myles bader. >> well, thank you, forbes. >> hey-- oh, o.k., what do you have here? >> oh, gosh, i've got poisons and pesticides. this is what you're going to have around your house to use to get rid of insects and bugs. i've got 23 grandchildren; this is the last thing i ever want in my home, which is why i started researching and writing the book. >> well, it's really scary if you read the labels and we're trying to be all-natural and keep the health of our family. look at this: typical ant and roach killer. it says "harmful to pets and keep away from children." well, that's what's in my home. so let's take all of these chemicals and let's just rid of them. >> let's get rid of them. >> i want to replace them with what you've written becausi can't live without your book. i mean, there are things in here i'd never heard of before. >> well, that's exactly it. i mean, these have been handed down from generation to generation. i interviewed farmers in the midwest, i interviewed everybody i could possibly find to get natural solutions that really work. everything in the

others - including justice ruth bader ginsburg - noted the anti- corruption argument behind the current law quote " ... that by having these limits you are promoting democratic participation ... and you won't have the super- affluent as the speakers that will ntrol the elections." opponents of the caps argue - however - they serve to limit who gets to speak - and how. murphy says: "by getting rid of these limits, we can ensure not only that people can do that but that they're doing so inhe most transparent way possible." harkening back to that 2010 decision today - the president saide believes that it contributed to the breakdown in washington right now - saying quote "some ideological extremist who has a big bankroll can entirely skew our politics." at the supreme court, shannon bream, fox news. not weighed down with the business of passing a budget, several congressmen found a way to get themselves hauled off to jail. eight democratic members of the house, including longtime civil rights activist john lewis, were arrested after refusing police orders to move during an immigration righ

ohio's jeff bader: >> it's like asking a large family for the parents to pick three children to feedand let the others starve before their eyes. >> reporter: senate democrats say the only funding they'll agree to is a bill that funds the full government, no strings attached. in fact, scott, today, senate majority leader harry reid was asked if he would be open to funding cancer research for kids only and his response was why would i do that? >> pelley: we'll check in with you tomorrow, nancy, thank you. the shutdown affects far mrnt government. we asked bill whitaker to look into the impact on small businesses. >> we're going to work really hard to make sure it does not affect our employees. >> reporter: lisa papini is vice president of dante valve company. the 42 workers at the small business south of l.a. make safety release valves for the u.s. navy. >> our applications are the catapult steam system of aircraft carryiers, laundry piping within the ship, andñr ao there are nuclear applications for our products. >> reporter: now, grinding these valves to perfection for the navy is gr

justice ruth bader ginsburg suggested the limits promote democratic participation, adding the little people will count some, and you won't have the super affluent as the speakers that will control the elections. the conservatives indicated overall limits on contributions to candidates instead infringe the right to free speech. justice samuel alito bluntly dismissed speculation that caps are needed to prevent corruption. what i see are wild hypotheti l hypotheticals that are not obviously plausible. the case was brought by alabama businessman sean mccutcheon who args he should be able to support as many candidates as he wants under an ee lerkz cycle. under the law he will hit the contribution cap after donating the maximum $2,600 to 18 candidates. >> i think this is a fundamental free speech issue about your right to spend as mump money on any candidates you choose. it doesn't make any sense to say that my 18th race was an alabama house race and then i also wanted to donate to a florida senate race, that i couldn't do that. >> reporter: but a veteran campaign fitness war advocate says

ruth bader ginsburg! - "comedy's freshest female voice."take that, courtney thorne-smith. - that's not about you. that's about some stand-up named abby flynn. - wow. - lady. - pretty nostrils. - how do i find me? computer, "jenna"! - oh, here's your article. "why does 'tgs' hate women?" - what? how can they say that? we love women. with tracy gone, our last episode was all jenna. - this is amelia earhart. i'm almost across the pacific-- oh, no. my period! [plane descends] i'll now take questions.

