scalia saying, how dumb you are. that is the tone. >> these are people who live a life in which everybody thinks they are hilarious and wise. >> when justices read their opinions and their dissents, they are not reading the whole thing. they are reading a summary they have written or their clerks have written. it is about as close to spin as the justices can get. they are able to tell the public which parts they think are important and the nuances. there has been some discussion, senator durbin toward the end of the term asked the court to allow the broadcast of opinion announcements. a very unsuccessful campaign has gone on for decades to allow camera coverage of the arguments. he was focusing on the opinion announcements as a foot in the door. that is an interesting idea, and i think it would get rid of some of the objections that justices have about cameras, the dynamics of justices interacting. the problem is the court does not like the idea of opinion announcements being featured. they do not want lawyers citing

scalia even by his standards had a scathing dissent. he said this is a draw dropping assertion of judicial supremacy. courtisions a supreme standing he has enthroned at the apex of governments. ony are joining an issue this. justice leah had voted to strike down the section four voting right act. >> i want to bring us to closure. decisions the major 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. thateory has a market on 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 be kind of skeptical. >> i think there are fundamental differences. it is not a s

justice scalia lights in to the defense. he calls it jaw dropping arrogance we are overturning the decision of the congress and in the executive and the defense of marriage act, a popular law. he made fun of the voting rights act. like who would vote against? who would vote against something called the defense of marriage act. pretty easy in the mid' 90s to talk about that. when the justice is talking it's like anybody there the day before that. wait a minute, pal, weren't you exactly on the opposite side of the very much the day before? >> i like the form of reasoning there's something -- you should be skeptical about. the voting rights act was passed 98-0 in the senate. something that pass that overwhelming majority was to be disfavored. >> right. and i wonder if justice scalia he was confirmed by the 98-0. [laughter] >> justice alito wrote a very interesting dissent from the dough that -- doma but didn't have room for it. did you have room about it. it was only for himself. >> i certainly mentioned. he stated very clearly

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

she says she has come to enjoy hunting, especially with justice scalia. and as a kid from the upper west side of manhattan, she had no prior experience in it. >>> up next for us here tonight, how more and more teachers are teaching without any students in the room.

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 saying, how dumb you are. that is the tone. >> these are people who live a life in which everybody thinks they are hilarious and wise. >> when justices read their opinions and their dissents, they are not reading the whole thing. they are reading a summary they have written or their clerks have written. it is about as close to spin as the justices can get. they are able to tell the public which parts they think are important and the nuances. there has been some discussion, senator durbin toward the end of the term asked the court to allow the broadcast of opinion announcements. a very unsuccessful campaign has gone on for decades to allow camera coverage of the arguments. he was focusing on the opinion announcements as a foot in the door. that is an interesting idea, and i think it would get rid of some of the objections that justices have about cameras, the dynamics of justices interacting. the problem is the court does not like the idea of opinion announcements being featured. they do not want lawyers citing

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

>> there have -- justice scalia -- >> is that right? >> there have been occasions in the past. >> yes or no? >> yes. yes, it's true. and 28 u.s.c. 530(d) exactly presupposes that. that's the exact occasion in which that process is -- is occasioned. congress knew that this would happen. now, it can happen also when -- in the rare instance in which the president himself makes that determination. and i don't think that the take- care clause responsibility has this all or nothing capacity to it. it can be that the president decides -- >> mr. srinivasan -- >> it's not what the olc opinion said, by the way. >> it can be that the president decides to enforce it. that's what happened in lovett and that's the course of events that was sought -- that happened in chadha. and there's -- >> but when the government -- when the -- when the case is adjudicated in the first instance -- we're talking here about appellate authority. >> correct. >> the government sometimes loses cases in the first instance and then it doesn't appeal. if it agrees with the

scalia guessed right.rday a federal judge in ohio ruled that ohio must recognize the marriage of two men who are residents of ohio but who were married recently in maryland even though ohio has had a ban on same-sex marriage since 2004. federal judge timothy black ruled that ban unconstitutional because the state continues to recognize marriages performed in other states that could not be performed in ohio. the judge wrote, "throughout ohio's history ohio law has been clear. a marriage solemnized outside of ohio is valid in ohio if it is valid where solemnized. thus, for example, under ohio law out-of-state marriages between first cousins are recognized by ohio, even though ohio law does not authorize marriages between first cousins. likewise, under ohio law out-of-state marriages of minors are recognized by ohio even though ohio law does not authorize marriages of minors." 13 states authorize marriages at ages younger than ohio's minimum marriage age of 16. new hampshire has the lowest defined marriage ag

