the current supreme court is the most academic court in the history of the country. today fur of my colleagues were former law professors. very distinguished law professors before they took the bench and thee of those justice were sitting on the mcdonald case when it was argued. when one of the lawyers raised the privileges or immune 'tis point, former professor scalia took the wind out of his sails when he said the following. what you argue is the darling of the pro-professorat but also against our jurisprudence. why do you take that aim? everybody else applied the established framework. ok, point number four. this is a question that i am frequently asked during a week like this week when we are not hearing orel argument. it -- oral argument. it tends to come new my house over thanksgiving dinner when one of my cousins say ruoff this week? i bristle and say well, we're not hearing oral arguments but i actually have a lot of work to do, which is true. although i often get the impression that the people who hear that don't believe me. they really seem to have the idea

the idea of a supreme court is working around the clock to undo the fourth amendment of the constitution last week the high court ruled that police can now enter someone's home without a warrant and without probable cause and in doing so people of that state do not have the right to keep police officers from arresting them without cause on and in their own property a case of him focused on a man who shoved a police officer who walked into his phone without a warrant and without his consent the man was then stung gun and arrested the court ruled three to two that the officers acted appropriately and it didn't violate before the mend. the fourth amendment of course explicitly says that we have the right to be secure in our homes unless a warrant is issued based on sworn testimony that we're committing a crime representing the majority opinion just and steven david who was appointed by to the core by republican governor mitch daniels wrote we believe a right to resist and off whole police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with a modern fourth amendment jurisprud

he has been very openly critical of the current supreme court. in one article, he said that the holding in bush v. gore was, quote, unquote, utterly lacking in any legal principle. he claimed the current court as the whole is unprincipled saying that -- quote -- "if you look across the entire run of cases, you see a fairly consistent pattern where the respect for president goes by the wayside when it gets in the way of result." end of quote.mr. . mr. lugar: was highly critical. nomination of justice roberts. he published an article on bloomberg.com entitled "roberts would swing the supreme court to the right." this that article he acknowledged that roberts was qualified, saying, "there's no doubt roberts has a brilliant legal mind, but a supreme court nominee must be evaluated on more than legal intellect." he then voiced concerns with -- quote -- "with remarkable consistence throughout his career, roberts had applied his legal talent to further the causes of the far right." he also spoke very disparagingly of judge robert's conserve beliefs. "bef

this happens i think all over the constitutional jurisprudence as elaborated in the supreme court and the way that the court elaborated doctrine. >> my time has expired. >> thank you senator lee, senator koones. >> thank you, for your remarkable service and outstanding recommendation and your family's willingness to stand by you. and i am grateful, madam chair, to have visited with you in person and reviewed your writings and work, and spend time in this hearing today. i believe you would be a very capable jurist and we would be fortunate to have you in the ninth circuit. one article in particular, rethinking constitutional welfare rights is a subject of controversy. and you wrote that fundamental rights can layout over time. can you layout what judiciary has of rights over time? >> certainly, that article was an article in two parts. the first half is voted to rejecting the idea that courts have any role in venting rights in the social and economic realm. and that's consistent with the instructions of the supreme court in this area, and where it says that these are liberties that we

you want to be on the supreme court? it would have been very nice. >> could still be very nice, actually. >> could be. >> yeah. what, what, what makes it so appealing? you look at the folks assembled on that court sometimes and it looks like it's nnt a particularly fun job. >> i wouldn't say that. i mean, obviously people come from different backgrounds but they do in my court as well, whichhis. >> right. >> .two people more than the supreme court. but hat makes it fun and interesting is the court gets the chance to choose the 75 most interesting 10,000.ut of a pool of about >> right. >> .that it can hear every year. >> yeah. and o if you, if you care about this stuff as obviously as you do, having served for so long, this is the ultimate opportunity to, to. >> right. >> .weigh in and to affect everybody. we all get affected by what happens at the court. >> absolutely. >> yeah. what does it mean to be on the short list? they ask for you to submit materials so they can do a background check and then they contemplate you,

