supreme court decision? it does not because the supreme court left it to the states to define what is mentally retarded. >> shepherd: megyn, he's right about that. the supreme court left it to the state. >> but georgia is unique in its standard. it's the only state in the nation with such a high standard, beyond a reasonable doubt. most other states, a preponderance of evidence. thr twthere are two issues hereh are moot because he has an iq of 70. the global community, international law says you're not supposed to execute juveniles, the insane, or people with mental disability. >> shepherd: there are very few places on planet earth where they still execute people under systems like this. ours happens to be one of them. that's the law of the land, but you know, brian, she's right. when she says at 70 you are mentally deficient by standards in the united states and all over the world. >> here's the problem, shepherd. back when these three forensic scientists testified at trial, they had all the information ava

jay legal history course by many cases of the supreme court and i teach constitutional and administrative law and sometimes property, sometimes local government law. >> when you approached the affairs or said the manuscript to a publisher, was the answer back from public affairs and why were they interested in the story? >> well, fortunately i already had a relationship from my first book about the book that's title to the integration why we still study to be in emigrated society. so i had a relationship with them and i sent a proposal to them i think they knew i was a fairly tenacious person, and they also found the story compelling. so thank you, public affairs. >> just a short conversation with george on professor sheryll cashin about her second book, "the agitators' daughter a memoir of four generations of an extraordinary african american family." by the way, booktv covered the professor earlier on this book and it's about one hour in length. you can go to booktv.org and type in her name and you can watch the entire hour. thanks for being with us. >> sarah gordon talks about religiou

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

you are now one of three women on the supreme court. can you compare for us your experience as the only woman on the court with that of being one of two female justices and that of being one of three female justices? >> the national association of women judges forecast what would come so they have a reception for the justice o'connor and me in the fall of 1993 and they gave us t-shirts. [laughter] i am sandra, not rude and mine said i am route, not sandra. [laughter] every year i was on the court with sandra, invariably, one lawyer or another would call me justice o'connor. they heard a woman's voice. [laughter] it did not matter that we did not sound at all alike. [laughter] when center-left, it was lonely. it was really lonely. at least when she was there, she was a tall woman and then there was this rather small person until i was joined by justice sonia sotomayor and just as keychain. if you -- and justice elena kagan. if you watch a case in the court, you will see a very lively bench. my sisters of the court are not shrinking viole

this man is a supreme court justice. to him the constitutional right to vote is a racial entitlement, question mark? it sounds like scalia is on the same side as the attorneys representing shelby county, alabama. lead attorney bert rhine believes everything is okay now. this is an old disease, and that disease is cured. the problem is solved. his co-attorney agreed. >> we've made great strides over the years. we have minority participation at record levels. we have minority candidates selected by 90% white populations. >> so we should just forget about the long lines in minority voting districts. we should ignore the voter id laws in states with influential voting minority blocks. we don't need to worry one bit about minority voters being purged from the roles. we haven't seen that for a long time, right? these lawyer says racial discrimination, it's all over, all done with. it's a new day dawning in america. it was gone a long time ago. they should tell this to the men and women who marched on selma, alabama back in 196

an honor to have a sitting supreme court justice with us. no fan of liberal judicial activism, i want you to know that. i'm a fan of selling things and you've got a book you are pushing right now. sonya soat mayor, "my beloved world." this say very revealing portrait of where you grew up in the bronx. why do we need to know this much about supreme court justices? because it used to be nine sort of faceless white guys out there and america ran great. [ laughter ] i mean for the most part, here or there. >> here or there, dred scott. >> stephen: yeah, whatever. [ laughter ] you always say dred scott. now how did your childhood growing up in the bronx influence your job now? >> i don't know if it influences my job now, but it's made the person i am. and so there's a lot of people who are interested in that. i think the most important message of the book is, no, we're not nine faceless people. we're nine human beings and each of us with our own story and each of us an ordinary human being with an extraordinary job at times. we're still people. i

