[♪ THEME MUSIC ♪] >>> COMING UP IN THE NEXT HOUR OF LOCAL NEWS ON ARIZONA PBS, ON ARIZONA HORIZON, A U.S. SUPREME COURT SPECIAL.

WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME OF THE HIGH COURTS MAJOR DECISIONS FROM THE PAST SESSION AND HOW THE MAKEUP OF THE COURT FACTORED INTO THOSE ON BEHIND ON OF "SESAME STREET'S" NEWEST CHARACTERS IS FROM RIGHT HERE IN THE VALLEY AND READY TO TAKE HER PUPPETS ON THE ROAD, AND ON BREAK IT DOWN, THE ARGUMENT OVER REPARATIONS TO AFRICAN AMERICAN DESCENDANTS OF U.S. SLAVERY.

THAT'S ALL THE COMING UP IN THE NEXT HOUR ON ARIZONA PBS.

>>> GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO "ARIZONA HORIZON."

I'M TED SIMONS.

TONIGHT WE HAVE OUR ANNUAL U.S. SUPREME COURT REVIEW.

THE HIGH COURT'S RECENT DECISION RANGED FROM RULINGS ON FREE SPEECH AND OTHER ASPECTS.

HERE TO DISCUSS THAT, WE WELCOME PAUL BENDER FROM ASU'S SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR COLLEGE OF LAW AND STEPHEN MONTOYA, AN ATTORNEY WITH MONTOYA, LUCERO AND PASTOR.

GENTLEMEN WELCOME.

PAUL, WE'LL START WITH YOU IN THE REMOTE LOCATION.

THE COURT 6-3 CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY.

WAS THE COURT AS CONSERVATIVE AS EXPECTED?

>> NO, PRETTY CLEARLY NOT.

I GO THROUGH THE DECISIONS EVERY YEAR, AND LABEL THEM LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE, AND IT'S JUST ABOUT 50/50.

UNTIL THE LAST DAY IT WAS EXACTLY 50/50.

THEY DID TWO CONSERVATIVE RESULTS INCLUDING THE ARIZONA CASE, BUT THE COURT IS CLOSELY DIVIDED.

THE COURT HAS NOW CLEARLY BECOME MORE CONSERVATIVE THIS TERM, AND THEY DID A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT ARE REALLY NOT CONSERVATIVE AT ALL, LIKE RULING OBAMACARE WAS CONSTITUTIONAL, AND ALLOWING STUDENTS TO USE CURSE WORDS ON SOCIAL MEDIA, AND THEY SAID STATES HAD JURISDICTION ON OUT OF STATE CORPORATIONS, AS LONG AS THEY DID BUSINESS IN THE STATE, THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE THE PRIMARY PLACE OF BUSINESS THERE.

EXCEPT IN THE LAST DAY, I THINK THE COURT IS A LOT MORE CONSERVATIVE -- NOT AS CONSERVATIVE AS PEOPLE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE.

>> STEPHEN WHAT DO YOU THINK?

>> I THINK I DISAGREE WITH PAUL.

I THINK IT IS MORE CONSERVATIVE.

INSTEAD OF A LEFT WING AND A RIGHT WING, WE HAVE A MODERATE WING, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN FAIRLY CHARACTERIZE SOME OF THEM -- MAYBE SOTOMAYOR AS MODERATE, BUT WE ALSO HAVE A FAR RIGHT WING.

AND THEN WE HAVE A CENTER -- I THINK THEY ARE RIGHT OF CENTER, THOUGH, SO THAT'S WHERE I DISAGREE WITH PAUL.

I THINK IT'S THE MODERATES, THE RIGHT, AND THEN THE FAR RIGHT, AND I DO THINK IT IS MORE CONSERVATIVE WHEN IT MATTERS.

>> PAUL?

>> YEAH, STEVE AND I ARE NOT DISAGREES.

THERE IS PART OF THE COURT THAT IS NOT REALLY LIBERAL.

THERE IS A REALLY RIGHT PART.

AND THEN THE CENTER IS ROBERTS, CAVANAUGH, AND JUSTICE BARRETT, THE NEWEST JUSTICE.

