>> sotomayor: he was. >> pelley: did you understand what that meant as a child? >> sotomayor: no.ldlike appreciation that he couldn't help himself. i also watched him die from drinking. >> pelley: he died when she was nine. her mother pushed education, and in 1972, sotomayor was near the top in her high school class when she got an offer from a university she had never heard of, princeton. it was a combination of talent, perseverance and affirmative action. do you think anyone ever resented the notion that you might have had a door opened for you by affirmative action? >> sotomayor: you can't be a minority in this society without having someone express disapproval about affirmative action. from the first day i received, in high school, a card from princeton telling me that it was possible that i was going to get in, i was stopped by the school nurse and asked why i was sent the "possible" and the number one and the number two in the class were not. now, i didn't know about affirmative action. but from the tone of her question, i understood that she thought there was something wron

liberal justices brier, ginsburg, sotomayor and kagan dissented. jan crawford, our supreme court correspondent has the story. >> reporter: the decision invalidating a section of the voting rights of 1965 deeply divided the justices. but it rested on a simple premise. as chief justice john roberts said, nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. at issue was a provision in the act that singled out states with a history of discrimination and voting, mostly in the south and required them to get pre- clearance, approval from the federal government before changing voting procedures. officials in shelby county, alabama, challenged that aovision, arguing the south had dede great progress since the act became law. today should be treated like the rest of the country. in its 5-4 decision, the court aid shelby county had a point, conthe justices turned the spotlight squarely on congress,

i think he and sotomayor are going at it. sotomayor dissenting and clarence thomas consenting. speaking from their own moral authority of the good or bad of affirmative action. maybe he could clear his throat and have a dual with sotomayor on the bench. i don't think it is likely. a boy can dream. >> it is definitely a dream. interesting you could suggest clarence thomas's moral authority on affirmative action. he is going to argue against it. if you look at who he is and where he really has come from. mike sacks, thank you very much. >> president obama is being pushed to the brink by ever-more violent fighting in syria. what should he do? is anyone else going to come along with us. ayman moyaladin will join us. [ jackie ] it's just so frustrating... ♪ the middle of this special moment and i need to run off to the bathroom. ♪ i'm fed up with always having to put my bladder's needs ahead of my daughter. ♪ so today, i'm finally talking to my doctor about overactive bladder symptoms. [ female announcer ] know that gotta go feeling? ask your doctor about prescription toviaz. one to

so, i met sonia sotomayor very early on and she was incredible.rt judge. she mentored everybody. she is a very warm woman, very nurturing woman and also shared her substantive legal intellect with us very, very early on. so, we became fans not just of the person who is sonia sotomayor but the judge and intellectual. when she was to be nominated for the second circuit court of appeals i was now on the board of the puerto rican board association and other associations, as well. i was in a position, not as a mentor, but almost a sponsor of the judge. and we were in a position, as a former organization, to endorse her candidacy and to go to congress and write letters and make sure that people knew this was an impeccable jurist and i knew this from my mentor relationship, but more importantly, from seeing her on the bench and knowing what a wonderful judge she was. so, what happens full circle when i'm here as deputy mayor for legal affairs and president obama nominates sonia sotomayor to be his first nominee for the united states supreme court? at tha

next, a conversation with chief justice sonia sotomayor. after that, a panel on the relationship between religious belief in human rights legislation. later, "q&a." >> we are debating what the first broadband era land should look like. that is a hard question. there is an tricky but important issues to address. >> it is not like the new chairman will walk in on a friday, there are a series of complicated orders that need to go out area as i have said will be the auction most complex in world history. the chairman is absolutely right. and the of the world wireless space are looking at the u.s. to see how we handle this. former sec commissioners on the upcoming spectrum auction and other major community should an issues. monday night on the communicator at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. >> during ceremonies to open a new judicial center, supreme court justice sonia sotomayor to questions from eighth, ninth, and since graders in denver. exec about racial profiling and stereotypes. her childhood and her career. this is just under one hour. [applau

