that i think captures justice ginsburg's aspirations.e is a perth and desperate she is a person with seemingly endless capacities for friendship. no matter the weighty burdens of her daily life. she is a friend for the chilly winters of life. someone who places others before her own convenience as i have observed. andone of conviction determination. it person with the true sense of the aesthetic, taken by the simple pleasures of life. orther it be a beloved aria a horseback ride. to know her and her family, and her incomparable partner party and her accomplished children and indeed, her entire family is to have a sense of what to her our life's blessings. justice ginsburg is someone of great prodigious work habits, good humor, dignity, and style. in justice ginsburg, the public observes someone for home the law is not about distractions. her life in the law has been and can you -- and continues to be about working to ensure that each of us can really -- can realize our potential. she has always been determined to meet challenges and stru

this is a collection of justice ginsburg's writing.it's a great read and i can't recommend it enough. indeed, everybody here will get a copy. the book is widely heralded in book reviews as a collection of thoughtful writing about perseverance and community in the law. reflecting an abiding commitment to protect outsiders and others at the core american value. as a climate to the current climate,. [inaudible] it pays tribute to those came before her and others who work with her. as writing, my own words are a model for all of us. precise, varied, beautiful structure, like a wonderful piece of music. joining me in conversation, now, is justice ginsburg and her two colleagues on the project, mary and abject professor at georgetown law focus on international women's rights and wendy williams, professor emeritus at georgetown law best known for her work on the subject of gender and law. please join me in welcoming justice ginsburg and her colleagues on state for a conversation,. [applause] [applause] i have never heard such applause . that'

justice ginsburg: was mr. banner wrong, then, when he told us that before the exoneration act, colorado, like every other state, just gave the money back? mr. yarger: he is -- that is incorrect, your honor. justice ginsburg: what did colorado do -- mr. yarger: well -- justice ginsburg: -- with respect to monetary sanctions before the exoneration act? mr. yarger: they -- they didn't have authority to give it back. one example i can give -- and there aren't many -- is people v. noel. it's a colorado court of appeals case from 2005 where the court declined to order what -- what they describe as a refund of amounts charged for probation, even though that conviction was later overturned. now, the chief case they reply upon is toland v. strohl. it's a colorado case from 1961. and the court there did order refunds of the fines, but in that case, and as interpreted by the colorado supreme court in this case, there was specific wrongful conduct that violated the constitution on the part of the justice of the peace that

ginsburg i've been watching c-span for over 20 years. i know he's been on multiple imes and he is my favorite guest. he puts things in layman's terms. even though he was associated with the democratic party, he doesn't play policyics it. my question is simple and the answer probably isn't. why would syria have an ally and why is russia that ally? what benefit do they have and what will they get out of sicking -- sticking up for assad. happy easter. host: thanks for that question. it's a key one. guest: actually, i've written several pieces of this in the huffington post to try to explain the role russia has played in syria. syria has been a client state f russia for decade. it's important for americans to understand russia military involvement is significant and escalated to try to defend and prevent the assad regime from toppling because it almost did as a result of the civil war several years ago. russia has provided and has been the major source of arms for the assad regime over the years and in return, assad -- the assad family sale

and they were questioning morlock as ginsburg referred to it. as he does in his famous epic poem howled. as kerouac does in on the road so the delivery of howl which was presented to the public for the first time in 1955, the publication of on the roadyears later , those were a couple of those little moments. and they serve as a trigger. the appearance, the emergence of the silicide and project, believe it or not which involve timothy leary and then eventually richard however and brought in young people to serve as kind of guinea pigs as it were. and it proved to be enormously controversial. >> surprisingly, what became most controversial for the august institution that was harvard was the fact that undergraduates were included in the mix. they seemed to be okay if it werecommunity members , professors or graduate students but where harvard drew the line was undergraduates. >> the merry pranksters, their journey across america in the summer of 1964. they went to meet kerouac in new york city which was not a happy experience so kerouac had shifte

orrin hatch in nominating o justice ginsburg and justice breyer inside of bruce babbitt. president obama took the advice of republican senators when he picked merrick garland, a consensus mainstream nominee. president trump on the other hand ignored the senate and only sought the advice and consent of right wing special interest groups when making supreme court takes. he had to shore up his support in the higher grades so he said i am outsourced team the entire selection process to two groups who again are not consensus groups. they would admit that themselves the heritage foundation, the federalist society. lo and behold, the process didn't produce a nominee who could earn 60 votes. by contrast, justice ginsburg earned 93 votes. justice breyer earned 87. so mr. president, we are

