197
197
Mar 28, 2013
03/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 197
favorite 0
quote 0
verrilli said not necessarily, although they would have a very difficult time justifying them under the kind of scrutiny that mr. verrilli hopes the court will apply here. >> suarez: marcia coyle, thanks for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> woodruff: there's much more about the same sex marriage cases on our website. you can hear audio of today's full arguments and also watch reaction from outside the courtroom. and coming up, a debate about the defense of marriage act. also ahead, using hip hop music to engage students in science; luring low income students to elite universities and slowing down traffic on the internet. but first, the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: the new director of the u.s. secret service was sworn in today. julia pierson is the first woman to hold the job. she officially assumed her new duties in an oval office ceremony in the white house. vice president biden administered the oath, as president obama looked on. >> she's breaking the mold in terms of directors of agencies. and i think that people are all extraordinarily proud of her,
verrilli said not necessarily, although they would have a very difficult time justifying them under the kind of scrutiny that mr. verrilli hopes the court will apply here. >> suarez: marcia coyle, thanks for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> woodruff: there's much more about the same sex marriage cases on our website. you can hear audio of today's full arguments and also watch reaction from outside the courtroom. and coming up, a debate about the defense of marriage act. also...
233
233
Mar 4, 2013
03/13
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 233
favorite 0
quote 0
general verrilli? >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: there's a fundamental point that needs to be made at the outset. everyone acknowledges, petitioner, its amici, this court in northwest austin, that the voting rights act made a huge difference in transforming the culture of blatantly racist vote suppression that characterized parts of this country for a century. section 5 preclearance was the principal engine of that progress. and it has always been true that only a tiny fraction of submissions under section 5 result in objections. so that progress under section 5 that follows from that has been as a result of the deterrence and the constraint section 5 imposes on states and subjurisdictions and not on the actual enforcement by means of objection. now, when congress faced the question whether to reauthorize section 5 in 2006, it had to decide whether -- whether it could be confident that the attitudes and behaviors in covered jurisdictions had changed enough that that very effective constrai
general verrilli? >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: there's a fundamental point that needs to be made at the outset. everyone acknowledges, petitioner, its amici, this court in northwest austin, that the voting rights act made a huge difference in transforming the culture of blatantly racist vote suppression that characterized parts of this country for a century. section 5 preclearance was the principal engine of that progress. and it has always been true that...
487
487
Mar 2, 2013
03/13
by
KNTV
tv
eye 487
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> reporter: but the court's conservatives told solicitor general don verrilli that congress didn't look at the most up to date evidence when it last renewed the law in 2006. >> do you know which state has the worst ratio of white voter turnout to african-american voter turnout? >> i do not. >> massachusetts. >> do you know what has the best, where african-american turnout actually exceeds white turnout. mississippi. is it the government's submission that the citizens in the south are more racist than citizens in the north? >> it is not. >> the formula was rational and effective in 1965. the court upheld it then. it upheld it three more times after that. >> well, the marshall plan was very good, too. the morrill act, the northwest ordinance, but times change. >> reporter: and justice scalia wondered why the law has had growing political support in congress. >> i think it was attributed, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon called perpetuation of racial entitlement. it's been written about whenever a society adopts a racial entitlements. it is very difficult to get out of them t
. >> reporter: but the court's conservatives told solicitor general don verrilli that congress didn't look at the most up to date evidence when it last renewed the law in 2006. >> do you know which state has the worst ratio of white voter turnout to african-american voter turnout? >> i do not. >> massachusetts. >> do you know what has the best, where african-american turnout actually exceeds white turnout. mississippi. is it the government's submission that the...
75
75
Mar 27, 2013
03/13
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 75
favorite 0
quote 0
general verrilli? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- proposition 8 denies gay and lesbian persons the equal protection of the laws -- >> you don't think you're going to get away with not starting with the jurisdictional question, do you? [laughter] >> as an amicus, i thought i might actually, your honor. and -- and, of course, we didn't take a position on standing. we didn't -- we didn't brief it, we don't have a formal position on standing. but i will offer this observation based on the discussion today and the briefing. we do think that while it's certainly not free of doubt, that the better argument is that there is not article iii standing here because -- i don't want to go beyond just summarizing our position, but -- because we don't have a formal position. but we do think that with respect to standing, that at this point with the initiative process over, that petitioners really have what is more in the nature of a generalized grievance and because they're not an agent of the state of c
general verrilli? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- proposition 8 denies gay and lesbian persons the equal protection of the laws -- >> you don't think you're going to get away with not starting with the jurisdictional question, do you? [laughter] >> as an amicus, i thought i might actually, your honor. and -- and, of course, we didn't take a position on standing. we didn't -- we didn't brief it, we don't have a formal position on standing. but i will offer...
