supreme court. she's here today to share her thoughts about that battle and about free expression in america. welcome, holly. thank you, ken. now, a membership in the n.e.a. four-- that's not exactly like joining the kiwanis club. no, it's not. it was kind of an honor-- dishonor sort of imposed on us by the national council of the arts when they took away our funding that had been recommended. it sort of sounds like a bad band, you know, that-- or we were later referred to as karen finley and the three homosexuals, which sounds like a really bad band. i've seen them play. [laughs] and yet this has been a battle. your status as a member of the n.e.a. four has been a decade long, really. yes, it all started in 1990, when the four of us were recommended for funding by peer panels in the n.e.a. and then, under political pressure, john frohnmayer, who was then chairman, took away our grants. and it was during a whole sort of public debate about controversial funding for the arts, and we decided to sue th

did the supreme court justices -- >> the supreme court justices are not shy. some of the justices felt that the new building was to grand, was too grandiose. chief justice stone is alleged to of sand that justices wrote -- alleged to have said that the justices were like nine black beetles into the temple of karnak, and maybe they should ride in each morning on elephants. >> setting a record with over 75 million pounds of marble used in its construction, when it opened in 1935, seven of the nine sitting justices refused to move into their chambers in the new supreme court building. >> one of the justices at the time did not want to leave their former chambers in the basement of the senate. he said, if we leave these offices in the senate, no one will ever hear of us again. but he was wrong. brandeis said he would not come in here. the reason justice brandeis would not, is that he said the building was so low average, it -- so elaborate, it would go their heads. maybe he was right. if you come over time, it becomes a symbol of the third branch of government, an

supreme court, and the u.s. supreme court said no, no, no. you had no business, really, getting involved in this. it was a little rebuke to the ninth circuit which has a real tension-filled relationship with the u.s. supreme court. in fact, one of the judges who was overturned this week had two other decisions overturned last week. so very contentious relationship. >> this whole issue of parole really applies to prison overcrowding, which is a huge issue, as we know, financial issue here in california. how is this going to impact this? how is this going to apply? >> in a couple ways. one, there's another case that the supreme court has heard arguments about. it has to do again with the ninth circuit and steven rinehart, liberal judge, ordering the state to release 140,000 inmates, not dangerous criminals but people who will not be a danger of society in order to alleviate overcrowding. the u.s. supreme court may say again you're wrong, the state does not have so release those folks. that would have huge budgetary implications. obviously the o

wondering if you think that justices' arguments on constitutional theory and the makeup of the supreme court can drive which arguments congressmen use to justify their own constitutionality of different bills? >> oh, yeah. i think that you can, that members of congress can find an abundance of justification particularly in a court as diverse as this. you know, if you want kind of originalist interpretations of the constitution, that is the constitution is exactly what the framers of the constitution said and no more, you can get justice scalia or justice thomas as your sources of support. if you want a more flexible interpretation of the constitution, the constitution has to take account of the changes and the differences in society in the 21st century than in the 18th century, you're going to get that from judge breyer or from judge kagan or, you know, any of the more liberal justices. so, yeah, i think that members of congress can find abundant ammunition for whatever position they want to argue on the floor of the house or senate from things that the justices of the supreme court have wri

oh yah, all persons having business before the honorable and the supreme court of the united states areished to draw near and give their attention, for the court is now sitting. god say the united states and this honorable court. >> one of the amazing things about the courtroom despite its splend cert intimacy of it. on the one hand, it is not that big a room but the real intimacy comes in the relationship between the -- the lawyer who was arguing at the podium and the court that he's arguing to. if you stop to think of it, you will see if one of us leaned over the bench as far as we could lean and the lawyer arguing at the podium leaned toward us, we could almost shake hands. that is a very important thing because it means that when the -- when the arguments take place, you are physically and psychologically close enough to each other so there's a possibility for real engagement. we're not just a bunch of people talking in microphones with a big space between us. the happy paradox of that room is that it is a grand room in which a very intimate process takes place. >> it is the kernel