supreme court will take up such a charged case. the lawyers are going to ask and when you have the decided circuits, that's, that's like red meat for the u.s. supreme court. that's exactly the kind of case they take. coming up next hour, we'll debate the likelihood and we will question how the court might rule. what are the odds right now? keep in mind when the assault weapons ban was placed, went in law back in '94 the n.r.a. didn't want cases going up to the supreme court then. they didn't like the supreme court, didn't think it was gun friendly, they may feel different now, should they feel comfortable? we'll take a fair and balanced look at it coming up. also new developments today with president obama's health care law. as questions come up about a company that has been awarded a 340 million dollar loan to set up these health insurance exchanges. despite having a history of consumer and regulatory complaints, i mean, lots of complaints, now, the house oversight committee started asking questions about the company and how exact

court and maybe discussed by the supreme court again. there you had a guy who was charged with conspiracy and material to support terrorism. this was the driver. osama bin laden's driver was selected as the first defendant because the people like khalid sheikh mohammad and those suspected of serious crimes were not available to military prosecutors because the government refused to interrogate them and keep them away so they put the driver on file and charged him with a life term. the prosecutor who argued the case was going for a life term. the military jury of six officers who were all ranks of colonel and lieutenant colonel, they acquitted him of conspiracy of the more serious charge, they convicted him of material support for terrorism. and convicted him of that. do not let him materially support terrorism ever again. send a message to anyone in the world, who might even think of materially supporting terrorism of giving 30 years, not one day less than 30 years. that is what the prosecutors said. the brewery deliberated for an hour,

this court, this supreme court should not second guess the congress. the 2006 congress which reaffirmed the voting rights act and had an abundant record of the history of discrimination. an abundant record of why this provision is still needed in 2013. >> mark, i want to open this up to our panel. also joining us is maggie. racial entitlement may be a very -- a dog whistle to some, in other circles the right to vote and right to cast a ballot. a constitutional right to vote. what's shocking is this isn't coming five or ten years ago, but on the heels of an election where voter id laws and a number of measures designed to prevent minorities from showing up and casting a vote. this was a huge subject of debate months ago. for the court to say there's no problem here, keep on moving or insinuate it's well behind us is not with the times or the national dialogue. >> i agree. it's true, the problem has changed. the nature is not exactly the same as it was in the mid-1960s. congress isn't going to go back and change the law to perfectly fix the problems of t

this man is a supreme court justice. to him the constitutional right to vote is a racial entitlement, question mark? it sounds like scalia is on the same side as the attorneys representing shelby county, alabama. lead attorney burt rhine believes everything is okay now. this is an old disease, and that disease is cured. the problem is solved. his co-attorney agreed. >> we've made great strides over the years. we have minority participation at record levels. we have minority candidates selected by 90% white populations. >> so we should just forget about the long lines in minority voting districts. we should ignore the voter id laws in states with influential voting minority blocks. we don't need to worry one bit about minority voters being purged from the roles. we haven't seen that for a long time, right? these lawyer says racial discrimination, it's all over, all done with. it's a new day dawning in america. it was gone a long time ago. they should tell this to the men and women who marched on selma, alabama back in 196

i wish the united states supreme court would televise its proceedings. i think it would be very helpful to americans to understand the justice system. i am in favor of the public seeing what goes on in courtrooms. i think we need to do more to protect jurors so that they can do their jobs and not worry about what happens after the trial. >> if there were some other country that we were advising about their justice system, what would you recommend that they adopt from mars -- ours that they don't have? one might be the jury system. what would you say to them about aspects of our system that they ought to be very skeptical about? >> well, i actually have had that conversation. during this year, i spent most of my time in the united states. i have visited 20 different countries, 30 cities, and spoken to the chief justice of the countries i have visited. that includes the chief justice of the supreme court of russia, where we had a long conversation one-on-one talking about issues like this. i tell you what happens in other countries and what they are doing.

as the supreme court said in stephon marbury versus madison the supreme court said. >> stephen: the supreme court said the supreme court says what is constitutional. >> that's exactly right. >> stephen: how conscreenent it's called activity judges right there. >> it's called article 3 of the constitution because article 3 says that the judicial power of the united states rests in the supreme court and the other federal courts. >> stephen: there's nothing in the constitution that says the constitution is constitutional. check and mate! [ laughter ] >> wrong again. >> stephen: okay. >> wrong again because the supremacy clause says that the constitution and the laws of the united states are the supreme law of the land. it's right there in the constitution. >> stephen: the states should pass a ratified new amendment that says be it known you are not -- >> if they did that it would be up to the federal courts courtso interpret it. >> stephen: will there be troops in tennessee telling local sheriffs to enforce this law? >> that's not going to happen? this is rhetoric. they have the executive orde

