supreme court, and his articles have appeared in top legal journalism -- journals. orin who randy barnett describe as a one man would court with respect to this debate will discuss what role academics and commentators played in the run up to this case, and he will compare that with the role that academics and commentators have played in other supreme court cases. last bus or in at least we were there from randy barnett, randy is a professor of legal theory at george -- georgetown university law center where he teaches on a whole variety of subjects. is a graduate of northwestern university and harvard law school. he began his crew as a prosecutor in the cook county state attorney's office in chicago. in 2004, he argued the medical marijuana case before the supreme court in that case featured rather prominently in terms of the analysis for the obamacare case. he is the author of over 100 articles and law reviews as well as nine books, and randy will discuss the role that politics played in the litigation. with that please join in welcoming our panel and then we will t

we all know the supreme court, we think we know the supreme court upheld the affordable care act, so what's the point of the book? the news i is and people of you know any people in the room already know, but after you may not know is that we succeeded actually in our legal argument in the case, paradoxically. there were always two different issues in this lawsuit. one was to say -- save the country from obamacare, and the second was to save the constitution for the country. by the constitution, i mean the enumerated powers given in the constitution this is that congress only has limited and enumerated powers. in the arguments that were being offered by proponents of the affordable care act constitutionality, both the government and academic enablers are using arguments that would've virtually eliminated the enumerated powers theme of the constitution. so if we are lost this case in a certain kind of the way we would've not only inflicted this egregious and completely misnamed patient protection and affordable care act on the country, but in addition at the same time we would've elim

so that is what the constitution says and what the supreme court has said and what the supreme court meant. the third sense of the constitutionality is are there five votes to strike down block or uphold law that is the third sense of constitutionality. now when i interviewed by reporters whether to manage the constitution or not do you predict it is going to go down or predicted is going to stay at? and unfortunately, that is what most of the law professors when they are quoted in the press they can find the ticket to the predicted the screen to be upheld or struck down? but that is a separate sense of the constitutionality then the first to come in and we need to keep them separated in part because i can think it is the case the politics does enter into the third of these three senses as to whether there are five votes or not five votes to strike and validate. as i noted early on in this book, and in the post those who were confidently predicting the supreme court would never invalidate the law i think we're not taking into account the politics of the situation. they were assuming

we know the supreme court, we think we know that the supreme court there's two issues at stake in the lawsuit. one was to say the country from obamacare, and the second was to save the constitution for the country. by "the constitution," i mean enumerated power scheme in the constitution that says that congress only has limited and enumerated powers, both issues were always in play because the arguments that were offeredded by the proponents of the affordable care act constitutionality, those, both the government and its academic enablers were using arguments that would have virtually eliminated the enumerated power scheme of the constitution, and so we -- if we'd lost this case in a certain kind of a way, we would not only inflicted egregious and completely misnamed patients, protection affordable care agent on the country, but in addition to that, at the same time, we would have eliminated the enumerated power scheme that the supreme court never repiewd imraited in the history of the country, and that would have also happened. it would have been a disaster. a constitutional disaster

the supreme court case of the national labor relations board has given a lengthy 90- minute oral argument. the court will hear from lawyers respecting from both sides and 45 senators concerned about overreach. >>> how did the framers of the constitution except the recession provision to work when they wrote it? what does it mean for the senate to be present in the capitol and in session. for that and more we're joined by john, who covers the high court for cq roll call, bruce, author of "constitutional peril." and jacin ta singh. john, let me start with you. it sounds like the man who organizes cases had a rough day in the saddle. >> i would agree with that. they appeared today and tried to convince the court and convinc e president did was not a big deal. he was requested from justices on the left and the right who want to it question that assertion. one particular moment that stood out to me was elena kagan, who was once holding that same job was up to the session to decide when they are in session or not in session. that is not a good sign for the obama administration. >> going back to

