it doesn't really apply at the supreme court. fundamentally the court is either going to uphold the defense of marriage act or it isn't. you can look at the votes and what the justices said about why they did what they did, it's right there in front of you and you can say, whereas you might question the motives of somebody in the cabinet department why they did something or didn't, and it would help to have sources and be independent and question them, you can see what antonin scalia said right there. you can look at his reasoning and challenge him on that because he's putting it right out in front of you. so that's one difference i think, one danger that doesn't really exist in the supreme court is becoming beholden to the institution in a way that the things you. >> to justices follow press coverage? >> yes. they do. they try to pretend like they don't, but we know that they read scotusblog. i don't know how many of them watch nbc news or read what tony writes about them, or read what "the new york times" writes about them. but

tom developed his practice by looking at the most likely route for cases to get to the supreme court d the lower courts are divided. one of the functions the supreme court sees for itself, harmonize how the law is enforced and viewed around the country. and so when that is what they call a circuit split, that's a likely case for the supreme court. tom developed a way to analyze the circuit split and to start saying maybe that's th a case tt can come to the supreme court. a lot of big law firms in washington were killed in a scotusblog. they had the people to do it. they had the smarts to do. they didn't do it. so one of the things we have to celebrate here today i think is the incredible spirit of entrepreneurship that kind to have brought to this, and they will never tell you that. but having imitators that have tried to be like scotusblog that have fizzled out in the heat of the sun pretty fast. so it's an enormous the congressman and they make it sound like it was just as easy as making breakfast. but the fact is it's a remarkable accomplishment. it has enormous credibility now. it

when you talk about the roberts court and yet he was -- he became a supreme court justice -- what does that say if it's the roberts court. b. with what is the history we oob i'm sure, he's not the first chief justice who arrived in court as -- >> there have been a few just ises promoted. william was one of them. typically they have been just picked out of a hat and all of a sudden it's chief justice. it's interesting it's a pattern that george washington established by naming john jay as chief justice -- first chief justice of the united states. the constitution article iii of the constitution actually doesn't say that. it says there shall be one supreme court. and article iii of the judicial article doesn't even mention the chief justice. it doesn't ascribe any functions to the chief justice. we only learn that there is a post chief justice because elsewhere the constitution it says that the chief justice preside over the trial of the presidential impeachment. so, you know, it scrolled been otherwise. there was six justices on the court. but, you know, on what it is. we kind of from t

in the supreme court itself.ally wanted to tell stories of how cases get to the supreme court and they don't land at the courthouse door fully bloomed, fully grown. it takes a lot of commitment by people involved, a lot of strategizing by lawyers. it's a hard slog often through the lower courts although some cases can get very complete depending on what happened in the lower courts. >> people may not realize the court takes only about one or 2% of all the cases we see. >> that's amazing when you consider they get on average about 8000 petitions every year from people who want the court to review their cases. as i was looking for the four cases, i wanted 5-4 decisions. i wanted those not to show that the court is always divided 5-4. it's not. in fact is you will find out in the book and as many of us who covered the court, more than 50% of the decisions issued by the supreme court are either unanimous 8-1 or 7-2. >> i had three unanimous cases yesterday. >> yes, so there's really a lot of consensus of across the c

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

constitution does not apply at all except in the has been use clause which the supreme court imposed.recently the position is that there's need for the military court to address the question at all. it's before getting to the whole discussion of whether or not that applies. and so here you have a court takes place, a trial taking place pretrial proceedings where the body of law that governs it remains intha -- somewhat a mystery. are they governed by the constitution. which part. if not, why not. and that, of course, makes it a fascinating story to tell as a legal reporter. all right. nathan, you want to handle the question splication? >> at guantanamo, we have some residents being brought to the trial, but we also have stateless yemenis and people who were swept up and it was decided we're not a threat and could be released. what right closet they -- rights do they have to get out of guantanamo? >> well, that's an interesting point. what rights do they have? well, so far, i mean, these are people who have not been criminally charged. this is an important distinction. there are about

