Transcripts For CSPAN Ruth Bader Ginsburg On Social Movements The Supreme Court 20180213

Ginsburg. This is one hour and 20 minutes. [applause] good evening. I am the dean of the university of Pennsylvania Law School and it is my great pleasure to welcome Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg. We are very proud to partner with the National Constitution center tonight. First i want to introduce a bit of the history of the roberts lecture. The lecture is named for our Supreme Court Justice Roberts and was established in 1956. It was cosponsored by the law school. The wording of the original agreement about the lecture says, the lecture is to be delivered by a nationally prominent person who might be expected to make a significant contribution in legal thought. I think we have met and exceeded and blown out of the water that standard tonight with Justice Ginsburg. We celebrate her 25 years on the Supreme Court as well as groundbreaking contributions to american jurisprudence both while on the court and in her tremendous career as a legal scholar, litigator, and lower court judge before she joined the court. Justice roberts himself, was a graduate of penn law. He served for 20 years on the penn law faculty and he went on to a tremendous career. He served as justice on the Supreme Court from 1930 until 1945, he then left the Supreme Court to become a dean of penn law. Dont get any ideas. [laughter] we honor his memory and legacy and there is no greater way to honor it then by Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg tonight. It is now my pleasure tonight to introduce penns president. Since 2004 she has been a visionary leader. She is the eighth president of the university of pennsylvania. Her academic background as a moral and political philosopher is reflected in her commitment at penn to increasing diversity. She has won National Recognition for her achievements. Under her leadership, the university has become the leader in diversifying students. It has significantly expanded the number of students from low income, middle income, and first penn. Tion students at she is a member of the Global University Leaders Forum and was a Founding Member of the global colloquium of University President s which advises the uns secretarygeneral on issues. At penn and throughout the country, she has been a champion of free and open debate and Civil Society and has built a welcoming and inclusive welcoming university environment. We are proud to call her our president here at penn. Amy. [applause] thank you ted, and it is wonderful to welcome so many friends of the National Constitution center, of the university of pennsylvania, of penn law, and of notorious r. B. J. [applause] being a judicial rockstar is not an oxymoron. It is one of the most Important Services to our society that i for one can imagine. I know i speak for everybody here tonight when i say how absolutely thrilled we are to welcome the associate Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg. I consider it a personal privilege to introduce someone i, above all admire and with whom i also feel a deep kinship. 10 years ago, we both appeared , with my privilege, it was her service, to appear together in a documentary, a pbs documentary entitled the jewishamerican. I appeared once, she was the most powerful voice throughout this documentary. I will never forget the version of her life story that she told very vividly in a riddle that comes in many versions. Here is her version of the riddle. What is the difference between a bookkeeper in new yorks Garment District and a Supreme Court justice . One generation. That is a quintessentially american story. A story of the American Dream that her life is dedicated to keeping alive. This is the story of a woman, who by grit and determination, by brains and courage, by compassion and a fiery commitment to liberty and justice for all, rose from unadorned beginnings to become one of the most perfected and yes, most beloved justices of our time. This is the story of our very special guest, associate Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg. Over the course of the past 25 years, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has won renown for her brilliance and Steadfast Service on the Supreme Court of the u. S. And in her service to the u. S. Constitution. The u. S. Constitution that unites our nation, and some would say, defines our nation. Named to the Supreme Court by president clinton in 1993, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has established herself as a brilliant justice, a passionate advocate for justice and equality before the law, and an astute consensus builder within the court. She has lived the life of a pioneer. As a young woman, she left flatbush, brooklyn. Another reason that i feel a her,ship to hurt because i was also born in flatbush, brooklyn. She left to attend college at cornell where she graduated at the top of her class, of course. She was among just nine women to far from dissuading her, such challenge is to basic equity galvanized a steely resolve. She went on to become the first tenured woman faculty member at columbia law school. This is not the first time associate Justice Ginsburg has graced philadelphia with her presence. In 2007, we had the privilege of she went on to become the first tenured woman faculty member at columbia law school. This is not the first time associate Justice Ginsburg has graced philadelphia with her presence. The great contributions she has made to making our country ever more just, equitable, and true to the highest ideals of the u. S. Constitution. Among a lifetime of pioneering efforts in pursuit of justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg became a founder of the American Civil Liberties union womens rights projects arguing six cases before the Supreme Court, winning five of them, and amazing batting average for anyone, a