outside the second circuit court of appeals in new york demonstrators arrived to lend their support point it's in a case against the n.b.a. plaintiffs that ultimately represent the first races of countless civil liberties activists and their message is clear that any military detention of american citizens without due process is both illegal and unconstitutional so i'm outside the thurgood marshall courthouse where supporters for the plaintiffs against the n.b.a. case are right there behind me but we're going to ask them passers by to see how many people actually know what the n.b.a. is and. have you ever heard of the national defense authorization act now take it i have not no no no i have not heard about that with this no i never heard of it have you ever heard of the national defense authorization act no or the n.d.a. no it's a law that gives the government the right to indefinitely detain u.s. citizens without due process without a trial if they are suspected of being associated with terrorists have you heard about that yes that's ridiculous i usually follow the news i haven't heard a

appeal this decision which i think has no chance of surviving on appeal. >> bloomberg is going to appeal it, go to the federal second circuit and could make it to the supreme court that. if a democratic mayor is elected, none of them will appeal and the case is done. >> it could have a chilling effect on other police departments around the country. this could have reverberations around the country, which would be a shame. the focus is on police behavior instead of black behavior. that's where the focus should be. blacks make up about 23% of new york city's population. but they're involved in 80% of the shootings. they've mentioned the homicide rate in the city over the years. in the early 1990s, 2,000 plus a year. last year 400. i mean, what we're talking about is a policy that has helped saved black lives. most of this crime is black on black crime. they've run the numbers on this. she said something like 10,000 black and hispanic men are live today in new york city who wouldn't be alive but for the policies. >> but you know that the critics argue, ira glaser of the civil liberty's union argues that the ray of crime is undeniable and starting in 1981, before st

very hard to confirm these three judges that president obama named to the d c circuit court of appeals, often called the second-most high court and the country. republicans have signaled they intend to block these nominees, at least at the -- level. if they decide to filibuster these nominees, how should your party react to that? >> we should have the ability to vote them up or down. an extraordinarily well- qualified person, one of the most well qualified people to ever be nominated to that court. extraordinarily qualified to be a member of the supreme court. lot higher than it whenuring the bush tenure, they said they needed new judges. my response is, the caseload required those judges when it was a republican president. now we have a much higher caseload. a democratic president. we don't need it. we had two courts of appeal judges supported by republicans in other circuits. it went through easily. have thed not begin to caseload or complexity of the d c circuit. circuit. a lot of things ago through the administrative parts of our government go there, and that court can do more to work the will of the presi

where a federal court has ruleed it unconstitutional and there is a right to appeal which would go up to a second circuit so the case is by no means over. but today i think that members of the media opinion's constitution at varies. it's a policy debate people can continue to have. as long as it's illegal under the old form which it now is as a matter of practical reality, it doesn't matter so much what others think about the constitutionality because we have to respect the court's decision which is good law until it's changed by a higher court. the second issue you raise is a melding of the law here. what new york can do under sort of new york code comes in as guidelines and comes in as obviously a relevant thing. if they're otherwise acting constitutionally but nobody would suggest, not even the wall street journal that might like this practice for a variety of reasons no one would suggest that the new york guidelines trump the fourth and 14th amendment of the constitution which was the foundation of yesterday's ruling. and so that's where the debate goes for those who want to look at how you can have these police practices continue in ways that don't violate the cons