to the big picture and tom hartman coming up in this half hour chaos erupts in wisconsin as a supreme court justice allegedly chokes another just it's one of the accused governor scott walker's right hand man it was scandal unravel the governor's radical agenda plus big oil is added begin with or astroturf phony front perhaps see how the world's biggest polluters are manufacturing support for their anti-american agenda and what is it that corporate c.e.o.'s republicans don't want you to know it's just it's the same thing that any bank robber wouldn't want you to know just how much they're stealing from. the. students that was causing can forget about a quality education yesterday cockcrow their lapdog governor scott walker signed a new republican budget bill to tackle that state's deficits caused by governor walker's tax breaks for corporations and millionaires and billionaires so how does walker's bill reduce the deficit the republican way of course by cutting eight hundred. and dollars from public schools in the state and directing those savings to even more corporate tax breaks for the t

supreme court handed another victory to rich guys who like to see more money in our politics breaking down arizona public financing election law yesterday so as the right wing court officially killed publicly financed elections and paved the way for the party rule in america as parliament prepares to vote on an austerity measure that would spin greece into an economic turndown outrage public workers have started a forty eight hours strike and taking to the streets with a debt default hanging in the balance who's going to win the standoff in the mediterranean people of greece are the banks of the i.m.f. and the republicans argue that the only way to avoid a greek style financial crisis here in america is to slash government spending but new data shows exactly what happens when governments tighten their wallets and let's just say it doesn't lead to economic prosperity. you need to know this another day another this supreme court decision in favor of big money in our politics yesterday in another five to four ruling the right wing of the supreme court struck down an arizona law that prov

five of them to be exact and here they are a five right wing justices on the supreme court of whack road kings rule america. chief justice john roberts justice antonin scalia justice anthony kennedy justice clarence thomas and justice sam alito these five men none of whom were elected by the people have transformed our nation in a profound way from a constitutionally limited democratic republic that our founding fathers created into a corporatocracy with the citizens united ruling last year as well as a slew of other pro corporate rulings that have become a norm for the roberts court the supreme court has ruled that money is a form of speech and thus can't be restricted in our elections so rich people and corporations those with the most money can now speak the loudest in our democracy and here's what's really important this was not a law debated and passed in any congress it wasn't signed by any president it was the decision of five members of the supreme court who are unaccountable to the american people and that's it in fact previous congresses and previous presidents have passed laws

then a review of this year's supreme court decisions. then, the former secretary of state, lawrence eagleburger, a memorial service. chief justice john roberts was the featured speaker at the fourth circuit court of appeals annual conference. he remarked on the year's caseload and later took questions on the court and the possibility of can't -- cameras on the court. this runs about 50 minutes. >> informal in the sense that the chief justice will be sitting in wingback chairs, in dark suits, before an audience, being televised on c-span. [laughter] it is my distinct pleasure to introduce the chief justice of the united states, the hon. john roberts jr. and the hon. j. harvey wilkinson. [applause] >> perfect. good morning. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you for getting up so early today. i am delighted to be here. one of the great privileges of being the chief justice is that you get to be the circuit justice for the fourth circuit, a tradition going back to john marshall. the role of the circuit justice has changed drama

run amok in our electoral politics at jefferson known in eighteen zero three just how far the supreme court would go in shrine in corporate power in america he likely would have led a revolt against the court of himself. but in fact for the next thirty years we're actually a little more than thirty years the john marshall of the chief justice the court never again struck down the law so the issue of the court having too much power was that steam but now it's here in spades the greatest threat facing america today is too much power in the supreme court an institution that was supposed to be the third of three co-equal branches of government but has turned itself into a monarchy past presidents have tried to solve this problem we had jefferson or more recently franklin roosevelt when in one thousand nine hundred seventy tried to increase the size of the court so he could add some progressive justices to counter the power of the five right wing justices who were blocking the new deal you know where the constitution of the say how many justices have to be on the court but jefferson failed frank

political parties figured out how to manipulate the nominating process and the justice that the supreme court is not really what the court once was and desert and senate certainly isn't what the founders intended and in this this probably has something to do with why president obama is the first president in history of the united states not to have judicial nominees move through. well that's right i mean the again the the philosophy of the republican party has power at all costs their country comes second in terms of what they believe is important and what they believe is most important is their own power and the american people know it was it is tragic but i think america is a strong country the american people are strong people i believe we're going to take the house back as a result of this i think the president will get reelected the senate will be tough because the math is against this but people around of this you know governor scott as a rating below twenty below thirty percent or governor walker in wisconsin would be would lose to the same person he beat before by seven points the gov

