civil war the right i said we then pass what you think the supreme court should not be able to force the thirteenth amendment prohibiting slavery that is beyond the state of the congress the court has no enforcement mechanism i mean this is what hamilton was talking has the force of moral seventy eight or you had a number a moral authority is not enforcement of the force of mechanism is in the executive branch did you know that the supreme court is the most highly regarded branch of government a recent survey because the average american has no idea what do i disagree about in august the there was a poll by rasmussen that said only seventeen percent of the people in this country think that the federal government has the consent of the governed need all the supreme court polling sixty percent or better approval ratings wise and we should continue to allow the supreme court to strike down laws passed by elected representatives who are doing what we want signed by our president who we elected when they're not elected because the polling because we have a constitution that provides

supreme court. it is not about protecting the advocates and making sure their voices continue to be heard. that, to me, is interesting and part of the dialogue, but it is not what we are doing here, and i do not know why we are passing legislation that is to protect the advocates. supervisor avalos: along the lines of protecting the advocates, i will say, actually, the effort to create the public financing program came out of the process i feel is important. last week, i was supporting supervisor farrel's amendment because there was an absence of thought for the community that came together to create a program about what to do about the supreme court decision. i supported the amendment coming forward. since that time, there has been a lot of discussion. i wanted to harken to that discussion and find a way to bring up a new amendment. what i believe supervisor kim is proposing -- i am not sure it is the answer. but i do think it needs to be vetted with a lot of the designers of our public financing p

supreme court. we are not here to decide it. it is that president we have when we say idyllic -- when we say ideology is more important. we are being reactive to the u.s. supreme court. that applies to us here at the board of supervisors as it does everywhere else in this country. scores of other jurisdictions are amending their laws and, just to reiterate for the public, arizona, connecticut, florida, hawaii, maine, nebraska, north carolina, west virginia, wisconsin, albuquerque, and particularly in new haven connecticut. these jurisdictions all amended their finances and had them struck down by a court of law. we need to too to avoid a lawsuit. we are playing roulette with taxpayer dollars. i appreciate supervisor kim enter comments, but i strongly disagree and urge my colleagues to support this. we can support any future law as we would like to, but right now let's make the change. let's get in line with what the u.s. supreme court has already decided. supervisor wiener: i am a strong supporter o

the supreme court of the united states today has no protestants on the supreme court. isn't that interesting? we basically have catholics and jews. >> i have been very worried about that, i will tell you. [laughter] >> i mentioned it because i thought it was keeping you up at night. the fact is that i have no doubts that they each will do what they said in their nomination, which is they would apply the law, and what justice roberts said is really probably a similar statement. judges are supposed to call balls and strikes. that does not mean that they don't understand -- as a matter of fact, why do you have a diverse jury? the appellate court is just another type of jury, right? the supreme court is a very different kind of jury because the supreme court, and having only had one case before them, i learned very quickly that president -- precedent is not as important as the justices, who will decide what the law is. they will change what the lot is if they get a majority of their sisters and brothers to go along with it. to have a jury made up of diverse cultural views

congresswoman norton you are a lawyer what is the supreme court likely to do? cokie, the affordable healthcare act will be approved if the court adheres to the long held presumption in favor of an act of congress. >> i think if the supreme court looks at what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional and sometimes it's questionable if they figure out the two well, i think they will make the right call that obamacare is unconstitutional and i think that is how the court will rule. i think this will be difficult to predict. there have been legal scholars who said they believe it's constitutional however this is a political court. and it's being brought up at a political time. >> i will not presume to know what the supreme court will do. but one federal court said it's unconstitutional and one said it isn't which is item court is going to look at it and i hope for the future of this country, the individual mandate aspect of this is ruled unconstitutional. >> you know, it's politically risky that the obama administration pushed for the court to hear it in this

the supreme court has got to kill this thing. alleged canada john huntsman explains. >> a $1 trillion bomb that obamacare means to this country over ten years, is creating such uncertainty in the marketplace. >> stephen: yes, it is creating uncertainty, before obamacare we had certainty. we were certain that 45 million americans were uninsured. and that certainty was great for small businesses like funeral homes and headstone carvers. and folks, this case is going to be a real nail-biter which is fine because my insurance covers cute caltrans plants. nobody but nobody can predict how the supreme court is going to rule on this one. here to predict how the supreme court is going to rule on this one, please welcome cnn analyst and author of the nine, jeffery toobin. thanks so much for coming back. good to see you. okay. (cheers and applause) >> stephen: all right, jeffery, let's talk about the issues here. i'm sorry, did you want some dip? >> that's okay. >> stephen: all right. now let's talk about the issues at play here. what is t

many of the supreme court justices took part in the extraditional red mass. it is a tradition for judicial leaders to pray for wisdom and this year, they will certainly need it. >> you have both the states that are challenging the law as well as the administration itself telling the supreme court you need to decide this issue now. >> tom dupree says it is a good bet the justices are under pressure. >> i think the likelihood of supreme court review has increased and i think all of these factors together make day pretty difficult invitation for

