what is a bit emanation from the number of transparency as there have been i mean they came up with a privacy cla

somebody knocked, usually they forgot a paper or coffee for justice scalia.e been doing this for 0 years. i think i'm good at it, i said, i'm not sure. we get on very well. the nine of us do. >> who wants to be a part of a institution where everybody dislikes each other. it is one of the great things about the court right now is that even when people disagree and disagree sharply there are important questions, hard questions that people have strong views on, but that they could understand that -- that everybody is trying to do the best they can and everybody is working really hard and everybody cares a lot about -- about the law and about -- about this country as well. >> i just finished my 18th term. i still haven't heard the first unkind word in that room. and you think what we decide. life and death, abortion, execution. war and peace. financial ruin. government relationship with citizens. you name it, we have decided it. >> those discussions lead the justice to conclude tentatively to affirm or reverse in their particular case. now that vote is not cast i

justice scalia responded that he thought that was an odd reaction. it seemed to me that is a perfectly plausible reaction and the constitution does not require you to answer questions by the police barrett if you are . the specific issue was when do the police create exigent circumstances? this case was special because there was a noise in response to the knocking at the door that the offers were consistent with somebody trying to destroy the evidence. the supreme court of kentucky said that noise could not be considered to try to justify exigent circumstances. the u.s. supreme court is trying to figure out if that was in fact the case. host: can you distinguish between probable cause and reasonable suspicion? guest: probable cause is the constitutional standard. you can think of that as a reasonable likelihood, a good chance the evidence will be located there. when the constitution requires probable cause, studies have shown maybe a 60% chance that the evidence is likely to be there when the government of tens probable cause. reasonable suspicion is

as you said, justice scalia had a very elaborate historical inquiry that pointed in one direction. justice stevens had an equally elaborate inquiry in another direction a you had your own approach in your separate dissenting opinion of that case that is the very illuminating of your approach to constitutional interpretation and may not have focused on your particular opinion in that case. i want to give you a chance to elaborate. >> i am trying to illustrate the approach. it is the same approach. we had a case recently where the question of national security about forbidding giving aid to the crystal material aid to terrorist groups and the question which was not an easy question was whether or not a former administrative law judge in a humanitarian society wanted to -- does this group was on the list of terrorist organizations -- teach them how to petition the united nations for political assistance. did that count in the statute? i thought not to. i thought there was a big constitutional question here and you can't interpret the statute by saying it doesn't cover this but what i

and i believe what you'll see is justice scalia having written a really excellent historically-based opinion where he comes to one conclusion. and john stephens having written an excellent p historically-based opinion where he comes to an opposite conclusion. now there i believe stephens was right, and that's what i say. [laughter] but nonetheless, nonetheless, over and over -- put nine historians on the the court if that's what you want, and i think in many cases the nine historians will disagree. so that's one reason. another is this, and it's an almost unanswerable question to me. over and over you find instances where people who write a law or a provision of a constitution are not just interested in the details, they're interested in something more basic than that, and then they want that to be done even where it conflicts with their view of the details. now, ronnie -- [inaudible] is a good example in one of these philosophical articles where he says imagine you have a legislature, and that legislature passes a law protecting environmentally endangered species. legislators, for s

i debated him -- the us justice scalia had a status. -- does justice scalia have a status?ebated him a few years ago. it was about fisa. is there perfect consistency out there? heavens, north. -- heavens, no. there are two substantive arguments out there. one is policy and the other is the law. the law is the basic deal. you get away from the basic deal and you risk the most important thing of all, which is people asking the question, why should i obeyed? you risk that, you risk everything. the small thing -- a last small thing about roosevelt. roosevelt agreed on a whole bunch of policy things. my point is that they came at these decisions from a different basis. they did agree on a whole bunch of things. but it was for different reasons and those reasons are not to be discounted easily. i will leave it at that for now. >> jeffrey, a quick response. >> it is helpful to distinguish between the policy points and the legal point. i am glad we see eye to eye on some of the policy points, especially dealing with libertarian limits. >> i am not a libertarian. >> that is the part

