>> guest: she ultimately lost five to for the supreme court. finally, the city consented to allow her to the house to another location. the neighborhood she was part of his gone. it's a dumping ground for debris. said the part of the last constitution, the theme of my book is that public use should be restored in place of what the courts have put in its place, which is public purpose. they've either been completely eliminated or key phrases have been substituted. >> host: such as? >> guest: the ninth amendment says the enumeration in the constitution insert i should not because true to deny or disparage others retained by the people. that would have a dead letter. that is when the courts don't follow. the fourth amendment has been in his classes is no state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge villages or immunities. if he came from mars they told you that was in a legal document, you might say that sounds pretty important. wonder what that means. it sounds very important. in fact, it's only been used one since 1873 and i got it f

so by 2012, when then-governor christie nominated phil kwon to a seat on the new jersey supreme court, by that time, the governor and phil kwon had worked together for a decade. and then chris christie was more than just disappointed when phil kwon's nomination to the supreme court was rejected by democrats in the new jersey state senate. >> good evening. first of all, phil kwon, first and foremost, is a man of integrity. had the utmost privilege to witness that integrity firsthand. where in his role as an assistant united states attorney, the first assistant attorney general of new jersey, as a husband, a father, and a son. to see what phil went through today is not only disappointing for me, personally, but frankly a disappointment for the state. >> phil kwon was not made a new jersey state supreme court justice in the end. still, though, governor christie found phil kwon a very soft

court do the same it's time for a more open judiciary it's time for cameras in the supreme court find out more and take action at opens go to stock so well this had been up to put cameras in the court and joining me now for more on this is my passion tony attorney and host of ringer for radio and perhaps first of all walk about it's great to have you here to be here in the studio physically at the same space. article three section two of the constitution says the that the supreme court will operate under regulations established by congress. would it be a simple thing for congress to pass a law saying that they have cameras and it's very easy i think the interesting point of this discussion is you have school out in front of cameras every chance he gets i mean this is a guy has been more public he falls over himself to get in front of cameras saying right way really if you watch if you if you've watched roberts if you if you've watched a couple these guys just in the last six or seven months and but now they say we don't want you in our courtroom well you know the truth is they're publ

it's only the latest case on the federal appeals court using the reasoning of the supreme court to up end state laws, and it is the inside story. >> hello, i'm ray suarez. after the northeast, the west coast and several great lakes opened the way to same-sex marriage you wouldn't have picked the next dates on the list. utah, oklahoma, virginia. two of the reddest states on the map, and deep purple bell weather. in kentucky a federal judge ruled the state cannot deny the validity of same sex marriages performed in other states. so kentucky's own ban on such marriages for now is untouched but that appeals court decision put pressure on the widespread practice of refusing to recognize a married couple from let's say massachusetts if that couple moves to take up new jobs in missouri. but federal circuit that includes virginia also colors north carolina, south carolina, and west virginia. if the court of appeals up holds the virginia division, that's hour focus of this edition of "inside story." >>> virginia is for lovers was the slogan of the day for same-sex marriage supporters in virgin

court of appeals. by president clinton to the supreme court. she did all of this while raising two children. the first was born just before she started law school. jane followed her parents into the law, becoming a columbia law professor and one of the country's foremost copyright scholars. the second shared his mother's love for opera and is now the founder and president of the grammy award-winning record label for classical music. i know justice ginsburg would attribute her ability to have it all to her husband. as everyone who knew him could tell you, he was a brilliant man, hilarious and witty. a world-class tax lawyer and chef and an all-around mensch. when i was dean at harvard, at a panel i was moderating once on worklife balance, one of my colleagues was asked by a student how she had managed to combine such a great career with such a great family life. she gave a four word answer. marry the right guy. i think justice ginsburg would agree and she certainly found the perfect partner. i don't think even marty could make the path easy for

to the supreme court's decision. that's a very loaded phrase, of course, it comes from the civil rights era when the segregationists vowed massive resistance to brown v. board of education. of course, the states are saying, no, we have criminal laws and public safety laws and these are reasonable. so the court has decided not to hear these cases, but there may be other cases in the next year or two that they will want to hear. >> right, as pete williams mentioned, the churn goes on, practical effect in texas of leaving for those who don't realize it, some gun regulations on the books in texas, but may leave a lot more fights to come. pete williams, i know you got to get back into the court, so thank you for your time today. michael waldman, our thanks, as well. >>> quick note now from capitol hill. this is interesting, the longest serving member of congress ever, ever, is retiring. msnbc news has confirmed john dingle will not run. that ends his 60-year career. he started there in 1965, dingell's seat is considered a