it seems to me on page 21 of the supreme court's opinion, the court wrote the additional intrusion upon the assistee's privacy is not significant and d.n.a. is a markedly more accurate form of identifying arrestees. i reid that to means the okay to take the d.n.a. at the time of arrest which is what happened to mr. king as part of the booking process. isn't your argument really what the police do subsequent to the taking of the sample? >> yes. under king the government may take d.n.a. at arrest for people arrested for serious crimes. however it cannot analyze or otherwise use that d.n.a. unless formal charges are filed and there is a judicial finding of probable cause to believe that the defendant is in fact guilty of a serious offense. >> you say it has to be a serious crime but the examples that justice kennedy used were in making the point about utility of d.n.a. was the 9/11 terrorists and timothy mchave a both of whom were arrested or picked up, stopped on very minor charges. seems the thrust of the majority no matter that d.n.a. how it comes into the possession of the government i

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

supreme court, and his articles have appeared in top legal journals. it described as a one-man court with respect to this debate will discuss what role they played in the run-up to this case. and last but certainly not least we will hear from randy barnett, a professor of legal theory at georgetown university theater. a graduate of northwestern university and harvard law school and began his career as a prosecutor in the cook county state's attorney's office in chicago in 2004, the medical marijuana case which featured rather prominently in terms of the analysis for the obamacare case, author of over 100 articles is as well as nine bucks and will discuss the role of politics played in the litigation join me and will turn over. [applause] >> thank you for putting this on and helping out. i also want to think they can spur tors. david bernstein, my professor in law school for giving me an opportunity to work on this book which was incredibly fun. i have the interesting experience of coming out of law school and working on the base supreme court case in 50

>> that's correct. >> but the supreme court said -- >> none of those cases were dealt with by the supreme court because they assume proximate as a and a valid arrest premise for their opinion. that's a fact. >> i don't think that's the case. i mean, the holding is very broad. when there's an ears on proximate cause and you've wrought the individual to the station. just as a factual basis, as premise, the court is dealing with a situation where all the cases i've discussed are not included. the cases where the d.a. decides the arrest is bad, they didn't have a warrant, whatever, all hose cases were not presented. >> but the court sets the time for collection at booking because the information that is available after booking can inform the charging decision. and so in that scenario, the charging decision is -- isn't fin herbed. the charging decision is still under review and subject to the information that is returned from the identification information obtained at booking. >> but take the example the chief just gave and substitute fingerprinting for d.n.a. let's assume that someone is arre

but the supreme court set -- >> none of those cases were dealt with by the supreme court because they assume probable cause and a valid arrest as a premise for the opinion. that's a fact, right? >> i don't think that's the case. the holding is very broad. when there is an arrest on probable cause and you've brought the individual to the station -- >> we can argue about what the holding is but just as a factual basis, as a premise, the court there was dealing with a situation where all the cases i've discussed are not included. the cases where the d.a. decide the arrest was bad. they didn't have a warrant or whatever, all those cases were not presented. >> correct. but the court set the time for collection at booking because the information that is available after booking can inform the charging decision. so in that scenario the charging decision isn't finished. the charging decision is still under review and subject to the information that is returned from the identification information that is obtained at booking. >> let's take the example that the chief just gave and substitute fing

it was the view of five justices thon supreme court. chief justice robert held requiring people to engage in commerce in order that it be regulated was beyond the powers of congress and therefore what was the individual mandate was unconstitutional, and then the reason why he was able to uphold the affordable care act is because he adopted a saving construction, changing the map debt into an option ethor pay the tax, pay the penalty which he con viewed as a tax, or buy insurance -- you would no longer required to buy insurance because that was unconstitutional. >> host: randy barnett, if somebody reads restoring the lost constitution, do they have to be a law scholar? >> guest: i hope not. it was written for aned indicated general lay audience i get a lot of feedback from people who have read it more than once and say it opens their eyes what is missing in the constitution. it's not superlight. i try to be a little bit lighter in the new material that's added at the end of the updated edition which just came out. there's 60 pages of new

