justice ginsburg: he fully expected it. [laughter] i know we are running out of the, but the flavor of scalia ginsburg opera. a rage aria aria is elian ina true hand style, it goes the justices are blind. how could they spout this. the constitution says nothing about this. i sing and in my lyrics you are searching for solutions to problems that do not have easy answers. the great thing about our constitution is that like our society it can evolve. that sets up the difference. duetd the end, there is a and the duet is -- skill olea is locked it -- scalia is being locked in a room being punished ror a sense -- four dissents. i am to help them take the test he has to pass to get out of the stock room. they say why would you want to help them, he is your enemy, and i say he is not my enemy, he is my dear friend and then we sing we are different, we are one. theerent in our approach to interpretation of the text, but one in our reference for the and ouriciary fundamental instrument of government. >> amen. [applause] >> we are no

sandra day o'connor and ruth bader ginsburg. this was recorded at politics and prose bookstore in washington dc in 2015. it is about 50 minutes. >> all right. hello, hello. we are going to get started here. welcome to politics and prose. my name is justin. i am the program manager at the store. i can try to speak closer. thank you all for coming out tonight. we are honored to have linda hirshman speaking about "sisters in law". i have a few standard house notes. now would be the time to turn off any electronic devices that might be tempted to be beaten or buzz through the proceedings. she will take questions in the second half of the event. we ask that you use one of two microphones. looks like there's one tonight on my left. that way everyone here can hear it. lastly at the end if you could help us by resting your chairs against something sturdy table clean-up process greatly. now on to linda hirshman, former professor at brandeis university with a law degree from the university of chicago and a ph.d. in philosophy. she practic

justice ginsburg. birthday in march. you welcomed your new baby great ran daughter who was born on january 1 in paris. unfortunately, she is not the surprise, but i'm going to give you a hint. when you were a law clerk, some an interest in carpooling. andare in the backseat thatimes i understand judge hand would sing. is that true? the top of sing at see shanties. and, some racy songs. i said, you won't consider me as a law clerk. in this car, you say anything. he said young woman, i'm not looking at you. >> so you just part of the surprise. -- they would like to serenade called my eyes .re fully open but the record reflect justice ginsburg's eyes are fully open. i have been asked by the cast to read to you the script seen center. hasow take you where robin assumed the rifle title. as a bad baronet, robert must commit one crime per day or else perish by the ghostly hands of his ancestor. without further do, here is my eyes are fully open. here to urge you to abandon the evil courts. >> but, i have done

of justice ginsburg. given all these connections, instead of giving you a long intersection of justice begins burr issues we're going to flash back 15 years to the 20th anniversary dinner of women's law whenever professor marty ginsburg introduced justice ginsburg as the keynote speaker. >> wendy williams and mary harnett asked me to speak at what they said was appropriate length on what they termed my favorite subject, naturally i prepared a lengthy discourse addressing the supreme court's performance in tax cases. sadly, wendy reacted with unexpected hostility and so, instead i am going to speak a few minutes only about my wife the horrible runorable ruth. but you are the losers because i promise you the supreme court law in tax cases is exceedingly funny. we travel a lot, our travels are like our life in the district of columbia afford memorable moments. in december 2000, just after a bush against gore, ruth and i were in new york city to see the play kruf. after the first act intermission we walked do

judge ginsburg: i must've been there. either i was completely oblivious or i was there during the interim when there were no penalty cases, 74 and i can 75. does that sound right? jus. kagan: yeah. judge ginsburg: thank goodness. you? n, where are how much time to we have? what do we have? >> [indiscernible] judge ginsburg: that is fine, but why don't you just tell us your favorite recollection of the year, not just in chambers but the year that you spend here? jus. kagan: somebody else start. judge engelmayer: this is an outside of chambers memory. day, hetime late one told us that he was going to take us out to lunch the following day at a seafood restaurant. and we get into a car. we go to a seafood restaurant in anacostia. we walked in, he is leading the way. as thurgood marshall walked into room, peoplening realized, then slowly one by one everybody, they just got up and just stood for a minute. they stood for maybe 60 seconds, then he nodded and everyone sat down. but it was a moment that allow you to see him the wa

