the supreme court. >> are there perils to the press corps from reporting stories like this? >> i would say no, not really. i think individual journalists may from time to time offend individual justices, if they write stories that the justices don't like. guess what? those journalists still get to sit in and watch the supreme court work. they don't get, they don't lose their parking privileges or anything like that. they don't really pay a price for it. . . so we're making progress, but still the norm is that you don't talk to the justices. so there are really no privileges that they could withdraw from you or to punish you for a leak. the only downside, the danger of publishing a leak is if it's wrong, then you will embarrass yourself. >> i want to turn to amy. if lyle denniston brought your story, would you run on scotusblog? >> i don't know the answer to that. i think we probably would. if jan's story came straight -- if jan's said your editors, we've got it straight from someone with specific delibe

in the supreme court itself. i've really wanted to tell stories of how cases get to the supreme court and they don't land at the courthouse door fully bloomed, fully grown. it takes a lot of commitment by people involved, a lot of strategizing by lawyers. it's a hard slog often through the lower courts although some cases can get very complete depending on what happened in the lower courts. >> people may not realize the court takes only about one or 2% of all the cases we see. >> that's amazing when you consider they get on average about 8000 petitions every year from people who want the court to review their cases. as i was looking for the four cases, i wanted 5-4 decisions. i wanted those not to show that the court is always divided 5-4. it's not. in fact is you will find out in the book and as many of us who covered the court, more than 50% of the decisions issued by the supreme court are either unanimous 8-1 or 7-2. >> i had three unanimous cases yesterday. >> yes, so there's really a lot of consensus of acro

supreme court? for more i'm joined on our new york set here by michael price, counsel for the brennan center's policy for rights. we are giving this to transnational corporations to can't the government have it too? >> well i think this opinion is one in a debate that is going to the supreme court. but already we see that the decision is a bit of an outlier. if you consider the trend that we've been seeing towards nsa reform out of all three branches of government, it does seem to buck that trend a little bit. and as you mentioned there's the decision from judge leon just earlier this month finding that the program was likely unconstitutional, there's also legislation moving through contract that would limit the nsa's ability to collect data in bulk like this and a group of experts appointed by the president did an investigation of this program and determined, also just this month, that it hadn't actually made us any safer and should be stopped. >> so you think this will go to the u.s. supreme court

he wrote to the supreme court of the united states. >> the supreme court they have cases brought to the court by people who are too poor who are able to pay for their fees. gideon's was a hand written document online prison stationery. you couldn't imagine a simpler more elementary way to get to the highest court in the land. >> why would the supreme court decide to hear the case of a poor man already in prison. because the constitution allows even a poor man to be heard. lightning strikes from the ground up. it may have been sparked by gideon but they were on the court's justice ready to catch it. >> he was the most influential person in the courtroom system of all time. people should not be disadvantaged in getting justice because they are poor. the judge was viable for the constitution. it had the best constitution in the world and if we were tolerant it would be all right. on the morning of march 18th, the decision was announced from the supreme court. they said justice black said i have an announcement the decision and opinion of the court gideon against -- vindication for 20 years

he was not a clerk at the supreme court. he didn't follow the well trodden path from the white shoe law firm to the fancy clerkship to the big firm. tom is a self-starter. tom developed his practice by looking at the most likely route for cases to get to the supreme court and the lower courts are divided. one of the functions the supreme court sees for itself, harmonize how the law is enforced and viewed around the country. and so when that is what they call a circuit split, that's a likely case for the supreme court. tom developed a way to analyze the circuit split and to start saying maybe that's th a case tt can come to the supreme court. a lot of big law firms in washington were killed in a scotusblog. they had the people to do it. they had the smarts to do. they didn't do it. so one of the things we have to celebrate here today i think is the incredible spirit of entrepreneurship that kind to have brought to this, and they will never tell you that. but having imitators that have tried to be like scotusblog that have fiz

i have not been to the supreme court yet. what in the constitution gives obama the authority to remove a private industry ceo? second, what in the constitution has beenma, once a law made and it has been passed through and signed by him, that he cannot change? congress can only make amendments to the laws. the bottom line is i believe obama has overreached his authority much k much. it is progressive. he says he stands for change from democrats to progressives, because that is what has taken over the party. thank you, professor. i am not entirely sure what the reference to the removal of the ceo's is, but it may be under the recent financial reform legislation. i guess it is called the dodd- frank statute, and the other issue is the suspension of various, the enforcement of various provisions of the law. in both of those instances, the president's actions, at least the president's lawyers say that his actions are authorized by specific provisions in the statute or by a general authority of the executive branch to make decisio