for the first time in our nation history, the supreme court said what the second amendment means. you talk about history, the court is divided 5-4, so history does not always provide the answer? >> some judges on our court thought that the second amendment but which says a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state about right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. here's what it is about. when they passed the constitution, madison and hamilton, they wanted that document, which they knew was a good one, to be ratified. but there were people around causing trouble. it was a close question. one of the arguments that they raised was that we have just bought a war of independence. state militias were part of the revolutionary army. the first article to the constitution says that congress can call up the state militias and regulate them. how do we know that congress will not do it and destroy the state militias? fear not, said madison and hamilton, we will pass a bill of rights, the second amendment will stop congress from calling them up. now th

, because he did not think the state supreme court was conservative enough. at judge he took off the court also happened to be the only african-american justice on the court at the time. democrats were furious with the new governor christie for kicking justice john wallace off the supreme court, kicking a sitting justice off the supreme court is something that no governor of new jersey had ever done before in the history of that state's constitution. democrats decided to retaliate by refusing to confirm christie nominees to that supreme court, one after another after another. it has been a very, very bitter fight. look at the headline here. war between governor christie and senate, threatens justice itself, experts say. well, that war that threatened justice itself, one of the biggest battles in that war happened last summer. specifically, in august, specifically on monday, august 12th. monday, august 12th, 2013. that was the day that governor christie announced that for the second time in new jersey state history, he would be pulling another sitting justice o

scholar of all things supreme court. lines are open some of the books that you have written -- we will start with randy from citrus heights, california, on our line for republicans. randy, good morning. good morning. i would like to dispute's your .uest's assertion that justice roberts is the strong conservative leader of the court. i would disagree. i would say just as thomas is the intellectual leader of the group. if not him, maybe scalia. but i understand the inclination an any harvard academia --they want to basically prop up roberts as a hero because of his vote on the health care law, each, in my opinion and the opinion of millions of us, is a stain on his tenure. tushnetet's let mr. krishna explained that. guest: i don't want to dispute the claim that justice scalia and justice thomas are powerful influences on the conservative side. justice scalia has articulated a philosophy or judicial approach of interpreting the constitution according to its original understanding. estes thomas is even more so unoriginal hon

on monday, the supreme court granted utah's request to block same-sex marriages while the ruling is appealed. the case now goes before a federal appeals court in denver, but many expected to find its way to the supreme court. a supreme court decision could have major repercussions across the country -- if utah's ban is overturned, the same could happen for same-sex marriage bans in nearly 30 other states. joining us now from utah are derek kitchen and moudi sbeity. they are one of three couples who are plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging utah's ban on same- sex marriage. we welcome you both to democracy now! k, explain what has just happened in utah. yesterday we had the supreme court put a stay on judge robert shelby's decision to allow same-sex marriage in our state. couples inabout 1300 what our attorney general calls legal limbo. then we have an untold number of gay couples in the state that cannot get married for the foreseeable future. married.e not there was that open where 1000 people to get married. why did you decide not to at that time and how does that allow you to be a plaintiff

scholar of all things supreme court. if you have questions for him, comments and phone lines are open some of the books that you have written -- we will start with randy from citrus heights, california, on our line for republicans. randy, good morning. good morning. i would like to dispute's your .uest's assertion that justice roberts is the strong conservative leader of the court. i would disagree. i would say just as thomas is the intellectual leader of the group. if not him, maybe scalia. but i understand the inclination an any harvard academia --they want to basically prop up roberts as a hero because of his vote on the health care law, each, in my opinion and the opinion of millions of us, is a stain on his tenure. tushnetet's let mr. krishna explained that. guest: i don't want to dispute the claim that justice scalia and justice thomas are powerful influences on the conservative side. justice scalia has articulated a philosophy or judicial approach of interpreting the constitution according to its original understa

