. >> in 1994, bill clinton appoints ruth bader ginsburg to the court. these were the only supreme court appointments that bill clinton had. he appointed two jews. ruth bader ginsburg -- they did not confront any anti-semitism either in their legal careers. their religion was almost not mentioned in the hearings at all, the confirmation hearings. ruth bader ginsburg did face a lot of obstacles on being a woman in a legal profession that was still predominantly male. when she entered harvard law school in 1956, she was only one of nine students in a class of over 500. she became the first -- the second woman after sandra day o'connor and the first jewish woman on the court. now a year later steven briar who i'm proud to say is from san francisco. technically he didn't live in san francisco. and he is appointed and both of them still serve on the court today. they're considered pretty much part of the liberal bloc on the court. and ruth bader ginsburg has now surpassed brandeis and frankfurter in terms of longevity on the supreme court. steven briar had a v

plus, ruth bader ginsburg, the opera? lesson of finding harmony withtfoes. ♪ [cap rgnsapac o'brien.ledad no repeal or replace for underway., but the pockets of bipartisanship are breaking out in this partisan town. the senate health committee announre hearings next month in an effort to stabilize the insurance markets, this following an impassioned plea from senator mccain who's battling brain cancer, puh parties to win at all costs. >> we have been spinning our wheelsissues because we keep tro find a wo win without help soledad: without fanfare, a group n congressmen have been meeting to find common parties.n jim himes is the chairman of the new democrats, and congressman charlie dent is chairman of the moderate republican tuesday group. they join me remotely. thanks for talking with me. in the op-ed you wrote together in post," this is a quote -- compromise may gly well on cable television, but it is an absolutecomponent of succl as i read that, i said, i wonder if there ares it is sad that itt we a idea aisle.u guys ar

in 1994, bill clinton appoints ruth bader ginsburg to the court. and a year later, stephen breyer to the court. these were the only supreme court appointments that bill clinton had. he appointed two jews. ruth bader ginsburg -- now, none of these -- they and elena kagan thereafter did not confront any anti-semitism either on their ascents in their legal careers to the court or, their religion was almost not mentioned in the hearings at all, the confirmation hearings. ruth bader ginsburg, who we can talk about later, did face a lot of obstacles on being a woman in a legal profession that was still predominantly male. when she entered harvard law school in 1956, she was only one of nine students in a class of over 500, and there's a lot to talk about here, but i wouldn't get carried away now. she became, of course, the first -- the second woman after sandra day o'connor, and the first jewish woman on the court. now, a year later, stephen breyer, who i am proud to say is a fellow alumsman from san francisco, the only san francisco jew as a proud san fr

ruth bader ginsburg went to harvard and columbia. she followed her husband. she went to columbia and she is one of the few people in history who were on two law reviews. steven briar went to stanford as an under graduate. elena kagan went to princeton and harvard law school. a part of the, it was -- and then they went from, they want to these prestigious law schools. and so it was part of the greater acceptance in the law school that helped the change -- helped bring about a decrease of anti-semetism in the legal profession. to end this on what's very interesting, when brandice's daughter and gilbert's mother graduated at the top of the class, brandice was very interested and she had hoped, at least the story i'm told, to go to harvard, yale, columbia. in 1917 there were no women admitted. they would love to admit her but it would be another ten years before they would admit women. she went to not a bad law school, university of chicago where she met her husband, another law student, but i think it's what she said as the decline of -- there was a gradual decl

ruth bader ginsburg went to harvard and yale. when her husband moved to new york to get a job, she went to columbia. she is only one of the two women in history who was on the columbia and harvard lar review. stephen breyer went to stanford as an undergraduate and harvard law school. elena kagan went to princeton and harvard law school. it does say a part of the culturization was that once again the decline of anti-semitism in the legal profession, it was lawrence, if you read about him in my book, led the anti-semitic opposition, the president of harvard, to brandeis' appointment and he later achieved more notoriety trying to introduce a quota on jewish admissions to harvard in the 1920s. but it was through these jewish students who grew up -- frankfurter, fortis and goldberg were first members of their family to go to college. then went from to all of these very prestigious law schools. so it was part of the greater acceptance in the -- in the law schools that helped the -- change -- helped bring about a decrease of anti-semiti

