Homeland security and intelligence. Officials now warning of similar homeland attacks on or around the fourth of july weekend which falls within the muslim holy month of ramadan. They have called for this to be a time of calamity. Authorities today are still evaluating the claims by isis of responsibility for two of those attacks in tunisia and kuwait. Isis for propaganda purposes attaches itself to attacks. The u. S. Identifies the number one state sponsor of terrorism continued his negotiating sessions with secretary of state today but Iranian Foreign minister after two hours of meetings with kerry now left for tehran. U. S. Officials say they are unconcerned about that. It was always expected that the ministers from various parts would come and go from these sessions. State Department Officials traveling here with secretary of state kerry in vienna have now made it official they expect to blow past the june 30th deadline for these talks. James rosen reporting from vienna. Thanks for that. We want to drill down into the Terror Threat with congressman michael mccaul, chair of the House Homeland Security committee. Chairman, we talked at the top about this terror alert from the joint Terrorism Task force about possible attacks over the july 4th holiday. How alarming is the intel . How much chatter is there . Its concerning. Theres a great deal of chatter. A high volume, if you will. The joint intelligence bulletin was issued to state and locals. The concern is quite frankly the confluence of these events, isis spokesman calling for jihad during ramadan which is happening right now. You have the oneyear anniversary of the caliphate or Islamic State and now we have the fourth of july coming up which is one of the holidays we celebrate that they like to target this sort of thing and these anniversaries. I think given the confluence of events, were being on the cautious side here to warn the public to remain vigilant to enjoy the fourth of july parades, but remain vigilant during these celebrations. Let me ask you. Do you expect homegrown terror attacks over this next Holiday Weekend . We stopped 50 of these terror plots in the last 12 months. Its gone up exponentially. Im extremely concerned about the way these syrian isis recruiters can use the internet at lightning speed to recruit followers in the United States with thousands of followers in the United States and then activate them to do whatever they want to do whether its military installations, Law Enforcement or possibly a fourth of july event parade. In light of the three attacks in three hours on three continents overseas, shows us that isis is not just regionalized like the Administration Says only in iraq and syria but demonstrates a global threat that they can conduct external operations and they are very savvy at doing that over the internet. Let me pick on that and well get to recruitment in the u. S. In a moment chairman. As we mentioned, isis supporters are calling what happened on friday bloody friday. Three attacks on three Different Countries within hours. Terror attacks on a factory in france. A beach resort in tunisia and a mosque in kuwait. All within a couple of hours. Question do we have any evidence that they were connected and what does it tell us in any case about the reach of isis . You know, we make a lot about semantics over inspired versus directed. I think those lines have been blurred. They are isis motivated and carrying out the isis mission and in all three incidents, isis was the driving force behind the attacks. These were very significant attacks. Some of the worst weve seen in three different continents. The idea that they could do this and now the external operations potentially into the United States by use of the internet, this is not bin laden. This is a new generation of terrorists using the internet in a very savvy way to attack the west and also get in the homes and in the basements in the United States to radicalize individuals and then call them up as sleeper cells to attack americans. I want to pick up on that. You sent us a chart the other day, which shows that there have been 118 terror attacks since 9 11 and if you look at that sort of stock market graph on the right, you can see the number of plots has tripled in the past five years. You introduced legislation this week that would create a new Office Inside the department of Homeland Security to try to deal with these threats and to try to stop radicalization over the internet before it happens. I got to ask you, how do you do that . Well, we want to make it a priority. Its not a priority. Weve rolled up more isis followers in the United States just this year than we have in the government trying to counter radicalization in the United States. Its not a priority right now. What im trying to do through legislation is prioritize the ability to deradicalize people in the United States so we dont have these homegrown violent extremists carrying out these terrorist plots in the United States. Its not the priority now. We want it to be in the future. Chairman mccaul well have to leave it there. Thank you so much for coming in today, sir. Thank you chris. We want to bring in a guest for our next segment where well have double duty from him. General