my colleague, justice ginsburg, she always says, what about nine? [laughter] i think it is a really good thing. i look out onto the court room all the time and there are all of the school children who come in, school groups, and i think, it is a great thing that young girls and young boys are seeing me and justice ginsburg and justice soto mayor and none of us are shrinking violets. they are watching us and the fact that we contribute in the exact same way as our male colleagues do. that is terrific. i think it would be good if we were diverse in some other ways that i mentioned for the same exact reason. but i do not think it means all makes all that much difference in the conference room. when the doors are closed and we are deciding cases. i am not going to say that it never makes a difference because i do think there are particular kind of cases where somebody might have a very strong intuition about the way the world works that comes out in the decision-making process. i think in particular about a case a few years ago when i was a solicitor ge

they will plant the piece in an american newspaper when we got the opposition and saw this david ginsburg declaration i was personally surprised he's in the l.a. copyright society an organization i was president of one time and i remember when we admitted him into the society and and that's a group of people who are primarily defense oriented you know representing filmmakers defending against these kind of claims so so why did don't bring in. david ginsburg provided a declaration in which he basically summarizes the film and sort of agrees with dole's characterizations of certain aspects of the film being false there is a paragraph in here that is sort of startling where he compares heure film to a world war two era propaganda film the classic example i will give here with relevance to the film dramatically and he's talking about your film goes back decades to the nazi era anti-semitic film. the eternal jew so what he's doing here is he's equating your film to a propaganda piece that was trying to essentially justify the massacre of jews to go out in a list somebody and say we'll give you

my colleague, justice ginsburg, she always says, what about nine?laughter] i think it is a really good thing. i look out onto the court room all the time and there are all of the school children who come think,ool groups, and i it is a great thing that young girls and young boys are seeing me and justice ginsburg and justice soto mayor and none of us are shrinking violets. they are watching us and the fact that we contribute in the exact same way as our male colleagues do. that is terrific. i think it would be good if we were diverse in some other ways that i mentioned for the same exact reason. but i do not think it means all -- makes all that much difference in the conference room. when the doors are closed and we are deciding cases. not going to say that it never makes a difference because i do think there are particular kind of cases where somebody might have a very strong intuition about the way the world works that comes out in the decision-making process. i think in particular about a case a few years ago when i was a solicitor general and ju

my colleague, justice ginsburg, she always says, what about nine? [laughter] i think it is a really good thing. i look out onto the court room all the time and there are all of the school children who come in, school groups, and i think, it is a great thing that young girls and young boys are seeing me and justice ginsburg and justice sotamayor and none of us are shrinking violets. they are watching us and the fact that we contribute in the exact same way as our male colleagues do. that is terrific. i think it would be good if we were diverse in some other ways that i mentioned for the same exact reason. but i do not think it makes all that much difference in the conference room. when the doors are closed and we are deciding cases. i am not going to say that it never makes a difference because i do think there are particular kinds of cases where somebody might have a very strong intuition about the way the world works that comes out in the decision-making process. i think in particular about a case a few years ago when i was a solicitor general and

david ginsburg provided a declaration in which he basically summarizes the film and sort of agrees with dole's character is. nations of certain aspects of the film being false there is a paragraph in here that is for starting point where he compares. to a world war two era. film a classic example i will give here with relevance to the film dramatically and he's talking about your film goes back decades to the nazi era anti-semitic film. the internal jew so what he's doing here is he's equating your film to a propaganda piece that was trying to essentially justify the massacre of jews to go out and a list somebody and say we'll give you a script of what to say and will pay you to say it and we want to pay you in particular because you might be somebody known to be on the side of filmmakers so it'll be meaningful that you're turning against one of your own you know is is is really disappointing. money talks. the internet it seems. i found out the my name on google whenever you google my name and. even our own movie trailer would have a doling. aggressive comments appeared in a commentary

they will plant the piece in an american newspaper when we got the opposition and saw this david ginsburg declaration i was personally surprised he's in the l.a. copyright society an organization i was president of one time and i remember when we admitted him into the society and and that's a group of people who are primary. you know representing filmmakers defending against these kind of claims so. david ginsburg provided a declaration in which he basically summarizes the film and sort of agrees with dole's characterizations of certain aspects of the film being false there is a paragraph in here that is for starting point where he compares heuer film to a world war two era. film a classic example i will give here with relevance to the film dramatically and he's talking about your film goes back decades to the nazi era anti-semitic film. the internal jew so what he's doing here is he's equating your film to a propaganda piece that was trying to essentially justify the massacre of jews to go out and a list somebody and say we'll give you a script of what to say and will pay you to say it a

david ginsburg provided a declaration in which he basically summarizes the film and sort of agrees with dole's characterizations of certain aspects of the film being false there is a paragraph in here that is sort of startling where he compares heuer film to a world war two era propaganda film the classic example i will give here with. relevance to the film dramatically and he's talking about your film goes back decades to the nazi era anti-semitic film. the eternal jew so what he's doing here is he's equating your film to a propaganda piece that was trying to essentially justify the massacre of jews to go out in a list somebody and say we'll give.

