(applause) for the people who don't know who alan ginsburg is, tell the folks. >> alan ginsburg was part generation of poets which is a very influential kind of school of movement of american writers in the 20th century. that kind of school of thought was that they could -- it was quite a -- they took excitement in the nihilism of what they were doing and the idea of tearing everything down that had gone before and starting fresh like this was year one. >> stephen: they were anti-american, really. they were anti-american. no, they were! because they were questioning the moral and social order with their work. >> but that's great, isn't it? isn't it good to question things. >> stephen: no, it wasn't! because it was the 1950s. everything was perfect. eisenhower, everyone was straight, white, and male. (laughter) and these guys were questioning it and questioning the bomb! and questioning america's place in the world and what we meant by our society. >> stephen: . >> well, this film also bricks into your your assertion that everyone. in this era was straight. >> stephen: they were. they wer

stories one recorded love in a way there are these parallel stories of unrequited love both for ginsburg's character and cameras character their love for lucian cars and recorded and it is a thriller of sorts i mean i think part of what's exciting about the movie is it's populated by these future icons but it could stand up on its own even if these characters were nothing was younger and you know how did you get the part of the project and why i did when i was doing it was in new york on broadway the director of the film john created came to see that time he was you know kind of making lists for the movie of actors and then he saw the play and then send me the script and i loved it and we met and and that was it really that it was quite a long process i mean it's about five almost five years since that now and. dishing for it and go to it and then go back to potts or we were able to finish it the movie didn't happen and then they would replace recast and that happened again and then when they were refinancing it another time john came back to me and said would you still but the thought of

isn't it possible ginsburg will decide to depart? it will matter who is president, as far as that court goes and the implications that are 5-4 or 6-3, you don't dispute that? >> no, not in the slightest. one of the themes of the oath is a theme to resonates not just in the courts but all the american politicians, which is the evolution of the republican party. the moderate republicans who they're all gone. mitt romney with the chance to appoint judges will appoint very conservative judges. >> do you have a sense who he might appoint? >> sure. brent cavanaugh. >> controversial. >> one of the authors of the star reeort. the former solicitor general in the bush administration. >> who litigated -- >> right -- healthcare case. he's going to argue the defensive marriage act case. argued the arizona immigration case. i think lindsey graham, the senator from south carolina. >> who is what passes for a moderate --ish? now centers left. >> i also think there is a lot of demand on both sides of the political aisle for nonjudges on that court. >

this may be zero to justice ginsburg are interested in the area uniquely.t is probably that copyright and refuse to not copyright. this is an area by area theme. this is for the supreme court get deeply involved in recognizing rights. they are privacy vis-À-vis the government. you mention the cell phone cases coming up, without a warrant search your cell phone. we remember the gps case from a couple turns ago with the government was able to follow you around. the question is whether they had warrant to put the gps device on your car. that's how justices conceive of informational issues in terms of your ability -- debates of your ability to keep things private, government, not your ability to develop an idea index waited economically. >> first of, thank you all for being here. we appreciate you coming to the university of georgia. i've two questions about the health care decision and in particular, the chief justices opinion in that case. first, there is a lot of reporting on bad feeling caused by the chief justices ruling on the taxing power basis for the s

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

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.

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

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

ruth ginsburg said it perfectly. said if these aggregate limitations go down, 500 people who control -- we'll control american democracy. and that is the risk. >> burt neuborne, we will certainly continue to follow this case. that does it for our show. democracy now! is looking for feedback from people who appreciate the closed captioning. e-mail your comments to outreach@democracynow.org or mail them to democracy now! p.o. box 693 new york, new york 10013. [captioning made possible by democracy now!] what are we doing today? today we are looking for roger ridley. he's a street musician that plays down here in santa monica. i was walking by the promenade the other day and i heard him singing the song "stand by me". such an amazing version, such an amazing voice, you know. and a couple days before that i had heard the john lennon version. so i approached roger and i said, "hey man, if we come back down here with some recording equipment and some cameras, we'd love to record you and film you playing "stand by me".

>> yes, justice ginsburg, we have a muddy picture. as we explain in our reply brief, the first thing that we have is the actual statistics for the first full year after section 26 went into effect. this is 2008. and what we find is that the number of underrepresented minorities as part of the entering freshman class at michigan as a percentage changed very little. it went from about 10-3/4 percent to about 10-1/4 percent. then it gets very difficult to track, because, following the u.s.census's lead, in 2010 the university of michigan stopped requiring students to check only a single box to demonstrate what their race or ethnicity was and moved to a multiple checkbox system. and justice sotomayor, when you see in the amici briefs that there has been a dramatic drop, for example, in african american students on campus at the university of michigan, those numbers don't take into account that people who before were forced to check a single box now could be checking multiple boxes. and if you fold in the multiple checkbox students, the nu

