mr. ginsburg and peter from the department of the investment. >> thank you very much mr. ginsburg. >> thank you, supervisors. this is an exciting and important document. for the city and we'll grateful to the planning department and all of the community input that's gone on over a number of years to define and think about the policies in the open space plan we've been working closely with the planning department the open space elements in the plan to insure that we not only preserve our park spaces but serve the growing diverse populations with affordable recreation i think the supervisor talked about the balance balancing the series of principles and values we are blessed with such on amazing park system trial one of the best in the country and there really is something for everyone we can all get what we need to draw from so we're lucky and privileged to you sturdy sunshine much an incredible infrastructure. there's a lot of there will and policies that directly effect rec and park and whether it's privately-owned space in jurisdictions i'm proud about this document is t

mr. ginsburg define what they mean by ecological integrity and the second is what peter mentioned they were not trying to build one area out of nothing there's one this is less successful the dunes this was an old this it was knocked down and the area was acquired they 3wr5ug9 in said. >>and planted things the next time i looked i couldn't find on ant. >> thank you very much. next speaker. actually let me call the next batch of card if you will start to line up (calling names) come on up. those are all the cards i have by the way, >> i'm melinda and supervisor wiener you are my supervisor and i came up up to ask for voting no for this 4.2 is in it. it's as has been said before a land grab for the n ap i'm not happy with the way they've done the other parts they've been given so to have them as a model for our management ever our natural areas is not a good model i don't believe. i think there's a lot of ways we can manage land and not necessarily their way. in terms of getting it back to what is natural with global change i think the plants would be different now as is our coastline anyway

mr. ginsburger this this park didn't work it works for me those are the people that are not complaining and can'ter here and don't bother to come but people find this park fine. what's amazing about the park that's small but it packs a huge amount of activity both the small place very, very effectively. if you turn another quarter of the park over to grass irving to have a huge area that's not usually when it's wet and a put the way it is now despite the areas of rec and park to keep the lawn in good shape it fails that's a dust bowl. i don't think there's a way to keep it properly taken place whereas it can be used by aclu the year. there's absolutely no reason to split the baby in half if you keep the hardtop as it is and fence off the proposed terrace and path area and leave a small area in the area for days ago everybody does not wins. there's no grass in the high school by 3 blocks south there's douglas park it's fenced with a playground flat and perfect for kids to run around and a to play much better than this area of the court. basically, i obvious to the park it's been turned over

mr. ginsburg will know more than me. he's deciding essentially to fight it out in an sectarian form. it will lead to the decision of the country. can control baghdad in the south but not the areas he lost. if he's going fight. it. >> ambassador hillary clinton, former secretary of state talked about the situation in iraq yesterday and talked about her concern specifically with president maliki. this is what she said. >> i talked to a lot of sunni leaders. they were crazy about living a shiite-dominated regime. they were willing to work with maliki if he met them half way. he never did. >> how much is president maliki to blame for the current instability in iraq? >> you're going to apportion blame, i would say he gets lion's share. given what's going on there's enough blame to go around among everybody. let's be clear here, the problem has to be parcelled out in bite-sized pieces. maliki is a real problem, but the first problem for the united states right now is to get rid of isis, its leader, and bomb to smither reens all the military equipment, unfortunately, they captured. i'm not

mr. parks so it's great in promoting this so welcome phil ginsburg. >> he's mr. brooks and i'm mr. parks. what is joy to be here you guys are ready to go inside this is such such joyous days it's a story with a couple of different themes one it's a story about a buff partnership and that's the partnership that the 70 rec and park department has with our public libraries it's actually revitalizing community spaces this is how cities are supposed to be libraries and parks and public plazas and places for people to get together and challenge and build community learn and play and hang out. so it's a story about partnership i want to thank the library and lewis in particular for you leadership in trying to improve the quality of life in san francisco. it's the story of leadership and our elected officials from mayor 9 and supervisor wiener and senator leno's they get it they want to make life easier and pick the tough fights to visit in san francisco but your leadership and community leadership that is really made this happen this has been a long battle anytime you want to create posit

mr. clement and this goes back to justice ginsburg question that this treaty have itself regulated individual conduct? could the treaty have them self-executing? >> i think that's an interesting question and i don't think the court needs to answer. i would take the position that if there really were self-executing treaty that try to impose criminal prohibitions and i don't think there's any treaty like that but if there were one i would say here it violates the constitution for the same basic reasons that this implementing legislation does. >> where would you find that in the constitution because there is clearly a treaty power that does not have subject matter limitations and indeed if you go back to the founding history it's clear that they thought about all kinds of subject matter limitations in james madison and others decided quite consciously not to impose them. food where would you find that limitation the constitution?

