all the states have been trying to appeal and make the supreme court decide the reason the supreme court took this case, it was an entire district that pretty much said the same thing. they said "we have to get in and decide now." the point for them is to make a decision so there's no confusion. >> great to have you both with us. >>> next, the other side of the debate. after losing so much ground in the fight state by state. what now. we talk with a lower whose job it is to make the cause against same-sex marriage. it's "inside story". >>>tonight on "inside story", we are look at the battle over same-sex marriage, at the outset in the 1990s, those that wanted to keep marriage as between one man and one woman won - over and over again. in recent years the tide turned and decisively so. where does it leave those that fought same-sex marriage. robert is with a legal group founded to protect religious freedom. welcome to "inside story". >> thank you for having me. >>> the battlefield changed shape. what is the fight now. what is a plausible set of victories now that same-sex marriage is lega

it says that the trial itself didn't hop skip and jump to the supreme court. the trial not only air the issues as you said but allow them to clarify the truth in the fact of the matter. it also slowed things down a little bit, didn't it? >> that's absolutely right. by having the trial or the case moved to add to that one of us on appeal to the ninth circuit there was a tricky procedural issue that the ninth circuit kicked over to the california supreme court so that added more time as well. so through some fertility that a plaintiff's lawyer could not have foreseen and in fact did not intend because they wanted to as you say shoot up to the supreme court as quickly as possible the case was slowed down dramatically. so to put a finer point on it what the defense lawyers were worried about is that it would zoom up to the supreme court of the supreme court wouldn't be ready with only four states with same-sex marriage which is something they very rarely do on a hot social issue like this. they would render an adverse decision and it would be very difficult to get

supreme court during reconstruction. the university of maryland history professor michael ross lectures on the tensions between president andrew johnson and the republican dominated congress. the short-lived period of southern black legislatures and how hate groups, such as the ku klux klan, used the 14 amendment to promote white supremacy full stop the series is part one of four on reconstruction hosted by the supreme court historical society for stop the is introduced by supreme court justice anthony kennedy. this is just under one hour. [applause] justice kennedy: thank you again for coming. my remarks will not trespass on those of our distinguished speaker. i want to make two different points, one to introduce professor michael ross, but to first note that we should all feel privileged to be here today because -- this evening -- this is the first in a series of lectures that have been renamed. these are now called the leon silverman supreme court lectures. leon was simply wonderful. he was the president of the suprem

on state supreme courts. the 28 states in red, take a close look at these, these appoint judges to initial terms. after that they are set for life or face uncontested elections where voters can keep or reject them. they are not the states where i'm worried about money polluting judicial selections. i'm concerned about orange states, where judges are listed on ballots without party affiliation. then there are the nine states in gray. they have partisan elections where judges run under primary or general elections. this is where the debate for honey and integrity matters. here is why? because of these nine states spending on state supreme court elections has skyrocketed. going from $83 million in the period from 1990 to 1999, $207 million in the period 2000 to 2009. alabama is one state moving the needle. it is where one of the biggest nastiest judicial elections took place, back in 2006. sue bell cob won that seat that year. she became the chief justice, since retiring in 2011 she is telling a story not everyo

supreme court during reconstruction. university of maryland history professor michael rosler to is on the tensions between president andrew johnson and the republican-dominated congress on how hate groups such as the ku klux klan used the 14th amendment to promote white supremacy. the speech is one in a series of four on reconstruction hosted by the supreme court historical society. it was in the supreme court chamber, and he is introduced by supreme court justice anthony kennedy. this is just under an hour. [applause] justice kennedy: thank you for coming. my remarks will not trespass on the distinguished speaker. save to make tin of different points. one is to introduce professor michael ross, but first, to note that we should all feel privileged to be here today. this is the first in a series of lectures that have been renamed. these are now called the leon silverman supreme court lectures. leon was wonderful. he was the president of the supreme court historical society. i think in 1991 until 2002. he was a fascinatin