most supreme court books focus on the nomination process or what is happening in the supreme court itself. but i wanted to tell stories of how the cases get to the supreme court. they don't land at the door fully grown. it takes a lot of commitment by the people involved. a lot of strategizing and it is hard slaw through the lower court. some cases get there quickly depending on what happened in the lower court. >> the court only takes 1-2 percent of all of the cases that reach them. >> they get about 8,000 petitions every year. as i was look for the four cases, i wanted 5-4 decisions. i wanted them not to show the court is always divided by four. it isn't, and in fact, as you will find out, more than 60% of the decisions issued are unanimous or close to that. i wanted 5-4 decisions because that is where we learn the most about individual justice and how they view certain provisions in the constitution and how they approach their job. i wanted signature decisions of the robert court. the court under john robert, jr. and these four cases will always be associated with the robert court. and

it says there shall be one supreme court. and article iii of the judicial article doesn't even mention the chief justice. it doesn't ascribe any functions to the chief justice. we only learn that there is a post chief justice because elsewhere the constitution it says that the chief justice preside over the trial of the presidential impeachment. so, you know, it scrolled been otherwise. there was six justices on the court. but, you know, on what it is. we kind of from the very beginning got elected to that. and you can do it. and, you know, on the federal court of appeal. the chief just judge in fact is the senior among those who have not yet reached the age of 55. that person becomes chief judge for seven years, i guess it is. yeah. >> what you think? >> suggest that the office of the role is not as important and why could we not develop a system where the chief justice is in fact the senior justice and fellow with the most experience? >> there would be nothing unconstitutional about that. if you're a -- originalist. there w

. >> a conversation with supreme court justice elena kagan about the inner workings of the supreme court. after that, a discussion of the constitution and the rule of justice with supreme court justice clarence thomas. then, the future of the republican party is seen by strategist anna navarro. >> next, supreme court justice elena kagan discussing the working of the u.s. supreme court at the university of alabama law school. >> i'm having to get used to that title. we appreciate your service in this role. i join inand welcoming justice kagan to the university of alabama. we are honored by your presence. i want to give you a few vital statistics about our speaker. she u.s.-born in new york city. she received her a.b. from princeton. she went to oxford where she was awarded a masters of philosophy. then a jd from harvard law school. on r law school she clerked the united states court of appeals for the d c circuit under justice marshall. she practiced for a while and washington d.c. and then became a law professor at the university of chicago. serve infrom there to president clinton's admi

the supreme court will say go to your congressman. there are attempt being made not scefltly to change a federal election loss in order to want to at least provide more public disclosure who is behind the funding of campaign. they haven't been to be get that through congress. so again, -- it's not 1900% clear. disclosure laws would be upheld. >> that's right. exactly. the court did it in citizens united on eight justices who did endorse the disclosure current requirements. only justice thomas dissented in that decision. i know it doesn't look very hopeful i think that congress is the way they're on a deeing regulation trend until the supreme court. >> what can change normal terms of obama or anyone else couldn't even get through nominations for regular courts though supreme court. >> the presidential elections do matter. >> hi, i'm jim. my question deals with roberts vote on the health care issue. do you think he was motivated by the fear that the court began to look like a political entity rather than a jurisprudence entity? >> you'r

supreme court at the university of alabama law school. this is an hour. >> i am having to get used to that title. we appreciate your service in this role. my family and i join in welcoming justice kagan to the university of alabama. we are honored by your presence. i want to give you a few vital statistics about our speaker. she u.s.-born in new york city. she received her a.b. from princeton. she went to oxford where she was awarded a masters of philosophy. then a jd from harvard law school. after law school she clerked on the united states court of appeals for the d.c. circuit under justice marshall. she practiced for a while in washington d.c. and then became a law professor at the university of chicago. she went from there to serve in president clinton's administration in several roles and then she went back to teaching at harvard and was subsequently named as dean of harvard law school, first female dean of the law school there. in 2009, president obama nominated her for solicitor general of the united states and she served in that o

it seems to me that when we've had previous rulings, it's been state supreme courts. state courts ruling on state laws. ruling on the tenants of their own state constitutions. or like in new mexico's case, the sort of awkward situation where some courts, some clerks are going ahead, but no state law that defines it either way. seems like we all thought those types of rulings were going to run out quickly. there's always a constitutional ban that written into the state constitution that says marriage does not include gay people and so, i did not know that the windsor ruling was going to mean that those states, those more than 30 states in their constitution would see those vulnerable. >> so that is amazing. can i just start by saying i'm really sad here because i think you'd make a lot better of a law professor than i would make media anchor. you were great. and just to recap, you know, the bullets there, is exactly this notion if we were running out, same-sex rights, marriage advocates are running out because if it's in a statutory level, so that plays keep away from