john: and the supreme court, for the most part, has not symptommed them. >> the supreme court goes with joust overreaching, especially in the obamacare case. what happened was the supreme court said, well, the government can't force people to buy things. now, that was, itself, actually a huge victory for individual freedom. can you imagine what would have happened if it came out the other way, if congress suddenly had the power to force us to buy whatever politicians think we should have? the court said then, well, but we're still going to uphold obama care because it's not the role of the courts to protect people from the political choices, and that's false. it is the role of the courts to enforce the constitution, which is a limit on political choices. john: any supreme court cases -- [applause] that you're happy with? >> there are. john: pick two. >> when i fell in love with the constitution in ninth grade and learned of the court's decision, tinker versus des moines school district, black arm bands protesting the vietnam war, and their teachers said not to do this, and they sued and

court right actually at that level of it right supreme court which is pretty much the definition of a constitutional crisis where the supreme court has to suffer subtle arbitrate something between these the other two branches of government so it's extremely unlikely i'm guessing that the n.l.r.b. or president obama or anybody in the executive branch is going to go after senator corker if that's true first of all i'd like your thoughts on that but if that's true then are there any options well there are plenty of options it depends on what the. united automobile workers and let me just say that the u.a.w. it's done a great job working with german companies on this they've already organize freightliner years ago this. way in north carolina thomas built so i worked on that when i was that they had. ten years ago. but it depends on what the blokes wagon decides to do for instance volkswagen. the election was tainted we're going to recognize the union and begin barking they just do it they just do it it's it's it's it's one point in our history it was common practice before that partly a

the supreme court has ruled in the past that the e.p.a. has the authority to regulate the atmosphere and emissions of carbon dioxide all the fossil fuel industry was back before the supreme court today arguing against that it's the wall right now if there's even a small chance of an extinction the death of more than half of all life on earth the president and the e.p.a. should be acting today no matter how much the baron's of carbon from the koch brothers to exxon mobil to trans canada no matter how much they may dislike it the weird behavior of the jet stream is warning us right now today that we have to do something and do it quickly mr president please move forward with your instructions to the e.p.a. to regulate and reduce or carbon dioxide emissions now. and that's the way it is tonight monday february twenty fourth two thousand and fourteen and don't forget democracy begins with the youth get out there and get back to your. wealthy british. sometimes tirelessly. cardinalities. markets why not. find out what's really happening to the

you know i mean when is this nightmare going to end with to supreme court we have in this court and and you know. it's it's it's room and thanks a lot for the call that we have in the supreme court the most right wing court i think we've seen since the lochner court since the one nine hundred twenty s. . you know when this is locked the court was knocking down child labor laws and you know the progressive era legislation oh yeah i mean this is this is this is mind boggling and and not only that they're proud of being in scalia and thomas going off to dinner with the koch brothers and fancy about some and thomas' wife making a hundred grand and the he forgot to mention it by the way it's a federal crime excuse me yeah and what's interesting about the right this roberts court is you know i know school league. and alito and clarence thomas get a lot of attention from progressives because they're sort of easy to hate figures but john roberts is a brilliant scholar i mean not disagree with him but he's clearly got a plan for the united states and it's working i mean the health care decision

john: and the supreme court, for the most part, has not symptommed them. >> the supreme court goes with joust overreaching, especially in the obamacare case. what happened was the supreme court said, well, the government can't force people to buy things. now, that was, itself, actually a huge victory for individual freedom. can you imagine what would have happened if it came out the other way, if congress suddenly had the power to force us to buy whatever politicians think we should have? the court said then, well, but we're still going to uphold obama care because it's not the role of the courts to protect people from the political choices,nd that's flse. it is the role of the courts to enforce the constitution, which is a limit on political choices. john: any supreme cou cases -- [applause] that you're happy with? >> there are. john: pick two. >> when i fell in love with the constitution in ninth grade and learned of the court's decision, tinker versus des moines school district, black arm bands protesting the vietnam w, and their teachers saidot to do this, and they sued and said we