in 1993 -- 4 bill clinton appoints ruth bader ginsburg to the court and a year later steven briar to the court and these were the two appointments bill clinton had. he appointed two jews. ruth bader -- none of these, they and elena kagan thereafter did not fake confront any anti-semitism either in their assents to the legal careers to the court or their religion was almost not mentioned in the hearings at all, the confirmation hearings. ruth bader ginsburg, whom we can talk about later did face obstacles of being a woman in the male profession that was predominantly male. when she entered law school in 19 56 she was the only one in the class of 500 and there's a lot to talk about here, and i don't want to get carried away now. the second woman after sandra day o'connor and the first jewish woman on the court. now, a year later steven briar who i am proud to say is a fellow longsman from san francisco. the only one to be on the court and the only san franciscan because old warren didn't live in san francisco, and he is appointed and both of them still serve on the court today. they're

senator moynihan said ruth bader ginsburg. why?ause the long-term dean of harvard law school thinks she is very good. and this is the dean that said i could not have a harvard law degree because i didn't stay there for my third year. life is -- so many chance things occur and you don't know whether they will turn out to be good or bad, but this one was certainly good. there was a celebration of the court of the 50th anniversary of the building. so the building was completed in 1935, and this was 1985. dean griswold was solicitor general. he was to make a speech about great advocates before the court. by 1985, he realizes that he can't have a list that is all men. so after he finishes with thurgood marshall, the next person he mentions is ruth bader ginsburg. justice sotomayor: when i went through my nomination process, i was told that everyone should have had a marty ginsberg as a muse. [laughter] he apparently came into the preparation session with folders, including all of ruth's speeches, her entire schedule for her entire life,

a panel of federal appellate court judges and supreme court judges including ruth bader ginsburg and steven breyer heard oral arguments in the case of the weird sisters pierces kingdom of scotland. the issue was whether the sisters were guilty of using witchcraft to aid and abet mcbeth in the murder of king duncan of scotland. this event was another installment of the mock trial series presented by the shakespeare theatre company of washington dc. >> thank you everyone for joining us in this event which is now our 26 mock trial. [applause] this is one of the events that we do that is a labor of love and it is because of the people you will meet in a moment that it becomes that way. this is produced in sponsored by the bar association in which many of you are members and those who are not, i hope you will become. it is the infinity group of lawyers in washington dc and elsewhere that strive to support, not only art in general, but this peter specifically. tonight's argument is based on william shakespeare's macbeth which is produced by the theater this spring and directed by on the th

but i just talked last week in the chambers at the supreme court to justice ruth bader ginsburg. said to me that she would like to see more of a conversation between the court and the congress. justice breyer: it is hard to get a conversation going. charlie: but you understand what she means? justice breyer: absolutely, absolutely because sometimes you can find something in a statute -- say why did you -- she has written -- charlie: or had them think about in a dissent, which she had been -- the complexion of the congress had changed, but the newcomers, i think this was maybe -- i forgot the case. congress then changed the law because of what she pointed out in a dissent because there was a dialogue. justice breyer: i think that is good, but it is not easy to bring about. i worked in congress for a while. charlie: the judiciary committee with ted kennedy? justice breyer: yes. i would guess they are on different time frames. we take things slowly. the virtue of we are not elected. the virtue of having nine unelected people -- hamilton says this in federalist 78 -- they can take th

ruth bader ginsburg and and scalia, or ruth bader ginsburg and roberts don't agree on many things. but they agree that the president has a legal authority to issue that executive order and overruled all other judges. to your exact point, the narrative that donald trump is doing something that is so egregious and so anti-american is one that the mainstream media loves to say. because barack obama actually deported more individuals from our country than has ever been deported so far under president trump. that is not what the media wants to report. the media does not want to report the fact that this is the same rational policy that harry reid supports, immigration reform, that everybody says has to occur. regardless of their ideological spectrum. nobody wants to talk about that because it's much easier, with all due respect to harry reid, to go after donald trump, because that's what drives media ratings. and he's very good at ratings, in case you haven't noticed. that is why the media covers him that way. that's why, unfortunately, how they become profitable. i say this all the tim

