>> CATHY: THE U.S.

SUPREME COURT HAS A DEADLINE TO GET ITS WORK DONE.

AND IT'S JUST TEN DAYS AWAY.

HERE WITH A PRIMER ON WHAT TO LOOK FOR AS THE COURT GETS READY TO RULE ON ITS BIGGEST CASES IS PAUL HANNAH.

LONG IN PRIVATE PRACTICE, PAUL NOW TOILS IN THE HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

IN HIS SPARE TIME, HE'S A SUPREME COURT OBSERVER.

>> WOW, THAT SOUNDS BORING.

THEY DON'T EACH GO ON TV.

>> Cathy: IT SOUNDS INTERESTING.

LISTEN TO THE AUDIO TAPE.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, VOTING RIGHTS, LET'S SEE, PROP 8 AND GAY MARRIAGE.

THOSE ARE THE FOUR BIGGIES, RIGHT, THAT ARE STILL OUT THERE?

>> YEP.

>> Cathy: AS A STARTING POINT, WHEN YOU START ANALYZING -- I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU SAY IT'S TOO SIMPLISTIC TO LOOK AT THE COURT FROM A LENS OF CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL.

>> PEOPLE ALWAYS MAKE THE MISTAKE OF EQUATING CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL WITH POLITICAL IDEAS, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT DRIVES ANY OF THESE PEOPLE.

THEY'VE GOT PRINCIPLES THAT THEY FOLLOW AND SOME OF THEM ARE STRONGER THAN OTHERS, AND THAT KIND OF DETERMINES HOW THEY'RE GOING TO COME OUT.

JUST TO SHOW YOU, THE BEGS EXAMPLE IS THE OBAMACARE DECISION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS WHO IS A REPUBLICAN APPOINTEE, THOUGHT TO BE IN THE CONSERVATIVE GROUP, AND HE ULTIMATELY ENDED UP SAYING THAT OBAMACARE WAS CONSTITUTIONAL, NOT BECAUSE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE BUT BECAUSE IT WAS LIKE A TAX AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE POWER TO TAX AND THAT'S WHAT THESE PERSONAL PAYMENTS BY PEOPLE WHO DON'T GET INTO AN EXCHANGE OR AN INSURANCE COMPANY, THAT'S WHAT HE FINALLY DECIDED WAS GOING TO BE A TAX AND IT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL.

THE PUNDITS WENT CRAZY.

REAL CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATORS THOUGHT IT WAS HORRIBLE, LIKE HE HAD SOMEHOW DONE A TERRIBLE THING BUT IN FACT ALL HE WAS DOING WAS FOLLOWING A PRECEPT OF THE COURT THAT SAYS, IF YOU CAN FIND A WAY TO MAKE AN ACT OF CONGRESS CONSTITUTIONAL, YOU HAVE TO DO THAT.

PLUS, HE'S A VERY -- HE LOVES THE COURT AND HE WANTS THE COURT TO TAKE SMALL STEPS.

>> Cathy: SO LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL JUSTICES.

>> YEP, AND THEY CHANGE FROM TIME TO TIME.

THEY MAY BE FRIENDS AND WORKING ON THE SAME SIDE IN ONE CASE AND THEN TURN AROUND AND BE BITTER ENEMIES IN THE NEXT.

SO WITH KNEES FOUR CASES LEFT, THE QUESTION IS, IS IT GOING TO BE 4-4, WITH KENNEDY, JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY BEING THE DECIDING VOTE?

EVERYWONG THINKS THAT.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S HOW IT'S GOING TO WORK OUT.

>> Eric: PERSONAL RIGHTS VERSUS GOVERNMENT POWER.

IS THAT ONE OF THE LENSES THAT THEY USE?

>> THEY REALLY DO AND AN EXAMPLE WAS A RECENT CASE WHERE IN MARYLAND, A GUY WAS ARRESTED FOR A SERIOUS CRIME AND THEY TOOK A SWAB, GOT HIS DNA AND SUBSEQUENTLY CHARGED HIM FOR A RAPE THAT HAD OCCURRED SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS AGO, AND THE ARGUMENT WAS, PERSONAL RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED NOW BECAUSE THE 4th AMENDMENT SAYS YOU ARE SUBJECT TO UNREASONABILITY SEARCHES OR SEIZURES.

I THOUGHT THAT THE COURT WOULD GO 4-4 WITH KENNEDY IN THE MIDDLE.

IN FACT, IT DID GO 5-4 BUT SCALIA, WHO'S NORMALLY CONSIDERED CONSERVATIVE WAS ABSOLUTELY ANGRY AT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD DONE AND HE WROTE THE DISSENT WITH THE OTHER THREE LIBERAL JUSTICES, AND THEN BRIAR, A LIBERAL JUSTICE WENT OVER ON THE OTHER SIDES, SO IT'S REALLY HARD TO BE ABLE TO PREDICT.