they are also important to the supreme court for his strange reason. it is the first time that the justices top of each other -- talk with each other. in some court, especially overseas, the justices talked efore they hear arguments. we do not. art of the argument is ommunicating with your colleagues about what you think about a case. in conference, when we sit down together for the first time, we follow a pretty stylized ormat. we go round the table and everybody speaks once before anybody can speak twice. if you are like me, eight people will have spoken and cast a vote by the time i get to say anything. that means if i wanted to think about a certain thing, if i have what i think is a bit of an unusual take on a case, a take that has not been presented so much in the brief, i will try to use oral arguments to preview it, if you will. i am trying to get people to think about it. many of my colleagues do the exact same thing. sometimes you feel sorry for these lawyers. they are standing on the podium. it is kind of an excuse for us to be having a conve

but it was upheld by the supreme court of the united states in a most unusual fashion. let's talk about that for just a moment. a number of states and a few others banded together and challenged in federal court a few years ago congress's power to enact certain provisions of the patient protection and affordable care act. among those provisions that they challenged were the individual mandate. the argument was, congress lacks the power asserted by congress in the affordable care act pursuant to article 1,section 8, clause 3, the commerce clause, to tell individual americans that they must buy a product -- health insurance; not just any health insurance but that specific kind of health insurance that congress in its infinite wisdom deemed absolutely essential for every american to purchase. so it asserted that congress lacks this power under the commerce clause. the lawsuit also alleged that congress lacked the power to tell states that the states had to expand their medicaid programs and gave the states no choice; that this, too, violated the constitution; that it exceed

supreme court? for more i'm joined on our new york set here by michael price, counsel for the brennan center's policy for rights. we are giving this to transnational corporations to can't the government have it too? >> well i think this opinion is one in a debate that is going to the supreme court. but already we see that the decision is a bit of an outlier. if you consider the trend that we've been seeing towards nsa reform out of all three branches of government, it does seem to buck that trend a little bit. and as you mentioned there's the decision from judge leon just earlier this month finding that the program was likely unconstitutional, there's also legislation moving through contract that would limit the nsa's ability to collect data in bulk like this and a group of experts appointed by the president did an investigation of this program and determined, also just this month, that it hadn't actually made us any safer and should be stopped. >> so you think this will go to the u.s. supreme court

most supreme court books focus on the nomination process or what is happening in the supreme court itself. but i wanted to tell stories of how the cases get to the supreme court. they don't land at the door fully grown. it takes a lot of commitment by the people involved. a lot of strategizing and it is hard slaw through the lower court. some cases get there quickly depending on what happened in the lower court. >> the court only takes 1-2 percent of all of the cases that reach them. >> they get about 8,000 petitions every year. as i was look for the four cases, i wanted 5-4 decisions. i wanted them not to show the court is always divided by four. it isn't, and in fact, as you will find out, more than 60% of the decisions issued are unanimous or close to that. i wanted 5-4 decisions because that is where we learn the most about individual justice and how they view certain provisions in the constitution and how they approach their job. i wanted signature decisions of the robert court. the court under john robert, jr. and these four cases will always be associated with the robert court. and

they are also important to the supreme court for a strange reason. it is the first time that the they hearalked before each other. in some courts, especially overseas, the justices talked before they hear arguments. we do not. part of the argument is communicating with your colleagues about what you think about a case. in conference, when we sit down together for the first time, we follow a pretty stylized format. we go round the table and everybody speaks once before anybody can speak twice. if you are like me, eight people will have spoken and cast a vote by the time i get to say anything. that means if i wanted to think -- if i want them to think about a certain thing, if i have what i think is a bit of an unusual take on a case, a take that has not been presented so much in the brief, i will try to use oral arguments to preview it, if you will. to get people to think about it. many of my colleagues do the exact same thing. sometimes you feel sorry for these lawyers. this lawyer is standing on the podium. it is kind of an excuse for us to be having

eventually does the supreme court decide to hear it? >> there are several other cases pending. these two will take the lead and go to federal appeals courts in new york and washington. if they disagree, it surely goes to the supreme court, and if any appeals court strikes down a major national security agency program, the supreme court's very likely to take it, but there's another scenario, too, which is that the washington decision striking down the program starts to look like an outlier and if all the appeals courts say, no, it's okay, maybe the supreme court stays out of it. >> and the supreme court is likely to do what in terms of they are very, very cautious about challenging previous decisions that they've made. >> that's true, although just in 2012 in a case involving gps devices, five different justices, albeit in concurring opinions, expressed hesitation about this old rule, saying that new technology might require re-examination of the idea that merely because third parties know our data, we lose an expectation of privacy in it. >> if this issue does make it to the sup

