but i saw enough in that office to know just how republican, you know, a world that ted olson comes fromnd my world could not be more different than that. >> reporter: also on display was olson's extraordinary legal track record, with 44 supreme court victories under his belt. here are the quills. now, you get one of these every time -- >> every time you argue a case in the supreme court, at the desk is the quill. >> reporter: weeks later, reiner says the deal was sealed here in his california home. was this like an out of body experience for you? here you are sitting and talking to ted olson, who you probably regarded as -- >> yeah, the enemy. >> the devil, they say. the devil. >> reporter: now what are you? >> i'm a devil to a different group of people. >> it really is a betrayal of everything that ted olson has purported to stand for. >> reporter: ed whalen, a conservative legal analyst and former olson fan, like many conservatives, felt betrayed. >> viewed as someone who fought the good fight, most people assumed he was a man of principle. i thought it was a shocking act on his part.

that's what ted olson thinks.something about law. joe in pittsburgh, you're on the "the stephanie miller show." >> caller: hi. >> stephanie: hello. >> caller: it's about time that we redefine who the makers and takers are in this country. instead of letting it up to the tea party and ayn rand. i think the makers are the working poor in the middle class. and the takers are people just like mitt romney that skim off the top and send all of their money to foreign bank accounts, offshore accounts to avoid paying their fair share. >> stephanie: yep. and you know, i was talking about this goldman sachs ceo by the way, that said we can't afford these entitlements. this is the guy that got how many millions in bailout to make sure he got a bonus while -- oh! >> stephanie: he bought a $32 million mansion. we can't afford your entitlements joe. >> caller: first of all, that's not an entitlement. that's an insurance policy that i paid for. >> stephanie: thank you. thank you. that's my point. who is we, kimosabi. 29 minutes a

. >> bill: now ted olson and david boyd are together odd couple, trying to overthrow prop 8. >> most has been a legal battle for the ages, right. it has gone back and forth back and forth but ultimately, that proposition 8 has been overruled in the courts twice now right. first by judge walker in the ninth circuit court and then in the federal court of appeals in the ninth circuit right? and so that's been over -- it has been overturned twice. proposition 8 has been invalidated twice in the courts and what they thought was the supreme court would pob probably just let that stand and it wouldn't make same-sex marriage you know, legal nationwide. it would only apply to the ninth circuit. and then california marriages would continue immediately after -- as soon as the supreme court said we're going to let that stand. we won't review the case. now they're going to review it. it is a wild card. the supreme court once again showing that you just don't know what they're going to do. as my friend joe sudden way has said to me, there is no nate silver for the supreme court. >> bill: but the c

. >> especially with david boyes and ted olson coming together, the guys who were against each other on the same side fighting for gay rights, for gay marriage. nnounc] take dayquil... [ ding! ] ...and spend time on the slopes. take alka-seltzer plus cold & cough... [ buzz! ] ...and spend time on the chair. for non-drowsy 6-symptom cold & flu relief. take dayquil. a regular guy with an irregular heartbeat. the usual, bob? not today. [ male announcer ] bob has afib: atrial fibrillation not caused by a heart valve problem, a condition that puts him at greater risk for a stroke. [ gps ] turn left. i don't think so. [ male announcer ] for years, bob took warfarin, and made a monthly trip to the clinic to get his blood tested. but not anymore. bob's doctor recommended a different option: once-a-day xarelto®. xarelto® is the first and only once-a-day prescription blood thinner for patients with afib not caused by a heart valve problem, that doesn't require routine blood monitoring. like warfarin, xarelto® is proven effective to reduce the risk of an afib-related stroke. there is limited da

this is a california case brought by ted olson and david boyes who were the opponents in the 2000 recallal battle down in florida. the second case the supreme court took has to do with the defense of marriage act signed by bill clinton shamefully in 1996, which defines marriage under federal law as one man/one woman. but since then, there has been an amazing turnaround in public attitude and public acceptance of same-sex marriage. remember just a few years ago, there were, like 10 or 11 constitutional amendments up in the same year inch 10 or 11 states put on there by right-wingers who were using that as a way of deriving conservative -- driving conservatives to the polls. it was when george bush first ran, they could get the him elected overall gore or whatever. but did he have a huge success for the same-sachsey -- anti-same-sex marriage people. there are nine states which allow recognized same-sex marriage, massachusetts, iowa, vermont, new york, connecticut, new hampshire. i think hawaii is on that list too. one, two, three, four, five. and the district of columbia plus the state of

look, when this case was filed almost four years ago, the prop 8 case, we made the case in court, ted olsonnd david boyce, that in this country we don't deny our citizens a fundamental right, and the supreme court has called marriage a fundamental right no less than 14 times in the history of this country, and i'm optimistic that once the court does hear this case and the doma case, they're going to come down on the side of freedom, liberty, and equality just as they have so many times in our nation's past. >> and equal protection of the laws. elizabeth, thank you for coming on. very haven't seen you in a while. equal protection of the laws. liberty is a pretty profound notion in this country. >> it is. >> pursuit of happiness is in our declaration. why not? >> here is the thing, if you are gay and alive in our time in america, we're living in a kind of a policy and civil rights renaissance. we have seen extraordinary leadership from other parts of government already. don't we judge, chris, presidents by whether they stand up to the moment of history in which they live? we have seen preside