overall amount of money people can give to different candidates and political parties just as ruth bader ginsburg suggested the limits promote democratic participation adding, "the little people will count some and you won't have the super affluent as the speakers that will control the elections." conservatives indicated overall limits on contributions to candidates instead infringe the right to free speech. justice samuel alito bluntly dismissed sphek alation caps are needed to prevent corruption. "what i see are wild hypotheticals that are not obviously plausible." the case was brought by alabama businessman shaun mccutcheon, who argues he should be able to support as many candidates as he wants in an election cycle. under the law, he will hit the contribution cap after donating the maximum $2600 to 18 candidates. >> i think this is a fundamental free speech issue about your right to spend your money on as many candidates as you choose. it doesn't make and sense that if, say, my 18th race was alabama house race, and then i also wanted to donate to a florida senate race i couldn't do th

justice ruth bader ginsburg suggested the limits promote democratic participation, adding the little people will count some, and you won't have the super affluent as the speakers that will control the elections. the conservatives indicated overall limits on contributions to candidates instead infringe the right to free speech. justice samuel alito -- what i see are wild hypotheticals that are obviously not plausible. the case was brought by alabama businessman sean mchutch inwho argues he should be able to. after hitting the cap i think this is a fundamental free speech issue about your right to spend as mump money on any candidates you choose. it doesn't make any sense to say that my 18th race was an alabama house race and i also wanted to donate to a florida senate race that i couldn't do that. >> reporter: but campaign finance advocate says there's a cap that would add up to millions. >> this case is not just about mr. mccutchen and whether he can give a few extra contributions. it's about whether he can give $2.5 million to support congressional candidates. that's where the dange

twenty years later people dwan to believe her including a lawyer named ruth bader ginsburg who cited her as one of the principle influences on her when she finally convinced the u.s. supreme court to recognize sex discrimination as a constitutional claim. in 1944, almost no one believed murray when she said jane crow was like jim crow. the years passed more and more people did. okay. so these are the kinds of stories i tell in the book. storieses of a complicated lives of african-american lawyer under jim crow. stories of men and women who changed the world around them. stories of men and women who struggled with their own particular crises, problems of identity. stories men and women struggle with the question what it meant to represent a race. i troy to tell them as stories, as wonderful, human stories. i spent a lot of time thinking about and i hope you'll read about them. thank. [applause] so now i think we're supposed to have questions, comments, and -- am i -- should i moderate? sure. do we have a mirk phone -- we have two microphones. we will alternate. i'll start with the gen

if you want to talk about the age issue, ruth bader ginsburg is 80 years old and she has done two same-sexmer. i mean this is a woman who is very much intune with the modern world. i don't think it is purely an age matter. >> i was -- i was going to say you're a senior legal analyst because you look older than me but it's the thing that is fascinating about him is this bonding of him and kagan. i think that that -- and he is -- she has brought him -- i know you don't think that. but that florida case with the dog sniff where he broke with the conservatives, it's a whole different dynamic going on at the supreme court. this is becoming her court. this is becoming kagan's court. >> sleazy journalists like me are always pointing out the relationships between the justices and ruth ginsburg and scalia go to the opera together and scalia and kagan go hunting together. it's all not very important but what matters is ideology. kagan and scalia don't vote together very often. >> the dog nih case in florida. >> dog sniff case? >> it is -- >> let's not -- >> i want to know what the dog was sniffing.

the door and i said maybe i'm going to have a few less games of dominoes on the weekend and we will bader those a little less. i need to get involved politically. i supported washington and ran against them and got beaten. >> guest: i got 24% of the vote. >> host: we can't underestimate this. you are taking the chicago democratic political machine supporting harold washington and then challenging him. we are going to have to cut it short because you are being called to a vote on the floor. >> host: you decide to take on the political machine in chicago. i'm sure they were not happy with you. how was that? >> guest: number one, i was angry and disillusioned but at the same time very motivated with a high levels. to say we need a democratic party that doesn't use racist as a barometer. i kept thinking of martin luther king and how people were going to be judged by the content of the character and not the color of their skin. yet in chicago we were still judging people on the color of their skin. >> host: the incredible thing is you decide to fight them and you win. >> guest: in 1983, harold

justice ruth bader ginsberg appeared to be unconvinced that minorities wouldn't be harmed by the measure and quoted an earlier court precedent. this implicates the judiciary's special role, not of treating the individuals as individuals, but the ju dish re's special role in safeguarding the interests of those groups that are relegated to a position of political powerlessness. >> what they're saying is race does not count, race does not count as part of your experience. it is a separate and unequal system and we should not have separate and unequal anything. >> reporter: justice elena kagan took no part in the case because of her involvement in the matter of solicitor general before she joined the court. if the case results in a 4-4 tie, that would lead the lower court's decision striking down the measure as the final decision. bret. >> we also learned today the supreme court will take up a major challenge to the epa's regulatory power. what's at stake with that case? >> well, that case is about whether the epa can do something this administration has made a very high priority and that's

