i teach supreme court litigation. at stanford law school in california, as well as harvard law school in massachusetts. i've been called, the nation's premier supreme court advocate. i speak regularly at the nation's most prestigious law schools. i even hob knob with the justices themselves. >> people in the legal business, just can't like that. >> i don't really care. >> when did you do that? >> i did that in my office. i think people who do a lot of serious things in this town take themself way too seriously. i don't i think walk on water. i really enjoy what i do. i feel it's a privilege and i don't mind making light of what it is that i and other people who have this job do. we are lawyers and we represent people. if we can't really have fun with it what's the point. >> what did you rule on bush v. gore? >> i represented the vice president. i had the great opportunity to work with lawrence tribe, the famous harvard law school professor who was working deeply with the case and worked with david boies and i second c

the supreme court is, you don't know what the supreme court justice is. point.t is the 't dream unless you know what the possibilities are, because dreams don't just pop up into your head. dreams are things that you learn give you hope about it something you can become. so how do you find those dreams? the way you are right now. by taking the chance and applying for a competition and hoping that you get picked, as the 100 in this room did, that the others who tried, you did something just as important. you tried. and that is what life is about. to learn about your possibilities, you have to try things that could be scary. how many of you have traveled and spent the night here last night? if your rent it teacher came with you instead of a parent, that it was a little frightening. when you go away from home at your age, the only people i ever stayed with was my family. but unless you are willing to do things that you are a little afraid of to learn new things, you cannot dream. you can dream, but you won't really know what your possibilities are. and so i a

but i really wanted to tell stories of how cases get to the supreme court italy and at the courthouse door fully grown it takes a lot of commitment with people involved and a lot of strategizing by the lawyers it is a long haul to the lower courts although some king get there quickly depending on what happened in the lower courts spinning people may not realize it takes wondered 2% of those cases. >> that is amazing when you consider they get on average 8,000 petitions from those who want the court to review their case but as i looked for the four cases i wanted the 54 decision not to show that the court is always divided. it is not you will find out in the book more than 50 percent of the decisions that issued by the supreme court are either unanimous, 8-1 or 7-2. there is consensus even know ideologically divided but the 5-4 decision is where relearn the most about the individual justices and how they use certain provisions in the constitution as well as how they approach their job. i also wanted obviously what i would call signature decisions of the roberts court under john roberts

on the morning of march 18th, the decision was announced from the supreme court. they said justice black said i have an announcement the decision and opinion of the court gideon against -- vindication for 20 years of dissent from -- against brady. they said we were wrong when we designed it and now we are making it right. >> it was complete. not only did this belief in the 14th amendment, the court decide d in gideon's favor. this system which he fought for so long in the justice. the decision was law of the land. equal justice under law. >> when a supreme court decided the gideon case, they really brought light to that phrase. it doesn't matter if you are rich, it doesn't matter if you are poor, you get the same equal chance. >> just look at what happened to gideon. the supreme court didn't set gideon free but it gave him a fair trial with a competent attorney. >> not guilty. >> clarence earl gideon was a free man. the man who won a landmark supreme court case went to live a normal living with a job pumping gas. >> when i read where it says equal justice under law

producer what's going on what's up so what are what let's go i just one of the most controversial supreme court justices do you think that the court today is more subject to special interests than it was before i don't know if it's more subject to special interests now than it was say one hundred years ago fifty years ago but the the minnesota law review published report of thirty six justice is over the last sixty five years looking specifically at their voting records in terms of how they vote and when they vote pro-business for example so what they found is actually pretty shocking they found that over the last sixty five years five of the most conservative justices. that the court has right now the supreme court house right now make that top ten list two of those the most conservative two would be a leader in chief justice roberts are both bush appointees so whether you want to say that they are more subject to special interests you know that part's arguable but the current court that we have right now is definitely more pro-business than any than any court that we've had in the past and th