THOSE THREE HAVE CONTROL OF THE COURT IN LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE KINDS OF CASES.

THEY ARE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE.

ROBERTS HAS MOVED MORE LIBERAL.

AND KAVANAUGH SEEMS TO BE JOINING HIM.

>> SO STEPHEN DOES THAT MEAN IT'S NO LONGER A ROBERT'S COURT.

NOTHING IS LIKE THE KENNEDY COURT USED TO BE, BUT ROBERTS TOOK THAT MANTEL A LITTLE BIT.

>> NOW IN ORDER FOR THE SO-CALLED LIBERALS TO WIN, THEY NEED TWO CONSERVATIVE VOTES, AND THEY OFTEN DON'T HAVE THAT, AND I THINK THAT PAUL IS RIGHT.

ROBERTS AND KAVANAUGH SHARED A PRE-COURT RELATIONSHIP IN WHICH ROBERTS WAS VERY MUCH THE SENIOR MEMBER, AND I THINK THAT IS TRANSPIRING AGAIN, BUT KAVANAUGH IS IN THE MAJORITY MORE THAN ANY OTHER JUSTICE, SO IN SOME WAYS IT'S A KAVANAUGH COURT, AND HE IS NO LIBERAL OR CENTRIST.

>> PAUL, LET'S START WITH THE ARIZONA RIGHTS CASE.

THESE TWO LAWS, THE ONE ON SO-CALLED BALLOT HARVESTING.

THE SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THESE THINGS.

GIVE US AN OVERVIEW OF THESE CASES AND WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED AND WHY?

>> MOST IMPORTANTLY, I THINK THAT WAS NOT A SURPRISE TO ANYBODY.

THE PROBLEM IS A LITTLE LESS THAN TEN YEARS AGO, THE SUPREME COURT IN A 5-4 OPINION BY JUSTICE ROBERTS DISMANTLED SECTION 5, WHICH SAID THAT EVERY TIME A COVERED JURISDICTION CHANGED ITS VOTING LAWS, IT WOULD HAVE TO GET PRECLEARANCE TO DO THAT FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR A COURT IN WASHINGTON, AND ALL OF THESE LAWS THAT PEOPLE CLAIM NOW, INCLUDING ARIZONA LAWS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLEARED, SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THIS PROBLEM.

AND INTERESTINGLY, A YEAR OR TWO BEFORE THE COURT DID WHAT IT DID, SECTION 5 WAS READOPTED BY THE CONGRESS.

I THINK UNANIMOUSLY IN THE SENATE AND ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY IN THE CONGRESS.

BUT ROBERTS SAID THE FORMULA FOR COVERAGE HAS TO BE UPDATED.

SO YOU CAN'T USE SECTION 5 NOW UNTIL CONGRESS ACTS TO REDO THE FORMULA, BUT CONGRESS CAN'T DO ANYTHING THESE DAYS.

IF THEY PASSED THE JOHN LEWIS VOTING RIGHTS, THAT WOULD DO THE TRICK, BUT THEY CAN'T GET A MAJORITY, AND I DON'T THINK THERE WILL, UNLESS -- IF THERE'S STILL A FILIBUSTER, SO YOU HAVE TO USE SECTION 2, WHICH WAS NOT DESIGNED TO DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM.

SO THE COURT HAS HAD TO APPLY SECTION 2.

THE LANGUAGE OF WHICH IS NOT TERRIBLY CLEAR, AND GIVEN ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE LANGUAGE IS THIS CONSERVATIVE COURT INTERPRETS IT IN A CONSERVATIVE WAY IS NOT TO APPLY.

SO STATES ARE DOING THINGS THAT WOULD STOP PEOPLE FROM VOTING.

AND THE COURT SAYS IT WOULD STOP YOU FROM VOTING, BUT YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT IT'S RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY.

AND THE MAJORITY SAYS IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO BE IMPORTANT.

>> AND REAL QUICKLY, STEPHEN I WANT TO AMPLIFY WHAT PAUL JUST SAID THERE.

BECAUSE THEY SAID MERE INCONVENIENCE CANNOT BE ENOUGH.