the supreme court -- god almighty runs the supreme court. nine people regulating sin is just not right. we're putting too much focus on this. there's too much going on in this country to be focusing on the bedroom and gay people. god created everything, so why can't gay people be born? role ofu talk about the the supreme court and what you think it should be. what about the argument from the governor that this is a states rights issue and that individual states should be allowed to decide the definition of marriage? caller: the definition of marriage -- if people look up the history of marriage, it is a piece of paper. it was not started by the government. so why is it regulated by the government and the state? started before the state. .t is a total distraction too farrnment is going into the privacy of our homes and our lives. if you're going to call this then, let's make a ban on every sin. shirley is in louisiana. a few other stories we want to point out to you this morning. said onte republican monday that he will not be running for a s

circuit and the supreme court i argue that it presents a non reviewable political question to the court. some questions are committed by the constitution, by the text of the constitution to the exclusive discretion of our elective political branches. could it be that the court doesn't have the last word? could it be that john roberts's court has a wonderful of opportunity to can prove its conservative credentials by exercising restraint over appointments, by treaty tell the application of the question cases. walter nixon versus the united states. let's take one of them in the interest of time. in the 1993 case of walter nixon a defense federal judge in mississippi, i believe, the court refused supreme court refused to review the senate's short cut impeachment trial process, they didn't have time to transform themselves into the court of impeachment as the framers intended that they had a little evidence committee, we had a little committee. 12 senators actually hear it. the eight senators don't, they are off doing other things. all 100 senators come together and all 100 senators thumbs

slowly these straw in the democratic principles that our founding fathers fought and died for the supreme court has also said the corporations are protected by the fourteenth amendment they said the wal-mart apple are just like you and me they're not they are voluntary associations the bill of rights was not written to protect the east india company it was written to protect individual people of the fourteenth amendment was written to free the slaves not the corporations we need to undo the damage that the supreme court has done and amend our constitution to clearly and explicitly say that corporations are not people in the money is not speech thank you. second problem our nation is facing is at the core of why we have a government in the first place why did our founders put their lives on the line fight and die to create the united states and why have people fought and died over and over again in the intervening years to keep this nation in the declaration of independence thomas jefferson said that governments are instituted among men to secure the alienable rights of life liberty and the purs

when the supreme court decided the case, the website scotusblog got over a million hits that day. there is enormous interest in the court. it is a great institution to cover and i love every day that i am there. thank you. [applause] >> on behalf of the washington center, edward kennedy institute for the senate, students and -- for the study of the senate, and i thank all of our students and faculty here, thank you for a wonderful evening. as a token of our appreciation, a fashionable washington center tote bag, guaranteed to hold many pounds of legal brief. [applause] thank you so much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> and at the supreme court some held out in determining legislative districts. be inurt is expected to session again tomorrow. meant -- much of the government shutdown because of the snowfall in the mid-atlantic. the house does dabble in in about 20 minutes. brieflysenate came in as well today. some news from the senate side. senator said he , davidn for governor fitter. he will be able

now the supreme court issuing a brief blocking any new same sex unions in that state while the federal appeals court considerings that issue. your reaction to the decision? >> this is a very cautious move by the supreme court. because imagine what they would have done if they would approved this? then this would have been the supreme court legislatin legislm the bench saying we're legalizing gay marriage in utah. >> even when luke at it from under the microscope. look at the latest gallup poll, 52% of americans in favor, 43% say they oppose it how do you deal with an issue as contentious as this. >> and in utah it's even more con tecontentious. for the court to come around and say if they would have approved this today and then to say we're going to go against what the voters of utah said that would be controversial in itself. >> do you believe the court is buying time before investing itself. >> absolutely they're buying time. this is such a contentious issue, and it has received so-- >> and it's perceived to be a conservative court. >> absolutely. and it's grown exponentially in the