>> supreme court justices ruth bader ginsburg and steven breyer along with appellate court judges here all arguments in a mock trial based on a scenario of william shakespeare's play, mcbeth. whether or not the sisters are guilty of using witchcraft to aid and abet mcbeth in the william of king duncan of scotland. this from the shakespeare company of washington dc and it's an hour in 20 minutes. [applause] thank you everyone for joining us in this event which is now our 25th trial. [applause] this is one of the events that we do which is a labor of love and is because of the people you will meet in a moment that it becomes that way. this is produced and sponsored by the bard association which many of you are members and those of you are not, hope you will become. it is the affinity group of lawyers in washington dc and elsewhere to try to support not only art in general but this from the computer in specific. as you know, tonight's argument is based on the text of william shakespeare's macbeth which was produced by the theater this spring and directed by liesel on this very stage. it w

panel a federal appellate court judges and supreme court justices including ruth bader ginsburg and stephen breyer heard oral argument in the case of the weird sisters versus kingdom of scotland. at issue is whether or not the sisters were guilty of using witchcraft to assist macbeth in the murder of king duncan of scotland. this event is one hour. [applause] >> thank you everyone, for joining us in this event which is not our 25th mock trial. [applause] >> this is one of the events that we do that is a labor of love and it is, that it becomes that way. this is produced and sponsored by the bar association which many of you are members and those are not i hope you will become. it is the affinity group of lawyers in washington, d.c., -- bard association -- to try to sport not on arts in general but this terrific theater in specific. as you know tonight argument is based on the text when shakespeare's macbeth which was produced by the theater this spring directed by -- on this te stage builds a wonderful event i am sure many of you attended. i want to start by thanking as the people that you

plus, ruth bader ginsburg, the opera? the supreme

plus, ruth bader ginsburg, the opera? the supreme lesson of finding harm

and there were others such as ruth bader ginsburg who was in the '70s leading a program sponsored by the aclu, women's equity project, in which she would take up issues case by case by case, all with the goal of getting women's rights to equal protection recognized and that 14th amendment provisions applied to them too. and that was done. and the irony was that in the fight over the equal rights amendment there were people who said you don't need an equal rights amendment because the courts are always -- are already ruling over and over again in your favor. and a friend of mine, aretha segal, a yale constitutional law professor written a rule called the de facto e.r.a. in which she says we have an e.r.a. for all intents and purposes because in the fight over the e.r.a. even the e.r.a. opponents conceded the principle of women's equality and said you don't need an e.r.a. because you've got equality anyway. the other side of that of course is that, and we're seeing some reasons for this today, that once power changes and you have different people who are making legislative decisions, c

and then the were other such as ruth bader ginsburg who in the 1970's was leading a program sponsored by the aclu for women's equity project in which you would take up issues case by case by case, all with the goal of getting women's rights to equal protection recognized and that 14th amend provisions apply to them, too. was that in the fight over the equal rights amendment, there were people who said you do not need an equal rights amendment, because the courts are already ruling over and over again in your favor. yale friend of mine a constitutional law professor has written an article i would recommend called "the defective era," ande de facto was she says we have an era, opponentsen the era conceded the principle of women's equality and said, you do not need era because you have equality anyway. is that, side of that and we're seeing reasons for this today, once power changes and you have different people who make legislative decisions in congress and the white house, ra, thoseout the eer gains are at risk. there you go. >> it puzzles me that conservatives are very much against bi

tonight, justice ruth bader ginsburg and justice sonia sotomayor.ork city bar association. justice ginsburg: i thought of myself in those days as a teacher. my parents thought that teaching would be a good occupation for me, because women were welcomed there, and they were not welcomed as doctors, engineers, lawyers.

she says ruth bader ginsburg is dead and i would like to take her place.resident said if it's okay with the funeral home, it's fine by me. hillary clinton's personal pastor is being accused of plagiarizing his new book. the book is a cleskts affirmations the reverend wrote for hillary clinton during her campaign. cnn shared an excerpt and a second pastor contacted the network claiming it was close to a blog post of his. it includes many familiar bible stories. but when jesus gifts famous sermon on the mount he charges a $400,000 speaking fee. in this one everyone invited to the last supper had already made a six-figure donation to the clinton global initiative. but on the plus side the drinks came quick because each guest used a private server. number two. a shocking new report accuses kim jong-un of cutting corn on his physique. there is a report that he suffers from gout and is being treated for it with steroid. the guy looks like he gets paid in garlic knots. if anyone was taking heavy drugs, i think it' the person cutting his hair. i'm just kidding. he

tonight, justice ruth bader ginsburg and justice sonia sotomayor.city bar association. i thought ofurg: myself in those days as a teacher. my parents thought that teaching would be a good occupation for me, because women were welcomed their

