retired workers in tell us about it in the face of the city and in two thousand and seven the supreme court of justice confirmed that decision. but strangely enough it's the colombian government that opposes frontino being given to the workers it appeals and manages to overturn all the decisions in favor of the trade unionists and the government at the time is led by president alvaro. he becomes personally involved in the case the frontier no company is overindebted he places it under direct control of the state. they've been seeing down but already. gay's day the president. it was from this region was very preoccupied and. nationality he had managed to resolve the major problems of the country but not those of his own regions. and this was like a thorn in his side for him it's been and for all. but over a rebate has to deal with macaco the local paramilitary leader he names a commission of four experts to advise him on frontino his future according to our investigation three of them have ties with macaco one of them is even his financial advisor role in day amid the heene businessman so here's a man

reporter is live at the supreme court in washington, dc. >> it is a remarkable scene here at the supreme court, a sea of people lined up to witness history. inside the court, the nine justices weighing in on the explosive issue of same-sex marriage. >> today, the supreme court is examining the definition of marriage. the justices heard oral arguments in a case challenging california's proposition 8 that amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. >> what harm to the institution of marriage or to opposite sex couples, how does the cause and effect work? >> supporters say it serves a vital interest and voter should vote on this. >> we believe proposition eight is constitutional and the place for the decision to be made regarding redefining marriage is with the people, not with the courts. >> the plaintiffs in the case, two california couples say the law violates gays and lazy babies right to equal protection. >> from the beginning the case has been about securing the right to marry the opinion i love and having equal access to the most important relationship i know in life which is marriage. >> attitudes are changing rapidly. a majority of americans believe they

we'll be back with supreme court we'll be back with supreme court justice sandra day chances are, you're not made of money, so don't overpay for motorcycle insurance. geico, see how much you could save. >> jon: welcome back to the program. we're talking with former supreme court justice sandra day o'connor. you mentioned something to me -- we were talking about the supreme court and they seem protective over the process and you were saying one of reasons you thought that might be. >> the supreme court is the one branch of government that has written explanations for everything it decides and z. that's pretty impressionive. no member of congress has to write an written explanation of everything. >> jon: such a good point. >> yes, not bad. >> jon: but it is. in the legislature -- things happen that seem inexplicable on the legislative side. >> right. >> jon: or the executive side and no one seems to know how it went down. it's backroom things that show up and they vote on it. >> but every member of the court has to have a written explanation. you can join someone else's opinion and say i agree with th

of this issue. it has gotten involved. paul clementyab respond to supreme court justice anthony kennedy. marc solomon? i think justice kennedy's position is marriage has always been in the province of the states, the states determine what eight marriages and what it is a and the federal government simply recognizes for the purpose of federal treatments and respect, recognizes marriage performed the state with the exception of marriages of gay couples. and they were talking about how important all of these different protections, federal protections are from edie windsor having to pay $363,000 in estate taxes when her wife died, if her partners and had been theo instead of thea, she would not have had to pay any taxes. it goes on and on. there are these typical stories of married couples, married in their state of new york or iowa or washington and on and on or just treated as a legal strangers by the federal government. >> i want to play another excerpt of the supreme court's oral arguments wednesday when justice elena kagan focused on the underlying motives of congress in passing the defense of marria

supreme court after attorneys argued over the merits of defense of marriage act or doma. >> reporter: that's right, i witnessed some gasp out loud moments inside of the supreme court as the justices took up the defense of marriage act. >> full equality. right here, right now! >> reporter: for some legally married gays and lesbians today's hearing was all about economic justice. >> there are benefits i earned through my military service that are denied to us. >> reporter: doma defines marriage between a man and woman. the obama administration is declining to defend the law prompting this barb today from chief justice john roberts. >> i don't see why he doesn't have the courage of his convictions and execute not only the statute but do it consistent with his view of the constitution. rather than saying we'll wait until the supreme court. >> reporter: doma is led by a group of house republican leadership. saying congress is trying to avoid conflict with states experimenting with same sex marriage. >> it asked the justice department three times. >> reporter: justice elena kagan all with her take. >> if happened in 1996, i'm quoting from the house report here, doing decided to reflect

