the supreme court is a long space institution. the members are appointed for life and accountable to no one coming and the exercise of power that can cast with the vast majority of americans say they want in a congressional legislation or however is and it's our obligation to ask questions about the court and criticize it and insists it be opened up as very open up and put in the books and instead of pretending that this is a group of flying people who have the best interest of the nation at heart, let them defend the federal election commission decision. [applause] speed i went to thank the ambassador for being here. there's no 1i know who has done more to preserve the legacy of franklin roosevelt and the ambassador. [applause] >> my short answer to the question is yes. [laughter] i think the court should be criticized and the decision should be questioned and while they are unaccountable in the electoral sense, this is the way the courts are held accountable by the constant public discussion of the court is doing and constant di

the supreme court of the united states today has no protestants on the supreme court. isn't that interesting? we basically have catholics and jews. >> i have been very worried about that, i will tell you. [laughter] >> i mentioned it because i thought it was keeping you up at night. the fact is that i have no doubts that they each will do what they said in their nomination, which is they would apply the law, and what justice roberts said is really probably a similar statement. judges are supposed to call balls and strikes. that does not mean that they don't understand -- as a matter of fact, why do you have a diverse jury? the appellate court is just another type of jury, right? the supreme court is a very different kind of jury because the supreme court, and having only had one case before them, i learned very quickly that president -- precedent is not as important as the justices, who will decide what the law is. they will change what the lot is if they get a majority of their sisters and brothers to go along with it. to have a jury made up of diverse cultural views

supreme court. she's here today to share her thoughts about that battle and about free expression in america. welcome, holly. thank you, ken. now, a membership in the n.e.a. four-- that's not exactly like joining the kiwanis club. no, it's not. it was kind of an honor-- dishonor sort of imposed on us by the national council of the arts when they took away our funding that had been recommended. it sort of sounds like a bad band, you know, that-- or we were later referred to as karen finley and the three homosexuals, which sounds like a really bad band. i've seen them play. [laughs] and yet this has been a battle. your status as a member of the n.e.a. four has been a decade long, really. yes, it all started in 1990, when the four of us were recommended for funding by peer panels in the n.e.a. and then, under political pressure, john frohnmayer, who was then chairman, took away our grants. and it was during a whole sort of public debate about controversial funding for the arts, and we decided to sue th

court to prevent america from violating a treaty that we had signed but the supreme court couldn't stop there either now if you're arrested abroad that foreign nation could refuse you your right to see the american embassy weirdly the supreme court ruled that international law has no effect on how states deal with their criminals which is strange considering that international laws have trumped american laws over and over and over in the last two decades since our nation jumped into the so-called free trade bandwagon and joined the world trade organization it's an issue i talk about in chapter eight of my book an equal protection. by joining the world trade organization our nation agreed to follow a whole slew of new international laws that protect so-called free trade a feather in the cap of transnational corporations so now whenever our congress passes a law that transnational corporations don't like we can be taken to a deputy o. court and forced to drop that law does have an earlier this year in may when the us took a bite out a u.s. sovereignty ruling that american americans can no

court to prevent america from violating a treaty that we had signed with the supreme court couldn't stop her either now if you're arrested abroad that foreign nation could refuse you your right to see the american embassy weirdly the supreme court ruled that international law has no effect on how states deal with their criminals which is strange considering that international laws have prompted american laws over and over and over in the last two decades since our nation jumped into the so-called free trade bandwagon and joined the world trade organization it's an issue i talk about in chapter eight of my book an equal protection. by joining the world trade organization our nation agreed to follow a whole slew of new international laws that protect so-called free trade a feather in the cap of transnational corporations so now whenever our congress passes a law the transnational corporations don't like we can be taken to a deputy o. court and forced to drop that law as happened earlier this year in may when the us took a bite out of us sovereignty ruling that american americans can n