they were nervous about this strategy, saying gee, why did ted olson and david boyce do this, was it because they wanted to try a case before the supreme court, if they lose, would it be a real set back, you know, and i asked them that very question saying why are you doing this. the demographics of the country are changing, wait for the country to catch up with the way you feel. that's what a lot of gay rights activists felt, and the answer i got from them time and time again was really the court does do the heavy lift very often for the country. they point to the case that legalized interracial marriage, that that was more than 40 years ago, and the court was ahead of public opinion. now, as jeffrey says, just in the last couple years i've been doing this story, public opinion has shifted dramatically their way, whether that will convince justice kennedy, of course, remains to be seen, but they say this is exactly what the court ought to be doing. it ought to be doing the heavy lift without the politics involved. we'll see. >> and who knows how the nine justices will rule. >>> reta

certainly ted olson, the lead lawyer, at this part of the case, he's going to urge that. now they could also do a variety of compromise positions. they could say california has to allow same-sex marriage but we're not deciding about the other states. they could also get rid of the case on procedural grounds in various ways. there are lots of different possibilities. >> just when you think -- the year i was born, 1967 in new york, gay people were not allowed to congregate together. you were not allowed to be in the same bar dancing together. i mean, how far things have come so quickly. >> and, you know, 1967 was also the decision in loving versus virginia. that was the famous case that said interracial marriage could not be banned by states. today that looks like -- can you imagine a state that would ban interracial marriage? but 19 states still had that law in 1967. this, gay rights supporters have said, this is the loving versus virginia of gay rights. we'll see. you know, i don't know what the outcome will be. the fact they took both of these cases suggests they are rea

thought this was the wrong thing to do, but the lawyers who got this case to the supreme court, ted olson and david boyce with the backing of griffin who is running the pro-gay rights group, they thought this was the time to get it to the supreme court. they believe history is on their side and moving in their direction. it's a gamble, and you know, it just -- i think it will come down to justice kennedy. i mean, that's everybody's assumption. you're right that the supreme court has never directly confronted this issue. there was a 1972 case where the supreme court was asked to rule on guy marriage law in minnesota and they basically said there's no substantial federal question there. it's not for us and kicked it out. but that wasn't a very -- that wasn't a very heavy intellectual lifting there. this is the first time they will confront this case directly for this issue. >> pete, last time we saw a highly controversial case in obama care, we saw a full court press really lobby the justices and put a lot of pressure on them recognizing that they will set the tone of what this court looks

and indeed in other states like california, we have people like the former bush solicitor general ted olsonhting for gay marriage. >> in america, we have a democratic process, we have ways where the people can speak, so it's to the states that the people in certain states want to legalize gay marriage, they can. the bigger point here is that the left, the left doesn't wait for the democratic process. they come in and disrupt in order to tear down and accelerate the global socialist agenda, which is what this is all about. >> you just said something that's flat-out false. you said people who don't want gay marriage, can vote against it. they have and the courts turn it over. >> and the left goes around the process in order to tear it down. >> the supreme court will decide gay marriage. wait and see. >> when we come right back, a new push for stricter gun control can mean big changes. we'll tell you har one democratdemocrat ic senate wants to take things. back in a moment. r his small bu! how does this thing work? oh, i like it! [ garth ] sven's small business earns 2% cash back on every purc

you look at ted olson and so many republicans and democrats who have stood up with us. >> joe lookedike a great president. thank you. thank you. it's an honor to have you on and your organization. elizabeth birch, good to have you back. much bigger studio now. >>> coming up, the republicans -- it going to be a big hit. we'll be covering this all year. >>> the republican establishment is at war with its crazy wing. they say they lost the election because ideologues pulled mitt romney foo far to the right. that sounds reasonable. wrong says the right wing. we lost because mitt romney wasn't right wing enough. the winner of this little tango will determine whether the gop moves to the center where it might find some votes or becomes an even more fringy party. >>> also, the fiscal cliff. it's down to two people. everybody seems to agree, two people get in the room, the president and the leader of the opposition, john boehner, the speaker. they may be closer, some argue, to an agreement than we think. the question is can they sell the deal to their bases, to their fringies, left and right

judge vaughn walker didn't go for the big expansive constitutional right to marry that ted olson andid boies was hoping he would go for. he had a very narrow ruling. will the supreme court stick to that narrow ruling? if they do, same-sex marriage, assuming prop 8 is knocked down, then same-sex marriage could just be limited to california. and what we could end up have happening is a situation where you have something like 20% of the country where same-sex marriage is legal and if richard is right and doma is struck down as unconstitutional where you could have legally married same-sex couples in, say, california or new york who are then able to avail themselves of the 1,100 something federal rights that come with marriage, and yet gay couples, you know, who've been together for decades in states where marriage equality is not legal, you're setting up a two-class system there and a two-step situation where step one happens and step two is almost inevitable. >> as we think about this, everybody out there thinking about this it's basically two different lanes we need to watch with doma

