listening to ted olson, do you agree on his take? zpl >> i agree with just about everything he said i think it's important to look back at judge walker's 2010 decision and look how thermonuclear that decision was. what he did in that opinion finding a fundamental ray to gay marriage, finding equal protection violation was whittled down by the court today, and ironically, i do think you have to read a little bit of judge reinhart, the two judges in the majority of the 9th circuit as writing something that looks like bush v gore. they are saying in states where supreme courts give one the right to marry, and then by referendum that right is taken away, someone dried it as lucy with the football you can't put it out this and take it back. in those states when there are 18,000 couples who marry in good faith believing they have the right to marry you can't take it away, that is a pretty narrow one-ride only determination. now, i do agree with mr. olson, absolutely, the language in this is so powerful, so eloquent, it really is and i reme

. >> ted olson, former solicitor-general under george w. bush along with david boyes. thank you so much for joining us tonight and congratulations on your win today. >> thank you so much. >> a programming note. one of the couples represented by ted olson are on the last word with lawrence o'donnell tonight, which is very cool. you have to watch that, okay? deal, deal. joining us now is dahlia litwick. dahlia, thanks for being with us. >> hi, there. >> listen to ted olson, do you agree with his take on whether or not this case goes to the supreme court and how it will do there? >> well, i agree with just about everything he said. i do think it's really important to look back at judge von walker's 2010 decision and look at how thermonuclear that decision really was. what he did in that opinion, finding a fundamental right to gay marriage, finding an equal protection violation was whittled down by the court today. ironically it looks a little like bush v. gore to me. a little bit like they're saying? states where supreme courts give one the right to marry and then by refe

was making. >> again, ted olson is a very decent fellow. i still want to know, is there some widespread conspiracy or are we talking about the two biggest right wing funders, iran traders in america? >> the only thing i see is the iran thing. >> i hope they get off that illegal trading charges. >> you should be careful there. >> why? it's right here. >> okay. the cbo is protecting a $1 trillion budget deficit for 2012 and that's on top of obama's new housing bailout plan. so is this putting our economy in danger? we'll debate it next. also, don't forget to e-mail us at "the five". >> redistribution. transfer of wealth, class warfare, socialism when the government takes from one class or group of citizens and gives to another forged in marxist germany, advanced in china and now creeping into obama's america. [ laughter ] >> pay special attention to the redistribution, giving one group and taking from another. >> i am sending congress a plan that will give every responsible homeowner in america the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their

. >> ted olson, former solicitor-general under george w. bush along with david boyes. thank you so much for joining us tonight and congratulations on your win today. appreciate you being here. >> thank you so much, rachel. >> a programming note. one of the couples represented by ted olson are on the last word with lawrence o'donnell tonight, which is very cool. you have to watch that, okay? deal, deal. joining us now is dahlia litwick. senior editor and correspondent for dahlia. thank you for being with us. >> listen to ted olson, do you agree with his take on whether or not this case goes to the supreme court and how it will do there? >> well, i agree with just about everything he said. i do think it's really important to look back at judge von walker's 2010 decision and look at how thermonuclear that decision really was. what he did in that opinion, finding a fundamental right to gay marriage, finding an equal protection violation was whittled down by the court today. ironically, i think you have to read a little bit about judge reinhart, the two judges in the ninth

we have established a commission for the preservation of the justice system that is chaired by ted olson and david boyce, speakers at this great forum in the past, and 24 of the most prominent lawyers in the country, both women and men, all ethnicities, both sides of the aisle, to look at this issue. let me tell you what we found. in hearings around the country, we found the supreme court of georgia telling us that there court is so under-funded that she has to ask nexus' lexus for pencils for her law clerks. in ohio, you cannot finally pleading unless you bring your own paper. in new hampshire, the court closed the courts to all civil jury trials for a year, a year. alabama supreme court justice said she is going to have to reduce civil trials by 50% and criminal cases by 1/3. well, we have spent $1.30 trillion in bringing the rule of law to parts of the rest of the world. the rule of law begins with one word. "access." access. if there is no access, there is no rule of law. today we have a just a step in this country where 80% of poor people do not have access to the port. -- court. we

