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

supreme court declined, the very first supreme court. that is, you can give advisory opinions, and i spouse the most famous one was the secession of quebec. s is that one of a kind or is that invoked fairly often. >> in the almost ten years, i've been there only one in the same-sex marriage case by the then-minister of justice, who should answer for that impudence, what we did in that case to the attorney general's chagrin, publicly expressed, was that the government put three questions to us having to do with whether the federal or provincial parliaments have jurisdiction over the definition of marriage, which solemnization was federal or provincial. it's clearly provincial. and one related to whether anyone could be compelled to perform a marriage contrary to their religious beliefs. for example, could a minister of religion who was opposed to same-sex marriage be compelled to perform a marriage? and the answer to that last was, no. the answer to the first, as i mention earlier, was that it's federal. the government also asked us, just

supreme court declined, the very first supreme court. that is, you can give advisory opinions, and i spouse the most famous one was the secession of quebec. s is that one of a kind or is that invoked fairly often. >> in the almost ten years, i've been there only one in the same-sex marriage case by the then-minister of justice, who should answer for that impudence, what we did in that case to the attorney general's chagrin, publicly expressed, was that the government put three questions to us having to do with whether the federal or provincial parliaments have jurisdiction over the definition of marriage, which solemnization was federal or provincial. it's clearly provincial. and one related to whether anyone could be compelled to perform a marriage contrary to their religious beliefs. for example, could a minister of religion who was opposed to same-sex marriage be compelled to perform a marriage? and the answer to that last was, no. the answer to the first, as i mention earlier, was that it's federal. the government also asked us, just

the supreme court lessons have to some degree model themselves at the supreme court and interesting ways they've diverged but no other countries adopted the life tenure for an age limit the of other interesting features and some of the european courts for instance weld -- don't publish the dissenting opinions. the opinion speaks for the court, and we don't have the dissenting opinions we see. the court speaks as one and as somebody descents they have to keep it to themselves. it would be something quite different on the supreme court. so, i think with those observations maybe i should turn it over to you, and i would be happy to take your questions. i see there's microphones and i would be happy to have any kind of conversation that you'd like to join me in. [applause] >> good evening. thank if you for a wonderful presentation. >> would you talking to a microphone. >> thank if you for your presentation. the current supreme court justice ruth ginsburg in my opinion made and justice a suggestion there right to the drafter of the egyptian new constitution to look at the constitution. i just

say, a decision by the supreme court of israel or the supreme court of canada. they are not the law of the united states. we can look to their attempts to wrestle with problems that we face, too. not in any sense binding as precedent, but for the persuasive value of the decisions but this book put out by the american society of international law containing comments written by justices, starting with chief justice views on ther utility of references to comparative law -- i think you can count majority of the current supreme court members who are not averse to looking beyond our borders. >> if you permit me, on the subject of looking to what other courts decide, americans are not only litigious, but have wonderful courts, at the federal and state level. we can have a criminal law issue or constitutional oath issue -- a good example years ago, where person puts out the garbage in that case happened to contain drug paraphernalia, and relinquishes an expectation of privacy. at issue came up in canada for the first time in that case. i had a law clerk looked at the am

supreme court. we have a reverence if not respected institution and the need to preserve the litimacy and credibility of the institution. i wonder if you can give us your assessment as to why there has been this decline in the public's approval or respect for the institution? >> i wish i knew. i did not conduct the polls. i am not sure. i have read some articles about the polling that took place and the argument being made that rhaps the decline -- the percentage of u.s. voter approval of the supreme court historically has been hired then of the other two branches. in a very recent months, it seems to have declined rather substantially. this suggestion has been made that that began with the bush- gore decision. i have no idea if that is correct in the assessment of the polling. it was a very tense case that involved holdovers from a very close election. people felt deeply about it. perhaps that was the tipping point of the decline. i hope it will be temporary. the supreme court functions extremely w

of our supreme court. the court speaks as one x. if somebody dissents, they just have to keep it to themselves. finish -- that would be something quite different on this supreme court. so i think with those observations, maybe i should turn it over to you, and i'd be happy to take your questions. i see there's microphones. and be happy to have any kind of conversation. that you'd like to join me in. thank you. [applause] >> good evening. thank you for a wonderful presentation. >> will you talk into the mic? oh, okay. i have to keep it close. thank you for your presentation. the current supreme justice ruth ginsburg and her visit to egypt, in my opinion, made an unjustice even not a suggestion, advice to the directors of the egyptian new constitution to look at canadian and south african constitution. i was just wonder your comments as a supreme justice opportunity even believe in our -- doesn't even believe in our constitution, how she could be a, still remain a justice. and your advice, well, not even a s

