interviewing another top advocate of the supreme -- before the supreme tommy nd asked him about nd he said well, you know, you wouldn't want your heart surgery done by the heart surgeon who alled you up and asked if you could do it. >> who was that? >> fellow by the name of john roberts. who became the chief justice. think he's sort of eating his words on that. tom had the reputation of a real innovator in the stuff fist world of the supreme court. and he was a good media source. when the blog came along, he was -- he and amy were able to overcome some initial suspicions because he -- this was a totally creature here. an as a blog about institution by someone who interacted with that institution as an advocate. wouldn't have an interest in pissing off that blunt about o be it. we tend to do that. that said if a journalist isn't happy about what you write, you're not doing your job. the fact that scotus blog became that through the credibility and through lyle denison who's iercely independent, i think hat enhances the remarkable nature of scotus blog and how a s become viewed as journ

of the supreme court. so we are not recognized as members of the press corps. so we are not recognizing the constraints that the press corps is working under. a set of public information offices available to them as many institutions do. you can have a person or perhaps two people there. we are not recognized as part of the press corps so we will have seven people running on five different internet connections in another two unidentified places in the building. -- when the final decisions of the turn came down, we had a massive team of people, lawyers, technical staff, to back up technical teams. casewe did the health care before, hackers try to crash the blog. there are a million people on the blog at once. we will set up an infrastructure that is designed to push out information. the court does, you should leave the impression that the court is agnostic about eric assistance of trying to prevent us from getting access, because the court did give lyle a press pass because he has been covering the court fo

the contrary view to what you just said would be this, that a supreme court argument or a supreme court decision benefits from some thought. that maybe doesn't come out in 160 characters within five seconds of it happening. and that there is -- whether it is a good thing or not to allow tweeting from the courts from the supreme court, there's something to be said about a reflective moment. what does it mean? what is the significance of it? before you speak. now, as you say, it may be that we're just -- our society has long since made the decision that those things are not as valuable as intan tain yuss access. but again, i have complicated views, frankly, about television coverage and the supreme court because i have sat there so often and thought, oh my heavens, if my fellow citizens could just see this. it is so impressive. it is so inspiring to be -- you would be so proud of this institution of the supreme court if you could just see it for yourself and realize how really good oral argument is. now, not some of the tax cases maybe. >> not tommy. >> no. no. no. but on the other hand,

the supreme court. this is not said, beat.ce care ter the 2012 health ruling, jan greenberg wrote a roberts ut justice switching his vote. she attributed her story to two knowledge h specific of deliberations. it was a month long effort led y justice kennedy to bring roberts back to his original position, quote, he was relentless, unquote, one source said of kennedy's efforts. quote, he was very engaged in this. i want to start with tony morrow for 33 red the court years. tony, why were there not more stories like this? >> i only wish. anybody could call me up and give me a story like that, i would be happy to receive it. there are several answers. suchs basically that it is -- such a sealed institution and the law clerks pledge to not reveal anything about their deliberations. the law clerks being the three -- or the four usually young employers who -- who helped the justices screen cases and write opinions. >> decision did come out and seemed so anomalous for the court to declare the affordable care a

he wrote to the supreme court of the united states. >> the supreme court they have cases brought to the court by people who are too poor who are able to pay for their fees. gideon's was a hand written document online prison stationery. you couldn't imagine a simpler more elementary way to get to the highest court in the land. >> why would the supreme court decide to hear the case of a poor man already in prison. because the constitution allows even a poor man to be heard. lightning strikes from the ground up. it may have been sparked by gideon but they were on the court's justice ready to catch it. >> he was the most influential person in the courtroom system of all time. people should not be disadvantaged in getting justice because they are poor. the judge was viable for the constitution. it had the best constitution in the world and if we were tolerant it would be all right. 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