it was the supreme court that issued the plessy v. ferguson decision. itfrom my perspective, the supre court that issued roe v. wade, these are inhumane, horrific, in some cases genocidal decisions. because these are imperfect human beings, and that's been my point, and that will continue to be my point. i have no problem with a court system, with an implied judicial review power because it's implied. an implied judicial review power where the courts or the justices understand the limitations on their roles. on the other hand, when they don't, there has to be recourse to this. short of a constant national loggerhead situation where one group feels this way and one group feels another way. and that's why i propose that the state legislature, three-fifths of them, have the powers to override a supreme court decision. wouldn't it have been wonderful if three-fifths of these state legislatures had overridden the the dred scott decision, as an example? but there's a lot in there, in those one or two lines that i can address. i mean, the whole notion of the ju

it's not at the supreme court yet in terms of them asking the supreme court to hear the case but theyre asking the supreme court to step in and essentially block the trial judge's order so that the same-sex marriages would halt in utah until the lower courts and perhaps eventually the supreme court can work it out. >> unfortunately we're out of time. we'll have to leave it there. my thanks to both of you. >> stay warm. >> still ahead, a suspect is now behind bars accused of murdering a beloved catholic priest on new year's day. the suspect walked out of the california police station just hours before the body was found. investigative reporter michelle segona will join us. hundreds of palestinians protest secretary of state john kerry's latest round of peace talks in the region accusing him of being biased towards israel. we'll have the latest. but my si. it's time for advil cold and sinus. [ male announcer ] truth is that won't relieve all your symptoms. new alka seltzer plus-d relieves more symptoms than any other behind the counter liquid gel. oh what a relief it is. that's a good t

he pulled that justice off the supreme court. rather than submit her to renomination before the senate democrats. look at the headline. look from the "star ledger." "supreme stunner. christie declines to nominate justice hoens for a lifetime tenure." she was a republican judge already on the bench. chris christie pulled her off the bench for only the second time ever in new jersey history, he did that to a judge. the reason he said he did it in her case is not because of any beef with her. quite the contrary. it's because he said senate democrats were animals. that was the word he used. he said, they are animals. and he was not going to subject this judge who he respected, who was the wife of someone in his administration, he was not going to subject her to the savagery of the senate democrats. >> as to her husband, bob has been a respected member of this administration right from the beginning. i simply could not be party to the destruction of helen hoens' professional reputation. the only way for me to guarantee that being avoi

supreme court for a decision again on the merits. all she said today is that we will wait and see, what the court decides in the state of utah. >> if you look at the polls, america seems to be deeply divided on this issue almost straight down the middle. so even if the supreme court rules further down the road and decides, will this issue go away any time soon? >> well, we have seen generally once the court rules on issues, for example, 1967, on interracial marriages. >> in loving versus virginia. >> in loving versus virginia. then society tends to follow what the law dictates. if the court were to determine that this is a constitutional right under the u.s. constitution, sentiment would probably follow. >> jamie what happens next? >> next we go to denver. the 10th circuit court of appeals, for that circuit, 10th circuit would make a determination what the judge said in the state of utah. then there will be another appeal, i will bet you that it will eventually get us to a federal court decision, next season. >> jamie thank you. >> my

last week the attorney general asking the supreme court to spend that ruling now the supreme court blockingny new same sex unions in utah while the federal court conditions that issue. >>> some of the priorities in washington, d.c. include a bill to raise the federal minimum raise, the possible extension of job benefits and the confirmation of janet yellen as head of federal reserve. >>> the iraqi military is saying that it is ready to regain fallujah. it comes as thousands of families are fleeing the city to escape the growing violence there. wednesday is the 50th anniversary of a landmark speech by lyndon baines johnson. ,lbj. we look at the speech and it'sing. >> this administration today here and now declares unconditional war on poverty in america. >> reporter: the speech came less than two months after the assassination of president kennedy. >> our aim is not only to relief the symptom of poverty, but to cure it, and above all to prevent it. >> reporter: poverty had been a major concern of president kennedy and with the country still grieving and one in five americans living in povert

