Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
-- -- -- Always delighted to have with us -- senior judicial analyst of the Fox News channels.
Judge Andrew Napolitano.
And we got a -- political lesson in this thin budget -- its auditors what the Supreme Court has to do between now.
In the end of the session right but just yesterday they came up with a decision on DNA.
And Antonin Scalia got it right.
Can you say they've got to say that again please can I ask you for your -- for a Taylor now want an echo we're gonna do an -- Jamie -- but he does and they -- he'd.
-- fashions himself as a constitutional is I'm so glad when he can.
-- well that the first of all thank you for having me -- it's it was a pleasure be with you haven't that this is a very interesting.
Of civil libertarians on the court arguably the most conservative Justice Scalia.
And arguably the most liberal justice -- against justices Ginsburg Sotomayor and Kagan.
Although Breyer got it wrong team yet he you know did but I I wouldn't put him in the in the committed to civil liberties category that I would to Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor.
And and candidly Justice Scalia is not there all the time as well.
In certain areas he is.
And this is one of them explain what this is now I was under the I may have had -- -- last night -- is it true that anybody who is arrested could now be subject to a -- or is that first of all this is a state law that is being construed by the federal government so it applies in the state of Maryland.
There are similar laws in other states there are laws to this effect that permit.
Swabs of the inside of your mouth.
Candidly -- it's it's painful takes a few seconds they don't they don't take any skin that outrunning people painless -- painless and not painful -- -- painless thank you.
26 states permit swabbing the inside of the mouth after -- -- tonight after conviction after arrest for crime of violence.
But swapping the inside of the -- Which may sound innocuous.
Actually gives the government.
A treasure trove of information about the person so -- Which can profoundly be abused and misused and used to violate their privacy -- predator can via BitTorrent -- -- -- -- this is not.
Detaining academy an arrest just issued a -- doesn't mean they can do it correct is it different from being detained and being arrested.
The police would tell you there is scholars would tell you there isn't because the definition of an arrest is you are not free -- So if you are free to leave your not arrested if you're not free to leave you are doing their president again they study for a traffic light or your rear of fender is -- this law in Maryland only permits the swapping when -- -- stopped for crime of violence now a crime of violence could be a non.
-- could have two kids taking a swing and each other in the school yard.
And the police and the police are going to arrest them you could have a parent.
Getting in the middle of a fight.
At a Little League game and someone takes a poke at the parent and the parent reflexively swings back the parent is arrested nine and that -- -- offense they're -- gonna go to jail.
The math gets -- now once that mouth gets -- That information -- in government computers and even though theoretically will be destroyed if the parent is is acquitted.
It's there forever yet and it can be used and abused and provide all kinds of private information for all kinds -- various reasons now I get the typical call last night on the show when you've heard this argument many many times.
If I've done nothing wrong what do -- have to worry about if the police have this information about me if they knock on my door 3 o'clock in the morning and -- not committed a crime or like here but I -- I've heard the argument myself and and I'm sick of it because it's an argument that was made by.
And devoted Nazis during the Hitler regime -- the voting Communists in east Germany.
And stalinists and Russia and it basically says the government can make my choice is for me.
And whatever the government does I will dutifully do I'll tell you what's wrong with it is a -- privacy.
It histories dignity.
It destroys humanity no human being can live a full rich human life.
-- under a microscope whether voluntarily and the microscope a scope or whether it's the -- might as this law in Maryland how widespread is it does it apply now nationally every state or does every is it a state by state issue well it's state by state and it would applied of those 26 states.
That permit their police don't require but permit their posts and other problems to the cops have discretion how to how to they decide -- not to -- and who's not another issue for another time.
But the statute.
Excuse -- the opinion yesterday.
Permits the police in the states that have these statutes.
To swap now -- all states permit and requires -- After conviction.
After -- convicted.
The state has a right to know certain things about you.
Because you were going to be a guest of the state for a period of time and you honestly may not even know the information the state needs to have.
For you to be insecure and that's a different -- -- -- proven guilty this is a -- -- justice -- -- -- -- argument on this -- the presumption of -- on -- -- Because of the government wants a swab your mouth or mine right now.
