>> from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. charlie rose: we begin this evening with our continuing coverage of the presidential election. the republican party finds itself elected after paul ryan backed away from donald trump on monday. though he did not revoke his endorsement, he said he would no longer campaign for the gop nominee. the decision drew criticism from his caucus. donald trump called him weak and monday,ive or it on wikileaks revealed a new batch of e-mail.

strategistepublican and cochair of approach from great america super pac. day.me where we are this >> it is tough to keep track sometimes. donald trump spent much of his day attacking republicans for being weak need -- kneed, especially paul ryan. paul ryan is looking to protect his members, many of whom wants dowin reelection, but also not want to embrace trump and feeling the need to walk away from his candidacy. there is a fallout from that. what ryan and a lot of other people in the house are wondering is whether he has angered some people, whether he will actually depress turnout by walking away from donald trump.

it is difficult to see how this all ends up. trump says the shackles are off. we will see what that means. charlie rose: what does that mean? to be who he is going he wants to be addressed not going to worry about paul ryan or the members of the house republican congress and the several dozen members of senate that are up for reelection in difficult races across the country. from the people i talk to, they are actually seriously can learned about learning -- concerned about losing both chambers of congress. before congress left washington, they were hoping to keep their losses to single digits. in the house, they are talking about maybe 30 seats are up because donald trump is still talking to a very narrow slice not broadennd will that message at all. charlie rose: do you believe

that is possibly within the belief that ifof they are going down, they will go down being true to themselves? >> i think he thinks that. he has some evidence. he did win a primary by ignoring political consultants and doing things his way. when he was told to go to new hampshire and go to diners and shake can, he didn't do it. he did big rallies. winning a generally election -- a general election, where hillary clinton has 50 offices in florida and has an early there areation -- fundamentals to winning a large-scale election the donald trump has fundamentally it toward. he thinks if he is going to go down, he will go down being himself. charlie rose: are we looking at an historic defeat? today,he election were

it would be on historic defeat. not necessarily the electoral college. as it was held today, it would be very bad. it would be similar to goldwater. you also have third-party candidates who may take 10% of the vote away. you could win this with 46% or so, but you can't win with fourth -- with 37%. charlie rose: what you think the impact is of the down vote? >> there is a lack of enthusiasm. so many americans are disgusted on both sides. there is certainly a diehard element to the republican party that loves what he is doing, but it is a small segment. the majority segment once to not have hillary clinton as president. layas hms opportunity to out his vision for the company, which i don't think he is going to do.

piecemeal, butt then he gets tempted to go back and fight somebody on his own side. working on his campaign, i would have a lobotomy. what is he going to mean for the republican party if in fact what looks like it's happening continues, and there is a devastating election? what does it do to the republican party? >> if trump wins, it is his party. he gets the task of trying to bring it back together again, and he will not have success unless he has republicans holding the senate and the house. if he does not win, which is what we would say today, then the various players that are in the game have to decide how to forwardword -- to move with hillary clinton as president.

either way, there is a big challenge. people rose: d.c. more simply abandoning trump because of the debate performance? i think most people today are going to run their own races. what has unfortunately happened is we started up with an uphill battle for the senate. most of the senators who were in trouble did a very good job of running campaigns. what is happening is you have the wave knocking people down. it has the possibility. normally, an election is over by now. seldom there is change at the end of the campaign. i have never seen an election like this in 50 years. i think there is a lot more to come. what worries me is if trump take the shackles off and fight his own party the rest of the way, it will be a devastating election. >> i think trump has played by

his rules for a long time. that is a characteristic on capitol hill, that when people get elected and they have owned a business, they think the rules do not apply to them. that is how he has comported himself. at the highest levels of the republican party in washington, people believe that this is not the end of the opposition research on donald trump. people believe there are other videos, more audio. that is what is scaring them, and they are beginning to put that distance there. if that happens, we will see many more republicans walk away from his candidacy. we have had a gender problem for a long. that's a long period of time. a good candidate can close-out up a bit. first woman candidate for president will bring women out

in throws. they vote in higher numbers than men do. trump basically needs to play to that constituency, especially younger women. i think there may not be the intensity there was, and turnout may not be quite as large as the obama election. it is not about rednecks, blue-collar guys that i grew up with, the reagan democrats. it is about if you can get women to buy into this candidacy for economic purposes, or terrorism, or national security. that is what the message needs to be. you can still make a challenge to that constituency, but you can't do it by fighting your onside. charlie rose: what is the biggest shift you have seen taking place in the last month? has there been a dramatic shift? or is there simply a momentum that was there increasing? in 1980, people have

decided they did not want jimmy carter and reagan had to prove he was a viable alternative. that is when the landslide came into play. close.lection is there is so much polling today, and it is pretty accurate. when you are four or five points , that it is an eight or nine state campaign. it is much harder to move numbers dramatically, and i think most debates reinforce your own base. i don't think anybody was moved off of his better performance the other night. if he had stumbled, then you have seen a real erosion again. jake: increasingly he is listing to himself. stephen bannon, who is basically running the campaign, who started right part -- breitbart