92
92
Mar 31, 2013
03/13
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 92
favorite 0
quote 0
general verrilli? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- proposition >> -- >> you don't think you are going to get away with not starting? >> i thought i might. we don't have a formal position on standing, but i will observe that -- i will offer this observation based on a briefing. we do think that while it is not free of doubt, the better argument is that there is not article 3 standing here. i want to go beyond summarizing. we do think with respect to standing that at this point, but the process over, petitioners have what is in that nature of a generalized grievance. have another official tie to the state that would result in any official control. rather tenuous, but today, question, and our interests are, justice alito, in tomorrow's issues where we have briefed the court tomorrow. with respect to the merits, two fundamental points lead to the conclusion that there's an equal protection violation here. first, every warning flag that warrants exacting scrutiny is present in this case. and pe
general verrilli? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- proposition >> -- >> you don't think you are going to get away with not starting? >> i thought i might. we don't have a formal position on standing, but i will observe that -- i will offer this observation based on a briefing. we do think that while it is not free of doubt, the better argument is that there is not article 3 standing here. i want to go beyond summarizing. we do think with respect to...
101
101
Mar 2, 2013
03/13
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 101
favorite 0
quote 1
general verrilli? >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: there's a fundamental point that needs to be made at the outset. everyone acknowledges, petitioner, its amici, this court in northwest austin, that the voting rights act made a huge difference in transforming the culture of blatantly racist vote suppression that characterized parts of this country for a century. section 5 preclearance was the principal engine of that progress. and it has always been true that only a tiny fraction of submissions under section 5 result in objections. so that progress under section 5 that follows from that has been as a result of the deterrence and the constraint section 5 imposes on states and subjurisdictions and not on the actual enforcement by means of objection. now, when congress faced the question whether to reauthorize section 5 in 2006, it had to decide whether -- whether it could be confident that the attitudes and behaviors in covered jurisdictions had changed enough that that very effective constrai
general verrilli? >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: there's a fundamental point that needs to be made at the outset. everyone acknowledges, petitioner, its amici, this court in northwest austin, that the voting rights act made a huge difference in transforming the culture of blatantly racist vote suppression that characterized parts of this country for a century. section 5 preclearance was the principal engine of that progress. and it has always been true that...
90
90
Mar 26, 2013
03/13
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 90
favorite 0
quote 0
that donald overly -- verrilli joined the case on olson's side. he's got 10 minutes to argue, as he did in the brief, that discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation is constitutionally suspect. there is no good reason for it. he will say, you, the supreme court, should rule that this kind of discrimination as unwarranted, and so proposition 8 should be struck down on the grounds that it is discriminatory. host: what is the role of the 14th amendment? caller: it says that no state should deny to any person the equal protection of the loss. really the underlying question in this case is, are gays and lesbians and title to the full equal protection of the law? in the night -- in 1950, the court said racial discrimination was unconstitutional. in the 1970's, the court in a series of cases can run to the view sex discrimination was unconstitutional. states cannot keep women out of various jobs. the question is now, is sexual orientation discrimination a type of discrimination that violates the equal protection clause? that is the
that donald overly -- verrilli joined the case on olson's side. he's got 10 minutes to argue, as he did in the brief, that discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation is constitutionally suspect. there is no good reason for it. he will say, you, the supreme court, should rule that this kind of discrimination as unwarranted, and so proposition 8 should be struck down on the grounds that it is discriminatory. host: what is the role of the 14th amendment? caller: it says that...
140
140
Mar 27, 2013
03/13
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 140
favorite 0
quote 0
general verrilli? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- proposition 8 denies gay and lesbian persons the equal protection of the laws -- going don't think you're to get away with not starting with the jurisdictional question, do you? [laughter] >> as an amicus, i thought i might actually, your honor. and -- and, of course, we didn't take a position on standing. we didn't -- we didn't brief it, we don't have a formal position on standing. but i will offer this observation based on the discussion today and the briefing. we do think that while it's certainly not free of doubt, that the better argument is that there is not article iii standing here because -- i don't want to go beyond just summarizing our position, but -- because we don't have a formal position. but we do think that with respect to standing, that at this point with the initiative process over, that petitioners really have what is more in the nature of a generalized grievance and because they're not an agent of the state of californ
general verrilli? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- proposition 8 denies gay and lesbian persons the equal protection of the laws -- going don't think you're to get away with not starting with the jurisdictional question, do you? [laughter] >> as an amicus, i thought i might actually, your honor. and -- and, of course, we didn't take a position on standing. we didn't -- we didn't brief it, we don't have a formal position on standing. but i will offer this...