--stice scalia he acknowledged sharply dissented. said that the incidence of her rest had to be weapons or for incidents -- this was neither of those. he acknowledged that fingerprinting was alright, but that was only true for intensification and there was no interest of identification. he points out that they do not even get around to sequencing the dna for a long time after they had identified the defender. the opinion of the court embraces a standard.the reasonable us -- the reza reasonableness standard of the fourth amendment. some say that it is not. it includes the protection of the innocent. justice scalia does not really talk about a standard. he applies a role he finds. what can be done with an incident to an arrest. this comes within one of the six exceptions. he is famous for arguing that the rule of law is the law of rules. i think he is very muchconsonant with that strong viewpoint. i do not think it is necessarily consonant with the language of the cost of tuition. the fourth amendment is quite unusually a standard but

scalia saying it is argle bargle and the clerk saying are you sure? scalia says yes!h everything angry. king kong caught in a rage. you want to masturbate to it. [ buzzer ] i don't know about that part. >> until you hate masturbated, you haven't experienced tough love. >> stephanie: i hate myself enough to but at any rate, you say the fun part is that so much of scalia's reasoning in upholding doma could have been used to uphold the voting rights act, a section struck down. scalia had no problem overturning a bipartisan law. 98-0 in the senate. interesting, right? those two rulings. >> right. >> one was on doma, the dissenters said congress, you know considered this and they passed doma. in a bipartisan way. on the voting rights act, who cares, they were wrong. >> stephanie: i was reading one analysis, rude, about you know scalia basically opened the door for this ten years ago in the sodomy ruling where he's like well -- the next thing is you would have to allow gay marriage as if people would go yeah! it was the perfect -- it was the perfect -- basis for what happen

antonin scalia joined the three women on the court to disagree with the ruling. scalia and justices ruth bader ginsburg, sonia sotomayor and eleanor kagan ruled against the here's what scalia said about his descent "the court has cast aside a bedrock rule of our 4 4th amendment law that the government may not search its citizens for evidence of crime unless there is a reasonable cause to believe that such evidence will be found. question. will the supreme court decision prompt a national standard for the collection of dna? >> eventually it probably will, and here'swhat you need to know to see which direction the country's going. in 2009 e supreme court@ruled thatsomebody con.icted of a crime@does not have the right to he access to their own dna even if it would prove them innocent. so we had a bill of rights set up to protect people. instead@peopledon't have access to their own dna but the government does have the access >> what's dna? >> well, it's your internal fingprint in some way. >> what does it stand for? dna. >> oh, boy. >> come on, struggle. >> i don't k

if this were john roberts and scalia, kagan, clarence thomas, and all the other, all the rest of the gang remaking these laws in public where we can hear what they're saying and read their opinions and congress could react, saying, yes, that's what we meant by relevant or no, it's not, this is what we meant by relevant. that's now how it's happening. this is happenings in secret. laws passed by congress are being rewritten by the secret court without any sort of public comment or public review. over the weekend "the new york times" reported on more than a dozen, a dozen classified rulings from this court that have created essentially a secret body of law totally removed from public scrutiny. the "times" said this court has "quietly become almost a parallel supreme court." that, i think, is a scary quote enough. a parallel supreme court out of view. it is unlike any other court in the country. it would give the "schoolhouse

and justice scalia was having lunch at a nearby table. we thought, oh, you know, why don't we just send over, you know, -- it was an italian restaurant obviously. why don't we just send over and after dinner drink to him as the spirit of christmas. well, he did not accept it. he came over to explain, and he said he would have accepted it if he was writing a majority opinion, but he had to go back and write a dissent, and he needed a clear mind for that. [laughter] >> what do you think is going to happen when about one dozen people accounted for about 80 percent of the super pac money? forty you think we will go if we continue on this route which is the clear that the conservative majority will continue on this route. you are going to have just a very handful of people controlling the vast majority of money that is spent on political elections thin -- >> well, i think it is -- that that is where things are headed obviously. but i think the supreme court would probably say to you go to your congressman there are attempts being made and that

yale.re all harvard or scalia went to harvard law school. justice thomas has this complicated i hate yale, his alma mater. justice kagan was speaking at a synagogue and she happened to make some jokes about all of the ivy's and referred to the joke justice ginsburg started at harvard and transferred to columbia. she worries that some people took offense. it was a joke. this is what we are talking about. if anyone is going to take a step over the harvard and yale have come it will be columbia. -- over the harvard and yale path, it would be columbia. >> it focus on trivial incidents that will get played up on jon stewart. take the most trivial thing. .his is a good example it was the most trivial thing that became the story of the day. did he try to speak? did he say anything? any words come out? [laughter] it seem like a modern matter. >> questioning something that has happened that they all sort of talk about, but there are a lot more questions asked and rapid fire lawyers who come up before the court that have a out time getting anything be

