talk about justice ginsberg? >> paradise to the drafters of the new constitution in egypt to use canadian and south african. it is not hilarious. >> what he is referring to talk the justice gave in egypt and her remarks have been taken great the ad of context and distorted. she was not running down the less constitution but suggesting there is room for improvement. in her own career has brilliantly managed to expand the meeting of the quality of know anybody who believes in that more. i take issue with the promise of your question. >> thank you for wonderful and rich talk. you could probably go on longer but you made an interesting comment of the justices themselves they are who they are. without quoting, how much is there a politicalization of the accord? as nbc's so much bickering about the issues of conception and morality but what is your sense of the politicalization? do you think justice thomas has rigorously refuse to ask questions is a good thing? >> host: you raised a profound question and a specific one

let's hear from joe ginsberg. -- phil ginsberg. >> it is a pleasure to be here to celebrate our trees and celebrate our community partnership. the recreation and park department has 131,000 trees. 131,000. thanks to voters in 2008. we have $5 million from the park fund that we are using to care for and maintain our trees. he will do it in the 2012 park fund in november. i do what should celebrate the incredible partnership with everyone here today. we like to say that we can't do it alone. at the arbor day, everybody. >> the department that helps us every arbor day to bring community groups out here and make sure that we have the right people educating many of our citizens about the environment and the director. >> let's hear it for the sun that is about to peek through the clouds. i am thrilled to be here today to celebrate arbor day and celebrate our magnificent urban forest with mayor lee, supervisor avalos, dpw and rec & park. it is no surprise that trees are essential to creating truly sustainable communities. there are a whole host of benefits that come from having a robust urba

ginsberg? >> let me dovetail on that and talk about the importance of the partnership backed iraq and parks department has with the department of children and youth, and families. the relationship today is vastly different than it was seven years ago. i wanted to complement maria for recognizing the recreation and parks department role in accomplishing some of the dcyf strategic goals. if you look at the presentation -- maria focused on the core investments. under maria's leadership, she has realized the recreation and parks department is a key player in accomplishing those strategies, which was not historically the case with dcyf. this is a very different philosophy that dcyf has today than it used to have. just to highlight for you some of the success of the in our departments, some of our partnerships include -- marie catoctin and recreation. we find about 120 youth working in the system in the summer and about 35 youth working with us year-round. very recently, and dcyf was also a partner a

. >> shannon: what do you think of justice ginsberg comment it would be the more conservative approachat was her word to use not a wrecking ball but a salvage operation instead. a number said that is the presumption of the court. if you strike it down, you keep the rest of the law. >> it's a presumption in many cases. in other cases it's what prevailed. i respectfully and disagree that should be the rule in this case. you have the center piece, heart of the legislation. if you take it out, everything else collapses around it. matter of simple economics, it's difficult to imagine how the affordable care act can function as cohesive poll. i don't think it can. for that reason the court should and could and find that it's not severable. >> shannon: thank you for coming in. good to see you. that brings to us the text to vote question. how will the supreme court rule on bam carrie? text sr1 to 36288 for uphold all of it. text sr2 for reject all of it. 3628text sr3 if you think the mandate will be rejected. the results are later. after the break, government's ability to regulate oil and coal

but next, we have phil ginsberg, head of the rec and park department. >> thank you, supervisors. like a lot of the other department heads and the speakers today, this is an issue which has been incredibly important incredibly poignant. i'm raising two yen kids in the city. -- young kids in the city. we are presented with similar challenges of doing that. it is an important topic. mary had joked about stealing the logo. our mission is to help families through out. our primary focus of the department -- this is an important topic. i want to structure my presentation by making the connection that adrian had in her first presentation, a list of factors that impact families. the director also talked about quality of life issues. i am just a sort of making the connection between parks and open space and recreation, the fundamental purpose of this hearing is to help families that have been living in the area. it is clear and in disputed, -- and indisputed. parks improve safety. it has strongly been linked to reductions in crime and juvenile delinquency. their national organizations that

