scalia has been a supreme court justice for 28 years and our next against says scalia's faith is at thethe bench. that's one of the key insights in a fascinating new biography called scalia, a court of one, by bruce allen murphy, a professor at lafayette college. talk to us about how scalia's catholicism has shaped his legal philosophy. >> scalia was taught his catholicism by his immigrant romance language professor father. immigrant italian. and he learned a very devout, prevatican to traditional catholicism that has shaped his life. and he got to the point that he was very much in disagreement with kennedy. and when kennedy disavowed his connection between his job and the presidency and catholicism. once on the court, scalia has been disavowing any connection to catholicism in his judging, while simultaneously has been showing in many of the social issue cases abortion, gay rights, the death penalty cases, that he -- to a much older, traditional, prevatican faith. he actually has gotten into a disagreement with the pope and modern catholic church over the death penalty issues. and he

i believe that justice scalia said that. that may or may not play out that way and much more maneuver for people trying to solve the problem to avoid harassment and get into the clinics than one might have imagined would be true looking back a few months. >> judge posner late yesterday i think posted an article in slate i hope everybody reads because he characterizes the majority opinion and whether -- the legal question is hard but the majority opinions discussion of what women are faced when they go to planned harnthood clinics to xexercise right to choice, mild persuasion. they said it's signs of a baby killer and i would just recommend judge posner's slate article on this topic. >> one interesting argument of whether these opinions mask real problems under the surface to eventually emerge is that the majority opinion doesn't even say anything about what happens to the old hill precedent that was potentially on the chopping block. we won't talk about it! come ask us later. >> clearly strong efforts to bring everybody on t

i believe that justice scalia said that. that may or may not play out that way and much more maneuver for people trying to solve the problem to avoid harassment and get into the clinics than one might have imagined would be true looking back a few months. >> judge posner late yesterday i think posted an article in slate i hope everybody reads because he characterizes the majority opinion and whether -- the legal question is hard but the majority opinions discussion of what women are faced when they go to planned harnthood clinics to xexercise right to choice, mild persuasion. they said it's signs of a baby killer and i would just recommend judge posner's slate article on this topic. >> one interesting argument of whether these opinions mask real problems under the surface to eventually emerge is that the majority opinion doesn't even say anything about what happens to the old hill precedent that was potentially on the chopping block. we won't talk about it! come ask us later. >> clearly strong efforts to bring everybody on t

decision. >> we have a scalia expert on next who can kind of dig into maybe what's going on in scalia'sones around clinics that perform abortions. there are laws like this under the f.a.c.e. law, keeps anti-abortion protesters a certain distance away from women's health clinics. many would say a safe distance away from the employees and patients who walk into and out of those buildings every day. the court is considering the massachusetts law specifically. the decision could reverberate down the line coast to coast, affecting not just health clinics, but cemeteries, the west borough baptist church comes to mind, irin. this is a very legitimate concern that abortion clinics have. there has been violence, certain aggressive protesting techniques outside of these clinics. yet some are arguing this is a violation of free speech for protesters. >> i think what ties together a lot of these cases is you have conservative legal groups that are strategizing to use the court and to specifically use the first amendment as a weapon against laws that protect workers, against laws that protect access

i believe that justice scalia said that. that may or may not play out that way and much more maneuver for people trying to solve the problem to avoid harassment and get into the clinics than one might have imagined would be true looking back a few months. >> judge posner late yesterday i think posted an article in slate i hope everybody reads because he characterizes the majority opinion and whether -- the legal question is hard but the majority opinions discussion of what women are faced when they go to planned harnthood clinics to xexercise right to choice, mild persuasion. they said it's signs of a baby killer and i would just recommend judge posner's slate article on this topic. >> one interesting argument of whether these opinions mask real problems under the surface to eventually emerge is that the majority opinion doesn't even say anything about what happens to the old hill precedent that was potentially on the chopping block. we won't talk about it! come ask us later. >> clearly strong efforts to bring everybody on t