judge ginsburg: well, taft. he had always wanted to be on the supreme court and declined twice when roosevelt offered him the job. he felt he had to complete his mission in the philippines, which was giving them a government. his wife always wonder him to be in politics. hee he decides that to her, became chief justice. out by a book coming jeff rosen from the national constitution center, and a think jeff correctly patrice him as the most judicious of presidents. and not send up a bill lobby for it. as chief justice, he lobbied successfully. mr. watson: do you think his career as a president, having served as president and having served in so many senior capacities, made him a better justice and tempered his approach to the law? began as aurg: he judge. he was a judge on the sixth circuit and ohio before coming to washington to be in government, and that was a natural mill you -- natural milieu. shown --en that he has he had shown. a prominent group of historians at an academic conference once said that taft an

testent bader ginsburg judge ruth bader ginsburg described the effect of roe v. wade on the abortion reform movement as being something like a resident development. it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change and, of course, left an open that is still trying to resolve a political dispute through the court. in one sense, dred scott and e all sprang from the same root -- the desire to end political disagreement through the pronouncement of the court. it never works. scottott helped -- read -- dred scott helped bring on the civil war, just as roe v. wade rot on a cultural war that wages to this day. the legal consequences of dred scott were somewhat slim. allopinion was an meaningful ways overruled by the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868. all personsied that born or naturalized in the united states were citizens of the united states and fabey the states from denying to any person in the jurisdiction the equal protection of laws. obviously, no state discrimination on the basis of race and maybe not on the basis of other immutable character

kagan, ginsburg, maybe a little bit o'connor and kennedy. is there something to be said or the theory that early in his career he managed to alienate some one who could have been an important ally, justice o'connor? >> i do think there's something to be said for that. i think that he wasn't very good at compromising. in any dimension. and whether he could have cultivated her and gotten her to move more in his direction, actually i really don't know.i don't think his style would have ever built her. so i guess i don't think the law would have changed significantly had he been nicer to her . >> so what you've been hearing so far is that he was in many ways very influential but let me ask you whether he was influential in the most important way. the right a body of majority opinions that have lasting power? >> this is one of the paradoxes of justice scalia. david cole, this institution said after scalia's death that he was the most influential justice without influence. i thought that captured something. the two major measures if you are trying

those concerns seem a little antiquated today so if you could addressed justice ginsburg's question, and the same one i have so peaked sale that would be helpful. >> thank you justice gorsuch's. the states exercise their sovereignty based upon the territorial minutes. a key part of horizontal -- in this country so there's going to be some standard that determines what is the company subject to the tax jurisdiction of the state using the territorial laws in that state makes sense. what i think is the most significant and looking at this issue is that most of the large retailers, 19 of the 20 largest internet retailers already do collect tax because the nature of the market has required them to establish local revenue. among the top 100 in the reach and the collection rate is between 86 and 97%. >> i accept that is still not responsive council. you are pointing out that more internet retailers are moving towards brick-and-mortar. fine but again why should this court favor those who don't? over those who do? that's the question. >> the united states has suggested that even one sale into

that goes to justice ginsburg's point. thinkonly about the questions te court has been wrestling with today. it is about the architecture of other providers, conversations about where the internet is headed, there are conversations about whether this will kill the tech sector, how much of an international consensus there is about the sovereignty of data. these are all questions that only congress can answer. meanwhile, this court's job is to defer to congress, does take -- to take the path that is least likely to create international tensions. if you try to tinker with this without the tools that only you are as likely to break the cloud is to fix it. if there are no further questions, i think the court for its attention, we request the court affirmed the second circuit. >> thank you, counsel. minutes, mr. dreeben. , youreeben: justice breyer asked what the authority of the district court was. the authority comes from 2703, which entitles a court of competent jurisdiction to issue the relevant warrant in this case. a of th