lifetime amazing ecord. She also coauthored the First Law School casebook on sex discrimination. Associate Justice Ginsburg is wildly unjustly heralded as our nations preeminent juress of gender law and equity. By her relentless work and formidable public intellect, she has advanced of the legal status of women and the cause of justice for women and men, for girls and boys everywhere. We are simply thrilled to have her here with us this evening. Thank you so much, associate ustice ginsburg, our notorious r. B. G. Thank you. [applause] i also have a true pleasure of welcoming to the stage with Justice Ginsburg a champion of our constitution, a civic leader here in philadelphia and a dear friend, Jeffrey Rosen. [applause] a professor of law at George Washington university, a noted commentator on legal affairs, and the author of six books. Since two thousand 13, jeffrey has served as the president and ceo of the National Constitution center. Jeffrey has brought energy, excitement, and above all vision to the important work of the National Constitution center. He is a true civic leader, we are grateful for his leadership of this truly unique institution. Truth in advertising, this evenings roberts lecture will not be a lecture at all, but rather a candid conversation between two mines who are steeped in the history and values and challenges of american constitutional law. I know we are in for a fascinating evening. I know there has never been a more important time to have this conversation. Please join me ladies and gentlemen and welcoming Jeffrey Rosen and the honorable Ruth Bader Ginsburg. [applause] Justice Ginsburg please everyone be seated. Rosen Justice Ginsburg it is such an honor and pleasure to welcome you back to the National Constitution center. The last time i saw you was on october 20 when you did me and my wife lauren the great honor of marrying us. Thank you for that wonderful experience. [applause] since then, as president gutman said, you have indeed been a judicial rockstar with Standing Ovations and thrilled audiences. Your travels even took you to sundance where you saw a documentary of yourself. How is your documentary . Justice ginsburg in my opinion, they have done a fantastic job. They did a series for pbs some will years ago called the makers. It was about the Womens Movement in the 1970s. It was done so well, that i was persuaded to say yes to their proposal. Rosen our task tonight, and as amy said it is unimportant time to have this conversation, is to take stock of the progress of gender equality from a tiny began to your time on the Supreme Court, to this remarkable moment we are in now. Because you have been asked about it every place you have gone over the past couple of weeks, i need to begin and i want to have everyone is eager for your thoughts, what are your thoughts on the Metoo Movement and its lasting on the Womens Movement. Justice ginsburg it was a question i was asked this afternoon at the university of Pennsylvania Law School. What i wanted to convey there was that Sexual Harassment of women has gone on forever, but it did not get headlines until a woman named Catherine Mckinnon wrote a book called Sexual Harassment in the workplace. That was the thought of litigation under title vii. A few cases came to the Supreme Court and they all came out right. But still, women were esitant. I think one of the principal reasons was because they feared that they would not be believed. The number of women who have come forward as a result of the Metoo Movement has been astonishing. My hope is that not just that it s here to stay, but that it is as effective for the woman who works as a maid in a hotel as it is for hollywood stars. [applause] rosen many women are wondering, will this prove a lasting advance for women, or will this dvance pass . Justice ginsburg i think it ill have staying power because people, and not only women, men as well as women realize how wrong the behavior was and how is subordinated women. So we shall see. My prediction is that it is here to stay. Rosen why is it happening now . You have told me and conversations over the years that activism by men and women causes political and cultural change. Is there something about what millennials are doing that has caused the movement or Something Else . Justice ginsburg i think we can compare to the gayrights movement when people stepped up and said this is who i am and i am proud of it. They came out in numbers instead of hiding, disguising. That movement developed very rapidly. I think we are seeing the same thing with Sexual Harassment. Rosen did you see this happening . Ustice ginsburg no. And why it happened when it did, i heard people tell stories of Harvey Weinstein many years ago. Then, they decided to do a big story on it. I think it was the press finally aking notice of something they knew long before that propelled it into the place it now holds in the public arena. Osen what is your advice to all women, young women and to all women about how to sustain the momentum of the movement and make its changes lasting . Justice ginsburg i think the number of changes that we have seen, how this has burdened, i have heard from lawyers that women have come forward with stories about things that happened many years ago and even though the statute of limitations is long past, these cases are being settled. One interesting thing is whether it will be an end to this confidentiality pledge. Women who complained and brought to, were offered settlements in which they would agree that they would never disclose what they had complained about. I suspect we will not see those agreements anymore. Rosen what are the legal changes necessary to make these reforms permanent . Justice ginsburg we have the legal reforms, we have had them for a long time. Title vii. It was argued early on that Sexual Harassment has nothing to do with gender discrimination. Everyone knows boys will be