so behold, today, justice ruth bader ginsburg punching well above her weight. now, the first voice you will hear is the voice of paul now, the first voice you will hear is the voice of paul clement who is the conservative attorney making the case for the anti-gay rights side. but then listen for justice ginsburg. >> no state loses any benefits by recognizing sam sex marriage. things stay the same. what they don't do is open up a class of beneficiaries under their state law that get additional benefits. but things stay the same. >> they're not a question of additional benefits. they touch every aspect of life. your partner is sick. social security. i mean, it's pervasive. it's not as though there's this little federal sphere and it's only a tax question. it's, as justice kennedy said, 1,100 statutes, and it affects every area of life. and so you're really diminishing what the state has said is marriage. you're saying, no, state, there are two kinds of marriages. the full marriage, and then a sort of skim milk marriage. >> standing five feet tall from brooklyn, n

the show on the road to promote literacy and to promote parks. i will let him tell the story, phil ginsburg. [ applause ] >> thank you, luis. his alter ego, what we call each other, he is before mr. books and i am mr. park and this gentleman is mr. clean. [ laughter ] >> it's such a joy to be here and such a celebrate tory week. there has been a lot of talk this week about team and putting team before self and that is not just happening on the ballfield at at&t park, but it's happening in your city and we're so incredibly blessed to have the leadership that we have in mayor lee, board president chiu and supervisor wiener. in no time that i have been involved in the city has both the mayor and board worked together to focus on helping families thrive, through better parks, through better streets, through better libraries and our city leadership deserves such a big round of applause fortaking these steps [ applause ] i also really want to single out our partnership with mr. parks and the library. this is how cities are supposed to be. i don't know if many of you had the opportunity to come an

justice ginsburg talked about the restrictions this law put on same-sex marriage. it was in that context she made is the statement that you referred to. >> for the federal government then to come in to say no joint return, no marital deduction, no social security benefits, what kind of marriage is this? the state said there are two kinds of marriage, the full marriage and then this skim milk marriage. >> and i hear there's a reaction from the crowd when justice ginsburg compared what she called the real marriage or the skim milk marriage. very, very poignant point. >> it was very poignant because the court spent an entire hour and justice ginsburg cuts to the heart of the case. imagine you have a sick spouse of a validly married couple. why would you create this separate category? what possible reason could you have for denying all of these benefits that would create such inequality and that kind of exploded the case because all of the reasons given, that it would promote procration did not deny these benefits. that was a relieved form of laughter as much as anythi

ginsburg has proclaimed we contest that. we just don't see it, so at the bottom of the hill if i may point out a couple of privacy and security type of things. we have a street, beacon street, where there has been enormous amount of work done to accommodate speeding traffic, and there is considerable traffic on the street, so from across the street

ginsburg has proclaimed we contest that. we just don't see it, so at the bottom of the hill if i may point out a couple of privacy and security type of things. we have a street, beacon street, where there has been enormous amount of work done to accommodate speeding traffic, and there is considerable traffic on the street, so from across the street billy goat hill to there you're going to have problems. at the top of the hill we have a sanctuary for children and it would be an intrusion for a trail to come into that area and the sairchtity of those children would be interrupted. thank you. >> thank you. >> sandra. >> my name is sandra larew. my husband and i have lived on beacon street for over 40 years. we bought our lot from the redevelopment agency. we purchased permits before building our home. this is about permit or soils engineer. what concerns us is that the hill side -- what concerns us is the hill side is that the hill side is very steep and we are afraid that any removal of trees and sclushes will result in land s

ginsburg. >> a point of clarification the waiver has been signed by the human rights commission this morning. >> thank you. >> i wanted to add my comment to congratulate the parents, the teachers, the administrators and particularly the students of town school. it is a vibrant, educational community and it's been a pleasure to have you before us. rarely do we have testimony that doesn't have someone who opposes what we are doing and i think that is a reflection on the work that the staff did. so i want to congratulate nick and the rest of the staff because i think the proper outreach was done to make it a reality and with that, it's been moved and seconded. all of those in favor? >> aye. >> thank you. >> we are now on item 9. the golden gate park phase ii tree removal contract no. 3033v. >> good morning commissioners, jeffries & companying, melinda stockmann assistant project manager capital improvements division, san francisco recreation and park department. i am here for 13-001 in amount of $435,000 to arborwell professional tree management. i just want too clarify that i did prese

