>> 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 divided after house speaker 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 ineffective. meanwhile on monday, wikileaks revealed a new batch of email. reveals internal workings

of the clinton campaign. we have jake sherman of politico. here in new york, ed rollins. he is a republican strategist and cochair of approach from great america super pac. i am pleased to have both of them on the program. tell me where we are this day. jake: it is tough to keep track sometimes. donald trump spent much of his day attacking republicans for being weak kneed, especially paul ryan. paul ryan is looking to protect his members, many of whom wants to win reelection, but also do not want to embrace trump and feel like they 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.

with 28 days left, donald trump says the shackles are off. we will see what that means. charlie rose: what does that mean? jake: i think he is going to be who he wants to be, and 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 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 of his base, and will not broaden that message at all. charlie rose: do you believe

there is possibly within the trump campaign of belief that if they are going down, they will go down being true to themselves? jake: 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 hands, he did not do a whole ton of it. he did big rallies. winning a general election, where hillary clinton has 50 offices in florida and has an early voter operation -- there are fundamentals to winning a large-scale election that donald trump has pointedly ignored. he thinks if he is going to go down, he will go down being himself. that is what it seems like. charlie rose: are we looking at an historic defeat? ed: if the election were today, it would be an historic defeat.

not necessarily the electoral college. the possibility is there. if it was held today, it would be very bad. it would be similar to goldwater. similar to george h w bush when he lost for reelection. 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 with -- when it with 37%. charlie rose: what do you think the impact is of the down vote? ed: 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 wants to not have hillary clinton as president. he has a tremendous opportunity to lay out his vision for the country, which i don't think he is going to do. here are the experiences i've had in the past, here's what we

need to do to fix economy, get jobs back, what have you. he has done that piecemeal, but then he gets tempted to go back and fight somebody on his own side. if i were working on his campaign, i would have a to talk aboutnot any republican, talk about the democrats and where you are different. charlie rose: what is he going to mean for the republican party if in fact what looks like is happening continues, and there is a devastating election? what does it do to the republican party? ed: 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. that may be in jeopardy today. 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 move forward with hillary clinton as president. either way, there is a big challenge. charlie rose: do you see more

people simply abandoning trump because of the debate performance? it was a little bit better than the first debate. ed: i think most people today are going to run their own races. what has unfortunately happened is we started up with an uphill -- started out with an uphill battle for the senate. most of the senators who were in trouble did a very good job of running campaigns in pennsylvania and elsewhere. what is happening is you have the wave knocking people down. it has the possibility. normally, an election is over by now. seldom this kind of 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 takes the shackles off and fights his own party the rest of the way, it will be a devastating election. charlie rose: what is it about

donald trump that makes them want to do that? jake: 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. one other thing we have not mentioned is 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 that is why they are beginning to put that distance there. if that happens, we will see many more republicans walk away from his candidacy. charlie rose: women will vote overwhelmingly. ed: we have had a gender problem for a long period of time. a good candidate can close that up somewhat. the first woman candidate for president will bring women out into roads -- in droves.

they vote in higher numbers than men do. trump basically needs to play to that constituency, especially younger women. he is not doing that. 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. in 27 days and one more big debate, you can still make a challenge to that constituency, but you can't do it by fighting your own side. 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? ed: reagan in 1980, people have

decided they did not want jimmy carter and reagan had to prove he was a viable alternative. after the debate he did that. that is when the landslide came into play. every election is close. there is so much polling today, and it is pretty accurate. when you are four or five points down, you talk about the voters, and you are dealing in a small world today. it is not a 50 state campaign. 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 would have seen a real erosion again. charlie rose: who does he listen to? jake: increasingly he is listening to himself. stephen bannon, who is basically running the campaign, who started breitbart -- i want to shift back for a second.

one thing we are saying with the debate is in his empirical -- fewer people are saying they're persuadable by these. we had a poll that was in the field on monday that showed that 80% or so of voters were saying these debates do not factor in to their vote in november. charlie rose: what about the emails? are they telling us anything about hillary clinton? jake: they're showing us the inner workings 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 different than she is saying publicly. that is pretty plain in these emails. 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-trade election, could have been extraordinarily powerful. you need to have one message behind closed doors and one publicly?

the ads right themselves. these are not difficult messages to get across. instead, donald trump is tweeting about john mccain and saying he is found out and that he needs paul ryan's support or else he cannot win. those emails 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 are you asking? jake: i think the fallout for people in these down ballot races is how these constituents are looking at them if they run away from trump. will turn out be so depressed they can't get elected? if you talk to top people running races, the concern is that the base drops off and you don't get independents on the other side. trump is not doing as well with independents as he once was.

