scalia. the justice whose name most resembles a g.i. joe villean. >> he said the court a opinion talking about the one striking down doma springs from the same diseased root and exalted notion of the role of this court in american democratic society. >> he called it legallistic argle fargel? >> whoa, whoa, argle fargel is a little har be, isn't it? or is it? i done know what that means. these supreme court scholars are going to have a tough time interpreting that in the future. it could mean it's angry t could mean he's choking on a pen top. it could mean he was scuba diving at the time and trying to communicate via sonar. argle fargel. (cheers and applause) but look, look, justice scalia is far from alone in his disappointment for the ruling. yesterday more than a dozen members of the republican study committee got together in front of less than a dozen members of the press to share their feelings. >> the supreme court want to its dictate to the american people what elected legislators can do regarding federal law. >> and now we have a

scalia even by his standards had a scathing dissent. he said this is a draw dropping assertion of judicial supremacy. -- jaw dropping assertion of judicial supremacy. it envisions a supreme court standing that he has enthroned at the apex of governments. they are joining an issue on this. justice scalia had voted to strike down the section four voting right act. i want to bring us to closure. looking at the major decisions that we have talked about, what do they tell us about the collective of what the courts job is in democracy. it is interesting when you think about the individual cases. what is the court of two? what is going on to debate points like this? >> this is something i tell my students. no theory has a market on that argument about judicial restraint. i think it can be used by anyone in dissent when they are upset at the decision to strike down an act of congress. i am not sure i believe it is something we can ascribe to the robert court. it is a rhetorical argument you could say when you're not in the majority. that might

scalia and ginsburg.ose scathing dissents do they mean anything or is it just sort of an elevated version of an old person writing an angry letter to the editor? >> they can mean something in moral terms, right? like we can look back on a dissent like the one in plessy versus ferguson. that's the old case that said it was okay to have separate but equal. we think about that dissent as correct. so it ends up having kind of moral weight but it doesn't have any legal value. you're right about that >> stephen: is there any way we could turn the gay people and the black people against each other? and make them fight in a sort of thunder dome. and the winner gets the civil rights? >> i don't think so. you know, one thing about this country... >> stephen: you're not sure. it's possible. >> no. [ cheers and applause ] >> no. it's not possible. and the reason is these are separate matters of civil rights. they get... the supreme court decides each case as it comes before it. there isn't this kind of overarching wo

scalia even by his standards had a scathing dissent. he said this is a draw dropping assertion of judicial supremacy. the constitutionality of a law. it envisions a supreme court he has enthroned at the apex of governments. they are joining an issue on this. justice leah had voted to strike down the section four voting right act. >> i want to bring us to closure. the major decisions that we have talked about, what do they tell us about the collective o of what the courtss that we have talked about, what do they tell us about the collective o of what the courts they is in democracy. it is interesting when you think about the individual cases. what is the court of two? what is going on to debate points like this? >> this is something i tell my students. no theory has a market on that argument about judicial restraint. i think it can be used by anyone they are upset at the decision to strike down an act of congress. it isot sure i believe something we can ascribe to the robert court. it is a rhetorical argument you could say when you're no

i say justice scalia made up that rule. there is nothing in the rule that said when the government is acting to solve crimes as opposed to do all sorts of other things like collect revenue and secure the public safety, metal detectors are designed to actually prevent and solve crimes as well as protect public safety and fingerprinting and so on. you have to ask, is it realm? here are the things we should ask. >> his argument is i'm sure you realize, when you look at the fourth amendment and you are talking about particularizing the people to be seized and items to be searched, that has been read to mean you have to have individualized suspicion and the way that individualized suspicion is adjudicate side with a magistrate and the cases you are sdroibing are people going through airports or other random stops or even the case where you are taking blood from somebody that is driving a train as part of a general rule that has to do with the special needs to the fourth amendment. that is different than going after someone becau

justice scalia raised this point in horror ten years ago, ten years ago today. on the last big gay rights case that had its majority opinion written by justice kennedy. he was saying, you realize this ruling means gay people are going to be able to get married, right? you realize that? yes, justice scalia, we realize that, and indeed justice kennedy today cited that ten-year-old ruling twice, when he wrote today that the federal government has to recognize all marriages that are recognized in the states, even if some of them have the gay. on this specific issue of utah, what happens now in states that do not recognize all marriages? everybody's been saying all day today that the court is essentially silent on utah. the court doesn't say anything about states where same sex marriage isn't legal. it's not really true. just like he did ten years ago, justice scalia is pounding his chest and raging into the night angrily that his battle against gay rights is over, it's over, because of this latest ruling. when that hypothetical couple that moves to utah sues to try