. >> it is, justice ginsburg. >> if that's your answer, isn't it normal we treat a commerce clause the same way we treat statutes? the examples are legion. congress cannot overturn a constitutional decision, but in the dormant case if at risk. and of course they can and of course they do so i don't see a differencethere so what's the difference? >> i would say there's a difference . >>but the word constitutional is not magic . the reason that we say we are more willing to overturn a constitutional case is because congress can't act . but here they can act and therefore there is no reason for treating especially, what is the response to that? >> i think the reason to treat it special is becausewe have a situation where congress has had 26 years . >> we have from three senators and congressmen goodlatte that said congress would act in their reason for stopping was we were going to decide this case. whether they know or whether i know, i guess they have a better view. they are members of congress and the nmany statutes in your 50 states, if you do not have the power to get congress to do

i try to support it in the book so let's begin by thanking judge douglas ginsburg. [applause] >> and now i'm in the unaccustomed position of turning it over to you. >> thank you. all these letter carriers who came to the snow to be with us tonight. i think the book has a fair chance of redressing the under appreciation that taft has suffered. i commend it to you. i've read now it two times have gone through it again today on an abbreviated basis any think it's a really first rate treatment. the sink, it's not ponderous, what is it, 200 pages, including the index i think. and the extensive footnotes. it really i think does a wonderful job of capturing, giving a portrayal of a whole person, a person who had one of those extraordinary careers in the course of our history really. now, when i started reading the book i didn't know a lot about taft's personal life. of course we all know he was lampooned for being our largest president. but, and a new although bit about his work in reform of the federal judiciary, which was very important and will be with us, is with us st

justice ginsburg: but mr.needler, if you're -- if you're making the distinction that johnson was a criminal case and this is a civil case, this court has had a number of decisions saying that line is not so rigid. for example, mlb, taking away parental rights, is a civil proceeding. and yet the court said, as in a criminal proceeding, for an indigent party, the state must give the transcript free. and so, if you had followed a rigid criminal/civil, then if it's civil, no free transcript. only if it's criminal. but the court said the -- the line is blurred when there is such a grave consequence. it was a grave consequence to be denied parental rights. it's a grave consequence to be removed from the united states. mr. kneedler: and so our submission is not just the distinction between civil and criminal, although we think this court's cases establish that there is a difference. but the important points here, though, are immigration is distinctive. immigration, this court has repeatedly said, even though it may b

so rheem, nicole, phil ginsburg. he took this on as a baby. one of his projects that he has a lot of children, but he was not going to let this go until we got it done. and the wonderful city attorney taylor and all of them got together and were able to bring this to fruition. now, cass is charged with helping lead the effort for phase two, so we're excited about having them involved. excited to have moism, steve oliver and their entire team. this is not just a building. this is a place where we believe it will be the premiere performing arts facility in the entire city and county of san francisco. [applause] so performing arts workshop is going to work with all of the different people in the arts community. and i want to recognize a special guest, david, from the conservatory of music. he's standing in the back. they have committed to be an initial partner here working with the performing arts workshop. and that is also as a result of reverend brown's leadership. so david, give a wave back there. thank you for coming out today. [applause] con

supreme court justice rose bader ginsburg sent down talklaw professors to about her life and legal career was part of her annual service.

alan ginsburg didn't get on public television a lot at that time. i mean, later on, he's famous and so on, but you know, i did meet -- i did meet a man once after some talk at the new school in new york, an old man came up to me and he said, do you know, are you still in touch with mr. buckley, bill was still alive, and i said yes. he said, thank him for me. i'm a man of the left, but he was the only place where you could find voices from the left on television. now, bill was having them on to refute them, but he had them on. so that was interesting. >> what would bill buckley have to say about our politics today? >> well, look, there is no time when it's ever been peaceful. >> sure. >> you know, if you want crazy politics, obviously, the run-up to the civil war that ends in disunion and bloodshed. but also the founding fathers. >> sure. >> they were unbalanced. you know, alexander hamilton thought thomas jefferson was a jacoban and that his followers might well set up guillotines and thomas jefferson thought alexander hamilton was a british agent.

justice ginsburg: what about what i said about filings about false and misleading representations? has california ever brought charges against any of these places for false and misleading advertising? mr. klein: i'm not aware that the state has. i believe that the city and county of san francisco has, for instance. but in any case, that doesn't address the -- such a procedure would not be superior. first, that kind of policing -- policing that kind of issue would not necessarily be more speech protective, since it might involve undercover patient record subpoenas, -- >> it would have the virtue of applying evenly to all persons and all industries and a law that is very familiar. justice gorsuch: i mean anti-fraud provisions in commercial speech are well known and don't pose any of the problems we've been discussing today. why wouldn't that be a superior mechanism for addressing these concerns? if we're talking about a narrower set of concerns. mr. klein: the narrower concerns, which are not the only ones here, it could be significantly more or at least it's an open question about w

