You're watching...
Lis Wiehl and defense attorney Kelly Saindon on the fairness of this decision and other top legal headlines
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
The supreme -- denying benefits to twins.
Conceived.
Off to the father's death.
So I guess -- -- kids were conceived.
Through in vitro.
But right why would they not be allowed the benefits what is the reasoning of the supreme call here.
The rationale behind that is that that Social Security benefits are designed for people that -- dependent on the father during his lifetime.
Or the mother but in this particular in -- this case.
These children weren't even an anticipated they certainly weren't relying on this father while he was alive.
I think you were born about eighteen months after he died because mom had frozen the -- and decided to become impregnated.
She.
-- -- these children and they were getting benefits for -- on the Supreme Court said that wasn't contemplated dad didn't support them during his lifetime and therefore they're not anti on the benefits.
And stressing that now is not a reasonable.
In your view a reasonable decision do you have to draw the line is somewhere here.
I do you think it's -- you know at first state sort of struck me like you said it was kind of hide and I thought -- But when you really think about it so if mom decided she wasn't going to remarry and she wanted to -- -- adopted child.
And remember adopted children have the same status is biological children.
Still wouldn't that adopted child be entitled to dead father is benefits I think people would say no.
And I think that that would be attacks on the system.
For people that froze sperm and then decide that they're entitled the -- benefits I think some people might actually try to do that just to get.
Benefits all right -- will is also in our Fox News legal analyst -- what do you make of this case it seems.
The -- albums first look it can seem a little harsh but I guess there have to be rolled right up.
Does seem harsh on first -- but when you look at the State's -- -- every state you know this is -- states vs federal law issue.
State of Florida says.
You cannot.
Inherit and -- parents you can see by the parents were alive and so they do have today -- the Supreme Court had to come in here and say all right this is the fine line.
This -- the Florida law is that so we can't make any exceptions that I know it does sound -- Jonathan but I understand from a legal reason why they had to do it tonight that Kelly.
Let's get to another story unfolding today right way you lie in Chicago.
And indeed this is these that tariffs -- alleged terror suspects.
Going to be making a court appearance today.
The NATO three -- it's one of those cases which if you won't -- just sort of talk about entrapment it looks is that would be an opportunity to -- mat entrapment here and and that these guys work.
-- encouraged along the way and then we shot them.
What say you.
He's you know I I think you're right that and I know their lawyers are definitely making a stink and saying -- But it's interesting because some of the 181000 things that I've -- is seen.
Sort of indicate that they've set it up nicely to save big men entrapped but Baylor in Florida they've -- -- -- occupy movement for awhile.
They were planning certain things and there.
Well sort of indicate a malicious intent to this city will never -- insane they won't know what hit them.
Still it's a little bit disingenuous to say that they were led down a path they didn't want to go -- Because they were making a stink and I will tell you just from being in Chicago.
This city was not a serious -- I understand that Secret Service found a lot of what they were calling credible -- And you know so it's kind of a scary time around here -- still from that -- back did you know I'm all for -- Barack.
At least a day you leading them down the cough -- but it people wouldn't be led down that -- they were led down even at tonight's school law school kick off I think.
It's just an -- not exactly right that's exactly right.
If you can show that it's very hard to defend on entrapment because all the prosecution has to show is.
Hey they still would have done that there was nothing of -- -- in trapped in the sense taken out from you know picking up -- flowers in the on the field to doing this horrible thing.
-- where are you setting those things in the ocean and yet yes -- law enforcement command and aid and -- sure that's fine that's called undercover about the law enforcement does the but they have to show they would have to show.
It was only four law enforcement that put it in their head to do something so horrible I don't think -- we will show that here John.
Really -- -- all right well we shall see.
A couple of -- good job stories around today Kelly -- -- -- -- Islam -- still waiting for a verdict.
Eight the John Edwards trial John Edwards the former senator -- -- -- presidential candidate.
Accused of using campaign -- To cover up is sleazy affair with his mistress and the subsequent love child.
-- behavior is coming out of this kind of.
I did Jerry's -- convict I do not think he's in if he anywhere close to thirty years but I think that.
They are going to say that he had more knowledge than he testified -- That while -- -- case AdWords verses young and you kinda dealing with two liars.
That if they discount young regardless that Edwards was in the -- when -- knowingly violated a lot well I guess I -- Sure that we understand that that he backed Edwards -- not actually testify did not take the stand in his own behalf but.
I I guess I disagree with you and the sense that I think that Edwards may have known but I think the prosecution had a really tough task here to show that.
-- case a first impression meaning it's never been tried like this before where you have McCain had campaign finance allegation against someone not to Canada for the third party.
To get into Edward's mind as a prosecution have to try to do.
And show that he knew that this was a campaign contribution not a gift and here's the problem Kelly I think the problem really for me is.
That bunny Mellon one of the main donors that the the other donors now deceased -- 101 years old through her lawyer said.
She paid 700000 dollars -- ever but she paid gift taxes on that how do you get around that if -- the jury didn't -- well.
I you know I think you're right thank you for clarifying but I think the statements that AdWords has made in the past I think the fact that he -- so dishonest about the affair.
I think all of that is in the jury's mind if I say -- they're thinking she weighs a benefactor she appreciated.
But what candidate knowingly take 700000.
Dollars and uses and says oh this was against.
Well you understand you're running for office you understand -- -- being scrutinized.
But you have a dirty secret to hide.
So how do you -- alliance say -- I was really dancing on the line but I thought this was just to get.
I think Ben Jerry's a little bit smarter than hat interns and they're gonna say all right.
There was so much dishonesty here that we're having a real hard time meeting lending you creed is that there's.
There was no ill intent on your part because you're doing something that was bad you reminded us how happy -- -- -- Everyone agrees that what he was doing was bad and wrong any moral.
But that doesn't a criminal case make and that that's like my concern here for the prosecution -- that to Tim Rice about level.
We can all thank you woody did was horrible and terrible and -- egregious.
And that Port Elizabeth Edwards I mean -- you just imagine her last days but they -- that a crime is hurt.
Case here at least this is the jury's gonna look at this and think.
Okay we have the star witness for the prosecution Andrew Young right -- bull after we give the defendant John Edwards sleaze bull.
Which she which of these -- is moral -- carried away like plastic that was well ahead.
What you're getting down to is what we -- jury nullification which means that even if you have along -- front of you you've given the instructions about what is legal what's illegal and even if you say all of that.
Okay -- may -- the prosecution can't quite mount its case here.
We just despise.
Or sometimes love it depends on you know which defending -- talking bashing here and we would say despise.
And they will vote their conscience as opposed to -- I'm not couldn't condone that at all I just saying that you know it does happen sometimes but.