-- i want to ship back for second. fewer people are saying there persuadable by a poll. or so of voters were saying these debates do not factor in to their vote in november. charlie rose: what about the e-mails? jake: they're showing us the innerworkings of her campaign. they're showing she was truly fearful of bernie sanders. i think a great message for donald trump this week would have been that hillary clinton is telling wall street donors something district that she is saying publicly. that is pretty plain in these e-mails. she said she was for open borders, basically for unlimited free trade, and that is a message that in this election, in this populist, anti-trait election, could have been extraordinarily powerful.

you need to have one message behind closed door and one publicly? these are not difficult messages to get across. instead, donald trump is tweeting about john mccain and saying he needs paul ryan supporter else he cannot win. those e-mails will keep coming out over the next few days. wikileaks says they have tens of thousands of these. it is not over, but it is getting there. charlie rose: what else you asking? >> -- jake: i think the fallout -- the fallout for people in these down ballot races is how these consist with are looking at them if they run away from trump. will turn out be so depressed they can't get elected? that the bass drops off and you don't get independents on the other side.

is not doing as well with independent says he wants was -- independents as he once was. debate will third be interesting, because it is foreign policy. donald trump has been shaky on some foreign policy and passed debates. -- past debates. there are a lot of knocks on hillary clinton about her foreign policy. far from completely settled, but we are getting close. charlie rose: we will be right back with the great justice of the supreme court, ruth bader ginsburg. stay with us. ♪

charlie rose: in 1980, president jimmy carter appoints you judge of the appeals court of the district of columbia, a place which has been the breeding ground of justices of the supreme court, including antonin scalia. justice ginsburg: and justice burger and justice thomas. chief. current charlie rose: were you excited when you got a chance to sit on the bench, one step away from the supreme court?

excited --sburg: i was i excited? i was excited when jimmy carter became president and made it his mission to change the complexion of the u.s. judiciary. lawa young woman studying in the late 1950's, it was an impossible dream. women were not justices. jimmy carter looked at the federal bench and said those me.es, they all look like that is not how the great united states looks. so i will choose judges from all of the people. he was determined to appoint members of minority groups in numbers, and women in numbers.

not just as one of time curiosities -- one at a time curiosities. he had no supreme court vacancy to fill, but he appointed about 25 women to the federal trial bench, and 11 to courts of appeals. i was one of the lucky ones. have appointed shirley hostettler. she was placed on the court of appeals by president johnson in 1968. she was a great judge. he made her secretary of -- ation if he had a vacancy, there is no doubt he would have appointed shirley hostettler.

charlie rose: so you moved to d.c. it is a job -- get a job as a professor at georgetown. he was a pretty good tax lawyer. justice ginsburg: in my not , he wasunbiased opinion the best tax lawyer in america. charlie rose: other people have said that. i love his ends of humor. he described himself as having a professional life devoted to protecting the rich from the predations of the poor and downtrodden. and then ross perot wanted to endow the chair, and he could not get him through the idea. ross perot said -- i think the story goes -- i will put up a chair for him at oral roberts. he said hesburg: wanted to set up this chair.

in the jewish religion, you don't maintain's after people until they are dead. and he said don't tell me that, i have named the symphony in dallas. when we still had identified, he i will sell up the chair at oral roberts university. and we said we don't think the founder of all roberts would want to have that. and he said we are all god's children, and he would be delighted. named it with the agreement that the chair would not be filmed -- filled.

