supreme courts. the 28 just in red appoint judges, after that they are set for life or face uncontested elections, this is not where voters worry about money polluting election, the 13 states in orange they've got so-called nonpartisan elections where judges are listed on ballots without party affiliation but then there are the nine states in gray. they have partisan elections where judges run under a party affiliation in primary or general elections. pennsylvania where i am tonight is one of those states in gray. this is where the debate over money and integrity really matters mainly because of those nine states marked in gray. spending on state supreme court elections has skyrocketed. it went from $83 million in the ten years between 1990 and 1999, to $207 million in the decade from 2000 to 2009. and alabama someone of the states moving that money needle. it's one of the biggest that'siest elections took place back in 2006. sue bell cobb won the seat that year, but since retiring in 2011 she has co

ted kennedy added that the list was one of the great insults to the supreme court in its history. among the justices, there was concern, as well. according to one news report, justice harland whose retirement created the second vacancy and who was often described as the court's conservative conscious so outraged he seriously considered writing the president a letter of protest. a liberal justice after reading some of judge lily's opinions promptly got drunk. within the administration, there was also concern. during the vetting process, white house lawyers had raised questions about the qualification of the two nominees. and also, about their commitment to conservatism. however, the president was very attracted to their political symbolism, believed them to be sufficiently conservative and intended to appoint them. but then the aba standing committee on the federal judicial rated them both as unqualified for the court. friday by a vote of 6-6. and lily by a vote of 11-1. in the past, nixon probably would have sent the names to the senate anyway. but things were different now. it was

supreme court? >> i think it's pretty good that we have three now and we make a big difference because we're all over the bench and i sit toward the middle because i've been around so long and justice sotomayor to my right and if any of you have come to watch the show at the court, you know that my newest colleagues are not shrinking violets. they're very active in the questioning. gene coin from the minnesota supreme court said that in the end of the day, a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same judgment, and yet there are some cases that, at least i think, would have come out the other way if there were five women or more and one of them is lily leadbetter's case. every woman understood lily's problem. now there is the carhart case and the partial birth abortion case, and the two cases involving children whose parents were not married and they could become citizens if their mother was a u.s. citizen and not the father. the supreme court was wrong about that twice. so there are cases

it's a question of statutory interpretation, there can be a healthy back and forth between the supreme court and the political branches. let me put it this way. the court is not in a popularity contest. it should never be influenced by today's headlines, by the weather of today. but as paul said, inevitably, it will be effected by the climate of the era. i think that's part of the explanation of why the gay rights movement has advanced to where it is today. the climate of the aera. the court is really out in front. i mean, even in brown versus board, which everyone thinks of a big social change. well, there was a brief by the u.s. on behalf of the united states in that case, it said essentially we were fighting a war against odious racism. and in that war until the very end our troops were rigidly segregated by race, a huge embarrassment and now the soviet union is pointing to the united states, this apartheid racist society. it's a constant embarrassment. it's time for forced segregation of the racism of schools to end. that was the position that the united states government was taking. mad

in fact, leaving aside voter i.d., which the supreme court says if you administrate you don't put in e whole ad. on replanted from the ruling, where the court found no intent. i am sure they'll figure it out. section two does the work, if you can't prove that section two is doing the work. further buttresses the argument of the way the supreme court ruled to dismantle section five. >> there is a tool to answer back, to change that law. quickly, before we go. >> the problem is you can't re do an election. since the resurfacing plans, we had to put something in place penting further litigation, we had elections that have been affected by a decision of the restricting plan, and we can't go back and fix it after the break >>> we are going to keep the conversation going. next - whether new state regulations and supreme court decisions change the shape, size and make up of the electorate as >> the lifeline of the american west. >> what does this river mean to you? >> the river, to me, means homeland. >> in danger of running dry. >> there'll come a time when we fight over every last drop of

