petitioner's shall not make structural changes in the premises and interior without prior written approvalfrom the apartment here the sale of alcoholic beverages for of sale is strictly prohibited, and our last condition -- the sale and service shall be incidental to the premises primary business -- the sale of jewelry. with these conditions, we are recommending approval. i would point out that the applicants are here in the audience if you have any questions of them. supervisor avalos: very good. thank you. supervisor mar. supervisor mar: i just want to give my gut reaction that this is an unusual application because it is a sustainable jewelry store that wants to sell alcohol. i worry that it might set a precedent where we will start to see more stores that are not traditionally selling beer and wine and alcohol trying to do this in the future, so i am wondering -- are there other examples of this? i have some concerns about this, especially as it impacts other small businesses that have been selling alcohol traditionally, and restaurants and other clearly connected businesses, but this

in that respect, i will ask for a little more work from one petitioner or another. through all of that, they work pretty hard. >> this gentleman has been standing up for a considerable length of time. >> good morning, mr. chief justice. ron davis from winston-salem, north carolina. one of the things our firm has grappled with is social media. it impacts ethical obligations that we have. its impact client confidentiality issues. i figure if we are grappling with those kind of issues, it is probably more acute in the court system. i was just curious how the supreme court has dealt with this phenomenon. i had this image of one of your clerks tweeting from the supreme court about what is going on. it is it -- is it on a justice by justice basis where had you enacted certain policies? >> i sit down with the incoming clerks at the beginning of the year as soon as we get back and go through a number of things they have to be aware of and that is one of them. i tell them they obviously should not be tweeting about what they are doing or whether they have websites or whateve

petitioners say if anything this is an easier case than davis. the millionaire's amendment only allowed the publicly financed candidate to raise more money. in the arizona scheme the publicly financed candidate automatically gets them more funds. and they also have compelling facts here to make their case. one of the candidates in the case was running against three publicly financed candidates. so every time he raised $10,000, $30,000 appeared on the other side to oppose him. now, in many ways i think it is a stand-in for a much larger divide in campaign finance. for several years, the two sides have been utterly unable to find common ground. and that's because they began with different premises about the role that money plays in elections. one side sees substantial expressive dimensions to both contributions and expenditures. and the other side simply doesn't. it's too crude to boil down the debate to slowingance like money is speech or money is money. the positions on both sides is actually more nuanced. nonetheless, for the past ten years the

in paris and macomish -- in davis and macomish, in a petitioner's summary, they begin with a great anecdote when janet napolitano was running for governor. she pulled her upon the side and she thanked him for his fund- raising efforts. he had it fundraiser that raised $750,000. she got $750,000 in response. she said, i am quite certain that i am the only democratic governor in the country that george bush held a fund-raiser for. just as kagan said, it seemed like the system promotes more speech all-around. that is a core problem in campaign finance. the justices cannot agree on the basic premise of the doctrine, no balancing test, no choice about the level of scrutiny that will bring agreement. whatever the results in this case, the doctrine will remain highly unstable going forward. this is not doctrine moving toward consensus, but a death match between two competing points of view. i am tempted to quote harry potter -- neither can live more either survive. some of you remember there are other -- there is another finance case called citizens united. the press has an entirely missed the sig

in paris and macomish -- in davis and macomish, in a petitioner's summary, they begin with a great anecdote when janet napolitano was running for governor. she pulled her upon the side and she thanked him for his fund- raising efforts. he had it fundraiser that raised $750,000. she got $750,000 in response. she said, i am quite certain that i am the only democratic governor in the country tt george bush held a fund-raiser for. just as kagan said, it seemed like the system promotes more speech all-around. that is a core problem in campaign finance. the justices cannot agree on the basic premise of the doctrine, no balancing test, no choice about the level of scrutiny that will bring agreement. whatever the results in this case, the doctrine will remain highly unstable going forward. this is not doctrine moving toward consensus, but a death match between two competing points of view. i am tempted to quote harry potter -- neither can live more either survive. some of you remembethere are other -- there is another finance case called citizens united. the press has an entirely missed the signifi