. >> the supreme court -- home to america's highest court as one of three original documentary from c-span included in our american icons to keep -- dvd collection. if your copy for $24.95 for more information about the supreme court, including a virtual tour of the building, the justices in their own words, a photo gallery and the construction of the supreme court building, and an interactive timeline on the history of the court, go to c- span.org/supremecourt. in the c-span network. we provide coverage of politics, nonfiction books, in american history. it is all available to you on television, radio, on one, and on social media networking sites. find our content any time forsees bands video library. we take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local content vehicles. bringing our resources to your community. it is washington your way. the c-span network -- now available in more than 100 million homes, created as cable, provided as a public service. >> we return now to see -- this feature documentary. >> the supreme court hears cases written between 8100 cases between 18th and 100

in san francisco federal court, charging that newly discovered evidence show that the supreme court decision had been secured with a deliberate fraud on the court. the destruction of the military commander's final report showing that his decision to return the entire population was based on race prejudice and the substitution of an altered a final report fabricated to show his decision was based on military consideration. and on november 10, 1983 at the federal court hearing, who he said to the court, as an american citizen being put through the shame and embarrassment, all japanese americans that were escorted suffered the same embarrassment. we can never forget this as long as we live. according to the supreme court decision, being an american citizen was not enough. you have to look like one or you can't tell the difference between ill loyal and disloyal americans. -- a loyal and disloyal american. this she'lled must not be used. it stands as a state of sclugs that must be prepared topre tekt all citizens of prejudices. we are at a decision influencing the passage the act was not justifie

it is really stand husband to have a supreme court justice in the face of a unanimous decision deny what the decisions -- perhaps he wasn't on the court then but it does show you this is very revealing. shows you what he thinks about precedent, and he said so unqualifiededly. it's very troubling for that reason, you can't blame women for saying, well, my, goodness, at least we had most of it covered i guess we have to go back to the equal rights amendment. >> let me say on that, i'm not a constitutional lawyer either, but i have talked to get their thoughts. here you can say it's plausible, not necessarily right. it's plausible. talk about the 14th med amount what is after the 14th amendment which was supposedly create -- ban discrimination. we showed 19th amend tomorrow give women right to vote down the road. obviously folks then still didn't get it. we had to pass that law. even after the 14th had voting rights of the '60s that came through. you can look at it say, look, i don't think that the 14th amendment gives any group the right to stand up and say, my rights are being discriminat

the supreme court moved to modestly better quarters in 1850. the senate moved a new and more elaborate chamber of stairs. the court move into the old senate chamber. it was more spacious, but the justices let and all of their own. when former president william howard taft became chief justice in 1921, he took up the challenge of securing for the court a building of its own. he had considerable stature in every sense of the word. he was our largest president and our largest chief justice. he got up and gave his speech to three women. [laughter] he had more than mere physical stature. he used his influence and prestige to get congress to approve the supreme court building project an appropriate the necessary funds. he also said -- also selected the architect. the architect died before the building was completed. --taft died before the building was completed, but i am sure he would have been pleased with what the architect produce. it was observed that the building symbolizes the national ideal of justice. one of the court's advocates said the supr

there was a case that came before the supreme court, the epa against massachusetts, in which the supreme court said the environmental protection agency could legally regulate the emission of greenhouse gases. that question had been tackled by congress early in the 111th congress with the so-called cap and trade bill, which was enormously popular among environmentalists and hated like poison in kentucky, west virginia, and all of the places wherecoal is mined. if a huge amount of power is generated with coal. there was a concern about jobs and whether or not we could function as an economy without coal. cap and trade pass in the house of representatives and never got anywhere in the senate at all. having lost that battle, the obama administration now had the authority on the supreme court decision to go ahead and have the environmental protection agency begin to impose limits on power plants and how much greenhouse gas they could be met. this is something that the original opponents of cap and trade, and it is not just the senators and representatives from the states with coal, it is othe

>> go to the supreme court. i speak with great support to the supreme court. i am a member of the federal judiciary. when four of nine justices of the supreme court agree with me case after case i don't feel totally out of harm's way. what we need to do is get people in congress, a majority who accept the premise that the federal government has gotten so unwieldy that it cannot effectively do very much constructively. it is distorting the whole system and threatening our freedoms. we have a huge amount of money from the federal government to the state's. if i were emperor for one session of congress, i would confer all existing grant and aid programs into block grants. one wrote and so on and phase them out over ten years. it will take that much time for states to reengineer what they want to to do and you know the rest. >> i was on your staff in the 70s can handle a lot of your commerce committee work. you got involved rather deeply in the deregulation movement for transportation. after you left office all deregulation took place under the current administrat