it reversed the lower court decision that was against the litigant to a supreme court in favor. under those circumstances, the supreme court felt there was too much of an appearance of impropriety. >> to you see this as being something where there could be a different set of jurisdictions within the elections or is it bringing under due process, versus the first amendment issue? >> i think the citizens united decision is broader. when you're dealing with first amendment issues, it will be applied to any election. the decision was very narrow with the refusal. there is the appearance of impropriety or the appearance that the judge should recuse. that is when it would fly. the supreme court did not even man did it in that instance. they said they should send it back for a review and let the judge to decide. i think the citizens united decision is much broader. >> if you want to put it in that frame, citizens united was written by kennedy. kennedy was dismissive of the caperton decision in the citizens united case. i do not see any light at the end of the tunnel. dore supposed to g

under the bill of rights it's the underpinnings of the supreme court's citizens united ruling would move most people are completely unaware of is why the supreme court accepted this argument that corporations are people in the first place it's actually a really interesting story of a scam perpetrated by railroad barons more than one hundred years ago and it's the subject of tonight's daily take you may think what's happening across this country like scott walker's efforts in wisconsin to strip rights from working people and give multibillion dollar tax breaks to corporations is something new it's not it actually was started more than one hundred years ago by the stroke of one man's pen his name was john chandler bancroft davis i tell a story in the first chapter of my book on equal protection eight hundred eighty six bancroft was the court reporter for the united states supreme court and he was on the it was on the job while that court was hearing arguments in a case called santa clara county versus the southern pacific railroad although at the time the chief justice morris interim

it eight hundred eighty six bancroft was the court reporter for the united states supreme court and he was on the he was on the job while that court was hearing arguments in a case called santa clara county versus the southern pacific railroad although at the time the chief justice moore's interim equate thought it was just about a simple boring tax issue that case would ultimately redefine america forever if it wasn't for that case scott walker wouldn't even be governor now because corporate money couldn't have helped him get elected the case centered on whether or not the the corporation the southern pacific railroad owed santa clara money six years worth of unpaid property taxes again it just all really monday and stuff ultimately the court let stand a lower california court decision because they said it was the state of california is issue not a federal issue case closed not a constitutional debate you can read on line in the web's the supreme court itself nothing in there about corporations being able to elect governors but here's where everything went a little crazy. as one of th

>> on the supreme court? >> on the supreme court, but also trickling into the state elections. in other words, when you see this as -- the montana supreme court having put a fairly forceful and direct pushback to toe the supreme court on that, why do you see that coming from a state like montana as opposed to something that might be a more traditionally liberal state. >> well, that's complicated, and i'm probably getting way out of my pay grade here. but when i started practicing law in montana, montana was a progressive state. as -- in 1994, or '93, wherever the gingrich revolution took place, montana started going more and more in that direction, and although montana is typically composed of blue collar workers, farmers, ranchers, that sort of thing, that group of people have followed, i think, the trend nationally that the group of people have been following, towards the more conservative sector. most of the people on the supreme court are not quite as old as i am but close to it. so, we come from different era. and i think this election, at least from my -- the seat i'm vac

of as courts of review or courts appeal, courts of error correction and that was the supreme court initial faith or so it seemed by william howard taft, the capstone after the presidency was becoming chief justice of the united states and he sized this up and thought the court would greatly benefit from the ability to write the ticket create the own docket. not have to take every case that came along. under his leadership, his urging, congress passed in 1929, what's known as the judge's bill because all the judges of the country got behind this effort. an gave the court for the first time discretion over its docket. and so that's the place we are today. we have a supreme court that is capable of and does set its own agenda and in doing that, it sets the legal agenda for the country. you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. tonight on c-span2 booktv, a look at economics from global to local. up first "the wall street journal" kristin grind exams the 2008 complains of washington comiew mutual. doeses his list of countries that will make up the economics diseases stories of

when you see this as montana supreme court having put a fairly forceful push back to the supreme court on this why do you see that from a stage like montana as opposed to something you might see as a more traditionally liberal state? >> that is complicated and i am getting way out of my pay grade here. when i started practicing law in montana montana was a progressive state. in 1994 or 93 whenever the gingrich revolution took place montana started going more and more in that direction and volvo montana is typically composed of blue collar workers, farmers, ranchers, that kind of thing has fallen nationally towards the more conservative spectrum. most of the people on the supreme court are not quite as old as i am but close to it. this selection from lie -- the first or second person in a new generation. >> it is not an easy left/right breakdown. in mississippi, judicial elections are not run by parties. judges run non-partisan as they do in many states so you don't necessarily get the republican democrat breakdown in judicial races. it is about the money. and the breakdown we have seen