the supreme court never referred to the first set does the bill of rights until the 1890's. sometimes if you are far ahead of your time and do things that are commonplace to think what was this contribution to this person was making? but these are saying this he contributed and persuaded everyone so thoroughly so now what have you done for us lately? so he was one of the few who emphasized that after the civil war ended that the bill of rights was the central part of the constitution it should apply to all americans now perhaps he was not as successful as might have been the case of this was true why it took a long time for the supreme court to except the position he was talking about but the most prominent person using that phrase a lot. >> host: but the original intentions that they should have to obeyed the bill of rights but it took almost 100 years for the supreme court to come around. how was it possible soon after it was adopted the slaughterhouse cases were ignored and refused to apply the bill of rights and why did it take years for the vision to be vindicated? >> t

the question before the supreme the question before the supreme court, court, our for profit our for profit corporations corporations forced to provide forced to provide . . >> based on biblical principles. >> based on biblical principles. it's not forced on anybody, but it's not forced on anybody, but it's there for them if they it's there for them if they would like. would like. >> reporter: the oklahoma based >> reporter: the oklahoma based arts and craft chain has more arts and craft chain has more than 500 stores across 41 than 500 stores across 41 states. states. hobby lobby employees more than hobby lobby employees more than 13,000 full-time workers who get 13,000 full-time workers who get their health insurance through their health insurance through the company. the company. >> it would not be consistent >> it would not be consistent for us to live one way at home for us to live one way at home and accept a different way at and accept a different way at work. work. that would be inconsistent with that would be inconsistent with our faith. our faith. >> reporter: store owners

from the supreme court. >> very important question headed to the supreme court. >> does a corporation, does a company have religious freedom? >> asht lawsuit from hobby lob stores. >> health care law's requirement, that employers offer free birth control coverage. >> the affordable care act, violates liberties. >> the question is hobby lobby a person. >> corporations are people, my friend. >> the line by mitt romney. >> essentially the question. >> can a for profit business deny birth control or coverage for that matter. >> this was anner to debated through 2012. >> let's talk about the birth control fight. >> it means you are a slut, right? >> girls put it between their netz. it wasn't that costly. >> how far will this go? >> this will set a dangerous precedent. >> personify corporations. >> corporations are people, my friend. >> that's essentially the question here. >> the supreme court has never decided before. >> breaking news from the supreme court. >>> the supreme court announced to day that it will hear two cases that challenge the affordable care act's contraception mandate on

circuit and the supreme court it seems like there is a double standard. it seems like this phantom workload issue gets raised when it suits one side and then immediately dropped a couple months later only to be raised again to block women candidates, and i think that is a very, very serious concern. congress set the law that there is 11 judges on this court. the president is trying to comply with the mandate of congress in putting well-qualified women before this body, and we should debate their qualifications, and if folks have concerns about those, well, then, let's have that debate. but we shouldn't block them from being considered and assert reasons that don't stand the light of day. thank you, madam president. i reyield the floor. ms. klobuchar: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i thank my colleague from virginia for his well thought out argument and evidence he put out here before the president, a former law professor, who believes in evidence, and i think it's important that we look at the facts here

supreme court refuses to block the strict texas abortion law. opponents say it will prevent clinics in the state from performing the procedure. a ban on late term abortions is defeated in new mexico's largest city. voters in albuquerque rejected the measure closely watched as a front in the national abortion battle >> calling it a message of blood and death to iran and hezbollah. an al qaeda group taking responsibility for the suicide bombing in beirut. the blast killing 23 people, including a senior irani doipt. >> and desperately needed aid arrives on an island in the philippines where 80% of the people have been left homeless by typhoon haiyan. >> good morning, and welcome to al jazeera america, i'm stephanie sy. two decisions in the battle over abortion rights - both with major implications. the supreme court ruled against blocking a restrictive abortion law in texas - at least while it's being repeople. a third of the clinics will have to stay closed. in new mexico voters in albuquerque reject a ban on late-term abortion. in texas - it was