if you look at the reasonableness inquiry for example i think balancing factor is the supreme court and this court says should be balanced and the one hand there is an overriding importance in preventing future terrorist attacks, intrusion if any subject to the smith argument on the privacy of individuals to allow the examination of the data, to allow the identification of connections only on finding reasonable procedures that are in place so the statutory safeguards a limit the dissemination of records that are collected. there is an oversight system on congress or other entities in the executive branch. all of this i submit we submit should lead the court of providing for the amendment question that the program as it stands is reasonable. >> constitutionally reasonable whether it is award feeling and we respect that. >> the test is whether it is an effective means of affecting interests, not him least restrictive means. >> looks like you are folding up. there are more questions come as much time as we gave alex abdo we understand your argument unless there's something you think you ha

if you look at the history of the supreme court until 1810 thereabouts the supreme court did not have a courtroom here in the capitol or anywhere, really. and they often had to borrow a room from the house and senate in order to have oral arguments, so they were thrilled on the supreme court in 1810 when the senate chamber on the second floor was open which is now referred to as the old designate chamber. senate moves up to that chamber just straight down the hall out here, and the old old senate chamber down the stairs was converted into a supreme court room and the justices were thrilled. they were thrilled they finally had their own nice courtroom. now it's not much more than a museum room. people can tour that room, but there were some important decisions that were considered down there some very poor decisions that were made in that room, some very good decisions that were made in that room. one of them was -- involved the spanish ship, the amistad. it was a great movie. a guy who grew up in long view, texas, in my district, matthew mcconaughey, played the trial lawyer in the cas

and later, a supreme court justice from the state of alabama is attacking two united states supreme court justices for performing same-sex weddings. i am totally blind. and sometimes i struggle to sleep at night, and stay awake during the day. this is called non-24. learn more by calling 844-824-2424. or visit your24info.com. put your hand over your heart. is it beating? good! then my nutrition heart health mix is for you. it's a wholesome blend of peanuts, pecans and other delicious nuts specially mixed for people with hearts. i said people with hearts. because hearts health is important. that's why i've researched optimized and packaged this mix just for you. not you. so if you have a heart start optimizing your nutrition with my nutrition. planters. nutrition starts with nut. right now, verizon is offering unlimited talk and text. plus 10 gigs of shareable data. yeah, 10 gigantic gigs. for $80 a month. and $15 per line. more data than ever. for more of what you want. on the network that's #1 in speed, call, data, and reliability. so you never have to settle. $80 a month. for 10 gigs. a

and later, a supreme court justice from the state of alabama is attacking two united states supreme court justices for performing same-sex weddings. right now, verizon is offering unlimited talk and text. plus 10 gigs of shareable data. yeah, 10 gigantic gigs. for $80 a month. and $15 per line. more data than ever. for more of what you want. on the network that's #1 in speed, call, data, and reliability. so you never have to settle. $80 a month. for 10 gigs. and $15 per line. stop by or visit us online. and save without settling. only on verizon. moderate to severe crohn's disease is tough but i've managed. except that managing my symptoms was all i was doing. and when i finally told my doctor, he said humira is for adults like me who have tried other medications but still experience the symptoms of moderate to severe crohn's disease. and that in clinical studies the majority of patients on humira saw significant symptom relief. and many achieved remission. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers including

the supreme court is not the supreme branch. for god's sake it isn't the supreme being. it is the supreme court. >> but sir, george will the conservative columnist pointed out back in 1957, another governor of arkansas, orville forbis decided to disregard and refuse to obey the ruling to desegregate schools. president eisenhower had to call in the 101st airborne. are you saying president huckabee might decide he wasn't going to obey the ruling on desegregation or president nixon to turn over the tapes? s it's up in the air whether you are going to obey the supreme court? >> you know george will is no fan of mine. he recently called me appalling. i'm not surprised he would make such a false comparison. in that case the supreme court had ruled the legislature and executive branch agreed with the supreme court, and presidely what happened is what should happen. the president ordered the airborne to come in and enforce the law. the law that did exist. it wasn't that the president defied the law the president was carrying out the law and using all the forces at his re resourc