be used for the dean's discretionary account. at nyu rose: you made something called the madison lecture. you felt the decision in roe versus wade was too broad, because it gave a singular target for all of those who oppose abortion. justice ginsburg: at the time of roe v wade, abortion law was in flux across the country. charlie rose: several states have different laws? yes.ce ginsburg: so some states, including my own, new york, gave women an abortion inss to an the first trimester. to -- have moved

others had conditions who had to have the approval of two doctors. there are always changing across the country. the people who wanted to keep the prohibition of abortion stateswere fighting in -- sometimes winning, sometimes losing. charlie rose: so they're fighting in a lot of different places, and all of a sudden there is one target -- roe v wade. justice ginsburg: if the court in reproductive choice area what it did in the gender discrimination cases, that is one step at a time. always in the right direction. something that made the next

step natural. that made the most restrictive law and the country in the most liberal law in one fell swoop. the court had done it all. the people who favored a woman's decision, they won and kind of retreated. the other side had a target to rally around. they could hit of that target theits use -- accuse unelected justices of the supreme court of having made a major policy decision. in truth, in 1973 when where we wade was decided -- roe v wade was decided, it wasn't controversial among justices.

there were only two dissents. the chief had assigned the .pinion to justice blackmun this is where the states began placing more and those cases came to the court. it upheld the restrictions. charlie rose: it might have been that way if it had been built up? hindsight, werg: can speculate what would have happened. i think it would have been a more secure way to go to take this one step at a time. the thing that interests me about what you have said in speeches and in writings and about the law is that you think that what the court says

austin be also a conversation -- ought to also be a conversation. fact, it has happened that way in some cases, in which a decision that may not go the way you wanted will end up as of the starting a conversation so that a congress will either take a lot amended -- amend it to take away something that is not necessarily right, or add to it to strengthen something. justice ginsburg: the best example of that conversation is the lily ledbetter case. lily ledbetter was an area manager at a goodyear tire plant , one of very few women doing that kind of work. one day, she found in her mailbox a slip of paper with a series of numbers.

the numbers were the compensation received by other area managers. her pay was at the very bottom. a young man who is very recently come on board was earning more than she was. so she began a lawsuit under title vii, which is our principal anti-employment discrimination law. -- antidiscrimination employment law. her case came to this court. the majority said she sued too late. it was the timing that they relied on. it was a provision that said that a person complaining of discrimination in employment must complain within 180 days of

the discriminatory event. she had been working at this job or over -- job for over a decade. everyw of the case was paycheck she received rent is the discrimination -- renews the discrimination. why lilyo explain , asetter didn't sue earlier a woman holding a position that traditionally has been held by men. she did not want to rock the boat. she didn't want to be seen as a troublemaker. besides, they did not give out pay figures. even if she knew that she was

discriminated against from the beginning and she sued as soon if shepossibly could, had sued early on, we know what the defense would have been -- it would have been nothing to do with her being a woman, it was just she didn't do the job as well as men. goodafter year, she gets performance ratings, so they no longer have that defense that she doesn't do the job as well. they say she does the job as well or better. case. she has a winnable i splayed that in my dissenting opinion, and the tagline is that the ball is now in congress is court tocongress's error. the charlie rose: and that is exactly what they did. justice ginsburg: that is how they passed error. the lily ledbetter fair pay act.

it was the first act of legislation president obama signed. ♪

charlie rose: there is also in 1993, a point where you are on the court of appeals, and then you are appointed by president clinton to be on the supreme court.

justice rehnquist is the chief justice. you have a good relationship with him. as i remembered, he loved librettos. justice ginsburg: he loved gilbert and sullivan. charlie rose: he appointed you to write the emi case. i can'tginsburg: explain the innerworkings of the court on that particular point, at this i can say -- it was 7-1 decision. the chief did not join my -- ion, but justice thomas was your used -- week used -- justice thomas was recused. , ands a 7-1 decision

justice scalia's dissent and more the chief than it did at me . he expected what i would do, but was surprised at the chief. do you consider that the most important and pinion -- open you have written? justice ginsburg: that makes the scene. seen.t remains to be it was the so-called shelby county case where the court had invalidated a key provision of the voting rights act of 1965,

even though that legislation had been reviewed time again by congress every time with overwhelming majorities on both sides of the aisle. coverage said that the -- ula adopt laws forot elections in the late precluded --the department of justice unless they -- things were working well under that clearance system. the court decided who belongs in the discriminatory cap -- camp

was outdated and congress had to do it again. it would be a hard thing for congress to do it again. what senator or representative would say that my state or county is still discriminating, so keep us under federal surveillance? the law itself had a built-in if yousm for getting out were no longer discriminating. had shown that for x number of years there had been voting,imination in then you could come out from under the system. -- i thought that is a dissension that i thought was important. charlie rose: justice o'connor

was a good friend. when she left come he said that was an attorney moment. justice ginsburg: when left, itt -- sandra was a lonely place for me to be. is perception of the court we sit on the bench and there is the audience of spectators, anchor in the schoolchildren that command. -- including the schoolchildren that come in. it is a wrong perception. i sit by seniority close to the metal. -- by the middle.

