as we noted at the top, the supreme court is taking up some politically explosive issues this year. they may have a big impact on the campaign. from immigration to redistricting, we want to go in-depth on the most importent cases to watch. pete williams is here. we can have a debate about what an activist court is. i think it s fair to say they ll be active politically. yesterday they added to their docket the arizona immigration law. what are they looking at specifically about that law that could tell us, for instance, what happens in alabama and some of these other places. it will absolutely tell us what happens. how much power do do the states have on their own to do what is essentially a federal job which is controlling immigration. the justice department says when states try to do this on their own it s too much of a blunt instrument. they don t take into account
rest of us pay for it. this is about regulating the marketplace. i believe it is clear. no one can shout about judicial activism and not say that is the most activist court you can imagine. you can t be sure of anything on the law when you have a supreme court that has shown in perhaps the most important case in american history that they are prepared to ignore the law. this is not a legal call at heart in my view. this is feeling like bush v. gore in terms of the size of the case. there is a great line where he says listen, i know normally what a court does is you take out the part you don t like. in this case the individual mandate and you leave the rest of the law standing. i m not going do this this time but this is very unique. there is an aligning there. this is a unique case. in these very highly politicized
activism and not say that is the most activist court you can imagine. you can t be sure of anything on the law when you have a supreme court that has shown in perhaps the most important case in american history that they are prepared to ignore the law. this is not a legal call at heart in my view. this is feeling like bush v. gore in terms of the size of the case. there is a great line where he says listen, i know normally what a court does is you take out the part you don t like. in this case the individual mandate and you leave the rest of the law standing. i m not going do this this time but this is very unique. there is an aligning there. this is a unique case. in these very highly politicized cases where judges go more with their partisan affiliations
immigration attorney. a lot people are wondering, the law cannot be reversed but the full law enacted? problem is you have to go the fifth circuit court and try to get to it supreme court. it could be years before that. quite frankly, you are just stuck in the mud. we re not getting further ahead on the issues. political winds is hollow victory and doesn t make sense. eric: are they going to the ninth circuit court. that has a lot of people unset, out in san francisco, it s been called as a nutty ninth, it s known as an activist court. it even shut down the under god in the pledge of air lesion answer. what could happen when the law against there? it doesn t matter. no matter, whether they reverse it or uphold the lower court s opinion, it didn t matter.
activist court. of course, that s a twist on the age-old complaint by conservatives of judicial activism on the left side of the spectrum. do you think that roberts court is a conservative activist court or is that activist label just become kind of a catch phrase for saying, we don t agree with those decisions? well, i think the roberts court, to some extent, is a conservative court, at least when it s deciding things usually chief justice and majority. but every court is activist. what happens is that the losing side always decries the winning side as activists. when that court strikes down state statutes, federal statutes, expands rights, what you have here is a different focus on rights than some of the other justices on the supreme court might be more in favor of. you also have different state