she's going to make her own decision. >> it's important to note that even if justice ginsburg electedtire at the end of this term which wraps in late june, there's no guarantee her successor would be confirmed. just weeks ago, the justice department nominee was blocked by votes by vulner democrats, the white house has said it's recalibrating its strategy regarding its surgeon general nominee. >> they're going to hear a landmark case, one that pits religious freedom against obamacare. what should we be looking for? >> it was brought by the owners of two businesses who say they can't comply with the hhs contraception mandate. and that's direct violation of their religious faith. the administration argues that companies can't have religious believes and the owners must comply with the health care law, including provided employees cost free access to preventive care. >> big day at the supreme court tomorrow. shannon bream, thanks. >>> republicans have a 60% chance to take over the senate in the upcoming midterm elections, according to nate silver, who correctly predicted the 2012 presiden

clement as justice ginsburg said, this was a very uncontroversial law. your understanding of this law, your interpretation of it, would essentially subject the entire u.s. code to the highest test in constitutional law, to a compelling interest standard. so another employer comes in and that employer says, i have a religious objection to sex discrimination laws; and then another employer comes in, i have a religious objection to minimum wage laws; and then another, family leave; and then another, child labor laws. >> well, i don't say that. i think congress said that. but to be as responsive as i can to your question, the parade of horribles that the government offers you ought to sound familiar, because if you look at that parade of horribles social security, minimum wage, discrimination laws, compelled vaccination every item on that list was included in justice scalia's opinion for the court in smith. and justice o'connor responded to that in her separate opinion and she said, look, you've got to trust the courts; just because free exercise claims are

let me bring in former ambassador to morocco ambassador ginsburg.ar. >> likely sgebs the key people involved in this annexation. there are major oligarchs. if they are sanctioned, they do most of the business with the west. placing sanctions on them will be a huge shy insofar as their relationships and ability to continue to make money and ability to keep paying putin off. >> so that's what we are talking about, the flow of money from the billionaires that could be cut off to putin, and that's -- >> if we understand what putin is, he's -- for all intents and purposes, he is aenchally trying to reestablish the kremlin as the major piggy bank for all of these oligarchs and vice versa. >> they have shown little sign of using some sort of financial penalties that are serious enough that some analysts are saying enough to change the behavior. >> the goose that lays the golden egg is germany. it's one thing politically for chancellor merkel to support the president and try to in effect influence putin's behavior. it's an entirely different thing for her e

>> if i were somebody who wanted justice ginsburg to retire i wouldn't be writing in the papers that she ought to. she didn't get where she is by doing what she is told. network for $175 a month? yup. all 5 of you for $175. our clients need a lot of attention. there's unlimited talk and text. we're working deals all day. you get 10 gigabytes of data to share. what about expansion potential? add a line, anytime, for $15 a month. low dues, great terms. let's close! new at&t mobile share value plans our best value plans ever for business. don't worry! the united states postal service will get it there on time with priority mail flat rate shipping. ♪ whoo-hoo! ♪ [ male announcer ] our priority has always been saving the day. because our priority... amazing! [ male announcer ] ...is you! the amazing spider-man 2 delivered by the united states postal service. -hit the beach in florida.n 2 -and a reunion in seattle. we can afford to take more trips this year. [man] when hotels have unsold rooms, they use hotwire to fill them. [woman] so we got our 4-star hotels... for half price. ♪ h-o-t-w-

she said "if you admire ruth bader ginsburg so much, stop asking her to quit." is that ginsburg's special role can be replaced by another cookie cutter democratic pick. but it can't. compared to 1993, the court was less right wing. when president clinton touted her that year, he embraced her unifying approach. >> she will be able to be a force for consensus building on the supreme court, just as she has been on the court of appeals. so that our judges can become an instrument of our common unity in the expression of their fidelity to the constitution. >> a lot has changed since then. while the court should not be reduced to merely an ideological contest, we should remember both parties' picks have been marching the court to the right. george w. bush replaced justice o'connor with a more current justice lito. if liberals want to intensify the fight for progressive bench, we should probably start by pushing more great jurists in the lower courts, not badgering one of the best off the highest court in the land. that does it for us on "the psych o cycle." it's time