>> I THINK THAT JUSTIFICATION IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION AT ALL.

IT'S WRONG.

SECTION 2 IS RELATIVELY CLEAR, AND SPECIFICALLY AMENDED TO BE A DISPERT IMPACT TEST RATHER THAN A DISCRIMINATORY INTENT TEST.

THE SUPREME COURT INITIALLY SAID IT WAS A DISCRIMINATORY INCENT TEST.

SO CONGRESS OVERRULED THE SUPREME COURT, AS IT HAS THE RIGHT TO DO.

SO THERE IS A DISPERT IMPACT.

FOR EXAMPLE, LITTLE OLD LADIES LIKE MY FORMER GRANDMOTHER, SHE NEEDED SOMEONE TO TAKE HER BALLOT TO THE VOTING BOX.

THERE ARE LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF NAVAJOS ON THE NAVAJO NATION AT THIS VERY SECOND WHO ARE IN THIS SAME POSITION.

THERE IS A DISPERT IMPACT ON THEM.

AND EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY BE FEW IN NUMBERS ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS, BUT IT'S THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.

AND ELECTIONS ARE DECIDED BY LITERALLY ONLY THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.

SO WHAT HE IS CALLING A MINOR INCONVENIENCE TO COME IS A COMPLETE BAR TO VOTING.

AND I THINK IT'S CONTRARY TO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT CHANGED SECTION 2 TO MAKE IT A DISPARATE IMPACT TEST.

>> HOW IMPACTFUL IS THIS, PAUL?

>> IT IS VERY IMPACTFUL.

THIS IS AN IMPACT.

THE COURT SAID NOT ENOUGH OF AN IMPACT, AND THAT'S WRONG.

YOU KNOW, A HUNDRED VOTES CAN CHANGE A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN THE RIGHT STATE, AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE STATUTE WHICH SAYS IT HAS TO BE A SIGNIFICANT DISPARATE IMPACT, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE COURT HAS DONE.

AND THE COURT IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE ITS MIND.

THE WAY TO CLEAR THAT IS FOR CONGRESS TO CLARIFY, BUT CONGRESS CANNOT DO THAT, THEY COULD IF THEY ADOPTED THE JOHN LEWIS ACT, BUT IT DOESN'T LIKE THEY ARE GOING TO.

THE ONE BRIGHT LIGHT PERHAPS IS THAT ALITO'S OPINION SAYS IT IS NOT ENOUGH OF AN IMPACT.

THAT LEAVES OPEN IN THE FUTURE THAT COURTS COULD SAY A BIG DISPARATE IMPACT IS BAD.

AND YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE CASES IN THE LOWER COURTS FOR THE NEXT YEAR OR SO, WHERE THAT IS GOING TO BE THE SITUATION.

THE PROBLEM IS -- LET ME PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, THERE'S NO RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION.

THE ONLY RIGHT IS THE RIGHT NOT TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ON GROUNDS OF RACE, GENDER, OR AGE.

BUT THERE IS NO RIGHT TO VOTE.

IF THERE WAS A RIGHT TO VOTE, IT WOULDN'T COME OUT THIS WAY.

THE COURT SAYS THERE ARE ONLY A FEW PEOPLE WHO CARES.

THAT'S WRONG BUT THAT'S WHAT THE COURT IS SAYING.

>> INTERESTING.

INTERESTING.

NEXT UP, OBAMACARE UPHELD.

WAS THAT A SURPRISING DECISION TO YOU?

>> YES, AND NO.

IT WAS A SURPRISING DECISION TO ME, BECAUSE WHEN THE COURT FIRST CONSIDERED THE CONSTITUTIONALLY OF OBAMACARE, THE REASON WHY IT SAID IT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL WAS IT WAS AN EXERCISE OF THE TAX POWER, BUT NOW THAT TAX POWER WAS LEGISLATIVELY REVOKED AND NO LONGER EXISTS, SO LOGIC WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE FOUNDATION OF THE COURT'S PRIOR DECISION DISSENT GRATED, BUT THE COURT UPHELD IT.

WHICH SHOWS WHAT A RELATIVELY NOVEL CONCEPT STANDING IS.