ginsberg compare it to social security. justice kennedy is considered the key swing vote. opponents outside were jubilant. they think that question and others indicate kennedy does not believe congress can mandate coverage. >> we hate to predict that justice kennedy is the key. but i think his first question right out of the shoe that it will be 5-4 to overturn the affordable care act. >> tomorrow something that has not happen in four decades, a full day of oral arguments -- a fourth day of oral arguments on the issue. as medicaid been expanded too broadly and place to bit of a burden on the state? >> thank you. the health-care debate did not play out just-in-time -- hundreds of people demonstrated outside of the court as well. supporters and opponents say the stakes are high. whatever the justices decided the fact millions of people. >> -- could affect millions of people. >> i do not want the government -- is there anything the government has not screwed up? what's more protest is expected tomorrow. you can read more about this battle right now on wjla.com. "world enws" w

. >> justice ginsberg compare this to a debate about social security retirement systems and asked how congress could work again -- get workers to pay for social scared -- security. but [inaudible] be sure to stay tuned. that is coming up after this newscast. >> historic surgery at the university of maryland medical center. officials say they have performed the first -- most extensive full face transplant ever done. richard normris is doing well. >> the surgery to place one week ago and it took 36 hours. if you see the photos, it is truly a merkel. this is the victim of a gun accident 15 years ago before the surgery. this is richard norris after. >> this is an individual who has not lived for the last 15 years. living behind a mask, living as a reckless, doing his shopping and i. he walks in the hospital wearing a mask. >> the team of 150 performed the surgery on march 19 and 20. >> 10 years of intensive work have come together and here was. it was sitting on the bed in front of us. >> the hospital has been conducting research for 10 years. >> our job was to deliver the best potential

ginsberg, and the audiovisual presentation was great.oticed there was a cameo appearance of the newly elected mayor ed lee in there. i also heard he mentioned community would not always be involved in our parks. that comment hit me because, coming to san francisco for the past 35 years, the equestrian community has always been a part of san francisco, historically and culturally. ironically, they have been aborted out of san francisco. kind of the way it does politics, if it is something that is not 100% politically correct, they just abort it. the politics of abortion. that is what we are experiencing here in san francisco. basically, we have run out of time listening to you folks dillydally around. 2012, we are going to impact the recreation and parks commission. we are going to impact your lives, just as you have impacted hours. we are going to reconnect you to nature and to what is important, which is this moment. not living in some historical fantasy about we want to change things 50 years after the fact. not going to happen. thank

." >> i'm not that good a lawyer but i did feel like justice ginsberg and -- >> stephen: you're not that goodave lawyer? why are you my guest? i want the good people. >> well, you'll have to talk to your producers about that. >> stephen: what would you have said? i have a few arguments for the broccoli thing. >> i'll give you mine. mine is we don't have a national dysfunctional market for brokely. people aren't coming from connecticut to massachusetts, not eating their broccoli, showing up and demands the people in the new state spend millions of dollars to deal with the fact they haven't had their broccoli. >> stephen: right, and fidon't buy broccoli, it doesn't raise the price of your broccoli. >> right. >> stephen: and if we don't buy into the broccoli pool it doesn't get rid of all broccoli eventually. and we aren't the only industrial country that does not provide universal broccoli care. >> right, right, exactly. >> stephen: another but i'm glad you and i weren't there to make that argument or else he might have won. >> he might have. it would have been good if someone could have j

general manager ginsberg and i have worked on this, negotiated this agreement over the last several months. the pga tour did not release bringing us -- this on us at the last minute. they certainly told us ahead of time there might be issues as far as other contractual agreements. i think we have negotiated a very good agreement for our department. some of the fees for future events are going to be higher than originally we had in the agreement as amended in the second amendment. we will also be guaranteed two and possibly three events, should we get the president's cup in 2021. this amendment will also reflect the changes in our agreement, but also the agreement for it to be extended to 2021, should be announced in 2017. i wanted to mention one thing about cost to our department as far as these events are concerned. most people remember, it is always the bad things people remember. the 2009 president's cup was quite expensive for us to do, and a lot of it had to do with the fact that we were given a brand new car. we had an instruction manual from an earlier car. our staff and crew at har

