hammer the supreme court.licans are focusing on avillous supreme court rather than the scourge of same-sex marriage, and that's probably a wise with choice . stuart: wouldn't it be better if politicians at the political realm of our country decided these political questions? >> that depends upon what marriage is. is marriage a gift from the state? or is marriage a fundamental human right? if it's a gift if the state then it's subject to impulses and the state legislatures can regulate it. if it's part of our humanity, this then it's not subject. that's the significance of this decision. the supreme court took marriage where it had been. a gift from the state. and recognized it and defined it as a natural human right. when it's in that category, it's not subject to the maortarian impulses of the state legislatures . stuart: i'm just really surprised the sweeping nature of the judgment and how far it goes toward elevating that right to choose your mate. >> you know, prior to this, i read all the same-sex marriag

it hasn't happened yet. >> the last supreme court justice to retire, john paul stephens, left the court at age 90. by all accounts the job has prestige, great hours, a long summer vacation, and provides the justices with tremendous indulge intellectual stimulation. >> being a supreme court justice, i think it helps keep them sharp. >> supreme court announcements are usually be played at the end of the term. the current supreme court term is slated to wrap up at the end of this month. >> and al jazeera's david york. welcome back to the program david. do any voters go into voting booths in those big quad rennial novembers? >> usually ray, it's not something on the top of people's agenda but you often hear the parties, and you're starting to hear progressives try to make it an issue for 2016. you'll hear them say this presidential election is the most important ever because there may be two or three justices that a president can replace or fill. you're starting to hear that to a certain extent from progressives, that say wait a second, we have more of the court. there is no indication that

supreme court? >> i'll give an example. a number of states have a merit selection system for the supreme court justices, but i think any president could voluntarily create. what the they present to do is create a commission, bipartisan and he wants names two or three at least, supported by two-thirds of the group, he promises either to pick from those names are ask for additional names. as an example of ascii is used this system to tremendous success. so sarah palin picked a morgan -- a person who barack obama to put on the ninth circuit enemy thinks she's the most liberal judges his place on the ninth circuit or jimmy carter created merit selection to purchase a court federal court of appeals appointment. i think i make it harder for federal court of appeals appointment. they were among the best the first in american history and i think he might've done that to this report had already supreme court vacancy. this wouldn't take a constitutional amendment. >> any response or any of the ideas? >> i hav

justices of the supreme court include one justice in her 80s and seven in their 70s. the next president may get to a point two, three, even four justices shaping the nation's highest court for a generation. is black robes, gray hair, it's tonight tonight's "inside story." welcome to "inside story," i'm ray suarez. four supreme court justices are north of 75 years old. when the next president takes the oath of office they'll all be well, older. not wishing anyone ill health or impairment, it is reasonable to assume the next president who will serve from 2017 to 2021 will be able to put his or her stamp on the nation's court. look. >> of the nine justices on the supreme court, four of them are over 74 years old. antonin scalia is 78, stephen bryer, a steadfast linl is liberal is 76 and be ruth bade rfertion bader gindburg iser ginsburg is is 82. if ginsburg has to retire shifting the court to the right, as it stands with ginsburg the court has four reliable votes, to the right with chief justice roberts, there are four conservatives, and anthony kennedy, the swing vote o

rights movement. >> for a long time. >> thank you. >> my pleasure. >> let's turn to adam may at the supreme court. give us more reaction from outside of the court there. >> right now a group of supporters just walked up on the steps of the supreme court and started singing patriotic songs, along them is congressman ted lou who represents southern california. congressman thanks for joining us. what was it like for you personally to watch this today? >> as a coach of the congressional lbgt caucus it is a thrill to be here a great day for america, and i couldn't be prouder of our country. >> we'll see how this is implemented in some of these states that have been holding out. but a lot more issues facing the gay rights community here. what is the next big issue? >> first of all it's amazing we have marriage equality across america. but there's still many steps that need to be taken for full equality for the lbgt community. there's still this awful practice of conversion therapy that really is psychological abuse. i have a law to ban it. >> you are saying that there should be a national law against r