the supreme court split. some in congress gave supreme court decisions over the decisions. make it mandatory because it wouldn't come up with let's weigh 15 choices here to decide what's best because they have to decide these cases and to the extent possible it is good to draw a bright line. i think they do not draw the bright line sometimes because they're not sure what it should be. they just have a sense that this case came out wrong. so we have i think judges in good faith giving an opening and going for it, and then sometimes judge reinhart says i'll do what i think is best. it says, my commission -- nothing about editing my opinion. i write what i want. >> yeah. apparently judge reinhart has left out that constitutional provision where the tenure is on good behavior. >> god behavior, yeah. >> i generally believe, and i can't prove this in any mathematical leeway, but judges are trying to follow the constitution and laws of the united states. and i actually think that the numbers suggest that we actually have more of that in the modern day than 20, 30 years ago. and wh

when north dakota tried to get them to collect taxes, it went to the supreme court and the supreme court found 8-1 in the case that under the article one section 8 of the commerce clause of the constitution says congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, and from that has been inferred what they kaleed the dormant commerce clause which is the state's right to impede or burden interstate commerce and the supreme court found 8-1 that forced an outof state retailer to collect their tax violates the constitution. now, they left open to the u.s. power to do, to create some sort of national system but the u.s. congress has not done that, so this is flagrantly goes against the grain of a supreme court decision from 20 years ago, and then on the policy side, it goes after people, websites like ours, if we have an affiliate, an affiliate marketing relationship with anyone in california, say, 40,000 people in this country who are raff fill yachts and somebody just in their -- just in their spare time makes pocket money, links to amazon, anyone who goes through their site to us, we pay

court this roberts supreme court has become a cancer on our democracy slowly but steadily eating out all the rest of it tell your members of congress to wake up and read the constitution. as the big picture for tonight for more information on the stories we covered visit our website to tom hartman dot com free speech dot org and our two dogs you can check out our to you tube channels there are links a ton of that and the entire show is also available as a free video podcast on i tunes and we have a free tom hartman i phone and i pad app in the app store you can send us feedback at twitter at tom under school or on facebook it's on the school for our blogs message boards and telephone comment line at tom harkin doc and don't forget the doctor see begins with you you show up when you participate ok your it civil.

oregon high court seems to seemingly defied the supreme court. i would be interested in your opinions about how much is willfully ignoring the high court, and how much of it is mixed signals from the high court? thank you. >> there are a lot of cases. stern v. marshall -- the difference of the court and justice scalia, who joined the opinion, is that the court gave us several factors to way and he thought there should be a bright line rule. a few years ago, the supreme court decided 5-3 that the federal courts can have hideous jurisdiction in a gittin it -- habeas jurisdiction from a detainee -- for a detainee in guantanamo, but does it cover a raft and afghanistan? -- iraq and afghanistan? i think they should make it mandatory, because it would not come up with let's wait 15 different choices and decide what is best to the extent possible, -- past. to the extent possible, it is better to draw a bright line, and they do not do that because that -- they are not sure what it should be. we have judges in good faith of giving an opening and going for

court this raw and supreme court has become a cancer on our democracy slowly but steadily eating out all the rest of it tell your members of congress to wake up and read the constitution. as the big picture for tonight for more information on the stories we covered visit our website so tom hartman dot com free speech dot org and our two dogs you can check out our two you tube channels there are links from our dock and the entire show is also available as a free video podcast on i tunes and we have a free child part and i phone and i pad out in the app store you can send us feedback it's twitter at tom your school or on facebook at tom underscore for our blogs message boards and telephone comment line at tom harkin dot and don't forget the doctor see begins with you you show up when you participate tag your civil. war news today violence is once again flared up. these are the images the world has been seeing from the streets of canada. giant corporations are today.