in fact, that's where the ginsburg rule comes from. she put it this way, quote, judge is sworn deciding impartiality can offer no forecast, for what would it show, that would show not only disregard for the specifics of a particular case, it would display disdain, disdain for the entire judicial process, and of quote. judge gorsuch response reflects the ginsburg principal. and so last, after all these charges leveled against the nominee and his record have fallen flat, we learned that the nominee should be opposed because of his record, not because of his record or his qualifications but because of the client he had were the groups who now support him. we've heard criticism of the judges former client, the department of justice and its litigating position. opposition on these grounds may be creative but they are in fact baseless. >> hears the inconsistency. judge, justice kagan for example argued as solicitor general that the government could constitutionally ban pamphletmaterial . when that issue was raised at her hearing, he said she

i get to figures of the cast of allen ginsburg and jack care walk who are two of the central biographical elements in this book. and then guy on and talk about timothy leery, tim kissee and then a whole array of characters who course through the decade of the 1960s. when we think of the counterculture of the 1960s. ment ... to be enlarged in scope and scale. i think you have the backdrop of that. i think you have that feeling and that reality that i referred to earlier i think the demographic matters came into play also. the large pools of young people congregating together often on or near college university campuses. and then you have those terrible realities of racism and war and i think that enabled a large number of young people to be receptive to different possibilities and then you have the key figures you also had the great bands of the era. and the great musicians of a more solitary cast. i think that young people were drawn to messages that were being imparted messages of a challenging and appropriate in a provocative cast and sometimes of a radical nature. contesting the veriti

justice ginsburg: but that's a -- mr. groen: -- because the value of lot e is diminished from $410,000 to $40,000. there's a 90% decrease in value. and -- justice ginsburg: but there is some use that can be made of this other -- mr. groen: lot e cannot be developed on its own. that ability has been taken away. justice ginsburg: yes, but is it -- if you -- the combined properties are sold -- mr. groen: but -- justice ginsburg: -- it's going to be a much bigger price tag -- mr. groen: but the -- justice ginsburg: -- than if just f was sold. mr. groen: but the question is, the -- the murrs began with two building sites on separate properties. that was taken away. the value that you're talking about is the value that comes from being able to build. well, the murrs already have a house on lot f. so, when you say what is the value afterwards, the better methodology is how much would the murrs or someone who owned lot f, with an existing house on lot f, pay to add land to it? how much would they pay to add lot e to their existin

ginsburg, ruth bader ginsburg 96-3. i would argue you could not find two more polar opposite people when it comes to philosophy than justice ginsburg and justice scalia and they became very dear friends. but nobody in their right mind would say there's not a difference in their judicial philosophy. strom thurmond, my predecessor, very conservative man from south carolina, voted for miss ginsburg. clearly a conservative would not have chosen her because she was the general counsel of the aclu. i can tell you that ted kennedy and other people on the progressive side of the aisle would not have voted for antonin scalia based on philosophy. something's happened in america from 1986 and 1993. the constitution hasn't changed. something has changed. and i think the politics of the moment have taken the founding fathers' concept, turned it up side down, that from the time scam was put on the court, ginsburg was put on the court, everything has changed. so i was here when the first effort to fillibuster judicial nominations was

ginsburg, ruth bader ginsburg, 96-three. i would argue that you could not find two more polar opposite people it comes to philosophy then justice ginsburg and justice scalia, and they became very dear friends. but nobody in the right mind would say there's not a difference in their traditional p philosophy. strom thurmond, my predecessor very conservative man from south carolina, voted for ms. ginsburg. clearly i conservative would not have chosen her because she was the general counsel for the aclu. and i can tell you that ted kennedy and other people on the progressive side of the aisleed would not have voted for antonin scalia based on philosophy. something has happened in america from 1986-1993. the constitution hasn't changed. something has changed, and i think the politics of the moment have taken the founding fathers concept, turned it upside down that from the time scalia was put on the court and ginsburg was put on the court, everything has changed. so i was here when the first effort to filibuster judicial w nomina