boys, and that was that. There are state and federal aws. The laws are there and in place, for people to step forward and se them. Rosen at sundance, you told your own metoo story about an encounter at cornell long ago. Ell us about that. Justice ginsburg i was in a hemistry class at cornell. I was not very adept in the laboratory, so a teaching assistant decided to help me out so much that he offered to give me a practice exam the day efore the actual exam. When i went into the room and looked at the exam paper, i found that it was the practice xam. I knew immediately what this instructor expected as a ayoff. So, instead of being shy, i confronted him and said, how are you do this. That is one of many, many stories that every woman of my vintage knows. Rosin how dare you do this. What would you advise women to say in similar situations, should they be similarly trong . Justice ginsburg yes. This is bad behavior. You should not engage in it and i will not submit to it. I think it is easier today because there are numbers to support the woman who says something. We no longer hear as often as we did in the past, she is making it up. Rosen this is an important question. What is your advice to men in this new regime where people are trying to behave well and figure ut what the new norms are . Rosen treat them like you would like the women in your family to be treated. Particularly your daughters. When you see men behaving in ways they should not, you should tell them. This is improper behavior. Rosen there is a debate, both among women and among men about what sort of behavior should be anctionable and one group is saying that it is wrong to lump together violent behavior [captions Copyright National cable Satellite Corp 2018] rosen there is a debate both mong women and among men about what sort of behavior should be sanctionable, and one group is saying that its wrong to lump together violent behavior like Harvey Weinstein with less dramatic forms of Sexual Conduct and others say all misconduct is rong shoond be sanctioned. There are degrees of conduct, yes, any time a woman is put into a position where she is inferior, subordinate, she should complain, she should not be afraid. There are also calls from people of different peshtives from katherine denueve and others of rather different perspectives for due process. What about due process. It goes beyond Sexual Harassment. First, the accused has a right to defend herself or himself. We certainly should not lose sight of that. Recognizing that these are complaints that should be heard. There has been criticism of some College Codes of conduct if were not giving the accused person a fair opportunity to be heard. Everyone deserves a fair hearing. Are some of those criticisms of the College Codes valid . Do i think they are . Yes. Rosen i think people are hungry for your thoughts about how to alance the values of due process against the need for increased gender equality. Its not one or the other. Its both. We have a system of justice where people who are accused get ue process, so its just applying to this field what we have applied generally some women also fear backlash. They worry that women may have less opportunity for mentorship at work because guys are afraid of interacting with them. Is this valid or not . Let me ask you as a man. Do you think you will encourage women because of the me, too movement . Rosen on the contrary, i have felt like many men sensitized to the plight of women by hearing these stories and it seems like an entirely sala tory thing in the workplace. Yes. Osen your entire veer as an towering career as a litigator and advocate and justice has studied the interplay between political and social movements and the law. You said just this afternoon, that the courts are the least important part of social change. First comes political activism and Public Education and then legislation and then the courts. So looking forward 10 or 20 years, how does the momentum of the me, too, movement get reflected in legislation and in judicial decisions . As i said, i think the law is there. Here are people now who will use it in increasing numbers. But i said before, rights have to start with people who want them, and then the court is a eactive institution. There was a fine federal judge in the is it circuit, who once said the courts dont make the conflagrations but they do their best to put them out. Rosen Marcia Greenberg in her wonderful talk this afternoon mentioned some of your dissenting opinions in Sexual Harassment cases. Is there any area for progress in the law and your dissent . Dissent, there are two kinds of dissents in the statutory case. The aim is to get the legislature to correct the error into which the court has allen. And i think this afternoon, Lily Ledbetters case was a sterling example of that. Lily was an area manager at a Goodyear Tire plant. She started working there in 1978 the only woman doing that job. One day, a coworker put in her mailbox some numbers, nd she recognized what it was, it was the pay that all the area managers were receiving, and lily recognized immediately that she was being paid less than any of the men. Ndeed less than the person she had trained to do the job. O she brought a Discrimination Suit against goodyear, and she did win a substantial verdict. It was a jury trial. When the case got to the Supreme Court, they dismissed it on the grounds that she sued too late. The law title 7 requires that you complain within 180 days of the discriminatory incident. Well, lily had let the system go on for two decades and didnt omplain. But of course, if she had, first how could she . She didnt have the salary for years, but assuming that she did nd she complained at the first indication that she was paid less, the defense is clear, the defense would have been, oh, it had nothing to do with lily being a woman. She just doesnt do the job as well. But then, when shes