members of the court's liberal wing are very concerned about that, justice briar and justice ginsburgve a problem here if justice ginsburg if the super affluent end up influencing campaigns and other people do not have a voice. other people will say what's the point of participating in politics anymore if my voice doesn't count. but i think for the majority of the court, the issue, legal hinge are corruption. supreme court upheld limits on contributions on the theory if you can give unlimited amounts of money directly to a candidate, you buy the candidate, you get corruption, you get something for your money. what the court seems to say here, though, is you don't have that same problem if you're giving the maximum to lots of different candidates. the government's claim here is if you can do that, you can give to candidate committees and that money can get funneled back. in other words, you can circumvent the individual contribution limits. >> indeed. >> that's been the distinction. >> nbc justice correspondent pete williams, thank you for the latest. >> you bet. >> after the break lat

ruth ginsburg said it perfectly. said if these aggregate limitations go down, 500 people who control -- we'll control american democracy. and that is the risk. >> burt neuborne, we will certainly continue to follow this case. that does it for our show. democracy now! is looking for feedback from people who appreciate the closed captioning. e-mail your comments to outreach@democracynow.org or mail them to democracy now! p.o. box 693 new york, new york 10013. [captioning made possible by democracy now!] tavis: good evening. from los angeles, i am tavis smiley. tonight a conversation with danai gurira. for her rolenown fighting zombies in the hit series "the walking dead" which returns for its fourth season. she can also be seen in the independent film "mother of george," which is getting outstanding reviews. immigrantlight in the community in brooklyn. we are glad you joined us. a conversation with danai gurira coming up right now. ♪ >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. versus w

what effect the repeal of affirmative action has -- >> yes, justice ginsburg, we have a muddy picture. as we explain in our reply brief, the first thing that we have is the actual statistics for the first full year after section 26 went into effect, since 2008. and what we find is that the number of underrepresented minorities as part of the entering freshman class at michigan as a percentage changed very little. it went from about 10.75% to about 10.25%. then it gets very difficult to track, because following the u.s. census' lead in 2010 the university of michigan stopped requiring students to check only a single box to demonstrate what their race or ethnicity was and moved to a multiple checked box system. and, justice sotomayor, when you see in the briefs there's been a dramatic drop, for example, in african-american students on campus at the university of michigan, those numbers don't take into account that people who before were forced to check a single box now could be checking multiple boxes. and if you fold in the multiple checks box students, the number of underrepresented m

ruth ginsburg said it perfectly. said if these aggregate limitations go down, 500 people who control -- we'll control american democracy. and that is the risk. >> burt neuborne, we will certainly continue to follow this case. that does it for our show. democracy now! is looking for feedback from people who appreciate the closed captioning. e-mail your comments to outreach@democracynow.org or mail them to democracy now! p.o. box 693 new york, new york 10013. [captioning made possible by democracy now!]

that comes back to justice ginsburg's argument. his revenge -- revisions history of hunter, that has nothing to do with the problem in this case. when the district court -- may i finish? when the court looked at this particular issue, the concern was the way that it racially divisive political process itself. what he is saying is that there may be all sorts of motives. that's a rational basis test and that has nothing to do with a racial classification. the definition i'm using is this court's definition of a race of classification for which all sorts trigger strict scrutiny. thank you very much. >> thank you, counsel. >> ms. driver? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. we ask this court to uphold the sixth circuit decision to reaffirm that doctrine that's expressed in hunter-seattle, and to bring the 14th amendment back to its original purpose and meaning, which is to protect minority rights against a white majority, which did not occur in this case. >> my goodness, i thought we've held at the 14th amendment protects

justice ginsburg said she not separating herself from the opinion. the affordable care act decision the year before, one of justice robert's tricks as an advocate write --e court was to every question you can imagine the justices asking, he would write it on an index card and categorize it. then he would shuffle the deck of index cards so he could have transitions and segues from one issue to another, even though they weren't in the same order he would have wanted them to be taken up. decisiondable care act almost looks like the cards were shuffled, in the sense that he was able to form one majority on the commerce clause issue and then segue to the taxing power issue. it shows an enormous skill in counting to five and seeing what positions he can espouse that will get him to victory, even if it's a small or incremental steps. it's very effective and will continue to be. the only other big thing that is tote dramatic -- if you come the court, i will show you around. the remarkable thing is to look three women.see left, center, and right on the court.