the supreme court justices have said that they would not hear the case of muhammad versus jefferson data plant and the case was originally brought before a san francisco court in two thousand and seven rules on in two thousand and nine the five men alleged that the cia had them shipped to foreign countries or they were tortured which could have been part of what the cia practice most commonly known is extraordinary rendition which has been dubbed torture by proxy and many circles and we also to point out that this wasn't brought against the u.s. government or the cia now rather it was brought against the bowling arm that actually transported these men to other countries or the torture was reportedly conveyed it and the five men in this case. binyam mohamed bashir al-rawi and muhammad for. all claimed they were captured in one country and then shipped to another two of them later to get mo using those boeing planes and in two thousand and nine the san francisco court chose not to hear the lawsuit because the hearing would expose quote state secrets as was argued by the obama justice depar

it was an unusual case because there was so little prior supreme court precedent. ere was one unusual little case decided in 1939 in a very short and cryptic opinion. this was a case in which theory naturally had an important role. the opinion for the court, written by justice scalia, was an example of one leading theory of constitutional interpretation. not surprisingly, it was vigorously originalist. the principal dissent by justice stevens was an originalist opinion. justice breyer wrote a separate dissent and that was true to his judicial philosophy which he has articulated in a number of books. it was just as rigorously pragmatic. this was an example of a case in which theory meant a lot. the choice of the theory that a justice elected meant a lot in the outcome. that was really the exception that proves the rule. another case that came along a couple of years later in the wake of heller illustrates this point. this is the second item on my list -- most of our constitutional cases are governed by precedent and not by theory. the case that came along in the wake

individual liberties are eroded by the supreme court. there is only one set of various where the court has recognized new rights for the last four years and that's the second amendment right of gun owners. perhaps most insidious of all industries of decisions most recently this week closed the courthouse door to individuals with serious injuries. what we say a word about the case from this week we are vanishing. it involved a couple that bought a cell phone from at&t. at&t was advertising free cell phones at the time. they signed the agreement as we all do when we get our siltstones. they didn't realize the recalls that says any dispute with at&t they have to go to arbitration. they decided to file a lawsuit against at&t because they charged them $30.22 in taxes despite claiming the cell phone was going to be freed. the joint class-action suit against at&t. that's what class actions are all about. we have a large number of people each who lost a small amount of money, overall for talking about an enormous gain. however, at&t says the case

in fact i acknowledge the supreme court's decision in 1973 in the rodriguez case that was very much in forward by principles of judicial restraint was the basic approach that i was taking in that article recognizing courts have very limited capacity, in some instances no capacity or authority to weigh in on political decisions and so much of my riding has been centered on those -- >> one last question about something else that has been a subject of some debate. what role does foreign law play in judicial application of domestic u.s. law? what sort of authority of any kind? >> the answer is none. foreign law has no authority in our system unless the american law requires that in the case of a contract or treaty of some sort. to clarify that issue, there is one paragraph of writing in my record that acknowledges that solutions for legal problems might come from other places in the world when they are common problems that a constitutional democracy faces. all i meant by that was in the same way judges look to treatises and law you articles and other sources for ideas about how to approach

state secrets line is a privilege but what are you calling for that case to be heard before the supreme court they run into yet another state secrets while in fact u.s. solicitor general neal argued in court papers the government's interest in national security must be deemed paramount to the interests of private litigants in pursuing civil actions so in other words protecting national security is a much bigger priority for the government than an individual's personal rights and that's where the problem lies even though we'll never know what these state secrets are we're willing to throw away individual liberty in their name just another example of obama invoking the exact same principles arguments used by the bush administration all while pretending to be different now i'm going to take a quick moment to explain why this is so infuriating not only has obama sided with bush era tactics but he's encouraging the highest level of justice in our country to dismiss instances where people sustain torture when clearly the government knows how to keep any defense contractors on their side just throw