and, you know, if you listen to ted olson, who is a deeply conservative republican, who was ronald reagan'sitor general, you listen to him talk about this issue, and he is going to be one of the people arguing the case, there is a deeply conservative position to be taken here that two people who love each other, who want to spend their life together ought to have, no matter what their sexuality, ought to have the same rights as two heterosexual people that want to live together. and that's just a basic fairness. and, you know, conservative republicans should be for two people who love each other. it's family values that two people who love each other want to be together. >> indeed. it is family values indeed. steve elmendorf and chris, thank you. >> thank you. >>> from now on, jim demint won't just be pushing the fringe of the senate to the right, he is going to be pushing his whole party. and chris christie goes to washington to ask for government help while vetoing his own state's moves to support health care reform. or that printing in color had to cost a fortune. nobody said an all-in-o

. >> especially with david boyes and ted olson coming together, the guys who were against each othersh v gore, on the same side fighting for gay rights, for gay marriage. i think it's a really interesting case because they designed this case not to kind of be technical but just to go at the straight heart of the issue which is whether not letting gay people marry is discrimination. so it's a pretty direct hit on whether this is allowed or not, and i think they have a really good chance of winning this and kind of basically deciding this once and for all. which is the way this is going to move forward. this isn't the way civil rights get decided, they get decided by our courts because the constitution is designed to protect people's rights. >> i completely agree. i think the state by state element of this just can't wash for much longer. it has to be done at a national level. where will that leave the members of the republican party that feel very strongly about this and there's no doubt many people in the republican party do feel strongly and they are not going to like this. where do

that's why we have people like ted olson who is, you know, a very conservative ronald reagan solicitor general who is leading the charge on this. >> hollywood. i think hollywood has had a lot to do with this change. i wrote a piece about this in the summer for "new york magazine." hollywood, you know, admitting that hollywood is liberal on most things, and especially social issues. hollywood has basically taken a deliberate campaign to transform public opinion starting really in the early 1980s, but really picking up steam about 20 years ago to transform the way people thought about gays and lesbians and successfully. now, i think conservatives could look at this with some hysteria, and i kind of understand where they're coming from now. i think it's a saluatory change, but popular culture has deliberately changed the way people approach these issues. >> michael, you know, there is a lot of talk about how the republican party deals with the issue of gay marriage, and i think a lot of conservatives think of this as something that is 23u7bd mentally right with conservative values. why sh

proposition 8 was challenged by gay and lesbian couples who were represented by former opponents ted olson and david buoyes. it ultimately reached the federal appall at court which found that proposition 8 was unconstitutional because it took away a right once given. and it did that on the basis of anymous towards homosexuals so it was the proponent of proposition 8 the supporter was brought the case to the u.s. supreme court. and they asked the supreme court whether the 14th amendment of the the u.s. constitution prohibits california from defining marriages between a man and a woman. >> warner: and so how sweeping are the issues, then, that the court could rule here or must rule on here. >> the court has a number of options with this particular challenge. the court could simply affirm the lower federal appellate court which would leave that ruling in place, the proposition 8 was constitutional. it would only affect california it was a narrow ruling it would not affect any other state or states' laws. the court could decide that proposition 8 does violate the federal constitution. that wou

that's why ted olson won and boies in prop 8 because they couldn't prove harm to anybody. >> they linkal -- that's a material distinction. so you don't have to argue -- that's why they have no case. so you can't -- his conflation of that -- well, everything is moral decision. my morals are as important as your morals and slipshod and gray area all the way. it's not. you're eliminating the moral rights of a child in that circumstance. >> stephanie: jim in indiana. go ahead jim. this jim. >> caller: love you guys. i grew up in detroit. and i work for the unions. i now live in indiana and i also work at a nonunion car plant and trust me the unions are far better. we were a team when we were a union. even though we knew we were against management, management was against us, we were a team. >> stephanie: jim, i was reading earlier, there's been a lot of research that shows both union and nonunion workers do worse in these right-to-work states quote-unquote. >> that's very true. it is like working in a concentration camp. they lay out the rules. you have no rights. period. they tell you what

. >> stephanie: ted olson who wrote the conservative proposal for gay marriage. jared lee laughner. he says we can't draw a sensible line on guns we may as well call the united states a failure. i sentenced jared yesterday. the ban -- the ban wasn't all that stringent if you already owned a gun you could keep it and sell it to somebody else but at least it was something. half of the nation's deadliest shootings occurred after the ban expired. hard six mass shootings that have been deadlyer after the expiration of the ban. bring back the assault weapon's ban. ban manufacturer importation, transfer of high-capacity assault weapons. i don't care whether it's called gun control, i'm all for it. i say it as someone who prefers fox news to msnbc. i say it as someone who thinks the district court got it right. i say it as someone who generally speaking is not a big fan of the regulatory states. it has a useful advocacy function in our liberal democracy, and there is just no need for civilians to own an assault weapon. it speaks horribly the public discourse in this coun