other state officials appealed that ruling to the united states supreme court and today the yooulgs supremet responded and said that oklahoma law is staying dead. they refused to overturn the state supreme court ruling that struck down the forced vaginal ultrasound law in the first place. the court turned away the state's appeal without comment. you know, remember, oklahoma objection is not alone. on behalf of texas governor rick perry, may i welcome you to your compulsory trance vaginal exam. did the u.s. supreme court make this decision on this oklahoma law because oklahoma's law is particularly bad in constitutional terms? because it was more out there than other states? or should this ruling today be taken as an indication that maybe all these states laws like this may be in more constitutional truck before they were when we all woke up today. joining me now the nancy northrup. >> tell me in your own words, from your perspective as the organization involved in this case what, your perception is of the larger importance of this ruling? obviously it has direct impact in oklahoma, does it

the supreme court said, too bad. tough luck. the bottom line is there is a point at which every person responsibility issue becomes a public health one. and the question is -- where is the line and what are the legal doctrines that govern the crossing over of that line? i would submit to you that we have surpassed that for this problem. yet we have not enacted any societal interventions that are meaningful to try to fix it. that is what needs to change. >> thank you, dr. lustig. i was wondering if you could speak little bit to other disease in addition to obesity, such as autoimmune disease. >> autoimmune disease is a grab bag. this is being televised, taped. and i am about the science. andscience on auto immune disease is very much an open question. to tella little loaathe you how all of this might tie into autoimmune disease, other than to say that people are working on it. i am very interested, but i am not willing to go public on it. not until we have hard science. so i'm going to have to beg the question right now. sorry. ,

it wasn't until the 1890s until the supreme court called it the bill of rights. of course everybody knows the first set of amendments is the bill of rights and is important. but things are things we contributed and persuaded everyone. it is like what are yhave you d for usilate lately? he emphassized that.ot as succes might have been the case of this was true why it took a long time for the supreme court to except the position he was talking about but the most prominent person using that phrase a lot. >> host: but the original intentions that they should have to obeyed the bill of rights but it took almost 100 years for the supreme court to come around. how was it possible soon after it was adopted the slaughterhouse cases were ignored and refused to apply the bill of rights and why did it take years for the vision to be vindicated? >> there was a train trips that. >> host: took bastille and congress with the supreme court justice who wrote the slaughterhouse cases that bingham was talking to him every day evidently that may not have worked out so well but the su

the supreme leader is many things, one of which is that he is not supreme. he is sort of the political act for, but is a political actor. he is not some autocrat who snaps his finger and things appen. his problem will continue to get worse if he is not there is this unique role that occupied. it is not transferable to someone else. the supreme leader resigns over the islamic republic. not only the spiritual leader, but also the political leader. they need to engage and he really needs to get political interest in iran to support him and work with them. certainly he is very influential. he is not the only game in town. it is a challenge. second of all, the religious sector. it is extremely diverse. not that they all agree. here is race diversity and differences of view within the religious that -- sector. some are generally conservative -- extremely conservative and orthodox and some are actually very enlightened and they get it. they get it. they're working within a difficult system. the third is that revolutionary guard. the revolutionary guard is not nly a

lawyer and at supremely ethical man.erson -- it the is important that me and my , we were poor kids who have not experienced anything in the way of discrimination. that at that to time of my life day after day, it was an experience that changed me forever. it made me think about the -- itial of law in a way hope everybody in this room does. >> that is very interesting. we got some insight into your beginnings. your earliest experiences as a lawyer was there with justice marshall. --ould like to ask you about >> it has not changed that much. [laughter] >> that is something we are interested in. years, in a serious way, you have seen the process from the outside. wereerstand that when you in the clinton administration, you are involved and assigned to work with ruth bader ginsburg and in connection to her confirmation hearing. then i read a law review article that you wrote for the university of chicago. it was critiquing a book about the process. and i have been through the process yourself. i wondered if you would commen

one day, i showed up in the supreme court. i cannot give you a better story than that. >> there must have been people you turn to. >> i met her in 1986 and that was the beginning of me going back to things that were most important in my life. and we prayed about everything that happened. good people who believed in me, like president bush. i did not know president bush when he nominated me. my good friend, ricky silverman, insisted that i think about it. [applause] larry silverman counseled me about it. at every turn, and it will probably be boring to you all because my life is pretty boring, there were a series of good people who showed up. one of the things that became a priority, if you talk to people who come to new places and they do not have family, you can ask anyone in this room who does not have a structured family, you begin to assemble a family. that was the source of my difficulty with yale. yale had become the only family that i had. at a critical juncture, they abandoned me. that was the big problem. at every poi