>> that -- they did not assign a date to it, justice scalia, as you know. what the court decided was the case that came before it -- >> i'm not talking about the california supreme court. i'm talking about your argument. you say it is now unconstitutional. >> yes. >> was it always unconstitutional? >> it was constitutional when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that that -- >> i see. when did that happen? when did that happen? >> there's no specific date in time. this is an evolutionary cycle. >> well, how am i supposed to know how to decide a case, then >> because the case that's before you -- >> if you can't give me a date when the constitution changes? >> in -- the case that's before you today, california decided -- the citizens of california decided, after the california supreme court decided that individuals had a right to get married irrespective of their sexual orientation in california, and then the californians decided in proposition 8, wait a minute, we don't want th

>> justice scalia, that is correct.and in addition, the courts didn't find whether a critical mass -- >> so could you tell me what a critical mass was? i'm looking at the number of blacks in the university of texas system. pre-grutter, when the state was indisputably still segregating, it was 4 percent. today, under the post-grutter system, it's 6 percent. the 2 percent increase is enough for you, even though the state population is at 12 percent? somehow, they've reached a critical mass with just the 2 percent increase? >> well, we don't believe that demographics are the key to underrepresentation of critical mass. >> no -- putting aside -- i don't -- i'm not going to quarrel with you that if demographics alone were being used, i would be somewhat concerned. but you can't seriously suggest that demographics aren't a factor to be looked at in combination with how isolated or not isolated your student body is actually reporting itself to feel? >> well, i think if you start to split out subgroups of minorities, you mistak

she says she has come to enjoy hunting, especially with justice scalia. as a kid from the upper west side of manhattan, she had no prior experience in it. >>> up next for us here tonight, how more and more teachers are teaching without any students in the room. >>> finally tonight, you all know what can happen. all it takes is one video on youtube, and that leads to another. sometimes the video they suggest for you, and before you know it, it's hours later and you cannot account for your time or your taste in web videos. but now to match a big need, there is another use of youtube that increasing numbers of people are turning to in earnest. and the summer school veterans among us might want to pay attention. our report tonight from nbc's stephanie gosk. >> i love you. >> i love you. >> reporter: youtube, the world wide web's one-stop shop for all things viral. >> i love you. >> reporter: the 2 too cute. the too funny. the simply ridiculous. this summer, parents may be thinking i have to pry my kids off youtube. unless they spend time talking video popular

justice scalia, this is basically the end. world as we know it.nfortunately at least for the earn district of michigan they may be showing justice scalia had the better of the argument because rather than limiting itself to where the decision said, merely that the federal government doesn't have an interest in defining marriage as between a man and women, leaving open the question that perhaps states which granted historically had the taken the role of defining marriage, domestic relations law and things like that. they said you have to look to state law to do that was the line that the majority in the doma case took. well, i think the logical next step if there is really no rational basis for the federal government to do this, what is the rational basis for the states to do this? while i think actually you could articulate a very rational basis for both and even more of a rational basis to do it perhaps for the state than the federal government i don't think we can count on the judiciary to necessarily see the basis when they refuse to see every

scalia may have had the better of the argument. rather than limiting itself to where the decision said that the federal government does not have an interest in defining statese, and perhaps -- have taken the role of defining marriage, domestic relations law. you have to look at state law. that was a line that the .ajority took the logical next up, there is no rational basis for the government to do this. i think you could articulate a rational basis for both and more rational basis to do it in the federal government. i do not think we can count on the judiciary to see that when they refused to see every rational basis that has been presented. we see that is already happening. another natural consequence is fifth.o happen we will see an uneven and confused regime of laws. the decision itself, we should not have a situation where this [inaudible] youe were concerned that could get married and not have federal benefits. there is the question of what happens when you do get married in new york and moved to north carolina. it had federa

