If you years ago we began inviting to offer for every class, a extraordinary opportunity for our students as you embark on your legal education, to listen to and learn from someone whose career has shipped a law. Shaped a law. By attending georgetown law you laws where they are made. In the past few years people sotoheard from justice meyer, justice stevens, justice scalia. We have been so fortunate the last two years, the second year in a row to be joined by the legendary Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg. [applause] a long introduction is not necessary. Your storiesss in you will read and discuss the many powerful and Supreme Court decisions as well as the influential dissent. He will also learned that she occupies a rare late in history. Marshallice thurgood Justice Ginsburg will be a historic figure as an advocate for gender equality. Even if she had never been a judge or justice. And, i same sure you all know, the justice, is also a cultural icon. How many of us can say that we avent sired inspired oneact opera, to coloring books, and a phenomenon known as the notorious rgb. Justice ginsburg is a special number of the Community Area for those who came down, you might have noticed we recently received a portrait of Justice Ginsburg which we now very proudly does leigh as you come into the auditorium. Her late husband Marty Ginsburg was a beloved professor for many years. We have a professorship named in his honor. Mary and wendy, mary is joining us today, the coauthors with her of her recent book my own words. The justice is a longtime support of the policy program and every year invites to the ea andfor t conversation. I am [applause] a couple of logistical announcements before we begin. Weer the justices remarks will go to the reception. That is one. Thats where you go next. To, silence your cell phones. I did mine on the way in. Talk for a will little bit about the past term, then after that i will ask some questions. We received a lot of questions from the audience. Will, time allowed, ask as many as i can. When i asked her a question i ask that you stand up so we can rent nice you recognize you. Please join me in welcoming Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg. [applause] i feel so welcome you are mostly firstyear students, is that right . A very exciting time. I remember how i felt my first year at law school. It was a new kind of learning. Mostlyege, i was passively taking notes. Classes, i hope, are engaging you so youre thinking all the time throughout the class. I thought we could begin by my giving the largest Headline News last term was the appointment of a new justice, justice gorsuch, to replace justice scalia. For 14 months we were only eight on the bench. Neil gorsuch became the 113th justice, in time to join us for our last sitting in april. He had only one week, between his confirmation of the start of the setting, but he managed to prepare well for 13 cases. He also cast himself as a potential rival to justice sotomayor, as the justice who asks the most questions at oral arguments. The principal, inhouse beneficiary of Justice Gorsuchs appointment, is Justice Kagan, who is no longer our junior justice, meaning she escapes opening the Conference Room door when a messenger knocks, answering the rare ring of the telephone, and most daunting, conveying to the entourage of the Clerks Office, the legal office, and the reporters office, the dispositions the justices made at the conference. Justice kagan also relinquished to justice gorsuch, membership to the courts cafeteria committee. In that assignments, Justice Kagan suffered grumbling with good humor. Her single achievement . The installation of a frozen yogurt machine. [applause] a new statistic was reported the last term, adding to the last meter and count of questions asked by each of justice. It was the average number of words from the bench per argument. Justice breyer won hands down, with 814 words. Justice kagan took second with 646. Justice sotomayor, third, with 515. And i trailed, with only 284. Running neck and neck as fast as the fastest justice in getting out opinions, according to a journal, rapid ruth and swift sonja. [laughter] twice during the term, Justice Breyers cell phone rang during the midst of arguments. Like spectators, the justices are expected to leave their phones and other Electronic Devices behind. After the second occasion, the chief justice had a replica of a metal detector placed in the corridor for Justice Breyer to pass through before ascending to the bench. [laughter] for me, the most unforgettable argument of the term is a case you probably never heard of, maclin jack against the United States. This was the question presented. Could a naturalized citizen be stripped of her citizenship if she committed offense and failed to report it on her citizenship application . The chief justice was visibly shaken. Some time ago, he confessed, of course, outside the statute of limitations, he drove 60 miles an hour in a 55. So, would such a confession prompt cancellation of naturalization . Justice kagan said, i cant recall how many times i have lied about my weight. The council comfortingly responded, unless you did so under oath. The court reached 62 decisions last term and only nine of those 62 decisions were 54. In comparison to that sharp agreement rate, we disagreed in only 15 , we sharply disagreed in only 15 of the cases. We were unanimous in the bottom 31e judgment in at least cases, half