scalia says, oh, ruth, -- can you read? the constitution says absolutely nothing about this, to which ginsburg replies, how many times must i tell you, dear mr. justice scalia, you are searching in vain for a bright line solution but the beautiful thing about our constitution is that like our society, it can evolve. are you two ever going to agree on big issues and still maintain a friendship? >> we agree on a whole lot of stuff. ruth is really bad only on the knee-jerk stuff. [laughter] she is a really good textualists. where the text is there, she's terrific. she's obviously very smart and most cases, i think come a we are together. i think we are together in a lot of criminal defense cases, of holding the rights of the criminal defendant. ruth and i are quite frequently in dissent from the court's decision.

what is your thought, justice scalia?> i don't know that it challenges traditional concepts of free speech. it certainly challenges traditional manners of finding out who said what were certain people say things that are unlawful or punishable by law. i don't think it changes what the first amendment means. >> there is a great danger for people who use those devices -- you can't take it back. once you let it out, it is there for everybody to see. >> you don't feel it changes the concept of freedom of speech? >> you would have to give me an example. >> senator newman asked this question. as it becomes easier to share opinions and events, should social media, i.e. twitter, facebook, etc., be required to limit what is shared? is that a legal question? >> no. it is a policy question. i don't do policy. [laughter] >> i would agree with my colleague. >> joshua of the washington center. do you feel the separation of church and state has been misunderstood with congress and the supreme court taking a proactive stand on the establ

what is your thought, justice scalia? don't know that it challenges traditional concepts of free speech. it certainly trail -- challenges traditional manners of finding out who said what were certain people say things that are unlawful or punishable by law. i don't think it changes what the first amendment means. there is a great danger for people who use those devices -- you can't take it back. once you let it out, it is there for everybody to see. changes the feel it concept of freedom of each, -- speech? >> you would have to give me an example. senator newman asked this question. as it becomes easier to share opinions and events, should social media, i.e. twitter, facebook, etc., be required to limit what is shared? is that a legal question? >> no. it is a policy question. i don't do policy. [laughter] >> i would agree with my colleague. >> joshua of the washington center. of churche separation and state has been misunderstood with congress and the supreme court taking a proactive stand on the establishment portion but

what is your thought, justice scalia? >> i don't know that it challenges traditional concepts of free speech. it certainly challenges traditional manners of finding out who said what were certain people say things that are unlawful or punishable by law. i don't think it changes what the first amendment means. >> there is a great danger for people who use those devices -- you can't take it back. once you let it out, it is there for everybody to see. >> you don't feel it changes the concept of freedom of speech? >> you would have to give me an example. >> senator newman asked this question. as it becomes easier to share opinions and events, should social media, i.e. twitter, facebook, etc., be required to limit what is shared? is that a legal question? >> no. it is a policy question. i don't do policy. [laughter] >> i would agree with my colleague. >> joshua of the washington center. do feel the separation of church and state has been misunderstood with congress and the supreme court taking a proactive stand on the establis

coming up, why is supreme court justice scalia talking about a revolt over taxes? and more derangement from the right. why is one republican talking about arresting attorney general holder? plus, it was a big day at the white house. you'll want to see who joined the president for an annual tradition. stay with us. ♪ [ girl ] my mom, she makes underwater fans that are powered by the moon. ♪ she can print amazing things, right from her computer. [ whirring ] [ train whistle blows ] she makes trains that are friends with trees. ♪ my mom works at ge. ♪ who would have thought masterthree cheese lasagna would go with chocolate cake and ceviche? the same guy who thought that small caps and bond funds would go with a merging markets. it's a masterpiece. thanks. clearly you are type e. you made it phil. welcome home. now what's our strategy with the fondue? diversifying your portfolio? e*trade gives you the tools and resources to get it right. are you type e*? >> it was a weekend of senseless violence in chicago. nine people in the city were killed and at least 35 woundeds

