mr. ginsburg. >> commissioners i was wondering if our city attorney could come up and talk about the process from here on out. i understand that the way this agreement was originally framed, there are still some approvals and some process with relation to the transfer of the park. >> deputy city attorney marlina byrne. yes, i think dawn did a great job, but for 350 bush the tall building that will be shadowing st. mary's square and 500 pine with the new st. mary's expansion on top of it. both of those contained conditions of approval that are sort of separate in addition to under the planning commission's authority, separate from the rec and park's authority under this program. and that was because the open space on the roof of st. mary's of the 500 pine building which will be the now st. mary's square expansion meets not only -- is not only going to be a new part of st. mary's square to address the shadow concerns, but is also designed to meet the planning code requirements for open space under planning code section 138. so i wouldn't go through all the details of those entitlements, but re

mr. ginsburg, i had spoken about they are trying to form a partnership with the rotary club and betty ann ong organization and they had in mind simply using the facility at mason street. so when they use the facility they have to pay the required permit issues and guarantee that the floor is okay and everything else. it's a partnership aspect that i wanted to look at closer. the foundation has an additional rotary club. i think the rotary club before they donate to civic recreation places, rpd, if we have that type of relationship it's good, because they can go to all 1, 2, 3, 4, districts of rpd. in doing so, i wanted to try to get more of that funding going back to a start-up fund but they don't have any money going back to the recreation facility. they have a partnership. if you use the facility like coming up on may 2nd, they get one-third or something like that. i think there should be a fee structure included where the fee or whatever it is gives back to the start-up funds to pay for -- like a ping pong racquet. so this kind of money, i think they should have to pay back into whethe

mr. president. members of the commission. director ginsburg. my name is emilio cruz, the assistant general manager of infrastructure for the puc and associated with this endeavor being on the committee. i will say that i love working at the puc not only because of all the work that we do that is important for the environment, but the focus that we have on community and the work that we do. i'm responsible for the $9 billion capital program, $7 billion of which will be spent right here in san francisco on our wastewater program. it would not only be a failure, but a complete shame if in investing $7 billion in san francisco that we don't create opportunities and jobs for our local residents to support our local communities. so that end, it doesn't happen by itself. i often in the circles here, the expression that a rising tide floats all boats, that doesn't work if your boat has a hole in it or if you are anchored down. the reality is that a good economy does float boats, but we have to make sure that everybody's boat is sail-ready. we have to m

mr. carvin. >> justice ginsburg. >> it's a tax code provision that's an implementation provision. it tells you how you compute the individual amount. >> it -- >> it it's not in the body of the legislation where you would expect to find this. >> no. your honor, if that's true -- >> and if it -- >> sorry. please. >> what justice kagan just read to you, you had the idea that the subsidies were essential -- >> no. >> to have the thing work. that's what you told us last time. >> what i told you was it wouldn't work as expected, and that's because they thought this deal would work just like the medicaid deal where all 50 states would say yes, so you would have both of congressional purposes. >> then why in the world would they set up this whole extra thing if they didn't think anybody was going to take it? >> well, that was my response to justice sotomayor. that is completely unsupported empirical observation made post hoc by amicus. there's no reflection of that in the legislative history. indeed, the legislative history refutes it. >> mr. carvin, we've heard talk about this other case

mr. carvin. >> justice ginsburg. >> it's a tax code provision that's an implementation provision. it tells you how you compute the individual amount. >> it -- >> it it's not in the body of the legislation where you would expect to find this. >> no. your honor, if that's true -- >> and if it -- >> sorry. please. >> what justice kagan just read to you, you had the idea that the subsidies were essential -- >> no. >> to have the thing work. that's what you told us last time. >> what i told you was it wouldn't work as expected, and that's because they thought this deal would work just like the medicaid deal where all 50 states would say yes, so you would have both of congressional purposes. >> then why in the world would they set up this whole extra thing if they didn't think anybody was going to take it? >> well, that was my response to justice sotomayor. that is completely unsupported empirical observation made post hoc by amicus. >> mr. carvin, we've heard talk about this other case. did you win that other case? [laughter] >> so maybe it makes sense that you have a different story t

justice ginsburg: we don't know what the evidence is. ms. halligan: mr. martin and mr. bryan's testimony, there were many employees who sustained offer the job injuries and no light duty was given to any employees, pregnancy included. justice ginsburg: is there an employee who asked for time off because of a medical condition but restricted her duty to lift. any single employee who was an employee -- ms. halligan: there is not a name provided in the record because one was not alist edited the petitioner. but the record evidence is undisputed and many employees. u.p.s. is in the business of delivering -- justice ginsburg: but we don't know if there they were given time off because off the yob injury required the limit they could bear. ms. halligan: the u.p.s. policy is employees who are unable to perform, would be required to take leave if their inability. and moving 70 pound packages around all day long and as the uncontraverted testimony establishes, there were many employees that prevented from doing that job. justice: i assume you disagree with the petitioner's propos

mr. basher, i don't understand your response to justice ginsburg. there are different interpretations of what those 2006 amendments mean right? under one interpretation it was a codification of justice souter's opinion so majority minority districts could be transformed into influence districts. on another stricter interpretation perhaps no majority and minority districts had to stay majority minority districts. but in no interpretation does a 76% district have to stay 76% districts when circumstances change and when the ability to elect candidates of one's choice does not require it. >> this is what justice souter said in his disent in georgia v. ashcroft. if they vote in blocs which it's consistent they do in alabama it will generally reduce the chance that the minority group's favored candidate will be elected. the majority opinion in georgia v. ashcroft agreed with that as well. and the district court in georgia v. ashcroft which i think congress was trying to go back to said if existing opportunities of mrntd voters to exercise their franchise

ginsburg. good morning to you. >> good morning. >> how wise do you think it would be for mr.the nature of the negotiations under way with iran. >> depends who you want to help. do you want to help your cause for re-election cause back in israel or do you want to destroy the administration's efforts to try to forge an agreement at the last minute in geneva? that's really what his objectives respect he is the proverbial skunk at the obama administration's iran picnic. what he -- what the administration is deeply concerned about is that he's going to cherry pick details from the negotiations in order to galvanize a blocking majority in the congress to oppose any lifting of sanctions and/or to try to force legislation through that would require any agreement be submitted to congressional approval. >> at the same time clearly, house speaker boehner invited him here for the gop. presumably, republicans feel extremely strongly about this issue who believe it is in their interests interests and israel's interests, if a wedge has to be driven, so be it. >> well indeed. in fact that's

ginsburg. the fact that we have that much discretion confirms this is government speech. mr. chief justice i'd like to reserve the remainder of my time. >> thank you, counsel. mr. george? >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court, we're here representing the sons of the confederate veterans because they wanted to have a license plate to raise money, in fact for the state of texas to keep up monuments which was the purpose of their whole process in this case. and the state of texas has gone about issuing an open invitation to everybody to submit to them public designs for license plates and and to create -- and thus, has created a limited public forum for these license plates. >> in texas can texas itself formally let's say by a joint resolution of the legislature endorse the grand army of the republic and not the sons of the confederacy? can texas do that? >> the legislature can endorse anything it wants. >> so the state can, right? so can the legislature endorse austin hamburgers in. >> well the legislature has created confederate heroes day in this particular case an