carolyn helen and steven spalding who's organizing a rally in indiana indiana to protest the state's supreme court decision and we've got a special presentation from luke. about the chicken whisperer i know talking about economic exploitation by the government can get tedious at times but at some point in trying to rework fruit the american news the obama campaign is going to run into something like we'd love to help and thanks to the high unemployment we've got plenty of time but now that we understand a little bit about economics we're supporting ron paul and that's the importance of a good education the kind you'll never get from the government but only from watching adam vs the man. in case you haven't noticed our government is broke worst when the treasury department has a fourteen point two nine trillion dollar debt ceiling on monday obama decided that instead of borrowing more money or say would you sing government spending the treasury would raid federal pension funds to maintain current government spending levels but what about assets the government must. something of value as collateral

it was an unusual case because there was so little prior supreme court precedent. just one little case decided in 1939, in a very short and cryptic opinion. so this was a case in which theory naturally had an important role. and the opinion of the court written by justice scalia was an example of one leading theory of interpret. and not surprisingly, it was very realist. and that of justice stevens was an originalist opinion, and justice breyer wrote to his philosophy in a number of books and just as pragmatic. so this was an example that theory meant a lot. the choice of a theory that a justice selected meant a lot in the outcome. but that was the exception that proves the rule. a case that came in the wake of heller illustrates this point. this is the second item on my list. most of our constitutional cases are governed by precedent and not by theory. the case that came along in the wake of heller, that illustrates this case. is a case called mcdonald versus the city of chicago. and this was also about the second amendment, right to bear arms. heller involved the

it was an unusual case, because there was so little prior supreme court precedent. ally just one unusual little case decided in 1939 in a very short and cryptic opinion. this was the case in which. naturally had an important role. the opinion for the court, written by justice scalia, was an example of one leading theory of constitutional interpretation. not surprisingly, it was vigorous -- vigorously original ist. the dissent was also our originalist, but justice breyer wrote another which he has articulated in another number of books. it was rigorously pragmatic. theory meant a lot. justice election meant a lot in the outcome. but that was the exception that proves the rule. in another case that came along, a couple of years later, in the wake of heller, it illustrates this point. this is the second item on my list. most of our constitutional cases are governed by precedent, and not by theory. the case that came along in the wake of the heller case is macdonald v. the city of chicago. this is also about the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. heller and al

fork cases where the person has two prior convictions, they would go to the california supreme court for further review, and four justices on the california supreme court would need to approve the governor's action in that case. the california supreme court spends over 1/3 of their time working on death penalty cases, and they are under enormous pressure financially. the entire judicial system is. while we do not know what the supreme court would do, it would certainly be a huge relief to them to have these death penalty cases go away. after the death sentences had been converted to life without parole, it would be a question of reclassifying the inmates and moving them into other high- security prisons across california. then, the question of where they were in the appellate process would have to be addressed by the courts. in fact, both people -- most people on death row are still waiting for attorneys to be appointed, so in most cases, their appeals have not even begun. not most, 45%. they do not have habeas counsel, and many do not even have their first appellate attorney. a lot

we -- the supreme court, the courts of appeals, the bankruptcy cuts, all federal courts taken together -- we are a co-equal branch of government. we are not more equal than the other branches, and we have to keep that in mind. we are also not less equal than the other branches. the constitution calls on the three branches of government to check each other, but this can be done with fairness and it can be done with respect. i think that is what the american people expect, and it is surely what they deserve. this is the message i would leave you with on this, this occasion of this log day celebration. it is important for all of us who work in the law, for those of us who are fortunate enough to be judges or attorneys, it is important for us to teach about our legal system and the learning center is the perfect example of the sort of thing need to do to reach out to children and adults so that they appreciate our legal system. it is up to us to defend that legal system against encroachments and to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of our legal system, to work to create the weaknesses