Michael Hayden, former director of the cia and nsa to get his thoughts about the Terror Threat. General, we saw those three attacks on friday. Bloody friday as its being called. Three attacks in three continents within a couple of hours. If you were still in your chair as director of the cia what would you be thinking about . I would be thinking certainly all inspired. I would have my doubts whether they were all coordinated and i would really doubt whether they were all directed. Chairman mccauls chart there, chris, was instructive. You saw that ticking up like a stock market graph. Al qaeda was terror elitism. Guidance from the top down. Isis is terror populism from the bottom up and that makes it difficult for us to detect and stop it. Its that inspired by problem. Do you think it was just a coincidence you had three attacks within a couple of hours . I cant rule out it was a coincidence. The spokesman called for attacks. Its the holy month of ramadan. It offered special places in heaven for suicide bombers who would conduct attacks. I want to ask you about that. The spokesman, chief spokesman from isis issued this call and were in the holy month of ramadan. He said to make ramadan a month of disasters for the infidels. How seriously do you take that . I take it very serious. We saw what happened last friday. We need to continue to defend ourselves to prevent penalty kicks but ultimately what were going to have to do is disrupt the isis narrative. Right now they look as if because theyve been so successful on the battlefield, it looks like they are acting as the will and hand of god. I think we need to turn that around. We need to inflict battlefield defeats on them in their homeland so theyre not nearly as attractive to these kind of folks globally. Let me pick up on the radicalization especially in this country. If there is an attack in the u. S. Over the next week and god knows we all hope it doesnt happen, it will almost certainly be lone wolves. Homegrown terrorists who are radicalized over the internet who didnt go to the middle east, never met with anybody, have just been reading their propaganda propaganda. Whats the appeal and message that would get a person living in this country to sign up for that kind of deadly activity and how do we break that narrative . Chris, first of all we have always associated this kind of selfradicalized individual with having far more to do with crypts and bloods than holy koran. These are isolated individuals looking for meaning and something greater in life. It really matters what gang you join. And now this powerful narrative is out there for folks who feel as if their life doesnt have meaning and theyre embracing that narrative. So general summary here, are we winning or losing the war against isis at this moment . I would certainly not claim we are winning. That leaves it wide open. General hayden, thank you. Stay right there. When we come back well turn to the final negotiations with iran to try to limit its Nuclear Program with a deadline this week, this tuesday. General hayden returns along with an expert on iran. Thats next. You probably know xerox as the company thats all about printing. But did you know we also support hospitals using Electronic Health records for more than 30 million patients . Or that our Software Helps over 20 million smartphone users remotely configure email every month . Or how about processing nearly 5 billion in electronic toll payments a year . In fact, todays xerox is working in surprising ways to help companies simplify the way work gets done and life gets lived. With xerox, youre ready for real business. As we mentioned the u. S. And our five partners have begun the final round of talks in vienna trying to limit irans Nuclear Program. With growing criticism both in washington and tehran, what are the chances for a deal . Were joined once again by former cia director general Michael Hayden and Karim Sadjadpour an iran expert. Gentlemen, welcome back to Fox News Sunday. As the u. S. And our partners have begun this final round of talks, which side has the upper hand . Who wants it more . Who needs a deal more . General, let me start with you. First of all chris, i hope its not the final round. I hope this gets extended. We can talk about why in a few minutes. I actually fear that the iranians have the upper hand right now. I actually fear we have painted ourselves into a corner where we believe that any deal is better than no deal at the present time. What do you make of the fact before i bring Karim Sadjadpour in, what do you make that james rosen reported the Iranian Foreign minister has just a day or two in talks gone back to iran for consultations . I would like to make of the fact that i was just wrong in saying what i just told you and that we have actually presented the iranians with some very hard lines and that hes going back now to tehran for guidance. Who has the upper hand going into what is supposedly the final round . Who wants it more and who needs it more . Who needs it more is the iranian nation. This a regime which is hemorrhaging hundreds of billions of dollars because of sanctions. Theyre hemorrhaging tens of billions of dollars because of the drop in oil prices and hemorrhaging billions of dollars