striking down a law that in the senate the senate approved ninety eight to nothing justice antonin scalia now says that the supreme court has no business overturning laws passed by congress is the court's most conservative justice such a flop or talk about that more in tonight's lone liberal rumble and believe it or not it's time the american people started listening to george w. bush well at least when it comes to congressman darrell than gazi grand car theft i see tell you why and i'd still take. you need to know this twenty thirteen is starting to look a lot like eight hundred fifty eight and a new civil war awfully is time without guns could be on the horizon in the decade leading up to the civil war the united states was an increasingly divided country all northern states like new york pennsylvania massachusetts are experiencing rapid industrialization back then sudden states remain predominately agricultural and while the pre civil war north economy was based on free wage labor the southern economy depended on slavery and looked more like a feudal empire and part of a democratic rep

scalia has allies in congress, including texas representative louie gomers.a press conference today web said the ruling signaled the decline of our civilization. yes, he did say that. >> this isn't new and it's been tried over and over, and it's usually tried at the end of a great civillation. >> that's louie gomer talking about the end of civilization and as one of the four horse man, he should know. perhaps the best reaction came from san francisco's own nancy pelosi. she was asked to respond to michele bachmann's take on the matter and she hit it out of at&t park. >> congresswoman bachmann put out a statement and she essentially said that the decision today cannot undo god's word. what is your reaction to that? >> [ laughter ] >> join meg now daniel moodie-mills, the policy advisor for the center for american progress and elizabeth wydra chief council for the accountability center, both coming from washington d.c. congratulations on what is an absolutely historic and victorious day. danielle what was your reaction today when you heard the news? >> i must h

with justice scalia writing a blistering defense. >> yes. big surprise. scalia wasn't happy.firmly believes that it is inappropriate and arrogant for the court to strike down a decades-old congressional law. >> john: didn't he just help overturn the voting rights act of 1965 literally yesterday? >> reporter: well, like i said, this is a firmly held belief of scalia that he has held for approximately 36 hours now. >> john: to be fair. hundreds and hundreds of minutes. >> reporter: in his defense, there is a substantive difference between the two cases. if you'll permit me legalese, john. he did not like the voting rights act so he ruled against it. but he did like doma so he ruled for it. it's what lawyers call the principle of (whining). >> john: thank you. for a local perspective we go live to al mad gal. al, this ruling is now just 12 years old. [ cheers and applause ] i'm sorry. where are you? >> where am i? where are you? you heard the supreme court, john. everyone has to get gay married. >> john: that is not what the supreme court ruled. >> yes, it is. haven't you been l

i found myself agreeing with antonin scalia.d myself, too just differing in tone and temperament. what particular part. >> i was rereading it now just to see if i remembered exactly what he said and this is the money quote and he's absolutely right. some will despair at today's decision. that is the nature of a controversy that matters to much to so many. the court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. we owed both of them better. i dissent. you know he's right. hal: on that particular part? >> optic part, because what they did is in essence what they've been doing with voting rights and ipsa many cases they punted. it was a great thing and there will be practical changes in people's lives literally now couples that were one part facing defortation, now the federal government will stop doing that. these are wonderful things, but the truth is, now in california, the 13 states that will allow same-sex marriage will be able to create laws and prot

justice scalia is a little miffed. defining it for purposes of state's law but for purposes of federal law. just one example on immigration does that mean the federal government has to defer to the states and will have different immigration policies depending on which sdat you're in. that doesn't make any sense. i think justice scalia is frustrated with the opinion. >> thank you. >>> big developments in the george zimmerman trial. the judge is deciding jurors can hear the call. what does that mean for the case? >>> we've been hearing emotional testimony and seeing some graphic images from the night george zimmerman kill eed trayv martin. >> this trial is moving on quickly. i want to look closer at some of the proceedings now. today, paul, the jurors heard from two women who saw part of this altercation between zimmerman and martin. let's listen to what they said. >> the yells for help that you heard at that time could you identify whether it was the dominant louder voice or the higher pitched one? >> on my opinion i tr