most supreme court books focus on the nomination process or what is happening in the supreme court itself. but i wanted to tell stories of how the cases get to the supreme court. they don't land at the door fully grown. it takes a lot of commitment by the people involved. a lot of strategizing and it is hard slaw through the lower court. some cases get there quickly depending on what happened in the lower court. >> the court only takes 1-2 percent of all of the cases that reach them. >> they get about 8,000 petitions every year. as i was look for the four cases, i wanted 5-4 decisions. i wanted them not to show the court is always divided by four. it isn't, and in fact, as you will find out, more than 60% of the decisions issued are unanimous or close to that. i wanted 5-4 decisions because that is where we learn the most about individual justice and how they view certain provisions in the constitution and how they approach their job. i wanted signature decisions of the robert court. the court under john robert, jr. and these four cases will always be associated with the robert court. and

. >> supreme court justice clarence thomas says antonin helped him adjust to life on the supreme court. his remarks came at the federalist society's national lawyers convention in washington, d.c. [applause] >> thank you, david. good evening, everyone. it is my great honor and pleasure to introduce our distinguished guest this evening. although much of what i might say by way of introduction is no doubt familiar to all of you. justice clarence thomas has served with great distinction on the united states supreme court for more than two decades now. he has been a friend of the federalist society for so long that most of you in this room already know him very well. [applause] but i think it is right for us to recall the extraordinary path that he traveled to reach our nation's highest court. not only for what it tells us about him, but for what it tells us about our country. as justice thomas himself put it in his remarkable memoir, "my grandfather's son," "i have never doubted the greatness of a country in which a person like me could travel all the way from georgia to our nation's capi

and the more congress pushed back against the supreme court, the more the supreme court seemed inclined to relent. and ultimately we saw the supreme court of the united states back down in the late-1930's from its -- what had been previously more rigorous, more restrictive interpretations of the spending clause and of the commerce clause. the supreme court ended up ado adopting a set of rules that would basically say that, as long as congress was acting broadly within the field of what could be loosely considered a regulation of interstate commerce, that the courts would stay away from second-guessing congress's determinations. the court, starting out with a case called nlrb v. jones and laughlin steel in 1937 and culminating with another case five years later in 1942 ended up concluding that congress may without interference from the courts regulate any activity that when measured and evaluated in the aggregate has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. regardless of whether the discrete activity in question might actually occur entirely intrastate, congress would be able to regu

one day, i showed up in a picture at the supreme court. i wish i could give you a better story than that. >> there must have been people you turned to. >> well, my wife. i met her in 1986 and that was the beginning of me going back to things that were most important in my life. and we prayed about everything that happened after that. good people who believed in me, like president bush. i did not know president bush when he nominated me to the d.c. circuit. my good friend, ricky silverman, insisted that i think about it. [applause] larry silverman counseled me about it. at every turn -- and it will probably be boring to you all because my life actually is pretty boring -- there were a series of good people who showed up. one of the things that became a priority, if you talk to people who come to new places and they do not have family, you can ask anyone in this room who does not have a structured family, you begin to assemble a family. that was the source of my difficulty with yale. yale had become the only family that i had. and then at a

one day, i showed up in the supreme court. [applause] >> i wish i could give you a better story than that. >> there must have been people you turn to. >> i met her in 1986 and that was the beginning of me going back to things that were most important in my life. and we prayed about everything that happened. ood people who believed in me, like president bush. i did not know president bush when he nominated me. my good friend, ricky silverman, insisted that i think about it. [applause] larry silverman counseled me bout it. at every turn, and it will probably be boring to you all because my life is pretty boring, there were a series of good people who showed up. one of the things that became a priority, if you talk to people who come to new places and they do not have family, you can ask anyone in this room who does not have a structured family, you begin to assemble a family. that was the source of my difficulty with yale. yale had become the only family that i had. at a critical juncture, they abandoned me. that was the big pro