we are going to be traveling across the country over the next couple weeks seeking this play out -- district by district. frankly, the third debate will be interesting, because it is foreign policy. donald trump has been shaky on some foreign policy in past debates. there are a lot of knocks on hillary clinton about her foreign policy and things that we are seeing in the middle east and across the globe. 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 berger and justice thomas. and the current chief. chief justice roberts. charlie rose: were you excited when you got a chance to sit on the bench, one step away from the supreme court? justice ginsburg: 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. people asked if i always wanted to be a judge. for a young woman studying law in the late 1950's, it was an impossible dream. women were not justices. jimmy carter looked at the federal bench and said those judges, they all look like me. 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 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. charlie rose: do you think you might have appointed you to the supreme court if he had a vacancy? justice ginsburg: it was too soon. he would have appointed shirley hostettler. she was placed on the court of appeals by president johnson in 1968. she was a great judge. carter made her the first ever secretary of education. when he made her secretary of , he determined to change that. if he had a vacancy, there is no doubt he would have appointed shirley hostettler. charlie rose: so you moved to d.c.

marty comes to d.c. he got a job as a professor at georgetown. he was a pretty good tax lawyer. justice ginsburg: in my not totally unbiased opinion, he was the best tax lawyer in america. charlie rose: other people have said that. i love his sense of humor. he described himself as having a professional life devoted to protecting the deservedly rich from the predations of the poor and downtrodden. and then ross perot wanted to end out a chair -- endow a c hair, 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. justice ginsburg: he said he

wanted to set up the martin d. ginsburg chair. we were hesitant. we said in the jewish religion, you don't name things after people until they are dead. and he said don't tell me that, i have named the symphony in dallas the meissen hall. when we still hadn't identified a school, he said i will set up the martin d. ginsburg at oral roberts university. and we said we don't think the founder of oral roberts would want to have that. and he said i spoke to him personally. and he said we are all god's children, and he would be delighted. so we named to georgetown, with the agreement that the chair would not be filled while marty was on the faculty. instead, the income would be used for the dean's

discretionary account. that is why the dean at georgetown was very fond of marty. charlie rose: you made at nyu something called the madison lecture. you made a point that 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? justice ginsburg: yes. so some states, including my own, new york, gave women an access to an abortion in the first trimester. no questions asked. it was just her decision. others had moved to grounds, like risk to the woman's health, the pregnancy being the product of rape.

others had conditions who had to have the approval of two doctors. they are always changing across the country. the people who wanted to keep the prohibition of abortion strong were fighting in states -- 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. you don't think that is the best interest of people? justice ginsburg: if the court had done in reproductive choice area what it did in the gender discrimination cases, that is one step at a time. always in the right direction. a progression that made it seem

that the next step was natural. roe v wade made the most ,estrictive law in the country even the most liberal law and the constitution, 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 at that target and accuse the unelected justices of the supreme court of having made a major policy decision. in truth, in 1973 when roe v wade was decided, it wasn't controversial among justices. there were only two dissents.

justice white and justice rehnquist. the chief had assigned the opinion to justice blackmun. this marked the point where the states began placing more restrictions and those cases came to the court. by and large, it upheld the restrictions. charlie rose: it might not have been that way if it had been built up? justice ginsburg: i had no crystal ball. in hindsight, we 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. charlie rose: 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 ought to also be a conversation.

stateegislators and legislatures and congress. in 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 -- because of the dissent starting a conversation so that a congress will either take a law and 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 had 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 antidiscrimination employment law. she got a nice jury verdict. her case came to this court. the majority said she sued too late. how could that be? charlie rose: a procedural question? justice ginsburg: yes. 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 for over a decade. far too late for 180 days. my view of the case was every paycheck she received renews the discrimination. she has 180 days from the latest paycheck to complain. i tried to explain why lily ledbetter didn't sue earlier, as 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

as she possibly could, if she 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. year after year, she gets good 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. so now she has a winnable case. i explained that in my dissenting opinion, and the tagline is that the ball is now in congress's court to correct the error. charlie rose: and that is exactly what they did. justice ginsburg: that is how they passed 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. justice ginsburg: i can't explain the inner workings of the court on that particular point, but this i can say -- it was a 7-1 decision. the chief did not join my opinion, but he joined the judgment. scalia was the only dissenter. justice thomas was recused. he couldn't sit on the case because his son, at the time, was a student at vmi.