of the decisions rendered in argued cases. And in 21 of the 31 unanimous judgments, we were unanimous in the opinion, as well. So, agreement, you can see is substantially higher than sharp disagreement on the court. We decided several high profile cases, and i will describe some of them. Two cases came to us from the Second Circuit. Both were among the most closely watched. Borelli santana concerned a birthright citizenship statute that treated unwed u. S. Citizen mothers more favorably than unwed u. S. Citizen fathers. A child born abroad to an unwed, u. S. Citizen mother would require citizenship at birth if her mother had previously resided in the United States for d of onentinuous perio year. Unwed u. S. Citizen fathers were subjected to a more demanding residency requirement. Morellisantana was a dominican father. Morellisantana did not meet the statutory requirements for u. S. Citizenship at birth. Congress specification for different requirements for unwed citizen mothers and fathers, the Second Circuit held was incompatible with the equal protection principle. Six of the eight participating justices joined in affirming that equal protection holding. Addressing the toughest question in the case, however, the court ultimately concluded that striking down rather than extending the favorable treatment for unwed mothers was the remedy congress would have preferred had it known of the constitutional infirmity of the genderbased differential it enacted. That was so, we explained, because the longer residency applied to married parents, one a citizen, one an alien, as well as to unwed fathers. Congress, we thought, would not have wanted the exception for unwed mothers to swallow the main rule. The bossi litigation stemmed from the government response in new york city to the september 11 tragedy. Plaintiffs sued Justice Department officials and wardens of the metropolitan Detention Center in brooklyn, new york, where plaintiffs were confined for periods running from 38 months. Those arrested had overstayed their visas, but were not accused of any criminal law infractions. They alleged discrimination, based on the perception that they were muslim, and they alleged gross mistreatment. Many of their allegations were confirmed by an Inspector General report. The report corroborated that the plaintiffs were held in cramped cells for over 23 hours a day, kept awake day and night by bright lights and loud sounds, denied access to basis hygiene items, toilet paper, soap, towel, toothpaste, and eating utensils. Denied for extended periods telephone calls to family and lawyers, allowed no mail or visitors, frequently stripped searched and subjected to physical and verbal abuse. The District Court dismissed most of their claims, reversing, in part, the Second Circuit held that many of the claims could pass the courts threshold. The court took up the case with only six sitting justices. Justices sotomayor and kagan were recused. Justice sotomayor because she had been on the Second Circuit during the early portions of the case. And Justice Kagan, because she was our solicitor general when the case was pending. Justice gorsuch had not yet joined the court when we heard the arguments. Four of the justices voted to reverse. And pivotal to the courts decision was a 1971 precedent. The case was bivens against six unnamed agents of the bureau of narcotics, a case im sure you will become familiar with during your time here. The court held that plaintiff could state a stain for relief directly under the constitution. It was the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures, even when there was no statute granting the right to sue. The president the court held was bivens did not reach claims like those asserted in a bossi, given the compelling interest in national security. Justice breyer dissented, in an opinion i joined. He took the unusual step of summarizing his dissent from the bench, and that meant that he thought the courts decision was not just wrong, but egregiously so. Without a right to sue, he urged , the constitutional safeguards against arbitrary detention and abusive treatment of detainees, would be toothless. Abossi guided the court in a case decided soon after, hernandez versus mesa. The episode concerned a Border Patrol agent on the texas side of the border who fatally shot a 15yearold mexican national. The agent fired while the boy was playing in a culvert that separated the two countries. The boys parents sued the officer seeking monetary compensation. With all of the courts judges sitting, the fifth circuit held that because the boy was shot while he was on the mexican side of the border the Fourth Amendment did not apply to the officers use of deadly force. In an unsigned opinion, the court instructed the fifth circuit to consider, as an initial matter, and in light of the abossi decision, whether a claim could be mounted under bivens. Again, Justice Breyer dissented, and again, i joined him. The colbert was jointly controlled and maintained. Justice breyer emphasized, the area was policed by both mexico and the United States. It should not have been material, in our view, where in the culvert that bullet fired by the federal officer struck the boy. A case coming to us from the federal circuit, mattel against tam, targeted a provision of the lanham act, our trademark act, a law that prohibited the patent and Trademark Office from registering a disparaging trademark. Simon tam sought to trademark a name he chose