the supreme court in a very influential 969 case, allen v. state board of elections, said, yes, all of these voting changes have to be proved. any election change has to be approved, because the voting rights act is going to deal with not just the right to vote, but the power of the vote. to guarantee that once you register, your vote actually means something. that established section five of the act, the preclearance provision. what happened was that was very controversial, and almost immediately southern conservatives wanted to get rid of the requirement that states had to approve their voting changes with the federal government. so when richard nixon campaigned in 1968, he promised strom thurmond and all those southern conservatives who were sporting him that he was -- supporting him that he was going to gut section five of the vra. so once he became president, that's exactly what he tried to do. he failed in that effort. as i mentioned, the congress wouldn't allow the nixon administration to do that. but what we see is even after nixon lo

she is the first and as far as the only member of the supreme court to be a woman. she was the first and only longhorn that was a woman in 1999 when she was appoint to the court of appeals and only the second woman appointed to the court of appeal and privy council. she was the first high court judge to come from an academic and serve ant. she had been called to the bar in 1969 and in 1989. when she practiced law briefly in manchester, she decided the ratio, as much as she had seen in cambridge, she was one of six women in her class. she was the only one to get a star first for exceptional distinction. she became an academic at manchester city specializing in family law, wrote a series of books on family law, including case books on parental responsibility on mental health. and her book on women in the law in 1984 has been described as a ground-breaking analysis of the way gender in equality was codified in british law. in 1984, she became the first woman appointed to the law commission, which is a law reform body and was instrumental in the passage of the children's

the five supreme court justices thought they were only brave enough to step in and -- anthony kennedysaid -- so i think the court felt like they were doing the heavy lifting in congress. >> hi. i am bob zoellner and i worked with nick and john lewis and i worked with reverend barber and the movement in north carolina and i want to thank you very much for this masterwork. you are a real snake guy. that happens a lot -- snake guy. i do have a specific question and it's not to force it off on you. the black lives matter movement and ferguson in charleston and all that we focus on pinch points where we can get someone and convince someone to do the right thing or we can compel them to do the right thing. what are the pinch points? where would the young people go now? where were the activists go to make their nonviolent protest? >> you set me up well bob because i would urge people to pay attention to what's happening in north carolina where we have seen the most dramatic renewal of the civil rights movement. workgroups realize was that a month after the spring court go to the er at -- vra

they needed the same victory in the supreme court of the united states. that is what they continued to work for. houston and thurgood were what we call test case lawyers. they were always looking for that perfect case to bring before the court to get the ruling they wanted to change the laws, the interpretation of the law that would bring about social change. judge hamilton had moved up to new york where he became the head of the legal for the naacp. there are wonderful letters between thurgood and houston where he says, thank you for the $75 for the work i did for you. it helped to keep the wolf off the door. is he convinced the naacp executive board to hire thurgood as his assistant. he was traveling any needed someone in the office. thurgood grabbed the job. it paid like $200 a month. he moved up to a place in harlem, he and his wife. and he does into this work, which was really is life's passion -- really was in his life passion. about 38, 39. charles -- charles houston health was never really good. he decides to resign from the naacp and go back to te

to tamper with the supreme court . en you look at state courts e when they go to elected only, it is the individual rights that are implicated by that. let me get this straight. with too much money and elections, and election is foul therefore the court should run elections. that is extreme logic of reverse variety. host: that is john from new mexico. our next caller is ira from palm beach, florida. in support of term limits. caller: i am in support of term limits and the reason is with both laws the way they are, if you oppose term limits, you get justices with terms undefined. if you feel that term limits give justices change. law workers can still work backdoor for whatever they lobby for, get those terms in through those who change without administration and term change. either way neither of those are a product of a straightway making pat with jaws -- with laws being just and less the supreme court is just themselves. host: this story and the atlantic is titled why the supreme court needs term limits. the story goe