reflectssuch response the ginsburg principal.ost: while much of the attention was focused on george gorsuch pasta nomination, some of the news coming out of that committee hearing yesterday. senate democrats support the nomination for the number two spot in the justice department despite his refusal to promise to appoint a special prosecutor to handle the probe of russia's interference in the presidential election. jeff sessions has recused himself from the probe and the russian hacking. leaving the responsibility to fall to his deputy attorney general. that goes to the full senate as well. kerry is up next, dayton, ohio. should democrats block judge gorsuch cost nomination. caller: yes, they should. they need to suspend everything that is going on in the trump administration right now seeing he is under fbi investigation. the other thing i want to say is as i have been sitting here listening to a lot of men make their comments. when i look at gorsuch and his record and his stance on women issues, i am very concerned. i'm concern

by contrast, justice ginsburg earned 93 votes. justice breyer earned 87. so, mr. president, we are offering president trump and our friends on the other side a way forward. they do not have to break the rules to get a justice on the bench, they don't have to break the senate confirmation process, fundamentally weakening the constitutional principle of advice and consent to get a justice on the bench. the president, president trump could simply consult with members of both parties to try come up with a consensus nominee who could get approved and meet both the 60 vote threshold. the answer again is not to change the rule comments to change the nominee. we democrats are not going to oppose every republican nominee. of course we realize the nominee selected this way when i completely agree with our views. but judge gorsuch as so far out of the mainstream he is not able turn votes to pass the senate. even justices roberts and alito, two very conservative judges, earned a bunch of democratic votes in each got more than 60.t sixty-one in his nomination and 72 in the cul

justice ginsburg: we did -- justice sotomayor: but it does -- justice ginsburg: we did say in this case -- well, i think you stipulated that this school has a nondiscriminatory admissions policy. but suppose it didn't. suppose its policy was we prefer lutheran children, and then if we have any space left over after that, we'll take other christians. and then after that, maybe jews, and then everyone else. everything else is the same. they want the paving of their playground. could this -- could they demand as a matter of federal constitutional right that that playground be funded, even though they have an admissions policy that favors members of their church? mr. cortman: i think they can, because they have a -- they have a free exercise right to religious autonomy to decide who their members are. in fact, most private organizations and religious organizations do so. justice ginsburg: so this church could say, we will take only lutheran children. mr. cortman: i believe it can. justice ginsburg: and still get the public money. mr. cortman: i believe so, because we're still at the premise

ginsburg, i appreciate the update. i particularly like the strategic plan and also the community report. my complements to your team that put this together. very helpful. i look forward to putting it in our resource table in the office to collect him if there's no other questions, i think we will go to public comments. thank you very much. any members of the public that would like to comment on item number one, please, come up seeing none, public comment is closed >> [gavel] >> thank you. i would love to entertain a motion on this item. >> would you like a motion to call the chair or file >> motion to file >> is there a second? >> second. >> moved and seconded. without objection, please, note the house has changed.. without objection. thank you. >> [gavel] >> thank you director ginsburg item 2 >> item number two a resolution adopting the 10 year capital expenditure plan fiscal year 2018-2027 pursuant to administrator kate of code section 3.23 >> as our speaker comes to the microphone, i want to be that we received an i

ginsburg. clearly a conservative wouldn't have chosen her because she was the general counsel of the aclu and i can tell you ted kennedy and other people on the progressive side of the aisle would not have voted for antonin sylvia based on philosophy.pe some things happened in america. from 1986 to 1993. the constitution hasn't changed. something has changed. and i think the politics of the moment have taken the founding d fathers concept, turned it upside down data from the time o scully a was put on the court, ginsburg was put on the court, everything has changed. i was here when the first efforts to filibuster for judicial nominations with the 4. first term bush 43 there was a wholesale filibustering of the nominees of president bush as part of the gang of 14 that broke the filibuster and we lost a couple of nominees but we did move forward and said there would be no further filibuster of the judges unless it was under an extraordinary that allowed them to go forward and both of them got a g

talk more about that moment as you do have rbg, the notorious, as you have justice ginsburg going to the white house to the ceremony today. >> well, this is an interesting moment politically because as jeff probably remembers back a couple decades ago, there was no ceremony at the white house like this. it's actually controversial within the court family. i think this was started during the ronald reagan years where one of theaths was taken at the white house. and several of the justices, includi including chief justice william rehnquist resisted it. they felt that the ceremony signals to the public that there is more of a mixing between the judicial and executive branch and the whole point of the judicial branch is to be independent of the executive. when it takes place at the white house, as we're about to see, that that might send the wrong signal. so, i recently was going through the rehnquist files at stanford and i saw so many different memos among the justices saying, do we really have to go? look at what it says. it taints the process. i think they feel like the door was open