aiming or the route the importance of their time at a john paul stevens and ruth bader ginsburg as the leader of the left side of the court. i want to expand on the incrementalist thing because we've seen several examples of where the court does like today, prefers to take baby steps. we saw it in the voting rights act when a couple of terms ago the supreme court came right up to the edge of striking down the voting rights act in the case that amy referred to that came out of texas. and then said, we're going to leave it up to congress. we think the data that forces states like georgia to have preclearance automatically is out of date. we think congress hasn't done its homework. testing, is this working, congress? you have another chance and you didn't. the courts took the next day. we saw in the gun control case when supreme court ruled for the first time with the second and enemies. that's one of the faceting things about covering the u.s. supreme court. yes, every term brings some narrower slice of exactly what the fourth amendment applies to. is if the person is sitting behind the

even justice ruth bader ginsburg who expressed skepticism about the taxing power justification during oral argument was quizzical about roberts' theory when she read a summary of her partialdissent from the bench. roberts decided that he needed to uphold the law while not expanding federal power, and he succeeded in squaring that circle with the ruling hinging on a head-scratching tax on inactivity, a piece of legislation no congress would have passed. >> the sad thing about this code is that the chief didn't have to do what he did to save the court. obamacare has always been unpopular, particularly the individual mandate, which even a number of democrats in a national poll thought was unconstitutional. for another, he damaged his own reputation after warnings from pundits and politicians that striking down the law would be conservative judicial activism. most importantly, the whole reason we care ant the court's independence so it can make the tough calls while letting the political chips fall where they may. had the court struck down obamacare, it would have been just the sort of th

>> my name is ann bader, and i'm a mom and a grandma. and when i was in college, the issue that i really worked very hard on was to get the 18-year-olds the right to vote. >> uh-huh. >> request okay. part of it was educating the public, and we did a lot of that, and we got public opinion to be behind us, and it got passed, okay? what i've seen in the united states right now is we didn't want a sequester. we want a budget. this fiasco of the last few weeks is abominable, okay? we had a vote several months ago on putting minimal things about gun control in. and it got voted against it. we had congressmen that had 85% of their district that were for this. and you sound like you're hopeful that we can do something about this? [laughter] i mean, i just don't see that this can happen. how do we do this? how can you be hopeful? >> okay. you discouraged me, i quit. [laughter] i guess it's part of, you know, you've got to have hope, you've got to keep trying. it's things take time, and, you know, i've been discouraged -- i mean, when i heard the

we saw in the last turn ruth bader ginsburg is not retiring. she has made it very clear that she is sticking around and she is not retiring because she enjoys her job. we saw her in this last term emerged as the new leader of the court's liberal wing taking over from justice stevens who retired. another theme in and this is one really to tease out and it will depend a lot on the issues and the court in the years to come is to have the chief justice's justice kagan in her early to mid-50's and you can get the sense that perhaps the two of them are playing the long game here that they are thinking about where -- it's like a chess game. where the law is going to be going in the years to come and trying to stir to shape and shift that right now. >> i would just say the single most important change in the supreme court in recent years has been their retirement of sandra day o'connor sandra day o'connor and their replacement by samuel alito. sandra day o'connor who tom described as a moderate conservative replaced by someone you can scratch the word

ruth bader ginsburg is the leader of the left side of the court. seen several examples of where the court does like to take baby steps. in the voting rights act when a couple of terms ago they came right up to the edge of striking down the voting rights act. and then out of taxes said we are going to leave it up to congress. this is out today. we think congress has not done their homework. have another chance. they didn't. the court then take the next step. we also saw when the supreme court ruled for the first time what the second amendment means. every term brings some narrower slice of exactly what the fourth amendment applies to. is it the person sitting behind the driver? there's always some new tiny little slice about what the fourth amendment provides. then you get a case involving the gun rights. for the first time in our nations history the supreme court said what is the second amendment mean? is the supreme court said the second amendment protects your right to own the gun in the home for self-defense. it was not a freestanding, free- flo