but in line with justice sotomayor's question, in the d.c.ourt of appeals, the dissenting judge there, judge williams, said, "if this case were about three states, mississippi, louisiana, and alabama, those states have the worst records, and application of section 5 to them might be ok." >> justice ginsburg, judge williams said that, as he assessed various measures in the record, he thought those states might be distinguished. he did not say, and he didn't reach the question, whether those states should be subject to preclearance. in other words, whether on an absolute basis, there was sufficient record to subject them -- >> but think about this state that you're representing, it's about a quarter black, but alabama has no black statewide elected officials. if congress were to write a formula that looked to the number of successful section 2 suits per million residents, alabama would be the number one state on the list. if you factor in unpublished section 2 suits, alabama would be the number two state on the list. if you use the number of se

sotomayor, you know, tons, too many to list. am i a hero? yeah, yeah, i'm probably a hero.do i think today will be a ton of fun? i'm counting on it. all right. all right. let's just get this started. this is a couch from home. they're very cool about bringing your own stuff into this space. i can do this by myself, i don't need a man to help me with this. you think famous women from history, you think amelia earhart, says, oh hold on, i parked the plane, now i need help getting this couch out. usually my roommate helps me when i pull this out, but-- she had a test. and she wasn't totally into me doing this. okay, history in the making. this is good, this is comfortable, this is gonna be fine. okay. all right, gentlemen, come on in. ( bell ringing ) let's see who responded to the craigslist ad. okay, okay. not what i was picturing, but okay. there's more of you, just like-- more keeps coming in. you know what? you know what? this is-- you look tired, you look tired. i'm tired. it's too hot in here, you know? i'm feeling like maybe i could just-- you know, i mean, i still hat

. >>> 7 de los 9 jueces de la corte suprema, incluyendo sonia sotomayor, in validaron, probar que erana poder inscribirse y votar abogados, llevaron la demanda al mÁximo tribunal, argumentando que la medida disminuya la participaciÓn de las urnas, especialmente de minorÍas. >>> poner requisitos caros y difÍcil de componer salirse del trabajo y llenar la aplicaciÓn. luego de promulgar la proposiciÓn 200 en arizona en el 2004, mÁs de 40.000 no pudieron vot votar al no te fener los docume que les pedÍan. >>> fue parte del movimiento anti inmigrantes y establecer un medio ambiente hostil hacia el inmigrante en arizona. hey! al aplaudir la decisiÓn. en vez de poner barreras, hay que construir mÁs puentes para dar mÁs acceso y facilitar el voto. el recuerdan como intentos fallidos de purgas electorales como la florida, llevaron errores como el caso que doc men estamos el al paÑo pasado, que 2000 lectores que en un principio, fueron excluidos porque su documentaciÓn migratoria no fue actualizada. >>> como yo siendo ciudadana, me iban a prohibir que yo votara en las prÓximas elecciones. >>> lo

. >> rose: even justices like sotomayor. >> yes, at the argument, you had just about every single liberal saying what is this case doing here? why should we decide this so fast? there's a lot of activity on the ground. recall when the case was argued, nine states had same-sex marriage. today, just in the space of three months, we're up to 12. the political process seems to be working to some degree on this question. >> rose: what will scholars say about that? >> i think scholars will say-- will focus on the bigger decision, the doma decision, the federal law decision, and they will-- this will in the midst of time disappear because the issue will get back to the the court. the issue as with bans on interracial marriage, in its sweet time, the court will decide the bans on same-sex maerm are no good but they're going to want the country to move forward a little bit more. they're going to want the opinion polls to move a little bit more. >> rose: jeffrey toobin joins us. jeffrey, tell me your reaction to these decisions. were you surprised in any way? >> well, given my poor record of predic

line with justice sotomayor's question, in d.c. court of appeals, the dissenting judge there, judge williams, said, if this case were about three states -- mississippi, louisiana and alabama -- those states have the worst record. and application of section 5 to them might be ok. >> justice ginsburg, judge williams said as he assessed various measures in the record, he thought those states might be distinguished. he did not say and he didn't reach the question whether those states should be subject to preclearance. in other words, whether on an absolute basis there was sufficient record to subject them. >> the thing about this state you're representing, it's about a quarter black, but alabama has no black statewide elected officials. if congress were to write a formula that looked to the number of successful section 2 suits per million residents, alabama would be the number one state on the list. if you factor in unpun lished section 2 suits, alabama would be the number two state on the list. if you used the number of section 5 enfo

