justice scalia, the justice scalia clip you just showed had the judge up here in theory. where are the studies that show this is deleterious? whereas you have justice kennedy in the real world practical effects. he knows how many children there are in california with same-sex parents. he's definitely concerned about what happens to those children because they're with same-sex parents and the same-sex parents aren't recognized as married under the law. what happens to those children if something happens to those par parents? he's thinking real world as opposed to theoretical. >> jeffrey, how do you view kennedy's questioning today? i quoted your article, which was not that favorable to the justice. but notwithstanding that, how do you view his questioning and his position today? >> well, that article was just meant to suggest it's rare that kennedy finds a problem in national life that he's not willing to consider on constitutional terms. and in that sense, i think the gay marriage side should be encouraged by kennedy's questions. because he got the central point in their

meaning justices scalia and sotomayor and kagan?> i think that a lot of people were surprised to hear justice scalia refer to the voting rights act as a racial entitlement. no one knows what he was actually thinking, but i think the word entitlement suggests somehow that you're getting something you didn't earn, and for many of us we think of the voting rights act and the right to vote as sort of an equality mandate for all americans. it's an equality mandate, not some kind of an entitlement, something that when the voters of texas -- and in texas, african-americans and latinos, federal courts found that they were intentionally discriminated against. their right to vote, section 5's ability to stop that, that's not a racial entitlement. that's american justice. >> i don't believe, dale, that voting is a racial entitlement. i don't know how anyone could make such a statement, but giving him the benefit of the doubt, it was bone-headed what he said at best. as i read the full context, he seemed to be saying we never unwind benefits th

meaning justices scalia and sotomayor and kagan?k that a lot of people were surprised to hear justice scalia refer to the voting rights act as a racial entitlement. i think that the language -- no one knows exactly what he was thinking, but the word entitlement suggests that somehow you are getting something that you didn't earn. for many of us we think of the voting rights act and the right to vote as sort of an equality mandate for all americans. it's an equality mandate, not some kind of an entitlement, something that when the voters of texas -- and in texas, african-americans and latinos, federal courts found that they were intentionally discriminated against. their right to vote, section 5's ability to stop that, that's not a racial entitlement. that's american justice. >> i don't believe, dale, that voting is a racial entitlement. i don't know how anyone could make such a statement, but giving him the benefit of the doubt, it was bone-headed what he said at best. as i read the full context, he seemed to be saying we never unwi

justices scalia and sotomayor and kagan?of people were surprised to hear justice scalia refer to the voting rights act as an entitlement. no one knows what he was actually thinking, but the word xwil entitlement suggests are you getting something that you didn't earn and we think of the voting rights act as sort of an equality mandate for all americans. equality mandate. not an entitlement. when the voters of texas and african-american latinos, federal courts found they were intentionally discriminated against. section 5's ability to stop that, that's not entitlement, that's american justice. >> i don't believe, dale, that voting is a racial entitlement. i don't know how anyone could make that statement. giving him the benefit of the doubt, it's bone headed. he seems to say we never unwind benefits for-to-a specific demographic. is he right? >> i don't think he meant that. i think he's trying to say is articulate the argument that racial discrimination is largely a thing of the past and we don't need the civil rights act, th

you don't often see standing up to scalia.t seems like the dynamics have changed on the bench in terms of the arguments. >> well, whenever you have new justices it's going to change the dynamics a little bit and i think everybody would agree that's happened begins justices sotomayor and kagan zwrouned the bench. they brought the conversation back down to reality a little bit. scalia made these comments that were a bit incendiary and what jaws tus casing and justice sotomayor tried to focus on are the facts. the facts of continuing discrimination in places like alabama. sotomayor noted there have been about 240 discriminatory voting law that is have been blocked in alabama alone since the last time the voting rights act was reauthorized. the question show posed to the lawyer for shelby county at the beginning when you have that kind of record how can you stand with a straight face before this court and say that you no longer need federal observation over your voting laws? >> my only regret about this is that we as americans can

why does scalia say that is a key question? >> well, that really goes to the heart of scalia's judicial philosophy. he is what he calls an originalist. he thinks the constitution means precisely what it meant in 1791 when it was ratified or 1868 when the 14th amendment was ratified, he says the constitution doesn't change. implicit in his question was look, in those eras, they certainly were not thinking about same sex marriage. so what he was sort of mocking olson's argument by saying well, if it wasn't true then, when did it become true. and olson's point was we don't keep track of the constitution like a clock. what the point is is that it's unconstitutional today to discriminate against gay people in this way. that was what both sides were getting at in that argument. >> that's why so many conservatives have turned on ted olson, because they believe that he ought to be the scalia on this and have an originalist interpretation of the constitution and in this courtroom today, he seemed to be saying something very, very differ