THE COURT MANIPULATES STANDING IN MY OPINION TO ACHIEVE THE RESULT IT WANTS.

AND I THINK THIS WAS OBVIOUS THAT THE COURT DIDN'T WANT TO ABOLISH OBAMACARE, BECAUSE IT HAS CHANGED SOCIETY AND ALL OF YOUR EXPECTATIONS IN THE HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY HAVE MOLDED ITSELF AROUND IT.

>> IS THIS THE LAST WE'RE GOING TO SEE OF THE SUPREME COURT LOOK AT OBAMACARE?

>> I HOPE SO.

OBAMACARE IS CONSTITUTION.

CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO PASS IT, BECAUSE IT HAS AN I NORMOUS IMPACT.

BUT CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS WROTE AN OPINION WHO SAID YOU CAN'T USE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO IMPLEMENT OBAMACARE, BUT YOU CAN USE THE TAXING POWER.

AND THE PROBLEM THAT WAS RAISED IN THIS CASE IS CONGRESS -- AS PART OF TRUMP'S REN NOVATION OF TAX LAWS TOOK AWAY THE TAX ON OBAMACARE, AND SO PEOPLE SAID, WELL, THEN IT MUST BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

BUT I THINK THE COURT IS CONVINCED THAT OBAMACARE IS WITHIN CONGRESS'S POWER UNDER THE COMMERCE, AND SO WE SHOULD PROBABLY HAVE SEEN THE END OF THAT ISSUE.

>> THE NEXT CASE INVOLVES NEW YORK AND TO KEEP RELIGIOUS SERVICES THERE OCCURRING DURING THE PANDEMIC.

WHEN THE IDEA IS TO KEEP FOLKS FROM GATHERING IN DOORS.

THE SUPREME COURT RULED ON THIS.

AND THEY BASICALLY SAID THAT CHURCH WINS.

>> THEY DID.

AND INITIALLY, I WAS NOT VERY IMPRESSED WITH THAT DECISION, BUT WHEN I STARTED TO RESEARCH THE UNDERLYING FACTS, IT SEEMS AS IF THE RESTRAINTS THEY IMPOSED UPON CHURCHES WERE ALMOST UNIQUELY FAR-REACHING.

FOR EXAMPLE IN THE RED ZONE WHERE COVID WAS REALLY HOT, ONLY TEN PEOPLE COULD ATTEND AT ONE TIME.

IN THE ORANGE ZONE, 25 PEOPLE COULD ATTEND.

BUT DEPARTMENT STORES, NO LIMIT.

ACUPUNCTURE SHOPS, NO LIMIT.

GARAGES -- MECHANICS GARAGES, NO LIMIT.

AND IT DID KIND OF SUGGEST BASED UPON THE DISPARATE RESTRICTIONS IT PLACED ON CHURCHES AS THEY WERE PICKING CHURCHES OUT AS SOMETHING -- MAN CAN LIVE WITH BREAD ALONE.

>> AND IS THIS WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING AS A WAY TO FIGHT THE PANDEMIC?

>> THE STATES HAD A REASON.

STEVE IS RIGHT.

THE REASON WAS THAT CHURCHES ARE DIFFERENT FROM DEPARTMENT STORES IN THAT PEOPLE GO INTO CHURCHES AND STAY THERE FOR HALF AN HOUR OR HOUR, AND SING, AND SINGING IS A THING THAT SPREADS THE VIRUS AROUND, SO THE STATE SAID THAT IS A PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS SITUATION.

THEY DID TREAT CHURCHES DIFFERENTLY, BUT THEY HAD A REASON FOR DOING IT.

WHENEVER THAT THING COMES UP, WHEN IT'S DOUBTFUL THAT THERE IS A GOOD REASON FOR LIMITING RELIGION, THEY WILL ALWAYS COME DOWN ON THE SIDE OF THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION.

SO I THINK THIS COURT IS GOING TO RECOGNIZE RELIGIOUS RIGHTS AS BEING VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.

>> OKAY.

AND THEN THE FOSTER CARE CASE IN PHILADELPHIA.

THIS WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION.

>> APPARENTLY, YEAH.