. >> when it was announced the supreme court would hear the hop hobby lobby case yesterday, the white house put out a statement. our policy is designed to insure that healthcare decisions are made between a woman and her doctor. the president believes that no one, including the government or for-profit corporations should be able to dictate those decisions to women. over the summer the tenth circuit court of appeals in denver ruled in favor of hobby lobby contending because it's not a publicly traded corporation hobby lobby is entitled to be ex-earth from the contraceptive mandate. the supreme court is expected to hear the case in march. >> here now are lori windom, senior counsel representing hobby lobby. and reporter from the religious news service, and fred geddes professor of law at brigham young university law school. help us know what this is about, what is the difference between a person saying to an insurer i don't want that, and i don't want to be charged for it, and a company saying that to an insu insurer because they are providing a benefit to a group of other people who v

sandra day o'connor goes to the supreme court. now, in part because ronald reagan basically, he didn't put in so many words but he basically said we can have a supreme court in the united states all mail, yeah, half the country is women. i mean, the institution issues going to lack legitimacy in the eyes of people. you can have an institution this powerful affecting everybody's interest, and it remained monopolized by admin. we've got to change things, indeed it. it's that same ethos, is that same ethos that has really animated affirmative action. and i think it's a good ethos. i think it has led to change and i think it has led to good change in america. it has led to people, younger people thinking, yeah, yeah, i'm going to invest in myself, and i'm going to invest in this country because i see a way forward. and i think that's a good thing. it's happened with women. it's happened with blacks. it's happened with others. i haven't talked about whole lot of subject. i haven't even talked about the law, you know, the supreme court

they could then send it to the supreme court. the supreme court could say we do not care. the supreme court has not answered a certified question since 1981. at least they would have the ability to try to get their attention. >> enqueue. -- thank you. >> there has been a lively debate from the commentators as to whether or not it is theicient to have representative democracy model for big bulk programs like 215. elected members of congress that if they set up a .ystem for review people just have to live with that. that particular exit strategy is not worth that much. the deeper thing is is that the right model or the model we have written about that when we get that reallyam encompasses a large portion of and people who will not have any terrorists implications afterwards. even -- not necessary even at the cost to the risk of the type of security for that to be disclosed and operational details but the fact that we have opal program that goes to xyz. i am wondering about your thoughts. we have known each other a long time. stephanie and anyone else who wants to. >> first o

the supreme court struck it down. the district court never got that. >> that's correct. >> the threshold question here is identifying whose religious beliefs are being burdened. the next question is -- i just want you to answer the question -- i can't remember the procedural posture of this case. [inaudible] >> notated not. >> is the case comes to us we have allegations of your clients that run their company in the manner that the mandate requires and violates their religious beliefs. that is uncontested. >> that is uncontested. >> the question then becomes what is the relevance of the corporate structure? unless there is another religious -- that says if your company is a corporation that you have absolutely no moral obligation to to run it in a manner consistent with the catholic teachings. >> our clients interpret their catholic faith the opposite way that they are required to run it in a manner consistent with their religious faith and that is what they have done as long as i can find records for. >> is there any

the case that this was true and this is one of the reasons why it took a long time for the supreme court to accept the position he was talking about. .. position he was talking about but the most prominent person using that phrase a lot. >> host: but the original intentions that they should have to obeyed the bill of rights but it took almost 100 years for the supreme court to come around. how was it possible soon after it was adopted the slaughterhouse cases were thnored and refused to apply today in the provisio ban the po finally be vindicated? >> there is a funny story in that there is a trip that he took while he was in congress with a supreme court justice who ended up writing the cases and that there is a story about the fact he was talking to him every day about your slip the 14th amendment is supposed to mean. that may not have worked out so well rather than convincing. but i think the supreme court often does not go with what we might consider the correct interpretation of a particular provision. they have their own way of doing things and that is part of the reason. the other