that's how scalia portrayed it. not a real issue. harvey milk wasn't born yesterday this is a longstanding movement for equality and scalia has deep problems with many privacy rulings. he was against the decision in morris, so he was against the decriminalization of home sexuality. so he's really citing cases back in the 19th century. >> how can he have his cake and eat it too? this is new, there is no judicial precedent, but i have a point of view, but i won't explain that or make station based on that because it's too soon. the circles or levels of deception seem to be pretty profound. >> it's not very convincing. he has a history of going boldly into unchartered territories when he felt that was the direction they needed to go. and no one was surprised about scalia, though i thought he played his role fairly well, but i didn't find it convincing. more unnerving was the general thrust of the justices that they didn't want to go down the highway. they want an exit. and frankly, looking for a cheat. a way to get out of this. without

it's not at all the characterization i would have used for justice scalia.wouldn't have used justice scalia's term about the voting rights act as being a racial entitlement. it was renewed in 2006 with almost unanimous support including support from republicans and it's done a lot of good. in mississippi this was requirement to register twice and struck that down and everybody agreed including republicans. in the year 2002, when arizona passed a redistricting law it could disenfranchise lots of hispanics, the bush justice department struck that down. so, i think it is -- it wasn't the right thing necessarily for congressman cliburn to use that language. i wouldn't have used it. i respect him, a friend, a wonderful guy. but i also think that justice scalia's term in calling this racial entitlement was not quite in keeping with the bipartisan history of this. >> before we move onto the substance of it, and julian got to that, as the second point. you know, i took issue with this last week with some others name calling against justice scalia. the reason in part

should scalia just start wearing his way. to the court. it wouldn't surprise anybody i thought what was so interesting about scalia's whole attack it was an attack on minorities i mean you don't come out and say that this is a system that's perpetual in title meant system for minorities which is basically what he's saying he's saying minorities have gotten all they deserve all they need and now it's time to move on but the truth is i thought it was interesting the way he read the minds of the senators who had just in two thousand and six reviewed for twenty days reams of material document after document thousands of documents and determined that there was absolutely a need to extend the act to extend the protection of section five of the voters' rights act they unanimously voted to say yes there is now. i thought it was interesting tom that in that room in that mixture was richard shelby in jeff sessions both from alabama both extremely conservative no way these two guys are liberal but they concluded that yes this this act is necessary as

used to hearing a lot of stunning things coming out of the mouth the supreme court justice antonin scalia but yesterday he really outdid himself what jaw dropping remark made the supreme court chamber goes silent and what are its implications on voting rights in america also as lawmakers in washington continue to push nuclear power as a clean source of energy nuclear waste is pouring out of outdated storage tanks in washington state with his latest nuclear nightmare changed politicians minds and bring an end to nuclear power in america and later in the show is a your take my take it live segment your chance to call in and ask a question or make a comment live on the air. you need to know this after yesterday's oral arguments before the u.s. supreme court it's likely that five corporatist right wingers on the bench will strike down section five of the voting rights act which prevents certain parts of the nation from blatantly discriminating against minority voters justices justice scalia's line of questioning in particular was troubling and it actually illustrates why section five is still

i don't think anybody is looking to scalia for what he thinks about gay marriage.written him off. >> frankly nobody cares. right. right. he's going to vote against it and that's the end of it. in oral arguments today, he brought out the harm marriage equality could possibly do to the children of gay parents. later he said, well, you know, the science is still out on that. and i don't particularly have an opinion on it. the way he brought it in, it's clear he does have an opinion. at least that he backtracked after he said it shows he's noticing a bit the country thinks he's an angry old racist man. >> who knows what would have given them that impression. >> the fact that he called voting, the voting rights act a racial entitlement -- >> yeah. >> -- was just bizarre. it's like, okay, i understand if you want to, like, go down the road of calling welfare or something like that, i understand what you're trying to say. i disagree but i understand where you're going with that. but voting? the very act of voting? i don't think anybody's looking to scalia for, you know, h