supreme court. the justices expected to deliver rulings on same-sex marriage and obamacare either today tomorrow or monday. we'll let you know as soon as they come in. >>> but we begin in charleston south carolina where one hour from now mother emanuel will lay to rest the first of her nine parishioners gunned down last week in that horrific attack. funeral services for ethel lance will begin at 11:00 a.m. eastern. also next hour the first of two viewings for the reverend and state senator clementa pinckney. the earlier viewing will be at his home church in rich laendland -- ridgeland. >> reporter: good morning, two of the victims of this massacre will be having their funerals today. the first will be ethel lance. she was 70 years old when she died. the other funeral services will be for reverend sharonda coleman singleton singleton. tonight at mother emanuel there will be a viewing of reverend clementa pinckney's body. yesterday thousands of people showed up at the state capitol to show their respe

a lot of people looked at the supreme court taking that case and thought, uh-oh. you know, the court does not have to do this. they must be taking this case, just so they can kill another landmark civil rights law. that is basically what everybody thought. turns out, nope! wrong! missed it by that much. in a 5-4 ruling today, in which justice anthony kennedy sided with the court's typically liberal justices, the supreme court today upheld the fair housing act. which races the question of why they took up that case in the first place. i mean, this civil rights act ruling today, this fair housing act ruling today was basically a sweeping ruling on settled law that said in a big, loud, supreme court voice, this law is fine. pretend this never happened. move along. which is weird. i don't know why they took that case in the first place. they really did not have to take it, but they did. and they ruled to uphold the law today, and you know what, we'll take it! sometimes it's good to be wrong. it was the same kind of reasoning, same kind of expectations and projections a

news from the supreme court today. "the new york times" reporting that high court refused to hear an appeal from north carolina officials seeking to revive a state law that had required doctors to perform ultrasounds displaying the resulting sonograms and then describing the fetuses to women seeking abortions. they gave no reasons. justice scalia noted a dissent without saying why. it left in place an appeals court ruling that it was a violation of the first amendment. that story in today's "new york times." and last week supreme court attorneys and scholars discussed whether the court needs to be reformed. speakers included university of california irvine law school dean edwin and constitutional chief counsel elizabeth. it's held by the american constitution society. this took place during their national convention here in washington last week. >> i guess everybody is here from the breakouts. so welcome to the program. plenar east afternoon which we hope to end the afternoon with a bang. and discuss whether the supreme

supreme court. justice anthony kennedy handing down a decision, a 5-4 decision saying that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. there were 13 states including the home state of ohio in which those pans are in place. they are no longer in lace. let's talk about where this fight goes now. i have here jonathan turley as well as -- actually one second. i'm going to go to brian todd on the steps of the supreme court. >> hi, jake, we're here with rachel gaddis. she was very emotional a moment ago. rachel, talk about what this means to you? >> this is a really amazing day for america. i'm an emotional person. so it comes out. but i was just at the wedding of my best friends from college this past weekend and they're on their honeymoon right now, ken and keith, and america loves you and god bless america. >> you have a cousin who is gay who may be going through these issues. >> i have lots of friends and family who i've had the pleasure of them coming out to me and i've been able to support them.

supreme court. president obama last evening at a gay pride event in the white house talking about all the momentous supreme court decisions pending. i don't know that he favored one more than the other but certainly this obamacare one is an important one for his legacy, professor. >> there's in question. this is a big win for the white house. it's also a big part of i think what has become the roberts' legacy. he assigned this opinion to himself for a reason. he was there at the individual mandate decision. he's here again. it's not 5-4. but he wrote a very sweeping endorsement of the view of the agency and the administration, and this is going to be -- i agree with jeffrey on this. this is going to be a key part of his legacy. now, for republicans, for conservatives, they view this as sort of a blackmon or suteresque moment. >> that's an insult for those who don't know. that's what it is. a republican -- a conservative president picking a supreme court justice they want and they expect will be cons

after multiple challenges to this law before the supreme court. affordable care act is here to stay! this morning the court upheld a critical part of this law. the part that made it easier for americans to afford health insurance regardless of where you live. it is the partisan challenge -- if the -- millions of americans would have had thousands of dollars worth of tax credits taken and insurance would be unaffordable again. everyone's premiums could have gone up. america would have gone backwards and that is not what we do. we move forward. today is the victory for hard working americans all across the country whose live continues to be more secure in the changing economy because of this law. if you are a parent you can keep your kids on the plan until they are 26. something that covered millions of people so far. if you are a senior or american with disability this law gives you discounts on prescriptions. something that saved 9 million americans $1600 so far. if you are a woman you cannot be charged more than anyone else. even if you had cancer

