From our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. It is the first monday in october and the u. S. Supreme court opened its 20142015 term it declined to rule on the issue of gay marriage. Five states banned samesex marriage. It also announced they would be hearing some other important cases. Joining me from washington is jeffrey toobin. Tell me about the new Supreme Court term on the first monday in october. What we know is what it will not include. The final climactic battle over whether there is a constitutional right to samesex marriage. In a surprise to many people, including me, the Supreme Court today denied or refused to hear five cases where Circuits Court of appeals held that there is a constitutional right to samesex marriage. In fact, the decision today brings to 30 the number of states that will have samesex marriage. What it does not issue a ruling for all 50 states about whether there is a right to samesex marriage. So they are kicking the can down the road a little farther. But the direction seems to be clear. Are they looking for the perfect case here . I do not think that is it so much as they are looking to see, first of all, is there a conflict between Appellate Court rulings on this issue . So far, every Appellate Court that has decided this case has decided it the same way. That there is a constitutional right to samesex marriage. The interesting question, there are a couple of more conservative circuits, including the six circuit, based in cincinnati, where those panels may say there is not a right to samesex marriage. So it could come back to the Supreme Court as early as this term to address this question. But it seems to me the justices want to let this percolate for little while longer before they address it. Tell me about this is a rap music case. It is such a bizarre case. It is yet another example of how Technology Changes the law. There is a couple that was romantically involved and the man they had a big fight and the man posted a bunch of really terrible things on facebook that were, at the very least, malevolent and offensive and possibly threatening. He was prosecuted for making terrorists threats, including citing some rap music. The question is, are those statements on facebook protected by the First Amendment . The other case is hope versus hobbes, deciding whether a muslim prison inmate may grow a halfinch beard, which is against regulations. Right. There have been related cases involving religious accommodation of prisoners. How much do you have to accommodate . Is there a right to kosher or hilal food . The courts have basically said yes. There are related cases in the military. Can you force someone not to wear a yarmulke because it is not military regulations . But this case poses the interest in prison discipline and security versus religious expression. It seems to me the beard is a pretty easy case, that they will allow the beard to be worn. Is this year likely to significantly define the legacy of chief Justice Roberts . Well, i think it is a little early to say that. There are two things to keep an eye on here that are related. One is race discrimination. This is a court the conservative majority, and Anthony Kennedy is very much with this, really has a great this taste for any sort of consideration of race, affirmative action, racial preferences and admissions. And there is a case involving housing discrimination, which gives them another opportunity to say we are not going to recognize anything other than direct discrimination. I do not hire you. I am not allowing you to rent a house because you are black. Any sort of statistical proof, they do not like. In a similar way on Voting Rights. Any sort of consideration of race in Voting Rights is something that is clearly distasteful. There is a case out of alabama that i think the conservatives will use to further narrow the traditional civil rights agendas. Those are two very much worth keeping an ion. Thank you for joining us. We will be right back. There is more high legal drama in washington. Concerns about the government 2008 bailout of aig. They were rescued at the height of the economic crisis. Since 2011, they have taken aggressive aim at the terms of that rescue. His lawsuit argues that the government cheated shareholders out of 40 billion. Trial began last week and continues this week. A list of star witnesses include an bernanke, hank paulson, tim geithner. Im joined by Aaron Kessler of the New York Times and leslie scism of the wall street journal. Give me the significance of this trial beyond the suit, which is to recover some money. The case is significant because it really challenges what the government was doing. Since then, they have put in place measures for how you would resolve companies if they get in financial trouble. This would be a big smack in the face of the federal government. Not having this carried out, this particular refuge. And this is the first these guys have been under oath to explain their actions, and by a very good trial lawyer, who has not only read their book, but got information about the writing of their books and what they have said, every possible note or utterance they have made about this case. Precisely. They have testified extensively in congress. So they are used to getting testimony. But they may not be used to the bulldog approach that they are going to face with david here. What do you think . I think you are correct. You have a situation where the government bailed out aig and then they come back years later and say it was not enough. It is one of those things where the government believes if aig had the ability to dictate the terms of their own bailout, that sets a dangerous precedent for any other Company Going forward. I want to add to that. The company run by Hank Greenberg maintains that the government wrongly applied punitive terms, wrongly penalized it. The government said we were not so much being punitive as we were concerned about moral hazard. We felt we had to put together we did not want to encourage other companies to be reckless and think they could come to us and think they could get a better deal than they could from the private