scalia made my head explode.id some pretty good stuff yesterday that was very surprising. >> stephanie: what did he say? >> i can't remember. i'm going to look it up. >> stephanie: thanks for bringing that to the show. [ laughter ] >> stephanie: what is your purpose here really? >> i remember saying -- i need to find it. >> standards are that low. >> hold on. >> stephanie: that explains a lot about your personal life. >> hope you like back hair. >> oh, god! >> i have no-no no hair rehearsal devices for you. >> in response to the assertion that traditional marriage is based on responsible procreation, justice scalia quipped, i suppose we could have a questionnaire at the marriage desk asking are you fertile. >> stephanie: huh? [ scooby-doo's "huh?" ] >> yes he questioned -- >> stephanie: he's going to take off his scoob by mask and it is actually ruth bader ginsburg. [ scooby-doo's "huh?" ] >> stephanie: you have horrible taste. i'm not saying that based on that. [ buzzer ] >> oh! kidding, of course i'm kidding. m

. >>> this morning my question, what in the world was justice scalia talking about?nd just thinks that people are making out like bandits. and once again, congress plays lucy to the american people's charlie brown. good grief. >>> good morning, i'm melissa harris-perry, and today, it is saturday march 2nd. remember last saturday when i said that in less than a week $85 billion of automatic spending cuts would begin to take effect, and spending cuts that no one wants and leaving americans to take furloughs or job layoffs? well, happy sequester day, because the sequester is here, and it looks like it is here to stay, because even though the congressional leadership met with president obama at the white house yesterday morning, nothing came of it. both camps came out with the same talking points they had when they started the meeting. republican house speaker john boehner moseyed on out of the white house with the same ole same ole to offer. >> make it clear that the president got the tax hikes on january 1st. there is a discussion about the revenue in my view is over.

i'm embarrassed he's a justice. >> toure, if you really want to know what makes justice scalia crazy,, take a listen to this. >> but it really enrages me to hear people refer to it as a politicized court. thert i nor any one of my colleagues votes a certain way because he or she likes this president or is a member of the party that that president belongs to. i couldn't care less who the president is. >> there he is raging against your suggestion that the court is politicized. maybe he didn't mean what you think and what jimmy thinks he meant by racial entitlement. >> well, i mean, as jimmy broke down so eloquently, there is really only one way to take this concept of racial entitle am and the makers and takers, the 47%. all this way we said of why people work hard as romney showed in his welfare to work ad, white people work hard and we're forced to give our money to black and brown people, isn't that wrong? shouldn't we change that? the court we see today is pretty well divided, and we know which way that thomas and alito and for the most part roberts and of course scalia are going t

when mr justice scalia asked the question ted olson did not answer the fourteenth amendment he said it was once we as a society understood that people no longer a choice about being gay that we had this obligation that is something that is a societal policy question not something to be found in the law itself going to have a clip of a little boy you look at all this and actually did respond saying that it was an eight hundred sixty the first time he responded he was bonded the way that i described and secondly in the fourteenth amendment you can see the congressional debate and absolutely they raised the question of black marriage that was something that they absolutely wanted to address and whether they wanted to address gay marriage they could have said that they were going on and so wait wait hold on. now let's i mean we could talk about the course i want to with this is a philosophical difference that i think we're debating here and that's the big elephant in the room right do you realize and i always ask this question to my conservative colleagues and compatriots is do you real

they're not troubled at all by what justice scalia said? i find that very interesting. >> well, i hope we give them an opportunity to take to the floor and take to public forum. you're absolutely right. if you want to ask me whether there's been a choir, a crescendo of republicans challenging that statement, i've not heard nap. >> here's one of the lawyers challenging section 5. >> we've made great strides over the years. we have minority participation at record levels. we have minority candidates elected by 90% white populations. >> he says we no longer need the voting rights act. i mean, what is reality here? >> he's absolutely wrong. and i will say this. this is what we said in 2006. i'm on the house judiciary committee with the other colleagues. and what we said is progress -- when i say we, members of congress listening to testimony said progress has been made, ed. but the purpose of section 5 is to ensure that as the states make each additional new law that may block voting we have section 5 preclearance. in 2006, ed, we did not have

