so we've been dying to talk to our friend ted boutros junior who is ted olson's law partner. clients get married on friday in san francisco. just the most thrilling experience to see that happen. it is a great time in america. >> stephanie: it is really is. just really an emotional week. i mean even though it's interesting. ted, when all of the legal experts we had on our show, this is exactly what they predicted would happen. it is hard to estimate emotionally how it felt when it did. >> it is impossible to underestimate it. when the doma decision came down, i was outside the court. the language of the court was exactly what we had been arguing in attacking prop 8. discrip nation relegates the wonderful couples to second tier relationships. the court used language in that case that will pave the way for striking down laws all around the country. and then in our proposition 8 case, the perry case, the court threw out the appeal by the other side which brings back judge wapner's opinion which is sweeping broad and then, of course marriages have commenced in california. so with

the former solicitor general ted olson is representing bp on this. this is at he told me. >> this system has gone completely off the tracks because the claims administrator is defining terms so loosely that people can ma claims when they really haven't suffered any losses. >> in fact plaintiffs attorneys are actively soliciting clients on the basis. look at this advertisement for a florida attorney. on his web site, if the numbers work, there is no need to provide proof that bp caused your loss. the law presumes bp caused the loss. this is what bp agreed to. in commonly asked question of the section of the same website, look at question, i don't think bp caused my loss. the answer, as lon as numbers pass the test,he law presumes bp caused the loss and we do not have to prove anything further. in same commonly asked question section, the attorney says he will counsel businesses on how to show a loss even if they made money the year of the spill, melissa. melissa: that is unbelievable. i don't think bp caused my problem. doesn't matter. we can power th

ted olson, one of the best known appellate lawyers in the country has parachuted into the case on behalfany and i think olson's involvement is an implicit threat that if we don't win at the federal appeals court level we're taking it to the supreme court because that's what ted olson is best known for is his u.s. supreme court advocacy so i think that's the signal b.p. is sending. >> woodruff: paul barrett with bloomberg "businessweek," we thank you. online you can see what the spill has cost b.p. we have a by online, you can see what the spill has cost b.p. we have a "by-the-numbers" on our homepage. >> ifill: we return now to the topic of immigration reform, and what's next on capitol hill. ray suarez has that. >> suarez: as we heard earlier, house speaker john boehner says he prefers a step by step approach to the reform wrather than the comprehensive bill passed by the senate, which includes a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants living in the u.s. illegally. so what are the alternatives? for more on the options being considered by the republican-led house we're joined by s

former solicitor general ted olson is going to court next week in attempt to get some of the money back>> what's happening now is completely outside the realm of reality, and plaintiff's lawyers are bragging about it, and they're advertising please, line up at my doorstep, we'll get money for you. >> reporter: he points to advertisements like this. a florida attorney counsels clients, even if they don't think bp caused their loss, quote, as long as the numbers pass the test, the law presumes bp caused the loss. another brags the craziest thing about the settlement is you can be compensated for losses unrelated to the spill. bp complains the system is out of control. >> we should be held account for that which we did to adversely impact the environment and economy of the gulf coast, but we should not be made to pay for things we did not cause. getting something for nothing is not the american way. >> reporter: claims floor patrick juneau rejected the complaints, telling fox news we processed claims efficiently and correctly in accordance with the settlement agreement and orders of the co

ted olson represented citizens united but i represented senator mcconnell in that case and i did get to be one of the two lawyers argued that. it a film was made by a conservative organization denouncing senator hillary clinton when she looked like should be the democratic candidate in 2008, the entity that made it, the conservative organization was partially funded by corporate many. not a lot but partially. under the statute in the fact -- effected any speech than and up denouncing the election still within 60 days of an election or 30 days of a political convention could not be funded by corporations. that was so called mccain-feingold law. my view is and was is that it is inconceivable a movie denouncing a candidate for the president of united states could be a crime. that is what the statute did. it made criminal that movie is shown on television or on cable or satellite is shown with in the 30 or 60-- period. i think there is nothing that the first amendment says more about them political speech, who to vote for, who to vote against and the fact the money even if all of it came

perry that retained ted olson is arguing the sweep amendment amounted to self dealing and says that ittroys billions of dollars in preferred shareholder value. very high-stakes. getting personal. they named jack lou and ed demarco in the suit. >> you knew this was going to come to a head. the legislation you are talking about is the warner corker bill. >> recently introduce skbd would give them path to liquidation in five years and very controversial although it was bipartisan in congress, but the investors that got in are troubled by it. they say the rules changed mid-course. perry got in in 2010. obviously hoping for upside and the interests are aligned with those of the treasury. they hold preferred, too. theres no question they'll get paid back. the request he is almost like with dell. you keep the stub so you have potential upside in the future. >> they always carry an outside risk. they're incredibly speculative plays, the common or the preferred. incredibly. >> absolutely. >> never a guaranteed to work out the favor of those who are betting big in there. >> certainly if you got

we have ted olson to tell us about those cases. he has more than a passing interest in them. >> it is a daunting thing to attempt to deal with these two cases, which involve so many issues that are important to our society and our culture and to our political life in a short period of time. i will see what i can do. the good news is -- from my standpoint -- i represented the two couples that brought the proposition 8 case involving proposition 8, california's constitutional amendment adopted by the people in 2008 that defined marriage. it said only marriage between a man and a woman will be recognized and ballot in california. the two couples that i represented got married yesterday afternoon. the ninth circuit listed the state that had been in affect since proposition 8 when it into effect as unconstitutional. people immediately began to get married. the two female individuals that we represented were married personally by the attorney general of california. the two mails were married by the mayor of los angeles. thousands of othe