while justices ginsburg, breyer, sotomayor and kagan voted to keep the act intact. writing for the majority, chief justice roberts claimed the formula that determined whether states had passed laws that reduced minority voting were out-of-date and no longer justified treating some states differently than others. in the words of the decision and i quote... >>> in other words my friends laws to stop bigotry are bigoted against bigots. president obama immediately released a statement saying he was deeply disappointed in the ruling which he said and i quote... now, congressman john lies, a hero of the civil rights era who marched with dr. king was a bit more blunt. >> what the supreme court did was to put a dagger in the very heart of the voting rights act of 1965. >> john: while in texas you'll be shocked to know, state officials marked the court's decision by immediately enacting a voter i.d. law that will make it harder for poor people, old people and college students to cast their ballots. for more, we're privileged to be joined by one of the historic leaders of the

ruth bader ginsberg, stephen breyer, sonia sotomayor and elena kagan support the ruling. justice john roberts wrote the dissenting opinion, sbird antony scalia, clarence thomas and samuel alito. >>> still to come, meteorologist christina loren has details on a big time heat wave all coming our way and we will have more on that right after this break. >>> welcome back, everybody, take you live to san francisco, the castro district, plenty of people were celebrating early today, the prop 8 ruling, gathering tonight at 6:30. there, you are gather at the rain bow community sent teity ce castro district. blue skies. >> whatever you want to do after a couple of rainy days, a lot of moisture creating humidity, you can feel it immediately when you walk out, christina. >> quote the famous snoop lion, formerly known as snoop dogg it is sticky icky icky out there. good morning to you. a live look here. one of the reasons why the castro might be so quiet, we have had these flight delays all morning long. hard to tell from the picture of san francisco, hard to happen, very glassy on t

sotomayor and kagan argue the minority decision. i what happened today, marched back in the 1960's. this is the united states of america but we are not united. black is still treated unfairly. you cannot drive out hate with hate. only love can change that. we have been trying that, you know? it was a very poor decision, what happened today. >> people do not understand what is going on. the truth is this makes no injury to a black candidate who wants to run and win, or to any other minority group of people who want to vote. it has no effect. this is saying we do not need it anymore, because it strikes down something that has stopped. in some areas of the south, they would have spelling tests to cut people out of voting. that is over. the real discrimination today is coming from eric holder, our attorney general. he allowed a case that should have been defaulted, a group of people who were harassing people at the polls were supposed to come to a hearing. they skipped out, and they should have been defaulted, but he dismissed it and allowed their discrimination at the polls, the black

and introduced her brother as doctor sotomayor.ike a mel brooks movie. >> bill: we have some famous people meeting in the wings -- waiting in the wings. ♪ this is your birthday song ♪ ♪ it doesn't last too long ♪ ♪ hey ♪ >> let's do both verses. [ applause ] >> my colleagues, the second verse is exactly like the first verse. ♪ this is your birthday song ♪ ♪ it doesn't last too long ♪ ♪ hey ♪ >> fabulous. >> bill: for sonya sonia sotomayor happy birthday. that's why you're in town. >> a secret birthday party for sonia sotomayor. >> bill: avery friedman here with us this half hour. we're excited about that. the president of the center for american progress joining us a little bit later. and then seung min kim from politico covering the immigration hearings on the hill will be in studio with us as well. avery, you and i will get to that big trial. but first -- big headlines of the day. >> few stories making news. panda-monium here in washington, d.c.! i'm sorry. i had to throw that in there. washington, d.c. was in lockdown mode on mo