slate.com responded to ginsburg on twitter.obably what justice ginsburg had in mind, two sad looking cartons of skim milk next to a far more cheerful whole milk version." >>> late night comedians like steve colbert. >> it's looking more and more like the supreme court is deciding -- that's okay with people. sometimes i feel like i'm the only one holding this country together. i used to think i had a life partner in bill o'reilly, but last night, even papa bear let me down. >> the compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals. that's where the compelling argument is. we're americans. we just want to be treated like everybody else. i don't feel that strongly about it one way or the other. >> bill o'reilly doesn't feel strongly about something? >> what's happening! >> these guys are great. >>> anyway, next, nancy pelosi thinks it's paul clement having a rough go of it who defended doma, defense of marriage act, on behalf of the house republicans. >> what was really interesting to me was to hear clement, the spokesperson for do

the courts, both courts in florida, squarely addressed that issue, justice ginsburg. there is a whole section in the opinion in the third district court of appeals saying the officer and the dog were lawfully present. they didn't -- that section doesn't go, defense counsel concedes that issue. that -- that issue -- that part of the opinion goes -- we find that the officer and the dog were lawfully present. so it's squarely before this court. >> well, don't we have to accept that? don't we have to accept that as a statement of florida law? >> i'm sorry. i didn't hear the beginning of your >> do we not have to accept that as a statement of florida law? >> no. >> no? >> the issue is whether or not that's a violation of the fourth amendment. and -- and just because the third district court of appeal found -- that's -- that's what's before the court today. that's why the issue is squarely before the court. the third district court of appeal decided the officer had the right to go up and be there on the front porch with the dog. the florida supreme court disagreed. there is

married couples differently perhaps ruth bader ginsburg said it best. >> really diminishing what thete has said is marriage. you're saying no, state says two kinds of marriages. full marriage and then this sort of skim milk marriage. >> bill: you got the full -- you got the whole milk -- >> the whole full fat milk. >> bill: and then you got the skim milk marriage. states should not be able to discriminate. sonia sotomayor says by the way who gives the federal government this right? >> what gives the federal government the right to be concerned that all -- at all at what the definition of marriage is? >> bill: even conservatives like justice kennedy and chief justice roberts came on to that point that this is -- defining what marriage is and who can get married is really up to the states, not to the federal government. and states should not be able to be allowed to discriminate. of course is implied in that. the justice kagan pointed out as did chief justice roberts that when the congress adopted this law in 1996, they actually admitted that they were not just making laws, they were t

as justice ginsburg pointed out, this was not just congress -- this isdo not congress saying for all the 1100 plus federal protections and responsibilities and incidence of the freedom to marry, we will have two classes of marriage. there was marriage and skim milk marriage. that is a problem whether you look at it under the federalism lens or the protection lines. >> maybe they're being too broad. even more fundamentally, the role of government and marriage at any level. why should we have to get a license from the government, a piece of paper, legal recognition? the only reason we are arguing is because government is involved. of common law and have whatever church or what is the word for wiccans? covens. that is fine. once the government gets involved, there are other issues. more specifically in the federalism issue, i had a debate on thehn adler, afrai friend role of federalism on prop 8. i agree mostly with what evan said. as is not at issue of whether the federal government overstepped its bounds. this is the issue of whether in prop 8 case, a state having this law, this marri