accused the majority of adventurism adding: >>> meanwhile justice brier insisted that justice scalia and the concurers, if they had their way, they'd render thousands of recess appointments illegitimate, going all the way back to george washington. >> everywhere agreed that these three appointments to the labour relations board violated the constitution. they parted ways. there are five justices led by justice brier, and one of the things they said should inform a court, because the supreme court has never interpreted a res clause before. it's what has the practice beenment the senate never acted to block it. we are not going to upset the apple clerk. the concurring opinion, it looked dissenting, justice scalia read from the bench for 20 minutes, rare for a does sending justice, much less when you agree with the result in a case. justice scalia said "this is ridiculous, the fact that they did it for a long time and the senate never objected" he would have read it narrowly. >>> if you read the words of the constitution, they could have made it a tougher ruling than what was decided. b

just scalia said the e.p.a. sought to regulate 86% of the sources of greenhouse gases in the county and the court's decision give them the authority to regulate 83%. it is seep as a victory -- seen as a victory for the epa. they didn't lose most of what they were asking for. there's troubling language in the opinion that leads some to believe we'll be back here when the epa issues regulations because the court sud they'll take a close look at the regulations. some said the test set up will be impossible for any legislation to pass. >>> one of the major cases pending is harris v equip. diane eastabrook spoke to pamela harris who sued the governor of illinois. >> a medicaid programme pays pamela to take care of her developmentally disabled son at home. that makes her a state workers under illinois law and eligible for union representation. she wants no part of organised labour. >> they are over stepping. you don't belong in a house, a home, intruding into a family. you don't belong interfering in the care of an in

there was tony scalia, and that's who reagan thought he was getting. a charming and charismatic actor, who was wildly popular on campus, and then there was nino scalia who was willing to crush his opponents to victory. they thought it was tony, and they gotiano. from the first moment, he said i'm here, everyone is equal. and there will be no apprentice i will try to from justice o'conner. >> talk about the other justices. >> he called them mums of the west. any judge who believes in a living, evolving constitution, and at one point, he was talking about the theory of evolving constitutions. >> who was the most alienated? >> i think that the alienation is more in terms of the moderate conservatives who were the key votes in his time on the court. sandra day o'conner and anthony kennedy. they have disappointed him. and the result has been a series of very sharp descents that he has issued that personally attacked them. >> we are always interested in how they get along behind closed doors, and what sense do you get of how he gets along with some of his fe

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

i kind of agree with justice scalia on this one. the majority said this is a limited decision specific to what's happening here and really shouldn't be seen as having any direct implications with respect to cloud services. stice scalia pointed out if looks like cable tv, we have rules like that, it must be cable tv. the result is it doesn't recognize that the core technology has changed. in a sense, it is very anti- innovation. if it looks enough like the thing that came before, moves someone from point toonch point before, it transmits content, it must be regulated. we look to provide the same thinged a lower cost or much faster or something else. it is not like we tried to do a completely different thing. innovation is about doing the same old things in different ways. the part of decision that really worried me. >> bill, the notion that this could go not just aereo to the cloud and beyond that, is that a concern? >> it is not something i'm particularly worried about. a lot of cloud applications would be ones that were -- media an

i love scalia's opinions. they really capture the opinions to a point even when i disagree with him. there are great writers, i think alito and sotomayor is remarkable and kagan is remarkable. but the clarity of roberts. >> rose: clarity. >> they are so lucid that could be understood by normal human beings which matters. the constitution and interpretation of the constitution is not a matter for just experts. i think this is a matter for national discussion, for national conversation and i think we understatement the intelligence of the american people if we assume you have to talk legalese and jargon all the time. that's why i really like the simplicity of the roberts opinions. they come right to the point. they're concise. >> rose: clear and precise. >> yes. >> rose: i should mention who is joshua mast. he's a former student of yours. >> he was a former student and he was my chief teaching fellow in an undergraduate course at harvard. he will be clerking for justice kennedy in july and is clerking for justic