I DON'T REALLY BUY IT.

THE REASON I THINK IT WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION, I THINK, PAUL, IS SOMEBODY THE NUMBERS WERE THERE.

THEY WERE ALL RE-WILLING TO REVISIT HUMAN SERVICES VERSUS SMITH.

THE CASE AUTHORED BY JUSTICE SCALIA THAT RULED AS LONG AS A RULE IS GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO THE ENTIRE PUBLIC WITH NO EXCEPTIONS, THEN IT IS STILL LAWFUL.

THE FACTS OF THE UNDERLYING CASE OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES VERSUS SMITH ARE IMPORTANT.

IT WAS THE NATIVE AMERICAN CHURCH, AND A COUPLE OF GUYS WANTED TO SMOKE PAY YOUTY, WHICH IS ILLEGAL, AND WERE PROSECUTED BY DOING SO.

THEY SAID IT WAS FREEDOM OF RELIGION, AND THE COURT SAID NO.

BUT IN FULTON, THEY SAID IT IS OKAY TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GAY PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTED UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

SO THE COURT IS PICKING AND CHOOSING ITS FUNDAMENTAL VALUES, AND HAS CHOSEN THE EXERCISE OF RELIGION TO BE A HIGHER VALUE THAN THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

>> AND THIS IS THE CATHOLIC SERVICE GROUP.

>> THE ONE RESULT IN THAT CASE, WHICH I THINK ON THE SURFACE IS WRONG -- IS THAT WHAT THEY WERE DOING WASN'T HURTING ANYBODY.

AND IF A SINGLE-SEX COUPLE HAD GONE TO THE CHURCH GROUP AND SAID WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A FOSTER CHILD, AND THEY SAID NO, THEY WOULD SEND THEM TO ANOTHER AGENCY.

SO THE PRACTICAL EFFECT ON THE ABILITY OF -- OF KIDS TO GET FOSTER CARE IN PHILADELPHIA IS ABOUT ZERO.

THE SYMBOLIC .IMPORTANCE OF IT, THOUGH, IS WHAT STEVE JUST SAID.

YOU HAVE A SOLID MAJORITY OF THE COURT, WHICH IS PREPARED TO GIVE RELIOUS ORGANIZATIONS TREMENDOUS FREEDOM.

>> YEAH, OUR NEXT CASE STEPHEN IS STUDENT DISCIPLINE FOR A STUDENT WHO USED A BUNCH OF CUSS WORDS ONLINE.

>> THAT'S TRUE.

ON SNAPCHAT, SHE HAD 250 FRIENDS.

SHE SAID F EVERYTHING.

I HAVE ONE TEENAGER LEFT, SO I'M USED TO THAT KIND OF REACTION, AND I THINK THE COURT WAS RIGHT.

I THINK WHAT SHE DID WAS RUDE, AND MAYBE SOMETHING THAT HER PARENTS SHOULD HAVE COUNSELED HER ABOUT, BUT I DON'T THINK THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE PUNISHED HER FOR IT.

IT TRANSPIRED OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL, OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL HOURS, AND ONLY PUBLISHED TO HER FRIENDS.

IT DIDN'T IDENTIFY THE SCHOOL, COACH, OR STUDENTS, IT WAS FREE SPEECH, AND THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINIONS TOO.

AND REMEMBER THE F THE DRAFT CASE, PAUL.

CURSE WORDS ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

>> WHAT DO YOU THINK?

>> CURSE WORDS ARE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE USED TO CURSE THE SCHOOL.

THE ONE ARGUMENT I CAN MAKE AGAINST THAT IS WHAT THIS GIRL SAID IS THE COACHES HAD MADE THE WRONG DECISION IN KEEPING HER OFF OF THE TEAM AND PUTTING SOMEBODY ELSE ON.

I THINK PEOPLE OWN A TEAM DON'T HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CURSE THEIR COACHES.

THE COURT DID NOT TAKE THAT SERIOUSLY, AND I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT.

BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT EVEN STUDENTS TO USE CURSE WORDS OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL.

>> ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A FEW MINUTES LEFT HERE.

I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE EXPANDING COURT.