scalia said if society wants to outlaw discrimination, there are legislatures. >>> the navy captain who starred in a series of raunchy videos has been relieved of his command. he says that hasn't stopped some from coming to his defense. >> reporter: navy officials took action, relieving owens honors of command. >> i have lost confidence in his ability to lead effectively. >> reporter: the move comes in reaction to the scandal over racy videos from 2006 and 2007. they were played for thousands of sailors deployed on the enterprise. honors, who was second in command at the time, produced and starred in the videos. >> let's get to my favorite topic. >> reporter: the clips include simulated sex acts and shower scenes. the videos have turned into a major embarrassment here at the pentagon. it turns out the navy knew about the raunchy material four years ago, but didn't take action against honors. officials called requests to stop playing the video, but honors was promoted. some of the sailors are coming to honors' defense, saying the skits were only meant to cheer up the crew. >> he didn't d

i think that the comparison to scalia is quite right. i think there is a -- written about there's a debate about whether the constitution is a living breathing document meaning that it evolves and more fs and is interpretted by judges to say what it is wanted to say or whether it is a text that sort of anchors our views. i'm a constitutionalist in general. i think it's really a remarkable document, really one of the great political documents in american history. not perfect but really quite amazing. and i think for liberals to go after and mock the constitution, which some did when the republicans opened the first day of business as leading the house, to mock it is a plit can i perilous thing. guest: i think you can count on one hand the liberals who mocked the constitution. it's a marvelous document. it's gotten us through all these years. but just a couple points. scalia is dead wrong on this issue that the constitution has to be taken literally and it is a dead document which i have heard him say. i saw a cartoon yesterday where someb

legislative history and soon thereafter having one of your colleagues who shall remain -- justice scalia -- saying he never looked -- [laughter] he never looks at that. i'd like to know how important it is to the court as a whole, justice scalia notwithstanding, that stuff that we wrote -- >> different people have different views on that. i mean, my view is i will look and read it and really self-pitying remark i'm about to make. i, too, have a vote. [laughter] and so it's different people have different views. some say, no, we shouldn't read that because we're just interested in this what the text says that the representative has voted on. and, you see, it's the question of that vote on a text -- and don't go beyond that because there's too much risk of distortion and so forth. and others, like myself, say i want to read whatever i can read to get enlightenment about what those obscure words -- and believe me, they are obscure, because if they were not obscure on its face, what's that case doing in our court? and i want to see what you wrote. and be i suspect you, like me, when you wrot

you know, i have the feeling, actually, that justice scalia has seen my work. reading the decision, i thought that he had actually come and seen my work and tim's work, so maybe he will come, and i would be curious-- maybe that'll be my next piece. so you'll take this national-- colleges and universities. do you get a different reaction at all from college students than you do from whatever you'd describe as your regular audience? the reaction varies wildly from-- you know, i did this at a small college in michigan, albion college-- 300 people, standing ovation. i did it in upstate new york, and at a certain critical moment in the show where i say all of the negative things that writers said about us and that they're true, and half the audience got up and left. so it--it keeps it fresh, because i'm not just running it in one place in the same old-- it is a conversation with the audience. this has been a wonderful conversation. thank you so much for joining us today, holly. thank you, ken. i'm ken paulson, back next week with another conversation about the first

and justice scalia i think led that took and there could be constitutional objections and powers to the reins act which we'll hear from our witnesses. there is a role for us. there's a role for the executive. there's a role for the judiciary. i look forward to our witnesses' testimony and i look forward to working with chairman coble and others in the congress in the 112th congress. and i yield back the remainder of my time. >> some cohen, i thank you for your generous remarks at the opening. i appreciate that. the statements of all members will be made a part of the record without objection. and i am told that mr. smith and mr. conyers would like to make opening statements and i recognized the distinguished gentleman from texas the chairman of the full committee, mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and mr. chairman, thank you for chairing this particular hearing which i think is going to be one of the most important of the year. as you said, i also welcome our former colleague david mcintosh and david, i hope we get to talk a little bit more later on but appreciate you being here, t

the new york times has called for scalia to not go. >>> former white house chief of staff rob emmanuel will appeal to the illinois court justice. emmanuel rented out his chicago home and moved his family to washington to work for president obama for nearly two years. and in just a few hours michael jackson's doctor acaused in jackson's death will be back in court. lawyers for dr. conrad murray say they will not seek a plea bargain. murray is accused of giving jackson an illegal dosage of medicine. >>> one republican lawmakers is proposing a plan to have u.s. states declare bankruptcy. california is one of the states facing a financial crisis. supporters of the plan say allowing them to declare bankruptcy would prevent a federal bailout. taxpayers would declare more. >>> california lawmakers routinely rack up huge gasoline bills despite the budget crisis. today's chronicle is reporting that -- it's a perk you can only find in california. last year the gas bill was $208,000 for the state assembly members. $86,000 for members of the state senate. >>> i know sal is keeping an eye on the ro