. >> i think that, with due respect, justice ginsburg, way over-reads -- way over-reads turner against safley. that was a case in which the prison at issue -- and it was decided in the specific context of a particular prison where there were both female and male inmates, many of them minimum security inmates. it was dealing with a regulation, your honor, that had previously permitted marriage in the case of pregnancy and childbirth. the court -- the court here emphasized that, among the incidents of marriage that are not destroyed by that -- at least that prison context, was the expectation of eventual consummation of the marriage and legitimation of -- of the children. so that -- >> thank you, mr. cooper. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. >> mr. olson? >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- i know that you will want me to spend a moment or two addressing the standing question, but before i do that, i thought that it would be important for this court to have proposition 8 put in context, what it does. it walls-off gays and lesbians from marriage, the most import

[laughter] >> with respect, justice ginsburg, that's not what the federal government is saying. the federal government is saying that within its own realm in federal policies, where we assume that the federal government has the authority to define the terms that appear in their own statute, that in those areas, they are going to have their own definition. and that's >> mr. clement, for the most part and historically, the only uniformity that the federal government has pursued is that it's uniformly recognized the marriages that are recognized by the state. so, this was a real difference in the uniformity that the federal government was pursuing. and it suggests that maybe something -- maybe congress had something different in mind than uniformity. so we have a whole series of cases which suggest the following: which suggest that when congress targets a group that is not everybody's favorite group in the world, that we look at those cases with some -even if they're not suspect -- with some rigor to say, do we really think that congress was doing this for uniformity reasons, or do

. >> jeff, it's interesting, some people have cited justice ginsburg's observations that the court had gone too far ahead of public opinion with roe versus wade, saying it would have been better to let the legislative process work its will. could that influence how she or others rule here? >> absolutely. the real tension here is between -- even among supporters of same sex marriage, the attorney general harris just mentioned loving versus virginia. that's the case that said in 1967, states can no longer ban racial intermarriage. the court did much the same thing about abortion in roe v wade. they said we don't care if texas or any other state wants to ban abortion. we're not going to let you do it. the political process had already run its course with loving versus virginia. no state wanted to go back at that issue. abortion, it didn't settle that question. so the issue is, is same sex marriage today more like racial intermarriage in 1967 or is it more like abortion in 1973. i think a lot of justices are going to be struggling with that question. >> but attorney general, it's hard to o

la laugh on the pro-gay side you got your kagan, breyer, wise latina and ginsburg who acted all surprise that the defense of marriage act makes the federal government treat gay couples differently from straight couples. >> you are saying there's two kinds of marriages the full marriage and skim milk marriage. >> stephen: yes, skim milk marriage. i have always suspected that skim milk was gay. for god sake it has homogenized on it. for pete's sake sean penn won an oscar for it. don't call me a bigot because i'm lactose intolerant. 2% that is straight missionary. half and half, come on. [ laughter ] and yogurt, i think we all know what that fruit is doing on the bottom. [ laughter ] plus, ladies and gentlemen, giving homosexual marriages federal recognition means giving them benefits meant for straight couples. >> think social security benefits, federal estate and income taxes as well as medical and family leave. same-sex couples who are legally married do not get them simply because they are gay. >> stephen: not simply because they are gay. because they are gay and we want to punish them

justice ginsburg raised that issue. justice sotomayor raised that issue of do we have to decide for all 50 states. they seemed uncomfortable with that. and the conservatives seemed quite opposed to any sort of recognition of same sex marriage. scalia, alito and even roberts, too. >> you know, there seemed to be a sense in the courtroom that since this issue is proceeding in the states, and public opinion is actually moving in the direction of same sex marriage, that could work against ted olson in a way, because if this is proceeding in the states, then the question coming from the supreme court is why do we need to do this heavy lift now, and justice sotomayor seemed to be asking the question is there any way we can make a principled decision and limit it to the state of california. >> but jeff, isn't something either constitutional or not? why kind of just throw it up to the states? if something is unconstitutional or constitutional, why not make that ruling? >> that's the argument that ted olson was making, but i thi