terms of obama or anyone else couldn't even get through nominations for regular courts though supreme court. >> the presidential elections do matter. >> hi, i'm jim. my question deals with roberts vote on the health care issue. do you think he was motivated by the fear that the court began to look like a political entity rather than a jurisprudence entity? >> you're welcome to speak to this too. it's probably one of the most common questions we get, isn't it? >> yeah. do i think so? no. i take him at the word. i take him as sincerely trying to grapple with the issues presented in that case. i think he was first inclined to vote with the four conservatives and strike the law down as violating the commerce clause. when they came back and staid means entire law goes, not just the mandate, and not just the provisions of the law that are economically tied to the mandate guaranteed issue and community rating. but we're going take down the entire statute. i think -- my sub decision. i haven't been able to do any reporting on it. my position was it was too much for him. he's more of a minimalist th

now, a lot of issues involving international law, those get to the supreme court or to the federal courts at all, partly because they are largely political issues. but it is also partly because the court has developed a series of doctrines that screen out the kind of cases, these doctrines including the idea that the person bringing a constitutional talent has to be injured by the illegality that is alleged. the issue cannot be, as the court puts it, a political question which is left to the congress or the president to resolve. those devices keep a fair number of important issues of international law away from the supreme court. host: john is from owings, maryland, on our line for independents this morning. you are on with mark tushnet. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i have a question about comparing and contrasting judicial activism, jury nullification, and the role of the supreme court in these issues. guest: ok, so -- i am pausing because i want to make sure i can get the analogy correct. i guess the idea is that when a jury engages in jury nullification, it is setting its judgment

we're the only people who materially cover the supreme court in the thinnest way that the supreme court itself refuses to recognize. we don't have a press credential at the court. the court has followed a rule that says if you have a senate press credential that you will be credentialed by the supreme court. we've got the senate credential earlier this year and then applied to the court's press office at which point the court announced it was reviewing the credentialing practices. i think genuinely, the court is an institution that is very staid. its entire premise is that things shouldn't change that much. during the same-sex marriage case, i was gone -- i was not going to wait for them to report it. i was waiting for scotusblog -- so explain the nuts and bolts. >> the courtroom itself is a all caps. there are no electronic vices around. nots are for the most part in the courtroom. they are outside. is the point that the chief justice system at the justice in the has the opinion united states vs, windsor, they start handing out the opinions to the press corps. lyle will get his copy of

i never thought he was fitted to be a supreme court justice at all. to think you can tax the american people and to let the like bk gp --e on the kgb, i no longer have faith in the court. this the absolute worst thing that is ever occurred. i saw earlier something on their that somebody sent in on twitter. or one of those. was justice roberts threatened? i have wondered that exact same thing. we have lost faith. anyone could make that type of decision and think it is ok. millions of people are against it. we wanted it repealed. that comes from a person who comes left or right. right now, i am leaning up. i do not know which way. think the only thing we can say in response to that , thevation is that constitutional issues which is all i am concerned about about whether congress can impose a tax this year is like $95 on people who do not purchase issue --surance, that that constitution issue is relatively straightforward. judgmentters from that , they did not express a view on the constitutional question. what they said was that it was unreasonable to in

the supreme court struck down the defense of marriage act and allowed california's proposition 8 to fall. rhode island, delaware, minnesota, hawaii, illinois, all passed laws allowing same-sex marriage. new jersey dropped its appeal of a court order to allow same-sex marriages. the new mexico supreme court ruled in december that same-sex couples in the state could legally marry and the most recent and stunning development a federal judge in utah ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. and hundreds of couples have gotten married since that ruling came down on december 20th. the state is appealing the decision but for now the weddings are happening. 18 states in the district of columbia have marriage equality now, and the federal government recognizes those marriages as legal. it was less than ten years ago that massachusetts became the first state to allow marriage equality. now that's at least something to celebrate for the new year. joining me now is kenji yoshino, the chief justice earl warren professor of constitutional law at nyu school of law. tremain le