scalia dissented under the equal protection concept. scalia is joined by thomas.id, on a leash with a ball gag in his mouth. showed up as a couple today. dissent against gay american. alito joined by thomas in part. doma is unconstitutional as a deprivation of equal liberty of persons that is protected by the fifth amendment. doma singles out a class of persons deemed by a state entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. the opinion its holdings are confined to lawful marriages which was a quote from the end of the. everybody is going to be tearing through this over the next hour figuring out you know, how far it goes. prop 8 they're going to -- >> gay people are now free to be as miserable as the rest of us. >> hal: that's been the case for -- by the way on the line right now with us, the angry black lady herself from this week in blackness. angry black lady on twitter. hi imannie. this week has been insane. >> so boring. nothing is going on. >> hal: this is a huge step. this is a shock giant you know -- by the way the conservatives had

four of scalia's legs, roberts, scalia, kennedy, joined him in doing just that. section 4 much the vra, the section that sets criteria for choosing which states and counties are subject to vra preclearance is gone. in a way this is an obvious win for the right, a republican party that more than ever before depends on the white votes. it will be easier for republican-controlled states to go forward with voting laws, another procedural twists that c could suppress nonwhite turnout. now think about this for a minute. in a way we've seen this show before. last year republicans scram belged to past a host of voting restrictions across the country. some went into effect. some were blocked thanks to the preclearance requirements, even in pennsylvania where they put a hold on the vra before the election. it was not healthy for democracy but in the end the entire gop effort backfired. the laws fermented a backlash which produced astonishing turnout of black americans. in 2012 even after the state radically curtailed early voting, the black share of the electorate surged t

justice scalia -- >> they are running out.ftentimes that indicates that a decision has been handed out. we don't know what decision that could be. judge, can you address bret's issue, his question? >> look, the issue is can the government defend a statute? and if the government chooses know the to defend a statute does that mean that the statute is indefensible or illegitimate or the lawyers in the courtroom don't have the right to be there? they were willing to overlook that issue in doma, we don't know if it overlooks that issue it appears they didn't in the proposition 8, we'll hear about it as soon as shannon can finish reading what the runners have given her. bill: we will go back to shannon bream now. she has yet i believe another decision this in regard to proposition 8 out of california. shannon i know you're reading as fast if you can. if you have a decision and you have the answer, the stage is yours. >> okay. bill, what we're looking at here is the proposition 8 case, this is the ka is in which california voters wen

i don't often agree with justice scalia, but on this one, me and scalia are on the same page.nd the studio. or me! oh no! my mom just cleaned this place! calm down, squishy, this'll be easy to clean. [ female announcer ] swiffer wetjet pads have the scrubbing power of mr. clean magic eraser. they trap and lock away even monstrous messes to make tough cleaning a breeze. now that's clean. wow. scottie! we won! uh-huh, uh-huh. mom?!! [ female announcer ] swiffer gives cleaning a monstrous new meaning. monsters university, in theaters, in 3d. [ roars ] ♪ [ roars ] ♪ [ roars ] ♪ [ roars ] ♪ [ male announcer ] universal studios summer of survival. ♪ ♪ boy the way glenn miller played, songs that made the hit parade ♪ ♪ guys like us we had it made, those were the days ♪ >>> there is very few television shows or television actors that helped change the culture in america. but the actress jean stapleton did just that. she passed away last friday at age 90. she was best known simply as edith bunker, archie's long suffering wife on that 1970s hit all in the family. the show premiered in 1

scalia wrote -- what exactly does this mean? justice scaliak mischaracterizes these cases. for hundreds of years, the supreme court has built case law based on precedent. what lawrence did was, it recognized that laws actually criminalize the physical expression of love between two people of the same gender, they violate the constitution. the physical relationship of two people of the same gender is indicative of an emotional bond that is far deeper. with the court did today was built upon a precedent, and it applied lawrence to our loving, committed same-sex couples marriages. so it was building on president, just like the supreme court does today. that is exactly what we expect the supreme court to do. i would note, justice scalia, it is in the sense, as the majority of the supreme court believes, that laws that openly discriminates against same-sex couples under federal law and to violate the constitutional rights of lesbian and gay people. clipwant to turn to a from conservative radio show host glenn beck. he was interviewing rand paul of kentucky following decisions. g