it should not be the supreme court, they are not supreme. god is supreme. same-sex marriage does not produce children. guest: that was something that justice scalia mentioned. he was concerned about forcing a definition on a population where so many people find it to be unpalatable from a religious standpoint. that is on their minds. host: that entered into these the liberations? guest: they are what the protester who interjected -- he was taken out of the courtroom. host: this is william. good morning. caller: how are you doing. my question is this, what do you think about free speech? is it free speech when somebody if your name appears in a press report 10 years ago and every time somebody googles your name that story is republished over and over and over. it's a negative story. it's something that was not serious, it is something that you don't want people to read. what do you think of that in terms of free speech? every time your name is googled this story gets republished and republished. guest: the right to be forgotten is a new topic right now. it's

the supreme court is not the supreme branch. for god's sake is isn't the supreme being. it is the supreme court court. >> george will has pointed out back in 1957 another governor of arkansas decided to disregard and refused to obey the supreme court's ruling to dedeg agree gate schools. eisenhower had to call in the 101st airborne. are you saying president huckabee might say he wasn't going to obey the ruling on desegregation. it's up in the air whether or not you're going to abide by the supreme court? >> he's not a fan of mine. recently called me appalling. but the point is in that case the supreme court had ruled the legislature and executive branch had agreed with the supreme court and precisely what happened what should happen. the president ordered airborne to come in and enforce the law. the law that did exist. the president was carrying out the law and using the forces at his resource to do it. >> let's say the president decided i don't like supreme court's ruling on that. let's say it said for instance in watergate, i don't want to turn over the tapes and court

supreme court going to rub off on me? >>> thanks for joining us tonight. new york. [ dynamic music plays ]

he said yes, two of them and they're both on the supreme court.s going to turn out. but this is a large, just a coincidence that a large number of older judges are sitting there now so the next president gets a chance to shape the court and perhaps the country through that. >> you know not to take the conversation a bridge too far here, but i get a sense that this next election is going to possibly determine the life span of citizens united. what's your thoughts on that? >> well i think the question we have to ask as citizens is yes the supreme court will have a huge amount to say about citizens united whether it gets overturned or whether it gets expanded as it has ever since citizens united but there's another route for advocates who are not upset with that decision to take and that is a constitutional amendment. a majority of people oppose citizens united but they say it's too hard, it's impossible to have an amendment. history suggests otherwise. and we've had applen amendment that gave women the right to vote. an amendment that created the pr

. >> the supreme court is not the supreme branch and for god's sake it's not the supreme being. >> be laying it down. >> tonight, hillary clinton's campaign staff must be asking themselves is bernie sanders the new gene mccarthy? the last time a prohibitive front-runner for the democratic presidential nomination was challenged by an uprising on the left, the challenge came from a gray-haired senator from a canadian bordering state when the democrat incumbent president was challenged for the nomination. >> i intend to enter the democratic primaries in four states, wisconsin, oregon, california and nebraska. the decision with reference to massachusetts and also new hampshire will be made within the next two or three weeks. >> gene mccarthy ran on the issue of the day, the moral issue of the day, the vietnam war. and if elected president, he would simply end it. mccarthy rocked the political world by winning the new hampshire primary. well, it was as if he had won. the media treated it as a huge victory for senator mccarthy simply because he achieved 42% of the vote against incumbent pre

but that's -- >> would you like to be before the supreme court arguing that?tices, i need your help here. can he rule by fiat? >> this is going to be the biggest issue, he went way beyond what he's permitted to do under the law. he should have waited for congress. congress has that right. >> what happens if the court says on the request to expedite everything says no we're not going to do that we're done here our court ruling stands we're through with you. what happens then to his fiat? >> it just stays. a complete stay. it will stay and stay and stay forever. [ speaking simultaneously ] >> that's really where they're headed right now. it will get to the supreme court eventually but don't forget we are weeks away from the session being over. they won't rule anything now. >> the justice department is losing lots of court battles. they look horrible over this five years of this president, six years. d.o.j. in cleveland, they get the demands, they reached a deal with the city of cleveland where they are going to have monitors they are going to be -- >> everything