by the supreme court. we've got the senate credential earlier this year and then applied to the court's press office at which point the court announced it was reviewing the credentialing practices. i think genuinely, the court is an institution that is very staid. its entire premise is that things shouldn't change that much. during the same-sex marriage case, i was gone -- i was not going to wait for them to report it. i was waiting for scotusblog -- so explain the nuts and bolts. >> the courtroom itself is a all caps. there are no electronic vices around. nots are for the most part in the courtroom. they are outside. is the point that the chief justice system at the justice in the has the opinion united states vs, windsor, they start handing out the opinions to the press corps. lyle will get his copy of the opinion and pete will be outside waiting for his copy of the opinion. and will talk to us about what the opinion says. we will be taking that into our live blog to go out to the rest of the world. >> s

tpeufirst woman to serve on the united states supreme court. been 112 appointments to the supreme court. you were 18. is that correct? white?u replaced justice >> either 107 or 108. > you were the second woman appointed to the supreme court, just 20 years ago this year. to the court an when it finally had a woman you came on the court two women justices? say what it is leak female.h three justices, >> when sandra was asked that question what does it mean to woman, she said if you think i'm glad ruth bader insberg has come on board you cannot imagine the joy of john -- o'connor toze be no longer the lone male spouse. [laughter] > she was there all alone for 12 years. a sign that women were there to when i was appointed. hey did a renovation in our robing room. up until then there was a men.oom and it was labeled so, when sandra was at a the need arose she had to go back to her chambers. a women's led athroom equal in size to the men men's. so, things were changing. or every year that we sat together, that justice o'connor nd i sat together, inva

say, no, it's okay, maybe the supreme court stays out of it. >> and the supreme court is likely to do what in terms of they are very, very cautious about challenging previous decisions that they've made. >> that's true, although just in 2012 in a case involving gps devices, five different justices, albeit in concurring opinions, expressed hesitation about this old rule, saying that new technology might require re-examination of the idea that merely because third parties know our data, we lose an expectation of privacy in it. >> if this issue does make it to the supreme court, is there any indication how the justices would break? is this a liberal versus a conservative issue? >> if you look at it through the lens of national security, the answer would be yes. if you look through the lens of fourth amendment more generally, the court has been scrambled and a conservative like justice scalia has occasionally taken a more protective attitude towards privacy rights, so it depends which lens you look at it through. >> adam liptack from "the new york times," thanks so much. >> good to be her

the supreme court didn't have that. it said you can still do it but it raised the bar universities have to clear in order to justify affirmative action. it certainly didn't stop affirmative action. there's now a pending question about whether a state can block affirmative action by constitutional amendment. the court will decide that this term. >> coming up next in the coming year, what are the big cases aside from affirmative action that are going to reach the court or reach decision stage. >> i think the most interesting one is the challenge to the part of obama care that requires employers of 50 people to provide contraceptive coverage. there were dozens and dozens of lawsuits against this around the country filed by businesses who say it violates their religious freedom in order to provide this coverage. now, first of all, there's an interesting question here. does a business have a religious belief, does it have religious freedom. some courts said, no. that's an individual view. crazy to say a business has religiou

i want to get this supreme court justice on the supreme court and a lifetime appointment. i want to appeal your ruling because i'm sick and tired of the other side not cooperating with me on what i want done, i've had enough of it; i'm going to get my way. my team is together. they're all going to vote just like me, and even though your ruling was correct under our rules, we're going to set that aside. we are going to vitiate it, and we're going to get our way because my team -- my team -- is in control. that's where we're at today. you see, these rules have been changed over time. they were changed in accordance with our rules. i see the leader is here. madam chairman, i will yield the floor. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader of th. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on the patterson nomination that at 5:00 p.m. on monday, december 16, all postcloture time be considered expired, the senate then proceed to vote on the confirmation of the patt

court of the united states today i think is mediocre and the supreme court. it doesn't have very many first-rate lawyers. the chief justice was an appellate lawyer and he certainly qualified but many of the others are professorial and they are good professors but when you see some of the opinions that come down the really lack practical insight as to what happens in the courtroom. the supreme court needs a few practicing lawyers particularly practicing criminal lawyers who worked on the defense. there were several former prosecutors but the judges often are arrogant, the irrigate with the juries should do and i think it's an unsettling relationship and by the way there should be a contentious relationship between the judges and lawyers. they have to defend their clients and i don't like what i call sara lee's lawyers. nobody doesn't like sara lee. i'm not sara lee. a lot of people don't like me including some judges and i think it's good that way. >> let me dig into some controversial areas. if you have any thoughts about the situation at israel? >> really in