to get the senate back to normal with the nomination and approval with the nominations of ginsburg and breyer. then all of a sudden schumer poisons the well. and when you have a poisoned well, you have to build a new well. it is up to him to start building not well and when we get that will drill, we will be back to the way hatch didn't on ginsburg and breyer and we will be able to show the american people like that. >> judge sotomayor and judge kagan -- all of us mentioned, were extremely liberal. that is what happened. this is politicizing the court. the democrats have politicized the court. we've no choice other than to make sure that we make sure we get the senate back to where it was. and that is in the case of neil gorsuch. stupid that they pick someone with inability. it all caps on to the fact that they are gnashing their teeth over the fact that they lost the presidency this last year. and this is one of the reasons they lost. so all i can say is this. with no alternative other than to do what has to be done here. get this really fine judge, this really fine man, this great st

when president clinton nominated ruth bader ginsburg the senate confirmed her 96-3. when president clinton nominated stephen breyer, the senate confirmed him 87-9. i, like the vast majority of republicans, voted for both of them. we did so in full knowledge of the considerable ideological differences between these nominees and ourselves. ginsberg in particular had expressed notably extreme views. even advocating for the abolition of mother's day. a nominee for the supreme court abdicating for mother's day and yet confirmed 96-3. could we have borked these nominees? could we have tried to have filibustered them? sure. but we didn't. we resisted the calls for retribution and did our level best instead to halt the senate slide after the bork and thomas episodes. we respected the senate's tradition against filibustering supreme court nominees. now the tradition not to filibuster extended not just beyond the supreme court. when president clinton named two highly controversial nominees from california to the nienltsdz circuit, some -- ninth circuit, some on my side wanted

but as judge gorsuch pointed out, nominees are to quote justice ruth bader ginsburg, to offer quote no hence, no forecasts, no previews and how they would rule in certain cases. similarly judges are to decide cases based on the facts, not personal views or politically, preferences. and finally the democratic leader talked about the importance of a nominees record. i'd like to take a moment to remind my colleagues that judge gorsuch record now. as he said at his hearing i decided over 2700 cases. by law clerks show me 97% of them have been unanimous. bee 99% i have been in the majority. they tell me as well come he continued, according to the congressional research service my opinions have attracted the fewest number of the sense of md colleagues as they have studied over the last ten years. to sum it up to more than 2700 cases in the majority on 99% of them, and part of unanimous ruling on 97% of them. doesn't get much better than that.r no wonder the aba gave him its highest rating unanimously r well-qualified. we so when we are democratic colleagues talking aboutut breaking long-stan

but as judge gorsuch pointed out, nominees are, to quote justice ruth bader ginsburg, to offer no hints, no previews on how they would rule in certain cases. similarly, judges are to decide cases based on the facts, not personal views or political preferences. and finally, the democratic leader talked about the importance of a nominee's record. well, i'd like to take a moment to remind my colleagues of judge gorsuch's record now. as he said at his hearing, i've decided over 2,700 cases. my law clerks tell me that 97% of them have been unanimous. 99% i've been in the majority. they tell me as well, he continued, that according to the congressional research service, my opinions have attracted the fewest number of dissents from my colleagues of anyone i've served with that they've studied over the last ten years. to sum it up, more than 2,700 cases and a majority of them, 99% of them, and part of the unanimous ruling on 97% of them. it simply doesn't get much better than that. no wonder the a.b.a. gave him its highest rating, unanimously well equaled. so when we hear our democratic colleag

ruth bader ginsburg, 96-3. i would argue that you could not find two more polar opposite people when it comes to philosophy than justice ginsburg and justice scalia and theyod became very dear friends butul nobody in their right mind would say there's not a difference in caro strom thurmond my predecessor, very conservative man from south carolina voted for ginsburg. clearly a conservative would not have chosen her and i can tell you that ted kennedy and other people on the progressive side of the aisle would not have voted for anthony scalia based on philosophy. something as happened in america from 1986 and 1993. the constitution hasn't changed. something has changed and i think the politics of the moment have taken the founding fatherse concept, turned it upside down t that from the time scalia was put on the court ginsburg was put on the court everything is changed. i was here when the first effort to filibuster a judicial nomination was made in earnest. the first term of bush 43 there was a wholesale filib