try trying to end the regime. There is resistance across the United States and secretary kerry is trying to lead reconciliation. You suggest perhaps that even though they need it more, we may want it more . I think you would call it asymmetry of desire. Secretary kerry wants to leave a legacy. His record has been consistent. The organizing principle of the iranian government is resistance against the United States. All right. There are three major issues on the table. Lets put them up. First inspections. Will the u. S. Have the right to inspect any site including military facilities at any time . Second, will the world lift sanctions against iran when they sign a deal or after they actually implement a deal and finally pass research. General hayden we will get to that in a moment. The first two, inspections and sanctions. Are those deal breakers if we dont get what we want should we walk away from this . They are all important. I would insist on all of them. If we force them into a corner and say choose one on which we will not budge, its any time, anywhere inspections. Iranians arent going to break out. If they violate the agreement it will be sneak out at some unknown location. We need the ability to go places. We need the ability to the iaea to go places the u. N. Body, to go places to follow up on our legitimate suspicions if iranians are trying to sneak out of the agreement. As i said, the last issue is past research. Heres what secretary of state kerry said about that a couple weeks ago. Fixated on iran specifically accounting for what they did at one point in time or another. We know what they did. We have no doubt. Since then state Department Officials clarified saying the point that secretary of state kerry was trying to make is we dont need a public confession from iranians. We lied. We did this wrong. We do need an accounting of what they have done in the past so that well know baseline so if we see something, were able to know is that new or old . Would that satisfy you if its an accounting . Even the walk back that the state department made from the secretarys comment where he claimed we had absolute knowledge of what they had done in the past, even the walk back was not clear whether or not we needed this accounting before we got an agreement or an iou we would get from the iranians after an agreement. I think we need to have it before an agreement. But if we got that and didnt get the confession but we got an accounting so we knew what the baseline was, thats enough . This is about going forward. I get that point from the secretary. We need to know where they were in order to understand whether or not this agreement is sufficient to guarantee action in the future. What complicates this greatly is that over the last week the Supreme Leader as hes called has issued a series of red lines. Here they are. Immediate removal of sanctions. Immediate removal. No military site inspections. No longterm restrictions for irans Nuclear Program. What is the ayatollah doing here laying out terms which are clearly so unacceptable . As i mentioned, theres an economic imperative for iranians to sign the deal but theres a Political Risk for hardliners in tehran to sign a deal with the United States given that for three and a half decades the u. S. Cant be trusted. The question is whether these red lines are firm red lines or are they simply meant to strengthen irans bargaining position and frankly well see in the next days the answer to that. One of the arguments has been that i think this is how the state department is saying so far in disregarding or at least not taking seriously what the ayatollah said. Either, one hes trying to push for a better deal and setting a hard line hes the bad cop. The negotiator is the good cop or its being done for domestic political consumption. In his tenure as Supreme Leader, hes been quite earnest and that his rhetoric is re reflective of the policies of the iranian government. I have to say in the last month there have been red lines in the past. I think we will have to see in the coming days whether these red lines are firm. Even if a deal is signed this is not going to be resolving this conflict. I think its going to simply enter a new phase of the conflict. The conflict between the u. S. And iran . Yeah. Ill get to that in a moment. Let me ask you this. Even if its internal politics or just bargaining in the bizarre to get a better deal, what do ayatollah statements tell us about his willingness and his good faith in observing this agreement for the next 10 or 15 years . It doesnt lend confidence. This is a leader who is organizing principle the last three and a half decades has been death to america his Political Base in iran is hardliners that believe that the United States cant be trusted. I think the concern of folks like Henry Kissinger that if iran is signing this deal because of an economic imperative, if you remove that economic imperative and they are no longer under sanctions, what to say theyll adhere to the deal a year or two from now. Thats a valid concern. Those are sanctions if they have the sanctions lifted and they get billions of dollars then theyre not in that kind of economic squeeze. General hayden secretary kerry has dismissed the ayatollahs