clement as justice ginsburg said, this was a very uncontroversial law. your understanding of this law, your interpretation of it, would essentially subject the entire u.s. code to the highest test in constitutional law, to a compelling interest standard. so another employer comes in and that employer says, i have a religious objection to sex discrimination laws; and then another employer comes in, i have a religious objection to minimum wage laws; and then another, family leave; and then another, child labor laws. and all of that is subject to the exact same test which you say is this unbelievably high test, the compelling interest standard with the least restrictive alternative. >> well, i don't say that. i think congress said that. but to be as responsive as i can to your question, the parade of horribles that the government offers you ought to sound familiar, because if you look at that parade of horribles social security, minimum wage, discrimination laws, compelled vaccination every item on that list was included in justice scalia's opinion for the

this as some are urging justice ginsburg to retire now before the democrats potentially lose control of the senate. >> the strategic move right now is to step aside, let someone else who is younger and who would be confident, reasonably confident to remain on the court no matter how long it takes until the next democrat is elected. >> joining us -- >> none of us would want to be told you're too old, get the hell out of here. >> joining us now, former speech writer to president george w. bush and a fellow at the american enterprise institute. so mark, suddenly, the democrats at least the fundraising democrats don't believe in nate silver as much as they did before? >> yeah, he was pretty much clarevoyant, saying once again, he nail eed it. now they're saying well, he sometimes gets things wrong. >> that is actually right, they were touting him. and now after that one prediction, oh, nate who? he is hit or miss. >> absolutely, they're panicking for two reasons, one, they know he is probably right and two there is almost nothing they can do about it. the reason is this, one of the reaso

>> i mean, let me start by saying thank goodness for justices ginsburg, sotomayor and kagan. i cannot imagine what it must have been like before we had any kind of gender representation on the board because they were the only ones who are actually articulating an understanding of what's at stake for 99% of women in this country who depend on birth control for some reason. you know, it really was a fascinating oral argument and the question of whether it places an undue burden on the employer was you know, debated hotly and really only a moment was spent on whether or not finding in favor of hobby lobby would place undue burden on the workers. that is a big concern. and as this case unfolds, is if the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs, it would be the first time that corporate rights were upheld, the idea that -- to be this or that would be upheld at the expense of their workers, where it would quash the rights of their workers and that would set a very, very chilling precedent. >> let me follow up. in terms of the female justices, it is great to have women on the supreme

ginsburg probably worthy noting our efforts of promoting bio diversity and that's all part of the natural areas program. >> seeing no other comments thank you very much. >> okay. this is item 14 which the general public comment continued item 4 continued please come forward and that this will be items on no items on the agenda today. okay >> is there anyone else this is next is closed session convention is legal council. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners you need to vote on who to hold closed session to confer with legal council with anticipated litigation >> moved and seconded all in favor, say i. >> we're now in closed session i need to ask all staff members of the public to leave so we can go into closed session. >> okay. we are now back in open session so commissioners you do need to vote whether to disclose any or all topics. >> like to make a motion not to disclose and all all in favor, say i. so move forward. >> are there any commissioners matters any any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed 17 new business agenda setting any any public comment?

let's now bring in former white house advisory ambassador mark beg ginsburg and josh behr, officially a correspondent with "the new york times." on the same day you joined "the new york times," it's reported barbara bush canceled her subscription. weird coincidence. >> i know sheerks never li, she. >> that's clear. ambassador, there seemed to be three options. putin tries to keep crimea which seems like the most likely option. he retreat or pushes further into ukraine. and given that the u.s. has this moral obligation to support democracy but also a moral obligation to not make promises that we simply can't keep. what should we be doing to prepare for each of these situations? >> boy, that is the best question i've heard on television yet. and it's going to be so hard to answer it because it is so good. look, let's be really clear here because it's a confusing situation that is changing by the minute. here is secretary of state kerry trying to negotiate some diplomatic agreement with russia to pull its troops out of crimea. guess what, that's not going to happen. already the russians