ambassador ginsburg, are we witnessing a policy or a series of impulses?i think we're getting reality checks, ari. i think we're getting what essentially is the grown-ups in the white house taking charge and a consolidation of reasoned views about what doesn't work on the campaign trail and what works based on intelligence briefings and reality check that occurs in each of these theaters, whether it's north korea, whether it's afghanistan or in particularly in syria and the russians. those of us who have had great trepidation over the first 60 to 90 days of the president's term now see general mattis as well as national security adviser mcmaster and the emergence of secretary of state tillerson on the world stage. it seems that the president is now deferring to their judgment. so even if he has those unpredictable instincts to react as he did, maybe because of familial reasons to the atrocity committed or the latest atrocity committed by assad in syria. >> betsy, take a listen to a congressman on msnbc earlier today. speaking about some of the questions th

in fact, that's where the ginsburg rule comes from.s, way, quote, a judge can offer no forecast no, hints for what would show -- for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of a particular case, it would display disdain -- disdain, for the entire judicial process, end quote. judge gorsuch' response reflect the ginsburg principle. so at last ast all these charges leveled against the nominee and his record have fallen flat we learn that the nominee should be opposed because of his record -- not because of his record or qualifications but because of clients he had or the groups who now support him. we've heard criticism of the judge's former client, the department of justice and the opposition on these grounds may be creative but they're in fact baseless. here's the inconsistency. judge justice kagan argued as solicitor general the government could ban pamphlet material when that issues was raised at her hearing she said she was a government lawyer acting on behalf of her client. that client happened to be the same united sta

justices ginsburg and breyer are among the court's more liberal justices. justice kennedy is often the swing vote. a departure of anyone this summer would allow president trump to shift the balance of the supreme court and, of course, remember after the gorsuch confirmation a supreme court nominee would only need 51 votes to be approved to the high court. the republican majority will not need a single democratic vote to approve the president's nominee. >>> here's a big question tonight, are d.c. police running out of money to keep the peace as the growing number of demonstrations in the nation's capitol and there is yeot march for science coming up this weekend and this follows last week's big tax protest. d.c. police presence isn't free, of course. congress set aside nearly $15 million to reimburse the district for its police this fiscal year which began on october 1st. nearly 4 million of that had already been spent by january. congress put up nearly $20 million for the inauguration, d.c. spent more than 30 million and they still hope to collect the remai

ginsburg in particular mr. president have expressed notably extreme views even advocating for the abolition of mother's day. a nominee for the supreme court advocating the abolition of mother's day and yet confirmedot three.o could we have tried to filibuster these nominees?t we sure, but we didn't. be retribution and did our levelale best to let that slide after the concepts of we respect the senate tradition against filibustering supreme court nominees.beyond now the tradition of the filibuster extended beyond the supreme court. when president clinton named two highly controversial nominees from california to the 9th circuit some on my side wanted to defeat their nominations with a filibuster. the republican leadership said let's don't do that too to their great credit majority leadery lott and judiciary chairman hatch and florida congress not to do that. to advance the nomination he and senator hatch and i and the vast majority of republican conference voted for cloture to give them an up-or-down vote.su we

justice ginsburg is 83, justice briar79 year's old.rising that donald trump has four appointments in the supreme court with the exception of george washington. dagen: by the way -- >> no one has had more than five. maria: that's incred pbl. dagen: how old is ruth bader ginsburg. >> she's not going anywhere. >> not voluntarily. >> a weekend at bernie scenario to avoid donald trump getting -- if something ever happens. >> justice ginsburg -- dagen: to prevent donald trump from nominating somebody. maria: she looks good. >> justice ginsburg got a lot of heat from liberal democrats in the obama years, we love you but we want you to be replaced with a 40-year-old ruth bader ginsburg. she said, go take a time. i have a life-time term and i'm going serve it. maria: this president has four more chance to pick supreme court justice changing the complexity. >> if there are four more people who think like neil gorsuch on the supreme court, you will see a radical shrinking of the role of the federal government in our lives, you will see the admini

he called orrin hatch and he said no, why don't you pick breyer or ginsburg and he did. president obama called people about merrick garland. all trump consulted was the hard right special interest group, the federal ils society, and the "new york times" and the "washington post," when they looked at gorsuch's record, one said he would be the second most conservative justice on the court, only short of thomas, and the other, the post, said he's be the most conservative. this is not a mainstream choice. he's way far over. >> senator, what makes you think that president trump -- let's say you get your wish and he says, okay, merrick garland for neil gorsuch is fine. everybody got to kill a supreme court nominee, we move on. you get your wish. do you think he'll nominate someone more moderate than gorsuch that he doesn't nominate another conservative and says, look, we gave you one shot at this. you've got your shot. now he's another perhaps even more conservative potential justice? >> as you have noted and i have noted, most of the nominees get 60 votes. the last four nomin