court writes actually at that level of it right supreme court which is pretty much the definition of a constitutional crisis where the supreme court has to suffer subtle arbitrate something between these the other two branches of government so it's extremely unlikely i'm guessing that the n.l.r.b. or president obama or anybody in the executive branch is going to go after senator corker if that's true first of all i'd like your thoughts on that but if that's true then are there any options well there are plenty of options. it depends on what the. united automobile workers and let me just say that the u.s. done a great job working with german companies on this they've already organize freightliner years ago this way in north carolina thomas built bus i worked on that when i was that they had. ten years ago. but it depends on what the folks wagon decides to do for instance volkswagen could say the election was tainted we're going to recognize the union and begin barking they just do it they just do it it's it's it's it's one point in our history it was common practice before that partly

each on tuesday the supreme court ruled in a los angeles case that police officers may enter and search your home without a warrant as long as one occupant consents even if the other resident has previously objected right now the court at previous e held that such protections were at the very core of the fourth amendment and it bans on unreasonable searches and seizures not only that tom in two thousand and six the court had ruled in a georgia case that a husband standing in the doorway could block police from searching his home even if it's restrained wife consented right even if she was standing behind him. you know i mean when is this nightmare going to end with disappearing court we have in this court and and you know. it's it's it's room and thanks a lot for the call that we have in the supreme court the most right wing court i think we've seen since the walker court since the one nine hundred twenty s. . you know when this is locked the court was knocking down child labor laws and you know the progressive era legislation oh yeah i mean this is this is this is mind boggling and and

we took it to the supreme court and the supreme court did not answer. they are a court of discretionary jurisdiction. but interestingly, chief justice roberts wrote separately -- and this is very unusual. and he said, i agree that we should not grant certiorari here. it is a very specific case. but there were a lot of problems, including everything we list here. and this is something that the supreme court should really look at in the future. we will be preserving the arguments that justice roberts implied. i think the word is out. we are seeing settlements being structured now so that there is a lot less cy pres because they are anticipating three years of appeals to the supreme court if they do not do that. another way to create the illusion of relief is injunctive relief. we are forcing the defendant to do something and this is viable to the class. what is injunctive relief? it could be as simple as saying i will write 100 times on a chalkboard, i will not defraud the class. there are all kinds of injunctive relief that might not necessarily be a ben

[indiscernible] the supreme court said that was problembroad. not every this israised -- horrible -- not every harm that occurs is addressed by courts. >> this, your honor, should be redressed by the courts because this problem has been going on for decades. this problem has been addressed by our congress. to the officials charged follow these mandates ignored it in a way that directly cause harm to my clients. >> let me ask you about that. some of the mandates are to make awareness. to set up a panel. do some other -- i will call it administrative things. do they go to the harm of what you're clients are complaining about? >> take something that is somewhat illustrative. what is a database? a database is a list of people. as a practical matter, what has ,appened time and time again crimes are committed by serial rapists. failing to follow the congressional mandate to create the database that identifies and provides information to law enforcement about who is doing the raping, they have created a that ends inress our clients being raped. if they

. >> the supreme court for the most part hasn't stopped them. >> a lot of time the supreme court has gone along with the government overreaching. most obviously in the obamacare case. for example, in obamacare what happened was the supreme court said that, well the government can't force people to buy things. actually a huge victory for individual freedom. you imagine what would have happened if it came out the other way if congress suddenly the power to force us to buy whatever politicians think we should have. but the court said then, well, but we are still going to uphold the obamacare because as chief roberts put it it is not the role of the court to protect people from the political choices. that is false. it is wrote t role of the courts tone force the constitution with -- which is a limit on political choices. >> all right. my p my supreme court cases you are happy with? >> there are some great supreme court decisions out there. the first one -- it was -- when i fell in love with the constitution was when i was in ninth grade and i learned about the court's decision, tinker ve

court of appeals. i president clinton to the supreme court. she did all of this by -- while raising two children. the first was born just before she started law school. jane followed her parents into the lobby coming to columbia law professor and one of the copyrightforemost scholars. the second shared his mother's love for opera and is now the founder and president of the grammy award-winning record label for classical music. i know justice ginsburg would attribute her ability to have it all to her husband. as everyone who knew him could tell you, he was a brilliant man, hilarious and witty. a world-class tax lawyer and chef and an all-around mensch. when i was dean at harvard, at a panel i was moderating once on worklife balance, a professor, one of my colleagues was asked by a student, how she'd had managed to combine such a great career with such a great family life. she gave a four word answer. mary the right guy. i think justice ginsburg would agree and she certainly found the perfect partner. wouldt think even marty make the path easy f