. >> i want to read some of justice scalia's dissent in this case. it was a 5-4 decision.s is justice scalia writing for those -- to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements any more than to condemn the constitution of the united states is to condemn other constitutions. to hurl such accusations so easily -- >> what was your response to the decision. >> a string of profanities. you either can support traditional marriage or you support gay marriage. i'm a huge supporter of traditional marriage. my father happens to be in a traditional marriage as does my brother, sister. my neighbors who we love very much are all traditionally married heterosexuals and we're big supporters of their relationships and they're all big supporters of us and our relationship and our marriage. it season the -- you can love traditional marriage for people who are heterosexual and you can love gay marriage for your friends and neighbors and colleagues who are gay, lesbian or bisexual. it's not the either/or that scalia would have y

scalia was with him. soto m sotomayor with justice kennedy. >> the court was looking at whether this group of proponents were the proper defendants to defend the measure. and that was a question as you said of standing. when we talk about standing, the lineups are often kind of unusual. because it has to do with access to federal courts rather than these kind of hot button issues on merit. >> conservatives tend to want to limit standing, right? >> often they do. the dissent was written by justin kennedy who made i think a very good point. that is even though the prop 8 sponsors did not get elected by the people and therefore don't represent them in some sense -- i've been arguing for years the prop 8 sponsors lack standing -- we have to find a way to make sure that elected officials don't get to kill initiatives because the initiative device, after all, is supposed to be a check on their authority. so if the government and attorney general can destroy an initiative merely by not defending it, that puts a

there he goes, confusing jesus with scalia.hele bachmann issued this statement, marriage was created by the hand of god. no man, not even a supreme court can undo what a holy god has instituted. man invented marriage. god invented the gay people, and finally eric canter said he's disappointed in this decision, and the marriage debate will continue in his states and i like his voice because he sounds like a gay southern man. what do we think of folks across the aisle. >> oh do these religious people not understand that god reads their tweets? they call themselves religious but they don't follow god on twitter. this is fake religious in twitter and saying hateful crap. >> god works for the nsa. >> god works under the nsa. >> what i don't understand why the bigots aren't happy about this decision. within one form or another when gay people marry they can't pro crete.create. there willing be less. >> the final business like pragmatism is coming in, and what they're afraid of in the past, i think the right wing conflict is the churc

justice scalia wrote a scathing dissent taking issue with that identity theory.e basically said, look, they are rain that the guy without arraigned the guy without taking the dna sample. unless they didn't know who they were actually a raining, this wasn't used to identify the person. this was used to solve a crime. it turned up a match on an unsolved rape case from 10 years ago, and he was subsequently tried and convicted of that of that rate.-- what justice scalia in the dissent said that you are not allowed to do these searches and seizures if it is for investigatory purpose. you can search for somebody to make sure they don't have weapons, officer safety, and things of that nature, but all maryland wanted to do was solve an unsolved crime, and they had no evidence that this guy was connected to that crime until they ran the dna to the database. host: do you know the applications -- "the new york times" ran a piece saying that police agencies are as something records of a dna and at the local level, some jurisdictions have databases and some are taking dna fro

this is a famous clip from scalia.pts racial entitlements, it's very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. i don't think there's anything to be gained by any senator to vote against continuation of this act. and i am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless a court can say it does not comport with the constitution. >> when i hear that, he seems to be saying, look, republicans are scared of being called racist so i'm going to get rid of it for them. >> first, that statement is not famous but infamous. the notion that these protections for the right to vote, that they are not to racial entitlements. that's an outrageous statement. it was tremendous to hear a supreme court member say that in this day and age. having said, that the other thing about justice scalia, he's well known for being absolutely hostile to legislative history. so, you know, one would think if he was consistent with what he has written and said in many of his opinions, that he would take the voting righ

it is joined by justice scalia, justice ginsburg, justice brier, and justice kagan. two strong conservatives, three liberals. the dissenters in the case is anthony kennedy, who wrote the opinion in the doma case, justice thomas, justice alito, and justice sotomayor. so one moderate, two conservatives, one liberal in dissent. that's the lineup. what they hold, the decision is that hollingsworth, who was defending proposition 8, had no right to be in court. remember, this is a case where two people who wanted to get married in california sued, and the state of california, to say that proposition 8 was unconstitutional. the governor of california, jerry brown, the attorney general of california, pamela harris, said we agree with you. we think proposition 8 is unconstitutional. so there was no one there to defend the law until hollingsworth, who was one of the original supporters of proposition 8, but who had no legal status, stepped in to defend the law. what the five justices in the majority have said is that he didn't have the right to do that. what that means today,