another conservative on the court and you'll probably get a third in next seven or eight years if ruth bader ginsburg decides to retire which i think she should. [applause] >> think about that. that's a truly conservative supreme court and that matters for many, many years. >> that will undoubtedly be his legacy without question. have you been to the white house? >> i have. >> you have? >> yeah. >> like a private visit? >> you want me to go through the change in tv schedule which prompted the visit? >> i've got the juicy fox questions coming up. >> okay. >> the day we launched the specialist which was may first, i called him up and say, listen, i have a new show going, it would be really cool if the first day i could launch with interview of the president. no problem. like that. no problem. come on down. it went from we are going to do it on friday, aired on monday, do it on saturday or air on monday, monday first day of the show but it ended up coinciding with 100 days, 100th day on saturday, 100th day of presidency. i department didn't -- i didn't want it to lose value. i went to dc sunday night, g

when president clinton nominated ruth bader ginsburg, i voted for her. i thought it was the right thing to do after you won the election. he was the president. the president gets to appoint supreme court justices. when president obama nominated sonia sotomayor and elena kagan, i made sure they got an up or down vote, not a filibuster. no filibuster. no filibuster. we thought it was the right thing do. it is not because we harbored allusions that we usually agree with these nominees of democratic presidents. certainly not. listen to this, madam president =. we even protested when majority lead read file closure on the kagan nomination. it was not necessary. jeff sessions, the current attorney generalwas the ranking member of the diciary coittee the time. jeff sessions talking harry reid out of filing closure because it wasn't necessy. we did not even want the pretense of e possibility of a filibuster on the table. is quite a different story from what we are seeing today. this is where our democratic colleagues have taken us. will a partisan minority of th

is ruth bader ginsburg, and extremist? is ms-13 some sort of choir group? barbara lee is the extremist, but she leave a lives in oregoo she doesn't realize it. she has voted for creating a department of peace. guess what, we have one, it's called the department of defense. barbara lee hangs out in cuba, she hangs out with black panthers and other communists, she hangs out with castro, and she's out of her mind. it's usually people that denigrate the military are the first ones that raise her hands and they need help and they need the military to help them and protect them. i would not trust her in a foxhole. >> kimberly: i'm sure she doesn't want to be in one either. do you think it's fair to criticize someone for serving their country and to say that that should somehow be held against them because they obtained the rank that they had. >> greg: they could do it, but it's stupid. it makes no sense. this appointment is refreshing on another number of levels. the expense he has goes against generations of infatuations with the self. we live in a society where

. >> supreme court justices ruth bader ginsburg and steven breyer along with appellate court judges here all arguments in a mock trial based on a scenario of william shakespeare's play, mcbeth. whether or not the sisters are guilty of using witchcraft to aid and abet mcbeth in the william of king duncan of scotland. this from the shakespeare company of washington dc and it's an hour in 20 minutes. [applause] thank you everyone for joining us in this event which is now our 25th trial. [applause] this is one of the events that we do which is a labor of love and is because of the people you will meet in a moment that it becomes that way.

melissa: i think you have pre-staged a line of arguments that justice ruth bader ginsburg authored. she famously criticized roe v. wade reliance on the privacy doctrine and said the decision would had in better house. that we should have thought about abortion. and access to abortion is essential to women's equal citizenship, rather than cloaking it in the guides of privacy. that would have addressed the court issues at the heart of it. which were really equipped by the privacy framework. clark: that route would admit that roe v. wade was wrongly decided and that the original rationale was wrong. it would simply ignore a major state interest that the court , since roe v. wade has set exists. that is the states have an interest in maternal health, but has in interest in the life of the unborn child. that would ignore one state interest that the court has recognized since 1973. host: tom larkin on twitter makes this comment. the fact that they have to need -- use pseudonyms shows how difficult society treats women. was the doe case also a pseudonym? melissa: yes. host: next is david.