by the way i am not necessarily saying the supreme court should go out of the business to make those judgments. there is something to be said for the elite institutions somewhat removed from ordinary politics making judgments about political morality to hold us to some higher standard. of course, there is something to be set against it also. i got completely agnostic but what i would really want to insist is the justices tell us the church's instead of pretending like these decisions rest upon of the constitution of united states. said the american people make the informed the judgment if they want institution. >> host: we are talking with georgetown law professor at louis michael seidman about his book "on constitutional disobedience." you're watching booktv on and sees the into. suggest ways to harness those advancements to benefit society. the conversatconversat ion is about one hour. >> good evening. welcome to today's meeting of the commonwealth club of california the place where you are in the know. you can find the commonwealth club on the internet at common wealth club.org. i

top court do the same it's time for a more open judiciary it's time for cameras in the supreme court find out more and take action have opened go to stock so well as had been up to put cameras in the court joining me now for more on this is my passion tony attorney and host of ring of fire radio and perhaps first of all welcome back it's great to have you here to be here in the studio physically you know the same space. article three section two of the constitution says that the supreme court will operate under regulations established by congress would it be a simple thing for congress to pass a law saying that they have cameras and it's very easy i think the interesting point of this discussion is you have school out in front of cameras every chance he gets i mean this is a guy has been more public he falls over himself to get in front of cameras saying right way really if you watch if you if you've watched roberts if you if you've watched a couple these guys just in the last six or seven months and but now. they say we don't want you in our court room well you know the truth is the

court has played a huge and shameful role. >> i reached out to the supreme court, and a spokeswoman there told me court officials are in the process of viewing the video and courtroom screening procedure. he tells me he passed through security just like everyone else, but he would not tell me how he got the camera in. and people may b i asked if thed that people might be able to get things that are more dangerous in? she would not reply. >> appreciate it. thank you. months after it officially open there had is still a lot of opposition to a mosque in tennessee. but a public outcry has created a partnership between two religious minorities. >> reporter: every day begins and ends with prayer. for the second time ever rasheed and his fellow muslims embark to house of worship, men, women, young and old. they all travel from their nashville mosques to a jewish temple on the other side of town. >> we want to build a generation of muslims and jews who work together and work for the betterment of our community he here. >> reporter: the coming together of the two relationship groups come as

that is supreme court heard arguments in a case that challenges an e.p.a. requirement that companies get permits anytime they want to construct new plants or factories or amid a lot of greenhouse gases and thus increase pollution they go and republicans view that requirement as part of a larger environmental power grab by president obama even though it's actually an existential step to helping to combat pollution and climate change so what's the bottom line on the latest assault against the v.a. and what happens if the supreme court decides against the obama administration joining me now for more on the case is shane farnham supreme court reporter for talk radio news service chain welcome back thank you so much good to have you who are the players in this case where does it come from and what's the what's the there will be lot of plaintiffs in this case and a bunch of different cases were filed in the kind of not even in conjunction they each different industry groups different states states that are very dependent on the energy industry texas was the leade

supreme court john paul stevens is out with his book. how and why we should change the constitution. i want to get you to respond one of his amendments that he proposed. stevens believed the authors of the second amendment were concerned about the threat that a national standing army posed to the sovereignty of the states as opposed to homeowners' anxiety about violent felons. he thinks the best way is to amend the second amendment. he would do that by adding five words. a well regulated militia being -- guest: he is way on the fringe. you poll the american people, they don't want to change the constitution. they actually -- over 80% of people support the constitution in its current form. and in the decision which he sat in and was a minority, they made it very clear. they went back to the founding as far as document and established once and for all that there are two separate clauses. that was a concern with the tyrannical government and the other part was an individual right to keep and bear arms and god gave us this individual right a