comments. Were not going to be guided by or conditioned by or affected by or deterred by some tweet that is for public consumption or domestic political consumption. Is kerry right . Is the only thing that matters what iranian negotiators agreed to and signed . No not at all. He goes on in that session to say what matters is whats in the four corners of the agreement. What matters is what the ayatollah says the iranians will do with what it is we believed we have agreed on in vienna. Its a big deal as to what the ayatollah commits himself to. We went through this in april when we both walked away from the talks thinking we had an agreement. Its quite different what we said they agreed to and what they said they agreed to. Now were down to brass tacks. What it is they say has to be what they agreed to and only the ayatollah can determine that. General hayden, you said earlier this week that the Bush Administration left this president , this administration with an ugly baby when it came to the situation in iran despite all of the threats of the bush years, they installed developed and installed thousands of centrifuges. I guess the question is if repeat if iran were to agree to a deal that would slow down its enrichment limit its enrichment for 10 to 15 years and would allow these inspections, serious inspection inspections, should we sign that deal . Thats a really good question, chris. I guess my answer is yes, but we have to fully realize what it is we just got. If we get a good deal and get all of the things that we say have to be in the deal, if we get a good deal we have legitimated an iranian industrial strength Nuclear Program never more than 12 months away from enough material from a nuclear weapon. Im afraid that what we do is welcome them back into the family of nations. Get them out of the penalty box for their Nuclear Activity and now theyre free and more empowered to do all of the other things theyre doing in the region. That brings me to my final question. The point you raised which is the Obama Administration talks a lot about this as the beginning of a new chapter in relations between the u. S. And iran and a new era for irans place in the world. Even if you get this deal, how likely is it that iran in a good faith sense joins the community of nations . The middle east is a graveyard for empires and forecasters. Difficult to predict how this deal will play out. The paradox of iran is you have a regime who wants to be like north korea and society that wants to be like south korea. They want to be prosperous. Theres a valid concern in the shortterm this is not going to do anything to transform iran but if you are able to open iran up economically and try to crack it open politically, i think theres a better chance of transforming the system than keeping it under isolation. Thank you both so much for coming in today. Well stay on top of these negotiations. Up next the Supreme Court hands down an historic decision on marriage leading conservative lawyer ted olson will tell us why hes been such a strong advocate for samesex couples right to marry in all 50 states. What do you think about the Supreme Courts marriage ruling . Let me know on facebook or twitter and use the hashtag fns. Usa usa usa a look at the reaction friday after the Supreme Court ruled the constitution guarantees a right to samesex marriage. Our next guest is a true conservative who won the case that made george w. Bush president and then served him as solicitor general which is why its so interesting ted olson has been one of the leading advocates over the last decade for samesex marriage. Mr. Olson joins us now and welcome back, sir to Fox News Sunday. Thank you, chris. What means more to you personally . Your victory in bush v. Gore or this ruling which set forth a constitutional right to samesex marriage . You cant equate the two. To see those people expressing that joy and that gratitude and those tears of happiness that they will be treated equally under the constitution with respect to the most important relationship in life, the opportunity to get married to the person they love, touches me deeply and its very very important in my heart. There are two major criticisms of the ruling i think. Maybe more. Two i want to focus on. First, the court in effect invented a constitutional right made it up just like they did on the right to abortion in roe v. Wade. Heres governor and republican president ial candidate bobby jindal. Its clear to me the Supreme Court is no longer acting as a judicial body. You have a Supreme Court out of control thats making up laws as it goes. How do you respond to Governor Jindal . 