during his hearing, which is nearly twice as many questions posed to justices sotomayor, kagan or ginsburg. he was given 299 questions forse the record by democrats on the senate judiciary committee, the most in recent history of any supreme court nominee. judge gorsuch did all this with the utmost integrity, with transparency, and humility. yet here we are with the democrats engaged ince unprecedented obstruction, refusing to give neil gorsuch and up or a down vote.e the senate has only ever employed a cloture motion for supreme court nominee four times in modern history. n we voted on cloture when justice alito was nominated in 2006. we did the same in 1968, 1971,da and 1986. in 1991, clarence thomas was confirmed on a 52-48 about. and in 2006, samuel alito was confirmed on a 58-42 vote. in fact, when president obama was in the white house, republicans did not filibuster nominee. in fact, this body confirmed sonia sotomayor in 2009 by a vote of 68-31.y confirmed justice kagan by a roll call vote of 63-37 in 2010. we did not filibuster. let me remind folks. cloture is in place to stop deb

. >> reporter: but mccaskill offered this warning should justice kennedy or ginsburg or breyer leavecouple of years. >> so they pick another one off the list, and we say, no, no, no, this is worse, and there's not enough votes to confirm him. >> reporter: she's talking about the threat of the will change senate rules to allow confirmation of a supreme court justice with a simple majority vote. >> if it comes to a rules change, and i sincerely hope that it does not for the sake of the advise and consent clause of the constitution, but if it does, it'll be squarely on the shoulders of republican party and the republican leader. >> reporter: many republicans say that's hypocritical of schumer. it was his party under senator harry reid which invokessed the nuclear option for leaders below the supreme court level. he has guaranteed that gorsuch will be confirmed by friday. in washington, doug mckelway. julie, back to you. julie: doug mckelway, thank you. kelly. kelly: some commentators say the democrats' plan to filibuster the nomination of judge neil gorsuch could come back to haunt them

president bill clinton nominated ruth bader ginsburg and david prior to the supreme court. president george h.w. bush nominated justice souter and clarence thomas to the supreme court. either just a face to filibustes even though 48th in the voted against the thomas nomination. they did require a cloture vote when a group of democrat senators attended to block a vote on the confirmation of justice alito's nomination. es 72 and back to invoke cloture,e, or preserving the bipartisan u.s. of filibusters against supreme court nominee is. among those who reject bid the alito filibuster in 2006 with the two democrat senators from my state, senator robert c. byrd and senator jay rockefeller. 72 senators voted to invoketing cloture on justice alito's nomination, but only 58 ended up voting for the final confirmation. the senate has a very clear history of rejecting the use of the filibuster proof court nominations. there's no justification for aoh filibuster on the gorsuch - nomination. neil gorsuch is a mainstream judge with the highest possible rating from the american bar associ

in fact, that's where the ginsburg rule comes from. she put it this way -- "a judge sworn to decide impartiality can offer no forecast, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of a particular case, it would display disdain --" disdain, "for the entire process." judge gorsuch's response reflects the ginsburg principle. and so at last, after all these charges leveled against the nominee and his record have fallen flat, we learn that the nominee should be opposed because -- not because of his record or his qualifications, but because of clients he had for the groups who now support him. we've heard criticism of the judge's former client, the department of justice, and its litigating position, opposition on these grounds may be creative, but they're, in fact, baseless. here's the inconsistency. justice kagan, for example, argued as solicitor general that the government could constitutionally ban pamphlet material. when that issue was raised at her hearing, she said she was a government lawyer acting on behalf of

i think if you're a democrat, you are praying even more for ruth bader ginsburg and her health and sort- and justice kennedy, because like jackie pointed out, toor, the next nominee can be a lot more conservative. if you only need the 50 vote threshold, that changes the -- >> what happened to this mitch mcconnell? called the filibuster one of the most cherished safeguards of liberty in our government. the right of a political minority to have a voice. >> the balance of power. he was in the minority then. >> exactly. republicans will be in the minority again. you see mitch mack ccconnell hi fiving. >> i think the pick of gorsuch was an interesting choice to show republicans that i am going to pick someone -- a conservative traditional. and to give them cover and comfort level to the more moderate deserves that let me get these through and i'll give you some good supreme court picks that the whole party can come around. >> as we watch the debay play out, i guess the question is the spill over effect. it will get more partisan. allegely thaifr goi allegedly they're going to try to do healt