justice scalia is notorious for maining a base.e type of criticism. she speaks often to liberal groups. and there was a time when justices as a cultural touchstone did not make any type of public appearances, sort of a graduation speech. and what we're seeing is the time of sort of a silent justice. i think it's not a good thing. last week both scalia and ginsburg talked about the possibility of a ruling in the nsa surveillance controversy. and it really took my breath away. you know, these justices have to decide whether they want to pursue this type of celebrity status or whether they want to live a life on the court and allow as stevens did, his opinions to speak for him. >> john, let me ask you, is this a result of i'm not going to take on celebrity cases but calls it celeb, but you're the expert here, that seem more overtly political. that seem to stir controversy on one or both sides of the aisle? i suppose it's a chicken or an egg scenario. but i mean, does that play a role in the justices seeking higher profile on the news

the question of what is our position is the position articulated by justice scalia. the question of what we need to win, it's qualified immunity. the question of whether the court should reach the constitutional question, i think our answer would be no, that the parties haven't breached it as your honor said, that the normal course would be to do what the court said in reichle and say that it's not clearly established. >> i can't understand why you didn't brief it then in that case. i cannot understand why you didn't brief it. and talking about things that we haven't haven't held in the past, we haven't even held in the past that that there is a bivens cause of action for a first amendment violation, have we? >> no, your honor. >> do we have any cases that has held that? >> no. and we agree with that, but the argument was not preserved below, so we have not presented it here. >> is that a relevant well, what is your position on that? is it pertinent in analyzing qualified immunity that there's no private right of action for the asserted constitutional violation? >> w

justice scalia was at a conference in atlanta last friday. this was a three-day conference. the only person who said you can't tape record, video record my comments is justice scalia and then it turned out that it actually something happened, the supreme court justices, and now no one gets to see it and a public official making a public speech, ranted about how same sex sodomy and abortion are not in the constitution and shouldn't be protected and ranted and got embarrassed at the end and no one saw it. if he's going to come to atlanta and go to the governor's mansion for a reception and appear in front of 500 people in a room and give a public speech, it should be recorded and there's no good reason why we should have had to accede to his request that it not be recorded. >> why did you? >> he wouldn't have come otherwise. >> to pick up on these remarks, it's self-evident that they are different in the sense that other than justice kagan, they've come from one cloistered life to another. the route to the priesthood is through the federal appellate courts and these institutio

justice scalia: right now. but if we approve that, is there any reason it couldn't be used for distant signals as well? >> possibly. justice scalia: possibly what? there is possibly a reason, or it could possibly be used? >> it can't be used for distance, but it implicates -- justice scalia: what would the difference be. i mean, you could take hbo, right? you could --you could carry that without without performing. >> no, because hbo is not done over the airwaves. it's done through a private service. but justice scalia, let me answer your distant signal hypothetical this way. that would implicate again the reproduction right. it does not implicate the private performance and public performance distinction, because, even if you were to take distant signals and make them available in the home, it's still through a user-initiated, user-specific copy of distant programming. the question then becomes, is there a fair use right to be able to do that. what sony said, because sony was dealing with local over-the-air br

. >> well, justice scalia, i'm not here to debate the question of whether the court's jurisprudence is correct with respect to the risks of corruption from independent expenditures. >> it is what it is, though. >> but we accept it and -and the line is that there -- in this court's jurisprudence, that there is an unacceptable risk when contributions are too high. and if i may just say this in conclusion -- >> ok. but so your answer to the questions that have been put previously from -from me and justice breyer and justice scalia is that's the law. >> it's -- well -- >> i mean, that's -- just to be fair, that's -- i'm -- i'm coming -- i'm coming off the bench -- >> congress isn't -- -- >> with the understanding that your answer is -- buckley has settled that issue; no more discussion necessary. >> the -- the risk -- we -we think the risk of corruption is real. and we think it's in fact profound when you are talking about the kinds of contributions that can be made if you take -you take the lid off on aggregate contributions. if it -- if justice scalia's critique of the situation proves c

justice scalia was at a conference in atlanta last friday. the only person who said you can't tape record, video record my comments is justice scalia and then it turned out that it actually something happened, the supreme court justices, and now no one gets to see it and a public official making a public speech, ranted about how same sex sodomy and abortion are not in the constitution and shouldn't be protected and ranted and got embarrassed at the end and no one saw it. if he's going to come to atlanta and go to the governor's mansion for a reception and appear in front of 500 people in a room and give a public speech, it should be recorded and there's no good reason why we should have had to accede to his request that it not be recorded. >> why did you? >> he wouldn't have come otherwise. >> to pick up on these remarks, it's self-evident that they are different in the sense that other than justice kagan, they've come from one cloistered life to another. the route to the priesthood is through the federal appellate courts and these institutio