14 times the Supreme Court of the United States held that marriage is a fundamental right including the right to inner racial marriage in 1967. They didnt call it the right to inner racial marriage. They called it the right to marriage. They described it as a right to liberty, privacy, association, of being part of this country and part of the relationship that matters most to most people in this country and to be a part of our community. Its a right to marriage. Its not something the Supreme Court made up. Its the right to decide who you would get to be married which the Supreme Court repeatedly said is a fundamental right. Theres nothing new about this decision. It takes it one step further because it hasnt been recognized before. Its the right of two individuals to marry to the person that theyre most devoted to. The second criticism is that the political process was working. That states were changing laws. Public opinion was shifting. And that the court in effect short circuited that process. This is a quote from Justice Scalia calling the ruling a threat to american democracy. Is scalia wrong . Yes, with respect to Justice Scalia who i do have Great Respect for, he is wrong. When we talk about civil rights we dont wait to put civil rights to a vote. The Supreme Court didnt put separate but equal schools to a vote. The Supreme Court didnt put the right to marry someone of a different race to a vote. We dont wait. And Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion talks about that. What is happening to the children while the Supreme Court would wait if it was to wait another few years . At the same time the Supreme Court decided the inner racial marriage case there were still 16 states that made it a crime to marry someone of a different race. The Supreme Court did not wait then and it was right not to wait now. As big as this ruling is there are some issues that it didnt apparently settle and i would like to ask you about that. One of them is extending antidiscrimination laws, state and federal to gays. Where does that stand after this ruling . Its going to depend upon additional federal legislation if the federal government decides to do that or state or municipal legislation. There are state laws and there are municipal laws and there are some federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the about abasis of sexual discrimination. They dont cover everything and they dont cover housing or commercial transactions and things of that nature. I think the lgbt will be pressing for laws that entitle gays and lesbians to the same respect and antidiscrimination protections that other people of other religions have or people of other races or nationalities. Second, theres the question and it became hot this spring of religious freedom. Can the proverbial baker or photographer who is selling services openly can he refuse to participate in a samesex marriage because he or she believes that it violates their religious freedom or is that now illegal under this rule . Its not illegal under this ruling. There may be statutes that cover it. If you walk into a bakery on the street and want to buy a pie or a doughnut or Something Like that the bakery under federal law cant discriminate against you on the basis of your race or your religion. If there are laws that cover that kind of discrimination that might be illegal. Its different than someone being asked to participate in a wedding, to perform a wedding, to sing at a wedding, to participate and be a wedding planner. People have a right to refuse personal services with respect to things like that on a religious basis. I think some of that dispute is overblown and the courts have been dealing with that kind of an issue for many many years with respect to religious rights and Racial Discrimination and discrimination on the about abasis of gender for a long time. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his decision if theres a constitutional right for two people of the same sex to marry what about three people marrying or other varieties of marriages . I think the chief justice is wrong. He bought into a red herring. There are reasons why states and the federal government might prohibit relationships a marriage relationship between multiple persons and rights of children and what happens when the marriage breaks up. The test is what does the state have in its interest to prohibit the conduct that is being considered . The states involved in the case that was decided friday could not come up with any good reasons why to prohibit persons to marry the person of the same sex and person they loved. They came up its against traditional marriage. Thats like saying separate schools were a tradition or restrictions on marriage between people of different backgrounds was a tradition. You cant explain something by saying its the way weve always done it. You are one of the leading Supreme Court experts and watchers as im going to take advantage because were up near the end of this session to switch subjects on you a little bit. What did you think of the courts other big ruling this week . Im sure you read about it. I know you werent involved in it, that the obamacare law what it set forth specifically in the law when it said exchanges established by the states was the key is not those words but what was intended. What did you think of that ruling . I think that was a mistake. I think that its kind of interesting to look at chief Justice Roberts opinion in that case versus his descent in the marriage case because they almost could have been written by two different people. In that case he was taking a law and trying to discern what the intent of the law was. The words were exchanges established by the state. That was the trigger to subsidies. The court held that exchanges established by the state or where the state refused to establish an