. >> justice ginsberg, the second thing about my answer to your prior question, i also think that it may be that spending on certain private universities is something again that congress can do and it doesn't matter if it's coercion. but when they're trying to get the states to expand their medicaid programs. >> let's take public colleges. >> then there may be some limits on that. again, i'm not sure even in that context there might be some things congress can do. it's a separate question. but once we take the premise, i don't think there's a disagreement here that congress could not simply as a matter of direct legislation you should the commerce power or something say state, you must expaend your medicaid programs. if we take that as a given, then i think we have to ask the question of whether or not it's coercive. in your second question, you asked, well, where's the case that says we've crossed that line? and this is that case. >> it doesn't apply well to the 1980 extension to children 0 to 6 years old? 1990 requiring the extension for children up to 18. all the prior extensions

it was difficult to see where this was going, but notable that justice ruth bather ginsberg says thereo be a need to fix that part compelling the states which is different than what those who are bringing this case are asking for. they want to see it all thrown out. for a justice like ruth ginsberg to acknowledge there might be something needs repaired seems significant. the whole theory was is it your money or your life? can you be compelled to do this in terms of how the states must act. >> we know they're set to deliver the fate of all of this in late june. >> lots of work to do. >> another very hot day and back and forth as pete also gave us the color from what was happening earlier sessions. thank you very much, kelly. greatly appreciate it. >>> another big story, pope benedict has met with cuban revolutionary leader fidel castro. this video came in just moments ago. you see an aling castro comes as the pope wraps up his three day visit to cuba and just before that meeting during mass he demanded more freedom for cuba's more than 1 million catholics. again, i want to stress,s this

justice ginsberg says the whole purpose of insurance is to spread out the rest. >> -- risk. that> there was a lot of in the recommended the problem with some of the people on the court is that they have had government insurance all their lives. most of them have worked for the government of the lives and they have always had easy and good insurance. they don't worry about some enormous thing where the insurance industry says "you have just reached the cap." those caps are already gone as part of this law. if it is struck down, we will go back to having caps on insurance spending, we will go back to having a 26-year-old not covered, 25-year-old not covered. there are also in this bill just thousands of things that have nothing to do with this -- drug regulation, all kinds of things. i kept getting e-mail from people who deal with that stuff would go "what is going to happen?" as a friend might puts it, legal expression, "god only knows." >> the point nina makes is key to this. no question that congress has the power to levy taxes. does the congress have constitutionally the p

. >> justice ginsberg said it is not the same. >> it is not my choice whether to buy a product that keeps me healthy but something that i am forcing on other people. >> reporter: some think saving that law may hinge on justice kennedy who distinguished between regulating healthcare and regulating health insurance. >> do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the constitution? >> reporter: legal arguments pitting the government's authority against the cost of staying healthy. that wraps up day two of these arguments. day three will focus on a couple things, medicaid, taxpayer funded insurance. this would greatly expand it. states, many of them, don't want to see that. the other thing is severability. what happens if part of it is upheld and part struck down. can the remainder of it stand. we'll hear arguments on that tomorrow. >> intense and intriguing, traci. thank you very much. >>> one dead and at least a dozen homes destroyed as winds whip up powerful flames in colorado. we will tell you if a break in the weather will help the firefighters just ahead.

. >> well, justice ginsberg, if we can start with the common ground there's a need for repair because this is a coercion document. then we're into remedy. we do take what you prescribe in the remedy. this is coercive and we get the remedy that you suggest in the alternative. let me just finish by saying that i certainly appreciate what the solicitor general says, when you -- but i would respectfully suggest that it's a very funny conception of liberty that forces somebody to purchase an insurance policy whether they want it or not. and it's a very strange conception of federalism that says that we can simply give the states an offer that they can't refuse and through the spending power which is premised on the notion that congress can do more because it's voluntary, we can force the states to do whatever we tell them to. this is a direct threat to our federalism. >> thank you mr. clement. mr. needler, mr. carvin and mr. long and mr. favre, the case is submitted. >> that wraps up the last of three days of supreme court oral arguments on the health care law. if you missed any of this, i