supreme court, to follow what's written there. john: thank you, students, thank you, tim, and later in the show, begin that most of your fellow students are left wingers, we'll have a debate about the best way to argue with them, bbut next, this art exhibit, this picture of it, the sculpture of a sleepwalking man in his underwear is upsetting students at one college, and they demand it be removed. should it be? that's when we come back. that's when we come back. [cheers and applause] my dad has aor afib.brillation, he has the most common kind... ...it's not caused by a heart valve problem. dad, it says your afib puts you at 5 tes greater risk of a stroke. that's why i take my warfarin every day. but it looks like maybe we should ask your doctor about pradaxa. in a clinical trial, pradaxa® (dabigatran etexilate mesylate)... ...was proven superior to warfarin at reducing the risk of stroke. and unlike warfarin, with no regular blood tests or dietary restrictions. hey thanks for calling my doctor. sure. pradaxa is not for people wit

that is supreme court heard arguments in a case that challenges an e.p.a. requirement that companies get permits anytime they want to construct new plants or factories will emit a lot of greenhouse gases and thus increase pollution they go and republicans view that requirement as part of a larger environmental power grab by president obama even though it's actually an existential step to helping to combat pollution and climate change so what's the bottom line on the latest assault against the p.a. and what happens if the supreme court decides against the obama structure joining me now for more on the case is shane farnham supreme court reporter for talk radio news service chain welcome back thank you so much but have you who are the players in this case where does it come from and what's the what's the there will lot of plaintiffs in this case a bunch of different cases were filed in the kind of not even in conjunction they each different industry groups different states states that are very dependent on the energy industry texas was the leader of the state

and no one is going to do that in front of the supreme court. no one is going to showboat in front of the supreme court. >> and congress can just pass a law, jonathan, and say this, and say too bad, we don't care what the justices say. >> they can. justices have said, i'll resign if you do that. and i think the respectful answer is, thank you for your service. and you passed the law. because they're treating themselves like they're a meeting of the illuminati. that saw somehow this is required for good justice. i'm telling you, probably something of a suspicion that i think the real reason is that justices want the insulation. sometimes justices come off quite arrogant in these arguments. other justices, when they finally went in front of cameras, they were found to be incompetent. we have had justices who gave a single televised interview, and they were gone, because it was so embarrassing. >> no matter what, it is our system, and we would love it to be an open one. of course i'm biased, i'm tv. jonathan it turley, it thank you very much. >> th

john: and the supreme court, for the most part, has not symptommed them. >> the supreme court goes with joust overreaching, especially in the obamacare case. what happened was the supreme court said, well, the can't force people to buy things. now, that was, itself, actually a huge victory for individual freedom. can you imagine what would have happened if it came out the other way, if congress suddenly had the poweto force us to buy whatever politicians think we should have? the court said then, wll, but we're still going to uphold oba care because it's not the role of the courts to protect people from the political choices, and that's false. it is the role of theourts to enforce the constitution, which is a limt on political choices. john: any supreme cou cases -- [applause] that you're happy with? >> there are. john: ick two. >> when i fell in love with the constitution in ninth grade and learned of the court's decision, tinker versus des moines school district, black arm bands protesting the vietnam war, and their teahers said not to do this, and they sued and sai we have a first am

supreme court justice mailing it in? jeffrey toobin is here to explain why he's suggesting that the supreme court justice clarence thomas is engaged in what he calls a disgraceful silence. >>> and posting online pictures of gruesome x-rays and talking about it. when jake and i first set out on our own, we ate anything. but in time you realize the better you eat, the better you feel. these days we both eat smarter. and i give jake purina cat chow naturals. made with real chicken and salmon, it's high in protein like a cat's natural diet. and no added artificial flavors. we've come a long way. and whatever's ahead, we'll be there for each other. naturally. purina cat chow naturals. how much money do you think you'll need when you retire? then we gave each person a ribbon to show how many years that amount might last. i was trying to, like, pull it a little further. [ woman ] got me to 70 years old. i'm going to have to rethink this thing. it's hard to imagine how much we'll need for a retirement that could last 30 years or

john: and the supreme court, for the mosost part, has not symptommed them. >> the supreme court goes with joust overreaching, especially in the obamacare case. what happeneas the supreme court said, well,the government can't force people to buy things. now, that was, itself, actually a huge victory for individual freedom. can you imagine what would have happened if it came out the other way, if congress suddenly had the power to force us to bu whatever politicians think we should have? the court said then, well, but we're still going o uphold obama care because it's not the role of the courts to protect people from the political choices, and that's faalse. iti the role of the courts to enforce the constitution, which is a limit on political choices. john: any supreme court cases -- [applause] that you're happy with? >> there are. john: pick two. >> when i fell in love with the cotitution in ninth grade and learned of the court's decision, tinker versus des moines school district, black arm bands protestg the vietnam war, and their teachers said not to do this, and they sued and said

