with some degree of success, but it needs more. what people don t understand, just a few years ago, what constituted a felony was writing a check for over $50 if it bounced. right. look at the numbers of people with convictions that are being overturned now by dna evidence. but they ve got to go through the onerous burden of proving it through the court system. for you to pass a blanket piece of law that says that anyone ever convicted of a felony is denied is totally unrealistic, unproducti unproductive, counterproductive frankly. we went back and found 1969 nixon talking about being productive. this hasn t always been politicized. i want to do something we rarely do in nerdland. listen to richard nixon for a moment. until this moment in our history as a nation, the central question has been whether we as
laws. other court watchers question the justices the intent is still in the clear. shannon bream with the news top story at the bottom of the hour now. how are we to fairly interpret that language? shepard as with any supreme court upon opinion. it s got to be most narrowly interpreted before the case. a will the of folks think that sounds like dream act language forming amnesty or citizenship for those who served in the military or other ties to their community. court watchers like tom dupre and attorneys say be careful. at the same time i would be careful not it recovery read that provision. it seems pretty clear what the court was talking about is how you exercise discretion in individual cases. that s actually the language that they used. individual case. certainly individual cases much different than a blanket piece of legislation that could cover millions, shep? shepard: i guess officials in arizona are responding to word that the feds cutting back on border protection, r