what you assert does not stop that problem. >> jon: scalia is actually referring to the precedent-making case bleep happens. what are you going to do? i guess the real takeaway is this, this is what's crazy. the real takeaway is you're only allowed to buy a gun at a gun store after going through some type of questionnaire background check. but then you can just sell it or griff it to the first person you see in a parking lot. so my advice to you is the next time you see a guy come at you in parking lot waving a gun, don't be afraid. he's just excited at what a great deal he just got. [laughter] we'll be right back. vo: once upon a time there was a boy who traveled to a faraway place where villages floated on water and castles were houses dragons lurked giants stood tall and the good queen showed the boy it could all be real avo: whatever you can imagine, all in one place expedia, find yours how can you see yourself in new glasswithout your glasses? at lenscrafters, our unique camera and screen system lets you compare yourself in four different frames at time. making sure all your vision

an article been lauren rankin, it says "justice scalia's dilemma because his wife is a pro-life advocateas a board member of the nurturing network, a crisis pregnancy organization." a lot of ironies here. >> it's clear not all speech is created equal when it comes to the supreme court. so while the court could have issued a more universal ruling, they could have even struck down, you know, some of the earlier laws that they upheld, what they still did was put the people going in and out of massachusetts clinics, at further risk than they are now. it's already a very volatile situation. the political leanings of certain members of the court become more clear every year. i mean, when it comes to scalia, he's become even more robustly sort of defending what he says is constitutional originalism, but somehow always seems to line up with what fox news is saying. >> yeah. >> he actually wrote a concurrence in this decision in which he claimed that, you know, not only was this law unconstitutional, but it discriminated against antiabortion viewpoints. he wanted the court to go even further. whi

what you assert does not stop that problem. >> jon: scalia is actually referring to the precedent-makingbleep happens. what are you going to do? i guess the real takeaway is this, this is what's crazy. the real takeaway is you're only allowed to buy a gun at a gun store after going through some type of questionnaire background check. but then you can just sell it or griff it to the first person you see in a parking lot. so my advice to you is the next time you see a guy come at you in parking lot waving a gun, don't be afraid. he's just excited at what a great deal he just got. [laughter] we'll be right back. brewed for more this ispirited nights.tune. it's undistilled, yet it has a smooth clean finish. you might choose a regular beer, but then you might get a regular night. miller fortune. your fortune awaits. touch down... every morning... ten times! not just... now and then. once more on the rise... nuts to the flabby guys! go, you chicken fat, go away! go, you chicken fat, go! run, two, run (running) (like a tortoise) okay! (too far, and too slow.) now double up, ready! run two three

they had tried the statutes that justice scalia identified. they had tried a narrower buffer zone, and the testimony was it wasn't working, and that the police were coming in and said, we can't enforce it. why is that? because they had a hard time measuring consent, evaluating what does -- >> what kind of a record do they need? could -- could there be a state law that says no picketing around any -- you can never have a picket around any store to try to prevent people -- to tell people don't go -- don't patronize this store. could they do that? isn't that thornhill v. alabama? >> right. and what actually, in thornhill, they struck that down. >> right. >> but it was very different from this statute. thornhill's was you can't go anywhere near the facility and it was -- it was only one type of speech. this is content neutral and it is -- it is a narrow buffer zone. justice kagan, i really urge you to because -- >> well, i mean, i understand. stop. i'll ask this one more time. >> yes. >> i think it's -- i understand the -- the desire to create a b

dissent scalia breyer thomas dissent. on remand is justice scalia writes one of the first questions the lower courts will face is whether aereo's record function which allows subscribers to save a program while it is airing an watch it later infringes the network's public performance right. >> guest: yeah i mean that's certainly something for the courts to decide and it will be remanded but what was upheld today was the fundamental constitutional principle that you can't take someone else's copyright of intellectual property and resell it without dealing with the owner of that copyright. so however future cases develop that principle was decisively established and settled by the supreme court today. >> the supreme court ruled in favor of digital privacy wednesday in a unanimous decision stating that police need a warrant before searching a cell phone or personal electronic device of a person may rest. "the new york times" reports chief justice john roberts writing for for the court says the vast amount of data contained o