court courtesy of her cousin chief justice roberts. they are first cousins. >> the question of same-sex marriage is now before the supreme court on tuesday, wednesday, justices hear oral arguments in two cases. first up a challenge. the ballot that amendmented a constitution toin clud a ban on same-sex marriage. the justices could decide whether the couples have a

we have the family choice of nine supreme court justices. we have a hold of the views of the citizens on same-sex marriage that 81% of those surveyed are in favor of allowing same-sex marriage. profile of the same-sex couples at the center of a lawsuit. another profile of a significant republican congressman who came out and said, i am in favor of gay rights with a child in college. today, nfl veterans. i am thinking, the national football league has to be brought in to justify same-sex marriage? we have just about lined up every constituency i can think of in support of this. i see the effort ahead. if i am a betting man, i fully expect doma will be struck down. the issue has been devolved so rapidly and has gained such support across a broad range of constituencies that i predict doma will fall. that will be ok. we will be able to move along from there. slide, please. the issue i have seen some effort done, and this has been an interesting one to see ball over many years. i came to the army in 1976. i recall soldiers that served and they ha

they are inscribed over the supreme court of the united states. "equal justice under law." it doesn't say "equal justice for the rich and powerful and privileged." equal justice. "under lock" the meet -- needs the rule of law under the constitution. -- "under law" means the rule of law under the constitution. when i was leaving cuba, we were taken off the plane and held incommunicado in a private room. there were just locked rooms. you didn't know if you would ever see your family again. it only takes one night of that to change your life forever. in many ways, i believe that was the moment i decided to be a lawyer. i never wanted to feel so helpless again in my life. i also knew what was happening there was wrong and that somebody should care about it. if i ever had an opportunity to make a difference, i would do that. i believe that that moment is one that emphasized to me the importance of the rule of law and why we have to preserve our system of justice. most importantly, i remember that night because of a conversation i had with my grandfather. we have learned that the

a couple of months ago former justice sandra day o'connor did a interview in "parade" magazine of all places in which she was asked about public approval ratings for supreme court justices. public approval of the justices had dropped from something like two-thirds, roughly 66% in the late 1980s down to 44% now. justice o'connor responded by saying she thought that drop was disturbing, and that, quote, i think bush v. gore may have been a turning point. she publishes a remarkable photograph that have i not seen anywhere else before i saw it in this book. it's taken on inauguration day this 2001. justice o'connor, her husband on the right, justice scalia and chief justice rehnquist are waiting for the inauguration of george w. bush to start. an inauguration made possible by virtue of the decision bush v. gore. and i just find the looks on their faces and the overall mood of this photograph to be amazing. so how does the country look from the perspective of an unreviewable panel that is charged not with arbiting public opinion, but as our country grows older and changes. how do they see us, and do they care what we think? and should they care what we think? if par

supreme court is a very different kind of jury because the supreme court, and having only had one case before them, i learned very quickly that president -- precedent is not as important as the justices, who will decide what the law is. they will change what the lot is if they get a majority of their sisters and brothers to go along with it. to have a jury made up of diverse cultural views and understanding only makes us a stronger society. so i think -- i personally think it is a good thing. i do not think you ever separate your life from what you do. your personal experiences -- some of the personal experiences i talked about tonight shaped my life, and i think they are important parts of the decision- making process in may, that they did not overwhelm -- but they do not overwhelm the legal obligations i have in the case. >> i am going to ask a different kind of question, which is -- do you see the difference between the idea of a constitutional democracy, which is a term you have used -- and a constitutional republic? >> i really do not. i use them interchangeably. one of my favorites is ben franklin. when he left the constitutional convention, one of the people on the street and