one of the attorneys, ted olson, who represented george w. bush in bush vs.cision with rachel maddow last night. >> people have the right to get married, which is a fundamental right in this country. you cannot take it away from those individuals without violating the constitution. >> joining he this morning are jeff cirillo and tom, two of the plaintiffs in the original case that kicked off the debate. it's nice to see you this morning. >> hi, thomas. how are you? >> thanks for having us. >> absolutely. jeff, i want to start with the argument of liberty. even some conservatives saying at the heart of this very debate is personal tree dfreedom. have you spoken to anyone who has changed their opinions about this or have people in your own circles knowing what you've gone through stood firm in how they feel about the issue? >> oh, sure, thomas, and it's not even just in the recent weeks. it's really been since we filed this case almost two and a half years ago. we have spent time telling our stories and changing the hearts and minds of people across the gay and

. >> one vision that comes to mind, an old friend named ted olson, because the thing that got created that followed him around for a number of years was an independent counsel statute, which was eequally nud and absurd to us in terms of structure of allocation of power and what we got was two olc alums dividing in that opinion. one is justice scalia, as you know in dissent, saying in a formal manner to assign prosecutorial authority outside the executive branch is quintessentially a violation of the separation of powers and our other alum, your old boss, the chief -- late chief justice said, no, we'll just have to wait and see if he's really adversely effected by the assignment of executive power outside of the executive branch. and maybe we should ask a few subsequent presidents as to how well that worked out. >> can i just make one ten-seconds point? >> ten seconds. i yield the ten seconds. >> the grace of the chief was the infrequency and the small number of people the statue applied. the reason this is a different situation is because there's no limiting principle. in one instance

enter into the record an article that appeared in the "wall street journal" february 1st written by ted olson. >> without objection. >> thank you. you know, i understand that mr. waxman doesn't like this pipeline. he called this hearing. he asked for witnesses to come. but the incredible political nature of it became really parent when he had his chance to ask questions. he had five minutes. i watched the clock. he spent four minutes and 31 seconds testifying. so he drawed two folks out from the united states government, brought them here this morning us asentencebly because he was keenly interested, he thought it was critical that the committee hear from them. they got between two and two 1/2 questions, 29 seconds. it didn't appear to me that there was anything but blatant politics, a chance for him to speak more about folks that are constituents of mine. he's implied this new standard. mr. waxman has the benefits standard. his notion of legislation, apparently, is you decide a piece of legislation depending on who benefits. >> mr. chairman, i want to make a point of order. i know the rules

i think having ted olson, former solicitor general, very well-known conservative litigate tore, wonderfulyer as well as david boyce teaming up together, is a very powerful message, love is not partisan. there is no party that knows love better than the other. i know there is a hlot of debates, is this a political shows, some parties may know how to love each other. love knows no boundaries, it's not just california. the 9th circuit deals with washington, we have important decision going on up there, washington state. and i hope it goes to the supreme court. why? because we learn through this process of standing up and fighting for our right, especially when you consider don't ask, don't tell being repealed, there are soldiers serving overseas right now and if they happen to be gay and they have loving partner at home, what if they die? what if the soldier dies and you drape the cass set, let's cut out stars and say you know what, you're only equal in some of those states, no, we fight for america, where all those states and i believe that love is really something that is worth fighting fo