without the human rights act, we would have reached the same conclusion as the majority of your supreme court in the most famous of those nine recent cases in which magna carta has been cited in that court. under the human rights act, it would have been easy. the act governs the actions of british authorities wherever they are in the world. the convention rights protect everyone, alien or citizen, who is within the jurisdiction of the united kingdom. those who are detained by british authorities anywhere in the world are undoubtedly within the united kingdom's jurisdiction. article 5 of the convention therefore applies, not only must there be good grounds for retaining them but the existence of grounds must be approved before an independent impartial tribunal established by law. it would have been a little bit more complicated. but aliens are undoubtedly able to apply for habeas corpus. just as a slave did in 1772 and was freed. the test of whether the writ will run against the british authorities is is whether they have sufficient control of the person detained. i rather hesitate to mention

it is for the supreme court to decide. nicole: we have that case where there was not a huge deference argument made but the fcc issued decisions along these lines, i don't think the court mentioned it in its opinion. we are not interested. adam: that is true. kannon: i want to make sure we have questions from the audience. we have questions we have received over the internet. the last 15 minutes or so, let's talk about where the roberts court is now and where the roberts court is going. we've had 10 years of the roberts court. what you guys think is the most significant decisions? adam: citizens united, and marriage. miguel: you were clearly ready for that one. i think juvenile death penalty. the juvenile death penalty and the rulings on whether you can execute somebody who may not be technically retarded, but is challenged. adam: and cutting back on the death penalty in cases not involving murder, cutting back on juvenile life without parole. the court has narrowed harsh punishments across a number of dimensions. kannon: w

to my left is adam liptak the supreme court correspondent for the times he has been at least since 2008 to is covered most of the roberts court and other of legal issues before that. wife gave former baseball player he is aware having practiced in new york before going in the house that the times so he brings a perspective. and to his left is nicole saharsky she may be a regular person but an extraordinarily the -- extraordinary lawyer arguing 23 cases before the supreme court and serves in the government's office that handles of all the litigation before the supreme court on she has been there since 2007 and is the longest serving assistant and i can say one of the finest advocates before the supreme court and i know that from personal experience. in terms of the format, we have approximately 90 minutes we will chat among ourselves for most of that time. at the end we will take questions from the audience or you can send a question through twitter and i will read that out for quite have a few question misheard -- submitted earlier this week. but i will start with a general question for

i think that again, nevada has its own laws, but the supreme court case will have rulings or precedence. >> but they weren't ruling on the nevada law. that's the bottom line. they were not ruling on the nevada constitution of the that's why we have the state courts and the -- >> don't the same principles apply? >> the same principles may apply, but they were not ruling on this particular constitution that they have in nevada. >> if it goes up to the supreme court, i feel they're going to rule in the same way because it's the same issue. >> the supreme court would be hard pressed to reverse themselves, wouldn't they? and they don't even like to distinguish their own cases. >> but on the face of it, it's clearly a violation. every state has their own constitution and it could go over and beyond the u.s. constitution and clearly on this particular case, it's in violation. it's a violation on the face no matter how good the program may be. >> i think it's a creative argument the state of nevada is make. well, technically the money isn't being spent by us, the state. but rather it's being sp

i've got to go. >> i admire your faith in the supreme court. >> i don't have any faith in the supremehave a faith in law and facts. we don't like it, let's change it. lou dobbs, everybody. and get soros in here. >>> directly ahead, how many foreign born children entered the country in july? we have the stats. >>> then miller. does he like any of the republican contenders? >>> coming up, shark attacks in america. how bad is the situation? those reports after these messages. ...and the wolf was huffing and puffing... kind of like you sometimes, grandpa. well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe. it can be hard to get air out, which can make it hard to get air in. so i talked to my doctor. she said.. doctor: symbicort could help you breathe better, starting within 5 minutes. symbicort doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. symbicort helps provide significant improvement of your lung function. symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. symbicort contains formoterol. medicines like formoterol inc