for his band. The slants. His aim was to reappropriate a term long used to disparage a minority group, and to render the term, instead of a slur, a badge of pride. The patent and Trademark Office refused to register the mark on the sole ground that it disparaged people of asian descent. Sitting with all of its judges, a fractured federal circuit held that the provision that bans disparaging marks, a viewpoint discriminatory measure incompatible with the First Amendment. We affirmed that judgment. There were 2 opinions from each of the four justices. All of us agreed that the trademark is the trademark holders speech, and not the governments speech. The underlying issue had received considerably more attention in the dispute over the nfls Washington Redskins trademark. The patent and Trademark Office canceled protection for the redskin trademark in 2014, at the request of a group of native americans. The federal District Court upheld the cancellation, ruling that redskins was disparaging to a substantial composite of native americans. The appeal to the Fourth Circuit was placed on hold pending our decision in the slants case. But one of the problems these cases present is what exactly does disparaging mean . Beauty is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. To the Trademark Office examiner slants was a racial , insult. To the slants themselves, it was an expression of pride in their heritage. I checked before coming here to find out what happened to the redskin case. In june, the Fourth Circuit asked the parties to inform the court in light of the decision in the slants case if oral argument was necessary. The lawyer for the redskins, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, the native americans that had complained, and the government agreed that the slants case was controlling and that there would be no need for oral argument. Another First Amendment case, the issue was access to internet by former sex offenders. A state law made it a felony for a registered sex offender to access a broad array of social networking websites. The offender knew that the sites did not restrict membership to adults. Packingham had served a sentence for taking indecent liberties with a 13yearold. He served his time. Several years later, he posted a Facebook Page celebrating his success in getting a traffic ticket dismissed. For that posting, he was charged with violating a North Carolina law banning him from using ace from using facebook, or amazon. Com, the washington post, and more. In defense of the statute, North Carolina stressed its vital interest in protecting children from sexual predators. But the law was stunningly overbroad the Supreme Court , held, because it barred packingham from using all the sites that others use to engage in ordinary and protected speech, for example, interacting with their elected representatives, obtaining online education, and finding gainful employment. Applying the First Amendment to the internet, the court recognized would be a trying , task and no doubt the future would bring more opportunities to address the matter. The state department of Natural Resources denied funding on the ground that Trinity Lutheran was a church. The department did so relying on an article of the Missouri State constitution that read no money shall ever be taken from the , directly orry indirectly, in age of any church, sect, or denomination of religion. Trinity lutheran challenged the departments ruling, urging that exclusion from the Grant Program violated the free exercise and equal protection clauses by discriminating on the basis of religious status. Disagreeing with the lower court, the court held excluding the church from the Grant Program violated the federal constitution. Generally available benefit the court reasoned could not be withheld on account of the beneficiaries religious identity. Justice sotomayor explained in her view First Amendment religion clauses demanded a stricter separation of church and state. Two cases on our docket concern questions stemming from the courts 2015 decision in obergefell against hodges. Obergefell held samesex couples must be afforded same rights to wed as heterosexual partners. In smith, we summarily reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of arkansas concerning birth certificates. We held that state may not deny to marry samesex couples the right afforded by state law to married opposite sex couples to have the name of the birth mothers spouse ended as the second parent on the childs birth certificate. On the same day that we so ruled, we granted a review in a case arising under the colorado antidiscrimination act, a case that has gotten more attention, i think, than any other of our current docket. Masterpiece capeshaw against colorado civil Rights Commission. A baker, based on religious beliefs refused to bake wedding , cakes for samesex couples. He withheld cookies and ordinary cakes, but he would not create a cake celebrating their marriage. Colorado sanctions him for violating the states antidiscrimination law and we will decide in the term about to begin whether the bakers claim to freedom of religion prevails over the states application of antidiscrimination law. For the current term, we have so far granted review in 26 cases, garnering considerable interest is carpenter against United States. The historic communication act permits the government to obtain without getting a warrant cellphone records that reveal a persons whereabouts