justices elena kagan, ruth bader ginsburg, and sonia sotomayor, all considered among the court's liberalc. paul clement on whether hobby lobby and conestoga specialties getting the religious exemption would open the door to other religious exemptions, like allowing employees to consume pork profits or earn the minimum wage. the four conservatives on the court, or the three that spoke, samuel alito, antonin scalia, and john roberts pounced on the contraceptive mandate, with alito even suggesting that there might be something wrong with the corporate form if an innin m innamnant object can't have links. here's how they put it. the supreme court in a one-hour, 28-minute session on tuesday staged something like a two-act play on a revolving stage. first, the liberals had their chance and justice anthony kennedy gave them some help and then the scene shifted entirely and the conservatives had their chance, and again, kennedy provided them with some support. and that turns out to be a trend. in a court that's basically split down the middle, 4-4, kennedy is the ultimate swing vote. the one rin

with trilling and more of a relationship really but the relationship would fall apart in the 50s as ginsburg became a voice for radical youth in ways that he couldn't endorse and was very suspicious of what trilling was. by the 60s there was a battle almost between radical students on the one hand and not only trilling but for festers like trilling and on the campus of columbia university university where trilling was a professor he symbolized the old guard and symbolize the commitment to high culture that was no longer in fashion. he symbolized a political temporizing in the eyes of the radical youth and was no longer accessible and also a white male spirit that is a criticism through the 1970s and after the 1970s as to who trilling was. an unsustainable set up cultural commitments. that is a crucial part of the last chapter of his life. >> host: michael kimmage why did you read this book and was a come from? >> guest: it began when i read the novel and felt that it really captures something crucial about american political life. there are patterns in the book that link the 20th century int

were the artist jackson pollock, the poet alan ginsburg and the rap you are tour tupac shakur and she didn't need a visa to enjoy those. so we're waiting to see if vladimir putin on monday having recognized the independence of crimea will go further. will he bring it into the russian federation or will he stop where he is right now? very little sign given. how fast things are moving on the ground here in the crimean administrative capital simferopol will do more than grab their p challenge too be in russia. >> the sanctions are the most comprehensive the west have imposed since the cold war. even so they're considered to be lacking much bite. >> reporter: less than a day after the crimean referendum denounced by the west as having no validity european foreign ministers unanimously voted to sanction eight top crimean officials, 10 people from russia including members of the parliament and three military personnel who they say are directly involved in moscow's attempt to divide crimea from the ukraine. for the e.u.'s foreign policy head, a clear message has been sent. >> i really hope t

mark ginsburg is the former ambassador of morocco and simon marks is with feature story news.ofound question for both of you and it's the toughest question. i think the trick -- ambassador ginsburg, tell me, do you think putin is surgical, smart, does the smart right move, the great opportunist but won't overplay his hand? that he will simply grab crimea back as he's done it because it was easy pickings given what happened in kiev or is he going go around and constantly push against all the different near borders of his country for more influence? >> chris, we're seeing putin create his own monroe doctrine. he stole crimea fair and square and we're going to watch him engage in creeping annexation in order to establish a land bridge through ukraine territory that he's going to steal in order to connect russia, mother russia, with crimea. and we're going to watch him try to form and further unstable situations in eastern ukraine in order to do what he claimed he's going to do -- protect russian people everywhere. that's where he's going to have to be stopped now. when i say bein

and vice versa, ginsburg was very, very suspicious of what trilling was and signified, and by the 1960s it was almost a battle between radical students on the one hand and not only trilling, but professors like trilling and on the campus of columbia university where trilling was a professor he symbolized the old guard. he symbolized a commitment to high culture that was no longer in fashion, he symbolized a kind of political temperrizing in the eyes of the radical youth that was no longer accessible and also a kind of white male spirit that's a criticism that's levied throughout the 1970s and after after the 1970s as to who trilling was, a kind of unsustainable set of cultural commitments. so that's a crucial part of his, of the last chapter of his life. >> host: michael kimmage, why'd you write this book? where'd it come from? >> guest: began as a doctoral dissertation. it began when i read the novel, "the middle of the journey," and felt that it really captured something crucial about american political life. there are patterns in the book that link the various decades of the 20th cen

i am richard ginsburg. you are at "the listening post." the urduwan government bans twitter.he pakistani edition of the international "new york times" with just some of the news that's fit to print. the media in hong kong and the beijing effect. it took awhile, but it's happen