maybe the supreme court has talked about this? in 2009, the supreme court eliminated the sentence of life without the possibility of parole for non-homicide cases. for the first time, the supreme court sided adolescents -- cited adolescent neuroscience. a 12-year-old brain develops. you will watch its start to mature until you hit about 24 or 25. for those of you who are parents, you do not need a scan. for those of us who went to adolescence, we know it was a time of poor decision making. the supreme court used the picture of the brain in order to make the decision. there is this nice development over time that is associated with changes in composition and changes in how you process the world and make decisions. ok. now you have another client named george. he is a 55-year-old white male offender. he has a history of being in and out of jail. his iq is very low. george has a very low iq, they might have to refer to him as being retarded. he has arrested for murder and the prosecution is seeking the death penalty. the supreme cour

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. >

supreme court. i find the opinion of justice ginsburg to college are congressional under the spending clause. it reveals a complete misunderstanding of our system to attack the chief justice and saying he has not followed a political party or showed allegiance see. -- allegiance. she served on both the state bench and on the highest court in the land. at the last justice not to come from the judiciary monastery. she has traveled the world to teach emerging democracies about the importance of the rule of law. she focuses on the importance of civics education. as i told to privately, barry goldwater was such a good friend. at his request, i moved into his old office and i have been there for 30 years. he would blush -- you would blush it your all of the good things he has said about you -- if you heard all the good things he said about you. >> i remember a hearing we have lasted that was very viable with justice scalia. barry m. valuable. it is very valuable to have you here as well -- it was very vol

the supreme court." mr. toobin, went to concentrate on the versus prior. is there -- [inaudible] >> you bet there is. this is a moment where we have a liberal democratic resident and a conservative dominated the supreme court and issue after ratio, you see a real conflict. the >> what are some examples of the conflict? >> the most dramatic we have already seen is the case where the court struck down the miss from corporate giving campaigns, but in a broader sense, set in motion a process of tea regulating american campaigns. and in a remarkably vivid demonstration of the conflict, many people were a member of the 2010th save the union address, what the president attacked the spring court to their face and samuel alito and beyond and shook his head and said not true. and the supreme court often just an abstraction. what i loved was that was not abstract. it was concrete and he saw the conflict. of course the health care cases perhaps an an even greater conflict between the conservatives on the court and the a bomb administration. >> welcome overachieving th

court but it seems like if the supreme court wants to wrestle with this issue they're probably more likely to wrestle with the question of the law as it is now in the program as it is now and whether americans can challenge that program rather than trying to delve into the ancient history of you know under the previous system under the previous president was what was going on back in two thousand and five or two thousand and six legal often judges and justices are would prefer to sort of let bygones be bygones and if they're going to confront the current issue they may as well deal with that one head on and put this one in the past certainly a lot of different aspects of these types of discussions going on i'm sure we're going to see them continue josh gerstein white house reporter for politico good to have you on the show hey great to be back with you. let's talk now about a young man in new hampshire who is facing twenty one years in prison simply for reporting on police brutality adam or adamle mueller was unable to talk to us today since he's in prison now awaiting trial and a c

court feels differently so so it will go to the state supreme court do you guys think you'll have a better shot there or we're not really sure but we are going to continue to fight this because as you said over a million pennsylvania voters don't have the proper id there's a clear discriminatory and. and we know that it's going to affect the november election there is no way in the world that over a million voters can get from a third i.d. before november and so we're planning to appeal and hope that the state supreme court you know will feel differently when they disagree with the world and this will probably be something that will eventually be said about supreme court i'm figuring down the road we'll see but you meant not only is this law discriminate clearly discriminatory but it's poorly crafted as you guys pointed out in the suit there's not enough i.d.'s to even give to everybody you would need a voter id there's not enough information out there to tell people where to get these voter i.d.'s you know the state itself said or the commonwealth of pennsylvania you know admitted

supreme court. supporters of prop 8, the california voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage petitioned the highest court in the nation to take up the case. as kate thompson report, this is the latest step in a long, drawn out legal battle. >> reporter: this fall the supreme court will decide whether or not it will take on the case of same-sex marriage. >> this is a court that likes high-profile cases. and this is an issue that has split the country. there are some states doing it and others that are not, there are some states that have banned it and some who have authorized it. that's the kind of case the supreme court is attracted to. >> if the supreme court decides not to hear the case, that's the end of the story for proposition 8. it gets wiped off the books. >> reporter: proposition 8 has been declared unconstitutional twice. despite the rulings, the ban on same-sex marriage has stayed in place while the appeals process is ongoing. if the supreme court decides not to hear the case, the earliest