. >> and both opponents very vocal, especially justice scalia. he had a couple of very legalistic "argle. bargle." -- "legalistic "argle-bargle." >> as someone reading it, he kept me awake. he said this is congressionally mandated law,al and he had no problem shutting down the equal voting rights act been. >> today, obviously a very major victory for same-sex marriage. it wasn't a sweeping victory nationwide. they could have gone further, right? >> right. and scalia's dissent is blistering, but it's still a little difficult to follow basically, the justices stopped short of saying laws that discriminate against gay people run lawful. and they also stopped short of saying the federal government can regulate marriage. they said it's discriminatory "ish -- "dis criminatory-ish." and "wrong-ish." >>> a warning to prepare for the worst. b.a.r.t. workers are on the brink of a strike. the last-minute push to avoid a commute nightmare. don't miss sleep train's 4th of july sale. save on sleep train's most popular mattress sets. plus, pay no interest for 3

justice scalia wrote a very fiery dissent.st conservative justices, but he has joked as he did last fall that he should be the pin up for the criminal defense bar because of his views on these matters. >> alan, justice scalia wrote in his dissenting opinion that solving unsolved crimes is a noble objective but it occupies a lower place in the american pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law enforcement searches. so do you agree with that placement there? and if so, where do we draw the line between solving crimes and protecting rights? >> well, i think in this instance justice scalia is right. you opened your show today with the telephone records searches that the administration has disclosed boo the obama administration. it's a similar issue, that the fourth amendment protects people's privacy except when there's a specific reason to believe they have committed a crime. and so rifling through thousands or millions of phone records without any particularized suspicion, doing a rand

justice scalia didn't think it was good. lets take a look at that. >> and this last north dakotament, not a single vote in the senate against it, and the house is pretty much the same. >> what's up with that. >> i think the problem is politicians don't have the courage, which i hope this court will, return to first principles, state racism will not end and will not succeed particularly now we're 50 years past water hosing and ban on sitting in the front of the bus. i mean, it really belittles the challenges the civil rights movement faced in the 1960s to 50 years later be insisting that conditions still warrant the extraordinary remedy the court deemed it to be in the 1960s. it doesn't warrant it. the civil rights movement should declare victory. we should recognize we have greater threats arising from the centralization of power in the federal government and we should also thank the supreme court on reinvigorating decentralization of power of returning to the states their primary role in regulating elections. with nsa surve

. >> justice scalia had already referred to racial entitlements. towards this law essentially saying stop holding the southern states accountable for what happened 50 years ago. it's, a, historic, of course, but you described it exactly, it is hostility to the notion of holding states accountable for voting rights. >> it's also hostility to the notion that people of color ought to have the right to vote, ought to have the untrammelled right to vote, ought to have the ability to vote whenever they want to whenever an election is held. and to see this animus coming from at least two supreme court justice and now we know a larger number of them is just terrifying. there is a remedy for this but it's a hard, tough remedy that will take a lot of effort by a lot of people. it won't be easy. >> if congress doesn't fix this, people will have to sue in order to roll back these kinds of voting laws. >> right. section 2 puts the onus on the individual to prove that there's some sort of discriminatory intent. but what's interesting to me is the other remedy th

you know you're in trouble when antonin scalia votes against you. of that and more right here on current tv. are you encouraged by what you heard the president say the other night? is this personal, or is it political? a lot of my work happens by doing the things that i'm given to doing anyway, by staying in touch with everything that is going on politically and putting my own nuance on it. in reality it's not like they actually care. this is purely about political grandstanding. i've worn lots of hats, but i've always kept this going. i've been doing politics now for a dozen years. (vo) he's been called the epic politics man. he's michael shure and his arena is the war room. >> these republicans in congress that think the world ends at the atlantic ocean border and pacific ocean border. the bloggers and the people that are sort of compiling the best of the day. i do a lot of looking at those people as well. not only does senator rubio just care about rich people, but somehow he thinks raising the minimum wage is a bad idea for the middle class. but