This is about one hour, 10 minutes. [applause] Justice Ginsburg, members of our faculty, our class, it is a privilege to welcome you here today. A few years ago, we began inviting people to offer reflections to our entering class. This has been an extraordinary opportunity for our students, as you embark on your legal education, to listen to and learn from someone whose career has shaped the law. And by attending georgetown law, you have chosen to learn the law you have chosen to learn the law in a place where laws are made. And this is evident in the speakers who have welcomed our first year students. People have heard from Justice Sotomayor, justice stevens, and the late justice scalia. And we have been so fortunate the last two years, this is the second year in a row, to be joined by the legendary Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg. [applause] i know a long introduction of Justice Ginsburg is not necessary for georgetown students. You know about her decisions and her pointed and influential dissents. And you will also learn that she occupies a rare place in legal history. Like Justice Thurgood marshall, Justice Ginsburg would be a historic figure, and her case, as an advocate for gender equality, even if she had never been a judge or a justice. And as im sure you all know, the judge, the justice, is also a cultural icon. How many of us can say that we have inspired a oneact opera, two coloring books [applause] and the phenomenon known as the notorious rbg. We recently received a portrait of Justice Ginsburg, which we now very proudly display as you come into the auditorium. Her late husband, marty ginsburg, is a beloved professor, past professor and scholar at georgetown law for many years, and we have a professorship named in his honor. Justice ginsburgs authorized biographers, and the coauthors with her, of a recent book my own words, are members of our faculty. Im deeply grateful to you for your commitment to our students and alumni. Thank you, Justice Ginsburg. [applause] a couple of logistical announcements before we begin. After the justices remarks, we will go to the reception in the atrium. That is one. That is reconnect. Two, silence your cell phone phones i did mine on the way in. And in terms of the format, the justice will talk for a little bit, about the past term. Then, after that, i will ask some questions. And we received a lot of questions from the audience, so i will, time allowed, asked as many of as many of them is we can. Please join me in welcoming, Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg. [applause] i feel so welcome. And you are mostly firstyear students, is that right . A very exciting time. I remember how i felt, my first year of law school. It was a new kind of learning. In college, i was mostly, passively taking notes. But your law school classes, i hope, are engaging you into thinking. I thought we could begin by my giving you a resume of what last term was like at the Supreme Court, and say a few things about the term that will start on the first monday in october. 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. Signal achievement . The installation of a frozen yogurt machine. [laughter] 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, for argument. Justice breyer won hands down, with 814 words. Justice kagan took second with 646. Justice sotomayor, third, with 550. Running neck and neck as the fastest justice in getting our opinions, rapid ruth and swift sonja. [applause] 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. 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. Couldnt 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 mused, 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 50 of the cases. We were unanimous in the bottom line judgment and at least 31 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, sesssions versus morelli santana and seeger against a bossi. Both were among the most closely watched. Borelli santana concerned a birthright statute, treating 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 a continuous. Of one 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. Congressspecification for different requirements for unwed citizen mothers and fathers, the Second Circuit 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 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, 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 Attention Center in brooklyn, new york, where plaintiffs were confined for periods running from threemonth state 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 not basic hygiene items, toilet paper, soap, towel, toothpaste, and eating utensils. Denied for extended periods, telephone calls to family and lawyers, allowed no mailer 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. Justice is a sotomayor and kagan were recused. Testis sotomayor, because she had been on the second kirk Second Circuit during the early portions of the case. And Justice Kagan, because she was our solicitor general, when the case was pending. And Justice Gorsuch had not yet joined the court when we heard the arguments. Four of the justices voted to reverse, and principle, and pivotal to the courts decision was a 1971 president cedent, 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. 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 case concerned a Border Patrol agent on the texas side of the border who fatally shot of 15yearold mexican national. The agent fired while the boy was playing in a culvert that separated the two countries. The boys parents sue the officer, seeking monetary compensation. Will 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. 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. 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, fractured federal circuit held that the provision that bans disparaging marks, a viewpoint discriminatory measure incompatible with the First Amendment. They affirmed that judgment we affirmed that judgment. 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, ending 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 plaintiffs, 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, and the government agreed that the slants case was controlling, and that there would be no need for oral argument. One case was about sex offenders. A state law made it a felony for a sex offender to access a broad array of social networking websites. The offender knew that the sites did not restrict membership to adults. Hacking ham had served a sentence for taking indecent liberties with a 13yearold. He served his time. In several years later, he posted a facebook note 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 book, facebook, or amazon. Com. 