i said antonin scalia behaved like an internet troll this week over the remarks at the supreme court. do you want to know why i said that? hold on. ♪ ♪ no two people have the same financial goals. pnc works with you to understand yours and help plan for your retirement. visit a branch or call now for your personal retirement review. exciting and would always come max and pto my rescue. bookstore but as time passed, i started to notice max just wasn't himself. and i knew he'd feel better if he lost a little weight. so i switched to purina cat chow healthy weight formula. i just fed the recommended amount... and they both loved the taste. after a few months max's "special powers" returned... and i got my hero back. purina cat chow healthy weight. ♪ ♪ we're lucky, it's not every day you find a companion as loyal as a subaru. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. >>> all right. let's cue the michigan tape. if you live in michigan and your town goes broke -- hey, it happens. come on -- the state of michigan has the option to come in and take over your town or your school district, righ

i said antonin scalia behavedly an internet troll this week over the remarks at the supreme court. do you want to know why i said that? hold on. [ indistinct conversations ] [ male announcer ] when you wear dentures you may not know it, but your mouth is under attack. food particles infiltrate and bacteria proliferate. ♪ protect your mouth, with fixodent. the adhesive helps create a food seal defense for a clean mouth and kills bacteria for fresh breath. ♪ fixodent, and forget it. ♪ license and registration please. what's this? uhh, it's my geico insurance id card, sir. it's digital, uh, pretty cool right? maybe. you know why i pulled you over today? because i'm a pig driving a convertible? tail light's out.. fix it. digital insurance id cards. just a click away with the geico mobile app. >>> all right. let's cue the michigan tape. if you live in michigan and your town goes broke -- hey, it happens. come on -- the state of michigan has the option to come in and take over your town or your school district, right? the state abolishes your local democracy. so it doesn't matter whoever

. >>> coming up, everybody talked about what scalia said in the case before the supreme court.re were many clues on how the supreme court would rule than what everyone else had to say. that is next. vo: always one step ahead with an intuitive motion activated lid and seat, bold makes sure you'll never have to ask him again. i honestly loved smoking, and i honestly didn't think i would ever quit. [ male announcer ] along with support, chantix is proven to help people quit smoking. it reduces the urge to smoke. it put me at ease that you could smoke on the first week. [ male announcer ] some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these stop taking chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these stop taking chantix and see your d

of what take note justice scalia said the three times, referring to racial entitlement as the voting rights act, the voting rights act of racial entitlement. it was just offensive. >> i do not know where to start. we're not talking about reimposing poll taxes, preventing people from going to the balls. -- going to the polls. there is a constitutional question as to whether the federal government has a right to discriminate among states. this is a constitutional principle of equal treatment of , and if you determine as a supreme court justice that it is unconstitutional, you law isned upothe unconstitutional, and you do not look of the political parties. >> this week, the administration said that a congressional ban on same-sex marriage of violence -- violates the constitutional protection of equal rights. plant eastwood is on the same page as a obama. -- clint eastwood is on the same page as obama. >> public opinion on gay marriage has changed faster than anybody anticipated, including same-sex couples. it is astonishing to even the people who initially sponsored this referendum. wit

. >> yet you have anthony scalia thinking for the part of the court that does want to move -- >> fromhe 1950s, but hi literally almost said this. scalia in describing this, he called it a new world from eric holder can decide a law unconstitutional, but not yet so unconstitutional that the executive branch won't enforce it the you did have some talk on the court of people saying this is like cell phones and newfangled things like the internet, this brave new world is all scary, they do sound like they're seeing the new world for the first time. >> i think one thing that's important, is not whether the supreme court decides to punt is that we have an opportunity to hear how little of is case how much their case is based on full hatred, frankly. i mean, once people hear what opponents of gay marriage have to say for themselves in on national stage, there's no denies this is just about discrimination. >> the arguments seems very much tradition for tradition's sake. and we won't know for months what happens, but whatever happens, the public is getting extraordinary education right now. i

it was justice scalia.t what point did it become unconstitutional to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples and ted olson said when did it become unconstitutional to deny that to interracial couples. and he said don't answer my question with a question. this came up repeatedly, the same logic that caused the country to change its mind to tell interracial couples you can't be married should apply to same-sex couples as well. you saw it referenced by the attorney general of california a moment ago on the show. >> he gave the right answer to it, but i wish he cited precedent for it, a slam dunk for it. a case of roger vs. lodge. even if a system of election was created with a nondiscriminatory reason, if it's maintained for discriminatory reason in the future, that in itself can render it unconstitutional. here the at-large election way was not created to be prejudicial, but it was maintained for unconstitutional reasons. >> marriage did evolve in a way that was designed to harm gay people, but it's being ma

