Georgetown law, Justice Ginsburg. A round of applause. [applause] so the the justice will be joining us in a minute, it is not a bait and switch. [laughter] but as i said, it is great to see you all here to read when we were initially planning this event, we were going to have it at a much smaller venue, because it is july. Students are gone, faculty are mostly not around, so we figured we would not attract a large audience. We did not have to worry about that, it turns out. The justice obviously has serious star power. As soon as the event was sent out to the law center community, we got enormous number of rsvps. We had to shutdown the rsvp link within 24 hours. We have a satellite venue. Please come on in. Panel, ruthanne, dori, and justice ginsberg. [applause] jus. Ginsberg thank you so much. Sit down. You are about to be treated to an Extraordinary Program that will focus on Justice Ginsburgs legacy of gender equality and life and in the law. For our first panel you will hear a conversation between the justice and two of her former law clerks. Ruth and deutsche on the right and dori bernstein. They will be in conversation with the justice about her own life as well as the current state and future direction of the law on gender equality. Then, following the interview, joan biskupic, the cnn reporter, will moderate a discussion of these issues with her Stellar Group of women including judge nina pillard, a professor of rhetorical studies, and the author of a book about Justice Ginsburgs legacy of dissent, fatima goss graves, the ceo of the National Womens law center, and the woman who did so much to do this event Elizabeth Wydra, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center. So a round of applause. [applause] and after the conversation everyone is invited to a reception at a program in the sport and fitness lobby. Welcome, and before i turn it over to the first panel, as dean, i just have to point out the influence of georgetown law on nearly all of tonights speakers. That is my job, sorry about that. Ruthannne and joan both have their jds from georgetown. [applause] and ruthanne, elizabeth, and dori are former fellows in our pal litigation clinic. Dori has served for nine years and recently won our teaching award. Shout out to that. [applause] judge pillard taught here for many years, before ascending to the bench, and she teaches a seminar on federal practice. Which we are delighted about and , Justice Ginsburgs husband was of course a beloved tax professor here for many years. We have a Martin Ginsberg tax professorship. And we are deeply honored by Justice Ginsburgs ties to our community. We have a lecture series in her honor. She has been a frequent speaker at the law Center Including to many occasions to our first year class and to our graduating class. Just kind of walking out here and seeing all of you. One of the questions i am often asked is, what is my favorite moment as dean of georgetown law . It is very similar to what we all just experienced, walking through that door when Justice Ginsburg is about to speak to the first year class, and as she walks through the door, and the room is packed, and looking out at the sea of faces, many of the firstyear students wearing notorious rbg tshirts and seeing the excitement and admiration on all of our students faces. Every time, i always think what more inspiring way to start a legal career than to have the opportunity to hear from the justice . And that is the opportunity we are all about to have. Welcome all, and welcome back. Thank you, Justice Ginsburg. [applause] ruthanne thank you, dean trainor, and Justice Ginsburg, thank you so much for being with us today and taking the time to talk. We are very grateful. Our first set of questions is going to cover how gender equality manifests in your own life, and dori is going to start the ball rolling. Dori so you and marty enjoyed a wonderful partnership, really a model of mutual support and shared responsibility. Safe to say your marriage was , unusual, even in todays standards, and virtually unheard of in prior generations. So here is what we all want to know, what is your secret . [laughter] jus. Ginsberg no secret, dori. It was luck that i met marty. At a time when the best degree that a girl could have was not ba or her jd, it was her mrs. Marty was a most unusual fellow, i said many times he was the only boy that i ever knew who cared that i had a brain. And we met under the best circumstances. Marty had a girlfriend at smith college, and i had a boyfriend at columbia law school. [laughter] dori this is interesting. Jus. Ginsberg our friends thought it was a long, cold winter. [laughter] jus. Ginsberg so we were two , years, we were the best of friends. Whenever i want to go to the movies, i would call marty, or we often went to the college bar together just to talk about anything and everything. But the thing about marty was that he had such confidence in himself. He was very comfortable with who he was. And he never really regarded me as any kind of threat, on the contrary. Marty thought that i must be really special if he wanted to spend his life with me. [laughter] dori so no selfesteem issues there . [laughter] jus. Ginsberg he was always my biggest booster. Dori did