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 free speech, for example, 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 no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion. Trinity lutheran challenged the departments ruling, urging that exclusion from the Grant Program violated the free ssi 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 whether identity. Dissent, 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 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 marry opposite sex couples to have the name of the birth mothers spouse ended as the second parent on the childs birthcouples the right afforded by state law to marry certificate. At this on the same day we so ruled, we granted 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 store 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. The circth circuit answered no, 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 wisconsin 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 partisan jury 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] Justice Ginsburg lets see if it is working. What a 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 are here, one of the things that is true about this class you 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. My entering class at the Harvard Law School included over 500 students. Nine of us were women. A big jump from my husband who was one year ahead of me. His class had about 500 men and 5 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 . Lydia 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 lady lawyers. 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. Federal judges i would have given anything to clerk for judge learned hand. The judge who i served lived around the corner from that great judge, and when i finished 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. And i asked him, judge, i dont seem to be inhibiting you by my presence in this car, why wont you consider me at the law firm . And he said, young lady, im not looking at you, i was in the back seat, just so i wasnt there, but that was the attitude prevailing at the time. Now id say the difference is all the closed doors are now open, theres nothing a woman cant do in the law among the crazy things that prevailed when i started out. The u. S. Attorneys office would not accept women in the criminal division, only civil. Civil liberties. I asked why, i was told, well, there are some tough criminal types and we cant risk having a woman be a prosecutor. I said, have you seen who works at legal aid for no pay or very little pay . People who are representing those tough criminal types have a much closer relationship than the prosecutor does and many of them are women, but they were those irrational distinctions. The antidiscrimination laws made a big difference. While i was a law teacher while i was teaching at columbia, there was a lawsuit brought 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 their favorite male students and they asked the male student, when you interviewed someone for a summer job or permanent job, ask, level with me, what do you really think about women lawyers and thats the basis on which they got the 12 defendants. [laughter] Justice Ginsburg the case was assigned to judge constance motley, and immediately the defendants moved to have her recuse herself. Why . Shes a woman, she couldnt possibly judge this case fairly. And she was a woman with a sense of humor, which she needed the kind of life she led, but so they said, well, who could be who could be impartial because either youre a man or woman, so nobody would be qualified to hear this case. And so, all the overt barriers, the closed doors, those are gone, what remains is harder to get at. The perfect example of that is title 7 case that was brought in the late 70s against at t for disproportionately dropping out women applicants for middle management jobs. The women did as well as the men, at least as well as the men in all of the standard criteria, but they disproportionately the very last step. The very last step was a total person test, an interviewer interviewing the prospect for promotion. It turned out that all of the interviewers were white men and when they faced someone who was like them, there was a certain familiarity, there was a comfort level. I know what this person is like, but if the person sitting across the table is of another race or is a woman, its discomfort on the part of the interviewer, this person is not familiar to me, i dont know quite how to relate to her. It wasnt a case of i dont want any women to be promoted, it was it wasnt deliberate discrimination, but that unconscious bias and the people questioned whether that exists. Think of the symphony orchestra, in my growing up years, never had a woman. Reporters, critics, swore they could tell the difference between a woman playing and a man. The New York Times critic Howard Tubman was very definite about that. Someone suggested, lets put him to the test, lets blindfold him and see if he can tell the difference. He was all mixed up. And then another person came up with a bright idea given what happened with Howard Tubman, why dont we drop a curtain between the people applying for jobs in the orchestra and the people who are conducting the audition. That way they wont see the unconscious bias will be eliminated. A young violinist told me i left out something. You left out we audition shoeless so they wont hear a womans heels on the stage w. That simple change, the dropped curtain, there was almost an overnight change in the composition of the symphony orchestra. Now if you go to a concert, you will see women all over, not just harp players. So if we could replicate the dropped curtain in every sphere of endeavor, it would be wonderful. Since we cant, we have to try other ways to overcome the unconscious bias that still exists. Host so, so much of the change, so much advances in equality are really a product of your work as a litigator. You know, how did you decide that you wanted to litigate cases that would focus in on increasing equality for women . Justice ginsburg how did i decide to become a flaming feminist litigator . [applause] [laughter] host fair way to put the question. Justice ginsburg it is i was beneficiary of the change in the times in what professor called the climate of the era and i can