more of the justices including sotomayor and scalia. to take an example of someone who is thought as a liberal and conservative, realize that there are serious threats from new technology to privacy. they have different approaches to those threats and interestingly, breyer is to the right of scalia. the trend is one of grappling with new problems. the court does not have a left-right commitment on privacy. >> can you predict how they might come down on a case? when i study a case closely what -- i said the chief justice would cast the decisive vote based on the taxing power. i do not claim to be unique. i do not say that i have a crystal ball. the issues we need to study are beneath the service. they are deeper than that. >> they are understanding the deeply thought, well studied philosophy of an individual judge? >> each has life experience and a philosophy about the role of the states versus the federal government. about the power of the government to coerce individuals and to bribe them. there are a lot of issues that have not been s

what you assert does not stop that problem. >> jon: scalia is actually referring to the precedent-making case bleep happens. what are you going to do? i guess the real takeaway is this, this is what's crazy. the real takeaway is you're only allowed to buy a gun at a gun store after going through some type of questionnaire background check. but then you can just sell it or griff it to the first person you see in a parking lot. so my advice to you is the next time you see a guy come at you in parking lot waving a gun, don't be afraid. he's just excited at what a great deal he just got. [laughter] we'll be right back. it's the candy bar that's too hot for tv, in all its naked glory; stripped of chocolate, with nothing but salty roasted peanuts on soft sweet caramel. a payday bar will get you through your day. expose yourself to payday. lookin' good, flo! feelin' good! feelin' real good! [ engine revs ] boat protection people love. now, that's progressive. call or click today. the hotel hasallye care of ourry to be right.ep.id for a night.. you can get a 4-star hotel for up to 60% off, even

what you assert does not stop that problem. >> jon: scalia is actually referring to the precedent-making case bleep happens. what are you going to do? i guess the real takeaway is this, this is what's crazy. the real takeaway is you're only allowed to buy a gun at a gun store after going through some type of questionnaire background check. but then you can just sell it or griff it to the first person you see in a parking lot. so my advice to you is the next time you see a guy come at you in parking lot waving a gun, don't be afraid. he's just excited at what a great deal he just got. [laughter] we'll be right back. spokesperson: the volkswagen passat is heads above the competition, but we're not in the business of naming names. the fact is, it comes standard with an engine that's been called the benchmark of its class. really, guys, i thought... it also has more rear legroom than other midsize sedans. and the volkswagen passat has a lower starting price than... much better. vo: hurry in and get 0% apr for 60 months on 2014 passat gasoline models plus a $1000 contract bonus. hey you won't

. >> great descents to do pointed out by justice scalia. they were against and wrong, they said the sky is falling and the sky did not fall. liz: make the case. if i write something, if i have a show and someone is snatching it out of the year without paying for it i am going to be pretty annoyed. isn't it the american way to protect intellectual property? >> it is. the interesting twist gary has here is the suggestion we should take intellectual property which is what we're talking about, innovation and allow people to grab and resell it. melissa: the difference of tween hardware and ideas that go to the broadcast ways, good to see you both. thank you, this was wonderful and i know gary will be continuing to fight for the elevators out there at the consumer electronics association. thank you, good to see you. we have been referencing the sony betamax case. there is an important reference regarding today's ruling to the supreme court decision handed down more than 30 years ago, the case of universal versus sony. back then universal sued son