let's start, justice ginsberg, the supreme court of the united states. your court handle the most difficult and most ontroversial questions of our day and of our society involving voting, property, ra ace, freedom, campaign contributions, all of those thin things. about this pecial court? despite the fact you decide hese controversial questions, the supreme court of the united states is the most respected nstitution in our government and has been for a long time. tell us about why that is. >> i would add that it is respected highst court in the world. one reason is that we have been in passing on laws an executive actions for constitution constitutionality. in most countries in the world supremacy was deeply rooted, and it was not world war ii that inrts abroad began to engage judicial review for constitutionality. so, just to take a few notable cas when president truman that the country was at war in korea and could not risk strike in the steel plants, so the steel mills and the was challenged and court held, mr. president, you o not have that authority

let's talk about the venerable practice at the supreme court known as the summer recess. you are, as i understand it, a famously collegial group of justices. in spite of your sharp disagreements, there are no scorpions in a bottle on this court. all of those really hard and closely-divided cases at the end of the term must produce some frayed nerves and the need to separate for a while. is that fair? >> well, i never have a problem with it. i mean, you know, i do not know. i did not ever have a problem with it. [laughter] >> i get out of there as soon as i can. [laughter] [applause] >> no, but the truth is that, actually, we always have a very pleasant visit before the end of the term. there are some people that you want to take your leave from at the end. [laughter] >> you have a different way of unwinding over the summer recess. some of your colleagues retreat to teaching excursions in europe and so forth. you have a very different style. >> i go to europe sometimes, only to come back. [laughter] i would not be characterized as a europhile or whatever they call it. i lik

you know, yet to steven's point about the supreme court, it is not unusual for the supreme court to askation to weigh in on a case that the administration has not already weighed in on. >> and they might not take the case. >> they may not take the case. it is certainly an indication when they do ask the administration to weigh in on something, it is often an indication it is something they do want to take up and they want to know the administration's position before doing so. >> tony buckley writes in regarding the family. is there a winning argument, charles, against the administration's position they're taking? if so, what is it? >> i think the argument is a rather complicated one. an interesting one. i think ultimately it's a question of whether a personal interpretation of your religion would be the grounds for giving you asylum on the grounds of persecution. or whether it has to be a widespread one. for example, if germany had denied the family the ability to declare the godhood of christ, it would be no question that would be persecution of a christian on the grounds of his religi

running out because if it's in a statutory level, so that plays keep away from the united states supreme court. which we don't think is ready. so, in so far as these were statutes, it could be struck down under state provisions, but if there's a big dent, there's no way that a court could actually use a institution. >> so, all of those state amendments passed like in 2004 when everybody thought it was a big republican get out the vote effort, that was the consequence of that. there can never be a state court ruling that gives gay people equal rights. >> exactly. so what you need in these 30 states is the nuclear option of bringing a federal constitutional claim. where federal law clashes with state law, but the danger is if you litigate on federal constitutional grounds that can go to the united states supreme court. >> is that what's going to happen here? >> there are so many after windsor and hollingsworth, there have been so many. they have already joined a case in virginia, so they're betting that case will get to the supreme court before this one does or others will. the big deal about th

let's talk about the venerable practice at the supreme court known as the summer recess. you are, as i understand it, a famously collegial group of justices. there are no scorpions in a bottle on this court. all of those really hard and closely-divided cases at the end of the term must produce some frayed nerves and the need to separate for a while. is that fair? >> i never have a problem with it. i mean, you know, i do not know. i did not ever have a problem with it. [laughter] >> i get out of there as soon as i can. [laughter] >> the truth is that, actually, we always have a very pleasant visit before the term. there are some people that you want to take your leave from at the end. >> you have a different way of unwinding over the summer recess. some of your colleagues retreat to teaching excursions in europe and so forth. you have a very different style. >> i go to europe sometimes, only to come back. [laughter] i would not be characterized as a europhile. i like the united states. [applause] i have nothing against the other countries, but i love the united states. i lo

the supreme court didn't have that.id you can still do it but it raised the bar universities have to clear in order to justify affirmative action. it certainly didn't stop affirmative action. there's now a pending question about whether a state can block affirmative action by constitutional amendment. the court will decide that this term. >> coming up next in the coming year, what are the big cases aside from affirmative action that are going to reach the court or reach decision stage. >> i think the most interesting one is the challenge to the part of obama care that requires employers of 50 people to provide contraceptive coverage. there were dozens and dozens of lawsuits against this around the country filed by businesses who say it violates their religious freedom in order to provide this coverage. now, first of all, there's an interesting question here. does a business have a religious belief, does it have religious freedom. some courts said, no. that's an individual view. crazy to say a business has religious free

