and you have to look at the politicians not as principled people necessarily, not that they're unprincipledbut the political process is not so principled. so it is about primaries and about getting through those primaries and getting elected. if you see your path to being the nominee as going through the south and south carolina being one of the very first primaries in the south, then you may not want to ruffle those feathers. and if people like mitt romney who are removed from the process who are thinking about the party as a whole are thinking more about is this a kind of barrier to entry for people who might be able to expand the party? well if you're in the primaries and you think your path is through the south, that's not what you're thinking about. you're thinking about don't ruffle those feathers and that's what they're doing. >> i want to get into something before we run out of time. i i talked about at the beginning that we should be talking about real issues maybe not per se the flag. i will pose this to both of you. last year a study ranked south carolina as the ninth poorest sta

but on this topic it has to be said he is being deliberately dishonest and being quite unprincipled. dishonest when he talks about this issue in relation to other civil rights issues and fails to recognize for example that the same arguments about religious objections to equal treatment to gay lesbian, bisexual and trans gender people have been seen in past dispute os racial minorities or of women. he knows that history and simply pretending it doesn't exist. and in principled when he waives his hand about the undemocratic supreme court because this is decision is one he happens not to like. but when they strike down a low like the campaign finance reform you don't hear anything about undemocratic values there. so the senator is not showing himself in a very good light. >> mike rogers it is like ted cruz doesn't like the outcome, obviously. so let's have elections. what do you make of that? i can't imagine ruth bader ginsburg going out raising money to be reebb elected on the supreme court. there is something really wrong with this across the board. and throw? citizens united and you

-- if one takes seriously one's role as a jurist you want to be seen as principled rather than unprincipled. if you decided willy-nilly due to your preferences in that particular case there would be a sufficient outcry as we've seen in cases where i think it's important to hold justices and say, you voted this way in rash, you should vote this way when obama care comes before you. if you don't, maybe that's motivated by politics as ap op posed to a principle statement of the law. >> i think ultimately the way we hold the supreme court accountable is through presidential elections and senatorial elections. who we elect for president in 2013 especially if there are two terms is likely to fill four vacancies on the supreme court. there should be no issue in the 2016 presidential election more important than -- >> i've got say that statement which is sort of true and is said a lot is insane, right? something has gone seriously wrong with your democracy when the statement that's made is what we really need to worry about when we choose president and members of congress is who we're going to put

if one does take seriously one's role as a jurist you want to be seen as principled rather than unprincipledou just sort of willy-nilly decided according to your particular preferences in the outcome of the case i think it would be as efficient outcry, as we have seen in cases where i think it is been important to hold justices. say you voted this way and you should vote this way when obamacare comes before you and if you don't maybe that is motivated by politics. as opposed to a principled statement of the law. >> i think ultimately the way will the spring court accountable is their presidential elections and senatorial elections. who we elect for president in 2016, especially if they are two terms, is likely to fill for vacancies on the supreme court. there should be no issue in the 2016 residential election more important and supreme court justices. >> that statement which is sort of true is insane. something has gone seriously long with your democracy when the statement that made is what we really need worry about only to the president and our members of congress is who their input on th

if one does take seriously one most of the jurist you want to be seen as principled rather than unprincipled. if you willy-nilly decided according to preferences that the outcome of the case, they would be a sufficient outcry as a standing cases where it has been important to say he voted this way and grace. you should vote this way when obamacare comes before you. if you don't that is motivated by politics and that is a principled statement of the law. >> the way we hold the supreme court accountable as two presidential elections. who we elect for president in 2016 especially two turns is likely to fill four vacancies on the supreme court. there should be no issue in the presidential election more important supreme court decisions. >> that statement which is short of true analog is insane. something has gone seriously wrong with your democracy when the state says that we need to worry about is who they are going to put on the supreme court. this is not critical because it cannot statement under the clear statement of what the core problem is. i would absolutely get rid of the law clerks for

one -- if one takes seriously one's role as a jurist you want to see as principled rather than unprincipled and if you willy-nilly decided according to your particular preferences in terms of outcomes to the case that would be sufficient outcry in cases where i think it's been important to hold justices that say you voted this way in race you should vote this way when obamacare comes before you and if you don't maybe that's motivated by politics as opposed to a principled statement of the law. erwin: and the way we hold them is presidential elections and who reelect to president in 2016 is tykely to fill four vacancies on the supreme court. there should be no issue in the 2016 presidential election more important than supreme court justices. larry: i got to say that statement which is sort of true and said a lot is insane. something has gone seriously wrong with your democracy when the statement that's made is what we really need to worry about when we choose the president and our members of congress is who they're going to put on the supreme court. i mean that is just -- i'm not -- this is