justice scalia said, no, i want to know what the framers thought about free speech. nevertheless i get a sense from your book not all framers would have agreed. you suggested patrick henry, the rand paul of his day, would have filibustered against drones but with dickinson or john rutledge supported them? >> you know, as jeff and i were talking, my next book has a working title as the founding fathers are spinning in their graves. which is a kind of reflection on the relationship between the values and views of our 18th century founders and issues that we face in the 21st century. i think, i'm sorry there are some issues where they would just faint dead away. you put an ak47 in front of james madison and -- >> [inaudible] >> actually i think james, james madison was kind of a nerd. i think he would have fainted dead away. now patrick henry might have been more excited about that. i don't know. but, it seems to me that the evolution of technology is, it is something that the founding fathers would have to think long and hard about. they certainly did not believe in gr

she did it with conservative justice, scalia.hey shot birds together before, but this time was different. >> he said to me, he said it's time for big game hunting. we actually went out to wyoming this past fall to shoot deer and antelope. and we did. i shot myself a deer. >> she's not very big, by the way. the deer and antelope much bigger than her. she said the public doesn't realize, there are friendships in the high court that reach across political lines. she knows hunting with scalia a few times a year. a shotgun must knock her back 12 feet. >> exactly. >>> coming up, you have to stick around for this. this is a great story. unlikely hero, saving his family as fast moving flames spread through their home. you are going to hear from him in his own words, that's straight ahead. so... [ gasps ] these are sandra's "homemade" yummy, scrumptious bars. hmm? i just wanted you to eat more fiber. chewy, oatie, gooeyness... and fraudulence. i'm in deep, babe. you certainly are. [ male announcer ] fiber one. >>> a 7-year-old ohio boy is

>> justice scalia? don't think anybody is contesting it's more effective if you use section 5. >> it's -- the issue is why in these states. >> fair enough. it's beyond the question of any place.in our brief shows that specifically in the covered jurisdictions, there's a demonstrated pattern, being used innd 5 tandem where in other urisdictions, most of the section 2 cases are one-off examples. take, for example, salma, 1990s, not in e the 1960s, in the 1990s had a objections and section 2 activity and observers, all that were else in, to continue give effect to the minority inclusion principle that section 5 was passed to vindicate in 1965. >> a section 2 case can in order with an bail-in, correct me if i'm you haveder section 3, a mini -- something that replicates under section 5. >> bailing is available if a finding of a constitutional violation. t has been used in a number of circumstances. the united states brief has an to that. but it's quite clear that the paern in the covered such that the s repe

>> justice scalia, it was clear senators including every senator from a covered state who was a that there continue need for this piece of legislation. perhaps ided that they'd better not vote against it, that there's nothing -- none in voting terests against it. >> i don't know what they were thinking, exactly. to me one might reasonably think this -- it's an old disease. gotten a lot better. still etter, but it's there. so if you had a remedy that work, but ped it wasn't totally over, wouldn't you keep that remedy? or would you not at least say a person who wants to keep that remedy which has worked for hat old disease which is not yet dead, let's keep it going. is that an irrational decision? does t is a hypothetical not address what happened. what happened is the old disease limiting people's right to and vote. >> no, the old disease is discrimination under the 14th -- 15th amendment which is abridging a person's right to race. ecause of color or >> focus of congress in 1965 and katzenback in 1964 was on registration and voter -- voter collusion as well. it has evolved away from

according to scalia, el douche it interferes with the majority. the principle in which democracy can be based. the equal dignity of each being. all that mocks the concern for the personhood and dignity of individuals and contends that only -- not only should the government be free to exclude same-sex couples from the institution of marriage but he reminds he believes the government should be empowered if they are making love in the privacy of their own home. the texas case. sodomy case. i was hoping -- wouldn't there had to have been a sodomy police to enforce that for straight couples as well? >> what are you doing in there? >> stephanie: bed check. >> note to straight people, oral sex is considered sodomy. >> stephanie: oh no. >> genuine democracy it finishes like the conception of democracy defended by frederick douglass is far more worthy of celebration this 4th of july weekend. thank you salon. [ applause ] nicely done. nicely written. eric boehlert from media matters coming up next on the "the stephanie miller show." ç] [ ♪ theme ♪ ] >> step

