so i don't think it's supreme court specific. i do think those moments in time when the person who casually follows the court hears that there might be politics involved, which is to say the health care decision was a big instance of that. confirmation hearings, citizens united, bush v. gore, some of the ethics criticisms of the some of the justices. all of that particularly spun through a lens through the court's currently poor approval rating. >> terry has maybe studied more of this. i often am asked about things because they are trending by one of our social media people in the newsroom. when i look i see something that is either completely wrong or i think something that has been terribly taken out of context. and both from the liberal side nd from a conservative side. but that information goes out there and it becomes a real thing. and you wonder do you step in to correct it? do you let it run its tide and not contribute to it? i think those are sometimes tough decisions for those of us in the media. >> let me ask my colleagu

i don't think it's supreme court specific. think those moments in time when the person who casually follows the court hears be politics ght involved, which is to say the health care decision is a big of that. hearings tends to be big instance of that. v. gore.united, bush ethics and criticisms of some of the justices. they contribute to a court's current fairly poor approval rating. >> i would say too. this maybe studied more of than -- i often am asked about things because they are trending social media people in the newsroom. when i look, i see something completely wrong or i think something that has een terribly taken out of context. and both on a -- from the iberal side and from a conservative side. goes out nformation there and becomes a real thing. wondering, do you step in and correct it. o you let it run its tide and not contribute to it. i think those are sometimes tough decisions for those of us the media. >> actually, let me ask my colleagues -- there was a lot of either thomas or kagan should have recused him or the

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

that became a big supreme court issued. e court looked at it, accepted the case because it was an interesting question. then for some reason it did not decide the question. scented down to the lower courts for re-examination. i talked to the trial judge. he said, i've been scratching my head. they're reheard the case. eventually the louisiana supreme court made a decision that you could not medicate to execute. the supreme court did not make the decision in that case. >> guest: one of the things we uncovered when working in this case was that the inmate, the murderer was arrested here in washington d.c. he had come to town and was stocking supreme court justice sandra o'connor. i mean, that was -- she still participated. you would remember it because unfortunately things to happen with supreme court justice. martin was saying, his death sentence was later set aside by the louisiana supreme court. now we year is seen as a whole wing to himself in the georgia state penitentiary and and go up because he spins the wee hours of t

great privilege, it really was. >> >> rose: i love what you said, the great thing about being a supreme court justice is you get to do homework every day. >> i fold my son that about being a judge, i said my job because it describes the job of being a judge on an appeals court, including the supreme court, you read and you write, that is the job, i have my word processor behind me and i have briefs and endless reading in front of me and i did say that. i said if you do if your homework really good, you can -- >> rose: and do you believe a man for your own intellectual curiosity and intellect, this is the perfect job? >> i am very, very lucky to have this job, it is a perfect job, and if you say curiosity and intellect you mean you read or are interested in what other people are doing and you could find out through literature and you could find out by talking and you can find out by using your imagination and for an appellate judge, that is important, because when you are in that room as you are, and writing and reading what you are willing to write is going to affect other people. so it is ve

a handful of lawyers on the supreme court issuing edicts. the president of the united states legislating and ruling by fiat. congress involved in every aspect of our life. this is all contrary to the we can't defund it. you're stuck with it. but the more our government legislates and operates like this, the worse it gets. the barriers, the firewalls to the constitution have been breached. >> you talk and go in to great detail that the left has been the progressives, the statists, as you call them, have been successful. in other words, beyond their wildest dreams. which is why you say post-constitutional america. now, how does this give more power to the states and what was the anticipated? you quote the federalist papers a lot throughout the book. what were they intending by putting this specific process in to place that it could be used one day? >> first of all, they had to do this in part because the constitution would never have been ratified. at the state conventions, they were our framers, too. and these delegates to the state conventio

>> why a super majority to over ride the supreme court. in a regular supreme court case one unelected lawyer can shift the balance. >> today is zero. and i do respect the notion of the independence of the supreme court. i am not advancing the notion so i think there should be a higher threshold. there is no historical justification whatsoever and i would challenge any one to represent it to have one person on the supreme court shifting the nation radically on a host of issues that don't be long to the supreme court that be long to the state that is there. these are nine imperfect human beings, historically some have been imperfect. they have had great decisions and real dooz sees. i will give you an xav example. what if we had resource to dread scott short of the civil war? look at roe versus wade. whatever your opinion is your decision is divided because a handful of lawyers impose them well on the american people. i don't know how you can call this a constitutional republic when something of that narrow cures. traditional review is an im