the supreme court, i think, the concerns in the supreme court, have this twilsed notion that there are -- there is a need for expanded rights for some people, at least anthony kennedy had this definition, but not for other people. so basically say, okay, well, gay rights is a thing of the future, to be progressive on, that but rights for blacks and hispanics, that's a thing of the past, that's a protection we don't need, and i think that's twisted because rights are rights. we should have protections for all people. but the supreme court doesn't seem to think this way. >> sherrilyn, this is fascinating. connect it back to what tremain was saying, what we saw if 2012 and 2013, some interesting new coalitions being built around prominent african-americans taking pro marriage e equality stances, particularly in space i they hadn't previously, for me the moment when phil robertson is talking about experiencing african-americans laboring next to him as happy read to me more as -- i mean, that's strategic on the part of black folks living in the deep south. a lot of times we present happines

you know, yet to steven's point about the supreme court, it is not unusual for the supreme court to ask the administration to weigh in on a case that the administration has not already weighed in on. >> and they might not take the case. >> they may not take the case. it is certainly an indication when they do ask the administration to weigh in on something, it is often an indication it is something they do want to take up and they want to know the administration's position before doing so. >> tony buckley writes in regarding the family. is there a winning argument, charles, against the administration's position they're taking? if so, what is it? >> i think the argument is a rather complicated one. an interesting one. i think ultimately it's a question of whether a personal interpretation of your religion would be the grounds for giving you asylum on the grounds of persecution. or whether it has to be a widespread one. for example, if germany had denied the family the ability to declare the godhood of christ, it would be no question that would be persecution of a christian on the grounds

on the key supreme court decisions of 2013. we will be joined by mark tushnet, harvard university law professor. capitol christmas tree. phone opening up our lines for you. you want to know who you think that person is and why he or she deserves the title. phone lines are open. democrats -- if you are outside the u.s. -- catch up with us on all your favorite social media pages on facebook or twitter or e-mail us. you.y good morning to thank you for joining us on this christmas morning. talking about your political heroes for 2013. the question is up on the facebook page. we will also be reading your tweets this morning. this question posted on the facebook page last night. already over 1200 response to it. allen writes in on the facebook page, elizabeth warren is the best senator we have up there. taking on the big tanks and student loan debt crisis. says--low that tony a few other heroes being pointed says ted cruzle or rand paul is her hero. the phone lines are open. we will be taking your calls on the subject. edward snowden

will this now head to the supreme court? >>> and the economy may be bouncing back but our poll shows most americans don't feel it. why some will soon feel even more pain. >>> and a story of a canine combat vet who used to sniff out roadside bombs in afghanistan and now patrols the pentagon. wolf blitzer is off today. i'm brianna keilar. you're in "the situation room." >>> a federal judge today ruled the massive collection of data on virtually every phone call in the united states is legal. that comes just a week after another federal judge said it's probably unconstitutional. let's go straight now to cnn justice correspondent evan perez. so we're hearing two very different things here. >> right. you have two district judges, one in new york, one in d.c., they look at the same set of facts, the same program run by the nsa, and they've decided two separate and different, opposite conclusions essentially. what this judge in new york said today you go back to 9/11 and you see what the government might have missed before 9/11 and

supreme court. we have two or three justices on the u.s. supreme court who openly say now that we are not so much slaves to every court decision that has been decided ahead of us to say now i'm sorry we were wrong in that decision and go back to a time before the most recent supreme court decision. so that actually gives me some hope that some of this is the challenge say in a legal sense. we now have some justices on the supreme court that might be willing to as you say call back or roll back the clock to some decisions that have been made. the second hopeful sign that this is always painful to wait for it is there is kind of a pendulum or -- i have have a potential review of history how it goes so far and finally it's enough that i will say just a quick story. i'm from california. the california republican party has apparently hit rock autumn. there's a two-thirds democratic majority in the legislature. at the hoover institution we have ahead of the american republican party and we were giving him a brilliant ideas about how they could do

the supreme court gets visitors from around the world. i have met with school children as young as second grade. grammar school, high school, college, professional not just law schools, i meet with students who are going to be doctors, with students who are going to be businessmen. i meet with groups of all kinds that are represented in this society who come to the court and meet with the justices to have conversations about what we do. we get visitors from around the world, judges from around the world. i told you earlier that people around the world read our cases and study our legal system, and they come to our court looking to meet with us and to talk to us and for each of us to learn from each other. and i travel. i travel to law schools, i travel to bar association groups. i travel to other kinds of groups as well because i want to reach out and teach people about the law and about how it makes me so passionate about what i do. you know, if in one meeting with people i can get them to understand our legal system a little bit better,