i want to get this supreme court justice on the supreme court and a lifetime appointment. i want to appeal your ruling because i'm sick and tired of the other side not cooperating with me on what i want done, i've had enough of it; i'm going to get my way. my team is together. they're all going to vote just like me, and even though your ruling was correct under our rules, we're going to set that aside. we are going to vitiate it, and we're going to get our way because my team -- my team -- is in control. that's where we're at today. you see, these rules have been changed over time. they were changed in accordance with our rules. i see the leader is here. madam chairman, i will yield the floor. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader of th. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on the patterson nomination that at 5:00 p.m. on monday, december 16, all postcloture time be considered expired, the senate then proceed to vote on the confirmation of the patt

be a supreme court justice i had no interest in a judge. a judge david babylon wanted me to be myself and being myself was always being contentious, confrontational and as you remember from reading the book i say there are two characters, there is this character the when you see on television pointing his finger and over talking the next guy always trying to get the last word and then the last alan whomever wins an argument with his family and is a complete and total pushover and heats confrontation at home or with my friends and i try to live a life that balances the character and the real alan ala. the one who gave the book a good review says that she wishes that more of the book has been written by the real alan rather than the character and that is a fair point i think mostly of the dersh character of the book. so if you want to read a book you really don't want to read about boring al when his children balsam around you really much prefer to read about the character and even more interesting guy. >> it feels like mall and they face the

let's talk about the venerable practice at the supreme court known as the summer recess. you are, as i understand it, a famously collegial group of justices. in spite of your sharp disagreements, there are no scorpions in a bottle on this court. all of those really hard and closely-divided cases at the end of the term must produce some frayed nerves and the need to separate for a while. is that fair? >> well, i never have a problem with it. i mean, you know, i do not know. i did not ever have a problem with it. [laughter] >> i get out of there as soon as i can. [laughter] [applause] >> no, but the truth is that, actually, we always have a very pleasant visit before the end of the term. there are some people that you want to take your leave from at the end. [laughter] >> you have a different way of unwinding over the summer recess. some of your colleagues retreat to teaching excursions in europe and so forth. you have a very different style. >> i go to europe sometimes, only to come back. [laughter] i would not be characterized as a europhile or whatever they call it. i lik

comment. >> they're the supreme court. >> christine and i were talking about this issue.g is forcing congress to act. it's the purview of congress. and what they're saying is, look, we have a judicial job to do which is to determine constitutionality. but you guys in congress, if you want you've formality among states, that's up for you to decide. and new york state, of course, we have the online tax and that was challenged. it was upheld by the court of appeals. in illinois, however, they attempted to model a law right after new york concerning online retailers and it was struck down. that's why there was some hope whenever there's a sorts of a patch work of different states having different laws, the supreme court steps in. but they said, you guys in congress, you decide. >> and you're looking at a 20-year-old ruling. >> that guy. >> and online commerce has changed so much since then. back then we said don't tax it because it will kill the internet. no one is going to kill the internet. >> the internet lives. >> it thiefz. and i love the timing that this all happened ye

if they don't like the action of the supreme courts, they will appeal the supreme court to the u.n. they say, well, that's what we do in this a democratic process. that's what the people of the land do in a democratic process. that's not what is done from boston and san francisco is we pull the strings on what is and is not going to be done with the legitimacy of israeli law, a law, by the way, that goes back to the beginning of the judeo-christian ethic. i hope that answers your question. is there another question here? do you have a question? with that, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for having me. i hope to come back to a hearing room soon. thank you. [applause] >> is there a than fiction author or book you'd like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail at and they're not my keywords. arbaugh's words. i asked a couple of questions. when you look at the constitution empower the president, does the president have the power to transform america? of course not. why would you want to fundamentally transform? you don't like america very much, do you? you i capitalism, p

the supreme court always waits until the circuit courts of appeal address the issue.y be that both courts find the same way, in which case it's unlikely the supreme court will step in. if they both uphold the program, i think it's less likely that the supreme court gets involved. if they disagree or both find that it's unconstitutional, i think the supreme court will almost certainly take the case. but we're talking about a year before it's before the supreme court. these appeals take a while. >> you said courts aren't normally in the habit of overturning something like this. you would expect that the deck might be, say, stacked against the aclu or someone arguing on behalf of privacy? is that correct? >> i think that's right. when you executive branch, here the nsa, invoked national security, that's something most courts of very reluctant to disturb. it's true the judge in washington did say this is orwellian, this is too much, but most courts defer to the executive branch. i would say the odds favor both appellate courts upholding the program, but, you know, we've s