the judiciary, supreme court, the judges, we tento move slowly. those of you who have been to the court know that one of the architectural motifs at the base of the posts is a turtle to indicate we move slowly but surely ion a stable basis. now we released transcript of arguments, and now we release them within a half-hour. it used to be that the audio recordings were released at the end of the term, now they are released at the end of every week. we are moving in a particular direction. meras present other challenges that these other areas do not. i will not go through the whole debate. it is a fairly common one. we worry about the impact on lawyers. i worry about the impact on judges. i do think the consideration is different. >> do you think judges will ask even more questions? >> i do. that is exactly it. unfortunately, we fall into grandstanding with a couple hundred people in the courtroom. i am a little concerned about what the impact would be. we talk about it from time to time. it is something we consider. other courts around the country h

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

it eight hundred eighty six bancroft was the court reporter for the united states supreme court and he was on the he was on the job while that court was hearing arguments in a case called santa clara county versus the southern pacific railroad although at the time the chief justice morse interim equate thought it was just about a simple boring tax issue that case would ultimately redefine america forever it wasn't for that case scott walker wouldn't even be governor now because corporate money couldn't have helped him get elected pick a senator and whether or not the the corporation the southern pacific railroad owed santa clara money six years' worth of unpaid property taxes again it just all really monday and stuff ultimately the court let stand a lower california court decision because they said it was the state of california is issue not a federal issue case closed not a constitutional debate you can read on line in the web's the supreme court itself nothing in there about corporations be able to elect governors but here's where everything went a little crazy. as one of the six def

nothing to do with race ford has resigned over taking a twenty thousand dollars he was on the supreme court to get just like exact same position as thomas says to get twenty thousand dollars from a guy who was going to bring business before the court thomas and his wife have taken over a half million dollars from several parties who have bad currently have and will have business before the court this is plain blatant corruption and just like abe fortas thomas should resign. oh well no i mean a fortis was put on a twenty thousand dollars a year retainer an actual cash retainer by an individual that's that's not happened here how many years he's actually found this and taking money from right wing bias like they are i think. if she just is ginni thomas the i don't like your little throwaway there that's has nothing to do with race if anything poor clarence is guilty of one thing and that is conservative while black . the left has been the left the knoll on sirius the left. do you mean if it's a white if a white guy took money from and gifts from his wife took millions of dollars over time fro

the panel's discusses the impact of the supreme court. the discussed court cases involving freedom of speech and the first amendment, federalism, and campaign finance. this is just over two hours. >> i hope you will realize that we are being very selective in our coverage. it is not possible to be comprehensive. not even all the important cases will necessarily be talked about, but we hope we take enough of them to give you some sense of what the court has been up to this year. we will try to bring the train in on time. we will conclude comfortably by noon today. we have a very distinguished panel. i am delighted to have with us heather gerkin. she is nationally known for her work on election law and democratic theory. we also have michael mcconnell, the richard francis professor at stanford law school. he is a former 11th circuit court judge. he served in that capacity before he returned to stanford. neil seagel is joining us. he is professor of law and political science at duke university law school. he served at one time as a law clerk

we challenged the law and went up the ranks and eventually the supreme court said stop and we stop. there was a great sense of despair in some sense, but hopefulness that we would live to fight another day and in spite of those licenses be voided and the fact there was disappointment and we had to stop and everything we had done had been taken a way as well. i think people lived with the expectation that they may see what they now have seen. i don't think many of us thought it would happen so quickly. >> after years of working it's way through the california system. the supreme court voted unanimously to challenge the ban on same sex marriages. >> we are literally across the street and couples could run and demand we offer a marriage license to them. >> we got the call early on may 14th, where they said can you come in and make a meeting. that's where we found out the court already notified the city attorney's office there were going to render a decision >> then on may 15, the supreme court struck down the ban on same sex marriage in a 4 to 3 vote. they fought all the way and won. >

and the supreme court throws out a huge gender discrimination case. tonight on "washington week." >> america, it is time to focus on nation building here at home. gwen: the president lays out his plan to bring 33,000 u.s. troops home from afghanistan by september, 2012. some worry he's moving too fast. >> the president's decisions are more aggressive and incur more risk than i was originally prepared to accept. gwen: some say too slow. >> enough is enough. after 10 years, how long will it take and how long should we be there? gwen: but is this a turning point? the latest announced g.o.p. presidential candidate says no. >> better than 100,000 very expensive boots on the ground. gwen: what else do we know about jon huntsman? and the high court delivers an historic decision. >> the supreme court has definitely muddied the waters for civil rights class action lawsuits. gwen: but the outcome may be more complicated than it seems. covering the week, market market of -- martha raddatz of abc news. nia-malika henderson of "the washington post," pete williams