the supreme court will decide. arere employed by these companies are legally entitled to no cost estimate approved contraception coverage. >> the obama administration moves to rein in tax-exempt organizations. immigration rereform and the limitations of the pesidency. >> if in fact i could solve these problems without passing laws in congress, then i would do so. new pope on trickle- down economics. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> " the wall street journal" calls president obama possibly a with iran a triumph. "the new york times" says that the deal will make the safer -- the world safer for now. lindsay graham does not buy it. with peoplealing who are untrustworthy and this is a m murderous regime. it has not made thehe world a safer plplace. >> i believe in wh kennedy once said, let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate. jerusalem post" says this may slow down iran, but all more than likely provide false impression that there has been headway while

moving on now to the supreme court. gay rights. i mean just fundamental shift in this the subject that seems to me not just as at the supreme court but elsewhere. >> so fundamental that you saw a number of republicans come in and out favor of gay marriage. it's revolving on that issue. it really has been a water shed year for that issue. i think it's interesting that in 2016 you'll have democrats who for the first time have to run as being in favor of gay marriage. that wasn't true in the last election. it's interesting. >> i think what's amazing will be exactly as you say, this will be a wedge issue on the republican side. ten years ago we had republicans pushing a federal marriage amendment in the senate to ban gay marriage. now it's become an issue. 40% of the country is going to be in states that are tolerant of gay marriage. and that number is only going to grow. i think it's absolutely okay. every democrat, i believe, will be for same-sex marriage. the question will be the libertarian brand of the republican party support thi

if they don't like the action of the supreme courts, they will appeal the supreme court to the u.n. they say, well, that's what we do in this a democratic process. that's what the people of the land do in a democratic process. that's not what is done from boston and san francisco is we pull the strings on what is and is not going to be done with the legitimacy of israeli law, a law, by the way, that goes back to the beginning of the judeo-christian ethic. i hope that answers your question. is there another question here? do you have a question? with that, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for having me. i hope to come back to a hearing room soon. thank you. [applause] >> is there a than fiction author or book you'd like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail at and they're not my keywords. arbaugh's words. i asked a couple of questions. when you look at the constitution empower the president, does the president have the power to transform america? of course not. why would you want to fundamentally transform? you don't like america very much, do you? you i capitalism, p

comment. >> they're the supreme court. >> christine and i were talking about this issue. and i think what we're doing is forcing congress to act. it's the purview of congress. and what they're saying is, look, we have a judicial job to do which is to determine constitutionality. but you guys in congress, if you want you've formality among states, that's up for you to decide. and new york state, of course, we have the online tax and that was challenged. it was upheld by the court of appeals. in illinois, however, they attempted to model a law right after new york concerning online retailers and it was struck down. that's why there was some hope whenever there's a sorts of a patch work of different states having different laws, the supreme court steps in. but they said, you guys in congress, you decide. >> and you're looking at a 20-year-old ruling. >> that guy. >> and online commerce has changed so much since then. back then we said don't tax it because it will kill the internet. no one is going to kill the internet. >> the internet lives. >> it thiefz. and i love the timi

the case that was before the supreme court last year and the decision they made was on the fundamental foundation of the law. let's remember there is a chance that the entire law can get thrown out. this is a very careful point of the law. if you believe contraception can or cannot be covered, this is an important issue. what the justices decide, i do not think it will fundamentally change the law or make its future more or less certain. >> last question. november 30 was the self-imposed deadline by secretary sebelius on fixing healthcare.gov. how important is it to the actual success of the law but it works this time around for people? >> you have to look at the folks who are running around the states who are in the same position as the people who are more anxious than anybody. it is extremely stressful for the administration setting the deadline. it keeps them calm thank you to them from supporting legislation that has more fundamentals of the law. >> the indications are that it will still be problematic going forward. there are probably going to be other things that are not going to

the supreme court of the u.s. is the most respected institution in our government and has been for a long time. tell us about why that is? >> i would add that it is probably the most suspected high court in the world. one reason is that we have been involved in passing on laws and executive actions of constitutionality. in other countries in the world, parliamentary supremacy -- it wasn't until world war ii that courts abroad began to engage in judicial review for constitutionality. just to take a few notable cases, when president truman decided that the country was at war in korea i could not risk a strike at a steel plant, he took over the steel mills. that was challenged. the courthouse, mr. president, you do not have that authority alone. you need congress to be with you. what did truman do? that is remarkable to many courts in the world. we have an excellent police staff at the court. we have no guns. we do not have our own purse. when the supreme court makes a decision like that, probably the most are medica