and saw this david ginsburg declaration i was personally surprised he's in the l.a.copyright society an organization i was president of one time and i remember when we admitted him into the society and and that's a group of people who are primarily defense oriented you know representing filmmakers defending against these kind of claims so so why did don't bring in. david ginsburg provided a declaration in which he basically summarizes the film and sort of agrees with dole's characterizations of certain aspects of the film being false there is a paragraph in here that is sort of startling where he compares he or film to a world war two era propaganda film the classic example i will give here with relevance to the film dramatically and he's talking about your film goes back decades to the nazi era anti-semitic film. the eternal jew so what he's doing here is he's equating your film to a propaganda piece that was trying to essentially justify the massacre of jews to go out in a list somebody and say we'll give you a script of what to say and we'll pay to say it and we w

but will appear on nbc, cbs, abc, and fox. 80% of a full ginsburg.ristie is a hot ticket now, not only was he re-elected as a republican in a blue state, he was re-elected by a big margin. defeated underfunded democratic challenger by 22 points. that is supposed to be the mega margin of victory, the story of this year's elections of chris christie's brooight future, 22 points. across the river from new jersey. the democratic candidate, chewed up that 22-point margin and spit it out in disgust. you want to talk big wins? you want to talk big margin of victory? look at this. the new democratic mayoral elect to the largest city, built the well regarded republican he was up against, by what is that 50 points? 49 points? he more than doubled chris christie's margin of victory. and maybe that doesn't seem look all of that big of news, well, jeez, new york city is so democratic. mike bloomberg was a republican, independent, before him. rudy giuliani was a republican. it has been 20 years since there was a democrat running new york. as new york gets ready fo

david ginsburg provided a declaration in which he basically summarizes the film and sort of agrees with dole's characterizations of certain aspects of the film being false there is a paragraph in here that is sort of startling where he compares heuer film to a world war two era propagandist. example i will give here with relevance to the film dramatically and he's talking about your film goes back decades to the nazi era anti-semitic film. the eternal jew so what he's doing here is he's equating your film to a propaganda piece that was trying to essentially justify the massacre of jews to go out and list somebody and say we'll give you a script of what to say and will pay to say it and we want to pay you in particular because you might be somebody known to be on the side of filmmakers so it'll be meaningful that you're turning against one of your own you know is is is really disappointing. money talks. the internet it seems. i found out the dole had both my name on google whenever you googled my name. would follow. even our own movie trailer would have a doling. aggressive comments appe

if i tell you that i go to the opera with justice ginsburg, you would probably not be as interested in that. but i do that too. >> let me follow up a little bit on maybe what is a more process oriented version of a similar question. i found that it is wonderful to be a justice on the supreme court terms of personal relationships. it is obviously a group of folks that to hera those stories and it is very curdling. but you do disagree with each other. you do disagree vehemently at times. when is it appropriate to write a dissent? after you've lost once, that they justice have an obligation to admit defeat and go on? how does that work in your mind? >> i think dissenting opinions play an important role in the court. that is not to say that i do not value consensus. to the extent that we can achieve consensus, i think we should try hard to do so. i very much admire the chief justice's efforts in that regard. i hope that i am a willing participant in that effort. i think the absolute worst thing on the court is when the splinter and when there is not even a majority. when there is one of th

david ginsburg provided a declaration in which he basically summarizes the film and sort of agrees with dole's care. there is a sions of certain aspects of the film being false there is a paragraph in here that is sort of startling where he compares he or film to a world war two era propaganda film the classic example i will give here with relevance to the film dramatically and he's talking about your film goes back decades to the nazi era anti-semitic film. the eternal jew so what he's doing here is he's equating your film to a propaganda piece that was trying to essentially justify the massacre of jews to go out in a list somebody and say we'll give you a script of what to say and will pay to say it and we want to pay you in particular because you might be somewhat be known to be on the side of filmmakers so it'll be meaningful that you're turning against want to.