the supreme court will decide. arere employed by these companies are legally entitled to no cost estimate approved contraception coverage. >> the obama administration moves to rein in tax-exempt organizations. immigration rereform and the limitations of the pesidency. >> if in fact i could solve these problems without passing laws in congress, then i would do so. new pope on trickle- down economics. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> " the wall street journal" calls president obama possibly a with iran a triumph. "the new york times" says that the deal will make the safer -- the world safer for now. lindsay graham does not buy it. with peoplealing who are untrustworthy and this is a m murderous regime. it has not made thehe world a safer plplace. >> i believe in wh kennedy once said, let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate. jerusalem post" says this may slow down iran, but all more than likely provide false impression that there has been headway while

the supreme court gets visitors from around the world. i have met with school children as young as second grade. grammar school, high school, college, professional not just law schools, i meet with students who are going to be doctors, with students who are going to be businessmen. i meet with groups of all kinds that are represented in this society who come to the court and meet with the justices to have conversations about what we do. we get visitors from around the world, judges from around the world. i told you earlier that people around the world read our cases and study our legal system, and they come to our court looking to meet with us and to talk to us and for each of us to learn from each other. and i travel. i travel to law schools, i travel to bar association groups. i travel to other kinds of groups as well because i want to reach out and teach people about the law and about how it makes me so passionate about what i do. you know, if in one meeting with people i can get them to understand our legal system a little bit better,

the case that was before the supreme court last year and the decision they made was on the fundamental foundation of the law. let's remember there is a chance that the entire law can get thrown out. this is a very careful point of the law. if you believe contraception can or cannot be covered, this is an important issue. what the justices decide, i do not think it will fundamentally change the law or make its future more or less certain. >> last question. november 30 was the self-imposed deadline by secretary sebelius on fixing healthcare.gov. how important is it to the actual success of the law but it works this time around for people? >> you have to look at the folks who are running around the states who are in the same position as the people who are more anxious than anybody. it is extremely stressful for the administration setting the deadline. it keeps them calm thank you to them from supporting legislation that has more fundamentals of the law. >> the indications are that it will still be problematic going forward. there are probably going to be other things that are not going to

he never lived to see the court work in the supreme court building that he is the one that really got that underway and give the court its own place in washington, d.c.. like being first lady more than william taft liked being president? what was her lifelike -- life like after he became chief justice rustem or >> very quiet. the wives did not have a public role. they did not entertain. hes -- taft's view as that issued opinions and help to get the supreme court building. that was about it for society is follow -- as far as the supreme court was concerned. >> being first lady is what she wanted to do. she did not have a big ambition other than to lead a quiet life. i was channel surfing and iq upon your program. wonderful, congratulations. i will be tuning in for all the episodes. >> thank you. work going. thank you. >> thank you for the call. appreciate it. she was a lucky lady healthwise even though she suffered two strokes. she outlived her husband and lived until the ripe old age of 81. how did she spend those years? >> interacting with her children and grandchildren. murrayntinue

and the supreme court, you still need 60 votes to get to the vote. that fundamentally changes the way that the senate works? >> it does. but, look, anytime a party changes rules that benefit that party, they later come to regret it when the next party is in power. and i have to say, this moment, i think, is sort of illustrative of why folks are so uninspired by congress, because process politics is uninspiring stuff. this really doesn't include -- >> -- only thing four of us can soundly agree on, is the senate working? no. >> no. it's not working, because it's ground to a halt from filibusters. i mean, we have huge -- the huge abuse of filibusters. so, i think this is an issue, you should come back next year and say, are things working better, because people can actually get through a process and we can have a functioning government, because you can then have cabinet secretaries instead of people just -- there's no one home at these agencies, because we have crazy use of filibusters. >> all of the president wanted and what harry reid and the democrat