from the supreme court. >> very important question headed to the supreme court. >> does a corporatione religious freedom? >> asht lawsuit from hobby lob stores. >> hh

the supreme court is going to have to sort this out. there are a lot of legal scholars here on this question who don't think it all hinges on citizens united. the judge who wrote the 10th circuit decision thought that it did. citizens united is not the only time that courts have ever said that corporations can exercise what are in essence, individual rights. some they have, some they don't. >>> joining me now, former georgetown law student, famously denied her a chance to testify at their house hearing for birth control. tim, i'll begin with you, you have been a very sif rouse defender of the congress shus klaus shus -- extends to just any for profit run corporation? >> look, barack obama has his own sexual morality, i have my own, they follow the catholic teaching. that's great, this is a free country. i don't think barack obama should get to impose his morality on me the second i go into business. >> but do you think an employer should. this is the key let me when we talk about freedom interests, the employer here is saying their free

from the supreme court. >> very important question headed to the supreme court. >> does a corporationous freedom? >> asht to lawsuit from hobby lobby stores. >> health care law's requirement, that employers offer free birth control coverage.

he was a great lawyer and a supremely ethical man. i guess he is the person -- it is important that me and my clerks, we were poor kids who have not experienced anything in the way of discrimination. to be exposed to that at that time of my life day after day, it was an experience that changed me forever. it made me think about the potential of law in a way -- i hope everybody in this room does. >> that is very interesting. we got some insight into your beginnings. some of your earliest experiences as a lawyer was there with justice marshall. i would like to ask you about -- >> it has not changed that much. [laughter] >> that is something we are interested in. through the years, in a serious way, you have seen the process from the outside. i understand that when you were in the clinton administration, you are involved and assigned to work with ruth bader ginsburg and in connection to her confirmation hearing. then i read a law review article that you wrote for the university of chicago. it was critiquing a book about the process. and

bad until you get the supreme court which is why we have the supreme court. and i do think the bond case has three elements to it. it has the treaty power but it also has questions that arise under the commerce clause and so in that respect it's a little different. senator durbin. >> i want to continue this because we have raised this issue as if it stops us cold. we can't go forward on this disability convention until we work out this bond case and i would say to professor and mr. thornburgh there is a clear distinction here. the bond case has not been raised under the treaty, the convention when it comes to chemical weapons. this case is being prosecuted under the implementation act, a separate act of congress implementing the treaty. two different things. so when we come to the disability act what is the implementation at under the convention for disabilities? there is none. the only implementation act is the americans with disabilities act which has been on the books for 20 years. and we tested that for 20 years. has it eliminated homeschooling mr. farah'

now the supreme court will decide if that law is proper. so conflating the two and saying it's all about the same thing one of our scholarly colleagues the junior senator from texas said in a "washington post" piece of the supreme court concludes the treaty can be used to prosecute americans regardless of the constitutional rights the ramifications can be alarming. the prosecution is not under a treaty. the prosecution is under the implementation. it's different. it's a law of congress. i am just stopped cold with this argument by mr. fares that the americans with disabilities act is going to end homeschooling in america. is that your position? >> that is, if position. my position is that the treaty changes the legal requirements in this country that it's not correct to say accordance with the treaty. since i believe there will be required implementation act that complies with the garments of the treaty i think at that point in time that is when the problems will arise. >> mr. fares the fact that the administration is not asking for impleme

supreme court decisions. think this will be one of those ones that comes down to us justice kennedy in the end. >> jamie thanks for being on the program. >> my pleasure. >>> a sailboat carrying ha hash -- haitian migrants overturned. authorities report a significant increase in the number of haitians trying to cross the water. >>> african president hamid carsy is refusing to sinecurety agreement that would allow u.s. troops to remain in his country for years to come. karzai is now telling the leaders that before he signs the security agreement, there must be some additional commitments from the united states like no more military raids on homes of private citizens, and the release of afghan pilsnrisonersd at guantanamo bay. >> if the agreement is not signed what i said to the president is we would have no choice, we would be compelled to have to begin to plan for the prospect that we will not be able to keep our troops here because they will not be invited, and then the nature of our partnership, and the inve