it sounds like ruth bader ginsburg felt that roe v. wade went too far too fast.t sounds like they're worried if they go too far to fast they may set back the cause of marriage equality. >> thomas, is that a concern, that if the justices were to making a sweeping ruling, where they said that marriage is a fundamental several right, that no state can bar it, is there a concern that there could be a backlash, that the court made this decision rather than the congress doing it? >> well, i think if they look at where the trend lines are going with how the public feels. we've got the ken mehlman work, 135 republicans that have now come out in support for marriage equality. you would think, joy, it would be better if, like what we saw in november, the four states that had marriage equality, ballots that people voted for overwhelmingly, if that would be the case for the rest of the country, that would be fantastic, but why should we put minority rights up for a majority vote? why should that be done? 2013 when it's just a simple situation of people wanting to marry the p

he recently had a chance to speak with ruth bader ginsburg. she's about to turn 80.'s thinking about retiring and let me read to you what she said. as long as i can do the job full steam, you can never tell when you're my age. but as long as i think i have the candle power, i will do it, next year for certain. after that, who knows? what do you think? what's going on? >> i think there's a paradox of justice ginsburg now because she is at once the top of her game. she is the senior liberal in the court. she has united the liberals in many cases. they speak with one voice. but at the same time, she recognized she's turning 80 and she has great regard for barack obama. it is clear that there is a real kinship between the two of them and i think in president obama's third year, you notice justice ginsburg said not this year, not next year but i think in his third year justice ginsburg will retire and give president obama a chance to ill if the seat. >> and not wait until the next president who potentially could be a republican. it could be a different court if sherp repl

[laughter] >> with respect, justice ginsburg, that's not what the federal government is saying. the federal government is saying that within its own realm in federal policies, where we assume that the federal government has the authority to define the terms that appear in their own statute, that in areas, they are going to have their own definition. and that's >> mr. clement, for the most part and historically, the only uniformity that the federal government has pursued is that it's uniformly recognized the marriages that are recognized by the state. so, this was a real difference in the uniformity that the federal government was pursuing. and it suggests that maybe something -- maybe congress had something different in mind than uniformity. so we have a whole series of cases which suggest the following -- which suggest that when congress targets a group that is not everybody's favorite group in the world, that we look at those cases with some -- even if they're not suspect -- with some rigor to say, do we really think that congress was doing this for uniformity reasons, or do w

i'm interested in ruth bader ginsburg. maybe not imposed one national view from the court on roe v wade. we may see a decision that in essence, that has a 6-3, 7-2, that says leave it up to the states. in fact, we could see an 8-1. >> interesting, jim, the president isn't willing to go quite that far. i sat down with him two weeks ago. he said that gay marriage is a guarantee by the constitution, basically that he can't imagine circumstances in a state where a ban could be upheld, but still not going quite that far. >> well, look, i think he's been clear on his position. the country has had a discussion led by him on his evolution. i agree with terry, the country has moved dramatically on this in ten years. 37% support it ten years ago. now, 58%. including 18 -- 81% of the young people. people look at young voters on this and contraception. i think they're completely out of touch. the president has laid out arguments, the president has said very clearly, we do not favor discrimination, that's why we have come out against p

ruth bader ginsburg said doma waters down traditional marriage but used a very different phrase.ake a listen. >> and it affects every area of life. and so you are really diminishing what the state has said is marriage. you're saying, state, there are two kinds of marriage, the full marriage and then this sort of skim milk marriage. >> chip, i'm sure you read the transcripts, i'm sure you heard the oral arguments. it looks and sounds like the high court is going to strike done doma. no? >> it certainly is a real possibility, something nobody would have even thought possible two years ago may be possible. what ends up happening is this may end up going to the states and they may have to deal with it state by state. at the federal level, i don't think they have the stomach to take it on. >> karen, snoop dog. >> are you giving me a rap question? >> no, but chip, i know he doesn't know snoop dog. >> whoa, whoa, whoa. >> right before the show we get this note that snoop dog has come out. but politico has a list of those who have not come out and endorsed equality, there they are right

