the supreme court is not the chamber of commerce. look, when you say strong, is that another word for activist? for years conservatives have railed against an activist court. this isn't the team for it to start. the supreme court is there to interpret laws to make sure that they exist in accordance with the constitution. if big business has a problem, take it up with your super pac, take it up with your congressmen. it is not the job of the supreme court to look after your interests. >> morgan, where are you coming from on this? >> i actually completely wholeheartedly agree with that. it is not the job of the supreme court to protect or not protect businesses. the job of the supreme court is to protect the constitution. marbury versus madison, it's a 209 year ruling and it's there for a ruling. if you really -- if businesses want to be protected, they need to go to congress. that is the job of congress. if those laws that congress puts in place, economic regulations, are unconstitutional, then is goes to the supreme court. a strong su

the founders but the entire eighteenth century the first century of this nation's existence the supreme court never once struct out a law or even claimed to have the power to do that based on the constitution the courts have clearly overreached turning to the dictators of our nation throwing out the will of we the people of marbury in eight hundred three the citizens united in twenty ten to this week strip search decision they're both throwing out laws and making laws powers only given in the constitution to the president and congress respectively a lot of other countries are not that crazy the united kingdom the supreme court has no power to overturn laws just like in our constitution there are only the final appeals court in disputes between parties in switzerland the supreme court advises the parliament about what's constitutional what's not in their opinion but the parliament can ignore them and frequently does in canada the supreme court and try to strike down a law at the parliament and prime minister can ignore them and often do. andrew jackson actually did the same thing here in the u

the supreme court of the united states heard arguments in the landmark case of obamacare v. dom and... (laughter). from now until the court's june decision all we can do is wait. unless someone wants to make some kind of post-closing argument. >> ultimately i'm confident that the supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress. >> jon: well, that was vaguely and haltingly threatening. (laughter) yeah, i'm sure the court will consider the precedent set forth in the case of "that's a lovely family you got there" v. "it would be a shame of anything happened to them." (laughter) conservatives pointed out liberals don't understand judicial review. >> that was established by marbury v. madison back in the early 1800s and ever since then no serious legal scholar in 175 years has questioned whether or not the supreme court can throw out a law that is unconstitutional. >> jon: yeah, we all have wikipedia. (laughter) that's just what conservatives believe. the ju

court break out when president obama said that you know pointing out that the judges in on the supreme court are not elected a lowly lawyer for the justice department before his court and smith demanded that this guy produce within forty eight hours a letter at least three pages long single spaced saying the president recognizes smith's right to strike down laws that smith doesn't like. actually the president does recognize that but you know sudden aside school lia calls himself an originalist saying he's only reflecting the original intent of the founders but the entire eighteenth century the first century of this nation's existence the supreme court never once struck down a law or even claimed to have the power to do that based on the constitution the courts have clearly overreached turning to the dictators of our nation throwing out the will of we the people of marbury nine hundred three the citizens united and twenty tend to this week strip search decision they're both throwing out laws and making laws powers only given in the constitution to the president and congress respectively a lot

tomorrow the supreme court is going to be considering whether the arizona law, known as sb-1070, is constitutional. specifically, the court will be deciding if stated can enact comprehensive immigration enforcement laws designed to promote the self-deportation of illegal immigrants. five states, alabama, georgia, indiana, south carolina, and utah, have crafted laws following arizona's example. court challenges have been filed against all five of those laws and the outcome of those cases will likely be dictated by the supreme court's decision in the arizona case. discussing both the constitutionality and prudence of these laws is necessary because the supreme court will base its decision upon what the senate had previously said about the role of state and local government in enforcing federal immigration law. the wisdom of the arizona laws also currently being debated around the country. for instance, sb-70, recently endorsed as a model for the country by mitt romney, republican nominee for president, others such as marco rubio said they do not believe the arizona law should be expanded nationwide.