wrong on this because i don't care what the supreme court's ruled i care what the constitution says and the constitution does not have a transparency clause in the first amendment well the constitution may not have transparency close but the supreme. which interprets the constitution has been targeted at what is a bit emanation from the number of transparency as there have been i mean they came up with a privacy clause which is totally made up and then they came up with an emanation from a plan number zero of the privacy clause which was made up out of whole cloth and the transparency penumbra is made up to i rather go by the text of the constitution and not whatever nine guys in robes decide well i'm going to be the transparency close is made up we could go back and close the doors of the senate we could stop releasing information from congress to the public we could stop letting the you know these are the elected officials i want transparency from the elected officials not to the elected officials well let me ask you a personal question i mean of the voting is something that's your ri

supreme court is trying to figure out if that was in fact the case. host: can you distinguish between probable cause and reasonable suspicion? guest: probable cause is the constitutional standard. you can think of that as a reasonable likelihood, a good chance the evidence will be located there. when the constitution requires probable cause, studies have shown maybe a 60% chance that the evidence is likely to be there when the government of tens probable cause. reasonable suspicion is some sort of specific fact that there is something of what but it is a much lower degree of suspicion there is something fishy about the situation may be about the way someone is behaving and suggests that something is slightly off. you can't quantify it but maybe you can think of it as 20% rather than 50%. reasonable suspicion is the standard for stopping somebody on the street and talking to them for a police officer to retain them for a few -- to detain them for a few moments. host: missouri, democrats line, good morning. caller: where i live, there is an overwhelming

supreme court ruled brown vs. board of education to be guess segregated schools violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment setting in motion a chain of events leading to the birth of the persecution of politics movement in the late 1970's. one of the men who precipitated was jerry falwell. in 1956 at 23 he founded a church in lynchburg virginia and in his sermons he railed against the board of education and claiming it he had no god's word and desire to do the lowered the will i am quite confident that 1954 decision never would have been made. the facility should be separate when god dries aligned with distinction we should not attempt to cross that line. after the supreme court decision seeking alternative means with god's distinction they found it in the segregation academies all white private schools blossomed like pcs across the south and holmes county mississippi was typical of these districts and in the first year white enrollment dropped from 771 down at 28 in the second year it dropped as o

the supreme court. >> maybe not. maybe with an election coming up. we will see. of these careers, do you have a favorite? >> yes, and i i'll put it this way. if one's primary interest is in matters of public policy, there could not have been a more glorious position to have been to have been a united states senator 100 or more years ago. why the past tense? because by virtue of congress bringing more and war matters of concern within its scope, you have transformed the ability to think in congress. when i edit the senate in 1970 i was presented with a study that had just been completed by the bar association of the city of new york, which had concluded that the workload of the average congressional office had doubled every five years since 1935, but once upon a time service in congress, citizen service. if congress was in session five, six or seven months of the year, he the activities were leisurely. when debate was securing on the floor everyone was expected to be there to hear what was being said. you could think things through. there was comedy among all of t

for that reason, the kentucky supreme court's test is completely unworkable. some of the other circuits and lower courts have adopted test that also attempt to add an extra exception, an unwarranted closure of the exigent circumstances exception that narrows the use of that exception by police officer. the test that the commonwealth would propose is a simple lawfulness test. under this test, as long as the officer behaviors lawfully, there would be no sue presentation of evidence seized -- >> so you have an apartment building where the police know from experience there's a lot of illegal activity, a lot of drugs, drug transactions, every two weeks they walk through and knock on every door and wait for the evidence of the destruction of drugs. is that all right? >> well there's -- i would say yes. if there is probable cause. >> probable cause, of course, comes when they hear the, you know, fleshing and hiding behind the door. >> well, i would assert there are two separate issues here. you must have probable cause separate from the existence of exigent circumstan

looks to them for guidance on what or what cases to hear obviously the supreme court don't takes less than five percent of the cases but if the supreme court sorry if the solicitor general says this is a very important case then the supreme court is more likely to hear it and so i traditionally know this is not written in the loft but this is a tradition and sometimes traditions in washington can be very important this a lister general is supposed to be independent almost a little cart from the administration unable to bring an independent voice to the do that matters before the supreme court so it's going to very interesting if we have popular cases go up and all of a sudden you have the ari favor lawyer maybe opposing maybe siding with his previous favorite client well what do you really think i mean are we going to see you know a new washington d.c. that does become very strict on copyright in force just looking at you know his past the cases that he's worked on including this viacom and. you know what do we expect more of. well there is and i think what's probably going to ha