illustrate that by comparing my daughter when she entered kindergarten and my son. So my daughter was born in 1955. They were very few working moms in the class. My daughter, by the way, is a law professor, world leading expert in copyright. She said that her school mates parents felt sorry for her because her mother worked. So she was often invited for after school and weekends. My son was born 10 years later, 1965, it was no longer unusual to have two earner families. In fact, it had become the prevailing pattern. So once peoples lives had changed, it was time for the law to catch up to those changes and became possible to win cases that you couldnt win even 10 years earlier. Two of my favorite cases from the old days one is state of michigan passed a law that says a woman cannot serve as a bartender unless her father or husband is the owner of the establishment. Host mmm. Justice ginsburg that immediately put a woman and her daughter, the concerts, out of work. During world war ii, when so many men were off defending our country, women began to take jobs they hadnt taken before and one of them, women did rather well at was bartending. And Bartenders Union didnt like that, when the boys came back home and wanted to get the women out. So michigan passed this law. It was a case of a barrier that put these two women out of business and the Supreme Court said that was okay, it was okay because places were liquor by the drink is sold can be dangerous. They made very light of it and then in 1961, when the court decided the case of hoyt against florida, it was a woman who today we would call battered. Her philandering husband humiliated her to the breaking point. She spied her young sons baseball bat in the corner of the room, brought it down over her husbands head with all her might. He fell, hit his head against the hard floor, end of their altercation, beginning of her murder prosecution. She was from hillsborough county, florida, didnt put women on the jury rolls. She argued that denies me the opportunity to be judged by a jury of my peers, my peers of course include women. Roll call and the Supreme Court in another opinion said women have nothing to complain about, they have the best of both worlds, they dont have to serve if they dont want to, if they want to serve, they can go to the Clerks Office and volunteer. And the exemption is perfectly reasonable because after all, the woman is the center of home and family life. You can imagine the how hoyt must have felt when she received news about that decision, what about me, she must have thought. Her idea was if i had women on that jury, they might not acquit me, but they very well might have convicted me of the lesser crime of manslaughter. Not murder, for which she was convicted. That was up until 1961. When the turning point came in the Supreme Courts decision in 1971 in a case called reed v. Reed, it was brought by the aca, wrote the brief for the challenge of sally reed. On that brief, replaced name of two women, Dorothy Kenyon and murray, these are women that said the same thing we were saying in the 1970s, they said it in the 40s and 50s, when society was not yet ready to listen. Dorothy kenyons mission was to put women on juries in every state in the union. And murray was a woman so far ahead of her time seeking both Racial Justice and gender equal ity. One of the things that propelled me was an article Pauline Murray and her friend Mary Eastwood wrote, called jane crow in the law. She pointed to all the laws and said, women cant do this, women cant do that. I think jane crow was apt name, named for that, so we put those two names on the brief, although they were by then quite senior and didnt participate in writing the brief, but we knew we were standing on their shoulders. They kept the idea alive when society was not yet ready to listen. Host mmm. Justice ginsburg so i was writing away, fantastically lucky that in the 70s, the Womens Movement was coming alive all over the world. It was not just a u. S. Phenomenon, the u. N. Declared 1975 International Womens year and they were women and men advocating change, change in what had been separate spheres stance of the law, that is the man was the bread winner and the woman was the caretaker of the children and the home and if either one stepped out of his or her proper role, there would be disadvantage. So a number of the cases brought in the 70s, involved male plaintiffs, like steven weisenfelds case. Weisenfeld had a tragic event in his life. He was married to High School Math teacher, she had a very healthy pregnancy, went to have the baby. The doctor came out and said, mr. Weisenfeld, you have a healthy baby boy, but your wife died of an embolism. He vowed that he would not work full time until his child was in school full time. Between parttime earnings, plus Social Security benefits, he could just about make it. There were Social Security benefits when a young child is left with one surviving parent. So he went to the Social Security office and asked for child and care benefits and was told, were sorry, these are mothers benefits, theyre not available for fathers. So that was typical of the way the law worked. The discrimination starts with the woman as wage earner, she is considered a pen money earner, she pays same Social Security taxes a man pays, her family does not get the same protection from government. There was discrimination against male as parent, weisenfeld had no choice, he would have to work full time in order to support himself and his child. And then as my old chief, who was then Justice Rehnquist said this is arbitrary from the point of the baby, why should the baby have the chance to be cared for personally by a parent, only if the parent is female and not if the parent is male . So we were really on a roll in the 70s. All the distinctions that had been taken for granted and had been accepted were no longer possible. The u. S. Civil Rights Commission did a study of all the provisions in the u. S. Code that differentiated on the basis of gender, most of those were gone by the end of the 1970s. Host hmm, for those who are interested in being litigators for change, really it is a brilliant model that you came up with when you are arguing before a male Supreme Court, to find cases in which men are discriminated against and to make that the basis of Justice Ginsburg it wasnt hard to find because in all those cases seemed to me to start with discrimination against the woman. The man is disadvantaged as a parent because the woman is not considered a true