katie: i agree with justice ginsburg. the brandenburg decision is one of the strongest most protected and most important landmarks of free speech. it sets the fundamental principle that we should allow free speech even if it advocates unlawfulness. i think the other aspect is it is important because it means we are going to sometimes have to tolerate speech that we find personally repugnant. aboutlet me tell you more the guests at the table. nadine strossen is the former president of the aclu. she served from 1991 to 2008. she was the first woman and youngest person to ever hold position. she is a professor at new york law school in manhattan. she has a new book out called "hate: why we should resist it with free speech, not censorship." and katie, she wrote a piece about video games as protected speech. she also clerked in the court in the 11th circuit court of appeals. let's start with history. this all concerns a set of laws called the criminal syndicalism laws. many states have them. what is the history of them? >> th

sandra day o'connor and ruth bader ginsburg. this was recorded at politics and prose bookstore in washington dc in 2015. it is about 50 minutes.

>> i know justice ginsburg has said that. had it been done on equal protection and then had, for instance, the lawrence case, which we'll talk about later, which was about sexual orientation and sex followed it in equal protection, had the same sex marriage case been done on equal protection, i think, you know, she is not alone in thinking it might have had a firmer foundation. and part of that is because the fight over how you look at a constitution and find a non-textual right somewhere in the fourteenth amendment, that fight is so hot. but the question about equal protection is slightly less hot. so i actually think that possibly justice ginsburg is right. and lawrence on the later case in same sex marriage might have been seen to have a firmer foundation. the state would have had to articulate its interests against the unequal allocation of rights in those cases and it would have been harder for, i think, the state to do so. >> we're going to go back to our narrative. rachel rebouche, you said earlier the case, the earlie

after landmark cases, we hear from judge douglas ginsburg of the u.s. court of appeals about the history and evolution of the u.s. supreme court. >> listen up! listen up! we've got a decision. we've got a decision. >> here we go. >> supreme court. the decision's in. ♪ >> the vote is 6-3. >> 6-3, we win! we win! >> all persons having business before the no

. >> reporter: phil ginsburg the director of the san francisco rec and parks department is asking participants to be mindful of others and the environment. >> our task is to try to, um, mitigate and remediate the impacts of 12,000 to 15,000 people showing up. >> reporter: the sfpd says additional security will be in place to keep an eye on what's happening in the area. >> i'm very confident that regardless of the numbers of people who come here, we are going to be successful at what we do. we'll keep everybody safe. >> reporter: while recreational marijuana is legal in california, it's still illegal to smoke it in public. so there will be an exception for those people who are inside the fencing at hippie hill. but for everyone else, there is no exception to the law. in san francisco, jackie ward, kpix 5. >>> there will be no drugs for sale, no alcohol will be allowed, and this is still not a city-sponsored or city- approved event. only people aged 18 and older will be let in. >>> a family in san jose is now homeless after a fire started this morning. it started at about 5 a.m. at a home near h

. >> reporter: phil ginsburg, director of the san francisco rec and parks department, is asking the participants at golden gate park to be mindful of others and the environment. >> our task is to try to mitigate and remediate the impacts of 12 to 15,000 people showing up. >> reporter: and the sfpd says additional security will be in place to closely keep an eye on what's happening in golden gate park and on haight street. while recreational marijuana is legal in california, it's still illegal to smoke it in public. so there will be an exception for those people who are inside the fencing at hippie hill, but for everyone else there is no exception to the law. in san francisco jackie ward, kpix5. >> there apparently will be no drugs for sale at friday's event and alcohol will not be allowed. it's not a city sponsored or city approved event. only people 18 and old are will be let in. >>> the -- older will be let in. >>> the bay area has some of the worst air quality in the country. the american lung association graded counties based on smog and particle pollution. san francisco and san mateo counti

another icon for people in san francisco in the area is ruth bader ginsburg. she's been a light during a dark political time right now. and this is one of those standud hout and cheer documentaries. it makes you feel like it's going to be better in theend. i think when we play this film during the festival, you'll see a real comfort for a lot of people, but i think also you'll see a lot of people standing up and cheering for this incredible woman. >> and something newi you're this year is hosting discussions around certain films. for example, the cleaners. w it's abo decides what we see online. let's look at a clip from that as well. >> facebook has a bigger population than any state in thl and so when it sensors, it's in some ways as powerful as state. >> ignore it. ignore. ignore. >> if i didn't have social media, i wouldn' be able to get the word out. i probably wouldn't be standing here. right? i probably wouldn't bedi st here. >> mark zuckerberg is now the front page editor for every newspaper in the world, effectively. >> so you're partnering with thn el