audience to talk about the heller case because as you said, justice scalia had a very elaborate historicalinquiry pointing in one direction and justice stevens had been equally elaborate and you have your own approach a year on dissenting opinion that is very eliminating of your interpretation and the people may have not focused on your particular opinion i will give you a chance to elaborate. >> but what i am trying to illustrate is the same approach as if we had a case recently where a national security matter about god forbid giving aid, material sources to terrorist groups and the question which is not an easy question is not whether not the former administrator law judge wanted to cheat -- wanted to teach a kurdish group and how to for political assistance. i thought not. i that they said a big constitutional question and you must interpret the statute to avoid it but what i am trying to show with that is the approach that they use that other countries call it proportionality and sometimes we call it strict scrutiny our media scrutiny or tiny scrutiny. [laughter] but if you look and y

the three who are not here are justice alito, justice scalia and justice thomas. but i see justice roberts, chief justice roberts is here. everybody who was watching the last time. it wasn't at the state of the union. it was at the joint session of congress where president obama addressed a joint session of congress for health care reform. he made a comment, the president did, about the supreme court decision on campaign finance. justice alito shook his head. it became a bigdeal. here is william livinggood who is the house sergeant of arms. he is now going to announce the president. ( applause ) >> mr. speaker, the president of the united states. ( applause ) >> lehrer: mark, this is the magic moment for many members of the house in particular who like to be seen shaking the president's hand. it doesn't matter who the president is. coming down this aisle for this event. >> congresswoman sheila jackson is not there because she's seriously ill. and congresswoman... congressman eliot ingall of new york. >> lehrer: behind the president is the escort committee. that's

in an interview, scalia said in 1868 when the congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th amendment, i don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination or not sexual orientation. the law center is shocked by the statement saying under the doctrine women would lose all the rights enforced in the act. they could be legally bared from juries and paid less by the government and be excluded from stayed-run schools. you can get into national parks for free for 17 days. they announced the free dates and they are just around the corner. the first is january 15th through the 17th. other dates include national park week april 16th through the 24th. fees for camping and concessions are not part of the deal. >> lady gaga is a billboard-topping sings and despite her popularity, she has a side job. she is showing off polaroid's newest gadgets. she is the creative director for polaroid and helps come up with a new line of products including sunglasses and a wireless print they're can print directly from the wireless phone. today is christmas for

i think that the comparison to scalia is quite right. i think there is a -- written about there's a debate about whether the constitution is a living breathing document meaning that it evolves and more fs and is interpretted by judges to say what it is wanted to say or whether it is a text that sort of anchors our views. i'm a constitutionalist in general. i think it's really a remarkable document, really one of the great political documents in american history. not perfect but really quite amazing. and i think for liberals to go after and mock the constitution, which some did when the republicans opened the first day of business as leading the house, to mock it is a plit can i perilous thing. guest: i think you can count on one hand the liberals who mocked the constitution. it's a marvelous document. it's gotten us through all these years. but just a couple points. scalia is dead wrong on this issue that the constitution has to be taken literally and it is a dead document which i have heard him say. i saw a cartoon yesterday where someb

i'm not sure i understood your response to justice scalia. if there is ambiguity, if a term can be given two meanings, and it's not clear -- and i know you're challenging the clarity question here -- i thought that congress's intent to have full disclosure would necessarily mean that where there's ambiguity as to the meaning of an exception then we should change the narrowest meaning. >> well, i think we disagree, and i think this is why. no legislation pursues its primary goal at all costs, and the foia exceptions that are at issue here protect very important values that congress deemed to warrant exceptions from the rule. so if the court were to put a thumb on one scale of that balance that congress has tried to strike, after using all the normal tools of construction, we think that would distort rather than advance the intent -- >> i don't understand that. we're not putting a thumb on the scale. we're taking account of the fact that -- that congress has many objectives in any legislation and that the limitations are as important as the sub

but for him, justice scalia talking about interpretation as our original intent. we have a comment on twitter. fred rightsw fredrites -- let's go to towson, oklahoma -- tulson, oklahoma. caller: i think we don't have to look at the problems -- when you have supreme court justices who insist on calling our system a democracy when in fact we are not a democracy, we are a republic. what i would say is our foundations are clearly, clearly easily found in our libraries of congress. the founders took elaborate notes. it is obviously clear to look and say what their intents were, and from there it is certainly a living document. it can't be sated -- stated that it is one or the other. but to say it is a living document, does not cut the legs out from under the fact that it has a well established roots and those intents of the founder should be followed. host: alfredo from albuquerque, new mexico. caller: it is like living the life, with the life was created. our life was created how? trying to make the good, but not actually making our water, our soil, our air, oxygen --