this hearing is focused on arizona's immigration law, which goes before the supreme court tomorrow. court will determine the constitutionality of the law that allows local police officers to check the immigration status of someone they think could be an illegal immigrant. aamong the witnesses, arizona state senator who wrote the law and a senate legislator who wants to repeal it. >>> we mentions the supreme court is considering the constitutionality of ard ar's immigration law tomorrow. justices are considering whether arizona has the authority to enforce the immigration law or if the federal government has exclusive authority when it comes to immigration. you can hear oral arguments on friday night on c-span at 8:00 eastern. >>> good morning, everyone. the hear willing come to order. today's hearing, we will be discussing the constitutionality and prudence of the many state and local immigration laws enacted during the past few years. in 2011 alone, state legislators from across the country introduced 1,607 bills and resolutions relating to immigration. by the end ofrp t the year 4

went to the united states supreme court. the supreme court ultimately dismissed the case but has never directly decided it. i suspect if the supreme court does ultimately decide the issue head-on it will find the pledge of allegiance is in fact constitutional. >> host: if liberty university found itself in the position that georgetown university is right now with the birth control issue, how would you approach it? >> guest: we would file a federal lawsuit if we were forced to violate our religious beliefs, and in fact we did file a federal lawsuit called liberty university versus geithner against the patient protection act that is referred to as obamacare. and our case is spending at the united states supreme court. we raised not only the constitutional lack of authority under the commerce clause and the taxing and spending clause but also a violation of the first amendment free exercise clause by forcing liberty university and its employees to provide funding for or subsidize abortion or sterilization. so we would aggressiv

fight that went all the way to the supreme court. re the court had ruled a reporter asked truman if he would accept the court's decision. he replied of course i would. of course i would. the reporter continued, well then, as far as you are concerned the system of checks and balances goes on unimpeded. truman plied unimpeded. i have no ambition to be a dictator. truman ultimately lost that battle. more recently, president george w. bush refused to advise the justices as he awaited a ruling regarding the right to terror suspect being held at guantanamo bay. >> we will file the court claim once the supreme court makes a decision whether or not, as the venue for the trials. >> bush lost the fight when the supreme court struck down the administration plan to use military commission to try detainees. in response, congress passed military commission act of 2006. two years later, the supreme court threw it out. since 1789, the court has found more than 150 congressional acts to be unconstitutional. bret? >> bret: more on the topic with the pa

our panel this evening consists of the four women who to date have served on the united states supreme court. even to summarize each of their careers with highlights would take far too long. i'll be very brief. justice sandra day o'connor was nominated to the court by president ronald reagan on july 7th, 1981. and she was confirmed by the senate on september 22, 1981 to succeed justice potter stewart. she served for the next 24 years and she retired on january 31, 2006. justice ruth bader ginsburg was appointed to the court by president william clinton on june 14th, 1993, and she was appointed and confirmed by the senate and assumed her role on august 10th, 1993. justice sonia sotomayor was appointed by president barack obama on may 26th, 2009 and assumed her position on august 8th, 2009. the following year justice elena kagan was appointed to the court by president barack obama on may 10th, 2010, and assumed her position on august 7, 2010. we are honored and grateful to bring all of them together to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the groundbreaking tenure as it began of justice sandra da

current supreme court justice ginsburg on visit to egypt, in my opinion made -- suggestion, advise to write -- to new constitution to look at canadian and south african constitution. i was just wonder, comments, as supreme justice, doesn't believe in our constitution how she could be, remain a justice. and cure, you know, general advice, not suggestion. not really discussed the media. >> i have a little trouble hearing you because as a little distorted. you're asking me about justice -- >> ginsberg spent justice ginsburg? >> right. advised to drafters of new constitution in egypt to use canadian and south african. i mean, i couldn't find it hilarious. >> what he's referring to is a talk that justice ginsburg a in egypt urges i state department mission, and her remarks have really been taken greatly out of context and distorted. she certainly was not running down the u.s. constitution. she was suggesting simply that there's always room for improvement, and she's somebody who in her own career has brilliantly managed to expand the meaning of the equality under the constitution. and i do

supreme court. but did he ever challenge the court before it ruled? and how did the bush team handle rulings that did not go their way? in our next hour, three members of the bush administration including dana perino and also some who worked in the doj will join us live to walk us through how they handled run-ins with the court. and later this hour we will get reaction and analysis of this doj report fresh off the presses and in my hands here already with my highlighting there our constitutional scholars, jay sekulow and julian epstein. we will analyze what this means and whether this is a political or legal document coming up. >>> while americans are struggling to keep up with rising gas prices, new figures show a startling jump in the cost of food, making it difficult for many to afford what they need to feed their families. take a look at this. chicken is up 3.6% from last year. potatoes up just over 10%. ground beef up nearly 11%, and cheese is up more than 14%. peanut butter now costs 36.6% more than it did last year. why? stuart varney is the an