supreme court. what you may not have expected was that when it -- by the time it was at the court the state of california would no longer be defending the statute and wouldn't barret in the case and you might not have expected the defense of marriage act case would be argued the next day. now, how do those two developments affect? >> the supreme court, when it granted review in these two cases, made the point of saying that it wanted to consider arguments and have briefing on the question of standing, articles standing, in both cases. in the proposition 8 case, which we're calling hop lingsworth burrs perry, which this case we brought -- you're right, four years other, may of 2009 -- the attorney general, the then-attorney general, and the governor of california, agreed with us that the challenge to proposition 8, which was a constitutional amendment, which added to the california constitution a provision that said, only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in california. t

. >> why is it the obama white house versus the supreme court?& >> that changed june 28, the day of the healthcare decision. because the pattern of unremitting hostility between the supreme court and the obama administration was broken in perhaps the most important -- >> right. >> mmment of conflict, potentially, between the court and the president. >> yeah. >> but i don't anticipate that. i think it's a truce, rather than a peace treaty. >> but it was a very important truce. >> and it was shocking in the way it came down, the story -- if we believe it. you have a point of view through your reporting. first chief justice roberts was against the white house and against tte affordable care act and came around? a lot of myth sprung up around this. >> one of the problems when you work for cnn, they keep the stuff you say on tv. so i'm very much on record for saying this case would have come out differently. the oral arguments, i thought went bad for the general. >> this was their general. >> the general, got a very hard time from the justices. i thin

now the supreme court. can be a challenge in these cases or it's very hard for it to be challenged what's interesting though is that the ruling did not weigh in on the constitutionality of this law can you explain this it did not what we've seen recently is that the supreme court has been rolling very narrowly if there's a way that they cannot reach an issue of constitutionality they will select that path so here they used standing as a way to avoid that question of constitutionality it doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility that the constitutionality could later be a challenge but the factual scenarios under this ruling that would allow for that kind of challenge are exceptionally narrow it would be very difficult for plaintiffs to be able to meet that standard under this ruling so if no one has any legal standing because they can't prove that they're being watched. is there any way or what how would it be possible that for the court to ever look into the law's constitutionality it would be very diff

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

at the supreme court today, she has more. >> the stakes are high. justice aledo call this the most important case that the supreme court has heard in decades. the requirement that people arrested for certain crimes give up their dna is an effective crime solver with 43 convictions. the supreme court must decide if the procedure runs afoul of the constitution. >> the use of the technology that we have to tell us who did the crime and you did not do the crime would be lost to the state. >> her daughter was murdered in new mexico. >> is truth that makes sure we are convicting the guilty. >> 28 states and the federal government used the same procedures. a arrested in 2009 for first- degree assault, police matched it to the dna from the unsolved rape of a woman. police had no reason to suspect him in the crime. some agree it violated his protection against unreasonable search and seizure. >> the fourth amendment ho presumptively requires that when the government conducts a search, it have a warrant or some level of individualized suspicion. in this case,

supreme court. the court heard arguments on the 1965 voting rightest act that mandates that states with racial discrimination history get [ inaudible ]. justice scalia said quote . . . >> he added that congress only renewed it because it was politically expedient, saying even the name of it so wonderful, the voting's right act. who is going to vote against that. for the latest i'm joined by "huffington post" reporter ryan reilly. he joins us from washington, d.c. where he was in the court chambers today. it is always secretive in the supreme court. what was the scene inside the courtroom like today? >> it was pretty -- there was very -- sort of -- very pop -- you know, obviously the voting right's act is a very popular piece of legislation with a lot of civil right's groups, and it has had an enormous people with a lot of people, and prevented discrimination for nearly 50 years now. within the courtroom you had a lot of groups that support this legislation. i think it has been very effective in elim

supreme court. he made a nationwide search and they came up with a superb choice in justice sandra day o'connor. so now i never, i had hoped when i was in law school that i would be able to get a job as a lawyer. [laughter] you know, these were free title vii days. sign up sheets for interviews at the law schools i attended, both harvard and columbia, many of them said men only. i don't how many times i was told the story, well, we had a woman lawyer ones, and she was dreadful. [laughter] how many men and lawyers did you have that didn't behave the way you thought they would? [laughter] so the change that i've seen in my lifetime is exhilarating, and the change in the federal judiciary is to the credit of president jimmy carter. >> speaking of her female colleagues, after justice sandra day o'connor retired in 2006, you were the only thing a justice on the supreme court until justice sonia sotomayor joined the court in 2009. justice elena kagan followed, joining the court in 2010. does come you're n