. >> ted olson. >> all these people you'd think would be able to really swing not just lip service, butower. but then when it comes to the republican nominating contest it's gone off the charts right wing, well to the chart of what george w. bush was campaigning on in terms of being anti-gay. what's the relationship in terms of what republicans do? i don't understand the disconnect. >> there's a complete disconnect and i guess it's just a kind of dispratt, craven relationship to the base of that party. look, we now have a base, the republican party, that is so radical that they can be pandered to by calls for elimination of public education for, you know -- we have a major candidate who yet could rin win campaigning, as you've been talking earlier, against college education. and so they're also as we know taking these bizarre stands about women's reproductive rights right s rights rights, about contraception. so this is really a radical, radical party are. but that hypocrisy. someone like ken mehlman is in a long tradition, i hate to say it, of republicans who were closeted homosexuals,

ted olson, the very famous and very conservative attorney who is challenging california's prop

ted olson allegeed on behalf of two gay couples fighting to legally wed. >> this is whether we eliminated class citizenship, whether we'll treat thousands, millions of our citizens as less equal. less respected. different. less entitled. isolated. >> supporters of traditional marriage are lashing out. mitt romney saying that the fight isn't over. newt gingrich tweeting the ruling is another example of an out-of-control judiciary. the sponsors of proposition 8 call it a blow against direct democracy. >> this case is really all about on the one hand the right of the people. to propose and enact laws versus the federal court interference. in 2008, 52% of california voters approved prop 8, that amended the state's constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman. legal challenges followed with emotional testimony and single intention. to get the gay marriage issue in front of the u.s. supreme court. there is little doubt that is where this case will land. but it may not be the next stop. supporters of prop 8 could ask for an review from the ninth circuit. if the court agrees it would mean

. >> rose: did you and ted argue this together, ted olson? >> yes, we did. >> rose: that's an amazing circumstance. what brought the two of you together on this issue on the same side because you've been on on side sides in gore v. bush. >> yes and on a number of other issues. >> rose: a number of things, yes. >> well, this is... we're friends and we've been looking for something to work together on and this was an issue that had influenced both of us for a considerable part of time. >> rose: influenced? >> yes, something that was important to us that we felt needed to be addressed. ted, for example, years ago when he was a justice department lawyer wrote an opinion saying that it was not permissible not to promote somebody within the justice department because of their sexual orientation at a time when not a lot of people were taking that position. so this is something that ted has been supportive of for a long time, as i have. so when this opportunity came to work together but on an issue that both of us felt very strongly about, it was an

their attorney, ted olson who was the solicitor general under president george w.writing an op-ed in the "wall street journal" asking if president obama is keeping an enemies list. he asks, quote, how would you feel if aids to the president of the united states singled you out by name foray tack and if you were featured prominently in the president's re-election campaign as an enemy of the people. this is precisely what happened to charles and david koch, even though they are private citizens and neither is a candidate for the president's or anyone else's office. joining me is stu varney. host of varney & company. this is not the first time we have seen the administration or democrats take direct aim at private citizens. >> i call this a disturbing tactic emerging in the president's re-election campaign. it is a campaign of intimidation, bullying and demon nicing private sector individuals because of their political views and their opposition to the president's political policies. for example, the coch brothers feel they are being singled out. remember when congres

ted olson who wrote the letter on behalf of the koch brothers pointed out, look, we used to talk about the enemies' list, how disturbing that is in a representative democracy that the executive branch would seek on its own whim and its own whimsy to just pick out one or two individuals and spread untruths, falsehoods about them in an attempt to shift blame on an issue like gas prices -- that's going to be a big one in november -- and also perhaps to discourage others from getting involved this the political debate. now, i would imagine in the koch -- if koch brothers became suddenly supportive of the president, we wouldn't see those letters. megyn: they write the implication in this sort of attack is obvious; dare to criticize the president's policies and you will be singled out and personally maligned by the president and his -- they talk about how this is an abuse to have president's position and a disservice to the nation. >> is he not supposed to be the president of all the people? that was the great promise of the obama administration coming in, i'm going to represent all of ameri

appellate court would lean in this direction, and others point out that the plaintiffs' lawyers, ted olsonnd david boies, they did a brilliant job at the federal court level setting the record that the ninth circuit panel used for guidance. also the three judges who heard the case are among the court's most liberal and senior members. many were not surprised to see this decision but, of course, megyn, it's not the final decision. megyn: absolutely not. because there is plenty more litigation ahead, claudia. >> reporter: there is. you know, supporters of proposition 8 say they will now ask for that en banc review from the ninth circuit, and it would mean that 11 judges instead of just three would hear the case. and be they lose there again, they will then go to the u.s. supreme court which is really where this landmark case was always intended to land. and despite today's ruling, it is almost certain that gay marriages here in california will remain on hold while the legal process plays out. megyn: claudia, thank you. >>> well, speaking of the u.s. supreme court, supreme court justice ruth