clement and this goes back to justice ginsburg's question, could this treaty have that self-regulated individual conduct? could the treaty have been self-executing? >> well, i think that's an interesting question and i don't think the court needs to answer it. i would take the position that it there really were a self-executing treaty that try to impose criminal call -- chemical prohibition i would say it violates the constitution for the same basic reasons that this implementing legislation does. >> where would you find that in the constitution because there is clearly treaty power that does not have subject matter limitations and indeed if you go back to the founding history it's very clear that they thought about all kinds of subject matter limitations in james madison and others decided quite self-consciously not to impose them so where would you find that limitation in the constitution? >> i would find that limitation in the structural revisions of the constitution and the enumerated powers of congress and i would say -- >> the enumerated powers the treaty power so you have to fi

. >> justice ginsburg i willis quarrel with the promise it is true they use similar terms terms andan terminology but impd there is one very important difference between the convention and a statue that differentiates this case. tself that is the convention itself does ly regulate individul conduct at all. all so not tells the parties go regulate individual conduct in exactly the way this convention regulates state parties and then what the legislation does as justice ginsburg said just mirrors the convention as the convention contemplated. >> justice kagan what the convention says in article vii, section 1, 33a what it says is that each nation-state convention agrees in accordance with these constitutional processes to pass p. no laws that make it unlawful for individuals conduct that would violate the convention by a nation-state. i would respectfully suggest that making that translation if you will between what violates the condition for a nation-state and what would be comparable individual conduct is not obvious and when the government does that through pena legislation there is

cartoonist getting flak for his disney icons including hillary clinton as princess 2016 and ruth bader ginsburgas supreme princess. it's all satire and there shouldn't be one art type for a hero. >>> bill de blasio is a human, warm-blooded vertebra, exhales carbon die ox side and is a biped. >> i love that part. that's your morning dish of scrambled politics. more on the president's apology to americans losing their health churns. kevin is weighing in. >> good morning, betty. happy friday. >> happy friday. were you surprised the president issued an apology. is it admission he lied to people saying if you like your health plan, you can keep it? >> i was surprised he apologized. i don't think he lied to the american people. this is something that just didn't go as planned. this is the hallmark piece of domestic policy for the first term. to some extent, the second term as well. the rollout hasn't gone to plan. it was a huge admission to nbc news this is not going as planned for him and how he hoped, to say the least. >> the president went on to say he's going to do everything he can to fix the pr

justice ginsburg, justice breyer, sotomayor, and kagan. the other justices that sided with scalia were clarence thomas and samuel alito. and even though they did not sign the ruling that the other two justices on the court, justice roberts and justice kennedy also sided with scalia on this ruling. so this was the two sides in this really important texas abortion ruling this week. but look at this breakdown. the side voting to keep the clinics open in texas, those judges were appointed by prp prm, president obama, president clinton, president clinton. the side that voted to shut down the clinics, those justices were appointed by george w. bush, george w. bush, george h.w. bush, ronald reagan, ronald reagan. notice a trend? notice any pattern here? presidents appoint judges. this is one of the fundamental things that presidents do. if you boil presidents down, this is one of the last things left in the pot of gelatinous down there. it is one of the most fundamental and consequential things that american presidents do. it is part and parcel o

david ginsburg provided a declaration in which he basically summarizes the film and sort of agrees with dole's characterizations of certain aspects of the film being false there is a paragraph in here that is for starting point where he compares. to a world war two era. the classic example i will give here with relevance to the film dramatically and he's talking about your film goes back decades to the nazi era anti-semitic film. the eternal jew so what he's doing here is he's equating your film to a propaganda piece that was trying to essentially justify the massacre of jews to go out in a list somebody and say we'll give you a script of what to say and will pay to say it and we want to pay you in particular because you might be somebody known to be on the side of filmmakers so it'll be meaningful that you're turning against one of your own you know is is is really disappointing. money talks. the internet it seems. i found out the my name on google whenever you google my name and. even our own movie trailer would have a doling. aggressive comments appeared in a commentary track after o

concurring in the judgment justice kagen has filed a sis sending opinion in which justice scalia, ginsburg, and sotomayor have joined. and just allee to refuses to explain the basis with the court's opinion. i'm supposed to that in what seven minutes? well, six. why doesn't he give the court holding. there is no holding. the majority of the the court rejects every theory offer forked the result of affirming. the confrontation clause itself talk about the right to be confronted with the withins against an individual and the court has struggled the application of that concept as defined in crawford case in 2004 scalia opinion saying everything turn on whether or not the out of court statement is testimonial. all of which appeared at the end of the term the last possible day reflecting the court's struggles. we know from the first case that a laboratory cannot simply produce a notarized form that says cocaine. and that can be introduced in evidence in a criminal case for the prosecution. but even that without the witness -- a witness to support that result. but even that lead to a dissent by

they will plant the piece in an american newspaper when we got the opposition and saw this david ginsburg declaration i was personally surprised he's in the l.a. copyright society an organization i was president of one time and i remember when we admitted him into the society and and that's a group of people who are primarily defense oriented you know representing filmmakers defense.