last time i looked thanks to the supreme court. and yet i think there's probably anti-abortion language in the republican party platform too. >> well, that's true. that's a fair point and, in fact, people should understand abortion is now legal by about four and three quarters to four and a quarter of the supreme court. i mean, there were four who were for it, four who were against it. and justice kennedy is finding a lot of ways to go for restrictions. sandra day o'connor, who resigned from the supreme court, timing it so that george w. bush could replace her now appears to have resigners remorse because she's upset -- >> right. >> -- that some of the decisions she made, both in campaign finance and affirmative action, but also on abortion are being overturned. but she should have thought of that when she let him appoint these guys. >> come back to what i said earlier, elections have consequences. >> absolutely right. and of 2016, and i say this to, you know, all the people, there's no difference. 2016 is going to decide whether o

that was extended by the supreme court into politics. if an individual has the right to give money, than a corporation has the right to do so. this is a big, big leap. it went against all the things that states and federal officials had operated on. it went against values that republican and democratic presidents and governors had embraced and knocked down a huge amount of our existing campaign finance law. in the immediate aftermath of it, people say, corporati corporations -- -- corporations are not going to do that. the reality is, since the citizens united ruling, we have seen a massive uptick in the spending on our campaigns and we are going from record-level of spending to record-level of spending. each new election cycle, we hit a new peek of spending and the growth and the amount of money has been exponential. it hasn't all come from corporations. it has also come from wealthy individuals who are giving money and what we really should understand is, that citizens united is not in and of itself the definitional ruling for our time

we are argued in two supreme court cases. the most recent cases northwestern -- northwest municipal utility district number one versus holder, and then the shelby county case, which we'll be talking a lot more about today. we litigated those cases, defending the constitutionality of one of the most powerful positions of the voting rights act, section five. it doesn't account for all the work that we did in working with the department of justice in the preclearance progress that allows the federal government intervene and preclear to judge whether any law that's about to be enacted may have a discriminatory impact on racial minorities. that's a provision that is now defunct because of the shelby county case, and it's one that we're hoping to resurrect and even make morrow bust. ever since it's passed we participated and represented plaintiffs. plaintiff interveners. these are just the cases that were not settled out of court in some other way. needless to say we've had a robust impact on the voting rights acts, enforcements, a

the supreme court has kind of look looked at this issue. not in a way that's really direct. certainly not recently. one of the challenges to overcoming it is the way the court has interpreted language in the 14th amendment of the constitution, which talks about the right to vote. it is a punishment structure created for the south to allow southern states back into the union and it essentially said that southern states would be punished in terms of the number of representatives that they had if they denied the ability of men over age 21 to vote except in cases of having been criminals. and so that language in the 14th amendment has been interpret ed as a kind of sanction or interpreted as the framers of the 14th amendment accepting, understanding, endorsing the idea of felony disenfranchisement. until we get that interpret overturned, we'll not have a global solution to the problem. that does not mean that there should not be and is not an effort to deal with it on a state by state basis. one is by the legislative overturn i talked about, but the other way is to look at state

i've got to go. >> i admire your faith in the supreme court. >> i don't have any faith in the supremert. i have a faith in law and facts. we don't like it, let's change it. lou dobbs, everybody. and get soros in here. >>> directly ahead, how many foreign born children entered the country in july? we have the stats. >>> then miller. does he like any of the republican contenders? >>> coming up, shark what do your parents do for you? they buy me food. they make sure i'm never lost. well... they pay my allowance. oh! now i remember... cigna covers preventive care. so you can also take care of yourself, for them. prospered in the town ofe hattington. never flashy, he only made the classic bowler. then suddenly the day's trend became preposterously tall. his raymond james financial advisor reminded him that focusing on the long term is always fashionable. the fad was indeed a passing one. his patience paid off, allowing him to one-day hang up his hat with confidence. life well planned. see what a raymond james advisor can do for you. >>> while controversy over so-called anchor babies rages,