more of the justices including sotomayor and scalia. to take an example of someone who is thought as a liberal and conservative, realize that there are serious threats from new technology to privacy. they have different approaches to those threats and interestingly, breyer is to the right of scalia. on those. therefore the trend is one of grappling with new problems. the court does not have a left-right commitment on privacy. >> can you predict how they might come down on a case? when i study the case closely the way i did the obamacare case, i was saying before the decision that the chief justice would cast the decisive vote based on the taxing power. that was right. i do not claim to be unique. the point is, i don't say i have a crystal ball. but i do think the issues we need to that er issues that are beneath the surface. not issues that can be easily captured by labels like originalist or living constitutionalist, activist, non-activist. they are deeper than that. >> they are what? understanding the deeply thought philosophy of the

they have tried the statutes that justice scalia have identified. the testimony was it wasn't working. and that the police were coming in and said we can't enforce it. why is that? because they had a hard time measuring consent. >> what kind of a record do they need? could there be a state law that says there could be no picketing around any store to try to prevent people don't patronize this store? isn't that thorn hill versus alabama? >> right. thorn hill, they struck that down. >> right. >> but it was very different from that statute. thorn hill was you can't go anywhere near the facility and it was only one type of speech. this is content neutral. and it is a narrow buffer zone. >> i'll ask this one more time. i think it's -- i understand the desire to create a buffer zone around certain sensitive facilities. what i'm asking is what requirements, if any, does congress or state legislature have to meet before they can do that? if it is done, do we simply say they have a rational basis for it and that's it so they can establish basically a buffer

but where they really disagreed was justice scalia say we should say no treaty can do this.cumstances because it violates states rights. and this is one of the ancient tensions within american government. which is which obligations belong to the federal government and which obligations belong to the state and how in certain circumstances can international obligations play in here. and what you have is conservatives at the supreme court saying we don't want international bodies to tell our states what to do. that's really what justice scalia was saying here. >> yeah, you said it, but ultimately they didn't rule on it. that wasn't part of the issue. pretty fascinating stuff. it gets you and me talking about a love triangle and the supreme court all in would be segment. what could be better than that. jeff toobin, thank you, sir. >>> got a famous golfer tied up in a potential scandal and it's phil mickelson. he is part of an fbi probe right now into allegations he may have been involved in some insider trading. so how serious are these allegations and what is phil mickelson say

there are at least two things that justice scalia and i completely agree about. the first is that supposedly chicago-style pizza isn't really pizza. totally agree with him on that. and the lodge nick the language of the windsor decision will lead to marriage in all 50 states. i think he was right about that last summer. >> we're seeing that movement already. this latest decision was by the circuit court and thoughts are that that could potentially be heading to the supreme court. correct? >> no question it will head to the supreme court. there's a lot of people out there speculating and taking bets on when. i had given up on trying to get involved in that timing game because i can't read the justices' minds. and i don't know whether anyone else can. this tenth circuit decision is going to put pressure on the supreme court, particularly since there's a stay in utah and the other states affected so gay couples cannot get married in those states. i think that's going to put a lot of pressure on the supreme court to take a case, probably sooner rather than later. >>

i agree with justice scalia on this one. the majority tried to define its way out of the problem and say this is a limited decision to what is happening here and should not be seen as having direct implications for broader innovation with respect to cloud services. thisce scalia pointed out is the majority arguing that if it looks like cable tv, we have rules about that very do it must be cable tv. results driven approach. the court's technology has changed. it is anti-innovation. if something looks enough like the thing that came before, it must be regulated like that. that is inherently antithetical to innovation. we look to provide the same thing at lower cost or much faster or something else. it's not like we are trying to do a completely different thing. innovation is about doing the same old things in new ways. that is the part of the decision that really worried me. >> the notion that this could go not just beyond aereo, but even beyond that. >> it's not something i'm worried about great a lot of the cloud application