>> i think that is a good point, justice scalia.lections.10 each party spent for parties and candidates together spent approximately $1.5 billion. >> and what about pacs? >> that i don't have the specifics. >> it has been a lot. and what about newspapers that spend a lot of money in endorsing candidates and promoting the candidacy? i suppose you have to put in that money, too, because that is money directed to political speech. when you add all of that up, i don't think $3.5 million is a heck of a lot of money. justiceis just a antonin scalia. can you explain that for us, andy kroll? >> the solicitor general was giving examples of how if the court did agree with shaun mccutcheon, donors would be able to cut seven and eight figure checks to political parties and candidates. the $3.5 million number has been tossed around in the election cycle. scalia sort of takes a very common -- and i think disingenuous approach -- amongst conservatives to say, compare that how much we spent on elections and that is just a drop in the bucket. saider

what's relevant is, and justice scalia when he was on the d.c. circuit wrote a long opinion in fink, which discusses in detail, and you'd see the same thing in the comments to section 90 of the restatement, the most important thing is what you might call procedural prudence. ok. these people are managing a fund of $1 billion. the relevant question is what would a reasonable trustee of a billion-dollar fund have done to investigate the situation? would someone with a billion-dollar fund and 100 to $200 million of fifth third stock have routinely been collecting information about the nature of that investment, whether they should take some action? it well might be it well might be that they should not in a flighty or haphazard way dispose of the stock, because that's the baseline of this plan, is to invest in the stock. but that's entirely different from doing absolutely nothing, not telling the employers information -- >> do you think the trustee has a duty to acquire inside information? the trustees say, i don't want to know insider information.

justice scalia, to your question about how the computer does it. of course, a patent that describes sufficiently how a computer does a new and useful thing, whether it's data compression or any other technological solution to a business problem, a social problem, or a technological problem, would be within the realm of the of the patent laws. that is what the patent laws have always been for. this is not such a patent. and the reason for that is this is a pre-bilski set of patents. these were prosecuted under the old state street test, where all the applicant had to claim was a result. >> would you give me -- again, you already did it once an example of a business process patent -- of a business process idea and invention that is patentable. >> your honor, there are many examples. one would be a technological solution to a business problem. so that, for example i'll give a different example. there are many applications today. the court may be familiar with streaming video to watch video on your computer. it is not possible to get enough data throug

first scalia speaks from the bench in his hot tub full of money. go. >> just to put that in perspective, how much money is spent by political parties and pacs in all elections throughout the country? when you add all that up i don't think $3.5 million is a heck of a lot of money. >> jon: antonin scalia's argument seems to be sure $3.5 million sounds like a can donor is making it rain until you compare that so the monsoon season of money that we unleashed in the previous citizens united decision allowing corporations and unions to donate to super pac. i believe the limit there was what the (bleep) you want. [ laughter ] you may think even though there are billions of dollars in politics, surely millions can still have some corrupting effect, no? and aren't we, by attempting to limit contributions, just trying to limit the corrupting influence of money or at least the appearance of the corrupting influence of money. you shouldn't have said that because it turns out you are (bleep) wrong. [ laughter ] because according to this supreme court, the only

that is justice scalia. now, you can't avoid disclosure because you might get your feelings hurt or face public backlash. george soros has been subjected to lots of criticism as have the koch brothers. that's part of the rough-and-tumble of a vibrant democracy and spirit event. individuals and corporations should not be able to spend millions of dollars on tv ads eating up or praising can't -- beating up or praising candidates without telling the public who they are. as justice scalia said, that state of affairs quote does not resemble the home of the brave unquote. finally, senator mcconnell has been conveniently inconsistent in his application of his concern about alleged harm of disclosure. currently candidates for federal office must disclose all the contributions their campaigns receive above $200 up to the current limit of $2600 per election. senator mcconnell says he is still in favor of those disclosures and the disclosure of contributions to political party organizations. so i ask you why is it in p