132
132
Mar 2, 2013
03/13
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 132
favorite 0
quote 0
verrilli. that's a problem i have.this court doesn't like to get involved in racial questions such as something that can be left to congress. the problem here however is the comment i made earlier comment that the initial enactment of this legislation in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear with double digits against it and that was only a five-year term. then it was reenact it five years later, a can for a five-year term. double digits against it in the senate. that was reenact it for seven years come in single digits it. been active for 25 years, eight senate votes against it. and the last enactment, not a single vote in the senate against it and the house is pretty much the same. i don't think that is attributable. i think it is very likely attributable to a phenomenon called perpetuation of racial entitlement. it has been written about whenever a society adopts racial entitlements. it is very difficult to get out through the normal political processes. i don't think there's anything to be g
verrilli. that's a problem i have.this court doesn't like to get involved in racial questions such as something that can be left to congress. the problem here however is the comment i made earlier comment that the initial enactment of this legislation in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear with double digits against it and that was only a five-year term. then it was reenact it five years later, a can for a five-year term. double digits against it in the senate. that...
173
173
Mar 27, 2013
03/13
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 173
favorite 0
quote 0
solicitor general donald verrilli and paul clement will represent house republicans who are defending this law. yesterday the justices seemed reluctant to make any sweeping decision. >> you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the internet? we are not -- we do not have the ability to see the future. >> maureen dowd's piece in the "new york times" is entitled "courting cowardice." the court is plenty bold imposing bad decisions on the country like anointing w. president or allowing unlimited money to flow covertly into campaigns, but given a chance to make bold decisions putting them on the right and popular side of history, they squirm. i want to bring in chris fratea and ruth marcus. good morning. >> good morning. >> the case was about edith windsor, they were together for 40 years, after her partner died, she got a tax bill of $360,000. if she were a surviving spouse, she wouldn't have to pay that. what's your take on this case today? >> we are seeing the fight over whether or not folks
solicitor general donald verrilli and paul clement will represent house republicans who are defending this law. yesterday the justices seemed reluctant to make any sweeping decision. >> you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the internet? we are not -- we do not have the ability to see the future. >> maureen dowd's piece in the "new york times" is entitled "courting...
118
118
Mar 28, 2013
03/13
by
CNNW
tv
eye 118
favorite 0
quote 0
but also you heard donald verrilli, solicitor general, saying, sure, the democratic process is fine. but when it violates people's rights, this is when the justices have to step in. four justices seem quite willing to step in. the four democratic appointees. they didn't seem to have a fifth vote on that issue, but they probably had a fifth on the issue of states rights. >> jeff, stay with us. i want to move into another issue that came up several times in the prop 8 case and conception of doma. the state of the science and whether raising children in a same-sex family with a married couple is a good or bad thing. or if there is not enough research yet. during yesterday's oral arguments and proposition 8, several justices and the attorney defending proposition 8 expressed doubts about the scientific consensus on the subject, justice scalia citing, and kennedy citing doubts because of how recently the body of knowledge is. and the lawyer defending prop 8, saying there is no doubt and no study that speaks to this issue. we wanted to know is that really the case. want to bring in dr. dre
but also you heard donald verrilli, solicitor general, saying, sure, the democratic process is fine. but when it violates people's rights, this is when the justices have to step in. four justices seem quite willing to step in. the four democratic appointees. they didn't seem to have a fifth vote on that issue, but they probably had a fifth on the issue of states rights. >> jeff, stay with us. i want to move into another issue that came up several times in the prop 8 case and conception of...
137
137
Mar 27, 2013
03/13
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 137
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> verrilli said it's discrimination in its most basic aspect. but will the justices see it the same way? i want to bring in msnbc's thomas roberts with us from the steps of the supreme court. thomas, great to see you. >> reporter: hi, karen. >> also with us from washington, george washington university law professor jon thi turly. thanks for joining us. thomas, i want to start with you. you were there at the court. seems like the tone from folks coming out a little bit different than yesterday. feeling a little bit more optimistic today than maybe we heard yesterday. what's your take? >> reporter: well, it's a lot quieter. i wasn't here yesterday. but i was asking around today the difference between the two types of crowds. yesterday was a little more crowded and a little more contentious to the people i had a chance to talk to. it is very tame today. obviously it's hours later. things have died down. a lot more people are still just walking by taking pictures now. more of the media than anything else. but as we -- as we learned from inside toda
. >> verrilli said it's discrimination in its most basic aspect. but will the justices see it the same way? i want to bring in msnbc's thomas roberts with us from the steps of the supreme court. thomas, great to see you. >> reporter: hi, karen. >> also with us from washington, george washington university law professor jon thi turly. thanks for joining us. thomas, i want to start with you. you were there at the court. seems like the tone from folks coming out a little bit...