THAT WAS A BIG TOPIC OF CONVERSATION.

IS THAT STILL A TOPIC?

IS THAT STILL SOMETHING PEOPLE ARE CONSIDERING?

STEPHEN WHAT DO YOU THINK?

>> I DON'T THINK THEY ARE.

AND I THINK THEY SHOULD.

I THINK THE COURT IS CLOAKED WITH SANK TA MOANNY.

THEY ARE ALL CELEBRITIES, AND MAKE MILLIONS OFF OF THEIR CELEBRITY, BUT NINE IS A SMALL NUMBER.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE COURT ACROSS THE DECADES, TIME AND TIME AGAIN, THE COURT HAS GONE AGAINST MAJORITY RULE, AGAINST INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, IT'S NOT A LIBERATOR OF THE PEOPLE.

IT IS A POLITICAL ANIMAL, AND PEOPLE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT, BUT BY THE NINE -- HOLDING THE NINE IS LIKE THE 12 APOSSIBLES.

I THINK THAT'S A MISTAKE.

I THINK EXPANDING THE COURT WOULD DIVERSIFY THE COURT AND TAKE AWAY SOME OF THE SANG MOANNY AND MYSTIQUE OF THE COURT THAT I THINK CAUSES IT TO HAVE MORE POWER THAN IT DESERVES.

>> PAUL, YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS?

>> I GENERALLY AGREE WITH STEVE.

PRESIDENT BIDEN IS NOT BEHIND AN ENLARGED COURT, AND UNLESS HE WOULD GET TO BEHIND IT, I DON'T THINK YOU ARE GOING TO SEE ANY ACTION THERE.

I BELIEVE THE CURRENT COURT IS OUT OF STEP, AND DOES NOT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF TEACHERS, LAWYERS, OR PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.

BUT IF YOU CHANGE THE SIZE OF THE COURT BECAUSE YOU THINK IT'S TOO CONSERVATIVE OR TOO LIBERAL, THEN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO KEEP DOING THAT WHENEVER THEY DO SOMETHING PEOPLE DON'T LIKE.

AND THEN IT BECOMES A POLITICAL INSTITUTION, WHICH IT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE.

IT IS A POLITICAL INSTITUTION NOW, BUT I'M WORRIED, THAT IF YOU ENLARGE THE COURT BECAUSE OF POLITICAL REASONS, THEN YOU ARE OPENING UP THE SIZE TO BE CHANGED WHEN THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE DON'T LIKE WHAT IT IS DOING.

WE -- THE PUBLIC HAS DONE VERY WELL, IN GENERAL, WITH A COURT OF NINE, AND A COURT THAT TREATS ITSELF AS ABOVE EVERYBODY.

AND I'M RELUCTANT TO CHANGE THAT, TO GIVE UP THE POWER OF THE COURT TO DO THINGS LIKE ON THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, AND THINGS LIKE RIGHT TO SINGLE-SEX MARRIAGE.

THIS COURT, DESPITE THAT, THEY HAVE DONE A LOT OF RIGHT THINGS AND WRONG THINGS.

AND I THINK WHEN YOU DON'T LIKE ITS DECISIONS, YOU ARE TURNING IT INTO A POLITICAL INSTITUTION, WHICH IS GOING TO BE NO DIFFERENT THAN CONGRESS.

AND ITS STRENGTH IS, IT HAS PRINCIPLES.

>> I THINK PAUL BENDER IS GOING TO GET THE LAST WORD ON THAT ONE.

GENTLEMAN, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

PAUL BENDER, AND STEPHEN STEPHEN -- STEPHEN MONTOYA THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU, TED.

>> THANK YOU, TED.

>> YOU BET YA.

>>> AND THAT IS IT FOR NOW.

I'M TED SIMONS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

YOU HAVE A GREAT EVENING.

>>> COMING UP IN THE NEXT HALF HOUR OF LOCAL NEWS ON ARIZONA PBS, ON CRONKITE NEWS, REACTION FROM SUNS FANS.

AND ON ARGUMENT OVER REPARATIONS TO AFRICAN AMERICAN DESCENDANTS OF U.S. SLAVERY.

♪♪