when ted olson is arguing it and we have all of the major corporations and all of the major republicans>> hal: exactly. my feeling is that it is a monetary issue as well. industry allowing gay people to let's go people to be married. it is so much financial gain that outweighs -- that's how it always works. we have obesity prevention programs that are governmental not because the government overnight decided to start caring about people anymore than they did the day before but because the actuarials hit a tipping point where the cost of taking care of people who have a long-term -- future of disease because of the way they are now easily predictable. immediately, all of the insurance companies start getting people to exercise. that's another bailout on some way. same thing applies. like once they hit the tipping point of gay marriage, fighting it is more expensive than letting it pass. >> stephanie: jenny in georgia, you're on with hal. hi jenny. >> caller: hi, guys. good to see you all together again. >> stephanie: thank you. >> caller: thank you hal now i watch fashion police, dexter

ted olson.lawyer than elson, solicitor general in the bush administration, victorious in the supreme court on gay marriage as well. but the lawsuit itself does focus on this third aechmendmen. the third amendment essentially said we are going to take all of the profits of the companies and take them for deficit redux into the treasury. what has that meant in june 30th, fannie and freddie paid treasury $66.3 billion, what it would have been otherwise in terms of dividends $4.7 billion. the continued profitability accelerated in the lawsuit, payments to treasury under the so-called third amendment, they will fully reimburse treasury with interest by next year. under the third amendment, say the plaintiffs, regardless of how much fannie and freddie sent to treasury, preferred stock will remain outstanding. they want a different road to be taken here as do holders of the preferred. berk cowits, a large holder, this debate is starting to take shape. hedge funds on one side, not a lot of sympathy, per

run the house of representatives, they should have a select committee with a big time lawyer maybe ted olson. we. >> the american people care a great deal about that and benghazi and all of these scandals and the n.s.a. but as you said, the republicans are absent. >> there is no republican agenda. i defy anyone watching or thinking to articulate what the republicans stand for. they don't stand for tax reform. they don't stand for investigations. they don't stand for an alternative set of health care policies. bottom line, the republicans are missing in action. >> you unpacked a lot this this short amount of time from president obama launching into a 2013 campaign mode and we talked about the scandals and the fact that the president has alluded to the scandaled. actually, not alluded to them but has said they are phony scandals. let's get back to why you say this is a campaign issue he is raising. >> there was no serious attempt to talk about economic growth we, no serious attempt to put forward a bipartisan plan that the republicans could agree to, to create jobs, it was rhetoric, the same t

ted olson suing about the changes, what they call the third amendment when the treasury said we're not just taking dividends anymore, we're sweeping all the profit. fannie and freddie fascinating and what will happen is equally as interesting. haven't heard from treasury yet. >> who is supposed to read this? no one named vo here. a valerie, a victor? >> you know what vo is. >> i think it is some tape. >> meaningless, usually just wallpaper. talk about china, show the great wall. talk about paris, we show the eiffel tower, right? >> we do. we also made many mistakes in the past. >> we have. great ones. >> goldman sachs, remember that one, back from the o.j. days. >> ron goldman came up. the taj mahal casino, showed the taj mahal. i had another one -- people's ire. iras, had a guy with a -- >> we have done -- >> oh, yeah. >> even pretty good with people's names too. michael jordan from westinghouse. we have done -- that guy, how did he have time to -- really. there is one more economic store to watch today. many of the nation's retailers report june sales. looking for a gain of 4.8%. >>

sooner though had the state litigation over proposition 8 ended then the odd bedfellows couple of ted olson boies filed a lawsuit against proposition 8. state officials whose duty to defend the law refused to defend it. this was then governor schwarzenegger and then attorney general brown. later of course jerry brown became governor again and kamala harris succeeded him as attorney general. they both continue the policy not defending the law and more importantly for these purposes, by refusing to appeal the adverse decision that judge walker issued. i think it is important to give some flavor of the incredible hijinks that occurred below in this case. think it is fair to say and i documented this in thousands and thousands of word and hundreds and hundreds of posts over the years that never, there has never been i would submit a federal judicial proceeding more lawlessness than the proposition 8 proceeding. judge walker was reverse ad total of three times before his, before his, even reach ad final judgment to go on appeal including once bit united states supreme court. he issued a series o

next we have ted olson. he served at one time as solicitor general of the united states. he has argued 60 cases before the supreme court including two cases of this current term. i am sure my fellow panelists will join me in thanking the chief judge and the judges from the fourth circuit who made us feel so much at home during this judicial conference. here we are at the eighth year of the roberts court. it is a courts we will be talking about only by way of snapshots from a few cases. it is always difficult to generalize. when can we say about the roberts court? what might we say about it based on what the judges have done in this recent term. several questions of the kind i suspect might be on your mind. the first is, how conservative is the court? some commentators characterize it in the conservative terms. some would say that it is the most conservative court we have had since the 1930's before the 1937 constitutional revolution. some would say that is something of a character and they point to liberal exceptions, cases such as the case decided this week, the defense