as of yesterday the supreme court decided it was ok for cops to bust down your door if they are toilet flushing if they claim it is on the grounds that they suspect you may be destroying evidence specifically drugs our legal system is now a complete failure in other news the attorney general of the united states is completely delusional and we have the exclusive footage to prove it we'll get reaction from two members of law enforcement against prohibition executive director neil franklin foer d e analyst on down again so far molyneux our friends in the north joins us to get an understanding of what's behind this decision to make a fourth amendment to the constitution of the united states of america effectively are relevant and in times like these you can be glad you're watching the adam vs the man. in an eight to one decision yesterday the supreme court of the united states decided that law enforcement officers had the legal right to kick down your door. if they suspect that you are destroying evidence in almost every case in which this is been relevant specifically drugs standards of

now still to come tonight we have my eye on flood violence or supreme court issues a limitation when it comes to the use of state secrets but will this limitation really change the questionable buddy buddy relationship between the supreme court and the government and then stick around for happy hour preacher who predicted the rapture he says it's still going to happen and should work if he'd be declared a world heritage site by the u.s. artie's laura lister and christine for his hour join me for some time in just a moment. we. will. show you. the freedom. hey guys welcome to shell and tell the obama show we part of our just stop to say on the topic now i want to hear audio just go out you tube the video response or the twitter profile of the questions that we post on you tube every monday and on the first day of the show going responses. fun fun fun. fun. you know how sometimes you see a story and it seems so poorly pleat you think you understand it and then he lives something else and you hear see some other part of it and realize everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm s

i think the supreme court should affirm what the ninth circuit has done. i want to focus on a different aspect which would affect the court's resolution of the case and maybe invite david to comment here too. one of the difficulties for the united states in this case is an opinion of the office of legal counsel. that's the unit in the department of justice that give us the torture memos and so forth that for many years have held in a series of opinions binding only on the executive branch that state and local police lack authority to do civil immigration enforcement. and in 2002, those prior decisions were partially rescinded or superceded by a 2002 opinion that said no, actually, to the contrary state and local police have the inherent authority to enforce civil immigration laws. and in the transition to the obama administration, a number of people encouraged the new administration to include on its stroke of the pen kind of list of things to do that prompt repeal of the 2002 opinion and restoration of the prior olc opinions, that didn't happen. and when t

now still to come tonight we have my own flood or supreme court issues a limitation when it comes to the use of state secrets but will this limitation really change the questionable buddy buddy relationship between the supreme court and the government and then stick around for happy hour after each other who predicted the rapture is that still going to happen and should we could he be declared a world heritage site by the u.s. parties lauren lyster and risking her as our join me for some time in just a minute. we. heard. we haven't got the. ready for freedom. hey guys welcome to shellings tell me alone a show we've heard are just shocked to say on the topic now i want to hear audio just go on to you tube video response i want to twitter first thought of the question the police host on you tube every monday and on thursday the show is gone the sponsors leave your voice. for. fun to. get up sometimes to see a story and it seems so poorly you think you understand it and then you've lived something else and you hear or see some other part of it and realize that everything is ok if you do

when justice stevens step down from the supreme court, he expressed his opposition. he said this process has made the death penalty fundamentally unfair. >> i will let you answer these in order. can you share any sense that you have a death sentence -- that the death sentence inmates were for themselves as human beings? and how could you bear to preside over an execution and how would you handle this? please describe a situation where you would bring so many charges against a prosecutor for job-related conduct? >> as you have both said, this is determined before the execution takes place, this goes from 10 and on up. one of the strangest things that happen to me when i was first sent to death row in was that they were getting ready to execute a guy. and during this course of the execution, they prayed for the victim and their families. this was shocking to me. i am innocent. but everyone here, they will pray. death row in louisiana, you cannot see outside -- you can see outside, and you can see the front gates of the prison, so on execution nights, you can see the pe

board of education was decided by a unanimous supreme court in 1954, the supreme court of the united states has recognized the legitimacy of state action to desegregate schools. in fact, the supreme court upheld the use of race as one factor in admissions decisions in the 2003 case gruder v. ballinger. although some -- some -- on the far right of the supreme court have argued that both brown and gruder should be disregarded to the extent they recognize the permissibility of efforts to achieve diversity in public institutions, it is, i would argue, those justices out of step with the mainstream of federal jurisprudence and of the constitutional tradition of this country. even in its most recent case on point, the 2007 supreme court decision, parents involved v. seattle school district, which struck down a specific desegregation program, five of the nine justices that made up the majority opinion agreed with liu that achieving diversity remains a compelling governmental interest. the notion that somehow professor liu is an ideologue on these issues is belied by his actual record. as a