my friend, the supreme court is not the supreme being. and they cannot overturn the laws of nature or of nature's god. >> and ben carson said the president can choose to simply ignore the high court. here's the doctor. >> the president is required to, you know, carry out the laws of the land. the laws of the land come from the legislative branch. so if the legislative branch creates a law or changes a law, the executive branch has responsibility to carry it out. doesn't say that they have the responsibility to carry out a judicial law. >> wow. this goes back to marberry versus madison. beginnings of our administration, right of the supreme court for judicial review. the constitution is what the supreme court decides it is after deliberation. they're saying we can ignore that. then what is the constitution? what is if it is is not decided by the supreme court? >> as you just pointed out in 1803 marbury versus madison. it's obvious the neurosurgeon went to medical school, not law school. the first hispanic clerk for the >> harvard law grad.

once again that i will risk my life for pie. ( laughter ) ( applause ) conservatives argued to the supremeourt that allowing gay marriage would somehow lead to more abortions. would someone please explain to these people where babies come from? ( applause ) here ye, here ye! "the nightly show" is now in session. let's do this! ( cheers and applause ) ( cheers and applause ) >> larry: welcome to "the nightly show." thank you very much. welcome. so nice to have you-- >> larry! larry! larry! larry! larry! >> larry: thank you very much. i amular,ular,ular,ular larry. now,ob, we've been covering the freddie gray case this whole week, so last night after the show i decided that, you know we should talk to some actual protesters. so i hopped on a train to baltimore-- this is true-- and of course, as soon as i did this happened. >> in new york city, demonstrators clashed with police. >> more than 100 people were arrested during the protests in manhattan. >> larry: come on, guys! i just left town to go to some protesting. ( laughter ) it's almost like you weren't even thinking about "the nightly sh

the supreme court is not the supreme branch and for god's sake, it isn't the supreme being. it is the supreme court. >> we are sworn to upheld the constitution and the law. and it has to be agreed upon with three branches of government. one can't overrule the other two. we learned that in ninth grade civics but many must have forgotten that basic civics lesson along the way. >> on the democratic side independent bernie sanders will launch his bid in a few hours in vermont. he is appealing to the elizabeth warren wing of the party. the founders of ben and jerry will be there. there will be free ice cream. go for the free cream. let's turn to business in a huge story in the world of television. cnbc's geoff cutmore joins us live. reports flooding in that charter communications is expected to acquire time warner cable. that would be a huge deal. what are the details. >> $55 billion. that's what we're talking about in terms of this acquisition, and the interesting part of this story, i guess, is charter is smaller but they are going to acquire the larger business here and this c

so here we were at the supreme court.s again said maybe once and for all, will the justices legalize it nationwide? he gave us a couple of different signals. we played the clip about him saying the definition of marriage for the millinnia has been a certain way but i think all told justice kennedy will continue on the path he's been on and likely vote with the four liberal members of the court to strike down same-sex marriage bans nationwide and create this new right. gwen: it sounded almost like he was setting up a straw man to knock down when he talked about i know you're going to say that gay marriage has always been this way and then there's a but. >> there's the thing. the way it works at the supreme court is there are going to be challenges to both sides and a lot of his more challenging questions came to the woman who was defending the couples who were saying we want this right to gauge marriage. so it's sort of natural that he would take that tact with them but then -- tack with them. but then he talked so much ab

the latest campaign finance laws and supreme court decisions brought us to a new era.mer governor jed bush and supporters are about to take presidential campaigning somewhere different. they found a way to outsource the campaign using the law to create a blank check. andrej sustr has more. -- david shuster has more. >> in the complex law of campaign financing jed bush is sailing into unchartered waters. his super pact will take responsibility for television advertising for the expected g.o.p. candidate. >> it's critical we change the direction our county is heading. we must do better... >> jed bush's own campaign by has limits and must operate separately from the pack will oversee less expensive duty - schedule and travel. a watchdog group calls it outrageous. >> an individual coming in with millions tens of millions hundreds of millions, an individual or corporation, could foot the bill and make a difference have a determinative effect. >> jed bush and supporters are trying to leverage a pair of supreme court rulings from five years ago. justices in a case known as ci