it was a 7-1 decision, and justice scalia's dissent aimed more at the chief than it did at me. i guess he expected what i would do, but was surprised at the chief. charlie rose: did you consider that the most important decision you had written -- opinion you had written? justice ginsburg: that remains to be seen. charlie rose: maybe want around the corner. i am verynsburg: proud of some of my dissenting opinion. which congress could still do something about, 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

renewed time and again by congress, every time with overwhelming majorities on both sides of the aisle. republicans, democrats. said that the coverage formula -- that the states had been a discriminator in the bad old days when african-americans were not allowed to vote, they could not adopt any laws relating to elections unless they precleared it through the department of justice civil rights division or a special court in the district of columbia. things were working well under that clearance system. the courts have a formula -- the court said the formula as to who

belonged in the discriminatory camp was outdated. 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 mechanism for getting out if you were no longer discriminating. it was called the bailout provision. if you had shown that, for x number of years, there had been no discrimination in voting, then you could come out from under the system. and i thought congress had identified a very good way to get out. dissent that i thought was important. charlie rose: when you came to the court, sandra day o'connor

was your good friend. left, you said that was a turning moment. justice ginsburg: when sandra left, it was a lonely place for me to be. the perception of the court is we sit on the bench and there is the audience of spectators, including the schoolchildren that come in. they looked at the bench and ight robert well fed men up there and this little woman. it is a wrong perception. the optics, they say now. justice ginsburg: i sit, by seniority, close the middle.

justice sotomayor or -- justice side,yor is on my left justice kagan on my right side. we are all on the bench. my new as are not shrinking violets. they take a very active part. charlie rose: you are a questioner. you love to ask questions. you look to lead the questioning. you are also previously a litigator. you are there and you are curious. you are no shrinking violet. you may be 5'4". justice ginsburg: a little less. charlie rose: your voice is strong, and is heard by those advocates standing in front of you. yes?

you love it. justice ginsburg: i do. charlie rose: what do you love? is it the argument? justice ginsburg: it is the constant thinking, and to see if i can get counsel to help reduce the level of controversy by asking a question designed to elicit a yes response that will narrow the area of disagreement. charlie rose: justice scalia. many people have been fascinated by the fact that ruth bader ginsburg and antonin scalia were friends. 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. in fact, when he was an undergraduate at georgetown, he was in the glee club at georgetown. monotone. charlie rose: his death shocked you? justice ginsburg: yes. charlie rose: do you miss him on the court? justice ginsburg: of course i do. it is a paler place without him. charlie rose: it doesn't have as much color and vibrancy? justice ginsburg: he was a wonderful storyteller. he had an uncanny ability to make even the most somber judge smile. he told many jokes, he had very

good humor. we said a passion for opera, and genuinely cared about family. charlie rose: they brought you back to harvard law school to honor you. lots of people were there in terms of clerks and a lots of other people. you 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: a full life. yes. when i was going to law school, my daughter was 14 months old when i started. i would take my classes, go to 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 bathed and fed and went to sleep, i went back to the law books. with renewed energy. i described that as the two parts of my life. each part was a rest fight -- ite from thes a resp other. charlie rose: and she turned out to be a lawyer as well. justice ginsburg: she is a distinguished law professor at columbia. charlie rose: and, was one class above or below justice roberts. justice ginsburg: below.

charlie rose: when you looked at what happened after scalia died and the president wanted to name garland. he couldn't get it to a vote. you're left with four and four. justice ginsburg: it is not a good number. it sometimes disagrees. stress,s, i should because the press doesn't explain it as it should. we are unanimous, at least in the bottom line judgment, much more often than we divide 5-4. we are unanimous in about 40% of the cases. charlie rose: what the decision will be.

justice ginsburg: the divisions of 5-4 or 5-3, they will be maybe 20%. we agree much more than we disagree. even so, if we divide 5-4, we are unable to issue a binding judgment. what we do is we automatically affirm-- automatically 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. charlie rose: as if you didn't do it. that is not good, because you want the supreme court to be the court of last resort.

justice ginsburg: yes. charlie rose: and in a sense, 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 conflicts among other courts about what the federal law is. that is why eight is not a good number. charlie rose: whoever becomes president will have, when they arrive in the white house, an opportunity to appoint a new supreme court justice. justice ginsburg: that is one scenario. another possibility is that after the election, the senate

will act. i would like to see the court have a full house by the time this term ends. nine members. charlie rose: before this term ends, which is? justice ginsburg: we stop hearing cases in april and are writing opinions in may and june. the last sitting to hear oral arguments is at the end of april. charlie rose: some people say that if hillary clinton becomes president, and it is a very close race now, that you would likely see a democratic majority, more than you have seen in a long time. liberals now, without a better classification. 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."

