Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
The next segment tonight new Rasmussen poll released this morning and says just 8% of Americans believe this reports doing an excellent job 20% things -- -- good job why.
Sixteen -- -- percent of Americans do not think the highest court in the land is doing a good job that's a huge drop in support.
As you may know I criticize a court for its loophole rulings -- for being a political body joining us now from Washington Fox's political cultural ground.
So you agree with me on this.
-- are -- -- appalled that the key fact about the polls -- you neglected.
To mention is that date it was take.
Was it had taken the day after and the day after that the major rulings of the court now whenever the court rules on some things.
Like the voting rights act or gay marriage you know which -- alienated anger a large part of the population.
And I think that is a temporary phenomenon you expect that at the end of June every year.
But I think generally speaking if you asked the same people.
Six months nine months -- I think people who show they'll -- a lot of a lot different result maybe they have a sense of respect for it but on the morning after a ruling when you're on the losing side.
-- at this time off for years ago to twenty point drop and they were making rulings for years ago but the loophole thing is is what gets me.
I mean as I said I have respect for the Supreme Court.
Kelly was a little skeptical my statement that throughout history I think they've done the right thing most of the time with the exception -- the -- years perhaps Roe vs.
A few the other things like that but but now.
Looking for loopholes to justify positions -- matter what the positions are.
That's not what they should be doing but that's what they are doing Charles he did and obamacare they did it -- nullifying a vote in prop 8 or am -- wrong.
Local -- Lenovo.
Is another man's treasure now I think what they did -- prop -- is simply they wanted to punt.
It's not a loophole -- you can say that there's no standing and therefore you say we don't want -- rule on this right now.
The reason is they wanted to concentrate on the other gay marriage issue.
The defense of marriage act and there they made a pretty radical ruling.
They ended up saying.
What looks like a ruling whether states will decide themselves but in fact.
The rationale that Justice Kennedy used.
He was that if you discriminate.
Against the gay couples vs straight couples in this state where gay marriage is legal.
Meaning -- and I was the federal.
The benefits and you granted to the there's.
You have done something unconstitutional.
And I understand that rule and I'm sad for them I think once you -- that.
You have to go all the way and in the -- say no state can outlaw gay marriage are you sure you on the next gay marriage.
Case in this Supreme Court they will nationalize game there.
Is that what the constitution.
Compels them to do.
There's no such thing -- compulsion.
You have a constitution it's not clear.
How it applies 235.
Years after -- written.
There are a lot of things they -- and that's why you our Supreme Court.
If there were obvious interpretations.
Everything in the document you would need to Supreme Court.
-- you'd meters in English professor who would explain the language and there are two ideologies and philosophies.
Liberals think it ought to reflect.
The mores of the modern age and conservatives think it hit auto entrench you.
In the ideas and their values at the time of the writing of the constitution.
They're both -- -- views I happen to put to adhere to the second.
But nonetheless that's what you're seeing I don't think it's illegitimate.
I don't think it -- your credit facility a -- when Roberts says hey the up punishing aspect of Obama -- -- when nobody was even talking about a tax them.
Well what I say he's generally speaking and it would apply to all the rulings that we -- last week.
The voting rights act which is a radical ruling.
And the event the -- a decision a radical decision.
I do agree with you and I relatives at the time of the Obama care decisions that Roberts.
Had to look for a rationale a loophole if you like.
Because he did not want to be seen.
As over returning -- law that was discussed and debated for a year.
Passed the house passed the senate side -- president I think he feels the damage done.
I -- the the gore bush decision.
In the year 2000.
Was such that he didn't want the court to expose itself.
I thought that was a mistake I thought it was wrong and I think it is an exception.
There's a general rule.
That the justices are going according to philosophy well so I -- -- on that and if you want to use the word loophole that is -- saying it's gonna.
Found a -- in California to nullify -- certainly legal vote.
And that's the way the people of California want and they're happy to be -- and they found they found in fact I think it's perfectly legitimate to say.
That there was no standing.
It's not the courts have -- at the government of that state refused to defend the -- and you don't have the power the people -- it is what what's basically happening and I got a lot.
Is that the power of the vote and the people all right to regulate what kind of the society they want in their state.
Is now evaporated.
Because we've got people who say you know why this is the way I want it and I'm -- -- oppose it and I'll find a way to do it.
Wrong -- they got to go ask it's a vast over reading -- very idiosyncratic.
Supreme Court -- -- using big words he feels.
I play more effective -- is a.
Filter by section