justice scalia lead that talk. can certainly be constitutional objections.executives, and the judiciary. i look forward to our witness testimony, working with the chairman and our other colleagues on the subcommittee. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> at thank you, and i think you as well for your generous remarks at the opening. statements of all members will be made a part of the record without objection to rely and told that mr. smith and connors would like to make opening statements to be at recognize distinguished and a man from texas, the chairman of the full committee, mr. smith. >> thank you mr. chairman to be sticky for chairing this particular hearing which i thint important of the year. as you said, i also welcome our former colleague david mcintosh. david, i hope we get to talk more later on, but i appreciate your being here, too. the american people in november voted for real change in washington. one change that they want is to stop the flood of regulation that cost jobs and smothers job creation. from washington and congress make them

the three who are not here are justice alito, justice scalia and justice thomas. but i see justice roberts, chief justice roberts is here. everybody who was watching the last time. it wasn't at the state of the union. it was at the joint session of congress where president obama addressed a joint session of congress for health care reform. he made a comment, the president did, about the supreme court decision on campaign finance. justice alito shook his head. it became a big deal. here is william livinggood who is the house sergeant of arms. he is now going to announce the president. ( applause ) >> mr. speaker, the president of the united states. ( applause ) >> lehrer: mark, this is the magic moment for many members of the house in particular who like to be seen shaking the president's hand. it doesn't matter who the president is. coming down this aisle for this event. >> congresswoman sheila jackson is not there because she's seriously ill. and congresswoman... congressman eliot ingall of new york. >> lehrer: behind the president is the escort committee. that's

constitution is exactly what the framers of the constitution said and no more, you can get justice scalia or justice thomas as your sources of support. if you want a more flexible interpretation of the constitution, the constitution has to take account of the changes and the differences in society in the 21st century than in the 18th century, you're going to get that from judge breyer or from judge kagan or, you know, any of the more liberal justices. so, yeah, i think that members of congress can find abundant ammunition for whatever position they want to argue on the floor of the house or senate from things that the justices of the supreme court have written in their opinion bees. opinions. yes. >> my name is george hurley, i'm from the university of san diego. my question is about federalism. and the states, there seem to be more and more states that are going quote-unquote bankruptcy or acquiring more and more debt. what are your feelings about the federal government? seems like they're bailing out some states here and there. what role is the federal government going to continue to pl

justice scalia lead that talk. can certainly be constitutional objections.k forward to our witness testimony, working with the chairman and our other colleagues on the subcommittee. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> at thank you, and i think you as well for your generous remarks at the opening. statements of all members will be made a part of the record without objection to rely and told that mr. smith and connors would like to make opening statements to be at recognize distinguished and a man from texas, the chairman of the full committee, mr. smith. >> thank you mr. chairman to be sticky for chairing this particular hearing which i thint important of the year. as you said, i also welcome our former colleague david mcintosh. david, i hope we get to talk more later on, but i appreciate your being here, too. the american people in november voted for real change in washington. one change that they want is to stop the flood of regulation that cost jobs and smothers job creation. from washington and congress make them more accountable. the reins act make

if they want to invoke justice briar i would refer them respectfully to justice scalia as well who has been among all the justices the guardian of the president's power. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> he did not violate it too badly. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i would like to make my own statement part of the record with your consent. i want to thank all three of our panelists. mr. mcintosh, i will start -- >> without objection. >> that you, mr. chairman. what in your judgment is the proper balance between the executive branch and the legislative branch it comes to rule making and enforcement? >> well, let me point out that the administrative procedure act also constrains how the executive branch writes its regulations, the processes it must use before they can have the force of law. so there is a long tradition in our modern history of congress asserting constraints over how the president's and the executive branch can issue regulations. it is fully compatible with