it was sort of surprising that scalia or i'm sorry.erts was so -- sort of -- couldn't accept the idea or was -- i think more trying to trap in some way, the government say that are you saying that all of these people who voted for doma, obviously including democrats, are they all bigots? essentially the line of questioning that he was going with. and you know, obviously they didn't want to go there. times have changed since 2006. obviously -- was it motivated by by -- the gay community certainly. i think it is a fair point to say. but it was -- times were different at that point. and you know it wasn't -- the gay rights movement isn't where it is at today. times have certainly changed. but they obviously, you know, especially when you have -- i mean president clinton signed doma into law. it is not a situation where the administration wants to be in a position of saying that yes everyone who signed this -- yeah. >> bill: i don't think -- how you could read it otherwise. it looked like doma is doomed. hey, ryan, good for you for getting

a very good question, but justice scalia, one of the most conservative justices on the court respondedsaying basically, in that case maybe there should be a questionnaire at the clerk's office that asks are you fertile. then he joked about strom thurmond who fathered a child in his 70s. yes, that really happened. then the justices acknowledged that gay people already have children so the question should be being raised by gay parents has an impact. justice scalia said it was hard to determine that, because it was newer than cell phones or the internet. justice anthony kennedy, usually the court's quote swing vote also said the science is inconclusive but added that the children of gay couples deserve a voice. >> michael: now that is a compelling argument. in the end the court might actually make it's a decision not on the merits of the case but on a procedural issue called standing. whether the opponents who brought this case are even the right people to defend the ban. the court did the exact same thing when it first took up the issue of interracial marriage. a few years later the cou

get so first of all we just in that set up we heard justice scalia asking when did gay marriage do it when did the rights of gay couples to be married. first get put into the constitution yes and he was intimating there that's nothing really has changed in the constitution over the last thirty years there's a public perception public opinion has changed. the society has changed and he would probably argue i'm not going to words about that society change isn't enough he's a so-called strict constructionists and since the constitution hasn't changed the supreme court shouldn't change either so it it's more and then what happened is that ted olson came back and said well then i can ask when did this supreme court change when did to become unconstitutional to discriminate against. in a race in a racial marriage. so in the school he came back he stammered a little bit and said that when the fourteenth amendment came into being so if he was trying to make a point i think ted olson. significantly shot it down by saying the supreme court will change with society just because the supreme court

. >> justice scalia sounded skeptical of the streamlined federal form. "check off, i am a citizen, right? so it's under oath. big deal. if you are willing to violate

and scalia were on opposite sides of the same issues. how one works out particular details is as i say very difficult to predict. they were both justice scalia and judge bork were original lists, but often think about who were against d.c., the case on the meaning of the second amendment, that all nine justices took original list positions in the case but a divided five period four. these questions can be difficult trying to predict what people would do i think is a fool's errand. all i can say is that he had the ability and the generally right framework about how to go about doing. >> there's a lot of discussion now about what is an activist judge and what is not for each interpretation as far as the original intent of the constitution versus today's society that is not contemplated by the authors. would you share with us what this means and what is the appropriateness today? >> the problem with the word activist is that people use it, the attach it to be hitting badly. and i am now going to fill in what badly is. the left accuses the r

opposing the liberals are the conservative fab four, roberts, the cute one, alito, the smart one, scalia, the lumpy one and thomas the scalia one. [ laughter ] these stalwarts are joined by the lawyer defending traditional marriage charles cooper who come up with one humdinger of an argument. >> the concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreated purposes. >> stephen: thank you. marriage is for procreation only. if you lose that requirement it will confuse the issue and straight couples will forget why they are having sex. the sperm gets half way to the age and say i don't feel a connection for marriage's purposes. back to the pee hole. [cheers and applause] sadly -- [cheers and applause] [laughter] sadly, these days most people know a gay or two which clouds our ability to objectively see them as a frothing pile of sex crazed deviants. even chief justice roberts has a gay connection. >> expected in the audience jean padraski of san francisco and her partner shsms a lesbian cousin of chief justice jo