i am richard ginsburg. you are at "the listening post." the urduwan government bans twitter. the pakistani edition of the international "new york times" with just some of the news that's fit to print. the media in hong kong and the beijing effect. it took awhile, but it's happening. pick a brand, any brand. we've got the pictures that can sell it. last month, we reported to demonstrations in turkey over a new internet law which allows the government to shut down any website without going through the courts the law claimed its first victims, twitter and youtube. >> has led to an all out online media war. turks go to the poll sunday in e elections that are seen as a bell weather pneumoniaed of the presidential election this year. critics say it's a short-term politic political move. twitter and youtube have spread a growing story about government corruption. if he was to take down twitter, turks have gone to school on how to circum vent the ban with other social media sites and twitter, itself, teaching them how, a reported 138% increase on twitter in turkey in the immediate af

officials says that the only thing he really likes about america are, what, jackson pollock, allen ginsburg and tupac shakur and no sanctions will keep him from appreciating these things, flat out mocking the united states, i thought, fred. >> reporter: yeah, that's exactly what it was, and it shows the very bold position that many of these russian politicians and really russian officials have shown in this as well. all the indications that we're getting, john, is that russia is not afraid of a confrontation with the west, certainly not afraid of a confrontation with the united states on this issue. in fact, one of the things that we're hearing is that the parliament here in moscow today is going to be debating possible counter sanctions, and we would expect there possibly to be u.s. senators on that list as well, if those counter sanctions come through. these are initial discussions at this point. however, they said they are going to play hard ball, and everything that they're doing right now indicates they are going to take in crimea, despite the international reactions that are sure to f

two and then justice ginsburg is also on the more liberal ring of the court were quick to push againstlaintiff to his push against these companies, with questions along the lines like this. justice society apply your said it starts with contraception but could these companies denying things like bloods transfusions or vaccinations for religious reasons, she had concerns there. the question justices to watch justin kennedy and just pryor gave room to change this is law a little bit. to narrowing slightly how it's dealt with and giving the companies some road for religious freedoms the chief justice, justice roberts gave up the idea if what if we don't expand it all corpses but smaller corporations that are closely held could they argue that we have a religion could they merit the same respect as a person. >> libby casey outside on a snowy day in washington, at this very much. >>> meanwhile the president is asking all americans to sends their thoughts and prayers to washington state following the massive mudslide on saturday and the ongoing search for any new survivors. >> i just spoke t

are two pack shakur, allen ginsburg. i don't need a visa to access their work. >> one of the president obama's critics back home says the president doesn't seem to have a strong international strategy. >> this president is not prepared has not anticipated and is not active. on libya and the arab spring there's virtually no foreign policy action during the last six years that the president has been well positioned for. >> he says the u.s. should be sending military mission to the ukraine and should make sanctions a lot more painful for the russian government. >> molly henneberg live for us in washington. thank you, molly. >>> this to talk about a victory in illinois for bruce brawner. he scored the republican nomination for the race beating out three long time state lawmakers including the current state treasurer. he's a venture capitalist and has vowed to run the state like a business and rollback union power. he will go up against democratic governor pat quinn in november. republicans viewed this as their best shot in y

successor who shares her views and values he went on to say that a great deal turns on who picks ginsburg successor there are for example four likely votes to overturn roe v wade in the current court chief justice john roberts and justices scalia thomas and alito if a republican president selects skins birds replacement the just as easily could be the fifth vote needed to allow the government to prohibit all abortions i'm i'm not all totally cranked on that i think the roe decision actually did some harm to the in the women's rights and abortion rights movement but you know that's a whole separate argument but i do think that i mean this is what sandra day o'connor did saturday o'connor said that she was going to resign before there was a possibility of a democrat coming into office she just said it right out loud to god the whole world it's not uncommon for supreme court justices to do this yet i mean as a progressive you know that i would i would say that i you know objective from from that point of view it's i would hope get bader ginsburg to step down just to ensure the fact that beca