done the job year after year and gets good performance ratings, that defense is no longer available and she has a winnable case. But the court said she sued too ate. It was a simple basis for saying she was on time. Every paycheck that she received reflected the differential, so she could sue within 180 days of any paycheck. The reaction to lilys case oh, by the way, i ended the dissent by saying the ball is now in congresss court to correct the error. The court has made, and in very short order, the Lily Ledbetter fair pay act was passed, overwhelmingly on both sides of the aisle and it was the first piece of legislation that obama igned when he took office. You could write that case because congress can fix it. If its a constitutional case, congress cant fix it. The change would have to come about either through constitutional amendment and our constitution is powerfully hard to amend. Congress lets it out and it takes 3 4 of the states to ratify. I know from experience with the equal rights amendment how hard t is to amend the constitution so the next best thing is not next best thing, the better thing, is for the court to correct the mistake its made and weve had a long tradition of dissents becoming the law of he land. One example, the free speech dissents of justices holmes you know a lot about those nother example is the dreadful dread scott decision. There were two dissenters who recognized that was wrong. There was the first Justice John Marshall holland who dissented n the socalled civil rights cases, and then some 13 years later ferguson. I think its good when we look back to see that there were people who thought the Court Judgment was wrong and wrote the judgment that was it starts out as a dissent and then in the next generation become the opinion of the court. Rosen which of your powerful dissents do you most hope to become a majority . Well, i would like to see Shelby County undone. That was a case involving the Voting Rights act of 1965. It was, the way the law works is this. If a state or a city or a county has had a history of blocking africanamericans from voting, any change in voting legislation would have to be precleared either by the Civil Rights Division of the department of justice or by a three judge court sitting in the district of columbia. The courts position was, that as 1965. Many years later, some states that discriminated may not be discriminating anymore. So the congress has to come up i thought they werent as restrained as they should be because they should have respected the overwhelming vote in the congress to renew the Voting Rights act. Thats one decision. Rosen how about two or three more. [laughter] lets see. Do you have one of my dissents . Rosen absolutely. Well, one of them is the socalled, what did they call t, partial birth abortion. This was a medical procedure hat is no ones first choice but it may be the only option for a woman and when the court efused to recognize that a ban on such a procedure just overlooked that some women had no other choice, so thats a decision i would like to see overruled. If you go back in time two decisions from the 1970s, the Supreme Court held that medicaid coverage was not available for any abortion therapeutic or ontherapeutic. Which left us with the situation in our country where any woman of means, any woman who can afford to go to a neighboring state, will have access to bortion. He people who wont are poor people who cant travel, cant take off days from work. And thats a sorry situation. People ask me, oh, what would happen if roe v. Wade were overruled . And my answer is for affluent women it wont make any difference. There will be a number of states that simply wont return to the way it once was. At a time of roe v. Wade decision there were four states, new york among them, that provided abortion in the first trimester with no questions asked. Those states and others will not go back to the way it was, so the situation that we have, i think, is most unfortunate, that the people who are disadvantaged are the most voiceless people, poor women. So that decision and other restrictive abortion decisions i would like to see overruled. Rosen the carhart dissent was one where you set out a vision of access to abortion central to a womans citizenship. He a womans ability to control her own destiny. Osen how should that right be applied more broadly and what are its implications if the court were to take it seriously. It would mean that women would have access to something that should be part of healthcare like any other condition. Rosen one of your great hopes is for men and women to take equal responsibility for childcare. I had that remarkable moment when i interviewed you years ago in the 1990s, and you pointed to a picture of your soninlaw with your then infant grandson and said, thats my hope for the future, when men take equal responsibility for women with childcare why is that so central for womens equality and are we doing better than we were 10 or 0 years ago . We are doing a lot etter. Hen i was in my last year of law school, i was attending columbia law school, my daughter as between three and four. There was only one nursery chool in that entire area. We would they would take a child from 9to 12 or 3 to 5. By the time my daughter was a mother herself and teaching at columbia law school, there were over two dozen full day daycare facilities in that area. A few of my law clerks have taken parental leave, male law clerks. Its more common than at this time once was. My very first year on the court, i was served by a law clerk who had been with me on the d. C. Circuit, and his application was tremendously attractive to me. Why . Because he wrote that he was studying law at night at georgetown and the reason was, that his wife, an economist, had a good job at the world bank. That and one other thing. He submitted as his writing sample his first year of law School