the former justice of the supreme court is a well- respected jurist, and i appreciate his input. but at the end of the day, the opinion that will matter is the opinion california courts provide. ultimately, if the matter goes that far, the california supreme court. the way i approach these matters is that i always tried to put myself in the position of the people who will be most directly impacted by the project. i think about my parents and the kind of protections i would like to see for them if they lived in the parkmerced community. as good as the protections are, they are simply not good enough. good enough is what we are looking for here. i know that some have compared this deal to the trinity plaza agreement that was previously approved by the board. to the extent that there are similarities between the two, i do not know that i would have supported trinity plaza, given the case law that is currently before us. trinity plaza was decided before 2009, before a number of cases raised the question about the enforceability of these kinds of agreements. for that reason, notwithsta

and then on the means question, the supreme court has been absolutely clear that that is a question to which this court must give substantial deference to congress. i said there were three different arguments. one we have been talking about thus far which is whether or not the decision to self-insure substantially affects interstate commerce. there is a second argument that judge wynn was getting at was the necessary and proper clause argument. >> when i read the government's brief, it seemed to me that the government regarded the necessary and proper clause as sort of congruent with one portion of the commerce law and is that the government's position, or do you think that something could be unconstitutional or not past commerce clause analysis and could still be saved by the necessary and proper clause. you come into this problem

just as clarence thomas made a few rather surprising remarks regarding those who criticize the supreme court he compared those critics to sports fans and he wondered aloud if they're illiterate or just lazy and that is a direct quote he also went on to say you know just keep nagging in navigating a nagging at some point it's got to stop sometimes too much is too much really clarence that is so rich coming from you since he arrived at the supreme court nearly twenty years ago thomas has become a hard line conservative and the fact that he's openly criticizing people who talk about court ruling class is kind of laughable it's been a years since justice thomas asked a question of anybody presenting arguments before the high court and fact there's even a running tally on the last time that he actually asked a lawyer a question try that's in february of two thousand and six here's my bigger problem the justice thomas if you don't like some of the people that are critics of the high court calling them out there why don't you stop making bad ruling that is united come to my january of last year the

board of education was decided by a unanimous supreme court in 1954, the supreme court of the united states has recognized the legitimacy of state action to desegregate schools. in fact, the supreme court upheld the use of race as one factor in admissions decisions in the 2003 case gruder v. ballinger. although some -- some -- on the far right of the supreme court have argued that both brown and gruder should be disregarded to the extent they recognize the permissibility of efforts to achieve diversity in public institutions, it is, i would argue, those justices out of step with the mainstream of federal jurisprudence and of the constitutional tradition of this country. even in its most recent case on point, the 2007 supreme court decision, parents involved v. seattle school district, which struck down a specific desegregation program, five of the nine justices that made up the majority opinion agreed with liu that achieving diversity remains a compelling governmental interest. the notion that somehow professor liu is an ideologue on these issues is belied by his actual record. as a

right you have army administration announced the supreme court's look at this last month and so it will be up to the supreme court whether or not they'll tweak it i suspect they will because this is becoming a contentious issue and as you said there's a patchwork of moving some around the country so that in some states they can use it without a warrant in some states they can't and i really think that the court's going to want to have some kind of final settlement and i'm curious quickly to the obama administration the justice department what's their legal reasoning as to why they don't need a warrant why this isn't an invasion of our privacy. what they did they couldn't since it's similar to this surveillance they don't think that it's any different police officers handling a suspect in a car they don't see that it's a privacy violation in that sense and you don't you know warrant for an officer to tail. i want to tell since that so that's the way that they do it. came i want to thank you very much for joining us today and well i'm with you and hoping that the supreme court does take t