do when they're in home and they're moving the equipment, the antennas and the dvr's -- justice ginsburg: mr. frederick -- >> to the internet. justice ginsburg: was judge chin right when he said there was no technically sound reason to use these multiple antennas? that the only reason for that was to avoid the breach of the copyright act. was there a technical reason, instead of having a oneway antenna, to have all of these what, dimesize antennas? >> let me this is a very complex question, justice ginsburg, and let me answer it multiple levels. there are technical reasons why the individual antennas provide the same utility at lower costs and functionality than one big antenna. but there are very practical concerns, too. as a startup business, aereo is attempting to entice consumers to replicate on the cloud what they can do at home at lower cap costs and more efficiency. as a practical matter, and judge chin had no basis in which to make this statement at all in his dissent because these are facts not on the record and efficiency is not a consideration under the copyright act, you can't do

justice ginsburg: but, mr. clement, you aid that -- that the treaty is valid and the implementing legislation seems to largely copy the words of the treaty without adding anything. so, it's a >> it is true the convention in the statute used similar terms but there is one important difference between the convention and the statute and that makes this case different. and that is that the convention doesn't regulate individual conduct at all. >> but the convention tells the state parties go regulate individual conduct in exactly the way this convention regulates state parties. and then what the legislature does is as justice said mirror the convention as the convention thought about it. >> to be quite precise, this is article one section one, says that each nation state that signs the convention agrees in accordance with constitutional processes to pass penal laws that make it unlawful for individuals conduct that would violate the nation state. and i would suggest that making that translation between what violate

mr. clement as justice ginsburg said, this was a very uncontroversial law. your understanding of this law, your interpretation of it, would essentially subject the entire u.s. code to the highest test in constitutional law, to a compelling interest tandard. so another employer comes in and that employer says, i have a religious objection to sex discrimination laws; and then another employer comes in, i have a religious objection to minimum wage laws; and then another, family leave; and then another, child labor laws. and all of that is subject to the exact same test which you say is this unbelievably high test, the compelling interest standard with the least restrictive alternative. >> well, i don't say that. i think congress said that. but to be as responsive as i can o your question, the parade of horribles that the government offers you ought to sound familiar, because if you look at that parade of horribles social ecurity, minimum wage, discrimination laws, compelled vaccination every item on that list was included in justice scalia's opinion for the cou

mr. james swanson. b.a. from the university of chicago and miss j.d. from ucla. law clerk here in one and latere ginsburg served in positions at the u.s. international trade commission and in the office of legal the department of justice. he is the author of the best theing book, "manhunt, 12-day hayes for lincoln's killer," which is currently televisioned into a mini-series. i can tell through personal experience it is a great read. his most recent published work closely tied to tonight's topic is end of days, the of john f.on kennedy. the "washington post" recently named it one of the best books year. mr. swanson is currently a senior legal scholar at the heritage foundation and setting the subject of extra curricular sidenments for judge as i'm very grateful that tonight's talk was an extra curricular assignment that james could not refuse. so please join me in welcoming james swanson. [applause] mr. chief justice, for that kind introduction. my chief also gave part of talk, so i'm going to take that the --t about you also thank the white house historical association and the the capitol and of course