and the supreme court, they sided with us. just takes someone to lead and stand up to the court. >> senator, thank you. to governor gilmore. for years presidential candidates have not said they would have a litmus test for justices nominated to the supreme court. recently hillary clinton broke that precedent. she said she would apply that on the case of citizens united, which deals with campaign finance laws in america today. is it time for conservatives to impose a litmus test on abortion? >> well, as you know, i'm a former elected prosecutor, a former elected attorney general, trained at the university of virginia in constitutional law. and i don't believe it litmus tests except this. i believe we should be appointing supreme court justices who will follow the law and not try to make the law. now, the challenge we're seeing today the supreme court is being convert need some type of political body. they have to have some legal basis and precedence for being able to follow the law instead of making the law up. and my goal is i

finally in the 1960 as after a series of cases the supreme court stepped in and said that the federal can hear these cases and that they have the jurisdiction to do so. and that really opened up the flood gates and there were lawsuits filed from 35 or 40 different states challenging the malapportionment of state legislatures. and 1964 the supreme court handed down the one person one vote. >> and that was a monumental decision. and we should also mention there have been movements where this can affect presidential politics. pennsylvania there was talk about having all the electoral votes go to whoever won the most districts in the state. thanks for being on the show. take care. >>> and developing right now the president is doing something no president has ever done. hosting the very first white house dem moe day. they are not destroying the white house. this president's invited innovators from across the country to demonstrate how their start-ups are changing the world. and the president is set to announce another public and private commitment to increasing foster dwoers in the tech se

chafee: how would i pick the supreme court justice?that is why this election is so important in 2016. just think about the consequence whether it is the environment or these wars overseas, but probably at the top of the list is the appointment to the supreme court because they are lifetime appointments. the strategy has been, i was there for two of them in the senate, and i voted against sam alito and roberts was the other one, but i voted against sam alito because he is against women's reproductive rights and other things. the strategy i said, you get these young justices, they are there for a lifetime. get them as young as possible, that is the strategy. so they are there for a long time. it is important for the future of our country. so if we look at who we are going to vote for as president, that is going to be at the top of my list. i talk about what type of people i have surrounded myself with over the years and you can be totally confident that i would make good appointments to the supreme court, you can be totally confident abo

untilt( 2013 when the supreme court removed that critically important o protection. >> now every timethe vra was renewed under a republican president.w3 nixon in 1974, and '75. reagan in '82 and george w. bush in 2006. every time it was renewed there was a big ceremony for the white house where the president gave a speech about how wonderful the vra was. were those presidents all lying? >> well, it is -- fascinating because i think many people think of the vr arntion as a democrats and piece of legislation passed by lyndon johnson in the hay day of the great society but they've been in passage of the vra but reauthorization as well there's been a strong bipartisan consensus per the voting right it is act in congress, and what is interesting that the voting right it is act has been reauthorized four times even though many of those republican presidents really did not want to reauthorize the act and tried hard to subvert it. first richard nixon with a southern strategy did not want to sign a reauthorization of the vra but forced because of republican moderates in his own party pushing b

many people say that the supreme court is the supreme court of the government. member,ate and a house i pledged to uphold the constitution of the united states. congressman, every senator, every president has an obligation to be faithful to the constitution. congress and the president cannot change the law and it is determined upon the courts to put them back in place. when the supreme court gets it wrong, it is incumbent upon the president and congress to make things right. the supreme court backed down and that is why partial-birth is illegal today. [applause] gov. santorum: we need leadership on other issues. we are at a point in time in our country where four years ago when i was standing on this stage, we see what is happening threatshe world that are rising against america, not just from iran but from china and russia and even from central and south america. this president has turned a blind eye to deliberately powerful enemies. notas empowered russia by holding up to her trees with ukraine. he has empowered syria. he has empowered iran. he has empowered i

my left is adam liptak, supreme court correspondent for the times. he has been a correspondent since 2008. he has covered most of the roberts court. he covered other legal issues before that for "the times." rather like a former baseball player, he turns into a commentator and his best is -- and he himself is a lawyer. he brings perspective of someone who knows of what he speaks. and to his left is nicole saharsky. the honorable nicole saharsky. she may be a regular person, but she is an extraordinary lawyer. she has argued 23 cases before the supreme court. if my math is correct. assistant to the solicitor general. she serves in the office that handles the government of litigation for the supreme court. she has been there since 2007. she is now the longest-serving assistant in the office and i can say, one of the finest advocates before the supreme court. i can say that from personal experience, having argued against her last fall in the omnicare case. in terms of the format for this morning, we have approximately 90 minutes. we will just kind of cha