for more on this, i'm joined by rebecca grant and also mark ginsburg., we'll start with you on this. rex tillerson the right person to be there and what can he get out of russia? >> well, the fact is that he's on his way and he's trying to get the g-7 countries aligned with a better approach collectively to try to deal with russia on syria. but what is lost in the equation here, is that while mr. tillerson is on his way to russia, the fact is that russia is really interested in assad to three reasons. their military bases on the mediterranean, the fact that russia was the largest exporter of arms to syria and made most of its foreign currency off of those sales, and number three, because heepresents ahiite bullwark against sunni terrorism. the real culprit here unusual to russia is iran. iran has a far greater vested interest in assad's longevity than russia. >> and on that note, they had a joint statement coming from iran today, coming from hezbollah on this very issue against the united states. and to you on that, rebecca, has that congealed, if you w

in fact, that's where the ginsburg rule comes from. she put it this way -- "a judge particlity ide im can offer no forecast, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specificses of a particular se, it would display disdain -- disdain for the entire judicial process." judge gorsuch's response reflects the ginsburg principle. and so at last, after all these charges leveled against the nominee and his record have fallen flat, we learn that the nominee should be opposed because of his record -- not because of his record or his qualifications but because of clients he had or the groups who now support him. we've heard criticism of the judge's former client, the department of justice, and its litigating positions. opposition on these grounds may e creative but they're in fact baseless. here's the inconsistency. judge justice kagan, for example, argued as solicitor general that the government could constitutionally ban pamplet materials. when that issue was raised at her hearing, she said she was a government lawyer acting on

chris: ruth bader ginsburg and sotomayor to the left. isn't that what an election is for?>> well, both "the new york times" and washington post hired independent experts to rate where gorsuch would be, the times said he would be to the right of every judge of thomas, the most conservative judge we've had in history and the post analysis said he would be to the right of that. so this is not a mainstream judge. he comes off as mainstream, chris. [inaudible] >> let me finish my comment, chris. chris: wait a minute. you're talking about "the new york times" and washington -- >> chris. chris: they said he was in the judicial mainstream, sir? >> they judge by legal, no one doubts gorsuch's legal but judicial rulings and earlier comments shows he's far, far to the right siding with special interests, corporatist interest, the only recourse they have is the court, gorsuch repeatedly on issue after issue has been far to the right. in one case he went after what thomas and aledo said on education of special kids. appearance is not what matters. it's how he'll rule that matters. chri

ginsburg 46 coul 4696. robert 78, alito 58, elena kagan, 63. this will be the last person that will be subject to a filibuster, which was in effect in 1948. the senate traditions are going to change over this man based on the times in which we live. i find it ironic and sad that we are going to change the rules over somebody who has lived such a good life. who has been such a good law judge for such a long time, it says more about the senate than it does judge a course which. >> at the senate judiciary committee earlier today voted 1n of judge or such. they're likely to begin to liberation tomorrow with a final vote on the nomination likely by friday. we're going to show you at 8:00 p.m. eastern

mark ginsburg will be joining us in about 10 minutes to talk about the middle east, syria and also theote going on in turkey now above 51% for the president of turkey and what it means for the region and for the president's power in that country. di did di is joining deedee is joining us. the trip to mar-a-lago, his seventh so far in his presidency caller: yes, i do have my concerns about the taxpayers' money and him getting around the country with his family. the tab for mar-a-lago, the tab for trump towers, and his children going abroad and opening new businesses that may be in conflict. i want to know about the investigations that they're having because i do really strongly believe that he should reveal his taxes because i do believe he's in cahoots with russia and i also do believe that he does have a lot of debt. and it doesn't make any sense for us to be footing his bill while he is putting money in is pocket. and i won't never vote for him again. host: the news on presidential weekends away from the white house. a comparison of past presidents , president bush from roughly the s

that's what president clinton did with my friend, the senator from utah, selecting justices ginsburg and breyer forgets what president obama did with merrick garland. of course we realize the nominee selected this way would not agree with the men of our views' that's true, but president trump was elected president and he is entitled by the constitution to nominate. but judge gorsuch is so far out of the mainstream that the "washington post" said his voting record would place him to the right of justice thomas. he was selected by the heritagea foundation and the federalist society without an iota of input from the senate. because of better way to do this, i know it's sometimes may seem like a foreign concept in our hyper polarized politicsopto these days, but there is always the option of actually consulting us democrats on a nominee and discussing a way forward that both parties can live with. we are willing to meet anywhere, anytime. so, mr. president, my my friends on the other side can dredge up these old ones and talking point to the. republicans want to conduct a partisan, they