it may actually be at the new york supreme court now to decide this. it'll just keep getting kicked back until it reaches, i think, the u.s. supreme court, and then they'll really have a choice between standing by the analysis they did in 19991 in quill v. north dakota or sort of changing the whole doctrine. and, but until they do that, i think tax lawyers are pretty confident that once this gets kicked up all the levels from new york up to the supreme court it will be decided against new york, you know, until -- or unless it will be a sharp turn in supreme court reasoning if they go from an 8-1 decision 20 years ago to a completely, to taking the other side now. >> host: mr. byrne, are you collecting sales tax in be new york, and what about california? >> guest: no, we're collecting sales tax in neither place because as soon as the law gets passed we, or the night before it gets passed or becomes effective, we send an e-mail to all of our affiliates saying, very record ri, we thank you, we built a nice record together, but as long as your state has th

i think in the lower court i think the lower court read a victim of supreme court decision that the supreme court said i don't think they acted in good faith, but the cases between the trial court and court of appeals there is a judge in the cases the gets reversed to the rules for the impleader gets reversed two-thirds of the time on appeal. think of all the cases that are not brought on appeal because it costs money to appeal and she ought to be worried about her batting average, she really should be, not in the sense that she would go down in in the statistics put in the sense of what am i doing wrong and some judges don't care about that. >> the chemical weapons stake the professor was talking about a moment ago. there's a remarkable thing the solicitor general's office does in almost every term since 1870. they look at cases and they say we shouldn't have won that one below and in this case we looked at and want to make the federal wisdom that finally did the inimitable comer of the constitution that will result to the states india, she should be able to make that claim, and so we told

and supreme court shall have apologized diction both as to law and fact with such exceptions and under such regulations as the congress shall make yes that's what the constitution says in plain black and white if congress disagrees with for example the citizens united decision or the bush v gore decision they can simply pass a law that says that the supreme court has overstepped its authority and that's the end of a why do you ask to the founders write it this way. the answer is really very simple they wanted the greatest power to be closest to the people. and congress is up for reelection every two years it's the body of our in our representative democratic republic that is closest to the people that's where the founders wanted most of the power which is why it's defined in article one of the constitution the first among equals the judicial the dishes article three as thomas jefferson wrote in an eight hundred twenty letter to mr jarvis who thought supreme court justices should have the power to strike down laws jefferson wrote you seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of

fork cases where the person has two prior convictions, they would go to the california supreme court for further review, and four justices on the california supreme court would need to approve the governor's action in that case. the california supreme court spends over 1/3 of their time working on death penalty cases, and they are under enormous pressure financially. the entire judicial system is. while we do not know what the supreme court would do, it would certainly be a huge relief to them to have these death penalty cases go away. after the death sentences had been converted to life without parole, it would be a question of reclassifying the inmates and moving them into other high- security prisons across california. then, the question of where they were in the appellate process would have to be addressed by the courts. in fact, both people -- most people on death row are still waiting for attorneys to be appointed, so in most cases, their appeals have not even begun. not most, 45%. they do not have habeas counsel, and many do not even have their first appellate attorney. a lot

we challenged the law and went up the ranks and eventually the supreme court said stop and we stop. there was a great sense of despair in some sense, but hopefulness that we would live to fight another day and in spite of those licenses be voided and the fact there was disappointment and we had to stop and everything we had done had been taken a way as well. i think people lived with the expectation that they may see what they now have seen. i don't think many of us thought it would happen so quickly. >> after years of working it's way through the california system. the supreme court voted unanimously to challenge the ban on same sex marriages. >> we are literally across the street and couples could run and demand we offer a marriage license to them. >> we got the call early on may 14th, where they said can you come in and make a meeting. that's where we found out the court already notified the city attorney's office there were going to render a decision >> then on may 15, the supreme court struck down the ban on same sex marriage in a 4 to 3 vote. they fought all the way and won. >