supreme court. to maximize the question and answer time, i am going to minimize the introductions. if we do not know who ginsburg is now, i think we should not be in law school. ruth and i are very old friends. i have known her for 20 years. we met through a law program, which she attended four times. i had the honor of getting to know her every time she came a little bit better. it is not only an honor and privilege but a pleasure to be with such a wonderful, warm, intelligent, caring, and sensitive woman. it is really wonderful. i now want to introduce rebecca lee, one of our professors. she is an associate professor of law as thomas jefferson school of law. one of the interesting things about this panel is we are all have a harvard connection. almost all of us, one way or another. she has a degree in public policy from harvard kennedy school of government and a law degree and is very involved in law and ken vanderbilt -- we do not need any introduction for ken vanderbilt. he is the reason i am he

supreme court today ruled that a civil rights group does not have the standing to challenge the government's warrantless wiretapping program an update on the face of fight ahead. and it's a government agency charged with keeping the us safe so one of the biggest threats the secretary of homeland security outlined some of these issues today we'll fill you in. and an apology goes a long way but don't tell the u.n. that the united nations is refusing to compensate haiti's half a million plus cholera victims and their families will look at this case ahead. it's tuesday february twenty sixth five pm here in washington d.c. i'm liz wall and you're watching our t.v. . well the supreme court today made a decision that could have a big impact on your right to privacy and a five to four vote the supreme court ruled that people do not have the legal standing to challenge the foreign intelligence intelligence surveillance act the law allows the government to intercept for and communications of the lawsuit is from a group of civil rights advocates in journalist that challenge to the foreign intelligence

talk to me about the supreme court. that becomes -- you mentioned while this was rooted in grassroots activism, black parents advocating for. thes and their school, central high school. ultimately becomes a supreme court that changes the complexion of the nation. really kind of ends desegregation. >> guest: yes. it got out of their hands. i think they hired a -- they couldn't find anybody to be their lawyer, so they found this guy, teddy gordon, who is a very interesting guy. he was very enthusiastic. he this as a great opportunity and he was compelled by their story but it was then taken up by white parents to sort of -- wanted to send their kid to this school and cooperate because of the race. so they took it to the supreme court, and it was a big deal in some ways. it sort of was also just kind of a book end to something that was already happening. so even when that decision came down, most school districts in the nation weren't doing busing anymore. so, in some ways it was just sort of an official end, but to someth

supreme court. at issue if or when the police can take dna samples from police that are arrested for crimes. the tests are a key crime fighting tool. >> reporter: this supreme court case could be studied by law professors and students for years to come. it could set a precedent as to the legality of search and seizure. since 2008, when maryland began collecting dna samples from arrestees, 43 convictions have resulted. the maryland case before the supreme court is now the focus of national attention. her daughter katie was the victim of a brutal rape came from new mexico to make a point. >> my daughter's murderer would have been identified three months after she was murdered if we had arrestee dna which is what this case is about. because we didn't have it, it was three years and three months before he was convicted and incarcerated. we got that information. >> reporter: u.s. supreme court justice samuel alito called maryland versus king perhaps the most for criminal case this court heard in decades.

court this majority of the school iraq thomas alito supreme court these are people who are nothing more than blow them politicians in black robes and what we do so often tom is we create this mythical idea that you know the court is somehow above all of that these are justices who are not above that kennedy is not above this so we have every time i hear when these one of these higher minded debates about well let's look at precedent let's look at star decides to decide what this court is going to do the truth is just look at the political ideology and you know what those justices will do every time mark riley you've you have your your ear to the ground pretty well in the whole political scheme here what's going on i'm curious your thoughts of what you might have heard about you know what what is going on in the states both of the south but at the other the point the patches made i mean the it's almost like it's a whole brand let me let me rephrase that i remember i was a little kid when brown v board was decided but i remember all those signs all over the united states from fred coke's