ustice scalia is the longest-serving justice. appointed by reagan in 1986, he is called an originalist, meaning he believes the constitution ought to be interpreted more or less as the founding fathers meant for it to be interpreted. you want change, he says, change the legislature of change the law. his job is to interpret the law. justice ginsburg was appointed to the supreme court by president bill clinton in 1993. her view is the constitution is what has been called a living document, meaning it changes as society changes, one linked together. tradition and precedent matter, but they do not determine her udgment. both justices have devoted their lives to the law, teaching, democracy, and freedom. we are going to discuss freedom of the press, but let's start with what the concept of freedom means. its origin, its meaning, at the time of the revolution, and its eaning in today's america. i have always been fascinated by the fact that the first commandment of the 10 commandments in the bible and the first amendment in the consti

, the justice anthony scalia. real constitutionalist. there is question about whether or not inside every trading is something that is constitutionally mandated. that is, you can refer to the constitution as support the prosecution on this do you think it is? >> well, wait a minute. david, no one ever used my name and anthony scalia's name in the same sentence i will walk right past that. the answer it may or may not be. but right now it is. the supreme court ruled on this and it is illegal. dave, i don't care how far the down the line you are, if someone says to you, apple earnings come out next week and off by 85%, you know darn right well that is not information you're supposed to have in your possession. somewhere up the line somebody did something they weren't suppose to with it. david: doug is there by any information, by that extension if that gives prosecutors too much leeway? you're a former prosecutor. you've got skin in the game. when it comes to getting information, look, the reason hedge funds make so

if the political will was there, they have the money, they could it. >> justice scalia, i'm sorry -- it's the chief justice making the decision about audio policy, we know that, right? that the chief was making the decisions about which cases were be audio, same-day audio. i think that was -- i think it was clear. that's my understanding, right. >> it was a case-by-case -- buty we'll release this one the other ones you'll have to wait until friday but when they releasing audio on fridays instead of at the end of the term, i don't know if that was schoolia. when justice douglas got sick stroke, the justices took -- americans don't know -- secret votete and that they decided they would not decide any case where vote wouldglas' matter. the eight justices secretly decided they would not decide justice douglas' vote would matter. the only reason we know that today is because justice white offended, he wrote a public letter about it. not done that, he would never know. havingew themselves as no obligation to tell the american people that justice couldn'tas so sick, he decide a case and the

>> justice scalia, i have two responses to that observation. the first is, i don't think the state by state analysis is either unusual or difficult. there has to be a state by state analysis any time you have a contract claim applying state law. there are variances among states in their contract law. the second part of the same response is, i don't think the standard that we're articulating is a particularly -- >> there are variances but not variances in such an inefficable question as to whether this is really an effort to discern the real intent of the parties or rather whether it's an intent to impose community standards, especially since, as i say, parties intend to adopt community standards usually. >> with respect, justice scalia, i think that's not at all a difficult question. i think it's unlikely that a frequent flier contract or any airline contract that reserves discretion is likely to have incorporated implicitly community standards. i think the point would be if a carrier were to decide to incorporate inefficable standards such as

but scalia indicated there should be some limits saying, "it seems absurd for police to search a cell phone if they've stopped someone for a minor traffic violation." a concern echoed by justice anthony kennedy. "we're living in a new world. someone arrested for a minor crime has their whole existence exposed on this little device." now the justices also showed they were pretty savvy about technol. they were talking about twitter and facebook, and whether police officers could put a cell phone on airplane mode, all of this, scott, in a court that does not allow cam radz or any recording device inside, not even cell phones. >> pelley: and a decision on this expected in june. jan, thanks very much. and we'll be right back. much. feed it, and care for it, don't we grow something more? c= we grow big celebrations, and personal victories. we grow new beginnings, and better endings. grand gestures, and perfect quiet. we grow escape, bragging rights, happier happy hours. so let's gro something greater with miracle-gro. what will you grow? share your story at miraclegro.com. what will you gro

a conversation with scalia and ginsburg. after that, hillary clinton among the participants in the women in the world summit. >> james fallows and his wife deborah fallows sit down to talk about their observations of social changes taking place across the cry