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

trying to respond to justice sotomayor and in the framework of grutter, what you're looking at is, do you -- does this person, member of a so-called underrepresented minority -- it's a concept we don't necessarily accept, but it's texas's concept -- are they isolated? are they unable to speak out? and i think we've always said if you have a very large number, as texas did in 2004 when they ostensibly made the decision to reinstitute race, they had a 21 percent admission percentage of what they called the underrepresented minorities. they also had about an 18 percent admission ratio of asian-americans. so on campus, you're talking about -- about 40 percent of the class being minorities. >> but the test is -- the test is, in your opinion -- i have to write this in the opinion, you say -- the proper test of critical mass is is the minority isolated, unable to speak out. that's the test. and it wasn't in grutter or was in grutter? and in your opinion, it was in grutter. >> yes. it said expressly in grutter. >> isolated. all right. and the reason it was satisfied there and not here is? >>

. >> i am much more sympathetic to what justice sotomayor has said. he is creating a rule to define certain expectations from framers. i do not disagree that these can be relevant in understanding the tax. it is primary. this is not a series of rules. i think it is very amenable to what she suggests. we have to really look at the cost of privacy. i think this is very much substantial. one can debate this on a balancing. that will be the debate necessary going forward. rather than creating a lot of roles that will make increasingly less sense. >> will we talk talk about those cases? >> we will. >> that is an important part of this. we were thinking about the gps case which was involved in an interesting concurring opinion about justice scalia. he found that it was in the suspected drug dealers car she -- so you could track it without a warrant. how do you get get original is out of that? -- originialism out of that? we will get to the dog cases. the cell phones were there are cameras everywhere. they have a case a couple years ago by heat measuring dev

trying to respond to justice sotomayor and in the framework of grutter, what you're looking at is, do you -- does this person, member of a so-called underrepresented minority -- it's a concept we don't necessarily accept, but it's texas's concept -- are they isolated? are they unable to speak out? and i think we've always said if you have a very large number, as texas did in 2004 when they ostensibly made the decision to reinstitute race, they had a 21 percent admission percentage of what they called the underrepresented minorities. they also had about an 18 percent admission ratio of asian-americans. so on campus, you're talking about -- about 40 percent of the class being minorities. >> but the test is -- the test is, in your opinion -- i have to write this in the opinion, you say -- the proper test of critical mass is is the minority isolated, unable to speak out. that's the test. and it wasn't in grutter or was in grutter? and in your opinion, it was in grutter. >> yes. it said expressly in grutter. >> isolated. all right. and the reason it was satisfied there and not here is? >>

. >> someone like elena kagan or sotomayor. >> if -- -- but he is a young 76.ywhere any time soon. as you can see, he is enormously influential, and he likes that. >> i'm sure he does, and he is a young 76. if you speak with him, as we have, you know he'll be around for a while longer. it does show, though, that elections do have consequences, presidential elections, because a president can stay in office for four or eight years, but the justices they put on the court, they can stay there 30, even 40 careers. >> if john mccain had won in 2008, this decision would have gone the other way, because sonia sotomayor and elena kagan wouldn't have been there, republican appointees would have been there, as you say, elections have consequences. >>>. rulings come on the last day of the court's term, anticipation gave way to jubilation, but not necessarily for everyone. cnn's brian todd is getting reaction. what are you seeing, brian? >> reporter: clearly the tension had been building here for months, since the justices heard both of these cases, attorneys, advocating, e

. >> during the hearing, sonia sotomayor questioned the lawyer, questioning patenting a gene, comparingt to patenting building a top chip cookie. >> i can make a truck to chip cookie using natural ingredients, salt, eggs, flour. and i create my chocolate chip cookie. and if i combust those in some new way, i can get a patent on that. but i cannot imagine getting a patent simply based on the basic items of salt, flour, and x, simply because i have created a new use or new product from those ingredients. explain to me why gene sequences, whether the actual numbers, why sequences are not the basic products that you cannot patent. >> i will start by showing you how this is a different structure. it has a different chemical -- only with regard to the isolated molecule as well. if you were to write it out in those chemical equations -- >> so i'd put in salt and flour, and that is different? >> that is a combination of two different things. noto if i take them apart, even get a pat on the salt and a patent on the flour? >> they were both old pier that is the problem with using the simplistic a