of course, it was challenged in court right away, and the supreme court in 1966 upheld it as an appropriate response for congress to take given the problems that we had on this issue as a country. initially, the special preclearance requirement was set to expire in five years. well, when the five years were up, congress decided to renew it for another five years. and when those five years were up, congress renewed it for another seven years. and when those seven years were up, congress renewed it for 25 years. 25 years, because by then it was clear that it was an effective way to deal with this problem in our country, and we should therefore keep doing it. when that 25-year extension was up, congress again renewed it for another 25 years. that was 2006 when george w. bush was president. congress held 21 hearings over ten months of debate. they took in 15,000 pages of evidence on whether this was still needed. and after all of that, they voted nearly unanimously to keep doing it this way for another 25 years. in the senate it actually was unanimous. it was a 98-0 vote in the senate. well, to

., where i was inside the supreme court for the arguments today. tonights lead, supreme showdown. today, the court heard the most serious challenge to the voting rights act of 1965. in the middle of this legal drama, with major constitutional questions at stake, conservative justice scalia made a statement that cut through everything else. scalia said the law represents a court perpetuation of racial entitleme entitlement. sitting in the court, those words were shocking. a supreme court justice of the united states saying the voting rights act is a perpetuation of racial entitlement. lyndon johnson signed the law in 1965 to prevent racial discrimination, to stop the taxes, literacy taxes and violence rampant across jim crowe south. nine states are required, mostly in the south, to get federal permission before changing their voting procedures. this provision stopped unfair voting changes like districts redrawn to minimize the vote of african-americans. recently, it's been used to block photo id laws in south carolina and texas. and cutbacks in early voting in florida. yet, in 2009

coming up on r t the us supreme court today ruled that a civil rights group does not have standing to challenge the government's warrantless wiretapping program an update on the fly so fight ahead. and it's a government agency charged with keeping the u.s. safe so what are the biggest threats the secretary of homeland security outlined some of the issues today we'll fill you in. and an apology goes a long way but don't tell the u.n. that the united nations is refusing to compensate haiti's half a million plus color of victims and their families will look at the case ahead. it's tuesday february twenty sixth eight pm here in washington d.c. i'm liz wahl and you're watching our t.v. it was a pretty court today made a decision that could have a big impact on your right to privacy in a five to four vote the supreme court ruled that people do not have the legal standing to challenge the foreign intelligence surveillance act the law allows the government to intercept foreign communications of a lawsuit as part of a group of civil rights or it's from a group of civil rights advocates and jou

so far, monsanto has won in lower courts and the obama administration filed a supreme court brief supporting the company. it argues the case has implications for patent rights, extending far beyond soybeans to include medical research, computer software, and a host of other self-replicating technologies. the >> ifill: the monsanto case reached its final stop at the supreme court today, where justices listened to the pros and cons. marcia coyle of the "national law journal," as always, was in the courtroom. she joins us now. marcia, you can look at this and think "david v. goliath" individual farmer versus big agribusiness but it's more complicated than that. >> much more complicated than that, gwen. if a patent holder authorizes a sale of a patented article or invention, after that first sale the patent holder's rights in that invention or article or product are what we call exhausted. and the purchaser can do whatever he wants with it. if i buy a sony t.v. or a sony computer i can sell it to somebody else, i can put it out on my front yard. but what the law also says is what i can't do is i

supreme court biotech giant monsanto is squaring off with a small time farmer over who over the use of soybean seeds coming up find out what's at stake for the biotech company and why the farmer isn't giving up this fight. and while we're on the topic nearly five years after the a.t.f. raided the organization known as blackwater the case against a security agency has come to a close what's the verdict and what is the private security firm doing in greece. plus we're learning more and more about president obama's secret drone program straight ahead see what drone pilots are now starting to experience and what some elected leaders are demanding from the commander in chief. it's monday february twenty fifth four pm in washington d.c. i'm meghan lopez and you're watching r.t. we begin this afternoon with a story that's been told since the beginning of time one person fighting what they think is right fighting for what is right willing to face the whole system if need be burning hugh bowman is going head to head with biotech giant monsanto over alleged patent infringement on old soybean see