>> they would ask the supreme court to resolve the conflict. >> it would have to be the supreme court? >> i think so. i think they would permit a state. >> should we permit a stay? i guess are going to get to this later. we agree with you that this other litigation that is going on, we want the supreme court -- supposing where wrong and somebody blows of a subway train -- does it make sense for us to say here are our views and wait for the d c circuit to speak. before actually making an order, an injunction? >> i think it would be relevant. we have not taken a position on that. >> that would be within our power to do? >>yes. >> i will now proceed to the constitution. our claim under the fourth amendment is quite straightforward. the government will collection of our bulk records intrudes on a resort location of privacy. this was decided in 1979 in a supreme court decision. >> let's suppose that we agree that quantity is quality here. that this program is different. isn't there still quite a bit to the government's argument that even in this context, there is not much of an expectation

there's a 1958 supreme court decision naacp versus alabama alabama fought to the supreme court seeking to compel the naacp in alabama to produce its membership list. the supreme court held that they weren't able to do that. they did not have the right to that list. lot of the technologies that are being discussed today seem to permit the indirect securing of such information and i'm wondering what your thoughts are on the availability visibility and force of the first amendment argument concerning froe dom inging freedom of association which includes the privacy of one's associations. >> i think there's a strong argument that the first and fourth support each other for the reasons you articulated and the parallel to that earlier case. metadata is very informative, and the "metadata" indicating all the people you contacted, all the people that you contacted at a given time, how long you spoke to them et cetera, et cetera, reveal your associations, reveal your behavior, and the argument goes that knowing that this stuff lacks fourth amendment protection, you will self-edit you'll self-se

but a decision made this week by the supreme court could change all that. because the court just agreed to hear a case that could mean that not every person gets counted. sue evanwell a county chairman for the texas republican party is arguing that using census data to draw voting districts dilutes power. so she's asking the court to reform the current system to base apportionment not on the total population but only on the population of the state that is eligible to vote which would mean in effect if you're a legal immigrant, a legal immigrant who doesn't have citizenship, if you are an undocumented immigrant,

the supreme court is not the supreme branch. for god's sake, it isn't the supreme being. >> george will, the conservative columnists pointed out in 1957 another governor of arkansas refused to obey the ruling for desegregation and president eisenhower had to call in the 101st airborne. would president huckabee would defy the federal law? it is up into the air whether you will obey the supreme court. >> george will is no fan of mine and recently called me "appalling," so i am not surprised he would make the false comparison but the fact is in that case the supreme court rule the that the legislature and the executive branch had agreed with the supreme court and precisely what happened is what should happen: the president ordered the airborne do come in and enforce the law. the law that did exist. the management was carrying out the law and using all resources at fingertips. >> if the president said at watergate i don't want to turn over the tapes and the court can't make me. >> president sometime has to follow the law. does congr

supreme court. michael bursten writes about the intersection of religious believe in politics. greg is with the americans united for separation of church and state. before that, he worked at a law firm. christina ariaga is with the beckett fund. she tells me she has quite an eclectic collection of pets at home. we learned that in the green room. michael gersten is a columnist with the washington post and worked with the one foundation to defeat disease and poverty globally. there are two categories we are going to talk about today. the first are the more traditional types of cases with the religion field. the accommodation cases. they often involve minority religion in the place of accommodation of minority religion in a majority society. there is another category in the news, which is what i would call religious accommodation to point out -- 2.0. those include hobby lobby. i know since that is in the news, it is on everybody's mind. since we have counsel on both sides of the case you're with us today, we will ask them to start off by telling us about what has happened in the a