justice bader giving her powerful answer to the terrific opinion. this back and forth among them was so wonderful to watch. i share the sentiment of the panel that i wish that more americans could see it. it's a pity that americans don't get to see it. particularly in an area when the other branches don't work well. we had a shutdown in congress for 16 days. they have something really to teach us. it is surprising that congress approval ratings since 2005 have never gone above 40%. the supreme court approval ratings never gone below 40%. that leave some to think the solution is let's order the supreme court to have cameras in the courtroom. i guess i'd issue a cautionary note about that. i can't presume to tell the justices what to do. i take it, they believe their situation is different than the state supreme court experience. either because of the kind of cases that come before them or frankly, just their own personalities. for that reason, they have raised some concerns. the concerns i don't think are the grand standing the litigants, they are ge

>> my name is ann bader and i'm a mom and a grandma and when i college, the issue that i really worked very hard on was to get the 18-year-olds the right to vote. it was educating the did a lot of that and we got public opinion to be got passed.d it what i've seen in the united now is we didn't want to sequester. budget.a the fiasco of the last few weeks is abominable. vote several months ago on putting minimal things about control in and it got voted against it. men that havess 85% of their district that were for this and you sound like you're hopeful we can do something about this? i mean, i just don't see this could happen. this? we do how can we be hopeful? >> ok, you discouraged me. i quit. no -- i guess it's part of -- you got to have hope. got keep trying. it's, youe time and know, i have been discouraged -- when i heard the news about newtown, i was so depressed partly because it shouldn't have have happened. you can't stop all evil, but it shouldn't have had to be this situation. and it's just, you got to keep pushing. doesieve that right triumph, that people do come to their

nd the supreme court, ruth bader ginsburg put a 24-hour hold but let it lapse. the supreme court hung their heads. let unlegal actions, unconstitutional actions, takings without due process, all take place. and republican dealers, many of them were punished. had their dealerships taken away, even though they still owed money on them. that should have been enough to scare everybody. but we didn't learn a lesson. then we find out if the citizens united case that the president got upset and stood up here in this chamber, misrepresented -- i know he didn't do it knowingly, but he was not familiar with the law regarding the citizens united case and misrepresented the law as borne out by the supreme court justice alito sitting there shaking his head saying not true. and the president, i'm sure is just taking visas given to him by those around him that those giving him advice were as ignorant as they are. but when people keep saying give us a clean c.r. when people hear, give us a lean c.r., they need to know that this is people demanding that congress reject the respo

>> that would be, you know, if we think bader, ginsburg. >> maybe bring the cameras into the courtroom kangaroo court. [ bell sounds ] >>> whether or not any of this happens, of course, well, it's probably unlikely, isn't it? even the idea of $150 billion bond offering, for example, would equal the nine largest investment-grade bond offerings ever done, taken together. >>> the real impact from obama care hiring was from january 1st of this year through july 2nd. that's the period of time during which employers were looking forward to obama care taking effect january 1st, 2014. >>> and good morning. we're live here at post 9 at the new york stock exchange on this thursday. and let's start with a check on markets. it's a tale of good, better, and best. the s&p 500, the nasdaq, the dow, which is up 76 points at the moment. shares of southwest airlines are rallying today as the airline's third quarter earnings were inline with estimates, and they see a strong holiday season ahead. dow chemical falling after missing on the top and bottom lines in its own results. in an interview in morning,

this first monday in october, supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg says she does not feel pressureo retire so that president obama can name a liberal successor. she tells "the washington post" that she thinks it is when to be another democratic president after president obama, and that the democrats defined in presidential elections. they cannot get out the vote in midterm elections. is 80e ginsburg, who years old, has battled cancer twice. those are some of the headlines on c-span radio. >> the c-span video archive is the true modern record of congress. the archives are amazing. library is amazing that you can view and share c- span programming any time. go to cspan.org and go to the video library. to watch the most recent video, go to the most recent cap. you can search the video library and look for a specific topic or keyword or find a person. type in their name, hit "search ," and go to "people." you can share what you are watching and make a clip kit at a title and description, and then send by e-mail, facebook, twitter, or google plus. the c-span video library -- searchable,