all that remained was the supreme court giving their opinion. they came back in 1927 and said there was no issue of federal law in this case, therefore, the kansas supreme court decision was upheld, and that meant the klan could no longer legally operate in the state, and kansas to give the first state to have a legal ouster of the klan

so the supreme court never ruled, even if they did, it would be wrong. the clause speaks for itself,

chafee: i would i take the supreme court justice? that is why this election is so important in 2016. just think of the consequences, the environment, continuing rhese wars overseas, all of th things that come from the republicans. part of it is what comes from the supreme court. their lifetime appointments. i voted against sam alito. and roberts was the other one. i voted against sam alito because i did not think he was going to stand up for women's reproductive freedoms or marriage equality, gay rights, lgbt writes. he has not been. he was wrong on both of them as we went forward in the supreme court. the strategy is to get the young justices, because they are there for a lifetime. get them as young as possible. that is the strategy. they are there for a long time making decisions. important for the future of our country? when we look at who we vote for for president, that has to be at the top of the list. look at the record. my character. the type of people that have surrounded myself with. you can be totally confident that i will

[laughter] one of the things i've always thought is very interesting about the supreme court is we dothink about the court, we named the court after the -- >> miguel doesn't know how to suppress your votes. [laughter] >> boy, the gloves are off. >> the comment on old chief? >> the gloves are off. i'm just going to leave at this point. [laughter] courts are sort of named after chief justices, but the chief justice doesn't really control the court. so with the obama administration, the president obviously runs the the executive branch and is responsible for what goes on there. but what the roberts court, he's facing the very real prospect that he could be in dissent if the presidential election comes out in a particular direction, and that hasn't happened with a chief justice in a while. >> it's a weird shorthand to attribute a single name to a court where the person in question has one vote and where the personnel that that person -- i've lost track of my syntax. when the personnel of that court changes. >> to what extent do you think that the possibility of a sort of dramatic change i

there was one case, the exxon, before the supreme court during the roberts court, but there wasn't a that was really on the business agenda. now there's the class action concern, the walmart case, and there's even in, you know, particular areas of law like securities fraud, the government has an interest in those. there's been, i think, a pretty serious attempt to get some cutbacks there on the part of the business community. and now with the union cases, you know, even the cases that have been granted for next year. so those aren't, those are probably cases that the government has less of or as much of an interest in as the business community, and we -- some of those the court has asked for our views about whether to take. it's a call for the views of the solicitor general at the certiorari stage. we have the cert brief, should we take it, should we not. i can't say they've deferred to us all that much on those business-type questions. >> so adam is our color commentator here. what is going on with those changes in the court's docket? >> so i'm persuaded, and reuters did a nice stud

and the supreme court said, you know what, this is america. this might be repugnant speech but the first amendment applies to repugnant speech. the first amendment applies to animal crush videos. so what does this mean for ron hines, the veterinarian in texas? what it means is, if he decided he wanted to talk to kurdish terrorists about how to, like, let's say they have a herd of cattle or something like that and they're using that herd of cattle to support their fighters or something, he could talk to them about that, and the first amendment would apply to that conversation if he were to be prosecuted by the federal government for providing material support to terrorists. now, if ron hines also wanted to exchange animal crush videos with scottish missionaries in rural nigeria, the first amendment would apply to animal crush videos. according to the fifth circuit, the first amendment doesn't apply if ron hines is actually just trying to help an animal. so if he wants to help terrorists, or he wants to trade fetish videos, no problem. but if he