justice scalia said i am not competent to figure all this stuff out. how much did you guys become experts in the genes and patent law? >> tony is smiling. >> i guess the concurrence is such a rare expression. [laughter] is the burden of the parties. the justices understand all of the technicalities of science and they don't do a good job. it has an impact on the court. >> i would say that we are not an expert of anything. but the great thing, and the reason all of us enjoy it and probably the reason you enjoy being lawyers is because it is a constant rotation of issues that come before you that you are learning about. it was almost like being back in college that is what makes it such a great job. you are always learning about this. >> i am talking about the supreme court's quality work. we are writing the supreme court times and in quality format. >> justice scalia said i cannot figure this stuff out and literally like three sentences. >> supreme court justices say, i don't know about him come about we get it. it is that we can include anything in the

-justice scalia may have had the better of the argument. limiting itself to where the decision said that federal government does not definingnterest in marriage, and perhaps -- states have taken the role of defining marriage, domestic relations law. you have to look at state law. that was a line that the majority took. the logical next up, there is no rational basis for the government to do this. i think you could articulate a rational basis for both and more rational basis to do it in the federal government. i do not think we can count on the judiciary to see that when they refused to see every rational basis that has been presented. we see that is already happening. another natural consequence is going to happen fifth. we will see an uneven and confused regime of laws. the decision itself, we should not have a situation where this [inaudible] there were concerned that you could get married and not have federal benefits. there is the question of what happens when you do get married in new york and moved to north carolina. it had federal be

. >> scalia beat up on you? >> scalia, ginsburg, the chief.was 30 minutes of being pounded, it was a head of tuna being thrown to sharks. i will tell you, i have always like the fact that i sit in my skpaufs i look at a giant painting of me getting my tail whipped 9-0. it's good for instilling humility. that's what it looks like to lose. >> looking ahead to 2016, he says republicans must nominate an unapologetic conservative. in other words, someone who's politics match his own. nationally it looks tough, lost five out of the last six popular votes, presidential elections. 18 states and the district of columbia have gone democratic in all six of the last six presidential races. that's 242 electoral votes. >> if you look at last 40 years, a consistent pattern emerges. any time republicans nominate a candidate for president who runs as a strong conservative, we win. and when we nominate a moderate who doesn't run as a conservative, we lose. >> back in iowa, reporters continue to pepper cruz with questions about his presidential aspirations. is h

vicious merry go round but i think it's really harmless other than to possibly sell all motional scalia may do to some of the partners and bob but we're not going to be able to stop it larry so that you love digging up information i think the thing you're most angry at is is hypocrisy right yeah i get accused of it falling people sex life whether it was bob livingston money gate or david vitter in louisiana. there were the. credits that we explode but it was never their sex life it was always the pot christie and you know there was a complaint with and washington d.c. that. if there is a scandal. sex symbol of it's. a democrat money it's to a public actually it's a complete opposite. money with the democrats had sex with them because. we're going to larry flynt's legacy how views on such a change over the years in america lots of other things with this extraordinary guy don't go away. is it possible to navigate the economy with all the details and to stick some misinformation in the media hype will keep you up to date by decoding the mainstream states and if in your right. leg. or leg t

just a vicious merry go round but i think it's really harmless other than to possibly sell motional scalia may do to some of the partners i'm bob but we're not going to be able to stop it larry so that we love digging up information i think the thing you're most angry at is is hypocrisy right you know we've i get accused of it falling people sex life whether it was bob livingston monica gate or david better in louisiana or. everything. we explode but it was never their sex life it was always the pot gracey and you know there was a complaint with and washington d.c. that. if there is a scandal. sex symbol of it's. a democrat money it's who a public actually it's a complete opposite. money with the democrats had sex with them without a ha we're going to throw out a larry flynt's legacy how views on such some change over the years in america lots of other things with this extraordinary guy don't go away. that was a new alert animation scripts scare me a little. there is breaking news tonight and they are continuing to follow the breaking news. the alexander family cry tears of joy at a great

court itself if you know three of them are on the madison case which is not in the constitution so as scalia oddly enough pointed out yesterday his bench statement of the constitution does not give us the upper overthrow you know that we just came in. this has it seems like we have moved from being a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic to being a constitutional monarchy and these are the monarchs very much so it's executive power congress has abdicated the war declaration part of the appropriations power and so on so much and the rest is dumped into the hands of unelected nine justices it's just unbelievable what's going on what are we doing we have a de facto coup. that is continuing i mean nafta and. any idea they can bypass our constitutional processes and put the authority in a secret tribunal in geneva switzerland. for people who don't know what we're talking about the the constitution says that. the treaties have to be ratified by the senate with a two two thirds two thirds majority and instead they presented these things as trade agreement is and now we don't e