member of the labor force. Anyway, it was great to have the opportunity to be part of that change, which would not have been possible. Host really was extraordinary. I said at the outset, i think you and Justice Thurgood marshall are the only members of the court in our lifetime who really would have been historic figures because of what you had done before the court and what you did in terms of fighting for womens equality and for equality was really transformative. Justice ginsburg well i followed his lead in this sense in a number of cases Thurgood Marshall went before courts and said, separate, but equal is not before the court today, these facilities are vastly unequal. And when he had won several cases, he said, now its time to tell the courts forced separation of the races, separation forced by the law, can never be equal. But he had the Building Blocks on the way and that is what we tried to do, to take cases that were clear winners and then say to the court, all classifications by gender should be reviewed with suspicion, heightened standard of review. So we copied Thurgood Marshalls strategy, but i always feel uneasy when people make that comparison, for one thing, Thurgood Marshall in the days he was appear nothing appearing in southern courts would wake up in the morning and not know if he would be alive at the end of that day. My life was never at risk, my personal safety. Host i mean, really, i think were all in your debt, just so profoundly transformative and katie oneal has a question. Katies question is, Justice Ginsburg what is most pressing legal issue for women today . In other words, what would the next big victory for womens rights look like . Justice ginsburg the challenge is, i think, harder to get at than getting rid of overt classifications. There is, i just explained, the unconscious bias phenomenon and then there is the question of having a family life and a work life, having a balance between those two. Im always sad to hear people say to climb to the top of the tree in the Legal Profession, a woman has to forego marriage and children. Very puzzled thinking of my Dear Colleague sandra day oconnor, who has three now very adult boys. I had two children. All of my team for a while on the dc circuit had five children. One thing that is essential to that, to have satisfying family life and work life is a partner who thinks your work is as and a partner who thinks your work as important as his. You were very fortunate to have a partner like that. Yes ivey times, said many times, yes. He was the first boy i ever dated that cared that i have a brain. Him, he was remarkable. He had many talents, one of them, he was a great chef. Most popular books in the Supreme Courts gift shop is called supreme chef. He is the supreme chef. Supreme court spouses meet for lunch and Exchange Catering they rotate catering responsibilities. He was always number one pick. Tells decided the perfect tribute would be a cookbook. I know he would have loved to have a cookbook with his name on it. He had about 150 recipes i disk, she picked 30 out of them. I showed the selection to my that he, and she said would not have picked those. All the recipes in that book are picked by my daughter. There is one entry on the salads that says her season janes caesar salad. So she put one of her own recipes. We are almost out of time. Markeytioning margie markeys book. Book. Tys i actually last week i did a speech at a naturalization ceremony in judgment is chambers, brian was i knew he was your trainer. Source and whats the justices routine . He said first he wanted to see me do a plank, this is the picture. [laughter] [applause] he didnt want to give away the secrets. Could you describe your routine . I should describe how it started. He has been my personal trainer since 1999. It was the year of my bout with , with a ninehour surgery, ninemonths of chemotherapy, six weeks of daily radiation. That,e came to the end of my husband said i look like a concentration camp survivor, i have to do something to build myself up. I asked around, and a district judge told me about brian, who works in the creeks office in the d. C. District court. She said he was training her, and she thought he would be right for me. We have been together for a long time. Me slowly up to the level that i can reach. I can be exhausted it the end of the day when any brian and spend one hour with them and come back fresh, with him and come back fresh. I understand you can do 20 pushups and you dont use your needs. Knees. We just started a pushing against a door, then we did anything the knee thing. One final question. Tell the students about parasailing . I dont do it anymore. I was teaching at a summer program, the hotel overlooked the beach. I watched these carousels para sailors and thought that would be a fun thing to do. My husband thought i was crazy. We were on the beach, and the i asked the dean how you would like to power cell me e carousel with parasail with me. The two of us were up in the clouds to gather. It was a wonderful experience. Up i thoughtled us im going to fall off. When we got into the air, i realized we were very secure. It was quite wonderful. Systemlieve the deans white said something to him . Theres g about if if anything happens, be sure that shes the one that is saved. [laughter] [applause] she was very wise. This was such a privilege to hear from you. You are in every way an inspiration. Your work as a champion for justice, your work on the court is really something that could not be more inspiring than it is for our students. This is a small token of our thanks. Thank you very much, id like a big round of applause. [applause] thank you so much, justice. Earlier this morning, President Trump said the u. S. Would be opposed imposing sanctions on north korea. In about 45 minutes, Steven Mnuchin will hold a briefing in new york city to discuss those sanctions. You can see it live at 3 00 p. M. Cspan. On after that, another press briefing on the north korea sanctions with u. N. Ambassador nikki haley. She will be speaking at 4 30 p. M. Eastern, we will also have that on cspan. President trump has been gathering with World Leaders in new york at the meeting of the uns general assembly. One of the ones he spoke with was crane. Pres. Trump its wonderful to have president poroshenko with us. We spent sometimes recently in we spentuse sometimes recently in the white house. You are making it better and better on a daily basis. I do hear very good
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.