and the review court and the supreme court the supreme court has blocked other cases where congress has established clearly specified form or forum, limited parties of judicial review that process is exhaustive. >> to address some very specific facts about judicial review program there that suggested that it was reasonable to assume that congress had intended to preclude review by another party. they send out a variety of factors and looked those factors and concluded with respect to that, that conclusion was reasonable inference. i am not sure those factors come out the same way here. very heavily on a generalization, any response congress authorizes by one person, preclude judicial review ahead of any other person. >> i don't think we are relying on a generalization. the court made clear the inquiry needs to be based on the structure of the statutory scheme at issue here. if you look at this structure, what is alluded to in the first part of the argument there is no provision for a challenge by third parties to these orders because as a matter of course the expectation was that the ti

supreme court six times. in 2012, he won a landmark supreme court case the bars states from giving mandatory life sentences without parole should children -- two children. desmond tutu has called stephenson america's young mandela. others have compared bryant to atticus finch, the fearless fictional hero of harper lee's seminal novel "to kill a mockingbird." brian stephenson's book, "it just mercy," a story of justice and redemption, tells many stories. but it focuses on his battle to free an african-american man who was falsely convicted and condemned to die for killing a white woman. stephenson has joined us on "democracy now!" a number of times. as soon as we play for you his story about this the, about "just mercy," which we are offering you come along with all of our interviews with brian stephenson -- when we finish with him talking about this case, we will be joined by him in another interview where he has just freed another african-american man who has been in prison for 30 years. he could not believe

>> we argued a case just before the snowden disclosures in the supreme court challenging a different surveillance program and the supreme court held 5-4 that we didn't have standing, we didn't have the right to be there because we couldn't prove that our communications had been monitored. and, you know, that was a very demoralizing decision. then months after, just weeks after, in fact, that decision, the snowden disclosures came and gave us among other things standing to challenge this program. >> because just on its face, everyone -- >> everybody is subject to the program. we happen to be, the aclu happens to be a customer of verizon business networks which

state government, the national government is supreme. host: it is unclear if jim will take the test. we are talking to high school students in eastern and central time zones on (202) 748-8000. men time zones on (202) 748-8001 . hector is up from california. caller: i want to give a shout out to mrs. -- what is the question of the iron triangle? guest: i was hoping you would ask and i was hoping someone in california would ask. california is such a great example of the iran triangle -- iron triangle. especially the california beam shippers association. the iran triangle is an example -- the iron tirangle is an example of elitism. because maybe only the california beam -- being shippers association care about the green beans. the fda says in title i of the food and drug act that there are seven varieties of green beans. in fact, they are whole, shoe string, cut, short cuts, diaganol cuts, diagonal short cuts and mixtures. those of the seven varieties of green beans packed in cans. according to the law, the cut of a green bean cannot be les

>> there have been three supreme court cases affirming gay rights. it was about a colorado state constitutional provision. anthony kennedy wrote the opinion for the court. that's 9697. the 2nd one in 2,003 lawrence versus texas. states can't prohibit consensual sexual relations between consenting adults in private. gay or straight. anthony kennedy writes. also 6325 believe. then two years ago that court says the federal government has to respect things like marriages that are legal in states. unconstitutional. justice scalia dissents justice scalia and justice kennedy are both appointed by ronald reagan within two years of each other. they both happen to have gone up in the catholic church but represent rather different visions. having read windsor roma lawrence versus texas i think that it would not be shocking to me if justice kennedy wrote the forth in in this 4th in this series just as well worn wrote brown versus board of education ending apartheid in education and loving versus virginia and 67. and those were 13 years apart. liberal republican

that supreme court was not abortion in the southern direction. one of the reasons it was is because the justices road circuit back then. the south, you have to abortion that justices based in part on the roads they would have to ride and the swamps they would have to cross. because the south had crummy roads and bad infrastructure they had sort of smaller districts because it just took longer to get from point a to point b. what that meant is that the south had more than its fair share of justices which meant that the dred scott court was really tilted towards the south. today we don't have circuit writing anymore so that's not -- may be demographic seats come the women succeed or the jewish seat or the african-american seat. but interestingly most of our justices come from coastal places and they went to basically ivy league schools. and interesting geographic fact. >> california's next. anthony kennedy and the idea of equality. first of all my geography is terrible. sacrament is not on -- >> it's not too far from the bay area. what i admit is y