in the state supreme court now to decide this. they don't get kicked back until it reaches the supreme court and have it a choice between standing by the analysis they did in 1991 versus north dakota or changing the whole background command but until they do that i think they are confident once this gets kicked up the levels from new york to the supreme court will be decided against new york unless a sharp turn in supreme court's reasoning 20 years ago to a completely taking the other side now. >> argue collecting sales tax in new york and what about california? >> we are collecting sales tax in neither place because as soon as it gets past for the night before it gets past or becomes effective, we send an e-mail to all of our affiliate's saying we are sorry, we think you we've built a nice business together but as long as your state has this law enforced we have to sever the relationship, so we keep on those because as soon as they expand the definition of nexus to include a relationship with those small businesses we sever the r

and supreme court shall have apologized diction both as to law and fact with such exceptions and under such regulations as the congress shall make yes that's what the constitution says in plain black and white if congress disagrees with for example the citizens united decision or the bush v gore decision they can simply pass a law that says that the supreme court has overstepped its authority and that's the end of a why do you ask the founders write it this way he has to answer is really very simple they wanted the greatest power to be closest to the people. and congress is up for reelection every two years it's the body of the our in our representative democratic republic that is closest to the people that's where the founders wanted most of the power which is why it's defined in article one of the constitution the first among equals the judicial the judiciary is article three as thomas jefferson wrote in an eight hundred twenty letter to mr jarvis we thought supreme court justices should have the power to strike them as jefferson wrote you seem to consider the judges the ultimate arb

the days of the court are really numbered and i think that the supreme court is out of step. it's rowing against the tight because the other two branches of the federal government want to bolster tribal sovereignty and our economic self-determination, but the president and the congress, passing laws to strengthen our cultural integrity et cetera. if only the supreme court that is rowing against the tide. i think as our larger society and says i'm just as that the courts will come along. i am optimistic. >> do we have another question? >> susan supernaw, i read it. it's a great story. i'd like for you to tell us what was the hardest part of writing the book? what was the darkest passage? >> the hardest part of writing the book for me was really dealing with my issues with his father and bringing up a lot of some of the trauma that was associated with feeling it as a child and never good enough. and they think after writing and talking to people and going back and writing again, it was like a repeat and it helped me understand where he was coming from and what kind of life he w

believes that there is just no supreme court by. to the constitution. the think progress is quick to point out today that article three of the constitution begins with the judicial power of the united states shall be vested in one supreme court so that already punk's one of those comments but he was also under the under the perception that congress can keep the high court from hearing certain cases he's also wrong on that issue if congress could limit the court's ability to hear cases and that would give congress unlimited power to pass any law and then block the supreme court for ruling on it and that's just not the case we have a checks and balances from here in the us to prevent power grabs by three different branches of government we have to wonder why new business so pissed off at the supreme court oh wait he's not actually mad at the nine justices on the court he says stealing it this idea from another presidential candidate. this circle over what are called particles to the courts article three of the united states constituti

i'm totally with you against the supreme court decision. >> jon: super mario boners. >> i'm not with you on that part. laugh ( laughter ) i saw you playing the game. >> jon: i have kids. i love video games, but i still think there is a certain limit to what-- i mean, once you start disemboweling your mortal combat opponent, i would think a 10-year-old should have to not be able to buy that. >> i think even a 25-year-old maybe shouldn't be able to buy that. i mean, it really is grotesque. i get that it's free speech, to protect our rights to political speech, -- >> it would be fun to play. i will say that. but, no-- >> you'red any at it i hear from your guys back there. >> jon: settle down. i have to have something to do during the day speaking of mortal combat. the president said he's going to pull out 10,000 troops and everybody is very nervous about that, but we do have to leave these places, like afghanistan and iraq, at some point, do we not? >> right, and we have left iraq in bulk and did so after a successful -- >> how many people do we have in iraq? >> 50,000. >> jon: that's n