scalia was joined in his position by the more liberal justices begins berg and sotomayor. a foursome that doesn't usually exist in nature. in afghanistan, an attack aimed at forces in the eastern part of the country claimed the lives of two american soldier and an afghan policeman and at least nine kids. the bomb was set off boy a suicide bomber on a motorcycle outside a boy's school in the province. this is following an earlier attack that killed seven members of the same family. today the interior department approved three giant energy projects on public lands. two solar and one geothermal. together these generate enough electricity to power 200,000 homes. the two solar projects are in nevada and arizona. the geothermal is in a place that is called new york kenyan. it sounds east coast, but it is in nevada. the gun lobby forced a recall election against the democratic president of the colorado state senate in his leadership in passing gun reforms. the boston fire chief resigned as well as a no confidence vote with the 13 deputy chiefs that accused the chief of refusing t

a leto,homas, sotomayor, and kennedy in dissent. annedyalito, kennedy in -- lead delaware and kennedy in dissent. -- alito and kennedy in dissent. people always wonder about justice kennedy. what role does he play in the core? he has replaced justice o'connor as the -- what role does he play in the court? there is no justice that is more often in the majority than justice kennedy. in this particular term, he was in the majority 80% of the time. importantee most cases, those involving affirmative action and the protein rights act of 1965 and same-sex marriage -- voting rights act of 1965 and same-sex marriage, he was the only one in the majority in every one of those cases. beenof his leadership has pretty dramatic. we will long be parsing the doma case, the case we will be talking about this morning and what is justice kennedy up to there? those are some of the questions we might ask. i put them on the table as general thought as a way of getting perspective to our discussion of the roberts court. we have wonderful people lined up o

it's going to be a rare time when you see justice sotomayor on the same side as justice alito joiningdissent. that's probably because of it was decided on a technicality not on the merits of the case. you can bet if they were deciding whether or not gay marriage was a constitutional right, this split would look different. >> let's talk about justice scalia's really opinionated comments voicing his dissent obviously of this ruling. >> it was really incredible. he referred to legalistic argovargo sending students to their law dictionaries. he called what the justices did black robe supremacy and he wrote black and white hate your neighbor or come along with us. he is the longest serving justice. he said this case shouldn't be decided and you know we sometimes think that justices sit around and think deep thoughts and have their minions right there write the decisions for them but in this case there was a lot of personality in it and he himself sat down at the computer somewhere and said his piece. it was a very interesting one. >> today obviously a major victory for same-sex marriage. b

elena key began, sonia sotomayor and ruth bader ginsburg.ke about it because of today's decision, your dna can be taken and entered into a national day it base if you are ever arrested rightly or wrongly and for whatever reason. he is saying that privacy should be protected. and he is saying that it is wrong. i don't often agree with justice scalia, but on this one, me and scalia are on the same page. that's pigs flying around the studio. or me! oh no! my mom just cleaned this place! calm down, squishy, this'll be easy to clean. [ female announcer ] swiffer wetjet pads have the scrubbing power of mr. clean magic eraser. they trap and lock away even monstrous messes to make tough cleaning a breeze. now that's clean. wow. scottie! we won! uh-huh, uh-huh. mom?!! [ female announcer ] swiffer gives cleaning a monstrous new meaning. monsters university, in theaters, in 3d. [ roars ] ♪ [ roars ] ♪ [ roars ] ♪ [ roars ] ♪ [ male announcer ] universal studios summer of survival. ♪ ♪ boy the way glenn miller played, songs that made the hit parade ♪ ♪

sonja sotomayor said why would we do this when it's the epitome of how we started? it's an old disease. it's gotten better. a lot better. but it's still there. let's go to nbc's pete williams at the court. >> reporter: well, this decision strikes down a key part of the voting rights act and leaves it up to congress to fix it. they were two parts of the law in question. this is the civil rights law signed by president johnson in 1965, renewed four times, most recently in 2006. it says that states or counties or towns with a history of discrimination must get permission from the federal government in advance before they can make any changes at all in their election procedures. this is the so-called preclearance requirement. well, the court upheld that today. but the court struck down the map, the formula that congress has repeatedly used over the years to decide who is covered by the voting rights action. now this leaves it up to congress, but the question is, how likely do you think congress is to do something major like this? to take another look at where discrimina