[laughter] not yet the supreme court. is thegest symbol prohibition of any kind of broadcast coverage of the proceedings. we will delve into that later but i will say that it is crazy in this day and age that the court has not recognize the premier media of the 20th century even as we are well into the 21st. i would also say there is a prohibition but we cannot have an electronics within the courtroom. we cannot tweet like other courtrooms. we cannot do anything from within the court. very entrance -- in transient about that. website to the court as part of its website and it is very user friendly but quite often, you have to know the lingo of the court and how it to know where to look. if you look at other supreme court's around the world, you get much more. canada's high court offers curricula to elementary school teachers and others. australia has a mini documentary about its high court on its watt side and the south africa constitutional court gives you a wouldl tour which frighten the heck out of supreme court police

the supreme court was asked to take original jurisdiction.refused to do so, all of the cases went back to the district court, and it appeared there would be months and months if not well over a year before this matter could finally reach the state supreme court. the attorney general filed a brief with the supreme court at its request to advise the court as to whether or not it should take original jurisdiction. the supreme court listened to the brief, and then -- and in the briefing the attorney general of the state said that in his opinion under our equal protection provision of the new mexico state constitution that such laws prohibiting same-sex marriage were illegal. when i saw that and i saw that the case was back to the district court and then we're going to go through the normal litigation process of discovery, notions, i decided it was about time to move forward. i looked at the new mexico state constitution, and at the standard equal rights provision, and it has a very unique provision in addition. and that is a provision adopted by

supreme court precedent. and of course, it will not be binding outside of those regions, but it will certainly be a clue to other judges who are considering similar cases and how they might read the u.s. supreme court decision from june. >> bill duncan is the director of the marriage law foundation. i wonder if you could hang out for a couple of minutes and take some calls from c-span viewers. >> sure, of course. let's hear from ron from irving, texas. i have lived with my partner for teen years. obviously i support gay marriage. really addressing this as a rather we were born like this. i would say to them to go online and get educated. get educated about the 10 plus other countries in the world that have validated gay marriage. and there are other manimal's that live on this earth with us that are reported -- there are other animals recorded as gay. we came here to show that we love each other. what about some of these long-term same-sex couples? what is the legal answer for those folks? things about know h

talk about that part of what you are going to be working on. >> we saw the supreme court's ruling the last month or so. and i never really felt that sitting in marbled halls in the highest court of the land really qualified you to know the ne fa things. so we put together c 14 making sure we work with voter protection and voter registration. it is important know the voter repression steam rolled by the republicans does affect a person's ability to vote and the constant changing requirements to vote. >> absolutely. just as a final thought, we have heard a lot about in terms of the conservative rhetoric of makers versus takesers and back and forth between a northern republican governor and southern republican senator. but you know, when you look at the map in terms of, again, looking at the south and the number of people in the south who rely on government programs, actually, whether they want to -- whether the rhetoric wants it admit that or not, and the amount of money that the south sends to the federal government versus what they receive, again, it seems like there is an argument to

i want to add we're excited about getting marriage equality back it upholds this supreme court decision but you know there's a doma case and a lot of people fought about it but when we work together great things happen and in the doma case the court expressed a equal protection. so i'm really great deal of to the people who work so hard on the doma case and the people who were the plaintiffs in the cases and await us both working together we have this two part victory so we should celebrate both. thank you (clapping) >> we have, you know, we're blessed no san francisco to have amazing leadership. our mayor and former mayor and city attorney and the people in the city attorney's office office and then the leadership in this city on the board of supervisors level per we're going to hear from 3 of our members of the board of supervisors we need to thank them for making san francisco this amazing place to live. ground zero in which so much energy comes and for them to obviously tell us congratulate on this city and statewide and a country you wide vicious. please welcome president chiu (cla

constitution as determined by the supreme court. we go to where the reports of crime are. unfortunately, happen to be poor neighborhoods and minority neighborhood. >> mayor michael bloomberg. the nypd stop and frisk program violates the constitutional rights of minorities. a judge ruled monday that stop and frisk amounted to indirect racial profiling. she appointed a federal monitor o oversee the program and ordered police officers in certain precincts to wear body cameras for a year. all right. what are the practical implications of this for policing? >> well, let's put a couple of facts on the table ahead of this. one is an informal fact. anyone who comes to new york understands that it's a totally safe city. it's remarkable that a city of this size could be so safe. new york has the lowest rate since the early 1960s. in large part because of this policy which mayor mike bloomberg has had to fight to support for the entire last four years. he's been completely behind commissioner ray kelly against this opposition. now you had the judge's decision. we're having a mayoral