circuit judges want the state supreme court to clarify whether the supporters of the prop 8 can step into the measures in court when state issues are used. jerry brown and arnold schwarzenegger failed to step in went ban was declared unconstitutional. >> bring in our legal analyst, stephen clark. this is a question really at the core of this appeals process since prop 8 was struck down. why didn't the ninth circuit court just rule on itself rather than pass it along? >> that is a great question. federal courts frequently make these decisions on stand bug with what the federal court said is this is such an important issue of california law who has the right to appeal california propositions, particularly when off case like this where the government officials don't do it? they wanted to defer to the california supreme court to say you tell us the law of california on this issue before we make a ruling and that is a very big question that goes way beyond proposition 8, but to the entire proposition process and the supreme court has a big task in front of it. >> so, has the court ever iss

maybe the supreme court can recognize that the ultimate gun regulation in this country will have to comerom the political branches and not from the courts and to use this tragedy to be deferential as congress struggles to come up with a response. host: we have been speaking with jeffrey rosen. guest: it has been a pleasure. host: we have about 40 minutes left. we will talk about educational policy in just a couple of minutes. we have some more news from c- span radio. >> the sheriff in arizona earlier said his earlier comments, leaning political discourse for the shooting in arizona, were the results of this anger about the shooting, not in the agenda. he also commented on 22-year- old jared loughner, tried to assassinate gabrielle giffords, saying the man is not cooperating with investigators. he has not said one word. hillary clinton is a commenting on the shooting in arizona. while addressing students, the secretary called the shooter who attacked congresswoman giffords an extremist and said people worldwide should reject radical ideologies. career parks came response to a question ab

bear in mind that the same supreme court that decided citizens united is also the supreme court, one personnel change is different. from a court, well at this point, two differences. it's the same court that decided the west virginia contribution case. saved by the court which is quite clearly and robustly espouse those principles. this isn't that nondepressed escort any more than it's a non-first amendment court. >> justice kennedy in the majority both those cases. >> so, this is a court which is not shown at all shy of confronting either due process or first amendment issues tonight no reason to believe it's going to be shy about being candid about how you resolve the tension when that tension gets to them. >> just on a personal level it occurs to me, listening to you, what is it like having been on the court for a good chunk of time to watch them? obviously you feel a mistake was made as citizens united. what does that feel like? if you only fight them at the conference table, maybe i could've made a difference. it must be a strange feeling to be on the outside looking in. >> the o

the supreme court in 1898, u.s. versus longngim of course, in the 1982 decision, the court's majority reaffirmed the view so is it a done deal? >> no, john that is a supreme court issue but they had to decide. it was not automatic the 14th amendment. it dealt with the legislation the chinese exclusion act. >> when the states are challenging the 14th amendment, challenging >>> predecisions, pat? >> sue dan will -- sudan will vote to break itself in half and it will not be nonviolent. >> the chief of staff reportedly wants a woman as the next press secretary. karen stunny apparently has the inside track. >> hanukkah? >> opec will not increase production any time soon pushing gasoline to over $4 per galp, and i think that will seriously damage both the economy and obama's political fortune. >> jillian some. >> markets will get more and more nervous in greece about the crisis and that will increase the effect of the meaningful market and potentially even the debt. >> on the birds and the fish, i predict the world will no

it is hard to put aside the time to put aside a supreme court petition or supreme court case. it is nice to have more of a mix of representation. i appreciate the challenges. >> a professor and law school director notes that the court that decided brown vs. board of education was composed of a former governor, three former senators, two former solicitors general, and a former sec chairman. i did not check that out. i have to take him at his word on that. he says that by contrast, over the past 20 years, presidents have chosen almost exclusively appellate judges for the court. do you think such an exclusive force -- exclusive focus on appellate court judges is good for the court? >> we justice stevens left, every member of the court had been a federal court of appeals judge. that was never the case before. it was often quite different. part of the nature of the court's work has changed. it is much more pejorative -- it is much more near to leave -- it is much more narrowly focused. i think a political figure like earl warren or hugo black, fred vincent will look at a lot of what

supreme court and numerous other federal courts. in 2009, he was named one of washington's top 40 lawyers under 40. and a champion of justice by legal times. he's a graduate of georgetown university law center and cornell university where he earned his b.a. in government with distinction in all subjects. please welcome alan gura. >> thank you, roger, and i would like to thank the federalist society and cato for you coming here to hear us speak about these very important issues. it's been less thanix months since the supreme court issued its decision in mcdonald versus city of chicago and effectively gave us a green light to go ahead and see to what extent the second amendment applies to state and local government regulations that touch upon the issue of the possession and carrying and use of firearms. although it's been really such a short time since we've had this ticket to litigate as it were, many people are already trying to write the second amdment's obituary, decrying the fact that because no severe restrictions have yet been