. >> i asked to enter a record that appeared in the wall street journal written by ted olson. i understand mr. waxman doesn't like this pipeline. but the incredible political nature became apparent when he had his chance to ask questions. he spent four minutes and 31 seconds testifying. he brought to folks out from the united states government, ostensibly because he was keenly interested. he thought it was absolutely critical that we hear from them. 29 seconds. it did not appear to me that there is anything but blatant politics. mr. waxman has the benefit standard. his notion of legislation, apparently, is that you decide a piece of legislation depending on who benefits. >> i want to make a point of order. i know the rules on the house floor would not permit the gentleman to make such a personal attack. a member's motivations or actions, i am happy to answer it when i get my turn, but if i don't have enough time for questions of these witnesses, you will say i did not ask them enough questions. i think it is inappropriate and i make a point of order that the words be stricken.

covered the ninth circuit court hearing on this issue back in december of 2010, and that is where ted olson, one of the lawyers who represent at couples who challenged proposition 8, and republican, he teamed up with a democrat and his adversary in the election case of bushehr versus board to bring the challenge. there it is on the strain, if you go -- there is on the screen if you go to c-span.org. we will continue talking about all of this, getting your thoughts and your take about same-sex marriage. are you for or against it? let me show you what rick santorum had to say in response to the court's decision. he said "we need to have a president willing to stand up to the judiciary -- mitt romney also weighed in in a statement, and he said this -- ivan, a democrat from massachusetts. caller: in 2003 we had a ruling by the u.s. supreme court, in that case basically said that in america the gay is now legal and no longer a crime. i think it is funny gays had to wait until 2003 to become legal. at that time, justice aliyah, one of the most conservative on the court, he remarked now we are goi

. >> i asked to enter a record that appeared in the wall street journal written by ted olson. i understand mr. waxman doesn't like this pipeline. but the incredible political nature became apparent when he had his chance to ask questions. he spent four minutes and 31 seconds testifying. he brought to folks out from the united states government, ostensibly because he was keenly interested. he thought it was absolutely critical that we hear from them. 29 seconds. it did not appear to me that there is anything but blatant politics. mr. waxman has the benefit standard. his notion of legislation, apparently, is that you decide a piece of legislation depending on who benefits. >> i want to make a point of order. i know the rules on the house floor would not permit the gentleman to make such a personal attack. a member's motivations or actions, i am happy to answer it when i get my turn, but if i don't have enough time for questions of these witnesses, you will say i did not ask them enough questions. i think it is inappropriate and i make a point of order that the words be stricken.

presentations, first from our city economist, ted, and then from office on the work force development, mr. yarney, and then the budget analyst. so, mr. olsonyou like to start with some introductory remarks? is the planning department going to be -- >> he was year earlier. supervisor wiener: a kick, when he comes, we will give him the opportunity. supervisor mar: update, before we go, supervisor wiener, maybe we can ask if supervisor cohen has any comments. i appreciate the work that has gone into this. i had an interest in a statement about not putting the low-income housing against the immediate income housing. something shown to me shows that the highest rent burden still falls on the lower incomes, who have to pay a huge percentage of their income on rent, as much as 7%, and for me, housing for the lowest income residents also includes much lower living conditions and habitability, as well, so in some ways, the lack of heat or rodents and roaches to lots of other issues are really key, and sometimes when we look at middle-income housing, it depends on how we define it, so i am looking forward to see the data today as we try to balance t