over the course of several months. The petition in carpenter asked whether constitution requires a warrant to access such records. Answered no. Cuit it held a cell phone user voluntarily shares information including her whereabouts with , her carrier, accordingly the court of appeals ruled no Fourth Amendment search occurs and no warrant is needed to gain the information. We also agreed to hear gill against whitford, wisconsin asked us to review the ruling of a threejudge federal District Court in joining wisconsins redistricting plan as impermissible partisan gerrymander. So far the court has held , racebased gerrymandering unconstitutional, but not found a manageable, reliable measure of fairness for determining whether a partisan gerrymander violates the constitution. In three consolidated cases, we will consider Employment Contracts reporting to relinquish in favor of binding individual arbitration the right to pursue class or collective litigation. Such employer dictated contracts, employees urge , violates the National Labor relations act, which protects workers rights to act collectively for their mutual interests. Additionally, the government supported the employees, but recently it switched sides and now relying on the federal arbitration act, supports the employers position. The switch place general at odds with the position taken by the National Labor relations board, petitioner in one of the three cases and formerly represented by this general. The acting solicitor general has given nlrb permission to brief and argue its own views, so we will have two arguments by government representatives on opposite sides of the issue and that will be a first for me in nearly 25 years ive served on the court. Finally, on june 1, the government filed petition seeking review of the Fourth Circuits decision halting the president s travel ban, that decision affirms an injunction against implementation of the executive order limiting travel to this country by persons from six predominantly muslim countries. The government also filed an application requesting a stay of the Fourth Circuits injunction, pending the Supreme Courts review, as well as stay of another injunction of the same executive order coming from the District Court in hawaii. After the ninth circuit upheld district of hawaiis injunction, the government asked us to treat that stay application as a petition for review from the circuits decision. The Court Granted both petitions, the one from the ninth circuit and the one from the Fourth Circuit, and consolidated the cases for argument in october. The court also stayed the injunction in part foreign nationals with bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States continue to be sheltered by the fourth and ninth circuits injunction. A relationship is bona fide if it is close familiar relationship and that includes grandparents or a documented tie to a u. S. Institution, student admitted to a u. S. University, a worker who has accepted an offer of employment from a u. S. Company, lecturer invited to address a u. S. Audience, all those people would qualify. As to those individuals, the executive order may not be enforced, pending our decision in the case granted review. There is only one prediction thats entirely safe about the upcoming term and that is it will be momentous. And now im ready for my conversation with the dean. [applause] privilege to be able to hear from Justice Ginsburg in her upcoming term. Thank you so much. [applause] one thing i would like to do i would like to talk about some of your cases, both as a litigator and on the court. Since our first year students here, one of the things that is true about this class here, u make it as you look at the audience is that many of our first year students are women. Which we are very proud of. That wasnt the case when you were a law student. Justice ginsburg the contrast is gigantic. At the harvardss law school included over 500 students. Nine of us were women. A big jump from my husband who was one year ahead of me. Men and had about 500 5 women. Nine of us were women. We were strange. [laughter] Justice Ginsburg to look at a class like this is exhilarating. That is terrific. Let me follow up with a question from one of our students. Are you here . Writes, how do you think the Legal Profession has changed in its attitude and treatment of women since you began your career . What is your advice for young women navigating the legal world today . Justice ginsburg how do i think the Legal Profession has changed for women . Yes, how has it changed in its attitude and treatment of women since you began your career . Justice ginsburg when i graduated from law school, there was no antidiscrimination laws. There wasnt even an equal pay act. There were no title seven principles, antidiscrimination in employment law. Employers were entirely upfront about wanting no lad lawyersy. Signup sheets for interviews with summer jobs or permanent associates on graduation often said men only. I dont know how many times i heard from potential employers, well we had a woman once and she was dreadful. The obvious response, how many men have you had that didnt turn out the way you wanted . [laughter] Justice Ginsburg for the women of my generation, the hard thing was to get the first job. Once you do it, we performed it at least as well as the men, often better. The second job was not the hurdle that the first one was. And this is not just private law firms. Haveal judges i would