what about vicky jackson? .> the court was interested usually someone sues and the government says no, we will defend block. this is a situation where the government is on the side of the plaintiff and the house republicans are defending block. the court wants to hear an argument on whether it has jurisdiction to decide this because it does not look like a real case. the key jackson, an outside attorney, was appointed to argue that and she argues that c lement does not represent the government anymore and this is not a real case because the government is on the side of the challenger. i think the court will decide the doma case because they got to. you can't have a situation where a federal law is unconstitutional in new england and constitutional in the rest of the country. how can the irs work with that? one way or another, the supreme court has to decide whether doma is or is not constitutional. ont: for people listening cspan radio today, they will hear past precedent, cases that could be brought up when t

vicki jackson, an outside attorney, was appointed to argue that. commentes that paul does not have standing, he does not represent the government anymore, and it is not a real case because the government is on the side of the challenger. my two cents, i think the court will decide on doma. you cannot have a situation where federal law is unconstitutional in new england and it is constitutional in the rest of the country. what you do with the irs? one way or the other, the supreme court has got to decide whether or not doma is constitutional or not. host: if people are listening today, they will be hearing a past president cases that could be brought -- precedent cases that could be brought up. -- brought up? guest: this is not an area where there is a lot of precedent. the only to go opinions are the ones justice kennedy wrote in 1996 -- he wrote an opinion that struck down an anti-gay a voter initiative in colorado and said that this law reflects animosity to particular group of fellow citizens and you do that. he also wrote an opinion in 2003 tha

a long line up with vicki jackson, a harvard law professor.he supreme port appointed her to argue the case cannot be subsided on the merits because the federal government no longer is defending section three of the defense of marriage act. a group of house members have come in to defend it. the question is, can they do that? , people we're talking are heading into the court right now. 7:40.only about do they have to sit there? guest: many have lined up since last thursday. eventually, they will let them an out of the cold. once we get to this point, they start queuing up inside the building. host: who will be arguing on the other side? guest: the main advocate against the federal government is a man by the name of paul, who many of your viewers are familiar with. he was the lead lawyer challenging the obama healthcare law last year. he is a former general under george w. bush. he will be representing the house members, the republican dominated house members. bipartisan legal action group. he will be representing them today on two counts, one t

we have a long line of the beginning with a woman named vicki jackson who is a harvard law professor supreme court appointed specifically to our view the case cannot be decided on the merits because the federal government no longer is defending the section 3 of the defense of marriage act and a bipartisan republican dominated group of house members have come in to defend it, and the question is can we do it, do they have what is the legal standing to do that? >> host: as we are talking people are heading into the court right now. is only about 20 minutes to 8:00. so to get along in the folks have to sit there? >> guest: many people were lined up since last thursday. what the court officials will do is eventually let them in out of the cold to go to the bathroom and once we get to this point on the day of the argument they get in and they start queuing up inside of the building. >> host: who will be arguing on the other side of the case? >> guest: the main advocate against the federal government and against edith when sir's claim is a man by the name of paul clement who many of the vi

vicki jackson, an outside attorney, was appointed to argue that. argues that paul comment does not have standing, he does not represent the government anymore, and it is not a real case because the government is on the side of the challenger. my two cents, i think the court will decide on doma. you cannot have a situation where federal law is unconstitutional in new england and it is constitutional in the rest of the country. what you do with the irs? one way or the other, the supreme court has got to decide whether or not doma is constitutional or not. host: if people are listening today, they will be hearing a past president cases that could casesught -- precedent that could be brought up. -- brought up? guest: this is not an area where there is a lot of precedent. only to go opinions are the ones justice kennedy wrote in 1996 -- he wrote an opinion that struck down an anti-gay a voter initiative in colorado and said that this law reflects animosity to particular group of our fellow citizens and you cannot do that. he also wrote an opinion in 200

it began with vicki jackson, a lawyer appointed by the court to do what? >> well, one of the-- two of the roadblocks in the doma case, similar to the roadblock in the prop 8 case, has to do with weather key parties in the case are properly before the supreme court, and whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the case. the united states does not defend doma. it believes it's unconstitutional. it agrees with edie windsor. it agrees with the lower federal appellate court. the bipartisan legal advisory committee of the house-- >> suarez: representing the house majority, the republicans. >> exactly. believebelieves that that it's rightfully before the court, as does the united states. the court needed somebody to argue the other side. they want to hear all the arguments. do those-- are those two parties properly before us? do we have jurisdiction? so they appointed professor jackson. >> suarez: in effect if i understand this, they appointed a lawyer to argue to them that they had no jurisdiction to hear the case? >> exactly, exactly, to make those arguments.

we have a long lineup beginning with a woman by the name is vicki jackson it was a harvard law professor for the supreme court to argue that the case could not be decided on the merits because the federal government no longer is defending this section 3 of the defense of marriage act and a bipartisan republican dominated house member has come in to defend it. the question is, can they do that? do they have what is known as legal standing to do that? >> host: as we are talking people are heading into the court right now. they get this line going in and you folks have to set there? >> guest: many people were lined up last thursday for these cases and with the court officials will do is eventually they will let the men out of the cold and they get in and they start lining up inside the building. >> host: who will be arguing on the other site? >> guest: well the main advocates against the federal government and against edith windsor's claimed is a man by the name of paul clement and many of your viewers are familiar with him. he was illegally are challenging the obama health care law last ye