ruth bader ginsburg said that it could have been a mistake roe v wade. pro-choice perspective because it took it away for the legislators. >> look, this is an anguished reality. where we have a second-class citizenship for millions and millions of americans that are denied over a thousand laws. thank god that we didn't wait for the states on women, equality, african-american equality. this to me, is clearly, we know, as king said, the arc of a moral universe. >> it seems as if, that the case came to the supreme court in the first place because the most conservative justices thought that this might be their last chance to hold a line. >> justice delayed is justice denied. i think the supreme court is lagging so far behind now, that marriage equality has won in the country. >> the only thing that you and rush limbaugh agree on. >> it's moving in states and politically. i think you have seen perhaps the most rapid mass evolution on an issue among our politicos. they know where the future of this country is. it's qualifier to win a next generation. whatever

liberal justice ruth bader ginsburg complained doma created two marriages. the full marriage and then the skim milk marriage. >> swing justice anthony kennedy said doma intrudes on states who choose to recognize gay marriage. the defensing lawyer argued it helps the u.s. military keep couples from refusing transfers that allow gay marriage. attorney general eric holder enforced drk oma. he sent no lawyer to defend it today. >> i'm wondering if we're living in this new world where the attorney general can simply decide it's unconstitutional. >> after the argument edie was optimistic. zbr i felt very respected. and i think it's going to be good. >> and as a lesbian, she feels liberated. >> i'm talking to you freely. i would have been hiding in a closet ten years ago. >> a ruling in the doma case comes in a few months. >> most court watches are predicting with anthony kennedy, the swing justice, voting that doma is likely to be declared unconstitutional. miswindsor may get her money back. i'm steve handlesman, nbc bay area news. >> coming up on nightly news, mo

. >> sean: from ruth bader ginsburg to justice sotomayor and elena kagan, i was surprised at many of their questions, but you're right, you can't discern how they're going to vote based on the questioning. you can infer, but sometimes you could be wrong. what with what justice alito had to say, juan williams, he said we don't have an ability to see into the future. we're talking about an institution that's newer than cell phones and the internet. a pretty strong statement i felt from him. >> well, i think it was strong. the whole idea is, and i think that jay is exactly right. the argument today is largely about standing, but the overall tone was one of reluctance to make a ruling here and picks up on the man who is identified as the likely swing vote in in whole affair, which is justice kennedy, and kennedy just said recently why should nine unelected men or women, you know, who have a narrow legal background be allowed to make a decision of this momentous consequence for the entire society which is sort of, gee, i'm just a supreme court justice, why are you asking me? but i'm got t

ruth bader ginsburg said before she got on the court that the court decision on roe v wade prevented social opinion from reaching this place on its own. let it happen organically and we will not have demonstrations in half a century as we do in the abortion case. >> charles is so right. you do not want to short circuit things. as we did on the voting rights act. i respect the point he's making. let me add this. as a constitutional expert, clint eastwood was elected mayor of carmel, california. and wyoming was the first state to ratify women's suffrage, so let's hear it for wyoming. >> contrary to what everybody is saying, there are equal rights. your withholding those rights if you refuse to allow same-sex couples to marry. i would like to see it established by the supreme court across the country. i think it is a principal just like brown versus board of education. it is unconstitutional to discriminate against same-sex couples. >> that is the hard thing. at this point, states have not articulated our region and -- a reason to deny marriage to same- sex couples. they use the reason

. >> thank you general manager ginsburg and good morning commissioners. we passed a resolution at the last meeting they would like to read into the record and it's in support of question sartrack and we talked about that and we brought it to the members and we had all but four members present in all of the membership and that is a really resounding support of our resolution. whereas the track was installed in 1991 and whereas this type of track is known to have a useful life of 15 years, and whereas the track replacement has been a listed item in the budget request to the mayor's office since 2008 and whereas the track is used by at least 22 middle schools, 10 high schools and many community individuals and user groups, and whereas the track has exceeded its life span by as much as seven years and whereas the track is now in a condition which makes it possibly unsafe, and whereas delays in restoring the track is continually increasing the cost of restoration, now therefore be it resolved that we join the community, the advisory committee, haight-ashbury n