is lying on the supreme court of justice of israel decisions for their kids for forty five years old morse that their international law applies in the west there and all the clues range and recommendations are based on this fact in my report but the levy committee decided that the international law doesn't apply in the west bank in all their recommendations based on the. to my opinion you current they found it in this report and would you agree that the west bank today in somalia is not israeli soil and if so what legal grounds does israel have for legislating laws regarding land that is not under its jurisdiction while to my opinion and to the opinion that was written by the supreme court of justice of israel for ever and ever is that israel has no serenity in the west bank. the occupation is a temporary one until a peace agreement will be achieved between. the people the palestinian people and the israelis and of the authority or ask me after these readies to legislate laws in the west bank are coming from the international law from the nations and their fourth geneva convention th

court feels differently so so it will go to the state supreme court you guys think you'll have a better shot there or we're not really sure but we are going to continue to fight this because as you said over a million pennsylvania voters don't have the proper id there's a clear discriminatory and. and we know that it's going to fax the november election there is no way in the world that over a million voters can get this straight from a third i.d. before november and so we were planning to appeal and hope that the state supreme court you know will feel differently when they disagree with the world and this will probably be something that will eventually be said about supreme court i'm figuring down the road we'll see but you meant not only is this law discriminate clearly discriminatory but it's poorly crafted as you guys pointed out in the suit there's not enough i.d.'s to even give to everybody you would need a voter id there's not enough information out there to tell people where to get these voter i.d.'s you know the state itself said or the commonwealth of pennsylvania you know adm

supreme court. a new survey looks at what american consumers hate the most. we have a few of the top complaints coming out. [ female announcer ] with swiffer wet cleaning better doesn't have to take longer. i'm done. i'm gonna...use these. ♪ give me just a little more time ♪ [ female announcer ] unlike mops, swiffer can maneuver into tight spaces and its wet mopping cloths can clean better in half the time. mom? ♪ ahhhh! ahhhh! no it's mommy! [ female announcer ] swiffer. better clean in half the time. or your money back. ♪ >> the fight over same-sex marriage could be headed to the u.s. supreme court. today, supporters of proposition 8 petition to the highest court in the country to take up the case. as kate thompson reports, this is the latest step in a long, drawn-out legal battle. >> this fall, the supreme court will decide whether or not it will take on the case of same-sex marriage. the question at the center of the appeal is should the institution marriage be fundamentally redesigned t

supreme court wilson lost his battle texas of course is no stranger to the death penalty have currently is at the top when it comes to executing prisoners on death row perhaps you know it's no surprise then when governor texas governor and former presidential candidate rick perry spoke about it he got this reaction in the state of texas has a. very thoughtful a very clear. process in place you also use the old to move justice in the state of texas and that is you will be executed or you make it . so a large applause there for texas governor rick perry marvin wilson was the two hundred forty fifth inmate executed under the governor and the entire story was largely ignored by the media independent journalist ron your colleague has been following this story closely though and joins us from fairfax virginia hey there ranya i know in two thousand and two the u.s. supreme court ruled in virginia that the mentally disabled could not be executed what was different this time. that's actually what has a lot of legal scholars shocked in fact that yesterday the supreme court wouldn't grant a stay o

the supreme court overreached on this decision big time. what do you think when people like -- go ahead. guest: but that's -- that's his opinion, and i appreciate his opinion. it's an opinion on the result. not on what we started with. we started with a -- what i considered a very simple approach in a first amendment case, which was about a film, about a documentary film, political film, and its advertisements. that's where we started. it was pretty -- i thought it was fairly narrow. what we ended up with was a lot broader and it pweupl a landmark decision. people can have their opinions on both sides but those are the decisions of the supreme court, not of citizens united. and so we -- i applaud their decision. but that's -- i just need people to understand it's not why we went. it's a result of what we did. but i think it's a much better situation. host: david bossie, president of citizens united. what do you think when you hear mitt romney say corporations are people too? guest: you know, he has not actually spoken a lot about the citize