but not yet the supreme court. he biggest symbol of this glacial pace is the prohibition of any broadcast coverage of the proceedings. we can delve more into that later. it's crazy that the court has not recognized the premiere media of the 20th century as we are well into the 21st. i'd also say there is a prohibition not only in broadcast coverage but we cannot have any electronics in the courtroom. we cannot tweet like some of the other courtrooms like you were describing, we cannot do anything from within the court. so it's -- the court is very intransigent about that. not sure we'll see much hange. i'll mention the website. the court is proud in the website and the many ways it's user friendly. you have to know the lingo of the court and how it operates to even know where to look. but if you look at other supreme courts around the world, you get much more. canada's high court offers curriculum to elementary schoolteachers and other teachers. australia has a mini documentary about the high court about its website

supreme court.nclude nbc chief justice correspondent pete illiams, "new york times" supreme court correspondent, tony morrow.nd hosted by the association in journalism in mass this is an hour and 25 minutes. >> the supreme court as we know is a staid institution, not transparency and the adaptability to change, yet, e're living in an age of communications revolution. just think about what it was like 40 years ago with wall, no s on the internet, no twitter, no facebook. we watch the news? once in the evening. >> and you still should, by god. >> a little commercial message, yes. this estion is how is affected the court, or has it affected the court? and that's what we're going to today.bout how has this affected the court of the the job journalist in covering the u.s. supreme court. questions that arise from this topic. justices more transparent in the digital age than they were before? have they come out and become public because of the digital age? way as an t in some institution adapting to the ne

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

prisoners from its overcrowded prison system the supreme court refused to grant california an extension on an order issued by the just says more than two years ago for the state to release some ten thousand inmates from its overcrowded prisons the high court's original may two thousand and eleven ruling how they can just get conditions in california is thirty three prisons amounted to cruel and unusual punishment as defined by the eighth amendment the court gave the state two years to comply with in order to free the prisoners and alleviate the overcrowding now california argue that it has made progress on the problem and should be given more time to comply last week the state said that the process of beginning to identify thousands of inmates who are near the end of their prison terms and are at the lower risk of committing new crimes if they were released early that would be finished off in about two weeks now artie's ramon go lindo filled us in earlier on what the supreme court decisions means for the california's prison population. as you mentioned there was a divided opinion but al

law texas republicans put into place after the supreme court decision. a federal court in texas is reviewing the justice department's complaint. while that review goes on, the voter i.d. law in texas is going into effect. there's a fascinating little test case that's going to play out there this week. this is the ballot for a local city council race in the city of edinburg, texas. this tiny local election is going to be the first one in the state that will be held under the state's strict new voter i.d. laws. opponents of the law are planning to watch that election very closely to see what effect this new voter i.d. law has on the ability of minority residents to turn out and vote. the fight is also on right now in north carolina. that state's new voter suppression law is seen as even more draconian than the one passed in texas that the federal government is suing over right now. the north carolina law, and all of the national coverage of that law, has kicked up a wave of opposition in the state. last thursday, north carolina's republican governor pat mcc

he just argued before the united states supreme court. he had this opinion issue about whether not this is legal. and his wife was back at the hospital giving birth. and bill had rented a room at the sheraton right across from the courthouse, catty corner across from and. we discuss where we are going to meet and we decide that we're going to meet in his hotel room. that was kind of command central if you will. and later on we were joined by -- >> kind of ask for a minute, was the press anywhere around this? >> they were in the hotel, room 416 come because they wanted to avoid the press. spent they meaning stated the lawyers were in the hotel room. >> we went to great lengths to get there. bill, he took the tunnel underneath the capital and came out and had a driver to pull him inside the garage at the sheraton. >> but you're right across the street? >> yet, but i walked down the hallway behind judge morton's courtroom, downstairs, got anyone to come to the elevator down. we have a tunnel but also, went out, got in my car, drove out, turn

and months later he was put on the supreme court by next year and the court started ruling in a very very corporate way and as and that has been turned into an artform by by john roberts. how much credit do you give to that paul memo as being perhaps the opening shot in the silva of what became the reagan revolution tros very important you've written about is very important because what it did it laid out a plan from a utility lawyer he represented utilities and other big companies in richmond virginia and also brought him to the attention of nixon which led him to the supreme court so this is pretty important on that basis but what he did was he told the corporations they had to organize a huge public relations campaign which i call propaganda pay attention to the universities and to the students because you saw the rebellious coming out of the universities and t.v. had no more civil rights and they organized the big companies organized the business the round table very very high level lobbying effort. and then they beefed up a lot of the trade associations but they really want to w