supreme court has overturned those cases. in fact as you pointed out yesterday, it's done so fairly recently. i've got the lopez case in front of me, 1995, that was a congress clause case, the high court overturned congress. megyn: morrison was decided later than that, in 2000, same thing 457d -- happened, different act. gregg, thank you. >>> a few moments ago, attorney general eric holder addressed the controversy. it was his underling in the fifth circuit yesterday being addressed by that court. mr. holder says the justice department is formulating a response right now, and that it will be, quote, appropriate. >> what the president said a couple days ago was appropriate. he indicated that we obviously respect the decisions that courts make under our system of government, and since marbury versus madison, i think it's back in 1803. courts have the final say on the constitutionality of statutes, but courts are also fairly deferential when it comes to overturning statutes that the duly elected representatives of the people, con

the supreme court is the supreme court for a reason. and it almost is as though he didn't care what they said and they shouldn't be making the decision, and this decision is above them and they don't exist. and i would think it would be very insult to go the supreme court what he said. >> it may be insulting but there is sort of the curious aspect. the supreme court, which frankly i don't think is the least bit intimidated by the president, he has a lifetime appointment. the president doesn't, his job is up for reconsideration in november. i don't think they are intimidated, but i did think even the washington post and the others thought it was distressing that he was perhaps suggest to go the supreme court trying to scare them to vote other different way, intimidate them or maybe he didn't know they do have the authority to determine whether a statute is constitutional or not. >> i don't know if he knew or not but everybody told me he studies constitutional law and you think he would know about this at the highest level. frankly you re

supreme court. we are deeply honored to have with us this evening justice o'connor, justice ruth bader ginsburg, justice sonya sotomayor and justice elena kag agai kagen. this is the first time they've done this this evening. we want to thank jim duff, the ceo of the freedom forum and the freedom forum was making this magnificent space available to us at the museum this evening. jim has a history with the supreme court historical society dating back to his time as administrative assistant to chief justice rehnquist and before that chief justice berger. i also want to thank society president amare tus frank joenz to support the events this evening. frank was a distinguished president from 2002 and 2008 and only because of illness isn't with us this evening. our panel this evening consists of the four women to date served on the united states supreme court. even to summarize each of their careers with highlights would take far too long, so i'll be very brief. justice sandra day o'connor was nominated

some degree great respect, and they are saying, no, no, no you don't do that the supreme court. you think the public is ready to view the court through a different prism. >> i think so, and i think it's the court's doing that it's that way. you put the finger on the milestone of this development. bush v gore, citizens united and now this. these are the three strikes. and the court is in danger of underlying its own. they are supposed to be dressed in robes handing down wisdom. this is not supposed to be a political smoke-filled room where the republicans vote one way and the democrats vote another. >> it is a reality that the supreme court has maintained the mystique, the proper word that shrouds its decision-making process. what is fascinating the last time there was this political pressure, at least the potential for this political pressure to be applied to the court was during the fdr presidency when the president was trying to dramatically expand the role of government. the supreme court at first said no. he applied pressure and then he said yes. is this the way that the gov

president obama's supreme court warning, if obamacare goes down. plus, mitt romney three more wins calls for rick santorum to exit the republican race, should he do it before his home state primary? and the budget battle is joined as the president ties mitt romney to paul ryan's plan. could it hurt the republicans in november? ♪ ultimately, i'm confident that the supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress. >> welcome to the journal editorial report. those words set off a firestorm with many seeing president obama's comments on the supreme urt as a warning to the justices that they will pay a political price if they strike down all or part of the signature health care law. liberals claim no less than the legitimacy of the supreme court is at stake, so was this a preview of their campaign strategy if obamacare is overturned? let's ask, wall street journal column is dan henninger, james freeman and editorial board member do