sector. Will david moyes be able to make the case that, somehow, the terms in this situation were different from the terms with other banks and, therefore, they went beyond the law in the collateral they demanded as well as the Interest Rates they imposed . Certainly, they have already raised that at the trial, just the first week. The memos have the government officials admitting that was the case, that it was a harsher penalty for aig. The government has said, look, we are justified to do that. We have reasons we felt it was necessary and legal. In terms of the basic tenets of whether or not aig was treated differently, it is almost like that has already been decided. Exactly. Hank paulson, today, testified under oath that it was apples to oranges, some of these comparisons that david moyes was bringing up about proper treatment for aig versus other companies. He said, we were acting based on the circumstances in this case. It will be interesting to see how the judge does it matter that one got a different set of conditions than many others did . What was the hardest question for hank paulson today . He struggled a little bit on a question about china. He seemed to take issue with the Chinese Government coming in to save the day for aig. He was skeptical that that would happen. Mr. Moyes tried to press him on that. Whether he was open to the idea of a chinese rescue, and hank paulson pushed back the hardest he did all day on that idea. Ben bernanke, from tim geithner, these were three people at the center of the financial crisis. How difficult a road is this for david to climb . He has several challenges. He has to prove that the government went beyond the reaches of the Federal Reserve statute. On top of that, he may have to prove damages and Economic Loss to aig. Even if he convinces the judge that the government did something wrong here, the government may still be able to say, where is the harm . They cannot prove that they were hurt by anything we did. It seems like david does have a pretty hard case, but he has gotten a lot of money. Mr. Greenberg has been paying the legal bills and there has been a lot of money coming in. They have been able to build as good a case as they could possibly build. And he has been successful defending mr. Greenberg. The government has fought to get this case thrown out a couple of times. Still, here we are in court and a couple of claims are made. So david has had some success so far. There was also a case a couple of years ago where Hank Greenberg sued aig. He represented mr. Greenberg and won that case, was able to show that Hank Greenberg was the controlling interest of star. A couple of years later, here we are in court and there is no one from aig on mr. Greenbergs side. A few old friends from the company and whatnot, but aig is itself is not a party to this suit and they do not agree with what he is doing. You have this strange triangle. You come back to what mr. Dempster said, he said, it is like they said yes to the life boats but they are just not comfortable, in some sense. A story in the wall street journal, there were some indemnification provisions for the facility at the heart of this case. If mr. Greenberg wins this case and there is some big award, the government could turn to aig and say, we would like your help paying for this. There are good reasons why aig could get out of that indemnification agreement, but it is an interesting twist. How is aig doing now . It is doing ok. That is part of what the government has been saying. Where are the damages here . The aig shareholders might have taken a certain haircut at the time in terms of the shares, but they ultimately made money. The government is saying, look, the shareholders in this case wound up making money. Remarkably, aig is doing ok. What interests me about this is the dynamic of this courtroom with the shares as big as they are and the money as large as it is and the personalities who are in there as witnesses and the star quality of david, certainly one of the great trial lawyers. His style, he has this conversational style in the way he deals with businesses. Mr. Paulson, today, was very straightforward, if you will. It might not be the best word, but he answered questions very frankly and moved through very quickly. Last week, the fed general counsel was on the stand and seemed to contest every little point. Arguing over words like what does many mean for the bonds were downgraded. It will be interesting to see if mr. Geithner and ben bernanke learn from what hank paulson did today. Thanks. In full disclosure, and many years ago, the star foundation, like many other foundations, was one of the underwriters of this show and david has been a longtime personal friend of mine. Back in a moment. Stay with us. Gillian flynn wrote a 2012 thriller called gone girl that has sold 8 million copies worldwide. It involves nick and amy dunne. When amy goes missing on their anniversary, nick becomes a prime suspect in the investigation of her possible murder. It is now filmed right David Fincher. Here is the trailer for gone girl. Nick dunne, you are probably the most hated man in america right now. Did you kill your wife, nick . Everyone told us and told us, marriage is hard work. Not for me and nick. As you all know, my wife disappeared three days ago. I had nothing to do with the disappearance of my wife. I have nothing to hide. Friends she talked to . Not really. You do not know she has friends, you do not know what she does all day, and you do not know her blood type. You really do not like him, do you . I am trying to be nice to the people who are volunteering to help find amy. My husband loves me. But i could be wrong. Amy is the kind of girl who attracts admirers. I am hoping you can tell me what this means. Do you see this girl right here . Yes, i remember her. What did she want . She wanted a gun. We are all scared, but we are all here now. I feel like i could disappeared. The hallmark of a sociopath is a lack of empathy. Why would they mop up the blood if they were trying to stage a crime scene . I finally realized i am frightened of my own husband. A trained monkey. You insulted her. I