>> Cathy: FEDERAL VERSUS STATES RIGHTS, I WOULD THINK YOU WOULD USE THAT LENS WHEN YOU LOOK AT DOMA AND PROP EIGHT.

>> AND PROP 8, AND PROBABLY THE OTHER TWO TO SOME EXTENTS, BUT DOMA, THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, THE CONGRESS SAID FOR ALL PURPOSES UNDER FEDERAL LAW, MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.

AND OF COURSE OTHER STATES, INCLUDING NOW MINNESOTA, HAVE VERY DIFFERENT IDEAS ABOUT WHAT MARRIAGE IS GOING TO BE AND -- BUT THINK OF WHAT THAT'S LIKE IF YOU'RE A SAME-SEX COUPLE IN MINNESOTA, YOU FILE ONE FORM FOR MINNESOTA TAXES AND ANOTHER FORM FOR FEDERAL TAXES AND YOU CAN'T USE THE SAME NUMBERS BECAUSE UNDER ONE YOU'RE MARRIED, UNDER ANOTHER YOU AREN'T.

I THINK THAT'S DOOMED.

DOMA IS DOOMED.

DOMA IS DEAD AND IT'S PURELY BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T BE MESSING AROUND IN THE STATES.

THAT'S CALLED FEDERALISM AND I BET YOU THAT'S CLOSE TO UNANIMOUS VERDICT.

>> Cathy: HOW ABOUT PROP 8?

>> PROP 8 IS A REAL -- THAT'S WHERE POLITICS ACTUALLY COMES INTO PLAY.

NONE OF THESE JUSTICES WANT TO GET AHEAD OF THE CURVE.

THE SUPREME COURT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO LEAD, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE WISE AND YOU COULD TELL IN THE ARGUMENTS, THEY'RE VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE IDEA OF COMING OUT AND SAYING SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, THE LIBERALS WOULD SAY THAT, THE CONSERVE TIPS WOULD SAY NO IT'S NOT.

WHAT THEY'LL DO IS PICK A RULE -- MEANING THAT PEOPLE IN FRONT OF THEM REALLY DON'T HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME AND THEY'RE GOING TO TOSS IT, I THINK.

>> Eric: AN AINITIAL ACTIVE ACTION CASE WHICH IS IMPORTANT.

>> IT'S IMPORTANT AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

THE SUPREME COURT JUST LIFTED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION SIX YEARS AGO IN MICHIGAN, MACHINE LAW SCHOOL USED RACE AS A FACTOR, THE COURT SAID THAT WAS ALL RIGHT.

LOOKED AT ALL THE DATA AND DECIDED THAT THAT WAS NECESSARY.

NOW, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SAYS THAT RACE MAY BE ONE OF SEVERAL FACTORS TO BE LOOKED AT AND, APPARENTLY, THE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT LIKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING JUSTICE THOMAS, I THINK ARE JUST ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGED BECAUSE WHEN THEY WERE TALKING TO THE LAWYER WHO WAS REPRESENTING THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, THEY SAID, WELL, WHEN ARE WE GOING TO KNOW IF THINGS ARE FINE AND THE STUDENT BODY IS DIVERSE?

AND HE SAID, WELL, WE'LL KNOW IT WHEN WE SEE IT.

>> Cathy: REALLY QUICKLY ON VOTING RIGHTS.

>> VOTING RIGHTS IS ANOTHER REALLY DIFFICULT CASE.

IN 1965, CONGRESS PASSED THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT PART OF THE GREAT SOCIETY, AND THEY SAID THESE STATES IN THE SOUTH HAVE HISTORICALLY STOOD IN THE WAY OF VOTER REGISTRATION AND VOTING RIGHTS FOR MINORITIES.

SO WE'RE GOING TO SAY THAT BEFORE THEY CHANGE THEIR ELECTION LAWS, THEY'VE GOT TO GO TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND GET THEM OKAYED.

THAT'S NOW, WHAT, 40, 50 YEARS AND I THINK THE COURT -- AND CONGRESS EVERY FIVE YEARS IS SUPPOSED TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT... WELL, IF YOU'RE A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, IT'S EASY, YOU GO, YEAH, OKAY, WE'LL KEEP IT GOING.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT.

I THINK THAT SECTION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACTS IS GOING TO GO AWAY.

I JUST THINK THAT -- >> Eric: TIME HAS ESCAPED US.

>> ALL RIGHT, WELL... SO I DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A PREDICTION?

>> Eric: NO.

>> Cathy: WE'LL LET YOU GO ON THAT ONE, OKAY?

>> Eric: THANKS, PAUL.

>> Cathy: THANKS, SEE YA LATER.

♪♪♪