>> it is, in light of the supreme court decision. president chiu: supervisor avalos, will youd efe defer to supervisor farrell? supervisor farrell: raising a cap has nothing to do, except politically speaking, but legally speaking, has nothing to do with wcuring what ails us. >> the city will still be at risk. supervisor farrell: may be something to mitigate an adjustment, just making sure that we have nothing to do with legally speaking, the supreme court's's decision. >> you could conjure up the argument that the chill won't happen, but it is not a very strong argument. supervisor farrell: what i opposed to my colleagues, the idea is to combine -- or are we waiting on this part of it? the part of it before us exposing us to legal risk? we can take up the other issue when the ethics commission hears it. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. first, let me say that i don't knwo that -- know that having this discussion in open session in terms of the viability, i will be voting against it. i appreciate the reasoning behind it. i

. >> he was on the supreme court. he left the supreme court. he ran for president. then he went back to the supreme court. when of the finest minds on the court's. >> why use? >> andrew jackson said that "he looks like god and talks like god." >> charles evans hughes -- the republican presidential nominee soon after the national convention. tonight, we looked at the life and legacy of charles evans hughes who was a two-term governor, secretary of state, and twice a supreme court justice. he was perhaps best known as one of the co-authors of the new deal. we're broadcasting live across from the capitol. he inaugurated this building when it first opened in 1935. let me introduce you to our guests this evening were joining us to talk about the life and legacy of charles evans hughes. my first guest is an historian, and bernadette higher -- bernadette tyler is a professor at cornell law school. i want you to set the stage for us. 1916, woodrow wilson wants to be reelected. frame what was going on in the country and the presidential campaign. >> president wilson said it

the supreme court -- the supreme court has issued a statement that forces us -- our council -- counsil has advised us on what would be right and cost- effective. april through june, we heard debate on the budget. we made severe cuts to service providers, homeless advocates, adult aid health care centers. we have fewer resources to squander away on a potential lawsuit that is an uphill battle that we cannot win. can you believe this? i hope, for those of you that get up and start making public comment, you take this into consideration, and remember which supervisors are voting on this issue. all we are doing is complying with what the united states supreme court has already brought down. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. i want to agree with a couple of points that were made by supervisors farrell and eslbern -- elsbernd, in terms of the scope of the legislation. i support what supervisor kim is proposing, but we must have a broad peace of legislation addressing what happens in the mirror -- mayor's race, the sheriff's race, and any others. i will support this, assuming there wil

the state supreme court has indulged in fact finding that the supreme court level. what standard of review or difference to you and the united states supreme court the court findings of fact that have been in builds ten by a state supreme court that is before you, whose decision is before you on review. >> the kate supreme -- the state supreme court has overruled the jury's finding? >> it is in the course of this discussion. no record to support it. that's not the issue. your credential. >> i think if it's a criminal case the somehow is being appealed to us for violation of federal constitutional provision, if the state supreme court has made a finding of fact it is not supported in the record and if that finding of fact is crucial to the conviction we would set the conviction aside. >> there is a rule the says if there are two lower courts that hold a particular finding of fact we will go into further. it is an area that i sort of noticed over time, like the finding facts for particularly bad. but nine people and to try to get people to read this enormous record an

supreme court. after some years when i went abroad, was often asked, we look at decisions of your court and they don't find us but what do you think about this hard question? and yet you never refer to our decisions. don't you think we have something to contribute to this international conversation? about fundamental human rights? what i have said it is -- with many courts engaged in this activity, if we don't listen to others, if we pay no attention to what they do mean, we won't be listened to. nowadays, it may be that the canadian supreme court is cited informed decisions more frequently than decisions of the united states supreme court. if you pick up decisions of that court on questions of human rights, you will find that they refer to decisions of other courts. we don't very often. there are notable exceptions. what is the case? the case of consentual same-sex relations cannot be made a crime, lawrence v texas. justice kennedy cited a leading decision of the european court of human rights from