Writing exercise, and it as the theory of contract as illustrated in wagners ring cycle. Rosen how is the theory i was going to say about that, i asked the chief, this is way back, in 1993 and 1994, if he could have access to west law lexus at home. And the chief said no, the law clerks were expected to stay however long it was necessary on the premises. The next year, after that, all of the law clerks had access to est law and lexus at home. Rosen well save the wagner question, this is from 1986. I say this because its a golden time and its very important that the audience understands how far you think youve come from when you started off and where you have to go. So you said in 1986, in this piece, some thought on the debate between special versus qual treatment feminism, where i claim my principle affirmative action plan would have three legs. First it would promote equal educational opportunity, effective job training for women. Second, my plan would give men encouragement and incentives to share more evenly with women the joys, responsibilities, worries, upsets, and sometimes tedium of raising children from infancy to adulthood, and third, plan would make quality daycare available from infancy on. How far have we come in achieving those goals . We have come a considerable istance. What i just described as one Nursery School in an area to now, i mean, the changes ive seen in my lifetime has been normous. Of course, we havent reached nirvana, but the progress that weve made, makes me hopeful for he future. By the way, i said in that affirmative action plan, my affirmative action plan would be for men as teachers in kindergarten and grade schools. I think that that would be onderful for children, if they could see men in caring roles just as they see women. Rosen there was a piece yesterday in the New York Times about how kids who saw toys that defied gender stereotypes were more likely to think that girls should play with trucks and boys with dolls. Is it important to break down stereotypes. This magazine had a record of songs for children, and one of them was william has a doll. The recording is called free to be you and me, it was done by arlo thomas. Rosen i grew up on that tv show and i think its in my mind right now. What is your message to the next generation of feminists . What are the goals that remain to be achieved . Its the unconscious bias. Its powerfully hard to get a handle on. Unconscious bias, well, my favorite illustration is the Symphony Orchestra, when i was growing up, you never saw a woman in a Symphony Orchestra xcept perhaps the harpist. Howard was a wellknown music critic for the New York Times, swore that he could tell the difference, blindfolded whether it was a woman playing the piano or a man, or the violin. So someone a had the bright idea putting him to the test. Blindfolded him, and what appened . He was all mixed up. He identified a pianist as a man when it was a woman, and he was ood enough to admit that unconscious bias was operating. So someone got the even brighter idea to put up a curtain between the people who are auditioning nd the judges. And that simple device almost overnight led to women showing up in Symphony Orchestras in numbers. Now, i wish we could have a drop curtain in every field of endeavor but one example of the nconscious bias that still exists was a title 7 suit brought in the late 1970s, and the plaintiffs were women who had not succeeded in getting middle management jobs at at t. Hey did very, very well on all he standard criteria, but they flunked disproportionately at the last stage, and what was that last stage . It was what was called a total person test. The total person test was an executive interviewing the candidate for promotion. And why were women dropping out disproportionately. It was because of a certain discomfort that the executive had in dealing with someone who s different. If hes interviewing a man, well, he sort of knows this person is just like me and hes comfortable. But if its a woman, or a member of a Minority Group, he feels uncomfortable. This person is a stranger to him and that shows up in how he rates the candidate. Rosen so the solution to unconscious bias is to bring men and women the more women this is something that Justice Oconnor ften said. That women of our age should get out there and make a good show, and that will encourage other women, and the more women that are out there doing things the better off all of us will be. [applause] rosen its a time of such anxiety, the political system is so polarized. Men and women are figuring out how to interact with each other. What is your advice about how civil interactions are possible and do i want to share the advice that you gave to lauren and me and that youve given to so many couples you have married. Explain what the police son is because its profound and very wise. If youre referring to my motherinlaws advice on my wedding day. Osen yes. I was married in my husbands home, and just before the eremony, my motherinlaw took me aside and said, i would like to tell you the secret of a happy marriage. Ill be glad to know what it s. She said dear, in every good marriage, it helps sometimes to be a little deaf. [laughter] and thats advice i have applied not only in 56 years of marriage, but to this day, in my current workplace. [laughter] [applause] [laughter] if an unkind word is said, you just tune out. It is a profound lesson in not acting in anger, and others lose their temper, not losing yours. Justice ginsburg well, emotions like anger, remorse, and jealousy are not productive. They will not accomplish nything, so you must keep them under control. In the days when i was a flaming feminist litigator, i never said o judges who asked an improper question, you sexist pig. [laughter] Justice Ginsburg i will tell you one such incident. I was arguing a case in trenton, new jersey before a threejudge ederal district court. One