times," not a point of law, not a court case but the "new york times." i'm wondering what you made of that and this statement. >> well, it wasn't so much the reference to the new york times that boggled my mind. it was the fact that justice scalia went out of his way in his dissent to make reference to something that was not part of the case, to make it clear that the president is out of line in offering part of the dream act on his own and his own views didn't agree with the president's politically. to go that far when the court is plunging itself into the middle of these politically divisive issues but certainly not a step on justice scalia's part. i do think that the court will surprise a lot of people when it probably upholds the affordable care act in a decision by chief