ginsberg: no, i don't.urrent view is as long as you are healthy and able to do the job, you intend to stay on the court. jus. ginsberg: as long as i am healthy and mentally agile. [applause] david: justice stevens and previously justice oliver wendell holmes, they retired when they were 90. would you like to break the record? jus. ginsberg: i spent the first weekend in july with justice stevens in what turned out to be the last week of his life. he was remarkable. he was 99 years old. he left the court at age 90. he had written four books. so yes, he is my role model. david: today many people think that the court is very political, the people appointed to the court by democratic presidents and those appointed by republican presidents follow the political desires of the republican or democratic party. is that a fair assessment and if it is not, why do people have that view? jus. ginsberg: because agreement is not interesting. disagreement is so the press tends to play up 5-4 or 5-3 decisions. if we can take

ginsberg: yes.n interlude, while i was working for the columbia project on international procedure. david: how did you get connected to the aclu and your trailblazing efforts in gender discrimination and gender law? jus. ginsberg: it came about first from my students at rutgers who wanted a course on women and the law. i went to the library and inside of a month, i read every federal decision ever written about gender-based distinctions in the law. at the same time, new complaints were coming into the new jersey affiliate of the aclu, complaints of the kind the aclu had not seen before. one group of complainers were public school teachers, who were put on maternity leave when the pregnancy began to show because the school districts worried, we don't want the little children to think their teacher swallowed a watermelon. [laughter] jus. ginsburg: these women were -- the leave was unpaid and there was no guaranteed right to return. they began to complain, so it was the two things coming together. the

[cheers and applause] [♪] my name is phil ginsberg. am the general manager of your san francisco recreation and parks department. we want to welcome you to the 90 th, think about that. the 90th annual tree lighting. this started december 20th, 90 years ago on john mclaren's birthday and his spirit is here tonight because it is not raining. [laughter] this is truly one of our signature events of the year. certainly one of my personal favourites. and if you see all the incredible stuff happening here down j.f.k., if you haven't walked down the street, there are rides and food and games and you get a goat of conservatory of flowers from night bloom or the outside of the building and the inside of the building are all lit up. it is super cool. the start of our show tonight is right next to me. our mayor, london breed. mayor, thank you for joining. we will have you wait just a second. the mayor is a magician and she will make the magic happen tonight with this tree. before we make that happen, we need to acknowledge some other special guest

. >>> and inside the battle for the president's financial records, why justice ruth bader ginsberg is giving him more time and when the case could actually move forward again. e could actuy move forward again what if numbers tell only half the story? at t. rowe price, hundreds of our experts go beyond the numbers to examine investment opportunities firsthand. like a biotech firm that engineers a patient's own cells to fight cancer. this is strategic investing. because your investments deserve the full story. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. -well, audrey's expecting... -twins! grandparents! we want to put money aside for them, so...change in plans. alright, let's see what we can adjust. ♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. okay. mom, are you painting again? you could sell these. lemme guess, change in plans? at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan. beyond the routine checkups. ? beyond the not-so-routine cases. comcast business is helping doctors provide care in whole new ways. all working with a new generation of technologies powered by our gig-spee

are special guests include phil ginsberg, general manager of the san francisco recreation and parks departmento mayor, london breed. [cheers and applause] [♪] [indiscernible] >> all right, everyone. it is time for a christmas countdown. here we go. loud and proud. >> we have to get our special christmas tree lighting plunger. >> it is my first time. i forgot about the plunger. >> thank you so much. >> don't drop it, don't drop it. >> there we go. >> for you, miss mayor. [cheers and applause]. >> all right. let's get a countdown started from five,. >> here we go. do you want to come up and help? >> we need some people to help the mayor. >> come on up. >> oh, boy. we are all here. we are ready. >> you have to help me now. are you ready? >> are we starting from 10? >> we've got it. let's do it. >> countdown from 10. >> ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one. [cheers and applause] [♪] >> thank you so much for all your help. thank you for so much for all your help, everyone. hi, how are you? >> the bicycle coalition was giving away 33 bicycles so i applied. i was happy to receive

i don't know of any such case. >> i am not aware of one either, justice ginsberg. we think we have plenty of cases from this court that are now in the situation. with respect, i don't think the practice of getting the recognition after certiorari is granted that a certiorari grant might this not signal anything good for the defendant. it's quite common practice if they then come up with an idea to moot the case. if you think of a couple of recent cases not just knox, but trinity lutheran and parents involved are all involved latebreaking efforts often by government entities to make the case go away. in each case this court said that's too little too late and if this court starts accepting these kind of post certiorari maneuvers it's going to be hard for the court to continue. >> i don't think it's bad when people who have an argument settle their argument. is thus there are longer one. so i wonder if i can ask this question. you say this case is still alive because the city of new york might prosecute one of your clients because they stopped for coffee on the way t