the supreme court. >> i think it's something we should consider. but i think the technology of aging is changing. and i think it has to still be on a case by case basis. somebody like rupert murdoch running one of the largest news organizations in the world is in his 80's and going strong by all accounts. chris: is that good? just kidding. katty. >> you can certainly point to individuals in all spheres of life who are making valuable contributions to the world. over the age of 80. i hope at 80 i'm putting my feet up and enjoying my grandchildren when i get to them. chris: ok. >> i think we're going in the direction where people are more vibrant, more capable at an older age. and so to set an arbitrary level 08 -- 80 seems too young. 80 is the new 6 o >> you have to have the structures in place to get the knowledge from these people. i love the service corps of retiered executives who volunteer their team and help startups get started. we have the new york one wise guys and talk to former elected officials. you have to get what you can get out of th

they had no place in the supreme court. but that word entitlement is in the ground water with the right wing talkers. >> the country is changing quickly into an entitlement society. >> i'm appalled that the culture of entitlement has exploded so much. >> the thing we've got to deal with more than anything else in this country is this entitlement mind set. >> the entitlement addicts that we all are. >> imagine that, a supreme court justice who sounds just like far right talkers. last year, making the case that if the government can force you to buy insurance, they can force you to eat broccoli, too. >> so you define the market as food. therefore, everybody is in the markts. therefore, you can make people buy broccoli. >> hmm, where else did i hear about that green vegetable? >> if they can force us to buy health insurance, they can force us to buy broccoli. >> if they can compel you to buy insurance, why not health food? >> and then the corn husker kick back. >> if we struck down nothing in the legislation except the -- what

supreme court may be getting ready to say no. supreme court may be getting ready to say no. plus chris: welcome back. this is going to be exciting. this wednesday the supreme court will hear a challenge to take us back to the civil rights struggles of the 1960's. ever since 1965, when lyndon johnson pushed congress to pass the voting rights act, these states, most in the south, have been forced to get ok -- an ok from the justice department before changing any voter laws. when the 2012 election, six of those states passed restrictions on voting like requiring picture i.d. cards. under the voting rights act federal courts struck down the photo i.d. laws in texas and south carolina. those southern states will tell the supreme court the special voting protection is no longer needed in the age of obama. obama himself disagrees. listen to how they put it in his race speech in 2008. >> the legacy of discrimination and current incidents of discrimination while less overt than in the past, that these things are real. and must be addressed. by enforcing our sism rights laws and ensur

in the neighborhood in some ways ultimately becomes a supreme court and the changes in the complexion of the nation it in this desegregation. >> guest: it got out of their hands. i think they couldn't find anybody to be their lawyer in the first place so they found a really interesting guy, he's enthusiastic. he saw this is an opportunity and he was compelled by their story, but it was taken out by white parents who sort of wanted to send their kid to a good school and they couldn't because of their race so they to get on to the supreme court and it was a big deal in some ways i think as kind of a bookend of something that was already happening so even when that decision came down most school districts were not doing us any more, so in some ways it was just an official end to something that had already been leaning in a lot of ways. >> host: but it did allow for a conversation about the role that the race plays in public policy, right? that still matters now, but because of the same time this is happening you have the affirmative action debate we are still wrestling with the question

the supreme court agreed to hear the case. it's a case that could finish what citizens united started, bringing me to this number, zero. that's what could become of campaign limits if the court uses the case to open the flood gates of money further. back with my panel when we come back. ental ] [ girl ] when i started playing soccer, i wasn't so good. [ barks ] so me and sadie started practicing. we practiced a lot. now i've got some moves! [ crowd cheering ] spin kick! whoo-hoo! [ giggling ] [ announcer ] we know how important your dog is to your whole family. so help keep him strong and healthy... with the total care nutrition in purina dog chow. because you're not just a family. you're a dog family. i got your campbell's chunky soup. mom? who's mom? i'm the giants mascot. the giants don't have a mascot! ohhh! eat up! new jammin jerk chicken soup has tasty pieces of chicken with rice and beans. hmmm. for giant hunger! thanks mom! see ya! whoaa...oops! mom? i'm ok. grandma? hi sweetie! she operates the head. [ male announcer

circuit but was in my corner or the supreme court nomination. i hope people will see that the way we are headed now is wrong. we should reverse it and go back to the way it was when it was bipartisan support for the president's nominees. >> thank you for being here. someday when i grow up, i would like to be like you. [laughter]when you are a law school sitting in my shoes, did you expect to see a time when women would be appointed to the supreme court? would you think you would be one