said, well, women are doing fine these days. Opportunities are equal for them everywhere. And i said, your honor, Life Training isnt available to women. He said, even in the military to have equal opportunity. And i answered him with Flight Training is not available. His response to me was, oh, dont tell me that. Women have been in the air forever. I know from experience with my own wife and daughter. So what is my comeback . Some men dont have their feet planted firmly on the round. Ou dont see that anymore, but in the 1970s when judges knew it was improper to make racist jokes, women were still fair game. It must have been extraordinary the things you saw and heard back then, and yet you have always kept your cool. Justice ginsburg yes, because i wanted to win my case. [laughter] ustice ginsburg chief Justice Rehnquist, my very last argument in the Supreme Court was in the fall of 1978. It was a case about putting women on juries. Some people today are astonished when they are told it was not all that long ago when women were either not put on the jury roll they could opt in if they wanted to, but they were not called otherwise or they were on the roll but any woman as exempt. So i divided that argument with the public defender from kansas city, missouri. I had 15 minutes, and i was about to sit down, confident that i had gotten out everything wanted to convey. And then Justice Rehnquist ommented, so, mrs. Ginsburg, you wont settle for Susan B Anthonys face on the new ollar. Then chief Justice Burger said something, and that was that. In the cap going back to union station, i thought, why wasnt i quick enough to think of some perfect answer, which would have been no, your honor, tokens wont do. [laughter] [applause] Justice Ginsburg it was not so long ago that most of the social clubs in this city, new york, in washington dc, where men only were men only. So whenever i was asked to speak at those clubs i said im not going to speak at a place that wouldnt welcome me as a member. Some very distinguished roups. He american law institute, for example. They had dinners at the sentry association. I wrote an explanation of why they should not be meeting their. Most people agree with me. Some people didnt because they switched to the harvard club, or the food was not comparable. [laughter] my First Encounter was when my usband was working for a law irm in new york and they had a Holiday Party at a club that did not admit women. Women associates, let it be known that that was mproper. Hey werent listened to. So the next year, none of the Women Associates showed up at the Holiday Party. And the year after that, the Holiday Party was held at a place that welcomed women as well as men. It is extraordinary to think of how Different Things were from a world where women couldnt go to holiday parties or joins club or join clubs then today. Oes it seem like extraordinary progress, or is it inadequate . What is your assessment of the progress we have made . Justice ginsburg the progress has been enormous, and that is what makes me hopeful for the future. The signs are all around us. In the elections in the fall of 2018, there will be more women running for office than ever before on every level, local, state, federal. When i was nominated for the job i now have, i think the senate was conscious that there were no women on the judiciary committee, so they added two for my nomination, and they have never gone back to an allmale committee since then. Mr. Rosen is it a good thing that women are galvanized to run for office . What would you tell those who are hesitating in trying to decide whether or not to run . Justice ginsburg i think the women today have a lot more support than they once did of groups campaigning for them. Even, Sandra Day Oconnor was appointed in 1981. There had never been a woman before. When i was appointed to the d. C. Circuit by jimmy carter, jimmy carter was a man who changed, literally changed, the complexion of the u. S. Judiciary. He wasnt a lawyer himself. He looked around at the federal judiciary and said, they all look just like me. Just like me. They are all white men. But that is not how the great United States looks. And i want my judges to be drawn from all of the people, not just some of them. So he made an effort to appoint Minority Group members and women, not one at a time, but in numbers. He appointed i think over 25 women to the federal trial court and Federal District courts. He appointed 11 to courts of appeals, and i was one of the lucky 11. So when people ask, did you always want to be a judge . I smile and say when i graduated from law school, there were no women on the federal appellate bench. There had been florence allen, who was appointed in 1934 by president roosevelt, and she retired in 1959, and so then there were none until one was appointed by president johnson to the court of appeals for the ninth circuit. She was the first ever secretary of education, so then there were none again. And then jimmy carter became president and set a pattern that no president has departed from. President reagan, not to be outdone, was determined to appoint the first woman to the Supreme Court. He made a nationwide search and came up with a splendid candidate, Sandra Day Oconnor. When i was a new justice, invariably someone or another would call me Justice Oconnor. [laughter] Justice Ginsburg they knew there was a woman on the Supreme Court, so a womans voice meant that i should be Justice Oconnor. Nowadays there are three of us, 1 3 of the bench, and because my because of my seniority i sit close to the middle. Justice sotomayor is on one end, Justice Kagan on the other, and anyone who has watched arguments at the court knows that my female colleagues are very active in what goes on. When Justice Scalia was with us i think he and Justice Sotomayor had a contest of who could ask the most questions. [laughter] mr. Rosen you were