"today the supreme court fulfilled the words engraved upon its building equal justice under law. tice system has marginalize it had gay community and i am very glad the court has finally caught up to the american people. to florida: former florida governor jeb bush republican who recently said he is running. "i believe the supreme court should have allowed the states to make the decision. i also believe we should love our neighbor and respect others including those making lifetime commitments. in a country as diverse as our, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side." and former secretary of state hillary clinton with this "proud to celebrate an historic victory for marriage equality and the courage and determination of lgbt americans who made it possible. republican real estate mogul donald trump, a gay marriage supporter says "once again the bush-pinted supreme court, justice john roberts has let us down. jeb pushed him hard. remember." former pennsylvania senator rick santorum said "today five unlichted judges redefined the foundational unit of soc

supreme court. jake tapper is standing by. we now know, jake what the united states supreme court has decided on this very historic day. >> that's right, wolf. it appears as though in a landmark decision the u.s. supreme court has ruled that states cannot ban same-sex marriages. let's go to pamela brown at the court itself for more on this landmark opinion. pamela. >> historic day here at the supreme court, jake. you can probably hear gay rights advocates to my right cheering by this decision authored by justice kennedy saying that the right to marriage is a fundamental right and gays and lesbians cannot be excluded from that right. in this broad ruling by justice kennedy, he says the right to marry is a fundamental right and same-sex couples may not be deprived of liberty or that right to marriage. so again, ruling today that same-sex marriage is a nationwide constitutional right. this is one of the greatest civil rights issues of our time and this is what gay rights advocates have been hoping for

in terms of the supreme court, i just want to be clear. think of the last standing case from the roberts court, it was clapper v. amnesty international, and it was 5-4 that no one was willing to challenge federal law giving the national security agency to intercept communication with foreign countries. nsa doesn't tell people when it is intercepting communication, so there is a terrible decision when it comes to standing, and it is very restrictive, and that is the most recent one. linda: when some of you all were clerking, the court took about as -- took about twice as many cases or even more. some of the things i have hearing, it sounds like they are taking too many cases. what do you think? is the court taking too much? >> no, i think they are not taking enough cases, they are just taking the wrong types of cases. there are lots of important decisions that need to be resolved. a professor did a study of the court's granting practices, and what he found is there seems to have been a cultural shift on the court away from an obligation to r

let's go back to lisa stark live at the supreme court. was this a surprising decision for fair housing? >> reporter: it was, many feared the court would go the other way. because the court had been seeking out a case on this very issue, and the concern was they were seeking out a case to try to gut what many say would be a key part of the fair housing act. this act was passed just days after the assassination of martin luther king, jr., that allowed president johnson to push it through congress. this essentially says that you can challenge decisions that don't overtly discriminate, but do in fact create a disparate impact as you said in fact create an impact that does harm minority population. and the issue here in texas was fair housing credits. they were given out to build low income housing, but those who challenged the way they were given out, said look you are only giving them to developers who build in minority neighborhoods. and that is creating these pockets of poverty, and the people who argued that have won today, and the fair ho

supreme court she served on the u.s. court of appeals. prior to becoming a judge, she was a law professor at rutgers and columbia university. over her decades of service, she's been an unwavering advocate for women, both on the bench and as one of the founds ers of the women's rights project for the aclu, where she served as general counsel and on the national board of directors for nearly a decade. i had the extraordinary honor of clerk wrg justice two ginsburg which was as amazing and life changing an experience as you would expect. among my fondest memories of that year were the champagne and cupcake birthday parties that the justice would host for each of her clerks and secretaries. so fully aware of just how crazy it is to have a birthday party with ruth bader ginsburg, my co-clerks and i would plan for days in advance, trying to come up with a perfect list of questions to ask her and we did pretty well. we heard amazing stories about her summers in sweden, where she was learning and writing about swedish civil procedure, we heard ab