. >> justice ginsburg said there are always new contexts. what is it about the brandenberg case that makes it seminal? i would agree with -- katie: i agree with justice ginsburg. the brandenburg decision is one of the most important landmarks of free speech. sets the fundamental principle that we should allow advocatesh even if it unlawfulness. that means he will have to tolerate speech that we find personally repugnant. host: nadine strossen is the former president of the aclu. she was the first woman and youngest person to ever hold position. she is a professor at new york law school in manhattan/ . she has a new book out called wa --why wet should resist it with free speech, not censorship." wrote a piece about video games as protected speech. host: let's start with history. concerns a set of laws called the criminal syndicalism laws. what is at the history of them? ing iny were adopted start era as world war one the spread fear of of anarchy, socialism and communism. host: did they do the same thing? nadine: the language in the ohio stat

that the court will be able to agree on an outcome in the case but across the corden i know justice ginsburg has publicly said that these are the most important cases before the court and i think the issue is it is underscored by the fact that they have considered two of these cases the gerrymandering case and the maryland case and have essentially every argument on the issues. it doesn't look from the argument transcript that the court has obviously a standard that they are going to apply in this case but time will tell. those cases certainly and i think everyone in this room has to understand the states in that case in the courts are actively involved in gerrymandering that will be a shift and it will have a big impact on the court. one of the things and this is a little bit of your supreme court lawyers geek perspective on this but one of the things that gets lost in the context of gerrymandering cases is those cases would go to the supreme court on appellate docket and one of the great things about the supreme court has 99% of their docket are discretionary. they can decide whether they

. >>> ruth bader ginsburg welcomed over 200 new citizens from 59 different countries with an inspiring moving speech about her own family's immigration to the united states. >>> sister jean, the 98-year-old chaplain of the loyola chicago men's basketball team stole the show at wrigley field where she threw out the first pitch at the chicago cubs home opener. it earned her a huge roar from the crowd. unfortunately, though, the hometown cubbies lost the game. we'll be right back. psoriasis does that. it was tough getting out there on stage. i wanted to be clear. i wanted it to last. so i kept on fighting. i found something that worked. and keeps on working. now? they see me. see me. see if cosentyx could make a difference for you- cosentyx is proven to help people with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... ...find clear skin that can last. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting cosentyx, you should be checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms. or if you h

i overheard justice thomas talking last summer when someone asked him how he and ruth bader ginsburg got along so well, and he said we try to remember that the institution is more important than any of our opinions. i think this committee could help senators remember that this institution is more important than any of our opinions or partisan differences. it will be welcome by almost all of us. , we're in agreement that is something would like to have accomplished your, and we're willing to spend time and effort to do that. i think more and more fit leaders, the democrats and majority leader are hearing that members want to vote. give us a chance to vote, and one member -- complaining and objecting should be able to decide the rest of us don't get to participate in the process, or three members who don't want an amendment and they are worried about voting on. viewnk senator durbin's that if you don't want to vote, you should come to the senate, is the correct view. debate, is no further the question is reporting favorably of a senate resolution of 355 as amended. all those in favor w

reshaping of the federal bench, and meanwhile, if one of the liberals supreme court justices were leave, ginsburgdrew kennedy, trump will reshat tha court will be far be the most consequent july political action he will have taken in his first step. >> sreenivasan: the prnt has also been on the defensive about scott fruit and the challenges sheg ac the epa, this weekend he came out urth a tweet and read it quickly, while sy spending was somewhat moore than his aredecessor, scott pruitt received the d threats because of his -- while saving billions, travel expses okay, scott is doing a great job. in the length of one tweet, there is at least half dozen inaccuracies there, but doesn't even matter? >> the coduct that scott pruitt is under fire for is exactly the kind of conduct th conservatives say that's what big government swmp by bureaucrats do, tripling the security sta and wanting a bullet proof desk and asking the security detail to run sirens so you can get to restaurant on time and moving that security guy out when he won't do it. s whebody is on your side, the conduct looks much more defens