never touched her. The disappearance of our daughter without a body, all we can hope is for someone to confess. You asked me if i killed my wife . What about my son . This man may kill me. You ever hear the expression, the simplest answer is always the best one . Actually, i have found that not to be true. We are here with the director, the writer, and two of the films stars. Thank you very much. Explain the popularity of the book first. Explain yourself. I think it was the relationship that is at the heart of the story. There are a lot of different thrillers that have a whodunit element. It was one of those things, women wanted to talk about it, men wanted to talk about it, people would finish reading it and hand it to someone else. Because it is about relationships at its core. There are a lot of entry points to it. There is the gender stuff, the media and what that does to society, relationship stuff. There is a lot of ways into the book. You said that, based on smile. I never dreamed that he would be available. At the time when we were crewing up to make the movie, we were jockeying because a lot it was at stake. It was obviously, everyone that was discussing it, the studio why would they say that . Because it is just too perfect. You need someone who has great wit about the situation. You do not want somebody who has you know, he needed to be somebody who could understand the global aspect of the film, the impression that he is making over the course of the 2. 5 hours as opposed to finding you in a situation that is particularly embarrassing at any given moment. Tell me how you saw nick. You said this was the trickiest role. It is really the role that the movie hinges on. There is so much subtlety to it. There are so many different nuances to it. We cannot really know that there are nuances being played. An actor like ben, i thought of him immediately once i started writing the screenplay. Films like hollywoodland that he was in, i knew he had the great acting ability to pull off making us wonder what this guy was thinking without saying too much. At the same time, this real ability. You do not want the audience to turn completely off on him immediately. What was the challenge for you here, both of you . How fresh you are from a morallysuspect character. [laughter] the truth is, what is really interesting for me is and i am not the only actor who has been through the tabloid experiences and has photographers outside their home and that sort of thing, but it is something that i have sort of made peace with. There is a particular quality to that experience in my life that is parallel, in some ways, to some of the i did not have to spend a lot of time researching that. There is also no hindsight resentment. Wellbalanced. Yeah. You do not have any say in it. It is not about you. It is beyond you. And that is the effortlessness that you are able to bring to it. What these guys put together is an interesting challenge and an interesting antagonist. Hollywood has this obsession with likability. The guy is not likable enough. To make somebody likable, the theory goes, you have to like six or seven articles of behavior. This book and movie seem to want to abandon that. Sometimes, he makes choices that sometimes you cannot empathize with. I am not sure i would do that exactly. And he is sometimes in tune. The audience is forced to project themselves onto a more honest protagonist than one that is conveniently manufactured to reassure us of our own virtue. How did you know about this film . Likability is not important, which is a big relief. I heard about it is this a role that you went after you cannot go after something when he is directing it. He has a very single process. I think that is the point. I know enough about directors i do not think you can pitch your way to a director. I do not think that is how it works. Is that true, you think . Suppose there is someone that you really have to get that somebody. You have to convince them and then you do convince them. The temptation to do that is obviously very strong. It is appealing to see that someone has a tremendous amount of commitment, which she did. She did everything you could possibly do for this movie. Other than that, sometimes actors during the movie, not getting the part. Doing the movie. To accomplish that kind of part. This is something actors do, when they are playing the war hero. I actually was a heroine too. I remember when i started out, they asked if i could play tennis. The whole scene was pretty good. There is a thing that goes on and it is hard to tell. What is easy to see is commitment. You certainly saw what she did with the part. When David Fincher wants to meet you, you want to try to show him the truth. He is not a guy that is going to take whatever has been packaged already. When he talks to you, he is going to scan the substrata and find out what you really are. You have got to go in there for hours and hours and it is interesting. I read this book and thought, i know i have got this in me somewhere. You had amy in you . This is what you said about her. You needed an only child, and orchid, and a hothouse flower. [laughter] what i said was, when i met her, i had seen rosalunds work. I had seen a lot of it. I had seen two years later and another movie. I watch actors all day long. It is what i do. I think you develop a radar for their how many arrows they have in their quiver. And i never got a bead on rosalund, which is different for me. We started talking and i was like, i do not have a full impression of her, which is weird. And then i met her and realized there was a sort of opacity and a resistance to being pinned down. As we started talking, i was drawn to her and curious about her. She revealed that she was an only child and it suddenly occurred to me that amy is an only child. All of a sudden, it made sense. Why i could not quite grasp your instincts. Yeah, something was off or different or special. What is it . All of a sudden, i realized. What do we think about marriage . You know, i started the story with the idea of how honest are we in our relationships . It is the idea that we are emotional con artists when we star