being here we have detrimentally from the sfmta, we have the general manager of rec and park phil ginsburg and i get that wrong change your name the director of the department of the environment deb reaping and we have the traffic commander online suicidal and we have folks from supervisor safai's office the da's office and i think we got everybody thank you for being here. and thank to our sponsors and kelly and others and the bayview rapid transit and recotton and the sfmta thank you for your support. >> (clapping.) >> so walk to work today is, of course, about walking that is very simple act that putting one foot in front of each other or cheers throughout the streets it is more that an amazing day not only people keeps us healthy and prevents chronic diseases that are plea of not guilty our country but built communities on the street walking is thing helping economically and keeping us healthy for decades to come >> (clapping.) >> and it is an equalizer everyone has equal access to a simple mode of transportation walking might seem simple for pedestrians it is not we'll wait for the am

president clinton nominates steven breyer, i voted to confirm mim, i voted to confirm ruth bader-ginsburg. i thought it was the right thing to do. he won the election, he was the president. the president gets to appoint supreme court justices. >> your response to that? is it worth taking the risk of a filibuster that will change senate rules forever? >> andrea, i'm smiling because i heard that speech and responded to it on the floor. there was senator mitch mcconnell, posing for holy pictures about his cop ration with previous president's and failing to mention merrick garland. he was refused a hearing, a vote, and they would not meet with the man. the first time that ever happened in the history of the united states senate. i'm sorry it has reached this point. perhaps with the next nominee we will. >> thank you,enor dick durbin. john mclaughlin will join me here on susan rice's first comments on the unmasking claiming here on msnbc. t me! somebody will get it... ♪ (dog barking) anyone can dream. making it a reality is the hard part. from the b-2 to the upcoming b-21, northrop grumman ste

i see justice ginsburg and justice thomas. all of the justices are expected to be present for this swearing in. >> yeah, this is a big day, right? it's been over a year since scalia died and you are absolutely right, kate, no rest for the wary. because gorsuch has completed that grueling confirmation process. he met with over 80 senators. he did over 20 hours of congressional testimony and now he's got to get to work as early as thursday. he will meet behind closed doors for the closed door regular conference with his new colleagues and they'll discuss cases that could be coming to the court. haven't been accepted yet. but there are some big issues there. a second amendment case about conceal and carry. there is a voter i.d. case about north carolina strict voter i.d. law that was struck below and an interesting religious liberty case about a cake artist who did not want to make a cake to celebrate the wedding reception of a same-sex couple. those are big, meaty issues. the court could take some of them. and then not only that

ginsburg, i appreciate the update. i particularly like the strategic plan and also the community report. my complements to your team that put this together. very helpful. i look forward to putting it in our resource table in the office to collect him if there's no other questions, i think we will go to public comments. thank you very much. any members of the public that would like to comment on item number one, please, come up seeing none, public comment is closed >> [gavel] >> thank you. i would love to entertain a motion on this item. >> would you like a motion to call the chair or file >> motion to file >> is there a second? >> second. >> moved and seconded. without objection, please, note the house has changed.. without objection. thank you. >> [gavel] >> thank you director ginsburg item 2 >> item number two a resolution adopting the 10 year capital expenditure plan fiscal year 2018-2027 pursuant to administrator kate of code section 3.23 >> as our speaker comes to the microphone, i want to be that we received an i

>> they would've kept the structure in the senate because ruth bader ginsburg is 84 years old. 84. so how much longer can the justice stay in the chair? >> i hope a lot of years. >> bill: i know you would help. 84 is 84, okay? >> 84 is 84. >> bill: were going to have to bring you chocolates. she still working every day. >> i want her to get vitamins. >> bill: okay, you sent her vitamins. but she has to come off the court for whatever reason, now it's much easier to get a more on, much easier. >> that's where i disagree. because, they would've got rid of the filibuster then and b, if you think the republicans are going to respect the line they used on merit garland that we shouldn't nominate somebody in the last year of the term, justice ginsburg steps down in the last year of trump's term, do you think they're going to nominate someone and shove them onto the court? >> bill: from what i see, i don't see any pluses for the democratic party in this whole debacle. now gorsuch is on and may be inside going those democrats, a [laughs] the wait until you hear what i'm going to do. i thin