the supreme court when they allowed this money to go in, assumed it would be disclosed. and yet it is not. the congress can take really common sense steps to, a, pass entirely disclosure legislation that would disincentivize people from setting up the c-4 groups which can serve as the vehicles for dark money. c-4 groups spend $250 million on those types of ads in the 2012 election without telling the american public who was funding their sources. that's the real scandal here. we can have -- disclosure legislation and you can bar c-4s set up as exclusive social welfare organizations. that's the statutory language. supposed to be exclusively for social welfare purposes even more than primarily or you could set a really low threshold to say c-3s absolutely bar on campaign activity and c-4s perhaps a low threshold. 5% to 10%. some dollar amount. that was a bright line test to enable the irs to more easily enforce this law more clearly without currently -- to look at the totality much spending to see if they have reached this majority level. it is a mess. >> let me address yo

supreme court is an instrument of democratic process . it relies on the people's faith in our integrity, our impartiality, and our commitmen to the constitution. maintaining the courts decorum and its respect in the public eye are not minor questions of public relations but is essential to the proper functioning of the institution and our democracy. in this same vein, when i get a speech or express myself publicly outside of court opinions, i voluntarily and scrupulously censure myself. i am cautious to avoid any topi that might force the league com before the court or to express myself in any way that would telegraph a future decision because it is clear that such expression can and does undermine the public confidence in the court. of course i have my opinions, believes, preferences, and the russians. miami thinking, feeling human being, but part of the justices job description is to bracket those opinions and preferences and emotions so that they do no control our decisions. it is not our silence. it is not that our silence proves the a

that there's nothing special about the supreme court. to me it's just a regular court with sour cream. but i thought this would be a good segment for the lie witness news. we asked people what they thought about president obama's decision to name judge judy to the supreme court. he didn't do that, obviously. but when people hear president obama and supreme court, they will have an opinion, whether they have an opinion or not. enjoy. >> tell me your name and where you're from. >> what do you think about president obama's decision to appoint judge judy to the supreme court? >> well, it's controversial. he's granted that power as piston united states so, you know, he's got to do the best we can with what we have. >> and do you think of obama's appointment of judge judy scheinlin to the supreme court. >> it's a publicity stunt. i'm not sure why. he has the approval ratings. >> i agree. i think it's publicity stunt. i'm not sure she's fit for that type of a job. she knows tv. that's about it. >> what do you think object president obama's decis

i guess the crowning decision concept is the supreme court's to-expectation of privacy down the road is going to be not expanded bed made smaller. that is what members of the courts are saying which concerns me so it seems to me congress in the area of drones needs to set the standard rather than let the courts down the road set a standard. i am from houston and our local sheriff, sheriff adrian garcia, third largest county in the country, he won't use any kind of drone's because he doesn't know what the law is going to be and doesn't want to wait for the supreme court to rule on a search, throw out a case he has arrested some bad guy and put him in jail. he is not using drones. he is waiting for somebody to get him and law enforcement agencies some direction on the use of roads. seems to be two issues. law-enforcement use and private use and what is the expectation of privacy in those areas and should we do anything about it or just wait? let me ask you, mr. calabrese, there were comments that courts should make these decisions, fourth amendment which courts have been doing, applying

and there's no clearer path to membership on the supreme court than the d.c. circuit court of appeals. four of the nine supreme court justices served on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. there are now three vacancies on the d.c. court of appeals. the court has two more seats than the supreme court, filling the three vacancies will bring the court to its full strength of 11 judges. but filling those vacancies might require president obama and the democrats to use the so-called nuclear option in the senate in order to get those judges confirmed. "the washington post" has reported senate majority leader reid consulted with president obama on the need to revisit filibuster reform, the president told the majority leader he will support the exercising of the nuclear option if reid opts for it. the aide says reid is eyeing a change to the rules that would do away with the 60 vote threshold on all judicial and executive branch nominations. the aide says. then there was this debate on the senate floor. >> i just want the senate to work well. this republican obstruction