>> justice ginsberg i think it was this court that said that in hernandez one. the reason why is because there is some uncertainty in the lower court as reflected in the ninth circuit's decision in the spect rodriguez case the original y ic three-judge panel in this case e there is l some uncertainty abo just how, the broadly this cou decision inin i with the court said a mexican national could not invoke the fourth amendment to challenge the search of his o home by ake da officer, that a e categorical on/off switch at the border or are there reasons to get the fourth amendment qu question is moreeslicated compo therd context that you have cross-border episodes. that is to say does verdugo still have the same course. >> there is one part of the chief's question you didn't answer. the government speaking with one voice and you said the government should, but he's posited a big deference thhere.o the government -- the executivee has said this was not a rogue e action. this security guard, they've do concluded based on what we don't know that this officer was being

hello i'm richard ginsberg and you're at the listening post here are some of the media stories that we're covering this week the british are in election mode once again and their news outlets are proving to be no more adept at dealing with a lying politician than american ones are my beauty my purpose advertising those feel good ads designed to make you feel good about buying something filipino president roderigo do territory is taking on the media once again specifically the country's biggest broadcaster and representing the unrepresented.

there is only at ginsberg that characterizes, the two of us.t ways we approach reading legal text. in reference to the quote of the institution and for our constitution so it was just a small sampling of this very amazing think. and we seen an opening in a wage and it goes like this. the justices lying how can they possibly espouse this because the constitutional absolutely nothing, about this. and then answered him. dear chest is clear, you are surfing for bright live solutions. the problems that don't have an easy answered. but the great think about our constitution is that our society, it can result. [laughter]. [applause]. >> justice scalia is locked up in the darkroom,. [laughter]. incarnate excessive dissent. [laughter]. and i entered the darkroom with feelings. [laughter]. [applause]. i told him i was there to help me pass the test he must have. and why would you want to help him. he is your enemy. and i explained he has brought my enemy. he is my dear friend. and then we see wonderful duet. [laughter]. then goes like this. we are differ

will beimagine ginsberg serving at the end of the next election. i am hoping thomas, if trump is elected like take one for the team. thank you and have a good day. traditionally the supreme court has been a stronger device republicans have used to motivate their voters. particularly in senate races. withthe president came out his list of people he would likely nominate to the court in 2015. that helped bring in some conservatives on the fence. they have traditionally done a better job of using the court as a political tool. that may be changing. you are seeing a lot of anti-choice states laws being brought about. moving toward the supreme court. an issue ing to be certain places. speculating who is going to retire, i don't know. part of that may have to do with who wins in 2020. i can't really speak to that. >> dug his right. it is a huge issue for republicans. is nominated and confirmed over 100 80 judges. it is a big issue internally. it is a great branding tool. it's important to those voters. we do talk about it. take very seriously. nit was a

liz: breaking news, a fox business alert, the supreme court ruth nader ginsberg placed a temporary holdt would've required deutsche bank and capital one to handover the president's financial records to congressional committees. supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg standing up and they're saying temporary hold, you cannot get the president financial documents just right now. period the bidens back out on the campaign trail after over-the-top attack on a voter who asked a simple question about the conflict of interest involving joe biden son hunter getting paid box setting on the board of ukraine energy company. peter is in iowa with more. reporter: joe biden has had and i to think about blowing his top at a potential caucus goer in iowa with an 83-year-old man confronted him about his son hunter's business dealing in the former vice president age and he admitted today he probably should not have challenged the 83-year-old to a push-up contest but he insisted he did not insult the man's weight. [inaudible] he's on a no malarkey bus tour with john kerry, the 2004 democratic nominee we

[cheers and applause] [♪] my name is phil ginsberg.e general manager of your san francisco recreation and parks department. we want to welcome you to the 90 th, think about that. the 90th annual tree lighting. this started december 20th, 90 years ago on john mclaren's birthday and his spirit is here tonight because it is not rainin.

supreme court justice ruth bader ginsberg put a temporary hold friday on handing over records soughte democrats. the material includes accounts, transactions and investments linked to the president and his three oldest children. that stay is in effect until december 13. >>> relief this morning for some victims of the california wildfires. pg & e, pacific gas and electric, agreed to pay $13.5 billion in damages covering four deadly fires from 2015-2018. it covers all major blames blamed on the utility company's outdated equipment and negligence. >>> in politics the white house rejecting an offer from house democrats to participate in impeachment hearings. kelly o'donnell joins me with more. good saturday morning to you. what is the white house saying about it? >> well good morning alex. the real message from the white house is no, the president's team is saying no to participating in the house impeachment inquiry. no to mounting a defense in that kind of form. no to just about anything that has to do with impeachment on the democratic house side. and they're even asking democrats to e

here is our political editor laura ginsberg.with an unusual act. sirjohn major thinks we must be in the eu but, in his own video, he is urging you to vote against the party he led, if there is a former tory trying to stop brexit where you live. none of them left the conservative party. the conservative party left them. without such talent on its ventures, parliament would be poorer, which is why, where i resident in any of their constituencies, they would have my vote in this election. some traditional tories might listen to that, those who are nervous about his successor‘s platform. the political age couldn't be more different, even though clunky metaphors are still part of the fashion. if we can get brexit done, if we can get a working majority in parliament next week, then we will finally be able to get this country out of neutral, into first, into second, third, fourth, how many gears does that thing have? what do you say to the former conservative prime minister, who doesn't think that voters should back you this time? i th