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

then they will plant the piece in an american newspaper when we got the position and so does david ginsburg declaration i was personally surprised he's in the l.a. copyright society an organization i was president of one time and i.

they will plant the piece in an american newspaper when we got the opposition and saw this david ginsburg declaration i was personally surprised he's in the l.a. copyright society an organization i was president of one time and i remember when we admitted him into the society and and that's a group of people who are primary. you know representing filmmakers defending against these kind of claims so so why did don't bring in the.

justice ginsburg has a message. she'll take it anywhere. she'll come to your house. if you are going to have a garden party she'll come there. she is not leaving. she wants everyone to know she is staying on the supreme court. so she has been doing interviews like mad. >> why aren't there more super views like this? >> [inaudible] >> yes. >> go ahead, tony. >> it's because they don't have a message like that to get out. if they did, they would. know some justices who that if they stick their neck out and are interviewed they're going to get some question that is they don't really want to answer. that's another factor. i was able to once interview justice alito because i knew he was a philadelphia fillies fan d the fillies had just won the world series. but they had done well. so i said could i interview justice alito about the phillies? and the public information officers said he won't want to talk about i. the next thing i knew i got a call from justice alito saying be here tomorrow. and we talked about the phillies. and i said, while i have you -- and i was able to

he's doing the close to the full ginsburg this weekend when it comes to sunday talk shows.ry interesting to see him on our friend -- with our friend, david gregory, on "meet the press" this weekend. chris christie not shying away from 2016. that's it for this edition of "the daily rundown." have a great weekend. we'll be right back here on monday and now off to chris jansing. bye-bye. it's been a happy union. he does laundry, and i do the cleaning. there's only two of us... how much dirt can we manufacture? more than you think. very little. [ doorbell rings ] [ lee ] let's have a look, morty. it's a sweeper. what's this? what's that? well we'll find out. we'll find out. [ lee ] it goes under all the way to the back wall. i came in under the assumption that it was clean. i've been living in a fool's paradise! oh boy... there you go... morty just summed it up. the next 44 years we'll be fine. morty just summed it up. i started part-time, now i'm a manager.n. my employer matches my charitable giving. really. i get bonuses even working part-time. where i work, over 400 people a

he came from scalia, thomas and ruth bader ginsburg and this is whether obama will leave his stamp on the court and it is about looking forward to the supreme court. you heard mitch mcconnell mentioned miguel estrada and robert bourque. a lot of this is recrimination on the part of republicans. right now there is a four-four balance. four nominations by democrats and four by republicans. if president obama is able to put one more person on the court, suddenly the balance will be five 'em democrdemocratic pln the board. when it comes to things like abortion, getting the full 11 members on the court, if barack obama can do that he will shape not only this court, but potentially he'll be teeing up people for the big one, for the supreme court. >> alahe, i want to pick up on what casey hunt said at the top here. what is the so-called nuclear option and the tone of washington moving forward? >> it will just get more and more intense, more partisan especially in the senate we're seeing the rollout of obama care has been a disaster for democrats and now you're seeing harry reid going to the

john roberts, ruth bader ginsburg, antonin scalia and clarence thomas, it's a farm team for the supremert. barack obama has had five nominees, four of them have been filibustered, three of them will now get votes and now presumably be confirmed. it's really a very important day. >> and it sets an amazing precedent, if you will, for those of white house have covered the united states senate, jeffrey, all of these years. the republicans argue that, what they were doing was no big deal, this court, this d.c. court of appeals, was really not that busy, that they didn't have that many cases, they didn't really need these new judges to be confirmed. what they were doing was not a big deal. what do you say when you hear those arguments? >> well, it had never been argued before that judges, who are authorized, there is a longstanding law that says each circuit has a certain number of judges, the senate doesn't decide which ones are busy and which ones are not. they simply fill the vacancies. this is what all presidents do. so the idea that a president couldn't fill havevie can't sean a court wa