moving on now to the supreme court. gay rights. i mean just fundamental shift in this the subject that seems to me not just as at the supreme court but elsewhere. >> so fundamental that you saw a number of republicans come in and out favor of gay marriage. it's revolving on that issue. it really has been a water shed year for that issue. i think it's interesting that in 2016 you'll have democrats who for the first time have to run as being in favor of gay marriage. that wasn't true in the last election. it's interesting. >> i think what's amazing will be exactly as you say, this will be a wedge issue on the republican side. ten years ago we had republicans pushing a federal marriage amendment in the senate to ban gay marriage. now it's become an issue. 40% of the country is going to be in states that are tolerant of gay marriage. and that number is only going to grow. i think it's absolutely okay. every democrat, i believe, will be for same-sex marriage. the question will be the libertarian brand of the republican party support thi

supreme court ruling that will finish the job. en the court decides america is ready they'll finish the job. i think it's the couples telling their stories, talking about why marriage is is important to them and their families. so it's not one moment. it's many, many moments added up together. >> 2013, you just mentioned the number of states that allow same-sex marriage and the jump we saw. at this point, any idea in 2014 whether any additional states will follow suit, and if so, where will those be? >> no question oregon is next on the list. right now, there are so many court challenges that it's anybody's guess. >> what about the deep south? what's happening in the deep south right now? >> we are launching an effort from the deep south to build public support. i think a lot like utah, people will be very surprised to see how much support there is and the people are fine with it. even in the deep south as people might say. even in utah. >> because you know that's how a lot of folks on the outside will measure i think whether this

i find that the supreme court proceeds without reference. >> if the supreme court goes farther i willsk them to solve our water problem. there are increased rights. we have freedom of speech, you and i. but if we continue in the policy i can expect some day that the court will rule that you and i have the right to force these people to listen. i do think we have the right. >> yes. sometimes they come close to that implication. i agree. there again when you ran for governor you backed an ant anti-pornography law. the chances of getting one through are slight considering the supreme court's position on such matters which once again brings up the question can somebody be a successful governor. are we walking into a situation where theoretically you might be leched unanimously and having been elected unanimously on a pam of, let's say ten reforms you may find all ten of them are all forbidden. either practically or legally. legally because the supreme court has ruled that you can't pass anti-pornography but you can't finance these reforms. do you think ten or 20 years from now the office

supreme court who openly say now that we are not so much slaves to every court decision that has been decided ahead of us to say now i'm sorry we were wrong in that decision and go back to a time before the most recent supreme court decision. so that actually gives me some hope that some of this is the challenge say in a legal sense. we now have some justices on the supreme court that might be willing to as you say call back or roll back the clock to some decisions that have been made. the second hopeful sign that this is always painful to wait for it is there is kind of a pendulum or -- i have have a potential review of history how it goes so far and finally it's enough that i will say just a quick story. i'm from california. the california republican party has apparently hit rock autumn. there's a two-thirds democratic majority in the legislature. at the hoover institution we have ahead of the american republican party and we were giving him a brilliant ideas about how they could do a better job. he said i just have one goal. i had forgotten how many seats they had to win to undo th

supreme court and while the two main characters here are of course because of the only bit of will with credit cards. week ago has been freed he's currently outside of russia for him. lifting these tax claims which are still there from these cases this would mean possibly an opportunity for him to return home without being afraid of not being allowed to leave russia this is basically if he reason for not coming back just now and do not pay the taxes. i mean he's been saying that he could come back to russia but he doesn't want to get stuck here because apparently he doesn't want to pay these taxes since apparently he doesn't have to but this has to be still officially decided he just doesn't want to get stuck here because the local local legislation here anyone. the state in taxes they are not allowed to exit the country so this is what all this means what about now for quite only a bit of his former associate who is still in jail this may mean an early release from prison ok and just speculation here at sensually they could that ask perhaps for some kind of compensation maybe if the co

supreme court. especially with the -- finished by the u.s. supreme court. the agency has been collecting phone records for some time now. tapping into conversations as part of the war on terror. but do it do so in contradiction to the constitution? mike viqueria reports. >> metadata is likely in violation of the constitution, specifically the fourth amendment prohibitions against unlawful search and seizure. no court has ever recognized a special need to sufficiently justify continuous daily searches of virtually every american citizens. it is important in the ruling that judge lee oaf leon stayed s ruling. giving the government a chance to appeal. they have seen the court ruling they are studying it they go on, quote, we believe the program is constitutional as previous judges have found. we have no further comment at this time. they add for background, the fisa court that hears appeals and when the intelligence community wants to go for warrants, and other investigative tools, to look into potential terrorist threats or security threats they go to the fis