justice antonin scalia was unconvinced that this particular decision wasn't passing judgment on the underlying issue on the legality of same-sex marriage. their words so that they might have covered honor today and it was their debate could settle and we will respect their resolution. edie winsor cried when she heard the news, she was the original plaintiff. >> thank you for affirming the principle of this justice under the law. reporter: former president bill clinton who signed the law. the pentagon is rolling out federal benefits for legally married same-sex couples. the supporter of california's proposition eight measure, which amended the state's constitution between only one man and woman did not have legal standing to defend the statute after state officials refused to do so. what is left is the district court's decision which struck down proposition eight. >> people justice under the law. today, we are closer to that. reporter: traditional marriage advocates say that it is still up to the state. they urged supporters to stay engaged. >> activists and politicians are very involved and th

he said whom am i to judge, and it seems like scalia and cuccenelli and santorum said, me. >> who areou to judge? you're the pope. and somebody wrote a great tweet today, i'm sorry that i don't remember their names, one of the followers that i have online on my twitter account. anyway, he said, i can't wait for the catholic league to denounce the pope. what, it's like the right wing zealots are so far to the right of this pope i can see them criticizing at some point, the pope, what do you know. >> i'm waiting for cuccenelli to drop out of the race, drop his wife and run for pope. >> i wouldn't be surprised by anything these right wingers do. that's not the only thing that he has done that is on the liberal side. he said all the young should protest. he speaks out against collection of wealth, and he said, we should care about the poor, wow. does he believe in jesus? >> isn't that what religion is supposed to be about? people have taken religion and twisted it into something hateful, something that people use t as an argument against giving to the poor. but i don't think what he said

. >> john: that's interest, he and scalia had conflicts of interest in this case.n't they recuse themselves? >> i don't know, john. i don't know why but the fact is that in addition to the group citizens united who is a party in the case having spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on an ad campaign for clarence thomas 20 years earlier clarence thomas' wife is politically engaged and that led to her accepting two enormous gifts which she then spent politically on tea party candidates or candidates who supported the affordable care act in 2010. now jenny thomas clarence thomas' wife now consults for non-profits and how they can deploy money politically. >> john: why was he able to give an opinion in the obamacare verdict? but a lot of folks know that scott walker was able to outspend his recall opponent 8-1. they don't know how invasive that money was other than tv ads. where did the cash go? >> some of the cash went--there was a loophole in wisconsin law that allowed walk for raise direct contributions an unlimited number for a certain amount of time. but the mone

when i call him the esteemed justice scalia, i say that with a bit of sarcasm talking about the need for the voting rights act and calling voting rights a racial entitlement and comparing the needs of minority to vote to the needs of child molesters there is something very seriously wrong. >> michael: something is broken, and it needs to come to light. maybe this trial will serve a purpose. thank you for come together "the war room." pick up michelle's book. coming up next. oregon my oregon. finally a group of applications making some sense in the sea of incompetence and apathy that is the student loan crisis. we have more coming up after the break. ç] (vo) later tonight current tv is the place for compelling true stories. >> jack, how old are you? >> nine. >> this is what 27 tons of marijuana looks like. (vo) with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines, way inside. (vo) from the underworld, to the world of privilege. >> everyone in michael jackson's life was out to use him. (vo) no one brings you more documentaries that are real, gripping, current. we have a

in fact, justice scalia said given what the majority wrote, we are waiting for the next shoe to drop.is where it goes. on terms of the politics what you are going to see a tremendous fight at the state level. you are going to sigh the ooflgs and people that feel it's an abomination, they will make a stand here. the question is whether they become a fringe movement or able to generate mainstream sympathy. in terms of the black church in this country, they would get some sympathy. >> john: let's listen to something that was said immediately after the decision from thomas peters from the national organization for marriage about the fight conservative groups are going to mounted in the days ahead. >> american people constitutional amendments as over 30 states have we're going to offensive like ohio. it was not just history is moving in one direction. >> john: it sounds like they are going to mounted a big fight and be well funded, as well. >> this is in part what happens when courts get involved. how much of those polls you show showing public sentiment is because of the reality states ha