we are all on the bench. colleagues take a very active part in alignments. charlie rose: you are a questioner. you love to ask questions. you are also previously a litigator. you may be 5'4". , and isce is strong heard by those advocates standing in front of you.

you loved it. justice ginsburg: i do. charlie rose: what do you love? is it the argument? justice ginsburg: it is the , and to see ifng to help reduceel the level of controversy by asking a question designed to elicit a yes response that will disagreement.a of charlie rose: justice scalia. many people have been fascinated by the fact that ruth bader ginsburg and anthony scalia were .riends whether good friends and not, i don't know. we all know that you both love opera. you said he was a better singer than you were.

justice ginsburg: he was a much better singer. justice scalia had a very good tenor voice. when he was an undergraduate at , -- etown charlie rose: his death shocked you? justice ginsburg: yes. charlie rose: do you miss him on the court? justice ginsburg: of course i do. him. a paler place without .e was a wonderful storyteller he had an uncanny ability to make even the most dour judge smile. he told many jokes, yet very

good humor -- he had very good humor. opera, andssion for --most genuinely cared about charlie rose: they brought you back to harvard law school to honor you. ,ou talked about the balance the importance of family, and the balance you had found between the law and family. you think it is important, the family? justice ginsburg: yes. to law school,g my daughter was 14 months old when i started. , go to take my classes the library, study hard.

4:00 was when the nanny went home, and that was my daughter's time. we would go to the park, we would play games, i would read to her. after she was based and fed and went to sleep, i went back to the law books. i discarded as the two parts of my life. -- i described that as the two parts of my life. charlie rose: and she turned out to be a lawyer as well. justice ginsburg: she is a distinguished law professor at columbia.

charlie rose: when you looked at what happened after scalia died and the president wanted to name garland. you're left with four and four. justice ginsburg: it is not a good number. sometimes it disagrees. we are unanimous at least in the bottom line judgment much more 5-4. than we divide we are unanimous in about 40% of the cases. 5-3,ivisions of 5-4 or

they will be maybe 20%. we agree much more than we disagree. so, if we divide 5-4, we are unable to issue a binding judgment. what we do is the automatically confirmed the decision of the court below. no opinion is written. the affirmance has no precedential value. if we divide 5-4, it is just as though we denied review. that is not good,

because you want the supreme court to be the court of last resort. and it is says come you're making the court of appeals the court of last resort. justice ginsburg: and it could be worse than that. it could be that we took the case because courts of appeals disagreed. if we are unable to decide the question, you could have one federal law in one area of the country and the opposite federal law in another part of the country. it is important that the supreme court be able to resolve conflict among us about what federal laws. that is why eight is not a good number. charlie rose: whoever becomes president will have when they arrive in the white house and opportunity to appoint a new supreme court justice. justice ginsburg: that is one scenario. afterr scenario is that

the election, the senate reacts. i would like to see the court have a full house by the time ends.erm and -- term charlie rose: which is? justice ginsburg: we stop hearing cases in april and are writing opinions in may and june. some people say that if hillary clinton becomes , that you would likely see a democratic geordie more than you have -- democratic majority more than you have seen in a while. you could see a very different court. justice ginsburg: you could, but i resist the notion that if you are a democrat, then you are

"liberal." just to think of john paul by presidentinted ford, or david souter, appointed by president bush. those 2 -- charlie rose: did not turn out the way they expected? justice ginsburg: they were not quote conservatives. it is hardly the first time. earl warrenas -- was nominated by eisenhower. charlie rose: you have had successful battles with cancer. you look and seem to me in good health.

have -- i have spent the last two hours with you. no thought of retiring? justice ginsburg: i have said that i will hold this office as long as i can do the job full steam. charlie rose: and you're doing it. . -- and you are doing it full steam. justice ginsburg: you have to take it year-by-year. i am hopeful that i have many years of good health and good thinking ahead. charlie rose: when you look at the court, is it essentially -- you take pride in institution. you feel the weight of -- maybe everybody does -- you feel and love the institutional quality of the supreme court.

justice ginsburg: i think the supreme court is the most respected high court in the world. it was not always his way -- this way. it may be a rumor or a legend that president andrew jackson is supposed to have said that the said that about that jerky indians should be treated family, now let them -- that the cherokee indians should be treated fairly, now let them in force it -- enforce it. when the supreme court speaks, people listen. charlie rose: it can decide elections.