if you don't know the supreme court is, you don't know what a supreme court justice is and that is the point that you cannot dream and as you know what the possibilities are because they don't just pop into your head. they are things you learn about that give you hope about something and you can become. so how do you find those dreams? you find them the way that you are right now by taking the chance and applying for a competition and hoping that you get picked as the 100 in this room did. but the others that tried, and you did something just as important. you tried. and that is what life is about to learn about your possibilities, you have to try things that could be scary. how many of you have travelled and spent the night here last night? i bet if your parents didn't come with you, if a teacher came up with you or a sponsor came with you that there was a little frightening. because when you go away from home at your age the only people i ever stayed with was my family. but unless you are doing things that you are a little afraid of coming to learn new things you can't dream. but you

four of the justices on the supreme court come from the d.c. circuit court.ind of like the feeder court for supreme court justices. out of 11 seats on that d.c. court, there are four vacant seats now. president obama nominated three. and the senate confirmed him this week unanimously. that means he can be confirmed by the senate. he can be. he just proved it. and that's really good to know, in case there's any other judgeships he might need to be confirmed for soon, hint hint. the big news here, we may have gone through essentially the first round of president obama's next nomination for the supreme court. if he picks him, he would be the first justice of south asian heritage, he is an indian american, only 46 years old. apparently does not have an enemy in the world, and the united states senate voted for him for a judge ship, 97-0, which bodes well for them voting for him again if nominated for the highest court in the land. watch this. all business purchases. so you can capture your receipts, and manage them online with jot, the latest app from ink. so you

for the suspects expulsion from russia we'll have the latest on the case in just a bit and the supreme court yesterday sided with monsanto against an indiana farmer it's a real life case of david versus goliath we'll hear what the farmer thinks of the ruling that's later in the show. it's tuesday may fourteenth eight pm in washington d.c. lopez and you are watching r t well we in with the latest developments coming from the associated press news organization the u.s. justice department sees the records of twenty phone lines connecting journalists and editors and ranging from washington d.c. to new york and even hartford connecticut between the months of april and may of last year those phone lines cover one hundred journalists who work in those bureaus though the exact number of people affected is still unknown the a.p. is one of the most highly recognized and respected news gathering agencies in the world so it was quite a shock to the journalism community last night when we discovered that the department of justice has been secretly monitoring the organization allegedly for trying to root

maybe the supreme court has talked about this? in 2009, the supreme court eliminated the sentence of life without the possibility of parole for non-homicide cases. for the first time, the supreme court sided adolescents -- cited adolescent neuroscience. a 12-year-old brain develops. you will watch its start to mature until you hit about 24 or 25. for those of you who are parents, you do not need a scan. for those of us who went to adolescence, we know it was a time of poor decision making. the supreme court used the picture of the brain in order to make the decision. there is this nice development over time that is associated with changes in composition and changes in how you process the world and make decisions. ok. now you have another client named george. he is a 55-year-old white male offender. he has a history of being in and out of jail. his iq is very low. george has a very low iq, they might have to refer to him as being retarded. he has arrested for murder and the prosecution is seeking the death penalty. the supreme cour

if the supreme court makes up its own laws and there is no authority above the supreme court, it becomes own god. >> and of course, in america today we have jetson the ten commandments taken supreme law giver and removed them. i remember being in one the great states in united states and being in the supreme court of the capital of this state. >> and the ten commandments were washed out of all of the literature that they had. they had this big board which they couldn't get rid of. the plaque. but it was all stroked out. because you know you can't allow god into law or the ten commandments. now, you can understand why there is such a big issue when it comes to it the matter of our supreme court justices. >> and because, whoever controls the laws to a good extent controls the country. now here's what breaks my our founding fathers would have never been able to pass the bar to get into the supreme court today. very fact that they believe the bible would have meant that they were disqualified. some of them home schooled their children with the disqualification. you go down the list. they wer

good to hear from you, a supreme court lawyer, talking to us from karachi. >> thank you. -- pleasure.e to a court in guatemala has found former president efrain rios montt guilty. we have this report from guatemala city. this was the scene after the judge read out the victory. believe that the accused was aware of what was taken place and did nothing to stop it. for the reason expressed, the judges believe the action of the accused meet the definition of genocide. the supreme said commander was responsible for the massacre of more than 1700 people. the judge also ruled that his forces carried out a strategy of rape and torture against the indigenous community and forced thousands of people from their land. with this ruling, guatemalan justice has taken a step forward and we hope that justice continues. >> efrain rios montt's supporters say his actions were those of a leader in the midst of a civil war. to power, the had government had been at war with 22 years,oups for the during 17 months in power, the fighting intensified and an estimated 17,000 people were killed. the war ended in 1