to be clear, there's the supreme court. and there's the circuit court and the district court. this is the third level down from the supreme court. how important is this ruling beyond just the question of texas couples and whether or not it may result in their marriages. >> i think very important. usually think of the district court being lowest on the tote empole so they can get overruled. one thing trial courts are given deference on are facts. what this judge did was synced himself to other courts from kansas to california and whatever. gay parents are just as good as straight parents. he cited other district court cases. he's creating a web or a net that it's going to be very hard for an appellate court or supreme court to supersede. >> essentially trying to say those questions of fact whether or not gay people can be good parents, those questions of fact are being settled around the country all in the same direction. and so what we're going to be argues about at the appellate level is constitutional issues and not the factual matters. >> i would hang a caveat on that. unle

the supreme court explicitly didn't decide it at the same time. can we talk about attorney holder's role? for the first year and a half in his tenure he defended doma. that tells me as a lawyer he believed there was some basis, rational basis to defend the law, to ethicily go into court and do it. he obviously believed that he did. then when the flip happened -- he backed out of the defense of doma, presumably with the request of the president who, mind you, supported same-sex marriage when running for president. i'm not quite sure where it became obviously unconstitutional. as an attorney general, not merely a lawyer, he somehow felt that there was no basis all of a sudden to defend that which he had a basis. >> i'm going to shock you. we actually agree on something. you shocked us last time. i'm going to shock you this time. you are in the same situation that the attorney general is talking about. there was a law that you couldn't defend but you also made sure someone else did. i think that is the right answer. >> and that is the way -- his prob

president's rule by fiat, facing the test, supreme court looking into some of his recent decrees. best selling author brad thor will join us next. in the new new york, we don't back down. we only know one direction: up so we're up early. up late. thinking up game-changing ideas, like this: dozens of tax free zones across new york state. move here. expand here. or start a new business here... and pay no taxes for 10 years. with new jobs, new opportunities and a new tax free plan. thers only one way for your business to go. up. find out if your business can qualify at start-upny.com lou: a commissioner sounding the alarm about obama administration plan to stifle freedom of press, planning to well investigate to look into, newsrooms television station newsroom across the country talking with reporters, editors, station owners about how they decide when stories that run, and how much of those stories and why they may be perceived as based. my next guest said that the plan is latest example of the weaponnization, of the federal government. joining us how, "new york times" best selling

. >> but for -- for now, it's approved by the supreme court, and like voters across the united states, the people of the state of ohio approve of the ultimate sanction. . in what way could it change in >> it would change in judges, legislators have or governors of state were required to be there or required to start the procedure by hitting a button that sent these chemicals into these people they kill. >> so you maintain if people had to face the consequences of the judgments they make personally, they might not be so quick to make those judgments? >> i do make that argument, yes. >> and what -- would you want people to know about what you saw that day? maybe someone who is watching this program who considers themselves a strong supporter of the death penalty? >> the natural human inclination is to preserve life. in that room, i felt trapped. a fellow human being was dying. no matter what he had done himself, the natural inclination is to try to help him, and i was unable to. gathered with a room full of people watching this whole horrible saga unfold, and the agony with which one is

supreme court. i do not think a secret court should ever be deciding the constitutionality of a fourth amendment case in secret. that goes against everything our country was founded upon. >> that does raise one other issue. a number of the presidents and the question of when somebody has standing to be able to challenge a presidential executive order and whether a senator has that standing, are you going to challenge it based on your own communications? >> you make a good point. what has happened in the past people have said i think they're spying on me. we have no evidence that they were spying. they said prove it. they would not give us any information. now with the revelations that come from edward snowden, we know they're spying on us. if you have a verizon or at&t phone, you know the government has your records. we have had at least one district court decision come out of d.c. were they said you have standing. we think this is unconstitutional. we think we have a great chance on the standing ar