justice ginsburg: if you have in case, ine-of-a-kind don't think it decided the election. it decided it sooner, but the outcome would have been the same. the election would have been thrown to the house of representatives, which then had a republican majority. it would have been a victory for bush anyway. it would have come weeks and weeks later than the supreme court decision. charlie rose: after the decision, which was 9-0 in the watergate case, everybody understood the court had spoken, and that was it. justice ginsburg: yes. and the president turned over the tapes and resign from office the next day. think of truman who seized the steel mills in the korean war.

when a court said you don't have that authority mr. president, he immediately told the secretary of commerce give the mills back to the owners. in many cases in the world, the fact that a court speaks does not mean that the executive or legislature will follow or decision.- accept the thing withe: one antonin scalia is that you should take a look at international law, too. justice ginsburg: international law is not foreign law. international law is a law that governs relations among nations. we are a nation among the world, therefore we are governed by what our constitution calls the law of nations, or international

law. we are not governed by the law or constitutional decisions of some other court in israel or britain or south africa. foreign law is not an authoritative source, but it can be something of persuasive value. thinking about heart problems msmmon to human -- hard proble common to humanity, we look at courts from all over the world. charlie rose: you have been wonderful. court.ing the seeing justices write more books, speak out more about the conversation of america. where do you come down on that? televising the court? justice ginsburg: i am neutral

on that question. as long as anyone of my colleagues is apprehensive about it, i would not push. charlie rose: meaning it might affect the way they would conduct themselves? justice ginsburg: i think the most weighty objection is it gives the public a false picture cases. an appellate everything is happening right out in front of you before your eyes there you see the witnesses come easy the judge, they bring a charge to the jury. in appeal, much more important than the oral argument is the written part. the first thing i do when i prepare for a hearing on a case is i read all the decisions that came before hours -- before ours.

then i turned to the lawyers brief. then i will read what others have said about it. in important cases, we have --ens content sometimes over dozens, sometimes over 100 people, who tell us what they think about the hard question. you come armed to the teeth by the time you're on the bench. doing all that reading, you inevitably are leaning in one direction or another. you don't come on the bench with an empty mind. we don't want the public to get the impression that an appellate that is thea debate superior advocate wins. that is not at all what it is. the written component is ever so

much more important. charlie rose: this conversation has been about the past, and not the future. i would not ask about court cases coming up, because you would not tell me. but you do see more speeches, morris -- more appearances. i have interviewed a lot of judges -- justice rehnquist, justice breyer, justice scalia, and others. i think it is good idea to understand who these people are that have the power to impact our lives, and to understand how they see their world and understand. obviously, we don't want vote,es telling us how to we don't what justice is right and wrong about everything. we do want to know whether -- where their legal mind is, and what shaped it. your relationships on the court.

all of that. it seems to me to make for a more richer understanding of the court. justice ginsburg: i would like to mention that one tremendous o'connor,r is justice with her civics program. nowadayschool children -- they don't learn about civics the way i do. on, they are concentrating the math and reading scores. civics tends to get cut. , it isart -- music, art too bad. to middles is pitched school students come at it teaches them about government and the court and why the court is different from congress and how it is different. and they do it in a way that is fun for the children.

she responded to the need for that kind of education, and then found a way to deliver that would be appealing. that,e rose: not only part of that is she has a lot of ways helps to understand about the judiciary. finally, this book is dedicated to marty, dear partner in life. what do you mean by constant up lifter? marty showedurg: me i was better than i thought it was. he was a most unusual man. charlie rose: he left a letter. tell me about that. justice ginsburg: i wanted to die a home rather than a

hospital bed, and i was checking to make sure we had to call his took alls -- we had his belongings. on a legal pad, he had written letters to me. it was the most beautiful love letter. i suspect he wanted me to find it. , and tot in my bedroom this day look at it now and then. i feel that i knew next to shut up courage -- need an extra shot of courage. charlie rose: he said you are the love of his life more than anything. had terminale , and he said --

justice ginsburg: he said i hope you will agree with my decision. but i will love you nonetheless. charlie rose: the book is called my own words, ruth bader ginsburg. ♪

announcer: "big problems, big thinkers" is brought to you by cisco. there has never been a better time to change the world. ♪ terre: we asked some of the best minds in the world from business, government, the arts, and academia, what are the most urgent problems facing humanity, and how do we solve them? the result is "big problems, big thinkers." ♪ >> what is the number one major problem facing mankind? >> i think it is the lack of education. >> politics has been getting dumber and dumber. >> there is a balance of green spirit. >> if we don't have a more sustainable way -- >> everybody has the capability