and of the most anti-business is only one, justice ginsburg goo. i think there is something to that. this case is perhaps a good illustration were the what is likely to go. so you have this guy. he is in chicago. flyerongs to a frequent program, northwest airlines. and northwest airlines evidently is complaining a lot about various things about the program, not getting all of the benefits and so on. and there is a clause in the contract which says, if you are a persistent gripe or -- persistent griper, they can build you from the program. [laughter] question did not know that. but she brings the suit in illinois and, under illinois, -- under illinois common law. and the airline says, no, the airlines deregulatory acts weeks away all of these contrary stay laws and imposes one uniform federal standard. so the question in the cases is how do we read this federal law against the tapestry of all of these different state laws? what was commerce intending to do? were they trying to get rid of all of the state law causes of action so it options under one

i interview justice ginsburg on friday and asked her about the case. she disagreed. she was a strong dissenter. she believes it won't have the staying power as she said on friday. and thinks that in the end that understanding of the congress will survive. we'll see. time will tell. as josh said in his new version of the introduction. [laughter] i'll close by saying i love so much about the book. the title "unprecedented" is misimplied. laws arrive to respond the unique situation of the moment. time work many changes as my her resaid. and legislation rises to the challenge. jew additional swrowltd black it to strike down the center piece of president obama's economic thank you so much. just to clear up something. i don't want to speak for josh and randy. my version of the conspiracy is not that the president or senator leahy let alone journalists caused john roberts to change his vote. but that is the perception of the american people. and perception often is important. that's certainly contributed to the laws of the legitimacy or the popular respect for the court, wh

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

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 that. >> re

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.

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

. >> well, two thoughts on that, justice ginsburg. first, under grutter, this court made crystal clear that a grutter plan is not about which minority group is being advantaged or disadvantaged. it's supposed to benefit the campus as a whole. and to the extent the claim is that preferences benefit certain classes of minorities and not others, you know, for example, it benefits african americans and latinos, but not asians, even though they're both discrete and insular underrepresented groups, that -- then it fails under grutter. it can only be something that benefits everybody. but more fundamentally, going back to your question about the origin of the doctrine, i think it's really important to understand why we have hunter, because hunter, remember, was decided before washington v. davis. and when you look at the face of the law in akron, ohio in hunter, there's nothing in there that would trigger strict scrutiny. and so this court was searching for another way to -- to strike down a law that removed an antidiscrimination provision a

in her colloquy with justice ruth ginsburg, how did you handle that. the advocates will tell you you don't win any points by being a grand stander. the justices themselves, i think, people will say, well, there's grand standing that goes on. will it get any worse. it will get any worse on the bench because of this. i will close with this. i have argued in supreme courts where there are cameras. they are utterly uninintrusive. when i argue, controversially the same-sex marriage case, there's bedlum outside. but there's decorum inside. that 2.5 hour of the california supreme court, there were no histrionics. nothing other than the government working in a very effective way. when you look at what the state supreme court have experienced including in my nay -- native state of texas. the texas supreme court will be characterized by a lot of folks around the country. in texas it's a conservative court. chief justice wallace jefferson, proudly with his colleagues said it is time for us to move into the 21st century. there is now live telecasting. i spoke with

is 80e ginsburg, who years old, has battled cancer twice.hose 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, easy, and free. created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable and satellite provider. span -- we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room and congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house. all is a se

justice ruth ginsburg said she has no plans to retire and she says she isn't worried about the republicanresident replaces her in 2014 because she thinks the democrats will win. >>> more details now on the court's upcoming cases. the issues include whether a the court -- how much authority police have to search smart phones. how much power the president has to fill key positions without senate confirmation. and whether oklahoma can limit the use of certain drugs prescribed for early term abortions. >>> sharks in lake tahoe? why people don't have to be afraid before diving in. >>> plus -- >> three time indy 500 winner dario franchiti crashes. the move that sent his car airborne. >> one sneaky little passenger. how a 9-year-old boy in a flight to las vegas has sparked an investigation. >>> some changes under way coming up how much of a temperature drop you can expect for tomorrow. the coolest day of the week and when showers resurface on the five day forecast. >>> we want to return now to that breaking news on yerba buena where fire crews are still fighting a fire. you can see a fire boat s

justice ginsburg said, "by having these limits, you are promoting democratic participation, then the little people will count some, and you won't have the super-affluent as the speakers that will control the elections." just scalia weighed in saying, "big money can be in politics. the thing is you can't give it to the republican party or the democratic party, but you can start your own pac. i'm not sure that's a benefit to our political system." looks like chief justice roberts is expected to be the key vote here. he indicated he was open to a compromise on the law that would leave some restrictions on contributions intact. >>> let's go to new jersey politics now where governor chris christie looks pretty much like a shoo-in as a second-term governor in the garden state. last night christie met his challenger, state senator barbara buono. the two candidates spoke on a lot of issues including christie's presidential aspirations. >> people have been talking about me running for president in this state since 2010. they all said i was going to do it in 2010. i said i wouldn't and i didn'