interested in that survey that found that the women justices were interrupted more. What is your considered judgment of that . Justice ginsburg i think my colleagues would notice that and perhaps be more careful. But we do interrupt each other as the former law clerks here know. One of the most amusing incidents of that, there was an oral argument and Justice Oconnor, who often asked the first question, i thought she was done so i asked the question, and she said just a minute, im not finished. I apologized to her at lunch. She said, dont give it another thought. The guys do it to each other all the time. [laughter] Justice Ginsburg the next today in usa today the headline was rude ruth interrupts sandra. I was asked to comment, so i said what sandra had said at lunch. The men interrupt each other regularly, and you havent noticed that. That reporter, to his credit, watched the court through the next two sittings and said, you know, youre right. I just never noticed it when it was two men. Then an academic whose specialty was language wrote an oped piece in the Washington Post to explain how this happened, how i interrupted sandra, and she said Justice Ginsburg is a jew who grew up in new york city, and those people talk fast. Justice oconnor is a girl of the golden west, laidback, speaks slowly. People who knew the two of us recognized immediately that sandra got out two words to my every one. [laughter] Justice Ginsburg it is a wonderful example of the stereotype. Mr. Rosen you have a very different style on the bench and in conversation. On the bench you are right in there, but in conversation all your friends know it is in the pauses we have to wait because you are about to Say Something very special. [laughter] yes, my lawburg clerks know that, too. [laughter] Justice Ginsburg i try to think before i speak. [laughter] Justice Ginsburg it is something that my husband learned as a law teacher. He was concerned that the men were volunteering much more often than the women, and one of his colleagues gave him advice. She said dont ever call on the first hand that is raised. That will invariably be a man. Wait 5, 6 seconds and you will see womens hands go up because women were thinking before they spoke. [laughter] mr. Rosen we are out of time, but i am reluctant to let you go because i feel like we have so much to learn from you. I want to ask you i have learned so much from you. Why is it good for men as you said recently, there should be nine women on the Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg no, i didnt say there should be. The question was when where when will there be enough. I said there will be enough when theres nine. [laughter] [applause] Justice Ginsburg for most of our history, except when they court was less than 9, 1 time 10, they were, and tell Justice Oconnor, all men. And no one thought anything was unusual about that. Mr. Rosen but you werent joking. And it would be good for men and women here. Justice ginsburg weve had state Supreme Courts with all women. I think minnesota did for a while. We have a number of states that have had a majority women. Our neighbor to the north, canada, has a woman as their chief justice, and four women. So we are catching up. Mr. Rosen and why is a good . Is it because, as you say so powerfully, generalizations about the way men and women guide you in particular cases, and therefore it should not matter whether there are nine women or nine men or five women . Justice ginsburg theres an Life Experience that women have that brings something to the table. I think a collegial body is much better off to have Diverse People of different backgrounds and experience. That can make our discussions more informed. In one case where it was evident was a 13yearold girl who was suspected of having the wrong kind of pills in school, and she was taken to the girls restroom and stripsearched. The pills she had in her purse, i think there was one advil and one aspirin. After she was stripsearched and no contraband found, she was put in a chair in front of the Principals Office and her mother was called to take her home. Her mother was, lets say, beside herself that her daughter had been humiliated in that way, so she brought a suit under our antidiscrimination laws of 1983. At the oral argument, it took a light tone. One of my colleagues said the boys undress in front of each other in the locker room and there is nothing embarrassing about that. My response was that a 13yearold girl is not like a 13yearold boy in that regard. It is a difficult stage in her growing up, and there was simply no more jokes. I guess my colleagues were thinking of their wives and daughters. That kind of insight i have because i have grown up female. It is not that women decide cases differently than men. They dont. Theres a woman that was on the Supreme Court of minnesota who said at the end of the day, a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same judgment, but nevertheless, we bring something to the table that was absent when the judiciary was allmale. Mr. Rosen can men become more enlightened . Justice ginsburg well, i think you can answer that for yourself. [laughter] mr. Rosen you are wiser than i am. One more question, Justice Ginsburg you can see what happened in the 1970s. Up until then the Supreme Court never saw a genderbased classification that it didnt like or didnt think was constitutional. One of my favorite cases from the knots not so good old days, was a woman owned a tavern and her daughter was the bartender. The state of michigan passed a law that said women could not tend bar unless they were married or the daughter of a male tavern owner. That meant that these two women would be put out of business. The Supreme Court made light of that case, starting out with talking about chaucers wife, and instead of saying yes, women are perfectly capable of tending bar, said, well, women need to be protected. Bars