nobody getting supreme court. if i think it's a failure that i might as will not get get out of bed in the morning. i think in many important ways it is a failure. part a failure. part of that is because it is the independent judiciary that i found was put in place's -- is that of some of the european models that was not as. the legitimacy of the institution is reflected in the fact that the american people view it as legitimate evil and i disagree when they disagree with it. in some ways that is an institutional success i would say. you're looking at an independent judiciary i think it only seems to be that way if there is some sort of idea that the court acts according to law and not just politics. no one has said this more often than chief justice roberts. of course i think we have a lot of instances and even in the roberts court era where that is not seems to be true for citizens united reaching out to something they did not have to decide. another another major test when you have scholars from across the ideo

i am just glad that the supreme court did it, and those that say the supreme court should not make these decisions, they say that when it is not what they want as a decision made. they bring it up, but when it is a decision they want made, it is all right -- voting rights, cut them out. don't let them vote. that is just my opinion. host: in our next hour we will take a look at the supreme court strictly and decisions that were made, the majority opinion, the dissenting opinion, the thoughts of the justices on this issue. bravin --jess bravin of the "wall street journal" will be our guest. the topic of this decision and our "newsmakers" program. julian christ -- julian castro joining us, talking about his commentary housing from the supreme court and talks about how the seminary -- discriminatory housing rights require showing a pattern. more about that topic from julian castro. secretary castro: what it does do is it gives us certainty as we go forward with complaints that we could use this toll of disparate impact and we will use it. i believe in using it he will ensure that more people

the supreme court doesn't get it. >> that's twits the supreme court has done something to fix obama care. the first time was the justice roberts had to call obama care a tax to make it work. they did it and then now he has to reinterrupt what is established by states to mean. the states which you would think would be 50, all 50 they reinterpret thad to mean the states of the federal government. >> this is a return to the supreme court of frank lynn roosevelt in the sense that the constitution is not what is written. the constitution is whatever the supreme court says it is. in an active expeaed ensy and i think it's a case of roberts, his personality is a guy who wants to be liked, he is desperate to be liked, and so he makes these decisions. not based on legislative foundation but based on wanting the public to do something that he is a here wroe for the public about this. chief justice roberts was appointed by the bush administration. >> absolutely. and being look i think what's happening is really unfortunate because it's not the supreme court's job to clean up the mess of congress. m

well today, at the united states supreme court, the justices of the supreme court ruled 5-4 in favora less totally biased way of electing our congress. in arizona and in california and a few other states, they don't draw the congressional districts by the usual totally partisan process that's designed to help one party and hurt the other. in a few states, including arizona, which was the case today, they have a bipartisan, balanced expert commission that draws the districts instead of letting the politicians do it. it's a way that's supposed to be fair to everyone instead of just picking one party to win. republicans in arizona sued because they wanted the process to be more partisan. they're in control of state government, they wanted to draw the congressional maps themselves to help republicans more. but the supreme court today upheld the districts being drawn instead in this bipartsan expert good government technocratic way instead. that immediately effects arizona, but it's also a signal to good government types and reformers all around the country that you can do your congressio

supreme court?will give an example -- a number of states have a merit selection system for their supreme court justices but i think any president could voluntarily create a commission, bipartisan, and say he wants names, two or three supported by two thirds of the group, and promises to pick from those names or ask for additional names. alaska has used the system to tremendous success. sarah palin picked a person, working kristen, to be on the alaska supreme court who president obama put on the ninth circuit. jimmy carter created merit selection for his federal district court and federal court of appeals appointment. i think i can make the argument for federal court of appeal's argument that they are some of the most diverse in american history and he might have done that for the supreme court had he had a supreme court vacancy. any president could make such a merit selection commission. >> any response to that? >> i have one question, which is, with the merit selection system lead to the potential

it would head to the supreme court. michigan, kentucky, ohio and tens pleaded for relief from the high court and got it. here is al jazeera senior washington correspondent mike viqueria. >> reporter: as news spread to supporters waiting outside the supreme court a moment of jubilation. and for jim obergefel, the man who brought the case, justice was finally served. >> today's ruling from the supreme court affirms what we all know to be true in our hearts our love is equal. >> moved to ohio, which does not. when john decide, he fought to be listed on the death ticket with john's husband. must same sex unions be recognized in every state and do they fall under the 14th amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law? the court split on familiar ideologic lines, evenly subdivided between left and right with justice anthony kennedy casting a swing vote in a 5-4 decision. in his majority opinion kennedy wrote in part, the challenged law burden the lives of same sell couples and they bridge the gap of same sex couples.