exchange and was established by the secretary of health and human services. So the words were changed because of what the court perceived the intent of congress was. You can only discern the intent of congress by the words that congress used and not by the imaginations of judges with respect to what 535 people meant when they voted for or voted against a law. The argument is that there wasnt a conflict there because chief justice reports supposedly was deferring to the legislature and in deferring in this case, its an odd form of deferral, looking not just at words but at legislative intent and thats something the courts traditionally do and he was deferring in this case in the samesex marriage case saying if legislatures want to decide it they can decide it but its not for nine rogue justices to decide and he would argue its restraint. In obamacare in which Justice Scalia said should be called Supreme Court care, there was legislation that had explicit language in it and the court went beyond the language and said language didnt mean what the language did mean on its face and discern what the affect of the legislation was. In the first instance, we have a legislature that can change the law and fix the law and can solve whatever problems the law might present and in the second case its a constitution. We have rights excuse me, sir. Some people would say youre also sort of in contradiction here because the argument is the political process deferred to the legislators so they can decide whether or not samesex marriage is legal. You cannot defer to legislatures when talking about the meaning of equal protection clause or due process clause. The reason we have a constitution is to restrict and correct the rights that are decided upon by legislatures. We have a constitution to protect the right to religion, the right to free speech which fox news has because if they pass if the Legislature Passes a rule that violates your rights, you go to the courts. The legislature could come back tomorrow and fix it. Final question. Less than a minute left. As the court ends its term on tuesday, if you look at its rulings, im sure there are people who object to this it seems to be one of the most liberal sessions in fact since the warren court in the 60s. Question, which a lot of people are asking, is the Roberts Court moving left . Thats the problem with snapshots. Last year the people who were writing that it was probusiness court and now these cases come along and people say its a liberal court. You have to look at the individual decisions. Many of the decisions this term came out the way the liberal members of the Court Preferred that they come out. Next term it might be completely different. Depends upon the case. You dont see this turning into the warren court . I think its mischaracterizing and oversimple oversimplifying things. It may be a Justice Kennedy court the way things work this term. I sort of wont go there. Mr. Olson, thank you. Thanks for coming in. Always good to talk with you, sir. Thank you. I really appreciate it. Up next he joined the Supreme Court as a conservative darling but has chief Justice John Roberts become more liberal than expected . Our sunday group joins the conversation. Plus, what would you like to ask the panel about the Roberts Court . Go to facebook or twitter. We may use your question on the air. Now you can connect with Fox News Sunday on facebook and twitter. Check out exclusive line on facebook and share with other fox fans and tweet us Fox News Sunday hashtag fns. Be part of the action and weigh in every sunday. Today we can say on no Uncertain Terms that we made our union a little more perfect. If those justices want to become legislators i invite them to resign and run for office. Thats the appropriate place to write laws. On this floor not from that courtroom. President obama praising the Supreme Courts decisions this week while texas senator ted cruz criticized the justices for going way beyond their role as judges. Its time for our sunday group. Fox news senor. What do you make of the Supreme Courts big rulings this week on obamacare and samesex marriage . In my opinion both were in error. On Obamacare Ruling it seems to me that chief Justice Roberts did handstands in order to discover language in the law didnt mean what it said. Thats of course a matter of statutory interpretation. The chief justice was basically on the other side if you will from the Obama Administration and others. My own view of this is that on that issue the constitution is basically silent on marriage and for Justice Kennedy and majority to reach the result they did, they had to engage in the kind of new rights discovered previously undiscovered in the constitution. We all have a new constitutionally conferred right of dignity. Im glad to know i have that because sometimes my behavior doesnt measure up. You still have to perform properly, however. Well see. Well see. All right. We ask you for questions for the panel. We got this on twitter from steve. He writes Supreme Court of the United States is a Political Branch of government that swings with pc wind and not the law. Evan, how do you answer steve about his contention that the court is moving left in these cases . There is a saying the