ruth bader ginsberg is a liberal judge on the us supreme court.ial to be impartial? 0f tries. should a trial to be impartial? of course, that's the job ofa impartial? of course, that's the job of a judge, to be impartial. impartial? of course, that's the job of ajudge, to be impartial. but impartial? of course, that's the job of a judge, to be impartial. but you will be very aware that there are senators who are already saying before the impeachment gets to the senate, or the trial in the setting, they have already made their minds up. that's problematic. if a judge said that, a judge would be disqualified. from sitting on the case. it's about the level of accountability, so if a senator says i've already made my mind up in the trial does not exist at the moment there is no accountability, is there? my old chief put it very well when he said, in the day a judge stops being impartial and starts to do things to please the home crowd, whatever your home crowd is, that's the day thatjudge should step down. from office. that's what's happening in washi

the chief on the court who is one of the greatest trust lawyers and jurists of our time in doug ginsberg who wrote a unanimous decision on some aspects of that, and that continues to build on the important legacy of what is important to note, and my colleague and deputy attorney general of the united states was also a litigant in that case representing netscape at the time in that case. so we are fortunate to have, you know, leadership at the justice department who really understand the critical elements of anti-trust law, and particularly in these dynamic market economies economies. >> these are the two tommics that have gotten the attention in the global market. and the markets are not as competitive as they could be. is this an area that the anti-trust division is going to be again, i don't want to get into any ongoing things, and when you think about the global markets for the development of 5g as part of the division? >> so we think about them, and i will explain how and in what ways we think about them, but we don't think about national championship as an anti-trust issue. but we,

. >> are not aware of one either, justice ginsberg.k we have plenty of cases from this court that are now in the situation. with respect, i don't think the practice of getting the recognition after certiorari is granted that a certiorari grant might this not signal anything good for the defendant. it's quite common practice if they then come up with an idea to moot the case. if you think of a couple of recent cases not just knox, trinity lutheran and parents involved are all involved latebreaking efforts often by government entities to make the case go away. in each case this court said that's too little too late and this court starts accepting these kind of post certiorari maneuvers it's going to be hard for the court to continue. >> i don't think it's bad when people who have an argument settle their argument. unless thus there is no longer argument. so i wonder if commissioner asked this question? you say this case is still alive because the city of new york might prosecute one of your clients because they stopped for coffee on the

and the best evidence is just as ginsberg's dissent. she faults chief justice roberts for discussing the commerce clause. justice ginsburg said look, this is obviously a tax, we should just say this is a she said we -- she should just say this is a tax and be done with it. chief justice roberts rejected that in part 3 (d). he says i have to reach a commerce clause holding. i have to read it and i have to give it the best reading possible and then i have to assess whether that this reading -- whether this reading is constitutional or not. only after doing that analysis, then do i get to the taxing issue. i think that interplay between chief justice roberts and justice ginsburg shows that the reading is correct. -- our reading of nfib is correct and the other side is incorrect, because there are differences between the four different parts of section three of chief justice robert's opinion. judge elrod: do you really mean it when you say the shell is enough? what is it that you shall buy insurance, but if you do not, you get an ice cream

and the best evidence is just as ginsberg's dissent. she faults chief justice roberts for discussing the commerce clause. she said this is obviously a tax. we should say this is a tax and be done with it. >> chief justice roberts rejected that in part 3 (d). he says i have to reach a commerce clause holding. i have to read it -- i have to give it the best reading possible and then i have to assess whether that that best reading is constitutional or not and only after doing that analysis, then do i get to the taxing issue. i think that interplay between chief justice roberts and justice ginsburg shows that ourreading of nfib is correct and the other side's reading is incorrect. there are differences between the four different parts of section three of chief justice robert's opinion. >> judge elrod: what if it said, you shall buy insurance, but if you do not, you get an ice cream cone. you actually get something if you do not buy the insurance. what is the answer then? >> i am not sure how congress would justify that under its enumerated

justice ruth bader ginsberg echoed the sentiment saying what's left of this case? adding the other side has thrown in the towel. you're asking us to opine on a law that's not on the books anymore. however, conservative justices alito and gorsuch argued there was enough to take on the case. the court will issue its decision by late june. danny in a nutshell what is this case about and why do the liberal ring of the court seem to be kissing it off? >> it's exceedingly rare for a. to get everything the. wants in a court, and it's rarer for that. to be ups plaintiff to be upset about it. they got everything they wanted because when they challenged this new york city rule, it wasn't a law, it was just an nypd rule, the government rushed to repeal it because they knew they didn't want it to end up at the supreme court. so now that it's at the supreme court, there's no longer any law prohibiting gun owners from transporting their firearms. that law is gone and it can never come back because the legislature subsequently passed a law essentially prohibiting it. so, under th