[laughter] let's start with the supreme court of the u.s. you and your court handled the most difficult and most controversial questions of our day and of our society involving life, death, voting, property, race, freedom, and campaign contributions -- all of those things. what is so special about this court despite the fact that you decided controversial questions? the supreme court of the u.s. is the most respected institution in our government and has been for a long time. tell us about why that is? >> i would add that it is probably the most suspected high court in the world. one reason is that we have been involved in passing on laws and executive actions of constitutionality. in other countries in the world, parliamentary supremacy -- it wasn't until world war ii that courts abroad began to engage in judicial review for constitutionality. just to take a few notable cases, when president truman decided that the country was at war in korea i could not risk a strike at a steel plant, he took over the steel mills. that was challenged. the c

we learned the supreme court is set to review it. we will hear the case may be as early as march. what does this add to the mention of understanding what the provisions of the law actually will be? is there a possibility that the review will go farther? who supported the requirements, they are very concerned of the consideration. you can our group does argue whether there's some debate over whether they can have this on their own. did would see this as they with the legislative amendment that was put forward. they're certainly very nervous about it. >> it is important to keep in mind that there has been a lot of talk of the law is back before the supreme court. the case that was before the supreme court last year and the decision they made was on the fundamental foundation of the law. chanceemember there is a that the entire locking get thrown out. this is a very -- law can get thrown out. this is a very careful point of the law. if you believe contraception can or cannot be covered, this is an important issue. what the justices decide, i do not think it will fundamentally change

if you fly supreme court may have a message for you about legal action. is it legal? then, krauthammer on the atheist movement in usa. why is it so hateful towards christian hz? stay tuned. >> stossel and i were talking in the hallway. you think it's going to survive? >> you and carl rove think it's going to implode >> i say no government program ever goes away. but that doesn't matter if folks rebel against it, handcuffing president obama can't do anything. that is what i think may happen. >> once people saying my deductible is up, i can't pick my doctor, both parties rush in with subsidies. >> they're never going to get that through the house. >> he's never going get subsidies through the house. >> with health care, i hope you're right. >> we move forward? >> there is not one republican that voted for obamacare originally. not one. you say now republicans are going to vote into this law? there is no way. they're not going to do that. >> based with all my client has to pay this much? >> they're going to blame it on obama. >> they'll have to solve it, government must

supreme court cuts key part of landmark voter rights act with the conservatives in the majority. court ruled in favor of officials in shelby county, alabama, i declaring unconstitutional parts of the law. the formula that starts -- the formula needs federal approval. you can join the conversation by phone. , for republicans. , for democrats and 202-585-3882 four all others. for all others. caller: voters down here in the south, you have to show those things. what i wanted to ask is this. you made your vote. when you made your vote, that counted. now we have elect oral colleges of their -- elect oral -- el ector colleges up there. they have taken it out of the hands of the people. you cannot have a good independent party because everybody wants to say, if you are independent, you are taking a vote away from a republican or a democrat. toral college is in the constitution. they could not figure out how to elect the president. it was possible to have congress pass certain votes about the president. that would make the president too dependent on congress. they had not produced good re

supreme court. this is the "cbs morning news." court. this is the "cbs morning news." going to the kmart winter sales event? good. get up to 60% off winter apparel, and shop your way members get 10% back in points. kmart. get in. get more. >> as a kid, i made a list of all the places i wanted to visit. i'm still not gonna make it to mars, but, thanks to hotwire's incredibly low travel prices, i can afford to cross more things off my list. this year alone, we went to the top of the statue of liberty and still saved enough to go to texas, to a real dude ranch. hotwire checks the competition's rates every day so they can guarantee their low prices, so we got our four-star hotels for half price. next up, hollywood! >> men: ♪ h-o-t-w-i-r-e, hotwire.com. ♪ >> man: save big on car rentals too, from $11.95 a day. turn to roc® retinol correxion®. one week, fine lines appear to fade. one month, deep wrinkles look smoother. after one year, skin looks ageless. high performance skincare™ only from roc®. take skincare to the next level with new roc® multi correxion® 5 in 1, proven t