we learned the supreme court is set to review it. we will hear the case may be as early as march. what does this add to the mention of understanding what the provisions of the law actually will be? is there a possibility that the review will go farther? who supported the requirements, they are very concerned of the consideration. you can our group does argue whether there's some debate over whether they can have this on their own. did would see this as they with the legislative amendment that was put forward. they're certainly very nervous about it. >> it is important to keep in mind that there has been a lot of talk of the law is back before the supreme court. the case that was before the supreme court last year and the decision they made was on the fundamental foundation of the law. chanceemember there is a that the entire locking get thrown out. this is a very -- law can get thrown out. this is a very careful point of the law. if you believe contraception can or cannot be covered, this is an important issue. what the justices decide, i do not think it will fundamentally change

supreme court. especially with the -- finished by the u.s. supreme court. the agency has been collecting phone records for some time now. tapping into conversations as part of the war on terror. but do it do so in contradiction to the constitution? mike viqueria reports. >> metadata is likely in violation of the constitution, specifically the fourth amendment prohibitions against unlawful search and seizure. no court has ever recognized a special need to sufficiently justify continuous daily searches of virtually every american citizens. it is important in the ruling that judge lee oaf leon stayed s ruling. giving the government a chance to appeal. they have seen the court ruling they are studying it they go on, quote, we believe the program is constitutional as previous judges have found. we have no further comment at this time. they add for background, the fisa court that hears appeals and when the intelligence community wants to go for warrants, and other investigative tools, to look into potential terrorist threats or security threats they go to the fis

and the supreme court, you still need 60 votes to get to the vote. that fundamentally changes the way that the senate works? >> it does. but, look, anytime a party changes rules that benefit that party, they later come to regret it when the next party is in power. and i have to say, this moment, i think, is sort of illustrative of why folks are so uninspired by congress, because process politics is uninspiring stuff. this really doesn't include -- >> -- only thing four of us can soundly agree on, is the senate working? no. >> no. it's not working, because it's ground to a halt from filibusters. i mean, we have huge -- the huge abuse of filibusters. so, i think this is an issue, you should come back next year and say, are things working better, because people can actually get through a process and we can have a functioning government, because you can then have cabinet secretaries instead of people just -- there's no one home at these agencies, because we have crazy use of filibusters. >> all of the president wanted and what harry reid and the democrat

court decision. >> what is the core reason for the system being broken? is it simply a matter of not enough money or is it a matter of there not being enough interest by qualified attorneys to do this kind of work, some kind of combination, something else? >> i think it's a combination of things. there are several systemic realms. there is a culture in the courts where sometimes among public defenders there's a sort of her gbagbo about like how much work can you do without complaining, so the culture of the courts can fuel that especially among judges who have an attitude of move the cases along, clear the docket and let's keep these going, keep the calendar clear. so there is that culture and then there is big financial problems and financial disincentives so there is often not enough public defenders so their caseloads get to hide. that's another huge problem. and then there is also a problem with the way that public defenders are paid in many states. for example out in wishing to an state one of the cases that i wrote about out there, they have these t

supreme court. this is the "cbs morning news." court. this is the "cbs morning news." going to the kmart winter sales event? good. get up to 60% off winter apparel, and shop your way members get 10% back in points. kmart. get in. get more. >> as a kid, i made a list of all the places i wanted to visit. i'm still not gonna make it to mars, but, thanks to hotwire's incredibly low travel prices, i can afford to cross more things off my list. this year alone, we went to the top of the statue of liberty and still saved enough to go to texas, to a real dude ranch. hotwire checks the competition's rates every day so they can guarantee their low prices, so we got our four-star hotels for half price. next up, hollywood! >> men: ♪ h-o-t-w-i-r-e, hotwire.com. ♪ >> man: save big on car rentals too, from $11.95 a day. turn to roc® retinol correxion®. one week, fine lines appear to fade. one month, deep wrinkles look smoother. after one year, skin looks ageless. high performance skincare™ only from roc®. take skincare to the next level with new roc® multi correxion® 5 in