abc supreme court impose the death penalty mr.o-author of the book "murder at the supreme court" lethal crimes and landmark cases. ms. areas says she wants to be executed mr. o'brien, why not granted her request. >> bill, not so much that i oppose capital punishment i don't care it works. in our system a defendant doesn't get to choose what the punishment is. she can no super have her sentence determined to be the death penalty than she can have herself sentenced to 10 years in a caribbean villa. she could, however, tell her attorneys don't put on any defense. let the state have its way. were that to happen, well then you could have a long drawn out affair whether she is competent to make that decision. we will see. how it plays out. but she can't make the call. >> bill: all right. but, most people i would say say fine, if you want to execute jodi arias you should, brutal murder, unnecessary, snuffs out a human being's life. why give her any quarter at all? >> well, you want the system to be fair. there is a question as to whether

one week later, the same coalition was gathered on the steps of the supreme court to advocate and some of us to go in and hear the oral arguments to overturn the defense of marriage act. again, it was the coalition together we stood to end discrimination and expand freedom. a recognition for the fight or marriage equality, a fight for women's rights, voting rights are each chapters of the same struggle for civil rights, liberty, and justice for all. one year ago, around the same time, we gathered on the steps of the capital of the court, gathered on the steps of the supreme court to advocate for the affordable care act. honoring the vows of our founders, all of these, honoring the vows of our founders for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. in each case, we knew the legal battles were about the foundations of our democracy. we also knew that fundamental to our democracy is the middle class. middle class, the backbone of our democracy. we need to strengthen it. who do you think said this? it is manifest that the best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class

mr ross do you believe that the supreme court had a bad ruling. oh no not at all that was back in one thousand nine hundred eighty two and back then the internet didn't even exist it was a word that that wasn't even around at the time and i don't think that the supreme court justices at that time realized what was going to happen with the implementation of technology you know what's interesting is people talk about wanting to collect this tax and having some hard times because of software problems you know what if you order something online and you try to track that package it's amazing how instantaneously you can track that package the software the technology exists to implement this i think on an almost stress free basis but do i think the supreme court was wrong no no you know let me tell you something over the last two hundred thirty seven years the supreme court has had their decisions changed many times dealing with a lot of various issues that some of us would think would be important today so i think the supreme court in this particular ca

litigation in boston presented an ideal opportunity for this contrast to reach the supreme court. the district judge and the court of appeals had held explicitly that racial imbalance in the schools was itself a constitutional wrong and that the appropriate remedy was, therefore, to order that every class, everywhere in the schoolt system, have the same ratio of black and white students. each class had black and white student same ratio. but the real issue was the goal and not the means. many groups asked the solicitor general to support the school board until the supreme court to grant this in reverse not to undo the consequences of private choice. bob held the customary meetings. the attorney general took an interest. here is the problem. the school board had engaged in contempt of court by defining some aspects of the injunction. many residents have lost being engaged in violence. what should the united states do? it was a serious intellectual problem. with bob bork asking them to indicate his legal position, you might as well in a way that would appear to give support to defian

consequences for patents mood and farmers the supreme court today ruled unanimously that an indiana farmer violated agra giant monsanto's seed patents you know there are certain things that the law prohibits what it prohibits you're is making a copy. of the patented bench and that is what he did the case brought seventy five year old indiana farmer vernon you boman up against monsanto an enormous agricultural corporation that owns more than half the world seed market i don't know but i could see nothing what i'd done was wrong monsanto requires farmers to buy it's genetically modified seeds to resist this weed killer but bowman bought in planted second generation seeds from a grain elevator if they don't want me to go to the elevator and buy the grain then congress should pass a law saying you can't do it the ruling written by justice alina kagan says quote if simple copying were a protected use a patent would plummet in value after the first sale of the first item containing the invention the undiluted patent monopoly it might be sad but extend not for twenty years before only one