when justice stevens step down from the supreme court, he expressed his opposition. he said this process has made the death penalty fundamentally unfair. >> i will let you answer these in order. can you share any sense that you have a death sentence -- that the death sentence inmates were for themselves as human beings? and how could you bear to preside over an execution and how would you handle this? please describe a situation where you would bring so many charges against a prosecutor for job-related conduct? >> as you have both said, this is determined before the execution takes place, this goes from 10 and on up. one of the strangest things that happen to me when i was first sent to death row in was that they were getting ready to execute a guy. and during this course of the execution, they prayed for the victim and their families. this was shocking to me. i am innocent. but everyone here, they will pray. death row in louisiana, you cannot see outside -- you can see outside, and you can see the front gates of the prison, so on execution nights, you can see the pe

supreme court since 1985, you know, where indian nations have lost over 80% of their cases, you know, that come before the supreme court and some terms losing more than 88% of our cases which means indian -- well, that prison inmates actually fare better -- or receive better treatment by the supreme court than our indian nations. and so as a lifelong practitioner of federal indian law, that troubled me and it's also led a lot of our tribal leaders and concerned legal scholars, you know, to ask, you know, is federal indian law dead? you know, and so i wanted to write a book -- i was inspired as i always have been by notions of justice to try to write a book, sort of a unique study of the law to try to understand, if i could, the forces at work that have -- that sort of explain the amazing prevalence of unjust cases relating to american indians that we see in american legal history and we have a lot of very unjust decisions that i think -- many of us take for granted today but they are cases that were decided by the courts during the course of manifest destiny when our nation was bent o

uc berkeley professor goodwin liu is appointed to the state supreme court by governor jerry brown. liu's previous nomination by president obama to the ninth circuit court was blocked by senate republicans. the governor signed dozens of bills including a provision of the dream act making it easier for undocumented immigrants to access privately funded scholarships for education. and california citizens redistricting commission released its final political district maps today for public review. we'll hear from two commissioners about the process. coming up next. >> belva: good evening, i'm belva davis. and welcome to "this week in northern california." joining me tonight on our news panel are carla marinucci, politic writer for "the san francisco chronicle." scott shaffer, host of kqed public raradio's the california report. tom vacar, consumer editor for ktvu news. tom, first to you. what's the latest from washington? where do things change now? >> we've been sitting here longer than ten minutes so i'm not quite sure. i'll give you the big thing. this evening by a vote of 218-210 th

court building five men and women in the supreme court really should be able to make laws strike down laws and tell us how to conduct ourselves that's not what the constitution says and we need to do away with the concept of judicial review new in our newt and i are not the only ones who have some criticism for the supreme court but i have to admit that these ladies found a much more colorful way to voice their thoughts. raul. i really. was an. asset. in the. right. earth. that. was. the last. time she had my ad and yes the it. if you would like your comments and questions heard was set up we want to know your take send us your comments by visiting the tom hartman facebook page by a twitter at tom underscore her on or in the chat room on the message boards or through the blog at thom hartmann dot com you can also leave a message on our rant line at two two five three six fifty three zero six agree disagree sound off it's all welcome but remember that your comments may be used on the air. or so the guys on wall street want you to think after all they're looking at the two point six tri

court building five men and women in the supreme court building should be able to make laws strike down laws and tell us how to conduct ourselves that's not what the constitution says and we need to do away with the concept of judicial review and you and i newt and i are not the only ones who have some criticism for the supreme court but i have to admit that these ladies found a much more colorful way to voice their thoughts. the other three i. call our. rights and free. press. the press. rights. purse. yes. oh after that last. time she had some time and yes. earth. if you would like your comments and questions heard was set up we want to know your tick send us your comments by visiting the thom hartmann facebook page by a twitter at tom underscore hartman or in the chat room on the message boards or through the blog at thom hartmann dot com you can also leave a message on our rant line at two two five three six fifty three zero six agree disagree sound off it's all welcome but remember that your comments may be used on the air. we're going to. pursue the guys on wall street want you to