are shakur and ginsburg. and pollock. i don't need a visa to access their work.o tragedy for me was another comment from klishas. set of sanctions deserves another. in response to the american restrictions on russians putin is set to release own set of sanctions twens u.s. ofgs aagais and senators. according to the daily beast, senator dick durbin said, my lithuaniian mother would be product. john mccain who traveled to kiev last week to meet with ukrainian leaders was looking forward to and he said you think i'm not going to be on it? i would be honored to be on that list. it is not entirely clear whether putin's enemy list will include vice president joe biden. dispatched to warsaw to deal with the crisis did not appear bent on mending fences. >> unfortunately, russia's leaders have responded with a brazened military incursion with a purposeful ratcheting up of ethnic intention inside ukraine with a rushed and legal referendum in crimea that was not surprisingly reject by virtually the entire world. >> what it means to have the action rejected by virtually the

justice ginsburg and sotomayor. >> justice kagan talked about the slippery slope here. if it's true they can bring the claims is your argument limited to sensitive issues or materials like contraceptives. justice sotomayor said what about religious groups that don't believe in transfusions and vaccinations. mr. clement responded, well it depends on the burden placed on the person with the religious belief and as well as the government having a compelling interest in imposing that burden but there's no compelling interest in this particular case. >> woodruff: how unusual is it to have three women justices coming at an argument like this? >> it's not unusual because justices sotomayor and kagan are active questioners. sotomayor is often the first questioner in any argument. clearly they were ready and primed to go to the heart of the concerns raised about the issues in this particular case woonch tell us how the other -- >> woodruff: tell us how the other side came at this. the government and -- >> the solicitor general of the united states told the court that corporation

. >> that is correct, justice ginsburg. the trial court ruled it would not accept evidence as to prongs' 2 and 3 but it did all of mr. hall's lawyers to make a proper, pursuant to the state's agreement that there could be a proper, and some expeditious manner, that is 158, one of the two grounds that we appealed to the florida supreme court on in addition to the hard caught off at 70 was the fact that in fact an expeditious proper did not in fact permit us to put on all of our evidence about prongs 2 and 3 and the florida supreme court on page 125 of the joint appendix said we don't need to consider that question because we uphold the rule in charity. >> what do we do about the retrospective proof? a simple question. how does the defendant adapt a on -- testing that, i don't know why i didn't do it. but he had in fact done it. >> you are correct. part of the expeditious proffer was limited to the testimony of i believe actually only one of the experts who examined him and did the add active testing function and that expert

. >> i think the reason, justice ginsburg, is because that is not going to make -- the carbon dioxide is also a huge part of the problem so you're really not going to be getting to the heart of the problem and there really is an urgency here. part of what is driving the e.p.a. is understanding that this is an urgent environmental problem. it's the greatest environmental problem we face now in e.p.a.'s judgment and it is one that gets worse with the passage of time. the effects of -- are cumulative and they're delayed and so every year we wait, we make the hole deeper and create an even deeper threat to future generations. >> i'm sorry. i didn't get an answer to justice alito's question and it's an important one. there are of -- there are currently criteria of pollutants under the statute. one that does cause harm to ambient air quality not already covered and if you cover a n.a.q. for that, you decide you want to regulate at a different threshold, just like here, is this a particular assertion of authority only with respect to greenhouse gases or does it only -- >> if you are going to

. >> that is correct justice ginsburg. now the state crile -- trial court ruled that it would not accept evidence as to prong's two and three but it did allow mr. hall's lawyers to make a proffer pursuant to the states agreement that there could be a proffer in some expeditious manner and that is joint appendix 158. one of the two grounds that we appealed to the florida supreme court on in addition to the hard cut off at 70 was the fact that in fact an expeditious proffer did not in fact permit us to put on all of our evidence about prongs two and three and the florida supreme court and this is page 125 of the joint appendix said we don't even consider that question because we uphold the rule in cherry. >> that limited view to the retrospective ,-com,-com ma the trial judge asked a simple question. how did the defendant adapt in prison? one expert as saying i didn't test for that. i don't know why i didn't do it in the same expert said he had in fact done it in other cases. >> you are correct. part of the expeditious proff