Supreme Court follows the election returns. It does reflect broad societal movements on gay rights. With the public on that. I think Justice Roberts in particular is an institutionalist that doesnt want to get too far in front or behind Public Opinion and didnt want to disrupt the healthcare act. So i think the court does reflect Public Opinion. But it has been historically a check on Public Opinion as well. Thats the beautiful thing about the Supreme Court. Its a little bit unpredictable. They do follow election returns but every once in a while they uphold rights in meaningful ways that runs against Public Opinion. Chief Justice Roberts explained both ruling this week as examples of judicial restraint and obama care he said he was interpreting the statutory language of obamacare and what congress wrote in the case of samesex he said that it should be left up to the legislature legislatures. Do you see a consistent political philosophy there or is this another case of a justice longer in the court, longer in washington becoming more of a moderate . I do think the chief justice was consistent. I also think that he demonstrates why the term liberal court and conservative court are classifications and no longer really classify. Democrats know what they want in a court. Theres no debate about this or about anything else of any interest in the democratic party. Republicans are having a raging debate now as to whether they have gone too far in reaching judicial restraint. Thats what Justice Roberts has been practicing. Be careful what you wish for conservatives. There is a strong tradition of saying we want courts to defer to the majorityian branches of government which Justice Roberts has done. On the other hand there are republicans who say, no we want the court to stand up against Public Opinion to affirm individual rights and enforce the boundaries of the institution and particularly the separation of powers to restrain and limit government. Now, the danger, chris is that the 2016 president ial candidates are going to get into a bidding war to try to codify in the constitution their anger. Scott walker of wisconsin says he wants a constitutional amendment to restore state control over marriage law. Hike Mike Huckabee says i want to take that away from the states and define in the constitution marriage is between a man and woman. Ted cruz accepts that and goes one step farther. Echoing another Ted Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 when he was a full throated progressive ted cruz says i want to have judicial retention elections. Dont forget bobby jindal who wants to blow up the court. Teddy one question george, to follow up. You say he was deferring to the congress on obamacare. I think a lot of conservatives and clearly ted olson felt he was not deferring because he didnt read the statute as written, exchanges established by the state he was interpreting what congress meant. He was bending over backwards to say that viewed in the context of the entire law and the aspiration of the law which was to ensure as many people as possible therefore im deferring to in artfully written law referring to their clear purpose in this case. Let me pick up on what george was discussing which is political fallout from all this. While conservatives clearly lost in both cases, some people are arguing they are in fact in better shape politically going forward. One, your thought about that and, two how big an issue does the court now become in the 2016 election . I think publicly certainly as george pointed out theres a lot of sighs of relief that maybe this wiped the table clean of decisive public issues and now can pivot to the policies they would like this election to be about. Thats going to be really hard. The incentives for a republican candidate to win a primary are very different than the incentives to win a general. So you have this inherent conflict. It makes a lot of sense in a primary to talk about social issues when 40 of the party selfidentifies as white evangelical voters and in a general that doesnt make as much sense. Its a tough political issue for them to work their way through. On the court theres always a lot of talk that the court will become a political issue. We dont tend to see it all that much. I think it could happen this election just because were likely to have vacancies and theres a wide awareness of that and also these cases are highly charged emotional cases. People may remember this. Republicans may not want to be talking about the issue of gay marriage a year from now. I think theyll definitely be certain elements of the party that we could hear come up in debates. Okay. We have a little bit of time left. Evan, i want to ask you about your new book about richard nixon. Clearly one of the most fascinating characters, little figures in the 20th century. One of your central tenants is that for a man that spent his entire career in this most public of professions that he was uncomfortable around people. He was painfully shy. One of the fascinating things about him and drives my book is how one of the shyest people ever became the most powerful political figure in the late 20th century. How did he do that . One way he did that was by understanding that people are outsiders. He