130
130
Mar 28, 2013
03/13
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 130
favorite 0
quote 0
general verrilli? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: the equal protection analysis in this case should focus on two fundamental points: first, what does section 3 do; and second, to whom does section 3 do it? what section 3 does is exclude from an array of federal benefits lawfully married couples. that means that the spouse of a soldier killed in the line of duty cannot receive the dignity and solace of an ofication of n. >> suppose your -- you agree that congress could go the other way, right? congress could pass a new law today that says, we will give federal benefits. when we say "marriage" in federal law, we mean committed same-sex couples as well, and that could apply across the board. or do you think that they couldn't do that? >> we think that wouldn't raise an equal protection problem like this statute does, mr. chief justice. >> well, no, my point is: it wouldn't -- you don't think it would raise a federalism problem either, do you? >> i don't think it would raise a federalism proble
general verrilli? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: the equal protection analysis in this case should focus on two fundamental points: first, what does section 3 do; and second, to whom does section 3 do it? what section 3 does is exclude from an array of federal benefits lawfully married couples. that means that the spouse of a soldier killed in the line of duty cannot receive the dignity and solace of an ofication of n. >> suppose your -- you agree that congress...
129
129
Mar 28, 2013
03/13
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 129
favorite 0
quote 0
general verrilli? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: the equal protection analysis in this case should focus on two fundamental points -- first, what does section 3 do -- and second, to whom does section 3 do it? what section 3 does is exclude from an array of federal benefits lawfully married couples. that means that the spouse of a soldier killed in the line of duty cannot receive the dignity and solace of an official notification of next of kin. >> suppose your -- you agree that congress could go the other way, right? congress could pass a new law today that says, we will give federal benefits. when we say "marriage" in federal law, we mean committed same-sex couples as well, and that could apply across the board. or do you think that they couldn't do that? >> we think that wouldn't raise an equal protection problem like this statute does, mr. chief justice. >> well, no, my point is -- it wouldn't -- you don't think it would raise a federalism problem either, do you? >> i don't think it wou
general verrilli? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: the equal protection analysis in this case should focus on two fundamental points -- first, what does section 3 do -- and second, to whom does section 3 do it? what section 3 does is exclude from an array of federal benefits lawfully married couples. that means that the spouse of a soldier killed in the line of duty cannot receive the dignity and solace of an official notification of next of kin. >> suppose your --...
103
103
Mar 26, 2013
03/13
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 103
favorite 0
quote 1
general verrilli? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- proposition 8 denies gay and lesbian persons the equal protection of the laws -- >> you don't think you're going to get away with not starting with the jurisdictional question, do you? [laughter] >> as an amicus, i thought i might actually, your honor. and -- and, of course, we didn't take a position on standing. we didn't -- we didn't brief it, we don't have a formal position on standing. but i will offer this observation based on the discussion today and the briefing. we do think that while it's certainly not free of doubt, that the better argument is that there is not article iii standing here because -- i don't want to go beyond just summarizing our position, but -- because we don't have a formal position. but we do think that with respect to standing, that at this point with the initiative process over, that petitioners really have what is more in the nature of a generalized grievance and because they're not an agent of the state of c
general verrilli? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- proposition 8 denies gay and lesbian persons the equal protection of the laws -- >> you don't think you're going to get away with not starting with the jurisdictional question, do you? [laughter] >> as an amicus, i thought i might actually, your honor. and -- and, of course, we didn't take a position on standing. we didn't -- we didn't brief it, we don't have a formal position on standing. but i will offer...
205
205
Mar 26, 2013
03/13
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 205
favorite 0
quote 0
hat donald overly -- verrilli joined the case on olson's side.s got 10 minutes to argue, as he did in the brief, that discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation is constitutionally suspect. there is no good reason for it. he will say, you, the supreme court, should rule that this kind of discrimination as unwarranted, and so proposition 8 should be struck down on the grounds that it is discriminatory. host: what is the role of the 14th amendment? caller: it says that no state should deny to any person the equal protection of the loss. really the underlying question in this case is, are gays and lesbians and title to the full equal protection of the law? in the night -- in 1950, the court said racial discrimination was unconstitutional. in the 1970's, the court in a series of cases can run to the view sex discrimination was unconstitutional. states cannot keep women out of various jobs. the question is now, is sexual orientation discrimination a type of discrimination that violates the equal protection clause? that is the unde
hat donald overly -- verrilli joined the case on olson's side.s got 10 minutes to argue, as he did in the brief, that discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation is constitutionally suspect. there is no good reason for it. he will say, you, the supreme court, should rule that this kind of discrimination as unwarranted, and so proposition 8 should be struck down on the grounds that it is discriminatory. host: what is the role of the 14th amendment? caller: it says that no...