court has played a huge and shameful role. >> i reached out to the supreme court. a spokesperson there told me court officials are in the process of reviewing the video and screening procedures. tony newkirk was able to get the camera in, but he would not tell me how he snuck the camera in. >> i want to know. >> i asked if they are worried that people will get more dangerous things into court, and the spokeswoman would not comment. >> disrupting discorruptions. what about the recording video. is that illegal. >> no, but it is against court rules. court justices have said they're concerned that cameras will disrupt their work. >> i was writing that word down, didisruption. that kind of disruption leads to conversation that are needed and necessary. roxana, thank you. >> the frozen zoo. the folks from techno will show us how scientists are trying to save endangered species before they go extinct. >> the white rhino is one of the world's most beautiful and yet endangered species. if there is any hope of saving the animal it will come from san diego's world famous zoo.

. >> but for now, it's approved by supreme court, and like voters across the wrights, the people of the state of ohio, approve of the ultimate sanction. in what way could it change? it can change very quickly if judges, legislators and governors of states were either required to be there or required to start the procedure by hitting a button that sent these chemicals into these people they killed. you maintain if people had to face the consequences of the judgements they make personally, they may not be so quick to make those judgements in. >> i do make that argument, yes. >> and what would you want people to know about what you saw that day maybe someone who is watching this program who considered themselves a support european union of the death penalty? >> the natural human inclination is to preserve life. in that rooming, i felt trapped. a fellow human being was dying. no matter what heed ha done himself, the natural inclination is to try to help him, and i was unable to. gather with the room full of people watching this whole horrible saga unfold. and thing any, including his own ch

the supreme court recently heard opening arguments for a case called the harris quinn it's a decision involving home care workers employed by the state of illinois who are resisting their state union choosing instead to opt out of the mandatory union fees for representation the concern among supporters for labor unions is that the supreme court could overturn almost forty years worth of legal precedent that is given leverage for the organized labor movement and of all on the surface this case seems fairly innocuous and knock us excuse me as it has received little to no attention by the corporate media its outcome could have damning implications for the future of unions and middle class workers all across the nation earlier today i was joined by craig bakker general counsel with the a.f.l. c.i.a.o. to discuss this case and i first asked him why it's problematic that state were. opt out of pain union fees. there's nothing problematic with people opting out and that's what the law already provide so the law already provides and has provided for decades and no one is required to be a unio

supreme court. she was one of the first women to win such a big case in american history and as weddington later recalled, she went to the court's lawyer's lounge for one final stop before that historic argument and found there was no ladies room in the lawyer's lounge at all. sarah weddington joins us now, welcome. >> thank you, nice to be with you, ari. >> excellent. tell me how we are doing and whether we are anywhere near where you expected when you won that case, looking a generation forward. >> absolutely not. if anybody had said to me on january 22, 1973, you will still be talking about this in 41 years, i would never have believed that. by the way, they do have a ladies room now in the lawyers' lounge but only got it after two women were on the supreme court, sandra daye o'connor and ruth bader ginsburg, and what we're seeing now is a really acceleration of the actions trying to make abortion, if they can't make it illegal, which the opponents would like to do, then they are trying to make i

and then ultimately the supreme court. in alexandria peggy fox, wusa9 news. >> it's no accident virginia has become a battle state for gay marriage after last year's pro gay rights ruling by the supreme court. the legal fight in virginia now goes to the richmond-based fourth circuit court of appeals, a court that has shifted to the left since president barack obama's election. >>> that long awaited report on bullying allegations in the miami locker room is finally seeing the light of day. >> no jacket yet, but as you are going out, you will need a jacket, temps falling quickly. 52 and 33 goes in the books, 47 and 31 the averages, been as warm as 73 and cold as 4 on this date. we've come >>> following up on breaking news right now at least nine people injured in an accident on 495. you're looking live at the scene right now. sky9 is over river road in maryland. a 25-year-old woman has life threatening injuries. 1 child has serious but nonlife threatening injuries and seven other children are hurt with less serious injuries,