. >> so much to talk about, let's bring in david rode and mark ginsburg. gentlemen, good morning. i'm sure you heard this called the biggest foreign challenge of the obama presidency. what's at stake here? >> huge amount's at stake, republicans are pouncing on the president saying he's a weak leader and there's a premise here. yes, they expect economic forces to force putin to pull back in crimea, that he's not going to play this game because the russian stock market's going to drop, but other people say, no, we've been caught flat footed and putin is secure enough he can carry this out. >> before we get to what does the u.s. do about it, there is this question i'm not sure has been fully answered, what exactly does vladimir putin want here? >> chris, what he wants, essentially, is to legitimate his control over ukraine, which has a significant ethnic russian population, both in crimea, as well as in eastern part of ukraine. number one. number two, his hand-picked puppet, who was the deposed leader, was doing his bidding in kiev and what he wants to do is keep ukraine out of the e

let me bring in david rohde and mark ginsburg. gentlemen, i want to start with you, we had a conversation about energy and about that conversation that now is expanding in washington. what can be done, what is likely to get done, what's realistic here in that component? >> to be honest, we've been caught flat footed on this. i think the criticism of president obama in terms of he should have been tougher with putin is an accurate george w. bush was very tough in the georgia crisis in 2008, it didn't matter, but we have not had a strategy over the past years. we don't have ports to load our natural gas on to ships to take it to europe. we are just starting the construction now, congress has been stalling this, as well. the earliest date for actually sending out large amounts of natural gas to europe is 2016 or 2017, so, again, putin has moved more quickly than us and we have been caught flat footed on this. >> something new is happening every day, ambassador. it's been a whirlwind week, the president with the two phone calls with p

what if ruth bader ginsburg retires? can they overturn obamacare?what the president needs to decide, spend the last two years in foreign travel or seriously negotiate with the congress of the united states. it takes republican votes, but also take a democratic signature. somewhat similar to bill clinton. we got welfare reform, balanced budget. most democrats didn't vote for them. but you had republican who is pushed them through and a willing negotiating partner on the other side. if the president will do that, we can come to grips, entitlement reform, find common ground on infrastructure, get tax reform. i don't think that's going to happen with a democratic senate. >> you mentioned the president and foreign travel. not really a great week for the president in terms of the faceoff with vladimir putin. we loved this from the onion, the satirical website, penning a humanous rous op-ed. with putin saying it's no easy task to forcefully annex an entire province against another country's will. so i just wanted to thank the government of the united state

call the birth control mandate, some of the justices, particularly justices kagan, sotomayor, and ginsburgd, well, there are two different things here. if we decide here that hobby lobby and conestoga, the companies here, don't have to comply with the birth control mandate because they have religious objections, can other employers object because, you know, to provisions that might require blood transfusion coverage or coverage for vaccines? and more broadly, could there be exceptions, based on religion, to this federal law, called the religious freedom restoration act, that would allow employers, large corporations, to object and say, we don't want to for religious reasons, the minimum wage law or child labor laws, family leave laws. so on the other side, when don brilly was arguing for the government, the justices were concerned it would go in the other direction, and you could make for-profit corporations cover, for example, abortions as part of their health insurance. so one of the suggestions that came up came from the chief justice who said, let's just rule that we could maybe just r

think about scalia getting 98 votes and ginsburg getting 96 votes, and she says now i wouldn't be ableination hearing, because i was once alallied wit the aclu. and how do you get to be a leader in your field without engaging with all the different organizations in your field and exposing yourself to this sort of situation? >> here's what i say. in today's world, you're right, if you're up for any sort of position in the administration, it's political. all cards are on the table. and republicans see obama in a very weak position, his poll numbers are down. they see that they've been successful in blocking nominations in the past. and this is something -- >> blood in the water. >> -- very passionate about. what chuck todd was saying. he's been an advocate, sending out letters. he's been lifting the ban of affordable care act so physicians can ask their patients if they own a gun. this isn't something i would want to be asked. i'm with conservatives on that. i wouldn't want to be asked that question. i understand their concerns. that being said, i think we're making it very, very difficu

he went on to serve as a law clerk to supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg. in 2001 he became a federal prosecutor, joining the united states attorney's office in california. he became -- began in the general crime section, prosecuting a wide variety of violent crimes, drug criesms pacific northwest he also served in the public corruption and government fraud section. but primarily he -- his focus was prostate prosecuting nationl corruption and national security. he really had occasion to receive more than one award, among them the director's' ward from the justice department for superior performance. he has broad support. he has been from the bar association, has -- has given them their highest rating of well qualified. the problem that has arisen around this nomination, though, is not his qualifications because the record will bear those qualifications. but it's the long-standing discussion over the seat vacated by judge steven trott and there's a history and i'd like to explain it. this seat has been event for over -- vacant for over nine years since judge