given anything to clerk for judge learned hand. Who i served lived around the corner from that finishedge, and when i early enough i would ride uptown within. This great man would say anything that came into his head. He would use curse words my mother never taught me. [laughter] Justice Ginsburg and i asked hand, i dont seem to be inhibiting you by my presence in this car. Why wont you consider me as a law clerk . And he said, young lady, i am not looking at you. I was in the backseat. I wasnt there. That was the attitude prevailing at the time. Is, all of the closed doors are now open. There is nothing that a woman cant do in law among the crazy things that prevailed when i started out. The u. S. Attorneys office were not accept women in the criminal , only the civil division. When i asked why, i was told there are some tough terminal types and we cannot risk having a woman being a prosecutor. Peoplee you seen who are representing those tough criminal types have a much closer relationship and the prosecutor does. Many of them are women. It was irrational. The antidiscrimination laws made a difference. While i was teaching at columbia, there was a lawsuit against a dozen top law firms in new york for discriminating against women applicants for employment. The women at columbia and nyu had a collaboration. They had a collaboration with some of the male students. The asked them, when you interview someone for a summer job or permanent job, ask. Level with me. What do you really think about women lawyers . That is the basis on which they got the trial defendants. [laughter] as the caseberg was assigned, immediately the defendants moved to have her recruits herself recruit we qs herself. Recuse herself. Nobody would be qualified. The closed doors, those are gone. Att remains is harder to get. Is a title example vii case that was brought in the for 1970s against at t disproportionately dropping out women applicants for middlemanagement jobs. The women did as well as the men, at least as well as the men. Criteria. Flunked disproportionately at the very last step. Was ast that step total person test. It was an interviewer interviewing them for a promotion. Out that all the. Nterviewers were white men when they faced someone who would like them there was a certain familiarity, a comfort level. I know what this person is like. If the person sitting across the table is of another race or is a woman, it is different discomfort on the side of the interviewer. It was not a case of i do not want any women to be promoted. It was not deliberate discrimination. It was an unconscious find. People who question other that exist, think of a symphony orchestra. Reporters, critics swore they could tell the difference between a woman playing and a man. The New York Times critics were very definite about that. Suggested lets put him to the test. Lets blindfold him and see if you can tell the difference. He was all mixed up. Up with theon came , why dont we drop a curtain between people applying for jobs in orchestra and people conducting the audition . See. Way, they will not the unconscious bias will be eliminated. I told the story at a Music Festival some years ago. A young violinist came up to me to tell me i had left out something. Well, what did i leave out . You left out that we addition to we auditioned shoeless so they cannot hear a womans high heels. If you go to a concert, you will see women all over. Player. The heart player. Since we cannot replicate the curtain, we have to find other ways to overcome the unfair highest that still exist. Much of the change and inances any quality equality. How did you side decide that you wanted to litigate cases that would focus in on increasing equality for women. How did insberg decide to become a flaming feminist litigator . [laughter] [applause] that is a fair way to the question. I was aginsberg beneficiary of the times and the professor would have called the climate of the era. To illustrate that, compared my in kindergarten and my son. My daughter was born in 1955. There were very few working moms in the class. Professorr is a law working in copyright. Parents her schoolmates felt sorry for her because her mother worked. So she was often invited for afterschool and weekends. Later was born 10 years in 1965. It was no longer unusual to have in the family. And had become the prevailing pattern. Once peoples mindset had changed, it was time for the law to catch up to the changes. It became possible to win cases that you could not win, even 10 years earlier. Cases is oneorite of the state of michigan past cannot about a woman work as a bartender unless her husband is the owner of the establishment. Put a woman and her daughter out of work. During world war ii, when so many men were off defending our began to take jobs that they had not taken before. One of them women did rather well was bartending. The Bartenders Union did not like that. When the boys came back home and wanted to get the women out, so the state passed this law. A barrier sure that put this these women out of work. Itcause places can be dangerous. They made very light of it. In 1961, when the court decided the case against florida, it was a woman who we would call battered. Her philandering husband had humiliated her to the breaking point. Batsaw her sons baseball and brought it over her husbands head with all her might. He hit his head against the hard. Loor it was the end of their altercation and the beginning of her murder