." >> that's true, justice scalia. but the -- >> so what's the problem? if there is indeed this, you know, this terrible emergency you're talking about, the president has the power to call them back. >> well, i think it seems to me the framers made a different judgment, because they gave the president both the power to call back in extraordinary circumstances and the recess appointment power. and if the framers had intended the power to call back to be the way to deal with vacancies during absences of the senate, then -- >> yes, but my only point is what -- what the recess appointment power consists of cannot be determined on the basis that, well, there are going to be terrible emergencies, so it must enable the president to do this or that. extraordinary emergencies are handled in the constitution. you don't have to expand the vacancy appointment power in order to handle those. >> so, what i would say about this, and also to your point, mr. chief justice, is we have, i would submit, a stable equilibrium that has emerged over the course of this country's

to a degree, there was a supply, all the justices lined up against the president, and justice scalia took the most extreme position against him, given a literalist reading of the clause. it was an expected ruling. >>> i want to talk about mcculloch's case, saying that massachusetts wept too far. that's right, it was a nine to nothing result. five justices said 35 foot buffer zones restricting people passing from speaking or interacting is too much. but what is striking is what they didn't do. they didn't overturn the earlier precedent that said that states could have buffer zone laws, and that was five justices on that opinion. four justices led by justice scalia wanted to make a radical change in the law, wanting to say any buffer zone law was a first amendment violation of the freedom of speech, which would have been a huge change in the law, and they fell a vote short. >> a major case is harris versus equip, an important labour law decision. diane eastabrook spoke to pamela harris who sued the governor of illinois. >> reporter: a meddy cade programme pays pam to take care of her d

but justice scalia says the vacancy has to arrive before the recess and not during the recess.the numbered rule says that the recess cannot days.s than 10 adding justice scalia's opinion is more true to the , but again,al text that opinion for the work is as of this case has no practical consequences. >> what about john boehner's accusation of the presidents general abuse of executive power ? where do you see this case sitting into the bigger picture? justices, including the justices appointed by this president, rejected his assessment that he had the authority to do this. this is the indication of the kind of reckless authority you of by this president outside his constitutional authority. speaker boehner is onto something that he has overstepped his bounds not only in this area but in other areas as well. republicansomes to and the tea party and senator cochran's victory this week, what does that mean for the tea party? are we seeing a loss of momentum? refer to them as the tea party, others as constitutional conservatives or grassroots conservatives. sometimes they may have

scalia said, the constitution's text and structure unambiguously and free wheeling determination of the recess, it is not plausible that the constitution uses that term in a accepts that authorizes the president to make unilateral appointments during any break in senate proceedings. subject only to hazy textural limits crafted by this court, after ratification. another test of the administration's power monday 10:00 eastern. that's when we'll get the interpr etags of the health care law. if they're forced to provide cost-free access to contraception, they believe it can trigger abortions, the government will be trampling on their religious freedoms. >> shannon, thanks for that. reaction to the court's decision has been partisan and predictable. republicans applaud it, the president and his team do not. white house correspondent wen dale goaler has that part of the story. >> reporter: he disagreed with and was disappointed by the ruling but will honor it. for republicans, the ruling was vindication, and not just on the issue of recess appointments. >> it represents a clear, clear rebuke

scalia, kennedy, thomas, roberts, and alito, they are all roman catholic. you can see that anthony kennedy, and one of his writin gs, said that he needed to protect women from themselves. he did not think that they could tell women what they need to do with their bodies. really -- itit is will not stop here. >> this in the walkie, wisconsin, republicans line. caller: that is a bunch of baloney. people have to understand that hobby lobby provided a lot of birth control for a lot of people. they do not agree with the morning-after pill and other things that terminate pregnancy. we have religious freedom. you do not have to work for the company. this is a blow to obama and ty ranny. what kennedy's issue with this whole law was was that the law was written not by an elective body,but by an appointed which was created. they were making the rules on this. that is what turned him against this. -- see ople,ave people, good pe that have religious backgrounds. they do not believe in terminating a -- abortion is murder. . simple. life can start anywhere. >> we will ha