>> on the supreme court's? >> on the supreme court but also trickling into the state elections. in other words, when you see this as the montana supreme court having put fairly a forceful pushback, why do see that coming from a state like montana as opposed to something that you might see as a more traditional liberal state? >> well, that's complicated and i'm probably getting way out of my pay grade here. when i started practicing in montana, montana was a progressive state. in 1994 or 93, whenever the gingrich revolution took place, montana started going more and more in that direction. and although men ghana -- although montana is typically composed of blue-collar workers, farmers, ranchers, that sort of thing, that group of people has filed i think the trend nationally, that group of people has been falling towards the more conservative segment. most of the people on the supreme court are not quite as old as i am, but close to it. so we come from a different era. i think this election at least for my seed i'm vacating on the court will be the first, well second, kind of the

to my opinion you current found it in this supreme court and would you agree that the west bank today in somalia is not israeli soil and if so what legal grounds does israel have for legislating laws regarding land that is not under its jurisdiction while to my opinion and to the opinion that was written by the supreme court of justice or for israel for ever and ever is that israel has no surrender in the west bank the occupation is a temporary one until a peace agreement will be achieved between. the two people the palestinian people they have paid the israelis and the authority you asked me after these readies to legislate laws in the west bank are coming from the international law from fear hagel nations and their fourth geneva convention that they give their authority to the queue for mander of the i.d.f. who. occupied the area to legislate laws to protect the palestinians and the security of the area the ministry of housing allocates millions to these outposts each year they by giving them a lifeline as long as the government's policy of funding these outposts exists how can the

if that does not go his way, he can ask why the supreme court ruling. if that fails, he can finally make up before clemency to the indian president. it could still be some time before this case reaches its end. certainly, there is a lot of pressure for a speedy conclusion. this is the frustration we have been hearing today about why it has taken so long to get to this point. there is still a lot of anger about what happened. >> they seem to be dragging their feet on their territory. >> that is right. for some time, they denied a that he was a national. in fact, it was eventually his father who confirmed that indeed he was born there. that s death certainly not been very helpful in pursuing the case. the indians are adamant that the whole organization was organized from pakistan. the also said that pakistan is still sheltering the man they believed to masterminded the attack. the man who had a 10 million- dollar bounty place on his head by the americans. the arguments go on. the indian government's hard- line position on this is supported by most indians

again, to go back to the supreme court, the supreme court has said it is ok and constitutionally protected to have a boycott. so far, attempts to not back disclosure laws, for example in ballot initiatives, have not withstood court muster. i am not raising a value judgment but i raise the question as to whether the court would agree it is intimidation and harassment. >> item going to ask a question -- -point to ask questions, and looking around i am the only person that has actually received a campaign contribution. how has this effected the behavior of the people receiving the money? is there any data that shows? after all, the essence is constitutional, effective, proper and legal, but the impact is whether the people who are getting the money are serving the public or not serving the public. one of the things i do not see is how it effects the behavior of politicians. robert biersack. >> there are two ways people are behaving. there has been a lot of studies. people like to point out there is no demonstrable effect on public in visible activities like roll-call votes. the dispute is abo

that actually would have a lot of the legal scholars shocked in fact that yesterday the supreme court wouldn't grant a stay of execution for martin wealth and even though he had been diagnosed by a court appointed. neuropsychology as being mentally retarded and had an i.q. of sixty one which is very much below the competency threshold of seventy so you know it's kind of shocking because in two thousand you like you said the supreme court ruled that it was unconstitutional so it came as a shock to his lawyers and it really came as a shock to a lot of people they were expecting the supreme court to side with the ruling i know right now you wrote a piece for salon in which you talked about a set of standards it seems to me some very nonscientific ones inspired by lenny in the book of mice and men to determine this characterization so i mean i'm wondering are you saying a fictional character invented by john stein back was actually used as an example of precedent. yes exactly what happened. after the in two thousand and two when it's being done constitutional right to execute people with

the most important thing is we need the supreme court of the u.s. to intervene and issue a state, so it can provide orderly consideration to the issue of whether the texas factors for considering a majority of asian unreasonably apply-- considering mental retardation unreasonably applied. >> lee kovarsky, briefly, can you describe the murder that marvin wilson was convicted of? >> sure. marvin and his accomplice terry lewis had a chance encounter with the victim at a gas station. as you noted, the victim was a confidential informant who was not that confidential at that particular time, and he had given information to the police that led to martin's arrest the week before. so when they bumped into williams at the gas station, an altercation ensued. the two men forced williams into a car. what happens after that is unclear. there is no forensic evidence or eyewitness testimony. the next morning, the body is found by the sight of the road in the manner you described -- by the side of the road in the manner you described. there's testimony from one wit