Early Saturday morning, House Republicans, prodded by fervent Tea Party freshmen passed a bill slashing government spending by $61 billion immediately. That vote forces Republicans and Democrats into a political showdown that could boil over into a government shutdown. How could this affect you? We speak with Nate Persily, Charles Beekman Professor of Law and Political Science at Columbia University, and the author of the book "Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy."

On Tuesday, voters will cast their ballots, bringing mid-term election season to a close. Unless, of course, some races are too close to call. Polls show that close Senate and gubernatorial races in Nevada, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin, Alaska, Colorado, Ohio and Florida could require recounts.

It’s an anxiety-inducing thought — and could potentially leave the House and the Senate hanging in the balance while the chads (or the absentee ballots, or the broken machines) get sorted.

• NUTRITION TAKEOUT: The average American consumes about 1,200 milligrams more sodium a day than they should. Too much sodium in our diets could lead to hypertension and heart disease. To combat this, the FDA is proposing a ten year plan to cut down the amount of salt in our foods. Marion Nestle, an NYU nutritionist and author of "Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety," has the details of the FDA's plan and tells us whether it might work.
• LEGAL TAKEOUT: The Supreme Court invalidated a federal law that banned videos depicting violence against animals, in an 8-1 decision yesterday. Columbia University law professor Nate Persily looks into why the Court ruled they way it did.

All week we’ve been exploring the mechanics of a broken legislative body in our series, “Frustration Nation.” We wrap up the series with a look at the solutions to government gridlock. Can we move away from filibusters? Should we rehaul our election rules? Should we get rid of the Senate altogether?

"Gridlock" is a term that went from engineering jargon to everyday lingo during a transit strike in 1980. Now it's used more to describe the situation on Capitol Hill, with partisan rancor holding up major legislation. We find out how stuck Congress really is and look at new ways to break the deadlock.

Today's Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC represents the most significant campaign finance and perhaps First Amendment decision we've seen from the Court in a very long time. The decision struck down the part of the McCain/Feingold campaign finance law (BCRA) that banned corporations and unions from using their treasury funds to run candidate specific ads before a federal election. The decision treats corporations like individuals, focusing on the value of their speech as opposed to the unique identity of the corporation as speaker. Previous decisions, now overruled, had held that corporations presented a unique corruption threat to the political process: "that immense aggregations of wealth [amassed] through the corporate form" posed dangers that individual expenditures did not.

All week long, we've been talking about the importance of the 2010 Census. To wrap up these conversations, we invited Nate Persily, professor of law and politics at Columbia University, and Ken Prewitt, the Director of the 2000 Census, to join the conversation. What's at stake -- and will everyone be counted?

A relatively innocuous (albeit negative) documentary on Hillary Clinton released during the 2008 election season may lead to something bigger than itself.  Today, the United States Supreme Court will return from its summer vacation to hear a case instigated by the film. It is, in fact, the second time the case has been brought before the nation's highest court, but this time it comes with greater weight: the potential to overturn campaign finance laws that have existed for the last 100 years. To take us from the film to the court case we are joined by Nate Persily, law professor at Columbia University; and Adam Liptak, Supreme Court correspondent for our partner the New York Times. 

For more, read Adam Liptak's article, Supreme Court to Revisit ‘Hillary’ Documentary, in the New York Times.

Check out some of the documentary, Hillary: The Movie or watch part one below:

It is Day Four of the U.S. Senate's confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, and The Takeaway is asking: are Senate confirmation hearings a chance to explore the intricacies of U.S. jurisprudence and truly assess the character of the nominee? Or just a chance for senators to impress their constituents and for nominees to tell the Senate what they want to hear? The Takeaway talks to Nate Persily, a professor of law and political science at Columbia University.

Here's Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) taking his turn on the Senatorial stage yesterday:

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8 to 1 ruling yesterday to exempt a small Texas town from government oversight of their voting process. In a case that could have gutted the key provisions of the historic Voting Rights Act, the law designed to prevent racial discrimination at the polls, the Justices instead issued a very narrow exemption. The Takeaway looks at whether Chief Justice John Roberts is maneuvering in order to build bigger majorities and avoid 5-4 decisions. To help answer that question and to discuss the ruling we turn to Nate Persily, professor of law and political science at Columbia University.

Early reports say that President Obama has made his choice for the U.S. Supreme Court. The pick to fill retiring Justice Souter's seat appears to be Sonia Sotomayor. She has been a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit since 1998. Before joining the appeals court, she served as a United States District Court judge for the Southern District of New York. The Takeaway turns to Columbia Law Professor Nate Persily for more.

Justice David Souter is planning to retire after more than 19 years on the Supreme Court, giving President Obama his first chance to fill a vacancy. What was Souter known for, and what will his retirement mean for the Supreme Court? To answer these questions on The Takeaway is Nate Persily, a professor of law and political science at Columbia University. He was at the Supreme Court this week watching the events unfurl.

Click through for a transcript.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 yesterday to limit the Voting Rights Act. The ruling says there is no duty to draw voting districts that will elect black candidates in areas where blacks are less than a majority. The Takeaway talks to Nathaniel Persily, Columbia University law professor, and Richard Pildes, New York University law professor, about the implication of the ruling. Specifically, the role of race in elections almost 50 years after the Voting Rights Act was passed, and that the Supreme Court might rule on another section of the Voting Rights Act next month.

As if Illinois' political crisis wasn't complex enough. Embattled Governor Rod Blagojevich has appointed former Attorney General Roland Burris to President-elect Obama's vacant Senate seat. Joining us to discuss the thorny legal implications of that appointment is Nate Persily, professor of law and political science at Columbia University.

Taking on an issue like gun regulation in the US can mean political suicide for even the savviest of politicians. Nate Persily, law professor and political scientist at Columbia, joins the Takeaway to talk about what President-elect Barack Obama needs to know about gun policy during his first term in office.