it is a constant issue before the supreme court.oes seem -- it is hard to make it come alive, but it really is very important. and the supreme court has the really got a clear -- has not really got a clear position on it. it almost depends on what is the state going ahead and doing, and if we like that, it is ok, and if we do not, it is not ok. for example, doing little things like medical marijuana or the right to die, then all of this sudden, the justices who are in favor of state sovereignty, they suddenly find a reason to oppose it. they do not like what those particular states are doing. so shifting scenarios, it is hard to predict. >> let's bring the audience in on the stump. questions for our panelists. >> i'm from san diego. he said it would take awhile for the supreme court to rule on the health care bill. [inaudible] >> that is a good question. the supreme court -- if you asked the justices that question, what he or she would say, they would say they do not pay attention to public opinion. that is not true. they live in a

supreme court and numerous other federal courts. in 2009, he was named one of washington's top 40 lawyers under 40. and a champion of justice by legal times. he's a graduate of georgetown university law center and cornell university where he earned his b.a. in government with distinction in all subjects. please welcome alan gura. >> thank you, roger, and i would like to thank the federalist society and cato for you coming here to hear us speak about these very important issues. it's been less than six months since the supreme court issued its decision in mcdonald versus city of chicago and effectively gave us a green light to go ahead and see to what extent the second amendment applies to state and local government regulations that touch upon the issue of the possession and carrying and use of firearms. although it's been really such a short time since we've had this ticket to litigate as it were, many people are already trying to write the second amendment's obituary, decrying the fact that because no severe restrictions have yet b

the fact that the supreme court didn't articulate a standard of review or choose among the plethora of possibilities in their jurisprudence doesn't seem to me particularly significant. because if they had, it probably wouldn't have told us all that much anyway. >> thank you. alan? >> two quick points. one, alan may be sure that shotguns will be upheld, but he's got to explain to me why sawed-off shotguns are not upheld in terms of originalism. because that's what the court in 1937. the second, the question on standard review sounds lawyerly. and it is. but what's underlying at stake here is the question of how much deference should be given to legislatures when they are trying to make predictive judgments whether society as a whole would be better off with one law or another, or one variation rather than another. and in general, we allow legislatures to make those kind of choices, when we think that the legislative process is likely to work reasonably well, that the affected interests are likely to be heard, and that for better or worse, the decision is one that's within the realm of r

supreme court and numerous other federal courts. in 2009, he was named one of washington's top 40 lawyers under 40, and championed of justice by "legal times." he's a graduate of yale university law center, and where he earned his b.a. with distinction of all subjects. please welcome alan gura. >> thank you, roger, i'd like to thank the federal society and cato and all of you for coming to hear us today speak about these very important issues. it's better than less than six months since the supreme court issued it's decision in mcdonald versus the city of chicago, and gave us the green light to go ahead and see what extent the second amendment applies to state and local government regulations that touch upon the issue of the possession and carrying in use of firearms. although it's been such a short time for the ticket to litigate, many people are already trying to write the second amendment's obituary, crying because no severe restrictions have been overturned and heller and mcdonald itself did not actually involve cases -- involve

you manage syrian law versus holder which was the supreme court's june two thousand and ten ruling defining material support for terrorism advocating on behalf of terrorist groups like the adding to their legitimacy qualifies as material support and what's interesting is that frances townsend the former bush homeland security advisor prays that ruling was issued to date in days she is going to now she's going to france and essentially violating the law as defined and then again she praised that law when it was defined as such by the supreme court what does that tell you about the way that justice is applied about the way that you know hiring and firing as a player we have been asked our producer for c.n.n. was fired for a tweet fran townsend also works as a contributor for c.n.n. she's going abroad talking with terrorist organizations and nothing's going to happen to her she's not going to get fired right right well no i think we do need to look at i mean i personally have an issue with that with that ruling i don't think it should be illegal for americans to advocate on behalf of terrorist

they do have a supreme court decision behind them.k they will push the regulatory liver far enough? will republicans tried to push back on that? >> that is a fundamental question we are asking ourselves, looking at the next two years. the president does have in place an activist epa administrator and a lot of people around him who want him to do just that. to use the regulatory power and the supreme court decision to push ahead and circumvent congress and take on greenhouse gases. i think a lot is amenable to doing that. -- obama is amenable to doing that. he is somewhat of a mystery as to how far he will go. not only on epa and regulation, but just confronting republicans. this idea of him using regulation and the power of the executive to get things done is something they are debating actively at the white house, because of the problems that will have in congress. you will see a lot of that unilateral action from the president. the question i have and a lot of other people have, how far will he go? a couple of people have pointed ou