they made their way to the supreme court into the supreme court just issued their ruling now. it is now legal in the united states. there were 14 states that have some sort of ban. i know those well had to be lifted. joining us now on the phone is stuart gaffney. one of the original plaintiffs in one of the earlier suit that led to the supreme court ruling that allowed marriage in california good morning three. it's a very exciting day. it is a total winner for love. we are jumping up and down and could not be more excited. where do you go from here. what is marriage equality go from here. this energy from this decision and the momentum from this movement is just going to continue and we are going to share the love is wedding bells now bring on all 50 states. continue to work for full equality in all aspects of our lives. this is a fulfillment. into you and your partner were part of the original approach. and getting that lawsuit filed. and then the ruling two years ago. it feels amazing. always follow your dream. 11 years ago. this seemed like maybe in our lifetime. they do c

based in part on preserving or repealing this law after multiple challenges to this law before the supreme court, we can now say this for certain the affordable care act still stands. it is working. and it is here to stay. on thursday, when the court upheld the critical part of the affordable care act it was a victory for hard-working americans all across this country whose lives are more secure because of this law. this law means that if you're a parent, you can keep your kids on your plan until they turn 26. if you're a senior, or an american with a disability, this law gives you discounts on your prescriptions. you can't be charged more just because you're a woman. and you can't be discriminated against just for having a pre-existing condition. this

i want to turn to adam may also at the supreme court. re you seeing as far as reaction outside of the court there? >> the crowd here outside of the courthouse went absolutely nuts the minute the decision came down. there are thousands of people that are right outside, a lot of them carrying the symbol of gay equality, the human rights campaign signs are all over the place here. lots of supporters from across washington, one individual said they were literally trembling with excitement. hillary clinton already put out a statement. in that statement she said this was a good day for america as well. and inside the courtroom right now are a couple of guys we interviewed a short time ago. they were plaintiffs in kentucky suing for the right for their marriage to be legally recognized. they flew in from kentucky last night. they were in the courtroom when that decision was handed down. we're waiting for them to come outside so we can get further reaction from them. but their family friends and supporters were outside the courtroom as well wishi

it is before the supreme court. the supreme test of the affordable care act is here to stay. court upheld a critical part of this law this morning. the part that made it easier for americans to afford health insurance regardless of where you live. if the partisan challenge to this had succeeded, millions of americans would have had thousands of dollars worth of tax credits taken from them. for many insurance would be unaffordable again and become uninsured again. ultimately, everyone's premiums could have gone up. america would have gone backwards. that is not what we do. that is not what america does. we move forward. today is a victory for hard-working americans across the country whose lives will continue to become more secure in a changing economy because of this law. host: a republican from texas, a freshman, has shown his reaction to the supreme court case by introducing a bill that would force the supreme court to enroll in obamacare. that is an "the hill." valerie is calling in from lafayette. you are an and rowley, is that correct -- an enrollee, is that correct? call

was the reaction of the majority of the supreme court. that's what really turned this case you know. chief justice roberts doesn't like the affordable care act, justice kennedy who joined him in the majority certainly doesn't like the affordable care act. we know that from what he wrote three years ago but they stared reality in the face. they stared in the face disaster for the supreme court. had the supreme court in this flimsy cobbled up phony piece of litigation disabled the law from serving these millions of people. it was a fascinating thing to see where reality trumps ideology at this point. >> e.j., it strikes me as a conservative opinion in the sense that the chief was simply saying look here are our guidelines for these kinds of situations. i'm following them carefully. as linda pointed out in something she written today, chief justice roberts used scalia's words against him from previous opinions. i want to read a couple of those. where justice roberts quotes scalia saying the words of a statute must be read in context and with