in my view, justice scalia's concurring opinion was correct on the original understanding of the clause, but more importantly it reflects over time we have seen the president gradually expand the recess appointment power. the first expansion was early on to any vacancy opposed to those vacancies arising during the recess. early presidents rejected that. shortly thereafter, other presidents embraced that power. the senate essentially you know, there was some back and forth. but as the court found, the senate didn't vigorously oppose and maybe acquiesed but there's another limit. only exercised in between sessions so-called intersession recesses. that gets us to around 1921 where we then see the executive branch jetison that limit and make rejess appointments in that period, as well. we saw another dramatic expansion of the power. but even then as we saw at the end of the bush administration, they saw control over the process and so it could still prevent recess appointments if it actually convened sessions every three days and doesn't take any break during which a recess appointment is m

scalia said that it is but added him.aches a certain point, perhaps you should revolt." i mean, can you imagine if people on the left or even the center were talking about revolts and rebo borebellions? amazing. >> ruth bader ginsburg told us to revolt and get our guns against the government? no. we live in a democracy. we have ther>yiuderly change of power. people have the right to vote and died for the right to vote. this kind of rhett are rick from the right is so irresponsible. >> jonathan this capehart and joan walsh,ñrñr thank you for y time tonight. >> thanks, rev. >> thanks. >> coming up, with one day to4zo the mississippi senate run-off is getting ugly. the black vote could be the key. now reportsÑiñr of tea party po watchers are surfacing. plus, president obama's fight for fairness today with a warning to gop he will act alone. >>> andxba finally comes to five young men sent to jail for a brutal central park assault they did not commit. donald trump called for the death penalty 25 years ago. wait until you hear

scalia wrote a dissent that called the court's decision mind-boggling. he went out of his way and outside of the record of the case to attack obama for something unrelated to the case. his use of executive power to favor the immigrant children known as dreamers. the "washington post" that usually selects the president or senator or cabinet member for the owner bestowed the worst week in washington prize partly because he was out voted in the obamacare decision that came down. those are just some examples in the book and it deals with them and explains them. it's not just of the cases as a bare majority that exposed the fallacy of the increasingly common description of the roberts court in the right-wing political hacks. there are plenty of rulings which accounted for nearly half of the decisions in 2012 to 2013 in which the nine justices are divided on themselves. it just looks unanimous that they are pointing in lots of different directions. and if you study the directions you don't have to be the legal maven to understand then you just have to speak pl

in my view, justice scalia's concurring opinion was correct on the original understanding of the clause, but more importantly it reflects over time we have seen the president gradually expand the recess appointment power. the first expansion was early on to any vacancy opposed to those vacancies arising during the recess. early presidents rejected that. shortly thereafter, other presidents embraced that power. the senate essentially, you know, there was some back and forth. but as the court found, the senate didn't vigorously oppose and maybe acquiesed but there's another limit. only exercised in between sessions, so-called intersession recesses. that gets us to around 1921 where we then see the executive branch jetison that limit and make rejess appointments in that period, as well. we saw another dramatic expansion of the power. but even then as we saw at the end of the bush administration, they saw control over the process and so it could still prevent recess appointments if it actually convened sessions every three days and doesn't take any break during which a recess appointment is

now, also, justice antonin scalia speaking for the court's three dissenters basically said it's up toongress to fix what he characterized as a loophole in the copyright law, reminding his colleagues that about 30 years or so, an earlier supreme court came within one vote of banning the vcr. back to you guys. >> hampton, thank you. and yeah, a lot of the tech community, by the way, seizing on scalia's dissent, concerned, despite the supreme court's language, this could set a precedent against further innovation across this space, bill. and we'd like to remind you, by the way, aereo is number seven on this year's cnbc disrupter into list. for more on how much disruption aereo could still bring to television moving forward and what this ruling means for broadcasters' future, let's bring in two key players in the story. >> vincent sedusti is lynn media's ceo. they have a merge pending with media general that would create a company that would own 74 broadcast stations around the country. and gordon smith, of course, is the ceo of the national association of broadcasting. good to see you bo