. >> you were quoting justice scalia. there was and is no disagreement expressed by the members of the supreme court on this point. nobody disputed. it was a fundamental underlying issue about what marriage is. >> the question becomes at the supreme court exclusively defines marriage to reflect this conjugal, i think that was the term used, the conjugal vision of marriage. >> the supreme court has not done that. under windsor, it wouldn't be appropriate for the supreme court to resolve this fundamental clash of different visions of marriage. that was the whole point is that that is not a proper separate function, that is a proper state function. virtually complete authority over the definition of marriage. >> returning to windsor, this is what causes me concern. there is no question -- i think justice scalia really highlights it -- the court was speaking in windsor about marriage that it very clearly indicated and gave directions that it was going to be talking about federal. in fact, when it came time to it language of w

>> definitely meeting justice scalia. i have always been interested in law. one of the most insightful things that he said was that courts should not be named after the chief justice of the time. they should be named after the president who made the last appointment. that really touched me because i believe that when a president makes an appointment, the whole dynamic of the core changes. court changes. another thing that he said was that justice is relative. his job is not to define justice , that is our representatives' jobs, and ultimately, our job. that was my high point. >> we are going to get some more involved in this. one of the things about the media, and i am sure you have observed this, the media sets the agenda. you tune on your television, you watch television and watched the news cast and the media tells you what is the most important thing. this morning, we are going to turn it on you and i'm going to pick somebody and ask you to tell us what you want to hear from this group so you can set the agenda. somebody in the room that wants to set the

she got into a discussion with scalia. >> but not convincing in any way. this decision is perfectly consistent with the contrary decision the court made 11 years ago in michigan where there was a case to abolish affirmative action in admission to the university of michigan law school. the court said we are not going to strike it down. we're not going to have nine robes decide that this cannot be implemented. but what it implied was it would allow the people in a democracy to decide that. the people responded exactly as suggested in that decision when three years later they had a referendum that would abolish affirmative action. 11 years later, with now a case brought by the left and not the right, the left is trying to institutionalize affirmative action to make it impossible for any legislation tour or any referendum ever to abolish ever in the history of the country. to say it's an intrinsic part of the constitution, they are here forever. it was rejected by the court. we're not going to rule it's intrinsically in the constitution. we leave the decision

justices scalia and thomas.ffirmative action is unconstitutional unless to remedy something. so michigan is restating what they think it requires which is no affirmative action. justice kennedy didn't say that. chief justice roberts and ali at which time -- alito said it may be permissible, but it's a choice for each state. >> now, you mentioned justice sotomayor and her dissent. she wrote very personally about this. i'm only going to read part of what she said because we're going to talk more about this later. and race matters for reasons that really are only skin deep, that cannot be discussed any other way and that cannot be wished away. and we have the fuller -- the quote there, but what i wanted to ask you is, is there a place for that sentiment in supreme court jurisprudence? >> well, she's -- these are difficult cases. people bring their own life experience and perspective to them. there was a kind of honesty to her point of view. chief justice roberts took her on very directly. he wrote separately and he

>> i think that's a good point, justice scalia. i think it helps illustrate -- >> do you have any idea much? >> i do, i do. take the 2010 election. it's a non-presidential year. each party spent -- parties and candidates together on each side spent approximately $1.5 billion. >> 1.5 billion. >> right. >> and what about pac's? >> thati don't have specifics for, but if that were -- >> oh, but that was a lot in the last few elections, wasn't it? >> but -- but the parties -but here's the problem -- >> and -- and what about newspapers that -- that spend a lot of money in endorsing candidates and promoting their candidacy. suppose, you know, you -- you have to put in that money, too. that is money that is directed to political speech. when you add all that -- add -- when you add all that up, i don't think 3.5 million is a heck of a lot of money -- >> i don't think -- >> spread throughout the country. >> i don't think that's the right way to look at it, your honor. if you think that a party's got to get $1.5 billion together to run a cong