he was joined by justices ginsberg, sotomayor and kagan. the fourth amendment cases tend to bring out his libertarian streak. he's written before about how important it is to warrants or individualized suspicion. he said that the court was claiming that the d.n.a. swab was really for identification enforcement basically a smoke really wants to do and that's to solve unsolved crimes. >> ifill: which is what happened in this case. >> absolutely. he said that's a noble goal, but the court, he said, has never suspended the individualized suspicion that would tie a person to a particular crime for an investigative purpose. the court has done that in a very few number of cases like you don't need suspicion to drug test rail workers. there the motive is safety. >> ifill: this outcome could have been different if a reliable four so-called liberal justices stayed together but justice breyer went the other way. >> yes, he did. justice breyer is known for a very pragmatic approach to constitutional interpretation. and i don't know. he didn't write sep

kennedy, alitoalito, thomas and sotomay sotomayor. >>> joining us is adam olmhayer. let me ask you one quick question about going back to the doma decision. people are hailing it as having codified marriage equality but it's not quite so because it means in the 12 states that have passed marriage equality, federal benefits would apply but not in the other states. can you explain that. >> i think what you're looking at is a situation where we've got the foundation that paves the path to equal equality. we're not there yet. that's very clear. we have a lot of work to do, but we're going to keep fighting and future cases will come before this court and will get there one day. i think it's important to note that there are many, many cases over the past several decades that led to these cases. the lawrence decision ten years ago and many, many others. each case builds upon the previous case and we're confident that we will get to full equality soon. >> adam, is the next step then to argue that in the states that have not passed gay marriage, let's say if you live in a sta

it was only the judicial restraint of the three liberals, ginsburg, kagan and sotomayor who said let's not decide it. let the conversation continue. >> how about the fast track? >> i wonder how it's going to continue from here. to you, i'm torn here. you can see the heat behind it with brian brown and chad griffin. on the other hand you also get the sense that a whole lot of people would just as soon have the conversation go away, not be part of politics. >> that's true, but -- i feel like the process now in 37 states -- that's a whole lot of states -- will, in effect be a little shorter. more truncated. more strangled than it otherwise would have been on issues like this. we forget as a culture a certain amount of patience, a certain amount of ease, talk about it, think about it, vote, leave it up to the people. it's always better when the people vote. when you get something like a jump ahead on roe, whatever you think of roe versus wade, that'll cause trouble and tension forever. so i'm a little disappointed we're not going the other route. >> in 2016 -- >> that's the point. so again

the five in the majority, steven brier, ruth bader ginsburg, sonja sotomayor, elena kagan, and the key deciding justice anthony kennedy. the four discenters, antonin scalia, alito, clarence tom a, and the chief justice, john roberts. let's get reaction. eric schneiderman is joining us, the new york state attorney general, also joining us is kerry, the chief policy director of the judicial crisis network. attorney general, what's your reaction? >> great decision, completely consistent with lots of supreme court rulings holding that marriage is a fundamental right. it's good that they went this far. i think it makes -- look, for edith windsor, who is a new yorker, who was with her partner for over 40 years and has fought this through, congratulations to her. this is about equality. and this means that marriages of people in my state, new york, and all over america, between same-sex couples, will be treated equally under 1,100 provisions of federal law that use the term "marriage" or define benefits according to marriage. it's a great win, not just for the gay community or for edith. it's

that problem speaks to current conditions meanwhile justice ginsburg in for joined by justices agan sotomayor and briar offered a scathing dissent of the to the court's ruling in or dissent ensberg argued that the sad irony of today's decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the v.r.a. the voting rights of men has proven a fact that the court appears to believe that the vieira's success in eliminating the specific devices extent in one hundred sixty five means the pre-clearance is no longer needed and president obama released a statement responding the course decision saying in part that i am deeply disappointed with the supreme court's decision today for nearly fifty years the voting rights act and acted in read it repeatedly renewed by wide bipartisan majorities in congress as help secure the right to vote for millions of americans. today's decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well established practices that help make sure voting is fair especially in cases in places where voting discrimination has been historically a problem so just how wrong to the sup

