-pwhat ustiic robeets did was3 my view if he weee more+ pomfortable diin soohe would takes preeedenceover a buncc 3 phree ypes of cases.lk aboutt -pp tthnkkthee illusttaae thii.. pociity againnt theehastings a+ school, withhrespect to hee ptere were bibbical origins in favor of it. in ttems off te beliefs that phey are prooected under a or not we as wise aad sagg is not possibblefoo aal of theem+ whattwe waat to do is stay far away as eecan rrm them in a organizations.+ hastings id not agree witt whiieehh was williigg oottlerrte pfaiiities, nd forraal recoonition and the like.%--ppo% piscriminaaiinnpplicc which ay. we aae sure that this iss hat reepectttt orgaaizaaionssthatt+% democrats haveett admit-that ch% tteee issno quustion if we ook -pgoveenmentt he idea the nitd voluntary rganizaaioo into a all, went the whole urpose of33 ccmmmo coalition anddit seems to absurddty. i eliive thh scorecard ii 222 . citiienssunnted with the morr [laaghterr -+ 43 ears, durinn which timmn consistent nd aaprovocative oneeoo thh grret debatessamoogg3 prooesssr pptein aadd hee judg3 ii tte rue view.tv

[laughter] >> there is a case decided in 1998, a case in which there weee four justices who felt thisetroactive legislation -- justice kennedy thought it was due process. it did not matter that the elements of the two casss were exactly the same. everr lower court which dislikes the ability of the supreme court to limit what congress can do has pointed to the four-one split and said we have to read the decision airily. the lower-court becomes a construction issue and it is a supreme court case and when you look at the, they say this sort of law but they never find another case where they can apply it. judicial nullification issa common feature in modern litigation. >> i agree it is a possibility -- >> it is a certainty. >> it is may be a certainty but the ninth circuit will read it the way it wants. the supreme court said the equal protection clause applies to states and then they said they are the same thing. >> with racial segregation, it's like public accommodation -- all bets are off. this case in 1955 said the equal protection clause which is in opposition to the due process clau

amendment out of its own words could bring forward against states the first eight amendments which weeegned as restraints on the unite states. that got broken a little bit in 1932 and after 1947, the dam broke and one by one by one by one, everythingiecemeal in the first eight amendments has been applied in the states. has anybody on the court reccntly in the name of the constitution as opposed to constitutional law, has anybody tried to dredge up antiquity in this way and say wait a minute, we have been off course for a while? >> justice stevens says a bit in his dissent in mcdonald. i think the justices' opinionn that case was right. i don't believe in in corp. and think 's largely an academic mess -- at academicmyth. we know the bill of rights applies to the federal government. that has never been challenged. the question is whether the 14th amendment inc. the bill of rights by -- that was rejected in 1947. the court has never gone back on that. the 14th amendmen was -- nobody has ever disputed that. it has been decided that the first amendment is inc. -- in 1926 and applies, but the

and you wereegoing to purchase 50 aircraft from boeiig and then you were a much larger airline and weee going to purchase 100 airline. do you thhnk you will get a lower priceeif you are purchasing 100? do you think you will give a better service on your maintenance?? the scale, innterms of purchasing power should have some benefits. >> too big to fail, right? >> the idea that airllne the size of united aiilinee is not big enough to compete in needs to be bigger to be efficient is one of the more ludicrous claims that anyone has made in this industry in the last half century. the example i keep going is that mr. tilton should fly to moscow and sit down with the russians and said when you broke up the soviet union, it has such scale economies in not only did the commercial aviation, but you broken up with the silly notion that while you would not have the scale economies, competition in its innovation would greatly offset the dea that you hadd many smaller companies. again it comes back to a factual points. if the scale economies, which is the synergyyclaim that they are making is really