a conversation with scalia and ginsburg. after that, hillary clinton among the participants in the women in the world summit. >> james fallows and his wife deborah fallows sit down to talk about their observations of social changes taking place across the country. >> thank you for hosting us. thank you for joining us here in this wonderful place. i would like to say quick word --what he had before you is one of the most remarkable, if not most remarkable productive partnerships in american journalism. it is a partnership that, over the years, has taken them and millions of readers from austin to seattle,, tokyo, shanghai, beijing. now it has them hopscotching across america in a single engine airplane. partnership inis its most clearest light. we see their complementary interest at work. they write about the compelling or quirky characters they meet in the adventures they have along the way. jim writes more about factories, and deborah writes about schools. deborah writes about language in the way people talk. jim writes abo

scalia asked one of the men's attorneys whether she is proposing new rules for cell phones. recognizing that today's technology requires them to balance law enforcement interest against constitutional privacy guarantees. justice elena kagan noted, if a suspects phone was nearby, the police could take that phone and look at every single email that person has written, including work emails, including emails to family members, very intimate communications, could look at all that person's bank records, medical data, could look at that person's calendar, could look at that person's gps and find out every place that person has been recently. >> it is reasonable to take a couple of pieces of paper or an item from somebody's pocket we think it crosses a line to use a smart phone to go into a person's portal to look at a person's affairs. >> the categorical authority of officers to conduct a full search of any item found on an arrestee makes em he nen practical sense in light of the realities of police work. >>> there was also some confusion about how to craft a specific rule to cove

>> definitely meeting justice scalia. i have always been interested in law. one of the most insightful things that he said was that courts should not be named after the chief justice of the time. they should be named after the

at 6:00, a conversation with antonin scalia and ruth bader ginsburg. they speak with marvin calbert at the national arrest called. -- kalb at the national press club. and then, the future of conservatism. economy,sion about the health care, social policy, foreign policy, and other issues. that is from the manhattan institute, and you can see it at 8:00 eastern. >> in a few short months the capitol visitor center will be completed. work of thisr the congress will be described for future generations. vendors others -- visitors will titled " out of many one." in my first speech to you as speaker, solutions cannot be found in a pool of bitterness. the framers expected the floor to this house to be a place of passionate debate, a place where competing ideas and philosophies a crucible for many ideas to blend together to forge a strong nation. also -- thisshould for should also be a place of civility and mutual respect, and a place where statesmanship and not just electoral politics guide our decisions. president reagan was right. there is no limit to what w

dear justice scalia, in fact, we have found that race does matter and you need to pay attention to it to that point on the left when we have these conversations and trying to talk about these things, we get accused of inserting race, but i mean the problem is it's still there. it's still very much a conversation and problem that exists. >> i had a few experiences this week on my twitter feed. it's an interesting week. i'm always reminded by these people that robert byrd was in the kkk and the democratic party was started the kk. this is obviously ongoing. and as far as sterling goes, that's not really part of the political story. it's part of the cultural story. i'm very curious as to what his players are texting to one another. i'm just throwing this out there. i wonder if they are going to boycott a game. >> they are in the playoffs. they are playing tomorrow night. >> i don't think that's totally impossible. >> although they would get fined for doing it. >> they could probably absorb a fine. back to the bundy side, how many coincidences? we have all these republicans. >> the few am

when this case was first heard in the court last october, i was inside justice scalia made the comment that really took me by surprise. i know you all are veteran court watchers. >> we've held that the 14th amendment protects all races. i thought we rejected that. >> only the blacks. it was startling. when you look at the fallout, here's the impact on the ban of affirmative action at the university of michigan. in the year before the ban, the school's freshman class was 7% african-american. the year after the ban, it fell to 5%. the same pattern in california at berkeley. before affirmative action ban, the freshman class was at 14% african-american. the year after the ban, it fell all the way to 9%. so even though this court has not made a decision in terms of race, it now has opened the door to other states now that could now put up referendums and really ban race by using referendums which this court has now opened the door wide to, which makes voting even more imperative, because you can have a state by state banning of race. and never have to have the supreme court do it now. >> re