supreme court ruled in 1967 and loving vs. virginia that all remaining state bans for interracial couples were unconstitutional. and they fulfill the promise written on the front of the u.s. supreme court, equal justice under law. our family is waiting for that promise to be fulfilled for the next generation. for my mom and dad, they want nothing more than for me and john to be able to be the glee married in all 50 states, just as they were. >> thank you both for being with us. we will continue on this issue in the next break. john lewis and stuart gaffney together for 26 years, married in 2008 before prop. 8 passed. both work at marriage equality usa. when we come back, we will be joined by the widow or of the late congress member gerry studds, openly gay congress member, his widower is not able to get the normal pensions and other widows or widowers of congress members get. we will talk to him about today supreme court argument. stay with us. ♪ [music break] >> this is "democracy now!," democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. for the second and a row, the supreme court confronting the issue of same-sex marriage. today, doma. it was signed into law by president clinton in 1996 a

my guest tonight she's a former supreme court justice, was the first woman to serve on our supreme court. the new book is called out of order, stories from the history of the supreme court. please welcome back to the program justice sandra day o'connor. nice to see you. >> glad to be here. >> jon: the book is called "out of order." what was your purpose in this book, in putting this particular book together? >> telling the stories about how the court works and giving people a glimpse into some of the things. >> jon: it's hard to imagine the pressure that a justice might feel when you are dealing with as we talked about earlier some of the biggest issues of our day. >> yes. >> jon: of racism and discrimination and the franchise. >> right. >> jon: does that weight -- do you feel that when you are deciding those cases? >> you certainly do because you really want to make the correct decision and bring some order out of our various statutes and constitutional provisions and the pris precedence of the court itself. it's hard sometimes. >> jon: you wrote brown versus board of education may be the most important decision. >>

supporters of prop 8 filed an appeal, which brings the case now before the u.s. supreme court. on wednesday, the supreme court justiceshear arguments in the case of the defense of marriage act, which denies federal benefits to same-sex couples. the decisions are expected in june. in san francisco, linda ye, kpix5. >>> bad weather and freezing temperatures cannot keep the crowds away from the u.s. supreme court. people have been camping out in the rain and snow since thursday. hoping to get inside for this week's session. there are just 250 general public seats available for each case. >>> coming up, someone stole her dog when she fell asleep on bart. >> pure panic. i was delirious. >> tonight, how archie was reunited with his owner. >>> and a grandmother trapped in her car under water. her family says it's because something her car did all on its own. >>> and the new rules you need to know about before you file your taxes. >>> a couple showers right now popping up on kpix5. high definition doppler radar and the rain chances heading toward easter weekend are just getting started. details on when it is most likely to ra

of the u.s. supreme court. we meet a couple from placerville who's daughter has strong opinions about that law. >> as same sex marriage goes before the supreme court, justices. questions raised inside the courtroom today. [ male announcer ] subway introduces the new $3 six-inch select! this march, we're kicking things off with the low fat oven roasted chicken $3 six-inch select. it's available all month long as one of our march featured values, the newest way to enjoy subway every day! subway. eat fresh. good. no, not good. he's a vegetarian and he's going to be here in 20 minutes! don't stress. we can figure this out. [ male announcer ] get the speed to make a great first impression. call today to get u-verse high speed internet for as little as $14.95 a month for 12 months with a one-year price guarantee. this is delicious. ♪ [ male announcer ] save the day in an instant. at&t. ♪ . >>> a 530 quick look at our top stories. major piece of the bay bridge is now under investigation. today the metropolitan transportation commission announced that nearly one third of the giant bolts are snapping. the bolts sum up to 24 feet long are suppose to keep the bridge t

name drugs add $3.5 billion annually to the cost of the drug. >> a start of a big week for the supreme court. tomorrow, the justices will hear arguments over proposition 8. on wednesday, they will argue about the legality of the defense of marriage act. >>> the supreme court will hear a challenge to california's proposition 8 tomorrow and on wednesday, it will hear challenges to the defensive marriage act. now, in washington, d.c., outside of the supreme court, people have been camping out for days for a chance to witness history. justices are considering whether to strike down two laws that limit the rights of same-sex couples. the first is the challenge to california's prop 8 which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. nine states and washington, d.c. allow same-sex marriage. 38 states ban it. the second case challenges the defensive marriage act which blocks federal recognition of gay couples in the states that are allowed to marry. >> to exclude gay people from the institution of marriage is to restrict their liberty. >> the institution of marriage and marriage laws are designed to attach mot