>> guest: i don't have very many he rose on the supreme court. most of them are attended or lukewarm. i would have to say the first justice who wrote the dissenting opinion of the civil-rights cases that oil should guinness besides his vote and also the dissenting opinion of plessey versus ferguson with the important reading of 13th and 14th amendment at least at that stage i admire. and antislavery lawyer, his nickname was the attorney general for runaway slaves. when he was chief justice appointed by abraham lincoln i thought that was a great moment for error liberty. >> host: randy barnett "restoring the lost constitution: the presumption of liberty" is the name of the book. it begins with the question of the relationship of nature to politics. they're both claim their political views are based with the idea politics has to answer to human nature. but they had different ideas what that was. their different ideas of what nature means of political debates so pain offers an idea that he hindustan's nature as a source of rules that govern the beha

he wanted me to be a supreme court justice. i had no interest. judge david babylon want me to be myself. being myself was always been contentious, confrontational. and as you remember from reading the book, i said there are really two characters. there's the durst character, the one you see on television pointing his finger and over talking the next to an always on if the last and then the real alan who never went an argument with his family, who is a complete and total push over. who hates confrontation at home or with my friends, and i try to live a life that balance is the dersh character in the real alan. "the new york times" reviewer generally gave the book quite a good review, said that she wishes more of the book had been written by the real alan rather than the dersh character. that's an actual fairpoint. i think mostly the dersh character wrote the book. the dersh character is a much more interesting than but if you want to read a book, you really don't want to read about boring at all whose wife tells him what to do and whose children a

this is something that the supreme court has never had to think about before.e we are 200 plus years into our nation's history. is it surprising that there are still nooks and crannies of constitution that comes before the supreme court? >> it is not surprising. pick, it isne to unusual for a father. [laughter] kennedy,for senator and i love doing that, so i am delighted that the school and the kennedy institute are together, on a project that would have been dear to his heart. you're here because you are already successes, and you're interesting in how government works, and you're willing to learn about it. from our point of view, this is allocation ofht time because the decisions about the united states are not made in the courts. are there parts of the constitution that we have never considered before, yes. about two only been in history that have been experts on the tonnage clause. you have to understand that the courts are not really there to interpret the law, they do interpret the law, but the reason that the courts are there are because people get into

if you're protesting at the supreme court in washington, d.c., whether you're happy with the supreme r mad at them or anything in between, if you're protesting at the court, have you to stay a certain distance away from the entrance to the court. there are no protests of any kind, no public demonstrations of any kind allowed anywhere on the 250 foot plaza of the supreme court. you want to protest at the court you're welcome to, but there's a very specific geographic limit on that right which gives the court espectively a 250 foot geographical buffer zone from any protest. on december 30th, 1994 a man with a gun, 22-year-old man walks into the planned parenthood clinic in massachusetts, walked up to the receptionist and said, is this planned parenthood, when the receptionist told him it was, he shot her and killed her. he was not done. >> eyewitnesss say he arrived dressed in black, pulled out a 22 caliber rifle and as they tried to flee opened fire, the gunman shot four people before escaping here, one woman a clinic worker died at the scene. the terror wasn't over, just ten minutes l

this is something that the supreme court has never had to think about before. here we are 200 plus years into our nation's history. is it surprising that there are still nooks and crannies of the constitution that comes before the supreme court? >> it is not surprising. i have no bone to pick, it is nusual for a father. i worked for senator kennedy, and i love doing that, so i am delighted that the school and the kennedy institute are together, on a project that would have been dear to his heart. ou're here because you are already successes, and you're interesting in how government works, and you're willing to learn about it. from our point of view, this is really the right allocation of time because the decisions about the united states are not made in the courts. are there parts of the constitution that we have never onsidered before, yes. there have only been about two in history that have been experts on the tonnage clause. you have to understand that the courts are not really there to interpret the law, they do interpret the law, but the reason that the co