i was just going to yes ratings don't ever tested so has you know there hasn't been enough supreme court kind of the you had this there's been various moving up through federal courts whether that process you know the clip click wrap contracts are in forcible or not and this last just kind of get into five but that's in the you know in the branch of the legislative branch there's been hardly anything moving forward about limits of you know what kind of collection should be allowed what kind of information should be allowed another analogy you could make is to mortgages credit cards where there was no legislation the last few years sort of forced. the companies to call out the biggest risks on your credit card statement or your mortgage bill you know so you know what interest rate pain that is not happening in privacy on the internet you know when you sign up for something you could you just see the huge twenty eight page term thing right arguably you know the important risk could be called the top and say ok we're going to share this information with third party at the bottom right of th

extraordinarily qualified to be a member of the supreme court. lot higher than it whenuring the bush tenure, they said they needed new judges. my response is, the caseload required those judges when it was a republican president. now we have a much higher caseload. a democratic president. we don't need it. we had two courts of appeal judges supported by republicans in other circuits. it went through easily. have thed not begin to caseload or complexity of the d c circuit. circuit. a lot of things ago through the administrative parts of our government go there, and that court can do more to work the will of the president or the will ofthwart the president or congress. fact,of the cases, in you, me or anyone else -- on drugs, healthcare goes to the d.c. circuit. they do not want a balanced court. or not asking for republican democratic court. i want one that is balanced. it's not balanced now. they're trying to keep it unbalanced. >> if republicans filibuster, should a rule change be on the table or off the table? >> rule change will come back on t

the state supreme court. his wife seen no governor's right, holding the bible, and the administration of the oath. >> so help me god. >> so help me god. .. open us to govern in the true spirit, amen. >> why is it so imperative that you take office now? >> united states attorney for the middle district of tennessee called me at noon and said he had substantial reason to believe governor blanton was about to let out of the state prison a person who was a target of a grand jury investigation and alleged payoffs connected with parole. with that information, i concluded immediately as i told the speaker and lieutenant governor that that was new and specific information that demanded i act as i could. >> what is your feeling tonight? >> in many ways a very sad moment in tennessee but in many other ways it is a great moment. it will be recorded that ray lamar -- ray blanton was his own worst enemy. broad this on himself, there was no other choice. the united states attorney today did what he had to do when they hear

and the supreme court ruled that california must release nearly ten thousand prisoners from its overcrowded prison system the release will come as a mass hunger strike continues in some california prisons and update on both sides of this story later on in the show. hello there it's monday august fifth four pm here in washington d.c. i'm marinate and you're watching our two. new reports over the weekend from the guardian show that house members looking for more information about vice accords were turned down by the house intelligence committee repeatedly now according to these reports the house intel committee also considered censuring congressman alan grayson of florida for distributing guardian reports of n.s.a. slides now this is information that's already published in major international newspapers now to house members representative morgan griffith of virginia and representative alan grayson repeatedly requested information about the n.s.a. from the house intelligence committee both congressman's were both congressmen and were denied access by the committee which turned down their reque

and the real failure here is the supreme court.upreme court, as you pointed out, has not spoken clearly. you need a 9-0 clear decision that no state will dare ignore. and the confusion of the supreme court cases is what's allowed the confusion. if the country can't move forward, had this was true in brown versus board of education. if the country can't move forward on its own, there are times when the supreme court has the moral obligation to do so and that's what we've got here. >> i think if there is a sort of upshot here it is that there are states, i think marmd wyland wae most recent state to ban the death penalty. i'd like your assessment of those efforts and how successful they may be in the long tell. >> you are absolutely right by using the word successful. we see victories like maryland's victory but there is a movement growing in this country, along with the movement around the world. and they're led by a number of different people, but mostly young people who are at the forefront and they're saying to their leaders and

but it was pulled before it 20 to theñr house, what affect does the supreme court ruling have? t give new hope or strength to people who want to make it legal in illinois? >> the three court decision in the doma case helps the political movement. it does it in some states in a very simple way. prior to the demise of the defense of marriage act, if illinois ghaiv protections to section couples in a civil union, you didn't get much in the way of different protections if you got a marriage. now, after doma is gone, if illinois give us same-sex couples civil unions, it gets all of the state protection and none of the federal protections that come with marriage. if illinois phillips to giving the freedom to marry to same-sex couples all of a sudden same-sex couples get all of the state and federal protections and there's a vast disparity even more than brvetion between civil union and marriage and i think that is going to mean there are a lot of sloars who are taking another look at this issue. >> professor, you heard jameses ex-say it grifs political strength to the pro-legalization

it deters a lot of bad activity. >> the supreme court did not strike down section 5.congress can come up with a new formula. success be measured by the expansion of our democracy. the real problem is people don't vote. i would measure success not as a restriction but an expansion. >> thank you for your time. you can keep the conversation going by logging on to our facebook. thank you for watching. see you shortly. ♪