i see phil ginsburg, i know bill is around, others from our da office, richard caranza and others from the women's status as well and the district attorneys from the various counties, the school administrators and instructors and superintendents from other counties as well, as well as our community-based agencies that are so invaluable it all of us. this is a very important topic and it's one that our u.s. attorney, melinda hague and i helped spearhead yesterday with 800 students who came together who watch an incredible film by lee hirsch i've heard the wonderful reports from the kids, seen their laughter and their tears. we are going to honor your making that film by doing what we need to do to stop bullying across the country. because the data shared by our u.s. attorney, representatives from the department of education confirm if we don't do anything about it, 13 million kids will become victims again for another year. some 3 million kids across the country will decide it is better to leave their school grounds than to continue their education. there will be more stupblting of the

don't really have to do a cost benefit analysis but they do and he ran into a judge a guy named ginsburg who famously failed to make this. court because he was partaking of some controlled substances but he he wrote an opinion it's called business roundtable for short which said that the cost benefit analysis of an f.c.c. rule we can go into some detail was deficient and threw it out that not only freaked out the security and exchange commission which stifled all rulemaking you can you can watch the curve of progress and it just hit a wall after that decision it frightened all of the other agencies that they would do all this work and their work would be ground to a halt because intersected with a republican appointed judge and stop the rule altogether so as an advocate for wall street and say that he's one of the better ones he is one of the better ones yes indeed. he even brags on his website gibson dunn crutcher you can link to an article written about him which says if you want your rule stopped there is one stop shopping with eugene scalia. phrasing but that's the point created quit

understanding is the first amendment rights of the people who are being drowned out of the system justice ginsburg actually made this right means we've got wealthy people getting more first amendment rights than people who don't quite have them for but we have to move on the next topic was kind of the culture for demas thanks so much for joining me it's a pleasure dr stein you're going to stick around here as i move on to our next story which of course is this government shutdown now in its second week and it isn't any closer reopening or finding a way to raise the debt limit in the next nine days this morning president obama called speaker of the house john boehner to according to boehner is office remind the speaker that he won't negotiate over raising the debt limit today the president faces the media in a news conference and here's what he had to say the american people do not get to demand a ransom for doing their jobs. if you don't get a chance to call your bank and say i'm not going to pay my mortgage this month unless you've brought a new car and an x. box. if you're a negotiation is aroun

i think what justice ginsburg does is our own business, and i wouldn't purport to tell her what to do or what not to do. i think it's quite unseemly we're having this discussion. but the reason we're having this discussion is that justices have life tenure. they could stay as long as they want, and we know that the practice is one with very few exceptions on strategic retirement. several years ago i was privileged to be one of the co-authors of the book by roger crampton and paul carrington which talked about and set up a system for tracking term limits for supreme court justices enacted by statute under which they would have 18 year terms, staggered two-year terms, so that every president would get to appointees and there would be no strategic retirement. the justices would become senior justices. they would be paid in full. and by the way, if there were any recusal, there probably won't be very many, you would have a supreme court justice ready to sit in and step in for them. thank you. >> may i say one thing about the opinion down announce the. when the court has the decision, whoe

justice ginsburg resided over two heard, most recently this weekend. >> pastor is planning to picketside barney's in manhattan over racial profiling by police at the store. they have until friday to ask for policies for stopping, detaining, and questions customers based on race. two allegations have been brought against the store from morning, when two other shoppers say they were wrongfully search after shopping including a movie actor. >> the st. louis cardinals are in boston for game six of the world series. "do or die". but this was an hour flight delay landing at boston before midnight after mechanical problems in st. louis forcing the delay. worse, the team and families were on on the entire time. avoid i don'ts nobleally do not go viral but virgin america's video has gotten 300,000 views on youtube. ♪ i got some safety tips ♪ you got to know >> they provided this video of what can be described as "glee goes airborne." it is called the safety dance. they claim it is the first ever safety video set to music for a united states airlines. it will be aboard flights next month. virg

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

i have been very troubled in the last couple of months about all of this talk about justice ginsburg stepping aside and she should do it for the good of the country. and that all of the people who think that maybe the democrats won't control the presidency and therefore to keep the majority or keep the vote the way they are. she should step aside. i think what justice begin burg does is her own business. and i would proport to tell her what to do or not to do. i think it's quite unseemingly we're having this discussion. but the reason we're having this discussion is justices have life tenure. they can stay as long as they want and we know that the practice is on with very few exception of strategic retirement. several year ago i was privileged to be one of the coauthor of the a book by roger and paul enacted by statute under which they have 18-year term staggered 2-year term so every president would get two appointee and there would be no strategic retirement. the justice become senior justice paid in full and, by the way, if there were any recusal, there probably won't be many you h