but justice ginsberg hit the nail on the head. tavis: that was pretty crazy. i thought that decision was pretty -- how can you miss the statute of limitations about something you did not even know. you went to work on the halls of congress. you've got congress to pass this legislation. and barack obama signed it as his first piece of legislation after being elected had did you feel that a standing next to the president of the united states? >> that was unreal. i tell you, the feeling that i had that went through my body and my mind and down to my heart, just thinking about what that signature would mean to all the working families and all of those women and the men that were there that day for that bill signing. they were so elated because they had not been to that white house in eight years. and they were thrilled to be there. it was such a glorious day. i just miss that my husband was not there. you know, i lost him in december 2008, just prior to all this. but he always knew that it would become law. and he supported me right up until his death. that is ano

. >> the justice kagan echoed justice ginsberg sentiment. >> a half loaf is better than no loaf. on something like the exchanges it seems to me a special examples of half a loaf is better than no loaf. >> justice scalia took the all or nothing approach. >> my approach would say if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute is gone. that enables congress to do what it wants in the usual fashion. >> but justice kennedy won derred if they would be able to reform the bill. >> a real congress or hypothetical congress. >> meanwhile, white house officials say any speculation about the court's decision is premature. >> there is no contingency plan in place. we're focused on implementing the law and we are confident that the law is constitutional. >> joining me now for more on the final days of the arguments jon turley constitution allah expert and "countdown" contributor, welcome. >> hi, keith. >> we're back to severity. did the questions from the justices tell us anything about what a ruling of unconstitutionality would mean in practical terms in reality for the healthcare refor

on the liberal wing of the bench, justice ginsberg seemed to defend the president's law, wondering why it's okay for the government to compel americans to contribute to social security but not to carry health insurance. >> it was a big fuss about that in the beginning because a lot of people said, maybe some people still do today, i could do much better if the government left me alone. >> but critics of the law say it comes down to a fundamental overreach by the federal government. a "wall street journal" editorial this morning reads in part, "even if health care and health insurance were intrinsically different from all other markets -- and they are not -- that fact is constitutionally irrelevant. any federal exercise of police powers is untenable because the constitution gives such powers to the states." that from the "wall street journal." on the other side, the editorial board at "the new york times" writes this, this morning -- "if the supreme court hews to establish law, the only question it must answer in this case is modest -- did congress have a rational basis for concluding t

if it's a penalty, justice ruth bader ginsberg argued there was no legal reason the court could not decide this ca now. >>his not a revenue raising measure because if it's successful, there will-- nobody will pay the penalty and there will be no revenue to raise. >> reporter: but chief justice john roberts said the point of the lawsuits challenging the president's health care law is to prevent the collection of taxes, an issue tied directly to the mandate to buy health insurance. >> a mandate is a command, now, if there is nothing behind the command, its' sort of a what happens if you don't follow the mandate, and the answer is nothing. it seemsery artificial to separate the punishment from the crime. >> reporter: in an odd legal twist, the obama administration agrees with those suing it in court that there is no reason for the supreme court to wait to rule on the merits of the individual mandate. though at times, even solicitor general daniel verrilli seemed to trip up over penalties and taxes, as he did here with justice stephen breyer. >> if they pay the tax, they are in compliance with

with the republicans and justice souter voted -- voted with a dissenting democrat, i think justice ginsberg so in fact you had a bipartisan decision on constitutionality and then they took up the question of remedy after they said that the scheme that the florida legislature has put in place for recount is -- is illegal, unconstitutional, and then they said the time has expired for further recount because by gore's own admission, the critical date was december 12th and this was december 11th. they said there's no longer any time to count. the gore campaign made a big mistake when they asked for recounts in only four counties, and they were pro-democratic counties, all of them, very heavy democratic counties, and they asked for a recount instead of a statewide recounty this should have come in. when they did that, that gave us the high ground, and their mantra was count every vote, count every vote. our mantra was, look, we've counted them five times, six times, every time and every time we count them we win, and -- and so finally the supreme court said, yeah, that's right. the supreme court