played to the hopes and to the fears of outsiders and when he was in college there was a cool guys fraternity and he formed a fraternity for uncool guys because he knew there were more of them. The idea of silent majority for this shy guy he won one of the largest landslides in history in 1972. He was brilliant about that. He remembered names. Thats important for a politician. He was painfully awkward and full of fear. That fear did get him. He destroyed himself. You also say for someone who is thought of as a staunch conservative that in fact on domestic issues hes one of the most liberal president s weve had. His record is amazing. He created epa. He extended Social Security benefits for the disabled. This is partly because he was working with a democratic congress. He believed in compromise. He was really more of a pragmatist than ideologue. He wanted to get things done. That was an age when people believe in getting things done. His record is amazing. Some think he was a liberal. He was not. He was conservative. If he hadnt knocked himself out in watergate in the second term he would have moved sharply to the right. We have 30 seconds left. Biggest surprise in researching nixon . What did you sit there because we think we know so much about him. What were you surprised by . He wanted to be an optimistic person. He wasnt this dark guy. Late at night he would write notes to himself about being joyful and serene and hopeful and he tried to be those things. He just couldnt. His fear of his enemies got to him and he destroyed himself. Why did he need to write notes to himself . Seriously. He knew at some level he was engaged in this battle between darkness and light. Thank you. Good book. Ive got it and im going on vacation and im going to read it. Thank you for that. See you all next sunday. I wont. Someone will see you. Up next, our power player of the week. A university in d. C. Contributing to the intellectual life of the Catholic Church and the nation. When pope francis visits the u. S. In september, hell speak to congress and theres another important stop on his schedule. Heres our power player of the week. I think it provides a really important intellectual alternative to other kinds of universities. John is president of Catholic University, the National University of the Catholic Church in the u. S. It offers programs in 12 different schools ranging from architecture and music to theology and church law. Always with a different approach. Usually when people teach about ethics in business there will be a course on ethics and how you should color within the lines. Our approach is to ask people to think of their work as entrepreneurs or accountants as their lifes work and a way of getting to heaven by serving their fellow men their customers, their employees. A few years ago you delivered a speech called intellect and virtue. Is there a conflict between the two . No. Although in many places we think there is. We actually think that the formation of our students character is part of our responsibilities as a university. I will be doing comps this fall. Hes trying to. Garvey has run catholic for five years and as he walks the campus with his dog, gus, hes known as the students president. One of his first moves was to end coed dorms. It was something that i announced we were going to do on my first day on the job. Im the father of five children. I know what goes through students minds. Hes been a leading spokesman for church affiliated groups telling congress why they oppose obamacares Birth Control mandate. We think these activities are long and a respect for liberties should allow us free to act on our belief. The big news at catholic is pope francis will celebrate mass there during his trip to washington in september. Its really exciting for everybody here at Catholic University and around the country. Francis has become a media star. Garvey thinks people make a mistake treating the pope as a political figure noting in his recent incyclical he warned both about the dangers of Climate Change and abortion. The church has a different mission. And so does his university. Catholic University Takes another approach to the intellectual life and thats something that were not going to find at vanderbilt or Michigan State and thats a great thing for this university to be able to do. Garvey was dean of Boston College law school before taking over at catholic. In his inaugural speech he said the challenge is to find a place for bibles and papal decrees between our telescopes and microscopes. Have a great week. Well see you next Fox News Sunday. Ohh, oh, oh, oh, oh . applause well god bless you it is always a joy to come into your homes. If you are ever in our area please stop by and be a part of one of our services. I promise you we will make you feel right at home. Thanks so much for tuning in today and thank you again for coming out. I like to start with something funny. I heard about these four catholic ladies. They were bragging on their sons. The first one said, my son is a priest. When he walks in the room everyone calls him father. The second one said, my son is a bishop. When he walks in the room everyone calls him your grace. The third said, my son is a cardinal. When he walks in the room