for more on diplomatic challenges we want to turn to ambassador mark ginsburg. how are you? to see you. >> i want to turn to syria where a lot of the united states political class and media has really turned away after a serious set of escalation and now what we're seeing last week, the appearance of some sort of diplomatic achievement here if we are to believe the statements and international inspections that suggest some parts of syria's chemical weapons stockpile is being located and eventually disarmed. what do you make of this? did the obama administration eventually stumble into a breakthrough here? >> yes, they stumbled into a breakthrough of sorts, ari. the fact of the matter is that the syrian government did comply with international united nations requirements and did it diligently. but i'm not going to give them great credit. after all, they are the ones who used chemical weapons against their people, number one. number two, let's also understand the killing is going on and al qaeda is running ram pant throughout syria and while we may be giving ourselves a pat on

in fact, ruth bader ginsburg cited this precise type of discrimination from a pre section five worldting rights act came before the court this year. >> these second generation barriers included racial gerrymandering, switching to at large voting. >> it's the oldest trick in the book and so recognizable that when a neighboring texas town of beaumont cooked up a similar plan, it was blocked by the justice department in december of 2012. but then, the supreme court killed section five of the voting rights act in shelby v. holder and isbel made his move. >> he said we're going to redirt the city. >> the justice department can no longer tell us what to do. >> so, this summer, isbill arguing some don't care about city wide issues, moved to put his own plan on the ballot. >> the mayor's quite aware of what this does, but he just seems to not care. >> on tuesday, the folks of pasadena went to vote on proposition one and the majority won by a margin of 87 votes. now that section five is dead, there are thousands of potential pasadenas all across the south. we should note that patricia gonzale

the second case of the trilogy, justice ginsburg wrote an opinion in a case in which the state of new mexico used as a on alcohol a dui measurement, someone from the same laboratory who had not been involved in the testing at all. the person who did the testing was on administrative leave for unclassified reasons. only one agreed with the court and that was justice scalia. justice sotomayor or stressed the limits of the opinion. , aslimited being the report to which there is no live nevers for, was introduced into evidence. the question becomes what if it is not introduced into evidence? that is the williams case. in williams, this is off to a firm in maryland. the firm deduced the rapist's profile that often requires a judgment, mixed samples, or producing real issues. especially when there are low quantities of dna. they wrote a report and sent it back to the state. an analyst from illinois punched in the profile to the computer which search the database, that a hit and she also use another to come up with a probability even lower than the ones we heard this morning. this is 12 zero

where john roberts worked, clarence thomas, antonin scalia, ruth bader ginsburg were there before the supreme court. of those nominations, four were filibustered. what today's vote will mean is that three of those four will now get on the d.c. circuit. and that could have major implications for whether the laws that obama managed to pass in his first term are upheld. now that the challenges are starting to work their way through the court. >> dana, what about on the republican side? they're saying they're outraged by what happened. is this going to poison the well for future bipartisan agreements? >> reporter: it could. there's no question about it. even republicans who tend to work across the aisle like john mccain was telling me and other reporters today that it might be harder for him to do things like get treaties passed which require big supermajorities of 67 votes because of the fact that republicans may support the concept of the issue at hand but the might not want to give democrats a win after they've had their feathers ruffled. but the other thing to keep in mind is just sor

barack obama is not nominating, part of why ruth bader ginsburg stays on the court, she knows he will because he captain get somebody like her through the confirmation process anymore. >> we can't talk about hillary clinton without talking about the darling -- well, depending who you talk to -- of the republican party. and that's chris christie. today we learned from excerpts of the forthcoming 2012 sequel to game change that mitt romney's nickname for christie was puffer fish. and however -- here's why team romney decided against using christie -- tapping christie as vp. quote, the dossier on the garden state governor's background was littered with potential land mines. how electable is the supposedly electable, chris christie? >> i think there is a lot there for journalists to be pawing over in the years to come. and it does -- he seems to be walking to re-election. this may make democrats wish they had dug a little deeper and given barbara buono help in her race. democrats have helped declare him the electable one too. so, you know, there's lots to talk about when it comes to chris

ruth bader ginsburg passed with just three votes against her, 96-3. so the issue really is advice and consent, not with super majorities. right now we have the tyranny of the minority. that's what we've taken care of. >> this is from mitch mcconnell's office. vast majority of obama nominees confirmed, almost 1600. that's a lot of nominees who have been confirmed. that's what senator mcconnell -- >> you know the chart i would put up here? i would put up the filibusters since the beginning of the country -- >> i will do that for -- >> 50%, 50% of them in four and a half years. four and a half years. >> you can see it's a significant number of nominees have been approved by the senate. >> nominees have been approved but we reached a critical point there. there was blockage and we had to break through and overrule the tyranny of the minority and really, this is going to be good for the country. we are going to be able to let the president have his team in place. any president, democrat or republican, is entitled to have their team in place. >> senator uda