if you count up the days, it's 48, today since the supreme court made history. it is a tall order, i think, to expect all issues regarding same-sex marriage to have gone away. >> as you will say some gay couples, the fight is going on. >> reporter: one of the most significant days in recent u.s. political history, june 26, 2015, the supreme court made gay marriage legal in all 50 states. in the street celebrations lasting all weekend. >> we are considered equal to everyone else. it's a joyous occasion. >> in new york and multiple other cities gay pride parades bim became an extension of jubilation, now almost two months down the road and many gay couples realise in some respects, despite the momentous decision, not a lot changed. >> we thought we'd go down to the county court courthouse and get a marriage licence, and now it's quickly stopped. >> april and karen live in kentucky. with the help of the a.c.l.u., they are battling a clerk, refusing to give them a marriage licence on religious grounds, even though the county judge told them to get on with it. >> thi

once the supreme court made the decision that that was constitution, you saw an explosion of loss inhe south, that permitted -- of laws that permitted segregation in all sectors of life. the naacp was attempting to overturn the president. they could try to do it in one case, but if they lost, that would the end of their tents. beginning in the 1930's, they began to file cases to chip away at that president. the strategy was to and segregation in law schools and graduate schools and worked on to college and then down to elementary schools. roundly board of education, the name brown is the first name to appear out of the list of plaintiffs. in kansas, the local chapter of the naacp, lawyers and also local activists, recruited 13 parents, and one of them was oliver brown, and it were 12 other mothers, and all 13 of those parents had children that attended one of the four african-american elementary schools in topeka, one of them being monroe. oliver brown was a friend of one of the lawyers. the lawyers recruited people they knew in the community that they thought would be upstanding cit

filed a lawsuit against the railroad and the lawsuit was heard by the supreme court. the plessy v ferguson case, the judge and the original local -- it established the principle known as the separate but equal runcible. it actually came from the law itself. it required that they provide separate but equal compartments for each race. what does that mean? a little bit vague. yousupreme court said if think they are not keeping their end of the bargain, go ahead and do that. but we don't see anything on the face of this law that violates the 14th amendment which guarantees equal protection under the law. he made a series of innovative argument. partly he brought back his own principle that the law must be colorblind. that the law can't classify people as white or colored. citizens are citizens. he went on to make a number of other points. you look at the whole history of when you're classifying people by race. argumentse counter said we have ladies rooms and men's rooms. he said that is a different pacification. race has this segment -- a specific meaning and the purpose

the supreme court clearly upheld the wording in both cases.ven though some are trying to pars the amendment, they will fail and it's a waist of -- waste of time. it also gives the left ammunition. the "new york times" today demonizing the republican party over trump's immigration plan which the "times" calls despicable. the left hoping to turn defeat into victory by playing the race card and portraying trump and the entire republican party as racist brutalizers. now, there is a way to legally revoke the anchor baby law and it should be done as that law is undermining federal immigration. but you there is also a way for republicans to lose the upcoming election if they out extheir far left counterparts. and that's the memo. now for the top story tonight, reaction. joining us from washington david ripken an attorney that served in the reagan the bush elder generations and from berkeley california john u. teaches law at the university of california. i am going to begin with you. i don't know whether you listen to talk radio but a lot of these guy

48 to this very day since the supreme court of the united states made that history. so i expect that it's a tall order to suppose that all issues regarding same-sex same-x marriage to have gone away. but for some gay couples, the fight is very much stil still o. june 6th, 2015, the supreme court just made gay marriage legal in all 50 states, and in the streets, the celebrations underway that would last all weekend. >> it's a very joyous occasion. >> in new york, an extension of the jubilation, but now, almost two months down the road, gay couples realizing that despite the supreme court's decision, not a lot has changed. >> we thought we would go down to the county courthouse and get a marriage license whenever we wanted. and that was quickly stopped. >> reporter: april and karen live in kentucky, and they're battling the clerk who refuses to give them a marriage license based on religious grounds, though the judge has told them to get on with it. >> it's our home, it's where our daughter went to school, and where we work, where we live, most importantly, and we want