the united states supreme court unanimously, all nine justices, said, there should be a stay. this ruling should be on hold while the united states court of appeals decides the case. that could take weeks or months. >> what is it that the supreme court wants the federal court to re-examine. >> the issue here is a really profound one. this is really the big case that a lot of us have been waiting for. >> it seemed kind of simple, jeff. it seemed like the federal judge said, the law in utah banning gays from marrying is unconstitutional. a lot of people believe that the federal constitution says nothing about same-sex marriage, does not give same-sex couples a right to mary. this judge said, my reading of the constitution is that it requires utah to allow this case -- to allow gay people to get married. what makes this case so important is that his reasoning would apply in all 50 states. so if his reasoning is adopted by the tenth circuit, by the united states supreme court, this wouldn't be about the 18 or 19 states that have same-sex marriage now. this would be a case that woul

i think the supreme court said what the second amendment means what it talks about rights. you talk about history. they are divided 524. they do not always provide the answer. court talkges on our of the second amendment, which says a will regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. read the first part. here is what it is about. --n they cast -- past the, -- when theyt constitution,. raisedthe arguments they was, we have just bought a war of independence. state militia were part of the army. the first article to the constitution says that congress can call up and regulate the state militias. how do we know that congress thet do it and destroy state militias? fear not, said madison and hamilton. a bill of rights, that will stop congress from: them up. that is what this is about. we have pretty good argument. residentreat historic and very little value. the problem of state militias does not exist today. five people said, it to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. that should be

for all those reasons it did appear, craig, that the supreme court is likely to strike this law down., massachusetts had an earlier so called bubble zone law, an eight-foot don't approach zone around people as they enter the clinic. the court has upheld similar zones around the country. >> pete, really quickly while i have you here, i do want to talk to you about the federal appeals court decision on tuesday. they struck down the fcc's rules on net neutrality. this is a big deal. what does it mean in the simplest of terms for internet providers and what does it also mean for customers? >> reporter: what it means is whether the internet providers have the ability in essence to charge more for the fast lane. under the idea of net neutrality, everybody drives on the same lane. everybody pays the same tariff. everybody gets the same amount of internet speed. but what the internet providers want to do is say we want to charge extra maybe for people who use it a lot or demand faster speeds or use a lot of data, and under the court ruling, the internet providers will be able to do that. the

and it got up to the supreme court. interestingly enough, john roberts -- the chief justice of the supreme court -- said, you know, you guys haven't really asked for enough here. we want you to bring in more briefs. we want everybody to kind of think bigger on this thing. and suddenly citizens united -- >> literal judicial activism. >> right. like the most active you could possibly be because you're literally saying to people, we want a bigger case. you tepid lawyers here aren't doing the job. >> like going on judge judy and saying, you know, my roommate stiffed me for $1,000, and the judge saying didn't he stiff you for $8,000? >> don't you want to get his house, you know? and his car? and so they expanded it out. and it became this case which knocked down 100-year-old barriers to corporate money in politics and really opened up the process to such an extent that it became a shorthand for money in politics. and this is the important thing to understand, we begin the story of citizens united in the book in the 1960s. no

supreme court said religious groups don't have to cover birth control. the obama administration says its rules already address that. and that's because the rules affect churches, houses of worship, religious groups, but not necessarily the organizations that are tied to them like charities and hospitals and universities and some of those cases, some of those challenges are working up through the court system. >> that's right, just one of the challenges we'll see this year perhaps in the supreme court with the affordable care act. thank you so much, tracie potts. >>> a major push for clemency for nsa leaker, edward snowden. "the new york times" editorial board saying enormous value lies in the information snowden has revealed and the abuses he has exposed. they write quote mr. snowden deserves better than a life of permanent exile, fear and flight. he may have committed a crime to do so, but he has done his country a great service. it is time for the united states to offer mr. snowden a plea bargain or some form of clemency that would allow him to return