away from his own ok so now this goes from what essentially was an appeals court to the state supreme court if i have this right and and you know this republican judge i mean it's not a partisan election but this walker friend mr prosser just won reelection to that court and he's the swing vote is isn't a probable that when this hit hits the state supreme court the the scott walker is going to get his victory i don't know that first off restart another day or so to figure out whether that supreme court race is settled i joined kloppenburg to challenge justice process or is still considering whether to file a legal challenge to the process and to argue that there were so many irregularities that a judge should look at it that might be late in the ceiling of justice process that we don't know and certainly remains in some conflict beyond that i think we have to be careful about presuming that he three or four conservative justices on this court will necessarily vote to he's actually got the open meetings law. in wisconsin just to judge sunni's ruling was very very clear and very very small d.

supreme court will do because they can't make themselves think in a hypothetical way, they are not going to be terribly good at entertaining of the court's doing this. it has tended to reward professors who may be of liberal promises but at least take the time to treat seriously the ideas that differ from their own. you have seen quite a substantial body of liberals who try to understand conservatives to many other institutions as well. i am not sure -- there may be some feeding in from the fact that lots of very bright people go into law for many reasons other than changing the world of politics and they need to be catered to. the views of lawyers generally after they get out of law school are more democratic than -- not merely -- there are a number of influences on them because law is inevitably more real-world constrained than sociology or anthropology. in the back row, the federalist society. >> i was wondering what reaction you have been getting from people in the islam schools? >> i just began a few weeks ago, i have been to indiana, illinois and minnesota so far. the response has

captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> brown: the supreme court ruled today that arizona can penalize businesses that hire workers in the country illegally. good evening. i'm jeffrey brown. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. on the "newshour" tonight, marcia coyle walks us through the five to three decision and what it means for the larger state-federal battle over immigration policy. >> brown: then, margaret warner has the latest on the arrest of fugitive bosnian serb general ratko mladic, accused of the worst war crimes in europe since world war two. >> woodruff: health correspondent betty ann bowser reports on the growing role of nurse practitioners as primary caregivers. >> in just a few years, 32 million americans who currently have no health insurance are going to be able to buy coverage. and the question is, who's going to take care of them? >> brown: we look at the case of arizona shooting suspec jared loughner, after a federal judge ruled him mentally incompetent to stand trial. >> woodruff: and, we continue our collaboration with "the economist" magazine to hig

republican lawmakers are calling the supreme court decision a travesty, devastating and shameful. they claim early releasing -- releasing prisoners early will make communities here more dangerous and will increase crime in the states. >> people need to be outraged about this. i think our first response is, should be no. we're not going to do this. you know? if the supreme court wants to do this, then, you know, justice kennedy, you bring your keys down here and unlock that gate and you choose which ones you want to live next to your friends and neighbors. >> others argue you're the court's decision may give governor brown more leverage for his government realignment plan which calls for the transportation for of low level offenders to county jails. >>> this is an interesting story, from sewer to salvage, 72 years after a bay area man lost his class ring it's back on his finger tonight. the incredible story of how the keepsake was returned to its owner. >> reporter: in 1938, about the same time jesse maddows bought this yearbook, the class president made another important purchase.

caller: i had agreed with the supreme court decision.hose are good pictures compared to the working condition i were dead. but as i worked at. that three strikes law is the main reason we are in this situation $30,000 a year per prisoner? we cannot afford it. if that is my opinion. host: what about not letting them go free, but allowing them to go to local jail facilities, etc.? caller: lost -- los angeles county, orange county, they are just as bad. the main thing is that three strikes rule. you get guys that it picked up for stealing a bag of chips. they are angry, they are ready to hurt somebody. it is a ridiculous idea. i disagree with that, period. host: here is the "wall street journal" opinion. there decreeing how the political branches of government must be run. we will gutted john in california, san diego, a republican. caller: up to 40% of the inmate population are illegal aliens. as long as the border is unsecured, we will have a nonstop flow of potential inmates. why don't we let them all gone and ship them back to the run co