supreme court to do so, and the u.s. supreme court did put a hold on it as sonia sotomayor. the judge said, you know, i know what the supreme court did there. i'm going to do the same thing. solves any problem about what may happen to people who are married in the interim. this goes to the fourth circuit court of appeals, so now we have laws from at least three states in the appeals courts from -- before now, virginia, oklahoma, utah and nevada, so it is going to be sort of a race to see which one gets to the supreme court first and whether the supreme court ultimately decides to take this case, wouldn't be this term, maybe next term. >> well, to your point, all this follows action in just the past couple of days concerning same sex marriage bans, also in kentucky, louisiana and alabama. what can you tell us about that? >> it is right. we have had now not only rulings on same sex marriage from places i guess you might predict it would come in the northeastern states, but utah was a surprise, now we had rulings by judges appointed by republicans, we had rulings on similar que

supreme court recently heard opening arguments for a case called the harris quinn it's a decision involving home care workers employed by the state of illinois who are resisting their state union choosing instead to opt out of the mandatory union fees for representation the concern among supporters for labor unions is that the supreme court could overturn almost forty years worth of legal precedent that is given leverage for the organized labor movement and on the surface this case seems fairly innocuous and knock us excuse me as it has received little to no attention at the corporate media its outcome could have damning implications for the future of unions and middle class workers all across the nation earlier today i was joined by craig bakker general counsel with the a.f.l. c.i.a.o. to discuss this case and i first asked him why it's problematic that state work. there's opt out of pain union feeds. there's nothing problematic with people opting out and that's what the law already provide so the law already provides and has provided for decades and no one is required to be a union member

there have been supreme court justices there that have been murdered. it's been a reign of terror. >> do you know what remains to be seen? is he going to get out in another laundry basket, a suitcase of money on someone's desk so he gets spirited out through the back door or the sewage system. because this is his m.o. >> and that's why the united states is going to be moving to have him extradited, so they get him in one of those maximum security prisons to prevent something like that from happening. >> and i'm wondering who is writing the screenplay on this one as we speak. this is "scarface" and worse. stick around. this is "legal view" and your experts, thank you. >>> investigators now taking a death threat that's been made against detroit police chief james craig seriously. police say the threat was made on a social media website. craig says the threat is likely a response to his department's recent drug raids. >> made a statement in street jargon, we need to clap him out. certainly, that was meant for me. he referenced the chief. because there's be

the supreme court repudiated him and the famous opinion by justice jackson which you quote he identified three categories of power so tell us about those categories are. >> this goes to the point that you made before about presidential power served to act with congress. justice jackson makes this point that the essential point is a good one. they happened in the news recently and it is an opportunity to say a little bit about them. an executive order isn't magic it's because it doesn't automatically make it okay. there has to be some justification to come from either constitutional authority or statutory. presidents can't do whatever they want and truman is a good example. pursuant to the un authorization which cannot trump the constitution so it was an illegitimate war. truman saw that there was going to be a strike in april of 1952 and truman said i cannot allow this to happen. it will hinder the effort and he issued an executive order offering the secretary of commerce to take control of the steel mills to make sure that it could be produced on the war effort. the steel factories didn

my attorneys tell me from watching and listening to the supreme court justices, they think there are at least five the indicated that the smith versus maryland case does not tell the nsa that they can collect everybody's phone records. i think this there is a very good chance the supreme court will expand the purview of the fourth amendment as corollary to that. i wanted to get immigration. let me follow up on a couple of things you just said. you talked about the intelligence committee. there is a split there. the leadership of the intelligence committee seems much more devoted to defending the nsa program as opposed to this coalition out there. there that split? what do the intelligence committee folks know? >> i think you have a select group of people that are in the hierarchy of these committees. the feel they are in programs. they are consulted. they get more information. the rest of us are left often with very little knowledge of these. many, including congressman sensenbrenner, were surprised with the patriot act. he was a supporter. it is been described as one of the co-autho

the supreme court recently heard opening arguments for a case called the harris quinn it's a decision involving home care workers employed by the state of illinois who are resisting their state union choosing instead to opt out of the mandatory union fees for representation the concern among supporters for labor unions is that the supreme court could overturn almost forty years worth of legal precedent that is given leverage for the organized labor movement and all on the surface this case seems fairly innocuous and knock us excuse me and as it has received little to no attention at the corporate media its outcome could have damning implications for the future of unions and middle class workers all across the nation earlier today i was joined by craig bakker general counsel with the a.f.l. c.i.a.o. to discuss this case and i first asked him why it's problematic that state work. there's opt out of pain feeds. there's nothing problematic with people opting out and that's what the law already provide so the law already provides and has provided for decades and no one is required to be a