my name is bill ginsburg of your recreation department. there's a native american saying, we didn't inherit the earth from our ancestors, we are borrowing it from our children. and our proud awardee kelly cornell is making sure we return it to them in good condition. the lorax, as i like to call him, with limited resources and 900,000 bosses come want him to take the tree down and others don't want him to touch it, he has figured out a way to preserve our incredible urban canopy, 135,000 trees in our parks and yes, he is caring for them. you should be so proud. colleen, sarah, jessica, i know you're proud. the recreation and park department is thrilled to recognize kelly cornell. >> feels weird to be let out of the park. anyway, to colleen, sarah, jessica, and my right-hand hand, kevin jackson, thank you for being here and we're continuing to move urban forestry in an upward motion. my biggest gratitude goes to my boss. denn dennis kearn because he believes in us. >> thank you. isn't it awesome of the diversity of the award winners and fir

i overheard justice thomas asking last summer and someone asked him how he and ruth bader ginsburg got along so well and he said we try to remember the institution is more important than any of our opinion. i think this committee could help senators remember that this institution is more important than any of our opinions are partisan different is that it would be welcome, i believe, by almost all of us. >> well said. >> i think senator klobuchar and i are both in agreement that would like for that to be one of the things we get accomplished here and we are willing to bend our time and effort to do that. i think more and more the leaders in the majority leader are hearing that members want to vote, so give us a chance to vote and one member shouldn't be complaining an objective shouldn't be a lot to decide that the rest of us don't get to participate in the process or three members who don't want to have an amendment they are worried about voting on. i think senator durbin's view that if you don't want about coming shouldn't come to the senate is the correct view. so if there is no fur

court will be able to agree on an outcome to the case but i think across the court, i know justice ginsburg has publicly said these are the most important cases before the court. the issue is the importance is underscored by the fact that the court has not considered one but two of these cases taking first the wisconsin partisan gerrymandering case and the marilyn case. they essentially had a re- argument on some of these issues, and it doesn't look from the argument transcript that the court has seized upon a standard that they will apply in these cases but time will tell. those cases are certainly, i think everyone in this room understands that the stakes in that case, if the court is going to get actively involved in policing partisan gerrymandering, that really will be a shift that will have a big impact on the court. one of the things, that is part of the supreme court lawyers geek perspective on this, one of the things that gets lost in this context of partisan gerrymandering is that those cases would go to the supreme court on an appellate document. one of the great things about the

they could have the greatest medical system in the world to keep her going for ruth bader ginsburg and when we used to be you tried to get somebody. i think earl warren was maybe his worst mistake. a lot of politicians went on the court. now, nobody goes on the court without knowing exactly where they stand on the issues. the battle becomes a political battle and as a result people -- the approval rating for the supreme court has dropped from the high 60s to about 40% over the last ten years or so. . . give me a scenario for fixing the damage. give me a dream scenario. >> a dream scenario, the first thing is we have to get much better people in government running for government. why don't they run? they run because the primaries, i hate to use the term, but in a sense the primaries are rigged for the activists. and how many people in this room consistently vote in primaries? you know, primaries is where the action is. if you look at the presidential situation the last time around, people say, oh, my god, what did we have? we had a woman who really was sort of entitled and didn't make a

reports byof the difference of the various states -- >> i think what justice ginsburg was suggesting was that all of these functions would be taken over by companies like amazon and ebay and a etsy. there is something a little ironic in saying that the problem with quill is that it benefited all these companies so now we are going to overturn it so that we can by the execs and companies -- but i think this would in fact not fall on individual entrepreneurs. fees.ad, they would pay >> the problem is that a number of the functions that i described simply cannot be performed by software. if you need to collect resale and other forms of redemption certificates, states require that both the physical papers that you collect. there is no software solution to that. if a state is coming in to audit you, software does not solve that for you in any respect. software can do certain functions, and the functions might improve the entrepreneurial initiative. but they're not going to solve these other issues. and what will happen because of the substantial -- small and midsized companies will be det