those four words written by supreme court supreme court justice anthony kennedy 5-4 margin the courtd same-sex marriage a fundamental right along side the right to due process the right to privacy, and the right to bear arms. to be sure the decision is just the beginning in many ways. the fight for and against same-sex marriage is not over. we're seeing it in the words of the justices and remarks of some politicians. but for tonight those who have battled for decades to make this civil right a reality this is a victory and a monumental one. >> this is a victory for gay and lesbian couples who have fought so long for their basic civil rights. it's a victory for their children. it's a victory for the allies and friends and support whose spend years and decades praying and working for change to come. >> this is the scene outside of the stone wall inn where clashes between police and gay activists almost 50 years ago gave rights to the gay rights movement. we begin in dc. mike viqueira has been following the events through the day. he joins us with more. mike. >> john, good evening. it w

supreme court.erall impressions on the ruling. was anything a surprise? >> one surprise was that it came today but turns out today is the two-year anniversary of the striking down of doma and the ten year or more anniversary of lawrence versus texas which struck down criminalization of gay conduct. justice kennedy who wrote the opinion wrote a major historical opinion and it is clear he was writing for history. he is a californian. >> is there a next step that could happen with this? or is this what we are going to see going forward? >> we will see what impact this has in other areas public accommodations, employment discrimination, public housing. for this issue this is the end of this. the supreme court has embedded this. it is five to four. the four dissenters don't have a lot to say other than it is not in the constitution. there is a lot not in the constitution. the air force isn't in the constitution. the idea that it is not in the constitution is not dispositive. the constitution is supposed

supreme court. what's the reaction so far, pamela? >> reporter: well outside the supreme court, when that ruling was announced, there were a lot of cheers and celebrationing large crowds out here saying aca is here to stay holding those signing. the stakes were very high for this because this was a key provision in president obama's signature legislature, subsidies, helping people pay for those -- and people in low-income middle-income bracket. so an issue here are these four words established by the state, that almost threw out obamacare, and could have caused major chaos. so, there was a lot of celebrating out here today, because now we know based on literally millions of americans, in states with federally run exchanges, can keep their subsidies that help them pay for health insurance. there was a lot of concern that if the court struck down this key provision, there would be chaos. wolf? >> this is the second time that the affordable care act has been upheld by the united states supreme court. so you're talking to legal experts, p

we are watching outside the supreme court. learned that the court has decided that same-sex marriage is now the law of the land. we are taking your calls while we wait for the president's remarks. karen is joining us in virginia. caller: thank you so much. i am a born-again believer. i am a very conservative republican. i am also in a same-sex marriage. i am extremely excited and relieved about the ruling. i am in related that -- i heard people's comments and i know people will disagree. that's what is great about being in america. you get to have your opinion and voice it. i know people are going to agree or disagree. i heard one caller say they are tighter -- tired of hearing about gay stuff. that's not what -- i want to have the same marriage with my wife that my mom and dad had. thank you for letting me say that i am a super excited. host: phil is joining us from chicago. are you there question mark caller: i am 72 years old. i consider this a nonevent. what's the skin off anybody's nose is it with what someone else wants

supreme court after the historic decision came down. marriage equality supporters had arrived early with signs and rainbow flags. the narrow 5-4 ruling basically split between the court's liberals and conservatives. justice anthony kennedy, the swing vote decided with the majority. he wrote about the petitioners' profound love for each other saying, quote, it would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. their plea is they do respect it respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. he added, their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. they asked for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. the constitution grants them that right. on the other side in his dissent, chief justice john roberts wrote, if you are among the many americans of whatever sexual orientation who favor expanding same-sex marriage by all means, celebrate today's decision. but do not celebrate the constitution. it had nothing to do with

supreme court.is, just one decade ago, states were passing constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage and now it's the law of the land. many people are asking why this one. a lot say it's the children of gay and lesbian children that turned this debate on its heels. for the last few months, i've been following the story of two kentucky dads leading the charge for equality and today we witnessed their family win at the supreme court. their case was called -- legal analysts predicted their appeal would be the row v. wade of same-sex marriage, the case that would go to the u.s. supreme court. it did. >> we certainly did not think that we would be a case going to the supreme court. we thought that would be played out long before. there were so many other states in the queue before us. we thought this would be settled before that. sure enough, all the other circuits have ruled in favor of marriage equality. we're shocked. >>reporter: the sixth circuit is often called unpredictable and it was her