investigation. She was put in denied the opportunity to be judged by a jury of her peers. Said women court have nothing to complain about. Have the best of both worlds. They do not have to serve if they do not want to. If they want to serve, they can go to the Clerks Office and volunteer. The exemption is perfectly reasonable because after all, women are the home and center of family life. You can imagine how she must have felt when she received news of that decision. What about me . Her idea was if i had women on that jury, they make might not acquit me but they might have convicted me of a lesser crime. Wasmurder, for which she convicted. That was up until 1961. When the turning point came, in the Supreme Courts decision in 1971 for a case for reviewing, it was for by the challenge of sally reed. On there was the name of two women. These were women who would say the same thing we were saying in the 1970s. They had set it in the 1940s and 1950s. Authorities mission was to put women on juries in every state in the union. Woman so far ahead of her time, seeking both Racial Justice and gender equality. One of the things that propelled murrayan article polly janco crow ined the law. Thatointed to all the laws say women cannot do this or woman cannot do this. I think it was an apt name for that. We put those two names on the brief. We knew we were standing on their shoulders. They kept the idea alive when society was not yet ready to listen. I was fantastically lucky that in the 1970s, the Womens Movement was coming alive all over the world. It was not just the u. S. Phenomenon. 1975. S. Had declared International Womens year. Mene were women and advocating change. Change in what had been the separate fears. Man was the breadwinner and the woman was the caretaker of the children and the home. If either one stepped out of his or her proper role, it would be disadvantaged. A number of the cases brought in. He 1970s about lamplighters he had a tragic event in his life. He was married to a High School Math teacher. She had a healthy pregnancy. Baby. O have the youdoctor came out and said have a healthy baby boy, but your wife died of an embolism. He vowed that he would not work fulltime until his child was in school fulltime. Between parttime earning and Social Security benefits, he could just about make it. Social security benefits, when young child is left with one surviving. We went to the Social Security office and asked for child and care benefits. E was told we are sorry these are mothers benefits. They are not available for fathers. Of the way thel law worked. The discrimination starts with the women as wage earner. Although she pays the same Social Security taxes as a man pays, her family does not get the same protection from government. Discrimination against the mail as parents, he would have no choice. He would have to work fulltime in order to support himself and his child. Old chief said this is why should the baby have the chance to be cared for personally by a parent, only if the parent is a female and not if the parent is male . We were really on a roll in the 1970s. All these distinctions that had been taken for granted were no longer possible. The u. S. Civil Rights Commission did a story study of all the provisions that differentiated on the basis of gender. For those of you who are interested in being litigators for change, it is a brilliant model that you came up with. When you are arguing before a , to findeme court cases in which men are discriminated against and make that the basis. All thosensberg cases seem to me to start with discrimination against the woman. As a parentvantaged because the woman is not considered a true member of the labor force. It was great to have the opportunity to be part of that change. It would not have been possible. It was extraordinary. , you and at the outset Justice Marshall are the only members of the court in our lifetime who really would have been historic figures because of what you have done before the court. What you did in terms of fighting for womens equality was really transformative. Justice ginsberg i followed his lead innocence. A sense and a number of cases. Marshall went before courts and said these facilities are vastly unequal. Cases. Won several he said now it is time to tell the courts. Separation forced by the law can never be equaled. He had the building blocks. That is what we tried to do, to take places that were clear winners and take to the court all caps of stations by gender classifications by gender should be reviewed with suspicion. We copied marshals strategy, but i make feel uneasy when people make that comparison. In the daysshall, was appearing in court would wake up in the morning and not know whether he would be alive at the end of that day. My life was never at risk. We are all in your debt. It was so profoundly transformative. Katie oneill has a question. Is what do youn think is the most pressing issue for women today . Challenge,sberg the at the is harder to get getting ready rid of over classifications. I explained the unconscious bias and him and on. Phenomenon. It is a question of having a family life and a worklife, having a balance between those two. Im really sad to hear people of theclimb to the top tree in the Legal Profession, a woman half has to forgo marriage and children. Thinking of my dear colleagues, hasra day oconnor, who three very adult boys. I had two children. It is essential for that to have that satisfying family life