. >> and let me go off that issue of settlements just a little bit, ambassador ginsburg, because that has been one of the sticking points in trying to get to a settlement, and it does seem that the continued building of settlements, it's been an irritant to the united states. it's been raised over and over again by the obama administration and previous administrations. we're trying to get to peace, why in your estimation does that activity continue, and can it continue if we're hoping to have, i mean, in a month's time some framework for peace? >> joy, that's the essential heart of the matter here, as she rightfully points out. prime minister netanyahu has consistently continued to build on existing and expand settlements because he has the equivalent of the tea party that he's catering to in his own coalition. a very right-wing, extremist political movement that is opposed to any settlement that's part of his coalition. now, that's the challenge. does prime minister netanyahu lead or is he going to let the tea party and israel lead him? there's an essential requirement -- to end the

. ♪ nationwide is on your side >>> what interests me about the united states are alan ginsburg and jacksones is is need to access their work so i'm not missing anything. those were r the words of surkof, a chief aide to russian president vladimir putin and a man who was sanctioned today by both the united states and the european union. those sanctions are the next step in punishing russia for its incursions into ukraine. particularly into crimea which under the watch of russian soldiers with a russian government voted by a whopping 97% to secede from ukraine with the accompanying celebrations. president obama's executive order today froze the assets and banned the visas of about half a dozen people including russian-backed leaders in crimea. >> and as i told president putin yesterday, the referendum in crimea was a clear violation of ukrainian constitutions and international law. and it will not be recognized by the international community. and if russia continues to interfere in ukraine, we stand ready to impose further sanctions. >> but today, vladimir putin under somewhat uncertain auth

. >> i think the reason, justice ginsburg, is because that is not going to make -- the carbon dioxide is also a huge part of the problem so you're really not going to be getting to the heart of the problem and there really is an urgency here. part of what is driving the e.p.a. is understanding that this is an urgent environmental problem. it's the greatest environmental problem we face now in e.p.a.'s judgment and it is one that gets worse with the passage of time. the effects of -- are cumulative and they're delayed and so every year we wait, we make the hole deeper and create an even deeper threat to future generations. >> i'm sorry. i didn't get an answer to justice alito's question and it's an important one. there are currently [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] of -- there are currently criteria of pollutants under the statute. one that does cause harm to ambient air quality not already covered and if you cover a n.a.q. for that, you decide you want to regular late at a different threshold, just like here, is this a particular assertion of authority only wit

. >> that is correct, justice ginsburg.he state trial court ruled that it would not accept evidence as to prongs two and three, but they did allow his lawyers to make a proper -- proper, pursuant to the state agreement that there could be a proper in some expeditious manner. that is joint appendix 158. one of the grounds that we appealed to the supreme court, in addition to the hard cutoff of 70, was the fact that in fact an expeditious proffer did not allow us to put on all of our evidence about wrongs two and three and that these -- that the said thatpreme court we do not need to consider that question, because we uphold the rule in sherry. >> what would you do with direct to the trial judge in his simple question? how does the defendant adapt in prison? thatxpert is attesting to that they did not know why they did not do it. something that he said he had in fact done in other places. >> you are correct. part of the expeditious proffer was that it was limited to the testimony of one of the experts who examined him and did

. >> that is correct justice ginsburg. now the state crile -- trial court ruled that it would not accept evidence as to prong's two and three but it did allow mr. hall's lawyers to make a proffer pursuant to the states agreement that there could be a proffer in some expeditious manner and that is joint appendix 158. one of the two grounds that we appealed to the florida supreme court on in addition to the hard cut off at 70 was the fact that in fact an expeditious proffer did not in fact permit us to put on all of our evidence about prongs two and three and the florida supreme court and this is page 125 of the joint appendix said we don't even consider that question because we uphold the rule in cherry. >> that limited view to the retrospective ,-com,-com ma the trial judge asked a simple question. how did the defendant adapt in prison? one expert as saying i didn't test for that. i don't know why i didn't do it in the same expert said he had in fact done it in other cases. >> you are correct. part of the expeditious proff