proposed was one of the five votes switched -- >> marvin you are correct that he won because of the supreme courtswitch to save time -- but he lost politically. this the context of this campaign, this court is still an institution somewhat popular. it has an approval rating that exceeds that of congress. how do you think politically the president can run against annenty that is viewed as the voice of our nation. >> barack obama has to make the case. the reason half of the americans support the supreme court because they know nothing about it. there are five very conservative justices. they don't know that these five conservatives vote consistently with corporations against your ability to bring claims for employment discrimination class action. if you want to blame anyone for the fact that congress is corrupt, it's the supreme court which has repeatedly struck down any attempt by congress or the states to get money out of politics, and if barack obama wants to to set a clear distinction, he wants the young people to go out and vote. he should say look at my justices and look at the ones that romn

but if the supreme court doesn't see it your way -- if the supreme court even rules 4-4 and you lose, it would seem to me that the justices would be saying no, the states don't have that authority. >> well, no is a failure and you're right but it wouldn't be saying no. it would just not be passed be didn't have that majority vote. but the point is, it will pas. secondly, it's the same issues with employer sanctions when they rule in 5-2 decisions. the preemption issue is the same. i'm getting tired of misinformation as we try to get a good bill in protection of our zit sennes. i love my country. i love and respect those who come here legally and many who don't, i know are not bad people. many of them are, but some are good people escaping a terrible life and i understand that, but we have a method of coming here and those laws must -- >> senator kyl released a statement, what do you have to say to that? >> i don't entirely disagree. they don't have a vote. the supreme court does and schumer can run his bill. he may get it out of his committee, but that's where it will die. it's a prop

>> judge jeanine: tonight, president obama takes on the supreme court. and the justices are fighting mad. will the highest court in the land ultimately make him regret his words? >> rick santorum. he runs, he doesn't run, nobody cares. >> judge jeanine: donald trump sounds off on the primary and the president. >> he was a constitutional law professor how could he not know? >> maybe he was. who knows. >> judge jeanine: what tricks does he think the president will pull to get reelected. plus the secret saints coach reporting. [ bleep ] >> judge jeanine: will criminal charges be filed? plus, you helped make it happen. marine ma megan levi and her dg rex reunited at last. coming up tonight on "justice." hello and welcome to "justice." president obama took on the supremes this week. did he go too far? or was the fifth circuit court assignment to outline the supreme court's power in the words of one liberal pundit a hissy fit? you be the judge. >> ultimately i'm confident that the supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of

president obama's supreme court warning. was this a preview of what is to come if obamacare goes down and mitt romney with three more wins calls for rick santorum to exit the republican race. should he do it before his home state primary and the budget ballot battle as he ties to paul ryan's plan. could it hurt the republicans in november? >> ultimately i'm confident that the supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress. >> paul: welcome to the journal editorial report. i'm paul gigot. those words set off a firestorm. many seeing his comments as a warning to the justices that they will pay a political price if they strike down all or part of the signature healthcare law. liberals claim the legitimacy of the supreme court. let's ask wall street columnist, dan herng ing ton, james free man and editorial board member, dorothy rabinowitz. president obama is known as choosing his words carefully. was he

and out of left field fight with the supreme court which i wasn't sure if the administration meant to pick or not. let's listen to a little bit of what the president had to say about the supreme correlate. -- the supreme court: >> ultimately i'm confident that the supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress. gwen: so let's pars that. because the very next day he had to come out and said what i had meant to say was this. and the word "unprecedented" was the one that got people's hakels up. >> right. there were two things that he said that got people's hackles up and justifiably. president obama is a former constitutional law instructor at the university of chicago. so it's really befuddling to a lot of people including some of his aides that he would have this self-inflicted wound at the beginning of the week when he was just trying to convey the idea that the court is going to uphold -- to show optimism about the court upholding his signal, significant dome

look, stipulated mostly in favor of obamacare and then once survived, it's the most important supreme courtase. >> the graphic was shown time and time again, the generally liberal court members versus the generally conservative ones, four on four with anthony kennedy, probably somewhere in the middle. and constructing this as a liberal versus conservative argument, maybe not so much a constitutional question. >> well, i think it-- that's the way it's now being seen is liberal versus conservative and everyone pitching to kennedy, who is soft on freedom, apparently. so, everybody's trying to couch the argument that way, but you know, i think this is an easier story for the print media to cover than television, it's really hard to compress a lot of these arguments into a minute and a half and abc chose not to do so, right, exactly. >> without the images and even with the audio, radio doesn't make great television. more news watch coming up, ahead, has george zimmerman already been tried in the media for the killing of trayvon martin? >> media interest in the trayvon martin killing heats up for

