. >> maybe it was making that verrilli, but that's a problem that i have. tok, this court doesn't like racial questions such as this one. it's something that could be left to congress. problem here, however, is the comment i meant earlier that the initial this legislation in a time when the need for it was abundantly clear, was in the senate. digits it was double against it. five-year term and it was re-enacted five years five-year n for a term. double digits against it in the senate. then it was re-enacted for seven years. single digits against it. then enacted for 25 years. eight senate votes against it. this last enactment, not a ingle vote in the senate against i want. and the house is pretty much the same. attributable it's to the fact that it's so much clear now that we need this. it's attributable -- ery likely attributable to a phenomenon that's called perpetuation of racial entitlement. it's been written about when ever a society adopts racial entitlements. it is very difficult to get out o the normal political processes. i don't think there's anyt

verrilli, jr. stated to the court . . . seems pretty black and white.in a 5-4 decision the supreme court accepted his assurances and ruled in his favor, but apparently no one told federal prosecutors who have been refusing to make the promised disclosures in criminal cases, so basically the surveillance program is now immunized my friends from any challenges under the fourth amendment. here to discuss this teflon arm of the government is patrick toomey, a fellow with the aclu's national security project. mr. toomey welcome to "viewpoint." >> thank you for having me on your show, john. >> john: it's a pleasure to have you. it gets so mind boggling that it seems like it is almost designed to bogle the mine so we just switch off and go watch the kardashians. but is the nsa surveillance beyond judicial review? >> the aclu believes it is not. but the government is making it very hard for people to challenge the law. it told the supreme court that criminal defendants when they were wiretapped that they would have notice. but they have not been giving that kin

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 w

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 cali