. >> that is correct, justice ginsburg. the state trial board ruled that it would not accept evidence as to promise to end three, but it did allow mr. hall's lawyers to make a proper pursuant to the state's agreement that there could be a proffers in some expeditious manner. and that is a joint of one 5/8. one of the two grounds that we appeal to the florida supreme court on an addition to the heart kovrov and 70 was the fact that in fact an expeditious proffered did not in fact permit us to put on all of our evidence about prior to entering. and the florida supreme court -- and this is page 125 said we don't need to consider that question because we upholder rule. >> the retrospective. the simple question, how does the defendant adapt and present. in fact saying at did not test to that. i don't know why i did not do it . >> you are correct. part of the expeditious proffer was limited to the testimony of one of the experts who examined him and did the adaptive testing function. and that expert did say that he did not test i

that was -- >> that is correct, justice ginsburg. the state trial court ruled it would not accept evidence as to prongs to good and three but it did allow mr. hall's lawyers to make a proper pursuant to the state -- up to the state's agreement that there could be a proper in some expeditious manner. one of the grounds we appealed to the florida supreme court on in addition to the hard cutoff of 70, was the fact that in fact an expeditious proffer did not permit toss put on all our evidence about prongs two and three, and the florida supreme court -- page 125 of the joint appendix -- said we don't need to consider that question because we uphold the rule in cherry. >> but there's nothing that limited you to the retrospective proof, and the simple question, how did -- one expert was sayingings i didn't test for that. i don't know why i didn't do it. and that -- >> you're correct. part of the expedition profferer was limited to the testimony of two of -- i believe actually only one of the experts who examined him and did the adaptive te

. >> well, i think with all due respect, justice ginsburg, i think you could claim a rfra exemption from title vii. and the problem here would be that and i think one of the things that's significant about the position that my friends on the other side are taking here, is that with respect to exemptions, for example, from the title vii requirement against discrimination on the basis of religion and hiring, congress made a quite clear judgment to provide a very narrow exemption -- churches and religious educational institutions and religious associations, and that's it. nobody else can claim an exemption under title vii. >> except that they passed rfra after that. that made a lot of sense. but the question is they passed rfra after that. >> but i think the further question, your honor, is whether you would interpret rfra in a manner where you would essentially obliterate that carefully crafted or what congress meant to do was to obliterate that carefully crafted exemption and instead say that every for-profit corporation could make a request like that. >> well, if congress feels as strong

bact would be that's just at the trigger, justice ginsburg. just at the trigger.we think that the -- i just don't see, given that bact says in unambiguous terms in section 7475(a)(4) that anybody who's subject to a permit has got to meet bact for each pollutant subject to regulation under the chapter, meaning the act. i just don't see how you can get out from under that -- >> you've got to follow you've got to follow the plain text of the statute there. >> well, if the command of the statute is that bact applies for each pollutant subject to regulation -- >> yeah, but the plan of the statute is 250 tons per year, too. and you've changed that to 100,000 tons per year. >> right, but i think -- >> and you were going to get to 7475(3),(a),(b),(c) on that point. >> well, 7475(3)(c) also does say that if if epa does set a greenhouse gas standard for a particular stationary source like power plants, then that becomes a condition of the permit. that's what (c)(3) says. and so between (c)(3) and bact, greenhouse gas assuming that epa acts under 7411, those, it seems to me,

assess penalties have been challenged several times and they have been held up even by judges like ginsburghen she sat on the d.c. circuit court of appeals so i know that but i'm suggesting that it was legal that yeah i'm not suggesting it's not i'm saying shouldn't they be changed eric holder's saying change the laws and let his deputies say it was if you do that you're going to make you're going to lead to a huge increase in crime generally because we're going to take away a huge tool that we use for negotiations yeah and i agree and so we have a low crime rate in america because we have the most people in prison of any country in the world no player here asking why. are these attorneys opposed to this is because they're on the front lines they see the problems with the with drugs and they have this tool that they can use now and they're worried about what's going to happen because you know what it we may need to make changes and i do think that we should make some changes in the mandatory sentence laws but that doesn't mean that there's not going to be consequences and it's not going to