instead the supreme court issued a stay until it winds its way through the court system. nearly 900 couples have been married since the district judge ruled in december that the state ban violated constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process, but utah argued that each marriage was an affront to the definition of marriage. they denied the stay, but the supreme court issued the stay this morning without comment. these celebrations and ceremonies in utah have stopped at least for now. now, for a lot of viewers maybe somewhat confused because they may think, what is this? the supreme court issued rulings last spring supporting gay marriage. they said federal benefits can't be denied to same-sex couples. they found california's ban unconstitutional, but the supreme court made that california ruling on procedural issues and avoided a decision as to whether state bans like utah are unconstitutional. most legal experts expected the issue over state bans would come back to the supreme court, but the speed with which this issue is moving through the court system is

you, consulting with the department of justice, white house, ask for an expedited review by the supreme court of the united states to determine the constitutionality of these programs so that we do not continually shop for the legal opinion that we want to my either one side or the other. l discuss this with the attorney general. protocolup on what the is forsaking a reading by the supreme court. >> is there a sense of urgency within the administration to

the supreme court will look at potential limits on the president's power. senator ted cruz weighs in. >> if this were a republican president, i promise you i would be every bit as vocal, about usurping the power and violating the constitution. ♪ ♪ so you can have a getaway from what you know. so you can be surprised by what you n't. get o times the points on travel and dining at restaurants from chase sapphire preferred. so you can taste something that wakes up your soul. chase sapphire preferred. so you can. i took medicine but i still have symptoms. [ sneeze ] [ male announcer ] truth is not all flu products treat all your symptoms. what? [ male announcer ] alkseltzer plus severe cold and flu speeds relief to these eight symptoms. [ breath of relief ] thanks. [ male announcer ] you're welcome. ready? go. too small. too soft. too tasty. [ both laugh ] [ male announcer ] introducing progresso's new creamy alfredo soup. inspired by perfection. we're gonna be late. ♪ ♪ ♪ oh are we early? [ malennouncer ] mmute yo way with the bold, all-w nissan rogue. ♪ oy .

on tuesday utah asked the supreme court to suspend the unions.ame-sex couples have until friday to file legal briefs in response. >>> a california hospital won't allow a girl declared brain dead to be fitted with a breathing tube by an outside hospital. the family of jahi mcmath wants her transferred to another facility. she's legally dead and won't come back. >>> authorities in the russian city of volgograd canceled new year's eve events in the wake of twin suicide bombings. the city is on edge after the attacks that killed 34 people, and as holly williams reports, so are some athletes preparing for the olympics in russia just 37 days from now. >> reporter: russian police rounded up dozens of people during a security crackdown in volgograd, the city rocked by two suicide bombs. in a new year's address to the nation, russian president vladimir putin said the attacks were inhuman and vowed to annihilate the culprits. no group has claimed responsibility for the bombs, but many in russia suspect islamic militants from chechnya and dagestan. the bomb

how might these challenges be as we look toward march and june where the supreme court might make somel, i think the court already has decided on the fundamental -- they upheld the ability of the government to have a mandate and for people to have this penalty. so you just can't -- we can't get very far sometimes in predicting what the judges may do, but i think they had a chance to dismantle the law and they didn't. so i think there could be maybe changes and tweaks but if anyone there thinks that this court is going to dismantle or stop the law, i think that's not the case in these cases. >> lynn sweet from the "chicago sun times," always a pleasure. thanks for joining us on this first day of 2014. have a good one. >> thank you. bye-bye. >> okay. let's do some "first buzz." bill carons is here with us. >> i'm not doing the typical new year's resolution. >> you always take option b. >> let's talk about upcoming movies to look forward to in 2014. >> i want to see more movies in 2014. >> this is going to be a list of the top five listed by fandango. number one, "the hunger games," the s