and work life. A partner who thinks your work is as important as his. You were very fortunate to have a partner like that. Justice ginsberg yes. I said many times. He was an incredible teacher. He was the first boy i ever dated who cared that i had a brain. [laughter] he was remarkable. Justice ginsberg he had many talents. One of them, he was a great chef. [laughter] Justice Ginsberg when of the most popular books is called supreme chef. He is a supreme chef. The spouses meet for lunch and they rotate catering responsibilities. Marty was always number one pick. They decided the perfect tribute to him would be a cookbook. I know he would have loved it to have a cookbook with his name on it. Recipes. Out 150 she picked 30 out of them. I showed the selection to my that he and she said not have picked those. All the recipes in that book i picked by my daughter. Areur picked by my not picked by my daughter. Fit herone of her own recipes. We are almost out of time. Mentioning martys book brings to mind a book that i am sure will soon be a hot seller in the Supreme Court bookshop. ,t is a book on your work authored by your personal trainer. Speech at a did a brian called it to order. I knew he was your trainer. I said what is the justices teen . Routine . First, he wanted me to do a plank. Here is the picture. [laughter] [applause] he did not want to give away the secrets in advance of the book. Can you describe your routine . Justice ginsberg i should describe how it started. He has been my personal trainer since 1999. With a bout of cervical cancer. A ninehour surgery, nine months of chemotherapy, six weeks of daily radiation. Of thatcame to the end , but he said you look like a concentration camp survivor. You have to do something to build yourself out. Yourself up. Somebody told me about brian who worked at the Clerks Office. Andsaid he was training her that he would be right for me. It has been a long time. He takes me slowly up to the level that i can reach. I can be exhausted at the end of the day when i meet him and spend an hour with him. I come back feeling fresh. I understand you can do 20 pushups and you do not use your knees. Is that correct . Justice ginsberg no. Standing up, pushing against the door. We have been doing regular pushups. Could you tell the students about parasailing . Parasailing. Erg i do not do it anymore. I was teaching at a summer program. The hotel overlooked the beach. Watched these parasails and thought that would be a fun thing to do. My husband thought i was crazy. We were on the beach. Started walking across the beach. I said, how would you like to parasail with me . He said, why not . His wife was aghast that the two of us were up in the clouds together. It was a wonderful it arians. Experience. I thought i was going to fall off. When we got in the air and i , itized we were very secure was quite wonderful. I believe the wife said something to him about Justice Ginsberg something about if anything happened, be sure that she is the one who is saved. [laughter] [applause] you work as a champion for justice. Your work on the court, something that cannot be more inspiring to our students. This is a small token of our thanks to be presented to you. Thank you very much. I would like a big round of applause. [applause] thank you so much. [applause] and that was early on when trump was announced and they were word that he would be bad they were worried they would not be the best candidate. And i went with reproductive rights, equal pay. Sunday night, cartoonist. Works i do not remember who did the interview but he said Something Like he never went to any washington dinners without his wife. And i thought, ok, this was a gift. I thought, really . You do not have any problems worrying about a womans personal reproductive choices, one of the most personal intimate things that a woman can deal with but you cannot go to dinner where a woman fully closed is at the same table. Sunday night at eight eastern on cspan q a. This weekend on American History tv on cspan3, saturday at 8 p. M. Eastern on lectures in history. Temple University ProfessorAndrew Eisenberg on the Environmental Movement of the 1970s. The noble savage environmentalist, was a product that was sold to American Consumers just like max or cars. P. M. , pilot of0 the united airlines, and a format d. C. Air National Guard f16 pilot talk about their experiences during 9 11. We take off and we had northeast into a serene and peaceful silent sky. We hads no one airborne out to northwest and were never find anything. He and i were not heroes that day, the passengers were the heroes. On sunday at 6 p. M. Eastern on american artifact. The Harriet Tubman underground railroad visitor center. It opened up a new world for Harriet Tubman. Allowedepilepsy which her to have these amazing visions and a direct connection to god. She heard voices and people singing. She thought these were Amazing Things and had vivid dreams. It was terrible on the physical side but very great for her faith. Our interview with Robert Draper the photojournalist continues. That shows dan bartlett the Communications Director pointing to the tv, that was the first time we started seeing the replay of the second tower getting hit. American history tv every week and all we can only on cspan3. President trump has been meeting with World Leaders who are in new york to speak with the u. N. Today he met with the head of the president the head of the Palestinian Authority mahmoud abbas