you said earlier you went to give your testimony because the supreme court was at stake. what the make of the way the court has swung or not over these 20 years? >> i think there have been some good years and good decisions. i think sandra day o'connor's opinion in the michigan affirmative action cases was a significant mark. and a positive mark in the court's history. the shift here i think is clearly toward more conservative opinions, or cutting back on rights, cutting back procedurally in terms of how people can go forward and bring their claims. the walmart case this summer was an example of that, the inability of lawyers to bring class action cases, a huge class action cases in some cases, that are representative of issues women will face in the workplace. that was a setback, not that those class actions will not go forward and cases will not go forward. but i think these are all indicators that we are pushing back on rights that all of us who have been lawyers and practicing lawyers and teaching lawyers believed were secure. i am not encouraged by that. tavis: speaki

fox 5's stacy cohen is live outside the supreme court with more. >> reporter: the supreme court will open at 10:00 a.m. and they do have quite an agenda ahead of them this session. they span from immigration cases to president obama's health care package. on sunday, several supreme court justices participated in the traditional red mass. that happens at st. matthew's cathedral every year and it is a tradition for the leaders to come and pray for wisdom. a choice they will have to make is whether or not they will rule on the nation's health care reform law. >> you have both the states that are challenging the law as well as the administration itself telling the supreme court you need to decide this issue now. i think the likelihood of supreme court review has increased and i think all of these factors together make day pretty difficult invitation for the supreme court to turn down. >> reporter: the other two bathe cases that the nation will be watching is one involving law enforcement and whether or not police can use gps to track suspects without first getting a warrant. on the immig

. >> the new supreme court kicks off this morning. this year, the justices will handle several cases regarding individual rights. stacy cohan has a preview. >> the supreme court has quite a busy session ahead of them filled with cations that are very high profile but it is the one case which they have not yet committed to hearing that is drawing the most attention here into washington. many of the supreme court justices took part in the extraditional red mass. it is a tradition for judicial leaders to pray for wisdom and this year, they will certainly need it. >> you have both the states that are challenging the law as well as the administration itself telling the supreme court you need to decide this issue now. >> tom dupree says it is a good bet the justices are under pressure. >> i think the likelihood of supreme court review has increased and i think all of these factors together make day pretty difficult invitation for the supreme court to turn down. >> the court has agreed to hearing arguments about whether or not police can tra

is in the supreme court's hands. hands..."mall business in this law the key thing that has the obama administration taking it to the courts... and why some lawmakers aren't happy about the law to begin with. with.and later... a nine year old takes his parents' car on a joy ride... then crashes into a tree!where the boy's parent's were at the time of the crash.. and his current condition. ((break 3)) starting my progresso soup for lunch plan, huh. nope, just having some tender chicken and some tasty noodles. let's see...south western vegetables...60 calories. ya' know those jeans look nice. they do? yup. so you were checking me yup. out? [ male announcer ] progresso. 40 soups 100 calories or less. being sent to the back of a freezer. and it's all because someone said "tacos." old el paso. when you gotta have mexican. 3 the obama administration is appealing to the supreme court to declare the health care law constitutional.... peter barnes tells us when we can expect the court's final decisi. decision. the obama administration h

supreme court is back at work. the court has a docket full of controversial cases on topics ranging from obscenity to strip searches to warrantless surveillance. then there are the cases that haven't officially reached the court yet, including a challenge to the constitutionality of the federal health care law. joining us to preview the term: newshour regular marcia coyle of the "national law journal" and tom goldstein, founder of the web site scotusblog.com. let's first talk, marcia about the big elephant in the room that's not actually on the docket. that's the health care law. how many states have brought this chal tong the court? >> well, i would say a total of 27 now. 26 states filed one lawsuit. virginia filed its own lawsuit. there are many lawsuits around the country, but right now the supreme court has, i think, maybe five petitions. does that sound about right, tom? five petitions asking the court to get involved. and th obama administration now has also asked the supreme court to review the legal queestio

if the supreme court ruled against him he was going to abrogate the supreme court decision. joe kennedy -- if that was to happen joe kennedy was to close the stock exchange. the supreme court, this was just before it started over turning all the new deal initiatives it could get its hands on. the supreme court said it is wrong and it is illegal for the government to have abrogated the gold clause but the people -- the individuals who brought the lawsuits we are ruling on today didn't have standing to bring the lawsuits so we are upholding the gold bond. it was a moment -- that was the context. yes? >> you mentioned harold wiki. he is an important figure throughout this administration. in colossus you presented in the context of the building of hoover dam. is his behavior throughout the new deal consistent with that or was that just an aberration in his behavior? >> which behavior are you talking about? >> like demanding it be called boulder dam instead of hoover dam. >> he was franklin roosevelt's interior secretary and he was the man who took hoover's name off of hoover dam