on the morning of march 18th, the decision was announced from the supreme court. they said justice black said i have an announcement the decision and opinion of the court gideon against -- vindication for 20 years of dissent from -- against brady. they said we were wrong when we designed it and now we are making it right. >> it was complete. not only did this belief in the 14th amendment, the court decide d in gideon's favor. this system which he fought for so long in the justice. the decision was law of the land. equal justice under law. >> when a supreme court decided the gideon case, they really brought light to that phrase. it doesn't matter if you are rich, it doesn't matter if you are poor, you get the same equal chance. >> just look at what happened to gideon. the supreme court didn't set gideon free but it gave him a fair trial with a competent attorney. >> not guilty. >> clarence earl gideon was a free man. the man who won a landmark supreme court case went to live a normal living with a job pumping gas. >> when i read where it says equal justice under law, i'm very inspir

in "out of order: stories from the history of the supreme court," former supreme court justice sandra day o'connor presents a history of the high court and profiles several former justices. former president george h.w. bush presents an updated edition of his personal correspondences in "all the best: george bush, my life in letters and other writings." in "the secretary: a journey with hillary clinton from beirut to the heart of the american power," kim ghattas presents a firsthand account of hillary clinton's tenure as secretary of state. mary robinson, the first woman president of ireland recounts her life in "everybody matters." in "the end of power: from boardrooms to battlefields and churches to state, why being in charge isn't what it used to be," the former editor-in-chief of foreign policy argues that power has become easier to obtain but also easier to lose. look for these titles in bookstores this coming week and watch for the authors in the near future on booktv and on booktv.org. >> i was fascinated by her feminist view, you know in remember the ladies, you're going to be

supreme court decide on proposition 8 -- california's prop 8? ktvu's chi la campbell joins us live from washington, d.c. with some of the comments from both sides today. >> reporter: tori, several justices on the supreme court questioned whether or not those who challenged prop 8 have the authority to do so. the court appears to be divided on same sex marriage and the justices do have the option of dismissing this case without making a ruling. while all this was going on inside the court, those of us outside got an earful from the crowd. >> what do we want? >> equality. >> when do we want it? >> now. >> reporter: hundreds of supporters of gay marriage protested outside the supreme court. [ people chanting ] as justices heard oral arguments inside. one attorney told justices prop 8 is unconstitutional. >> it is not consistent with the ideals and the laws and the constitution of this country to take our gay and lesbian pros and sister -- brothers and sisters and put them in a class and deny them rights we give this everyone else. >> reporter: but attorneys for the other side say that the decision should be left up to voters. >> the place for the decision to be made regarding redefining ma

of time magazine is about sex in marriage and the cover is turning heads. we will show you that next. crime hits the supreme court. the supreme court justiceim of fraud. >> everyone, do you believe in miracles? today on "katie" we will have incredible stories that defy that nation. that nation. our miracles can be everest. that nation. our miracles can be 60 years ago sir edmund hlary was the first ever to conquer it. and grape-nuts, packed with protein and nutritious grains, helped him get there. now, the highest point on earth is a long way from the breakfast table. but if grape-nuts could help hillary reach the top of his mountain, just imagine where it could take you. grape-nuts. original and new delicious fit. what's your mountain? something this delicious could only come from nature. discover nectresse™. the 100%-natural no-calorie sweetener made from the goodness of fruit. nectresse™. sweetness naturally. >> good morning, at 6:23 is our time on this friday with a live look at the dense fog hanging over the bay in san francisco with the top of the bank of america building in downtown san francisco if the live sutro tower camera. lisa