caller: my take on the supreme court. i had a case at the superior courts and the judge told me, after my husband one and a lawsuit, six months after, this company, this corporation, the largest shipyard on the west coast, they never lost in his court. they had many cases. although the jury ruled in their favor. i thought about writing to clarence thomas to see if there was anything that could be done. i reported corporate fraud against the government as well as myself, and come to find out -- and i only did this a year ago, i think in 2010. they got a new contract. and i have proof -- $7 million that they took from the government on contracts because my husband told me 18 days before he passed away he had been doing this for the company. i did not know. that broke my heart. but i ended up losing everything because of this judge, the superior court judge would have ordered -- the award would have been a 588,000 actual damages for past and future earnings up to age of 65. they didn't even pay my husband's life insurance. th

ktvu channel 2 news. >> thank you. >>> walmart posted a statement on its website regarding the supreme court ruling. in part it says "the court unanimously rejected class certification. as the majority may clear, the plaintiffs' claims were worlds away from showing a companywide discriminatory pay and promotion policy. by reversing the 9th circuit court of appeals decision, the majority effectively ends this class action lawsuit ". we'll have more on the news a 5:00 and at ktvu.com. >>> this woman took cell phone video of a suspect, that led to his arrest. but the victim says this is only one aspect of a dispute with her landlord. she said the her -- her landlord has ignored requests for more safe doors. in fact, she received an evick shin notice after the -- evick shin notice after the -- evacuation dash evicttion notice. the landlord said she she will replace the door. >>> a parole hearing is underway right now for the man accused 6 beating giants' fan, bryan stow. giovanni ramirez has been in custody for a parole violation because police found a gun in the home where they arrested him in

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

he frequently are goes before the supreme court and is well known to the supreme court. previously he served as the property justice assistant attorney general. of course its general counsel of the commerce department. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman current ranking member grassley and members of the committee. it's an honor to appear before the committee today. to discuss corporate behavior of the court's recent decisions, selected outcomes in all the court cases involving private plaintiff seeking damages from businesses. this year there is a tie. his assist parties last, nine wins for business parties, nine wins for plaintiff suing businesses. involving substantive interpretation, business parties last every case decided by the court. i know some will say business when the most important cases. i wonder if their perception of the cases isn't colored by the outcome. if for example the case had said in retaliation claims under the federal antidiscrimination mosque complained must always be in writing. i think the reaction would've been quite quite justifiably an ou

that is what the supreme court reiterated. they also said in the same opinion there is the difference between supply and demand. i bet that justice jackson would have had a differ reaction in that case if it forced individuals to buy wheat as opposed to put limits on how much roscoe could produce. i think those are different regulations. that does not mean the means is important. >> it was very telling in a case where a homegrown marijuana was just an instant away from the interstate market. this is a temporal problem. we are an instant away from needing health care. this is not come parable. even though you are not currently consuming health care, just like the homegrown just like the homegrown marijuana, why are we not all, 25 million are consuming health care without paying for it. why isn't everyone else an instant the way? >> there is a constitutional difference between being an instant away because you're engaged in economic activity. my problem is, in every market we are all an instant away from participating if the gov

and what the supreme court said was you can't do that. if there isn't a single policy of nationwide discrimination, you can't decide the case all at once based on a policy that is not there. >> brown: now, all right so, suzette malveaux, explain for us, then, why is bringing a case as a class action so important? the women here still can bring their own individual cases, correct? >> yes, that's true. all of the individual women, because the court did not say anything about there being gender discrimination there was no ruling as far that was concerned, all of the women are free to bring individual cases. so if they feel there was gender discrimination and pay and promotions, they should do that. now the problem realistically is for many people they don't have the resources to do that. they may be very skittish about challenging their employer especially at a time like this with this economy, it takes alot of courage, of course, to sue your employer and keep your job. you may an afraid of retaliation. you know, if you have small claims it