the supreme court going to force the airlines to reinstate these? >> no. >> no? >> if you are a pain in the butt can you lose your miles. >> don't be a pain in the butt. >> wait a minute, if you have a million miles and the guy can say you are a pain in the butt, bye. doesn't seem to be fair. >> it's written in the law. the states have the ability to do that. so he is trying to see if the feds will help them out. i think you file 300 personal complaints not 400. >> is that what he did? >> not that many but a lot. he is that guy. >> i feel bad. >> oh, jeesh. >> i'm going to get a hand glider. ladies, thank you. krauthammer on deck. atheism attacking christianity the topic this evening. charles is next. >>> back of the book segment tonight. american atheists on the rise. some are attacking christianity. according to a survey by the pew research center, just 2.4% of americans say they are atheist. just over 3% say they are ago not stick, gnostic. that means they don't know. 40% are not affiliated with any religion. times square obnoxious sign put up by eighth its gr

i guarantee you in our lifetime we will see a supreme court nominee put on the supreme court by this method. i guarantee you that we will see whether it's in our lifetime or at some point after, we will see that you will have a situation where legislation is now done by a majority. and what does that mean for the country? well, let me give you a good example. the great compromise protected states like nevada. it protected states like nebraska and iowa. we all get two senators. we all get to come to the floor and fight for what we believe in. i will say what i would imagine every united states senator will say. i come from a beautiful state, the state of nebraska, where conservative people by nature -- we're conservative people by nature. i don't think you live in nebraska unless you have a pioneer spirit and you're conservative by nature. that's who we are. we signed -- kind of essentially believe that less good is a good idea. you know, when i was governor, people didn't want me running their schools. they had a school board. they thought they could make thoughtful, intelligent deci

court well the roof of the ruling itself is not really a surprise because supreme court in other courts have been saying this is roughly the same thing about the standard of including something into the ward new age if it's a regular and if it's it's it paid out without regard to the performances of those then it is or new age. i think the significance is that the korean way system has become a convoluted and distorted because of the lack of clear guidelines but less info i think they'll fix that and it did this uncertainties that they were facing because of this to the massive losses they were talking but probably that aspect isn't in many minds at this point because people know that there with the standard is so low. let people say that they their remaining also to tease that could spell on loan last fall with the latest ruling the certainties for business groups they say it will be increased costs to think that this word really impacts negatively future batsman and growth for korean companies i think there will be some impact but i think it would be a short time and not as much as th

supreme court? >>> plus, running behind. are you one of the unlucky people still waiting for your christmas package? u.p.s. and fedex, they say they can explain why you didn't get it. mom ] be right there, baby. [ muffled noises ] oops. ow. sorry. [ baby crying ] ♪ [ female announcer ] new pampers. unlike ordinary diapers with 2 layers, pampers have 3 absorbent layers, to stay up to 3 times drier, so babies can sleep soundly all night. ♪ wishing you love, sleep and play. pampers. wishing you love, sleep and play. wout of landfills each year? plastic waste to cover mt. rainier by using one less trash bag each month, we can. and glad forceflex bags stretch until they're full.* so you can take them out less often. where does the united states get most of its energy? is it africa? the middle east? canada? or the u.s.? the answer is... the u.s. ♪ most of america's energy comes from right here at home. take the energy quiz. energy lives here. >>> another victory for advocates of same-sex marriage. a federal court has refused

if you fly supreme court may have a message for you about legal action. is it legal? then, krauthammer on the atheist movement in usa. why is it so hateful towards christian hz? stay tuned. >> stossel and i were talking in the hallway. you think it's going to survive? >> you and carl rove think it's going to implode >> i say no government program ever goes away. but that doesn't matter if folks rebel against it, handcuffing president obama can't do anything. that is what i think may happen. >> once people saying my deductible is up, i can't pick my doctor, both parties rush in with subsidies. >> they're never going to get that through the house. >> he's never going get subsidies through the house. >> with health care, i hope you're right. >> we move forward? >> there is not one republican that voted for obamacare originally. not one. you say now republicans are going to vote into this law? there is no way. they're not going to do that. >> based with all my client has to pay this much? >> they're going to blame it on obama. >> they'll have to solve it, government must

givingas responsible for the supreme court its own home. until that time it met in the capital building. how to get that done. he never lived to see the court work in the supreme court building that he is the one that really got that underway and give the court its own place in washington, d.c.. like being first lady more than william taft liked being president? what was her lifelike -- life like after he became chief justice rustem or >> very quiet. the wives did not have a public role. they did not entertain. hes -- taft's view as that issued opinions and help to get the supreme court building. that was about it for society is follow -- as far as the supreme court was concerned. >> being first lady is what she wanted to do. she did not have a big ambition other than to lead a quiet life. i was channel surfing and iq upon your program. wonderful, congratulations. i will be tuning in for all the episodes. >> thank you. work going. thank you. >> thank you for the call. appreciate it. she was a lucky lady healthwise even though she suffered t