. >> bill: i was -- last night had a chance to interview justice sonia sotomayor.ton awards for legal achievement here at the library of congress. but current issues in front of the supreme court were sort of off -- >> can't talk about those now. >> bill: let's start with the supreme court on a 5-4 decision yesterday. i find it a little troubling decision about when police can get dna samples right? >> it is troubling because the decision now says that a police officer can swab someone's cheek and get their dna sample before that suspect was convicted of anything. so you're arrested and the police can acquire your sample, put it in their database and use it for whatever. and since a lot of people aren't convicted, you're going to have a lot of innocent people with their dna samples in the system and the irony is there was an earlier case where a person was convicted of a crime was trying to access his own dna samples to run tests to prove his innocence and the supreme court said no. he can't do that. because that would make a mockery out of the justice system. the

did you get to know george sotomayor week -- judge sotomayor?st: i have been present of several speaking engagements. she was elevated to the circuit court. she is a phenomenal justice. some important issues right now in front of the supreme court of the united states. host: he has just been elected to his first term in 2012. if you would like to participate in our conversation, the numbers are on the screen. the line, a democrat. speak ai would like to little bit this morning about the bush administration. i think they are still trying to world order. where is his world order standing right now? host: what do you mean by that? he said he was going to have the new world order. he is still trying to run the united states and the world. nothing has been passed in the congress and the senate. it seems like it is going their way. they are all in cahoots together brothers investing in the united states. national geographic will give you the story of the koch brothers. it is forming a communist nation, is what it is all about. host: is there anything

but to come back to your precise question, i think, justice sotomayor, you're probing into whether or not sexual orientation ought to be viewed as a quasi-suspect or suspect class, and our position is that it does not qualify under this court's standard and traditional tests for identifying suspectedness. but to come back to your precise question, i think, justice sotomayor, you're probing into whether or not sexual orientation ought to be viewed as a quasi-suspect or suspect class, and our position is that it does not qualify under this court's standard and traditional tests for identifying suspectedness. the class itself is quite amorphous. it defies consistent definition as the plaintiffs' own experts were quite vivid on. it does not qualify as an accident of birth, immutability in that sense. again, the plaintiffs -- >> so you -- so what -- i don't quite understand it. if you're not dealing with this as a class question, then why would you say that the government is not free to discriminate against them? >> well, your honor, i would think that -- i think it's a -- it's a very diff

>> well, at least two -- two responses to that, justice sotomayor. first is that one interest that supports the federal government's definition of this term is whatever federal interest justifies the underlying statute in which it appears. so, in every one of these statutes that affected, by assumption, there's some article i section 8 authority >> so they can create a class they don't like -- here, homosexuals -- or a class that they consider is suspect in the marriage category, and they can create that class and decide benefits on that basis when they themselves have no interest in the actual institution of marriage as married. the state's control that. >> just to clarify, justice sotomayor, i'm not suggesting that the federal government has any special authority to recognize traditional marriage. so if -- the assumption is that nobody can do it. if the states can't do it either, then the federal government can't do it. so the federal government >> no, i'm -- i'm assuming >> okay. so then the question is >> assuming i assume the states can -- >> so

we had thomas, alito, sotomayor, and kennedy in dissent. people always wonder about justice kennedy. what role does he play in the core? he has replaced justice o'connor as the -- what role does he play in the court? there is no justice that is more often in the majority than justice kennedy. in this particular term, he was in the majority 80% of the time. in the three most important cases, those involving affirmative action and the protein rights act of 1965 and same-sex marriage -- voting rights act of 1965 and same-sex marriage, he was the only one in the majority in every one of those cases. some of his leadership has been pretty dramatic. we will long be parsing the doma case, the case we will be talking about this morning and what is justice kennedy up to there? those are some of the questions we might ask. i put them on the table as general thought as a way of getting perspective to our discussion of the roberts court. we have wonderful people lined up on our panel. we want to focus our discussion on a few cases. we make no pretense