"today the supreme court fulfilled the words engraved upon its building, equal justice under law. justice system has marginalize it had gay community and i am very glad the court has finally caught up to the american people. to florida: former florida governor jeb bush, republican who recently said he is running. "i believe the supreme court should have allowed the states to make the decision. i also believe we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. in a country as diverse as our, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side." and former secretary of state hillary clinton with this "proud to celebrate an historic victory for marriage equality and the courage and determination of lgbt americans who made it possible. republican real estate mogul donald trump, a gay marriage supporter says "once again the bush-pinted supreme court, justice john roberts has let us down. jeb pushed him hard. remember." former pennsylvania senator rick santorum said "today five unlichted judges redefined the foundational unit

this is the supreme court.y will be the day the nine justices issue their opinion on the fate of marriage equality as well as deliver other decisions they've been considering. would of course come the day after two major wins for the obama administration. the first being upholding the president's signature health care law. the other, the 5-4 decision upholding a key part of the 1968 fair housing act. joining me to get his reaction is secretary of housing and urban development. secretary castro first off your reaction. were you surprised with the decision to uphold the key dis disparate act part? >> there were many folks pleasantly surprised. i include myself in that category because of what had been read about justice kennedy and how he leaned on these types of issues in the past few years. however, having said that yesterday was a great victory for equal opportunity in our country. one of the defining challenges for the united states in this 21st century will be how do we remain the undisputed land of opportun

ted kennedy added that list represented "one of the insults to the supreme court in his history." among the justices, there was concern as well. according to one news report justice harlan whose retirement had created the second vacancy and who was often described as the court's conservative conscious was so outraged that he seriously considered writing the president a letter of protest. when -- one liberal judges after reading judge littllly's opinions got drunk. within the administration, that was also concern. during the vetting process lawyers had raised questions about the qualifications of the two nominees and their commitment to conservatism. the president was attracted to the political symbolism, believe them to be sufficiently conservative and intended to appoint them. but then then aba standing committee on the fed is just very as unqualified for the court. -- on the federal judiciary rated them both as unqualified. in the past, nixon probably would have sent the names to the senate anyway. but things were different now. it was time to search again. still, he was angered

other decisions we are waiting come the supreme court. this decision could have a major impact on companies. could have an impact on how companies treat their employees. been looking into that side of the store. you can argue corporate culture has been shifting in this direction already, making it possible for couples in same-sex marriages or relationships to have health care benefits and other insurance coverage through their spouse or partner. about 94, 90 five, maybe even higher than that, percent of companies offer benefits to same-sex couples who are domestic couples, who up until this point could not be married couples. the interesting thing is many of those companies may job that benefit for domestic partners that have been couples. pimm: in other words the companies would insist they be married to qualify for these benefits. percent are for same-sex couples. done, it was about 20% said they would drop domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples once this ruling came by. this was just in the last week. cost issueis was a in find

a dream come true for me area is facilitated by the best interlocutor i can imagine california supreme court justice live in loop. like justice ginsburg, he was a lot professor before joining the bench. he's widely published expert in constitutional law, education policy and the supreme work. he was a popular and acclaimed teacher winning the uc berkeley acclaimed teaching award, and he eventually became the board of directors the dean. but long before all that, just as lou was a law clerk. a longtime friend of acs for my also clerk. and then for justice ginsburg. he is perfect for this job because i know that he too has a long list of questions left over from the chamber's birthday parties. i am so excited to listen and as he asked them. please welcome our please join me and welcoming the justices. [applause] >> welcome everybody. thank you all for being here on a saturday afternoon. most especially, thank you to justice ginsburg. it's obviously a busy time of the court. as you and often is. thank you for spending a few minutes with us. you are now finishing your 22nd term on the supreme co

the supreme court's historic ruling on major equality. the court ruled same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. meaning every state must now allow gave and lesbian couples to marry. hillary clinton tweeted out a rainbow image reading proud. jeb bush just put this statement out. i believe the supreme court should have allowed the states to make this decision. i also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. strong reaction from presidential candidate and former arkansas governor huckabee sweeting this flawed, failed decision is an out of control act of unconstitutional judicial tiernny. and martden o'malley who is also running for president so grateful for the people of maryland for leading the way on this important issue of human dignity. we just learned also have that a courthouse in atlanta is already performing same-sex marriages this morning. georgia did not allow same-sex marriages. the court's ruling was split 5-4. >> thank you. we're following a developing story in