It would need to go to a judge and present evidence -- probable cause meaning that it is more likely than not that somewhere in our DNA.
-- evidence of a crime and if the judge bought this nonsense he he or she would sign.
They weren't and they could get the swab and against our well so that should be the same for somebody arrested -- is innocent of the crime for which they are arrested.
As we are because they're all innocent until proven deal -- -- theory within this could tie you to a prior crime there was unsolved on this helped bring closure.
To a situation that has not been.
Properly adjudicated in the past look what what would it be easier for the police to tie people to prior crimes if they could break down any door they wanted an arrest any person they wished yes.
But who would want to live in such a society.
Judge ended a -- it was our -- is there a couple of key cases to still be decided affirmative action.
Arguments in the case of Fisher -- University of Texas at Austin -- in the court to rule on whether universities consideration of race.
Can be used in admission whether that's constitution whether a university owned by the governed by the government -- -- can take race into account -- the I suspect you and I would disagree on this however it's it's fascinating because the decision by justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the University of Michigan panel where she came up with -- of this never happened before since some charcoal and you'll know why she said in the decision.
That the he's the state of Michigan and any similarly situated law school or university.
May take race into account he can't be the dispositive factor but it may take into account for admissions.
But only for the time period of 25 years after the case.
That Justice Scalia look.
Sarah heard him say yes Sondra -- to come up that point is yes he's head of the statue of fish in the concert -- -- -- in the case law.
And she said I think we'll have a more enlightened society in 25 years ahead but we'll have a bathroom Nevada -- that.
She's wrong Chris I was fifteen years ago maybe another ten years from -- -- -- proven threat to raiders these same sex marriage in March the court heard two cases.
On the issue of marriage right so -- he's Hollingsworth vs Terry.
-- gives according cancer recognize -- constitutionally protected right to all people airstrip I think you know my views on this it is none of the governments business who are who we -- -- marry and we don't need the government's permission but as long as there in straight marriage.
They are not gonna get a -- that -- times well.
Look marriage is a contract it's like buying a house you have a contract with the person you are marrying the government Solomon nicest recognizes as lawful.
The existence of the contract you don't need the government's permission you break the contract the the the victim of the -- of the breach of the contract goes to court whether the victim as your spouse same sex.
The same gender or different -- but as a heterosexual I had to go to City Hall.
You know that piece of paper and prove that I was never prior.
Or at least you know if I were legally divorced and I -- I wanna get into into minutiae.
But in -- your own view it is not the government's business it is just between you.
And your spouse.
Or if -- O -- were here your spouse's.
We always says he wants -- -- the McGuire sisters -- but they've been dead for thirty years I wouldn't stop some people.
Don't month on March 27 the court heard the arguments in the case of the United States -- is Windsor Edith Windsor.
Her partner now gone but they had a multi decade relationship.
And this could overturn the -- marriage they they were actually.
Married in Canada.
Where the marriages lawful and at the time her spouse died in New York it was before same sex marriage was lawful here.
So rather than inherit the one million dollars state.
She inherits -- less 367000.
Dollars in income -- estate taxes that go to the federal government.
Does the federal government had any business recognizing some marriages and not others saying some love is better than others some -- meets our standard of approval than others.
The government can't deliver the mail I think -- -- -- opinion of its power recognize marriage and finally the other big case coming up before the close of session the voting rights act and for every 27 the court heard.
-- -- in Shelby county verses holder.
Calling -- a question.
What do -- key provision section five section five of the voting rights act section five of the voting rights act basically says that when certain counties in certain states.
Want to change the manner of our registration or voting.
They need to their written approval of the Justice Department and the reason for that is the track record of those counties is horrific.
Vicious malicious and racist and you agree that they shouldn't need that permission.
I Hillary I agree that some mechanism needs to be in there to make sure that the than the malice viciousness and racism is gone and I'm not satisfied that it is so those losing their look forward to return to the case is coming on the -- judges always good to see if -- went for dinner tonight did you Andrew Napolitano.
Filter by section