ginsburg, said, can vaccinations and, medications derived from pigs? based on an employer's sincerely held religious beliefs? at the white house the president declined to comment but his spokesman said mr. obama feels the decision puts women's health in jeopardy. >> we believe the owners of for profit companies should not be allowed to assert their religious beliefs to deny their employees federally mandated benefits. >>> republican leaders called it a victory for religious freedom and a defeat for what they feel is government overreach by the obama administration. those representing hobby lobby insist the decision is a narrow one. >> this opinion is very focused on closely held family-owned businesses that have a religious objection to the contraception manatov. it doant appl -- doesn't apply m and exxon mobil. >>> still, to make sure all women get full contraceptive coverage. now, today's decision does not have any impact on the broader affordable care act, what the supreme court largely upheld two years ago by just a one-vote margin but tony it certainly gives the republicans another opportunity to call out the president on his signature health care plan. >> it sure does and lisa wh

mr. canning because you have the same first name? >> actually it was the knowle canning company. >> i listened to the first five minutes of the oral arguments on the scour. it started out with justice ginsburg and others asking what would happen if all the nlrb decisions don't exist any more. you haven't talked about that. what is the actual effect of the decisions? >> the decisions issued by the board with the unlawfully appointed members. the three members invalidated in the supreme court's decision. all those orders are buoyed. what it had to do in a different case called new process steel from a few years ago, where for different reasons it held the board was unlawfully constituted. what the board has to do is revisit each order and decide whether or not to readopt that position. >> can they do that in the aggregate? >> i think a new process steel they actually assigned a panel to each case. the panel reviewed it and decided up or down whether to affirm it. generally, i think they did affirm it. i don't think they did it in an aggregate order. that might raise a few issues. >> they didn't have to wait for a new case to arise. >> right. >> i see. >> the court decided a couple of clean ai

mr. canning because you have the same first name? >> actually it was the knowle canning company. >> i listened to the first five minutes of the oral arguments on the scour. it started out with justice ginsburg and others asking what would happen if all the nlrb decisions don't exist any more. you haven't talked about that. what is the actual effect of the decisions? >> the decisions issued by the board with the unlawfully appointed members. the three members invalidated in the supreme court's decision. all those orders are buoyed. what it had to do in a different case called new process steel from a few years ago, where for different reasons it held the board was unlawfully constituted. what the board has to do is revisit each order and decide whether or not to readopt that position. >> can they do that in the aggregate? >> i think a new process steel they actually assigned a panel to each case. the panel reviewed it and decided up or down whether to affirm it. generally, i think they did affirm it. i don't think they did it in an aggregate order. that might raise a few issues. >> they didn't have to wait for a new case to arise. >> right. >> i see. >> the court decided a couple of clean ai

mr. estrada -- >> there is a three-day recess between sessions, then your argument is that is a recess, and the president can make, can make appointments in that time. >> justice ginsburg is a very interesting and somewhatz difficult question. on the facts of this case, there is a substantial question which no one really has litigated as to whether there was, in fact, an intersession reis access, whether -- recess, whether the first session of the 112th congress ended on the morning of january 3rd and, therefore, we have the same teddy roosevelt situation or whether by adjourning on december 30th and contemplating no further meetings until january 3rd, whether that in effect, in effect, was a sine die adjournment that ended the first session of the congress. if the president had the same view about the nature of the pro forma sessions, he could have taken the view about the sessions between december 17th and january 3rd. and could have had a better legal argument in attempting to claim that between december 30th and january 3rd there was at least an arable inter-- arguable intersession recess. and he didn't do that. why didn't he? because by waiting for the convening o

mr. canning because you have the same first name? >> actually it was the knowle canning company. >> i listened to the first five minutes of the oral arguments on the scour. it started out with justice ginsburg and others asking what would happen if all the nlrb decisions don't exist any more. you haven't talked about that. what is the actual effect of the decisions? >> the decisions issued by the board with the unlawfully appointed members. the three members invalidated in the supreme court's decision. all those orders are buoyed. what it had to do in a different case called new process steel from a few years ago, where for different reasons it held the board was unlawfully constituted. what the board has to do is revisit each order and decide whether or not to readopt that position. >> can they do that in the aggregate? >> i think a new process steel they actually assigned a panel to each case. the panel reviewed it and decided up or down whether to affirm it. generally, i think they did affirm it. i don't think they did it in an aggregate order. that might raise a few issues. >> they didn't have to wait for a new case to arise. >> right. >> i see. >> the court decided a couple of clean ai