are sometimes unpleasant. Things go on. To their great credit, the michigan alcoholic beverages authority, when the Supreme Court said the law was ok, decided they were not going to enforce the law. So they were able to keep their tavern. In fact, when i went to law school, that case was described in an abbreviated paragraph as one example of the Supreme Court letting go of its stranglehold on social and economic legislation. Justification for this was it is for health and safety legislation to protect women from the rowdy drunks. The Supreme Court justices never thought that the ban didnt apply to the barmaids, the women who took the drinks to the table and were much more in danger of the rowdy drunks then the woman standing behind the bar. Thats where we were not so long ago. When a woman from hillsborough county, florida had a bitter dispute with her philandering, abusive husband and was humiliated to the breaking point, she took her young sons baseball bat in the corner of the room and with all her might, hit her husband on the head. He fell against the stone floor, end of the altercation, beginning of the murder prosecution. There were no women on her jury. Her thought was that if women not necessarily would she be acquitted, but she might be convicted of the lesser crime of manslaughter, not murder. But she was convicted of murder by an allmale jury. The argument in the Supreme Court was she doesnt have the opportunity for a jury drawn from a crosssection of the population because half the population is left out. The Supreme Court said in 1961 that law is simply reflecting womens place at the center of home and family life. In the next decade, in three cases in a row, the court made it clear that women had to be called just as the men. That jury duty is an obligation that citizens have, as well as rights. If you exempt women, you are saying they are expendable. We dont need them to be part of the administration of the justice system. So, the changes i have seen in my long life have been just enormous. Mr. Rosen your account of the human stories behind these cases so vividly brings it to life. At a Constitution Center event two years ago you suggested that we create a series on these human stories. We did that with cspan for the wonderful landmark cases series, and we are launching the Second Season here next monday. Justice ginsburg what cases did you use . Mr. Rosen for the Second Season we are doing everything from the privacy case to the civil rights cases. I think and hope we are doing vmi, your great gender discrimination case. You are absolutely right, telling those human stories helps us understand how the law have changed. Justice ginsburg the Supreme Court Historical Society puts on reenactments. We have done brad well v. Illinois, a case in the 1870s, a woman qualified to be admitted to the bar but turned down because she was a woman. In that case, the state of illinois was so sure that they would win they didnt even show up to argue. [laughter] Justice Ginsburg they did a reenactment of one of brandeis cases. Mr. Rosen you had the most riveting talk at the new york Historical Society about mohler and bradwell, and i invite the audience to check it out. It is an incredible story of evolution. I have been selfish in keeping you this long, but i am so reluctant to part, and we need to do that now. I will end with a very obvious but important question. You said this afternoon that you are optimistic about the future because you had hoped for the had hoped for the millennials. Justice ginsburg yes. Mr. Rosen which was wonderful to hear. I want to know, and i know the audience does too, what is your advice to those millennials about how they can best advance the cause of justice . Justice ginsburg not alone, but in alliance with likeminded people. I was impressed and heartened by the womens march in d. C. , which has now been repeated in many places all over the country. Young people should appreciate the values on which our nation is based and how precious they are, and if they dont become part of the crowd that seeks to uphold them, if the spirit of liberty dies in the hearts of the people, there is no court capable of restoring it. But i can see the spirit of my grandchildren and their friends, and i have faith in this generation just coming into adulthood. Mr. Rosen Justice Ginsburg, for all you have done to advance the cause of liberty and equality, and to defend the constitution of the United States, thank you so much. [applause] Justice Ginsburg thank you. Thank you. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable Satellite Corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] history series landmark cases returns this month with a look at 12 new Supreme Court cases. Each week, historians and aspirants join us to discuss the stories behind the significant cases. Begins monday, february 25. We have au follow, companion guide written by tony mauro. Landmark cases volume two. 8. 95 plussts 895 shipping and handling. To get yours go to the website. Here is a look at our live coverage tuesday. Mick mulvaney outlines the president s 2019 budget request before the Senate Budget committee. Mostly business at 2 00. 10 00. Ate meets at the Senate Intelligence Community Committee looks at Global Security threats. Thats followed later by a Senate Armed Services subcommittee on the defense departments role in protecting u. S. Elections from foreign influence. Washington journal with news and policy issues that impact you. An author talks about her pbs documentary. Then, moodys analytics chief economist talks about stock market volatility, the gop tax cut, and rising deficits. And we are live in little rock arkansas for the next stop on the cspan bus 50s capitals tour. Cspan live ath 7 00 this morning. Join the discussion. Next a look at efforts to lower the cost of prescription prescription drugs. This is 35 minutes. Washington journal