. >>> a top democratic congressman is slamming supreme court justice scalia's take on the voting rights act. jim clyburn told the huffington post he was absolutely shocked to hear scalia say that a key piece protects racial entitlements. the high court heard oral arguments last week on striking down part of the act that requires the justice department to approve any voting changes in certain jurisdictions. what scalia was basically saying and i'm quoting him here, the 15th amendment of the constitution ain't got no concerns for me because i'm white and proud. >>> now it seems he's getting the cold shoulder. christie was not invited to the conservative political action conference set for later this month. the powerful group's leader says it's because christie backed a temporary expansion of medicaid and the $60 billion hurricane sandy relief bill. peter king says the group is ignoring christie's record. >> that's a suicidal death wish. cpac to me loses all credibility. you have a governor who was conservative, balanced the budget, taken on republican employee unions, pro-life and a 74% f

it's weird to see antonin scalia in person. weird. >> jon: does he. some of the transcripts of what he was saying. he was saying we've got to get rid of this because it's one of last invest yijs of racial preference. >> he said when congress reupped they looked into whether or not it was still necessary. ten months of debate, 21 hearings, 15,000 pages of evidence and in the senate they voted 98-0, yeah we still need but he said, yeah what does that vote mean. >> jon: didn't he say we told them to fix this in 2006 but clearly they can't or won't so we have to do it for them. >> voting is a racial entitlement now. something you are entitled to on the basis of your race. wait a second. do you know how it sounds. i think he does know. that's the neat thing about being there in person you can see oh, actually he's a troll. essaying this for effect -- he e is saying this for effect. he knows he's going to get a gasp. he loves it. he's like the guy in the blog comments using the n word. ahh! did that make you mad. how about if i say this? >> jon: was he like

[laughter] luckily conservative stalwart and justice-the-hutt antonin scalia knows that the courts have to decide this, because even though racism is over, america's elected representatives lack the bicameral ball sack to vote against this thing. >> i am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless-- unless a court can say it does not comport with the constitution. it's-- it's a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to congress. even the name of it is wonderful: the voting rights act. who is going to vote against that in the future? >> stephen: yes, you'd have to be an a-hole to vote against that in the future! luckily, we've got an a-hole who will vote against it in the present. [laughter] the point is, the voting rights [cheers and applause] -- the voting rights act is obsolete it's like an old restraining order. these states are just saying, "yes, i used to beat my girlfriend, but i haven't since the restraining order. so we don't need it anymore!" [laughter] [cheers and applause] here to celebrate this milestone in equality live via satelite is

to view by the way laid out in justice scalia's dissent.t is a recognition of constitution is formed an appeal to function as a claim that something else to be better than the cost to to shame. that may or may not be true, but it isn't inadmissible argument about the structure we have and that is today's prevailing view. the feet, bork and scalia get credit for bringing about change in our jurisprudence. i've gone on too long, but he can't close without one final vignette from bob's post solicitor general yours. remember he was mocked for saying during his 1987 hearings and want to be in the supreme court because of the intellectual feast. that sounded like ivory tower. but you probably don't remember the rest of the events. the book sets it out and i quote, i would like to leave a reputation as a judge who understood constitutional governments of contributed his bid to maintaining anyways i describe to this committee. our constitutional structure is the most important thing this nation has an alibi to maintain it to be remembered for it. c

>> justice scalia represents the minority view on the court. in fact, justice kennedy wrote the majority view, which is the law of the land with respect to this issue, and quite eloquently a conclusion of lawrence versus taxes, justice kennedy reticulated how the basic guarantees of freedom and equality contained in our constitution are stated as general propositions by the founders, by those who wrote the amendments to the bill of rights atause they recognize that -- as our nation evolves, later generations that come out of the 14th, and fifth amendment or drafted, the later generations will see the loss once thought necessary and appropriate only served to oppress. and that later generations will evoke these basic time-honored principles of the constitution and the liberty and equality for their generation and what is an ever-increasing notion of liberty and equality. i think that is exactly what is at issue with the freedom to marry. lesbian and gay people have been having a loving, committed relationships for centuries. it is the truth. but

scalia. give it a go. >> it's been written about when a society adopts racial entitlements it's very difficult to get them out through the normal political congress. it's not the kind of question you leave to congress. they are going to lose votes if they do not enreenact the voting rights act. the name is wonderful. >> jon: congress is too frightened to challenge it based on at peel of its name. i'm assuming he would strike down the signers of decoration of independence under the same logic. i believe if john hancock signed the i wish our tea was cheaper. can you imagine what it must be like to work with that guy? we'll be right back with 8ph$tyzb,x(jq] >> jon: here we go. [cheers and applause] welcome back. my guest tonight she's a former supreme court justice, was the first woman to serve on our supreme court. the new book is called out of order, stories from the history of the supreme court. please welcome back to the program justice sandra day o'connor. nice to see you. >> glad to be her