supreme court.tars analyze the president's first statement since the healthcare argument last week. wanna know the difference between a trader and an elite trader? it's this... the etrade pro platform. fast. beautiful. totally customizable. finds top performg stocks -- in three clicks. quickly scans the market for new trading ideas. it can even match options strategies to your goals and lets you see the potential risk and reward. and, it also comes with a dedicated elite service team. got it? get it. good. introducing new etrade pro elite. ♪ what makes us number one in motorcyclinsurance? we love bikes. we love riders. and most of all, we love to ride. perfect hair every time. leading the pack in motorcycle insurance. now, that's progressive. call or click today. >>> ultimately, i'm confident that the supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passedpy a strong majority of a democratically elected congress. for year what is we heard i

are they now enlisting the supreme court itself in their political strategy? >> i should add there are only eight justices sitting on the case because elena kagan eliminated herself because she was at the justice department when this was. >> and there's a law whether it's constitutional and whether efforts like this are effective in reducing illegal immigration, which is the goal here. that's what we all want. and the jury is still out on that, on that. there's a law that-- >> five other states, at least five other states have passed arizona type laws. some have walked them back a little bit. the business community doesn't like them and law enforcement isn't crazy about them being deputized and due to the day jobs, people think they're deportation agents and so forth. so, we have to ask ourselves, whether the laws work or whether there's another way to go in terms of determining how much foreign labor. >> the big story on immigration is not this enforcement, but it's collapsing and falling dramatically from mexico and it has, according to pew foundation survey

that what he was saying was not correct, and i really do think it was an attempt to influence the supreme courtcially the swinging justices, justice kennedy and to some degree justice roberts. >> have you clerked for the judge who sent the letter off that asked the doj to question the court and fired the letter off? i'm curious, did that surprise you, that apparent lit president's statements got a little under his skin because he was quite, he didn't back off questioning the d o. j. lawyer in court and not having -- having gotten the right answer he took it a step further. >> he's an incredibly fair judge. policy uniformly poll him in high esteem. he very much tries to follow the law. he's not a particularly aggressive questioner, but one of the things i noticed about the judge's questioning pattern when i was his law clerk is he was often very interested in the issue of jurisdiction. that is, does the court, does the 5th circuit panel, have the right to intervene here? is this properly before us? and this question is not -- it's in the nature of a jurisdictional question so it didn't really su

convinced that there was discrimination during the trial the supreme court demanded that the death row sentence be reexamined but the texan court did not see eye to eye with this decision and refused to admit the miller had been a victim of racist practice he was to be executed. takes in just as supported by a strong conservative public opinion and by very active victim associations refuses all the examination of the case. i believe as we practice criminal justice in texas we do a better job of it than any other state in america. one we execute our convicted capital murder we have the highest execution rate in america we're not afraid to do it we do it well we tolerate a lot in texas you can be anything you want in this state but be prepared to pay the consequences of your actions. and i think. that the rest of the country should take note of all of that so in that respect i believe texas is the most progressive state in america. how can such confidence be understood when suspicions of judiciary errors increased in texas. and universities and for those who defend human rights the mille

supremes this week. did he go too far? or was the fifth circuit court assignment to outline the supreme court's power in the words of one liberal pundit a hissy fit? you be the judge. >> ultimately i'm confident that the supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress. and i just remind conservative commentators for years what we heard was the biggest problem on the berchl wa bench was judm or a lack of judicial strength. >> joining us, ann coulter and joe trippy. good evening. what is your reaction to that statement by the president? unprecedented. extraordinary. strong majority. i mean what was he -- how do you react to that? >> i'm demanding to see his law school transcripts now. it has been settled since 1803 that the supreme court can say a law passed by any legislative body is unconstitutional. that is what they are supposed to do. he said i want to remind conservative activists you don't want the supreme court overturning l