be the judges tonight and soon be seated by the marshal and they are supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg, who will be residing. justice steven breyer, and judge patricia mallet te. the marshal will announce the justices. [applause]. >> all rise. oh yay, oh yay, oh yay, the supreme court of scotland is now in session. ... >> and now we are ready to hear the case of scotland against the three weird sisters. [inaudible] >> may it please the court. this is truly the single greatest witchhunt in scottish history. [laughing] [applause] while others may lay claim to that distinction, believe me, believe me -- [laughing] this is a witchhunt. our clients have been convicted and sentenced to die for their religious expression. this prosecution has been fueled from the beginning by superstitious prejudices. the crown has taken advantage of the popular belief that any gathering of more than two women is a coven of witches up to no good. my colleagues and i would beg to differ. [laughing] while the sisters may seem weird to others, they did nothing remotely approaching the alleged crime. they neither

ruth bader ginsburg, hard-core lefty, she was confirmed 96-3. those days are long gone because the partisanship of these battles have become more pitched and zero-sum. ok, so the last thing i will point out is, some people say if only we had a system like another country. like a parliament tree system like they have in great britain or canada. in order to adopt a different process, that would take massive constitutional changes. i do not think it is realistic. one thing that i do think we should at least take a look at is the system of voting that they have in australia. i have a cousin who works in conservative politics in austria, and i visited him a couple years ago, and they were in the middle of an election campaign. if you think we have tough ads here, attack ads, some of those in australia were brutal. i was like, oh man. anyway, the way they do it is, they have what is called "linked voting." -- ranked voting. the more i thought about it, the more i liked it. i want you to mull it over. the way it would work, or at least the way it works

restated ruth bader ginsburg was confirmed 96 to three. become hards have pitch and zero-sum. some people say if only we had a system like another country, like a parliament in great britain or canada or wherever. in order to adopt a completely different electoral process, that would take massive constitutional changes. i don't think it's realistic. one thing that i do think we ought to at least take a look at is the system of voting that they have in australia. i have a cousin who works in conservative politics in australia and i visited him a couple years ago. they were in the middle of an election campaign. if you think we have tough ads here, attack ads, some of those australian attack ads were brutal. i was like, oh man. anyway, the way that they do it is they have what is called a ranked voting could the more . the more that i thought about it, the more i liked it. the way that it would work is or at least the way it works here is that let's say you have four or five people running for any given office. let's say it's president. and the person that you really like the mo

what ruth bader ginsburg said recently, the symbol of america shouldn't be the eagle, it should be the pendulum. this gentleman talked about his time in geneva, but the one i treasure most is the commitment to shared power, with ks and thes, they have -- the only country in the world that doesn't have a head of state is a 7 person federal counsel and there were five political parties from the right, people's party, to the left, social democrats, now everything is done by consensus. i can't personally square this anecdote but i heard when paul ryan was speaker neither he nor nancy pelosi had ever had a 1-on-1 conversation in all the years they served together. what you have is absence of shared power. i'm in charge, therefore straight partyline vote, one problem with the affordable care act which i'm committed to, not a single republican voted for it. anything culturally to move to an idea of shared power we will be better off. the fair representation act getting away from a single-member district, if you get bored, it changes the way to elect members of congress, instead of running for

i do think ruth bader ginsburg said recently that the symbol of america shouldn't be the eagle, it should be the pendulum because we swing back and forth. this gentleman talked about his time in geneva. i learned many things, but the one i treasure most of the commitment to shared power, this concorde and then they have no head of state. the only country in the world that doesn't have a head of state. when i was there, it was five different political parties from the right are age to left social democrats. everything is done by consensus. i can't personally swear by this anecdote, but pauline has been speaker that either he nor nancy pelosi have ever had a one-on-one conversation in all the years they served together. so what you have is the absence of shared power here. i'm in charge there for straight partyline vote. not a single republican voted for it. but being shipped on a partyline basis, you'll get things back. anything we can do culturally to move to an atm shared power, will be a lot better off. the fair representation not trying to get away from single member districts, if you

in our final clip we will have a bit of justice scalia talking about the decision along with ruth bader ginsburgstice scalia: you can be using your first amendment rights and it can be abominable. i will defend your right to use it, you are right to use it, but i will not defend the appropriateness of the manner in which you are using it now. that can be very wrong. justice ginsburg: justice scalia was praised by some, criticized by others for his decision in the flagburning case. that you thought the act itself was reprehensible. justice scalia: i would have sent that guy to jail if i was king. [laughter] b>> but by your ruling, he had the right to burn the flag. justice scalia: that is what the first amendment means. you have your right to express your contempt for the government. that doesn't mean it was right for him to do that in that manner by burning a symbol that meant so much to so many other people. he had the right to do it. host: two of the justices on today's supreme court talking about the evolution of speech in society. openingenck case was an salvo on what is our modern discussio