in part on preserving or repealing this law, after multiple challenges to this law before the supreme court, the affordable care act is here to stay. >> so the court voted 6-3, chief justice john roberts writing the majority opinion. he said congress passed at fordable care act to improve health insurance markets not to destroy them. if at all passossible, we must interpret the act that is consistent with the former and avoids the latter. my colleague is he could host of "the cycle" and nbc's chief legal correspondent. i say that chief justice writes again. wrote the decision in 2012. he takes the lead here again. break down what the decision means and what it says for the american people that need the subsidies. >> that's exactly right. chief justice roberts was the key fifth vote last time. this morning, he was the sixth vote. what it means is that the law obama care is here to stay and the subsidies are going to over six million americans throughout the country. that money keeps flowing more over. it is law of the land. so it not only stays as a practical matter but the uncertainty that

and supreme court of united states care, we used to call it supreme court, no it's skotis care, he's >> yeah. he does have a way with words and i think that's very app to today. >> well, actually we are going to make medicaid optional for the states . stuart: now, so far -- >> and we're going to call the individual mandate a tax not a mandate . stuart: now, most people on this screen at the moment are relatively calm. one is not. her name is betsy. [laughter] she's a bit tied right here. you're not happy at all. >> well, i tell you with what. the supreme court saint fact-finding body. they have to work with the material given to them. and let administration lawyers lied. they lied by saying that it was never intended that there would be a distinction between the exchanges and the federal.gov exchange. and we have an enormous amount of evidence, some of it just coming out from the mit jonathan gruber on video 20 days after the law passed saying if you don't establish an exchange in your state your residents will not get the subsidies. we've got the congressional research service warni

>> there is another wave of religious challenges that are making its way to the supreme court court. they are predomantly catholic there. this is not the hobby lobby challenge. this is another challenge that goes directly to the core teaching of religious organizations. that is going to make its way to the supreme court. but after today, who knows how it will end up. >> what does it mean going forward as far as the controversy is concerned? you cannot chose your doctor, can't get catastrophic insurance there are so many extra expenses added to this, will that change. >> those arguments, i cannot keep my doctor it is costing me too much the deductibles they go to the presidential campaign. >> it is andrea. speak again, you mentioned the precedent this sets and now lawmakers are going to put the lengthy purposes or upfronts in the law to protect themselves because what the court basically did was not read the law as it was written. they twisted it into a political pretzel which they did with the obamacare tax. this is a politicized court. is this decision bigger than marberry versus ma

before they filed in federal court and then had a case that was susceptible to being brought to the supreme court level. so if we go state-by-state, even if they are litigating in state court so long as they are only bring this under the state constitution because they are the ultimate arbiters of state law. so any good or harm that kind of thing it would be contained within the boundaries of the state. and so what these movement lawyers are doing is to adopt this strategy and they are saying that what they wanted was you know, 10 states with same-sex marriage 10 states where the civil unions were part of this 10 states with some form of relationship recognition. so that was a kind of guideline, definitely more than a guideline, but that was a guideline for what they were going to be prepared to go to the supreme court for her, knowing full well that it was totally endorsed that it was too far ahead of public opinion. and so what we see in many of these things. >> is at the same time it is just watching the outlines. so by the time that was decided in 1967, 34 states had talked about it in the su

another legacy item from the supreme court. that big obamacare decision. >> after more than 50 votes in congress to repeal or weaken this law, after a presidential election based in part on preserving or repealing this law, after multiple challenges to this law before the supreme court, the affordable care act is here to stay. >> a day later the landmark protection for same-sex marriage. >> we can say, in no uncertain terms, that we've made our union a little more perfect. >> plus a moving eulogy and a call to arms in charleston. >> removing the flag from this state's capital would not be an act of political correctness. it would not be an insult to the valor of confederate soldiers. it would simply be an acknowledgment that the cause for which they fought, the cause of slavery, was wrong. >> nia-malika henderson, he looked different, he sounded different, he promised if that podcast he is different. he said after some failures, he's got it. he knows how to do his job. he's fearless. is there something to watch in a lasting way