the supreme court eventually came around. most important ruling is upheld, for example, social security to the 1937. so we know the social security is constitutional the matter what you may hear. but the court, you know, is always a joker in the deck for administrations that a try to address the status quo. yes. >> mine is anecdotal of my experience in the new deal and before. okay? born in 1926. we did very well. my father was a manager at a department store in canton ohio. we lived on which road which overlooks the railroad tracks, and i would see the road cars covered with a young man who were dirty, bearded, and looking quite desperate. in 1934 my father lost his job. we had to move to california. @booktv will go out there in the sunlight. fortunately we did not start, but i'm sure glad we came here. then the new deal took 11 million people, including these young men come off the road cars and put them to useful work, magnificent work along with the w. teeeight which hired writers and playwrights and all sorts of people. >

. >> he was on the supreme court. he left the supreme court. he ran for president. then he went back to the supreme court. one of the finest minds on the court. >> why hughes? >> andrew jackson said that hughes "looks like god and talks like god." >> charles evans hughes -- the republican presidential nominee soon after the national convention. tonight, we look at the life and legacy of charles evans hughes who was a two-term governor, secretary of state, and twice a supreme court justice. he was perhaps best known as one of the co-authors of the new deal. we're broadcasting live across from the capitol. he inaugurated this building when it first opened in 1935. let me introduce you to our guests this evening were joining us to talk about the life and legacy of charles evans hughes. my first guest is an historian, david pietrusza, and bernadette meyler is a professor at cornell law school. i want you to set the stage for us. 1916, woodrow wilson wants to be reelected. frame what was going on in the country and the presidential campaign. >> president wilson said it w

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

hi, peter. >> as you know, the supreme court hasn't officially said they will rule on the constitutionality of the affordable care act but they are expected to. it's been challenged in the lower courts and the obama administration has asked the court to rule on it. even though it's not on the docket, keep an eye out for that as the new term starts tomorrow. and keep an eye on whether or not they think arizona and alabama can enforce their own immigration laws or whether it has to be done federally. and whether federal agents need a search warrant to put a gps device on somebody's car. and liberals want justice thomas to recuse himself from the healthcare ruling because his wife worked for a group that opposed it. and others want another justice to recuse herself because she was too involved with the legal aspect while she was president obama's slit tore general. before the nine justices go back to work tomorrow, today there was a red mass here in their honor. a time they all got together to pray for the nine justices to find guidance in the new term. the main overarching theme of the term w

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

supreme court, and there was so much tension about how the supreme court would rule that there was an open line between the white house and joe kennedy's office -- he was the chairman of the sec. roosevelt actually had an executive order drafted in which if supreme court ruled against him, he was going to abrogate the supreme court decision. and joe -- if that was to happen, joe kennedy was to close stock exchanges. well, the supreme court -- this was just before it really started overturning all the new deal initiatives it could get its hands on -- finessed the matter. the supreme court said it's wrong, and it's illegal for the government to have abrogated the gold clause in the contracts, but the people who are before us, the individuals who brought the lawsuit that we're ruling on today opportunity have standing to bring the lawsuit. so we're upholding the gold clause. we don't have it before us. so it was a great moment of miness, but that was the context, i think, of the exchange stabilization. yes, ma'am. >> oh, here she is. excuse me. harold, you've mentioned that before, he's

you like playing scrabble, this was your week, in politics, on capitol hill, and, soon, at the supreme court. it was all over the place. we talk about it all, tonight on "washington week." >> now is not my time. >> you don't need a title to make a difference in this country. i think that i'm proof of that. gwen: so that's who's out. what about who's in? herman cain is enjoying a boost in the polls. rick perry's raised $17 million in less than 60 days, and mitt romney is taking on the president on foreign policy. >> if you do not want america to be the strongest nation on earth, i am not your president. you have that president today. gwen: 100,000 new jobs created last month, but not enough, as the standoff over the president's jobs bill intensifies. >> the question, then, is, will congress do something? if congress does something, i can't run against a do-nothing congress. >> nobody gets everything they want. gwen: and the supreme court prepares to tackle issues of religion, indecency, immigration, and the constitutionality of the new health care law. covering the week, dan balz of "the wash