they asked the supreme court to do this in spring. they are confident of victory. president obama has been travelling on the west coast. a fundraising swing. he's due at the white house on tuesday night. there was a statement after the supreme court made its announcement by the white house reading in part: >> the supreme court points out that religious institutions are not required to provide contraceptive coverage under the affordable care act, but the key legal question is does that exemption provide - extend to private for-profit companies. many are looking at this as a huge decision. meantime, advocates of women's reproductive rights say if the supreme court decides with hobby lobby, and other organizations and there are dozeness of lawsuits along the lines. it could mean the affordable care act would be picked apart. any business could object on any grounds to covering certain provisions within the act. >> mike viqueira from the white house. a pair of u.s. bombers flew through air space china said was its own. al jazeera's rosalind jordan has more. >> on monda

we had a great victory at the supreme court because where we will have equal marriage and it's struck from the ledger. now i can tell you that you'll hear some proponents talking about how they're to go and continue litigating this. we're ready to go back into court again and we'll figure out not only to have equal it here in california and we'll not rest until we have marriage equal it throughout this country (clapping) and in closings i want to say you know the marriage equal it started in massachusetts and it achieved full lift off here in san francisco but i want to thank the american foundation for equal rights and the plaintiff's. i don't know is cleaving jones here. clech representing the american foundation of equal rights chad griffin we all worked together and thanks so much for everything you did. we couldn't have achieved the success here today without you. i'd like to ask terry stuart worked day and night i want to give them a chance to talk about. thank you >> thank you (clapping). >> i never see me at the poumd without the opinion in my hand. i want to add we're excited

so this would go all of the way up to, but not include supreme court -- supreme court justices will take -- they would still take 60 votes to get through the senate, but all other judges would not. so part of the reason why that's changed is because there was a ruling from a judge on this d.c. circuit that we're talking about on contraception that allowed a company not to enforce the mandate under the health care law to provide contraception it to their employees. that judge was actually approved after republicans threatened to go nuclear in 195 and that changed the mind of diane fine sten who was concerned of threatening nominees that they disagreed with on abortion. >> does senator reid have the votes. >> there are a few democrats. senator carl levin is expected to oppose him and possibly senator mark pryor. the majority of the caucus is with him for this reason. we talked a lot in recent months about the gridlock in washington and how unhappy americans are with their congress. this mood is not going to take the temperature down in washington. it will make things more acrimonious even

yet you cannot protect against that until you get to the supreme court which is why we have a supreme court. i do think the bond case has three elements to it. it has the treaty power but it also has questions that arise under the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause. in that respect it's a little different. >> i want to continue this because we raise this issue as if it stops us cold. we cannot go forward in this disability convention until we work out this bond case. i would say to professor meyer and mr. thornburgh but i think there is a clear distinction here. the bond case is not being raised under the treaty, the convention, when it comes to chemical weapons. it is being prosecuted under the implementation act, a separate act of congress implementing the treaty. two different things. when we come to the disability act, what is the implementation act under the convention for disabilities? >> there is none. the only implementation act is the americans with disabilities act, which has been on the books for 20 years. we tested that. hasn't eliminated homeschooling? i

it was upheld by the supreme court. >> no. romney did this in massachusetts. >> it was held together by the supreme court because it was a tax. >> every single republican voted against it. and they all support it now. >> there is a lot of daylight on what is in this law. there is nothing secret going on here. the american people -- >> 3,000 pages. they promised they'd put it up for everybody to look at before it was voted on. that was the first line. >> we're going to take a break. kevin over here thinks the president should be spending more time negotiating with republicans. when we get back, i'll remind him that there's actually no one to negotiate with. customer erin swenson ordered shoes from us online but they didn't fit. customer's not happy, i'm not happy. sales go down, i'm not happy. merch comes back, i'm not happy. use ups. they make returns easy. unhappy customer becomes happy customer. then, repeat customer. easy returns, i'm happy. repeat customers, i'm happy. sales go up, i'm happy. i ordered another pair. i'm ha