bear in mind that the same supreme court that decided citizens united is also the supreme court, one ia contribution? so you've got a court which is quite clearly and robustly espoused both the principles. this isn't a non-due process court anymore than it is a non-first amendment court. >> justice king and the majority in both of those cases, right? >> and so, this is a court which has not shown itself shy of confronting either due process or first minute issues. and i am a reason to believe it's going to be shy about being candid about how you resolve the tension, when the tension gets to it spent on a personal level, it occurs to me listening to you, what's it like having been on the court for a good chunk of time to watch them, obviously you view a mistake was made in citizens united. what does that feel like? if only i'd been at the conference table maybe i could have made a difference? it must be a strange feeling to be on the outside looking in after all that. >> yeah, but you have to accept the fact that people are going to be serving there for different periods of time. you'r

[laughter] >> i have to say that i was not surprised by the supreme court ruling. i know it went under reported, that each member of the illinois supreme court had received a package with a dead fish inside. [laughter] that turned the tide. >> jay carney, a new white house press secretary -- he is a good man. what you think will happen? change in climate? >> a real reporter. he has been a working journalist, and that it's up was a bit of a change of pace. >> he has a chance to be at least respected . gibbs is not respected. he is pretty universally disliked by the press corps, who thought he was a cipher -- >> i don't know. >> no, i think he was seen as wiry, but -- >> this was a press secretary who really had the president's ear. he could speak authoritatively when he decided to do so. >> he mastered the art of being completely obscure. in a hostile way. >> a whole new look at the white house -- bill daley, jay carney. is that a good deal? >> i think it is, because it is a new look for the president. yes certainly shifted ground. -- he has certainly shifted ground

the supreme court. >> maybe not. maybe with an election coming up. we will see.of these careers, do you have a favorite? >> yes, and i i'll put it this way. if one's primary interest is in matters of public policy, there could not have been a more glorious position to have been to have been a united states senator 100 or more years ago. why the past tense? because by virtue of congress bringing more and war matters of concern within its scope, you have transformed the ability to think in congress. when i edit the senate in 1970 i was presented with a study that had just been completed by the bar association of the city of new york, which had concluded that the workload of the average congressional office had doubled every five years since 1935, but once upon a time service in congress, citizen service. if congress was in session five, six or seven months of the year, he the activities were leisurely. when debate was securing on the floor everyone was expected to be there to hear what was being said. you could think things through. there was comedy among all of th

in a 21 page document they ask california supreme court to clarify weather prop eight backers have a legal standing to represent the state in court. >> they want to make sure that any decision they reach, if it's going to be overturned, it will be overturned on the merits and not because they do not have standing. >> reporter: is used a law professor says this is an unusual because former governor arnold schwarzenegger and jerry brown have refused to defend prop 8. >> window voters go to the process and pass the measure -- when the voters go to the process and pass the measure, they have a right to step in and make sure it is legally defended. >> reporter: this delays and a federal ruling and the state supreme court has no deadline to enter. >> my guess is they may have oral arguments on it. >> reporter: is likely that they are going to laid legal groundwork for any future will appeal by either side. >>> for won the background of this case, click the tab on our homepage at ktvu.com. >>> supervisors are meeting right now and may nominate their choice to fill mayor gavin newsom's seat.

and if california supreme court says no standing the federal court loses jurisdiction. >> if they decide does it have legal standing the case goes back to the federal apep pelit court for a rule gs. that is when officers can say the ban is constitutional. >> we're pleased at the california supreme court to fight a pro pone nent. >> the court consider the issues, same-sex couples wanting to marry could northbound for a long wait. >> the part is hard. this will lead to some delay in resolution in this case. >> the california supreme court is under no legal obligation to act on a ninth circuit request for guidance. >> and a lot more to bring you tonight. one of the governor's first official meetings just head a sit down with local official what's he may give them power to do. the battle. >> and why the coast guard is so concerned. >> dense fog, perhaps freezing fog willing in parts of the bay area tonight. i'll show were you coming up. >> and prices in the dollar store that are more than $1. on a well, i love a deal on a designer bag as much as the next girl! love! i love love love! as a bu

the supreme court, the highest court, caring for