charlie rose: it was too easy but -- justice ginsburg: john paul stevens, appointed by president ford, or david souter, appointed by the first president bush. charlie rose: did not turn out the way they expected? justice ginsburg: they were not quote "conservatives." charlie rose: in fact, conservatives went crazy, as you know. justice ginsburg: it is hardly the first time. earl warren was nominated by eisenhower. , a republican. he was a registered republican and he was also appointed by eisenhower. charlie rose: you have had successful battles with cancer. you look and seem to me in good health.

you have energy. 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 are doing it full steam. justice ginsburg: this year, i am ok. at my age, i am 83, 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 institutions. 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 this way. it may be a rumor or a legend , but president andrew jackson to have said, "the supreme court said the cherokee indians should be treated fairly, now let them enforce it." we have no pursestrings or guns at our disposal. and yet when the supreme court , speaks, people listen. charlie rose: it can decide elections.

justice ginsburg: if you have in case,he one of a kind bush v gore, i 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 resigned from office the next day. it is in the first example. think of harry 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 to give the mills back to the owners. in many places in the world, the fact that a court speaks does not mean that the executive or legislature will follow or accept the decision. charlie rose: one thing that you disagree with antonin scalia was that you should take a look at international law, too. justice ginsburg: international law is not foreign law. what does it mean? international law is a law that governs relations among nations. we are a nation of the world, therefore we are governed by what our constitution calls the "law of nations," or international law.

what we are not governed by is the law or constitutional decisions of some other court, say in israel or britain or south africa. foreign law is not an authoritative source, but it can be something of persuasive value. good minds thinking about hard problems common to humanity, we look at courts from all over the world. charlie rose: one thing i'm going to ask you about and then i am going to close this. you have been wonderful. televising the court. 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 any one 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 of what an appellate case is. if you televise a trial everything is happening right , out in front of you before your eyes. you see the witnesses, you see the judge, they bring a charge to the jury. in an 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 were written before ours. charlie rose: district court or appeals court.

justice ginsburg: then i turn to the lawyer's brief. then, maybe i will read what scholars have said about it. in important cases, we have dozens, sometimes over 100 friends of the court 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 are inevitably leaning in one direction or another. you don't come on the bench with an empty mind. not with a closed mind either. we don't want the public to get the impression that an appellate argument is a debate that is the 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, 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 work and to understand. obviously, we don't want justices telling us how to vote, we don't want justices telling us what is right and wrong about everything. we do want to know where their legal mind is, and what shaped it. your hero was louis brandeis. 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 contributor is justice o'connor with her civics program. school children nowadays don't learn about civics the way i did. now, they are concentrating on the math and reading scores. civics tends to get cut. music, art, it is too bad. sandra started this i-civics. it is pitched to middle school students. it teaches them about government and the court and why the court is different from congress and it does it in a way that is fun for the children.

spotted the need for that kind of education, and then found a way to deliver that would be appealing. charlie rose: not only that, part of that is she has made us in lots of ways understand a lot more about the judiciary. the different kinds of variations there are in the american judicial system. finally, this book is dedicated to marty, dear partner in life. and constants uplifter. what do you mean by constant uplifter? justice ginsburg: marty showed me i was better than i thought i was. he was a most unusual man. charlie rose: he left a letter. tell me about that. justice ginsburg: i wanted him to die at home rather than a hospital bed, and i was checking

to make sure we had took all his belongings. i pulled out a drawer and on a legal pad, he had written a letter to me. it was the most beautiful love letter. i suspect he wanted me to find it. i keep it in my bedroom, and to this day look at it now and then. when i feel that i need an extra shot of courage. he said to you that you were the love of his life more than anything. he said he understood that he had to make hard questions, that he knew he had terminal illness,

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. ♪ ♪

>> let's begin with a check of first word news. in syria, and airstrike on the biggest market on the rebel held side of aleppo reportedly left 15 people dead. an assault from syrian and russian warplanes has devastated aleppo, which international aid organizations say is in the midst of a humanitarian crisis. as helicopters to liver food and supplies to haiti after hurricane matthew, there is another threat -- cholera. at least 200 cases of the waterborne disease has been reported. donald trump is suggesting