. >> justice ginsburg said they moved too quickly, not that they should not move. the question here is when should the court to intervene, if at oliver -- when should the court intervene, if at all? you do not want to be in the position of being too far ahead. that is where the accord is. i want to say one other thing. thing, whichon 8 is what this case is about, it is pretty clear that four justices voted to hear this case and the fifth vote, justice kennedy, was not at all happy about it. it is clear that roe v wade has remained an unresolvable question. the competing rights between the pre-born and a mother carrying , this is, in large part, i think, because we did not come to a political, democratic resolution of it. >> six states allow civil unions but not marriage. nine states allow same-sex marriage. but because of the defense of marriage act, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage in those jurisdictions. it is a very odd situation. >> it is a very odd situation. what is interesting about these two cases is that justice kennedy, who real

there was word that justice ginsburg may also be uncomfortable with the 50-state solution even thoughkely amenable to expanding gay rights in general. she had previously stated that she felt the roe v. wade decision had moved too far too fast. did you see any of that from her today. >> reporter: i did not. she might see the difference as a matter of well, for the proponents and the antagonists, either a life or death issue. for people who are for or against same-sex marriage, it is a live and let live issue. the idea of a back lash coming from same-sex marriage rights from all 50 states didn't make that much of an impact on justice ginsburg's comments. >> i'm not sure what you mean by politics. i think this court has proven itself very willing to take a lot of least for certain decisions. some of them revel in it. justice scalia talks about the anti-anti-homosexual agenda in language designed to upset people. ken is more moderate. that brings us to the question of whether kennedy or roberts will want to take any kind of measured action to find the majority. but of course, robert has o

shannon, explain what justice ginsburg was saying there. >> she says based on the laws that now stand doma precludes same sex couples even if they're legally married in their home state from getting numerous federal benefits. this is what she said. >> every aspect of life, your partner is sick, social security, i mean, it's pervasive. it's not well there is this little federal sphere and it's only a tax question. as justice kennedy said 1100 statutes and it effects every area of life. she wound up asking what kind of marriage is that? >> the justices even questioned whether they should be hearing this case. >> some twists and turns in this case. as you know when the case began the obama administration was defending doma and then it flipped and said we are not going to defend it anymore. but we are going to continue to enforce it that whole rigamarol really upset some the justices who were upset with the administration for handling it this way. here is what justice scalia said. >> i'm wondering if we're living in this new world where the attorney general can simply decide yeah, it's un

>> unfortunately, i think, ambassador ginsburg is exactly right. that the united states seems oddly sort of paralyzed on this issue. and we are moving very incrementally, very slowly. and our allies in the region just don't really understand it. you know, i was testifying at the senate foreign relations committee yesterday, and the international representatives, the ngo representatives who had been to the refugee camps are reporting that people are resentful toward the united states, even more so, perhaps, than countries like russia because they see us as their natural ally, their friends as the ones that won't be helping. the united states has provided a lot of aid, a lot of humanitarian relief. but we're not doing much to help them win their war against assad and that's what they're identifying. >> thank you so much. >> sure, chris. >> for your insights today. always great to have you on the program. >> thanks. >>> it's back to school for 15-year-old malalah. shot in the head in october. it's been just a few weeks since malala had her latest surg

. >> the republican co-chair said he was going to appoint to the commission, mitt romney's ginsburg is going along with it. ginsburg and bob bauer will come up with a variety of making elections more efficient and submit a report to the president within six months. that is what is happening at the executive level. an order from the president look for solutions to our country's miserable voting problems. >>> meanwhile, in the states, republicans are still doing everything they can to make the problems worse. new requirements ban is people from voting. if they do not show documentation they ever showed before in order to vote. new moves on the role. republican governor bob mcdonald in virginia, governor ultra sound just signed one of those bills for virginia as well, this week. north carolina republican legislators there filing two bills to cut the voting window in half and eliminate same-day voter registration. and that's just this week. law makers in 30 states proposed 55 different new voting restrictionis to make voting harder than it already is. 55. this year. since the 50e location.