we can scratch off scalia and thomas from the guest list -- h a he said it is a juvenile spectacle. anthony kennedy seems to like the palm been circumstances but the not like the president's shot last year -- he wrote the decision. what about the four liberals? ruth bader ginsburg, steven briar, sonia sotomayor and elena kagan? firstill be kagan's chance as a new justice. if kennedy stays home and the four liberals decide to go, what this chief justice roberts do? does not get wide justices go to the state of the union in the first place? he criticized the and then for having degenerated into a political pep rally. as -- may decide to buy the bullet. he has to consider it -- consider the reputation of the court and how it is perceived. with four liberals going and no conservatives, it could be interpreted as a political statement, that could be especially start this year when lawmakers are bucking the tradition to sit together in peace and harmony. a breakdown of who will be sitting together. here is "usa today." lawmakers mixed and mingled. joe lieberman and john mccain, darrell is

justice centralia -- justice scalia -- you in the past have distanced yourself from labels of being liberal, conservative, or a strip constructivist. hal had the labels affected your career as a justice -- how have the labels affected your career as a justice? >> i do not have an overarching interpreted it philosophy. some of the adjectives do not make any sense. i have never understood "living constitution appear "people must believe in a dead constitution. the question is, how do you interpret the most powerful words on the paper? i guess i am focused on the text as a lot of us do. if you are asked to interpret the law, you have to begin by reading what it says. you need to figure out what the words mean. things come up that do not seem to fit. i do not have an overarching philosophy. i do not think judges are given free-ranked to modify -- free- rein to modify what the constitution means. our job is to give a faithful forced to the enactment of the fall of the -- of the founding fathers. in the case of statute, it is the faithful interpretation of the worst congress adopted. some judges

justice scalia said in the thermal imaging case years ago that cutting edge technology that isn't in general use is presumptively unreasonable and contains intimate details in the home without a warrant. but given the jurisdiction of challenges that face by the time a court of appeals ruled on this and the supreme court actually heard it, it might be two or three years down the line. but by that point people have gotten used to it and the court might have said is a result become constitutionally unreasonable some time is of the essence. it's important these students move forward. i wouldn't predict the court would buy it, but i see that all of our colleagues here have a very strong case these are in fact constitutionally unreasonable searches. >> so ginger, we now have jeff and anant who have filed their lawsuit and you have been at this for some time both in building a record through the freedom of information act litigation looking fairly closely at the legal fees. what would be your advice to them? which arguments do you think they should pursue? and by the way, since they are in

you know, judge scalia sat on the bench, been there for about ten years and it was approved unanimously judge alito, and why can't i think of her name? yeah, kagan. kagan. >> okay. >> who was colleague at the white house. you know, you really only have a handful of members votes on the other side of the aisle. that's why i said, the effort has to be on those in the middle. keeping those of your party who you should get, but -- excuse me, persuading some on the other side that they should do it too. they should support you too, which is increasingly difficult. but again we talked about choices that the president has to make of where he wants to play the ball game, so i think it was also referred to what sort of -- what sort of leader is john boehner? what sort of speaker is john boehner going to be or mitch mcconnell? will they perceive it's not interest to get something done. in which case legislative affairs is going to be successful. by their own -- some of their biggest friends on the democratic side. so but as you develop your legislative, you know, strategy being aware of and being

justice scalia said in the thermal imaging case years ago that cutting edge technology that isn't in general use is presumptively unreasonable and contains intimate details in the home without a warrant. but given the jurisdiction of challenges that face by the time a court of appeals ruled on this and the supreme court actually heard it, it might be two or three years down the line. but by that point people have gotten used to it and the court might have said is a result become constitutionally unreasonable some time is of the essence. it's important these students move forward. i wouldn't predict the court would buy it, but i see that all of our colleagues here have a very strong case these are in fact constitutionally unreasonable searches. >> so ginger, we now have jeff and anant who have filed their lawsuit and you have been at this for some time both in building a record through the freedom of information act litigation looking fairly closely at the legal fees. what would be your advice to them? which arguments do you think they should pursue? and by the way, since they are in

well, what did justice scalia do. he put in a series of examples of laws that are presumptively constitutional. why do you suppose he did that. does he violate his premise that we do not normally put lots of dicta in there? i don't think so. thk d ior oer g as th's hhe gi votes. because some of the members of the court would have been decidedly uneasy with not yi anytnglsbout i t as ticrs i t seth i do congratulate the victors in the case, were able to say, well, see, we haven't wreaked complete havoc on the universe yet. all these laws are protected. all right. so this dicta is terribly serious as a problem for the reason i'm about to come to, which is, how does he decide that these laws are okay. he doesn't tell us. he just simply announces his conclusion. and so usually what we do is we can tell whether a law is okay because we have a standard of review. how strictly are we going to construe the constitutional right in this particular case. indeed, this standard of review which sounds like some lawyer's language is