he frequently are those you for the supreme court and is well-known to the court. he previously served as the assistant attorney general. mr. pinkas, glad to have year. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, ranking member grassley. it's an honor to appear before the committee today. to assess the impact and corporate behavior under recent decisions come i looked at the outcome in the court court cases involving private plaintiff seeking damages from businesses. and this year, there is a tie. is this party/just as many times as they won in such cases this year, nine wins for business parties, nine wins for plainness suing businesses. and deep in the cases involving sensitive interpretation, business parties and every court. i know some of the business when the most important cases, but i wonder if their perception of the importance is that colored by their outcome. according the case had said claims under the federal antidiscrimination laws complaints must always be in writing, i think the reaction is quite justifiably an average of process requirement that would sh

he is even accusing the supreme court of siding with the interest of corporate america. instead of the interest of children. >> i am rather disappointed today, by the decision of the u.s. supreme court. >> reporter: in an effort to show his defeated law has broad support, lee provided representatives from the medical community and from law enforcement to react to today's supreme court ruling. declaring california cannot ban the sale of violent video games to children. >> we see a lot of them are enforcing targets. it's not in development of an industrial. we're concerned about this. we will stay involved. >> reporter: the bill enjoyed bipartisan support in the california legislature. the u.s. supreme court declared the law violates the first amendment with justice antonin scalia write manage the majority opinion. no doubt the state processes legitimate power to protect children from harm, but it does not include free floating power to restrict the idea may be exposed. they told us via skype that the current rating system do enough to keep kids from playing violent games.

walmart appealed to the supreme court. >> the lawyers on the other side went too far when they tried the country. >> reporter: today the court sided with walmart. the evidence fell far short of demonstrating a company wide policy. but the door is still open for them to pursue their own claims. >> it's not like the supreme court said walmart does not discriminate. they didn't make any finding. all they said was the structure of this case with a million plaintiffs was too big under the rules. >> reporter: catherine heenan, kron 4 news. >>> a company lawyer called the called the lawsuit a victory for walmart. we spoke >>> temperatures in the 70s, warmer than we are used to. east bay, temperature said in the 80s, low 90s. 85 in oakland. 91 fremont. 99 concord. 99 pittsburg. 100 in antioch tomorrow afternoon. temperatures in the 90s for the south bay. 94 los gatos and 95 in san jose. seven-day forecast, hot weather for the first day ofsumer tomorrow. cooling on wednesday but we will see relief into the weekend with temperatures in the low 80s on friday and saturday. and upper 60s for the b

he is even accusing the supreme court of siding with the interest of corporate america. instead of the interest of children. >> i am rather disappointed today, by the decision of the u.s. supreme court. >> reporter: in an effort to show his defeated law has broad support, lee provided representatives from the medical community and from law enforcement to react to today's supreme court ruling. declaring california cannot ban the sale of violent video games to children. >> we see a lot of them are enforcing targets. it's not in development of an industrial. we're concerned about this. we will stay involved. >> reporter: the bill enjoyed bipartisan support in the california legislature. the u.s. supreme court declared the law violates the first amendment with justice antonin scalia write manage the majority opinion. no doubt the state processes legitimate power to protect children from harm, but it does not include free floating power to restrict the idea may be exposed. they told us via skype that the current rating system do enough to keep kids from playing violent games.

. >>> there was a big decision at the supreme court today. it's a victory for walmart and a defeat for many women's rights groups. the court today halted the country's biggest sex discrimination lawsuit. and two bay area women are at the center of the case. female employees claimed walmart discriminated against them, but the high court says they cannot proceed as a class action lawsuit. we bring in nbc bay area's kristen dahlgren who joins us live outside of the supreme court with the details. this really derails a massive lawsuit, doesn't it? what happens now? >> reporter: it does, and this has been watched around the country. as you said, it really did start in the bay area, made it all the way here to the supreme court. when they heard the argument here back in march, there were huge demonstrations on both sides. you have women and consumer groups on one side. business interests on the other, and both of them agreeing then and now that this is a decision that has huge implications. in a unanimous decision, the high court blocked the massiv

supreme court today. the high court is expected to rule on a california law that bans the sale of violent video games to children. our amy hollyfield is live in the newsroom with the latest. amy? >> the video game industry says governments can't monitor who buys comic books and movies so they shouldn't able to restrict who buys video games. federal judges have agreed with them. they have struck down the law. saying it violates first amendment free speech rights. but lawyers for california argue states can restrict the sale of pornography. so why not violent video games. state senator leland yee of san francisco authored the bill in 2005 and says he is cautiously optimistic about today's ruling. he believes children should be protected and parents should have the tool to keep them from harmful effect of ultra violent video games. the justs the seem -- justices seemed split. some were hesitant to carve out the exception. others argued that parents need help to protect the kids. senator yee scheduled a news c