hear from a bay area legal expert to look at how the supreme court justices could be leaning. >> meet yahoo's newest employee. his age and the amount of money he has >> more now on the supreme court hearings on proposition 8 with very complicated issues before the justice in the hearing on prop 8. we will get legal perspective from an expert. >> and a law professor at the university of san francisco. thank i for joining us. what hints have we picked up during the 80 minutes? should one side be cheering? >> it was quite a day. you can see the justices grappling and groping for economic ground. i do not believe there was a majority opinion that really emerged yet from today. if there is any one thing we do know it does not look like they are inclined to uphold proposition 8 on merits so what does not seem like the opponents of same-sex marriage will get the sweeping victory they wanted but, neither, will the supporters of same-sex marriage get the sweeping victory they want. >> it seems the justices were looking for a cause and effect and how it will harm people and harm the institution while the prop 8 lawyer argued that is not the que

supreme court heard arguments on the defense of marriage act. there does appear to be somewhat of a reporting consensus. the headline from politico -- "doma on shaky ground," and from "the washington post," "majority of supreme court justices question constitutionality of doma." the liberal justices sharply questioned the law in court yesterday saying federal benefits denied to legally married same-sex couples have a profound effect. >> they touch every aspect of life. your partner is sick. social security. i mean, it's pervasive. the full marriage and then this sort of skim milk marriage. >> just kagan suggested congress was improperly discriminating when it passed the law in 1996. >> i'm going to quote from the house report here is that congress decided to reflect and honor a collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality. >> joining me now supreme court correspondent for the huffington post mike sax. good to see you, mike. >> good to see you, mike. you were in the courtroom for both days. what was that like in there? >> it was tense, electric, quiet except for when the justice would say something that was funny, ridiculous in scalia's case sometimes and then laughs and fwgasps. it was quite

that the supreme court should be but i think we've seen over the years in the live the life of the supreme court is the supreme court has been a place of the great equalizer or the scales of justice where groups go to find justice brown versus the board of education roe v wade we see tons of those cases where the supreme court sort of plays that middle row where legislators that were you sort of take the legislature the politics out of it and the money out of it and you really have a conversation about the philosophical nature and how that relates to our constitution but aren't those both cases within had to have the court never ruled within ten years legislators would have anyway well i mean you i think that argument i think you know hindsight is twenty twentieth's there's no way to really know if that was the case i think in this particular case what we have i think what we what we've seen here is we've seen a situation where the polls have shifted the tides have shifted and the fact that this case has gone the supreme court mean that's something that is part of our social cause it's part of our social consciousness in this country and i you know the standing question is a big

of the year. the supreme court justices express reluctance over gay marriage rights. >> another round of arguments in just hours. it's wednesday, march 27th. >> announcer: from abc news, this is "world news now" with john muller and diana perez. >> i love the way that guy says our names. >> oh, yeah. >> oh, yeah. >> they make a lot of money. i need to start announcing. >> i know, right? >> i can do that from home. >> a good way to go. >> if you are watching, but you are not because you are sleeping guy who announces for us, i want your job. >> me too. good morning, everybody. let's talk about supreme court justices. they led an eight-minute -- excuse me. 80-minute discussion over gay marriage rights. we'll find out which way the discussion might go today. >>> also this morning, the baby forgotten at the subway turn-style. police and bystanders take action after the child was left behind. find out what distracted the baby's mother and the baby's grandmother and why they're not going to be charged. >>> a headline we have been following all week. the new jersey man who came to this country and eventu

court wins under his belt, he's facing the nine justices. >> mr. olson, you have 20 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. >> olson sharpens his arguments in a mock supreme court with elite lawyers playing the parts ofan exclusive look inside. >> proposition 8 took away from gay and lesbian californians the right to be married. in 30 minutes, you can have 50 to 60 questions asked by the justices. >> does it matter that it was a provision of the constitution rather than just a statute? >> isn't that something the legislature should be doing, not us? >> do you defend the ninth circuit's rationale? >> they may interrupt themselves. >> we also have focused on the ability to procreate. >> they will interrupt you. >> but wasn't the court talking about marriage between the opposite sex? >> individual -- >> you don't seriously dispute that gay marriage was unheard of? >> you must answer their questions but you must bring the case back to the prism through which you want them to see the light. >> marriage between persons of the same sex and marriage between persons of the opposite sex is identical. you better be good, because if they're asking questions you don't answer properly, what's going to happen to yo