you negotiate divisions of labor at home or around the family . Jus. Ginsberg there were no negotiations. We did what needed to be done, and at different times, i carried the labor at home, and marty was determined to become a partner in his law firm in five years, which he did. So during those years i did most of the childcare. That continued until he did make partner. And then it switched. When the Womens Movement came alive at the end of the 1960s, and marty realized that what i was doing was very important. So, he took on more of the homework than he had before. I was, to tell the truth, [laughter] dori did he teach himself to cook . Jus. Ginsberg marty, the way he tells it two women are , responsible for his skill, one was his mother, and the other was his wife. [laughter] jus. Ginsberg and he gave us one of the bum raps, he was very good. Altogether right about me. [laughter] jus. Ginsberg but our arrangement was that marty would do the weekend cooking and the company cooking. He never let me cook for guests. [laughter] then when jane was starting high school, he noticed the enormous difference between daddies cooking and daddys cooking and mommys, and she decided i should be phased out of the kitchen. For me, it was like tom sawyer and the fence. Dori so it sounds like you were able to make compromises so each of you could advance your own professional goals. And sometimes, he would take a backseat on his career, and sometimes you would do that. Jus. Ginsberg yes. And sometimes fate made the decision for us. I had had an operation just before i started law school, so then we switched who was doing the heavier work. Marty was. This was the cleaning and the home care. Marty had an idea about child rearing. I dont know where he read it. He had an idea that the childs personality is formed during the first year of life. So he wanted to spend as much time caring for jane as he could. Dori do you think that was right . Jus. Ginsberg do i think it was, do i think his theory about the first year . Dori yes. Jus. Ginsberg in part. In part. Dori so can you talk a little bit about martys family background . Was his parents marriage a more traditional gender role arrangement, or were they more equal in terms of sharing responsibilities . Jus. Ginsberg they were traditional in the sense that martys father had a good job. He was a Vice President of montgomery ward, and his mother, i would not call her a homebody because she was a great athlete and a wonderful golfer, so she spent most of her time on the golf course. Dori so where they supportive of your goals and your choices . Jus. Ginsberg if you think marty was extraordinary, his parents were more so. I told many times the advice that i got from my motherinlaw the day i was married, in the home where marty grew up, and mother took me aside and said i would like to tell you the secret of a happy marriage. She knew i would love to hear it. [laughter] was,ginsberg it sometimes, sometimes it helps to be a little deaf. [laughter] jus. Ginsberg and that was excellent advice. For the two golf faculties on which i serve, and even today. [laughter] [applause] jus. Ginsberg his father was remarkable. Marty was called into service after his first year of law school, the year i graduated from college. And i became pregnant that first year we spent in oklahoma. I was really worried about, how could i manage Harvard Law School with an infant . And his fathers advice, if you do not want to go to law school, no one will think the less of you. But if you really want to go to law school, you will pick yourself up you will stop , feeling sorry for yourself and you will find a way. And that advice, do i really want this enough, and if i do, i will find a way. Well, speaking about support, a supportive boss is really important for women who need, who recognizes that parenthood requires flexibility, and that for women to achieve their goals professionally, they need a boss who understands that. And we were both moms when we clerked for you, and we can attest that you walked the walk for sure, and we were grateful for the flexibility that you gave us. That allowed us to do our jobs but also to be moms. So my question is, what was it like for you in the workforce balancing work and family, and what were the challenges that you faced when you first started working after law school . Jus. Ginsberg well first let me ask you, how old were your boys when you clerked for me . 10 12ne nico turned years ago he was 10 years old this day when i started my clerkship and benji was two years older. And eight. And dori you were pregnant. , dori luisa was two or by the time i clerked, luisa was three. And then i got pregnant with isabel during the clerkship. Jus. Ginsberg and isabel that , was a tough time. Not a happy pregnancy. Dori nice kid, but [laughter] jus. Ginsberg so you were first a staff attorney for d. C. , that circuit, and i was getting these memos that were just outstanding, head and shoulders above the rest. Who is this woman . And how about becoming part of my law firm . You came the next year, and there was a point in your pregnancy when you were just confined you had to be flat on your back for, i dont know, it was many weeks. Dori it was about four weeks. I was first hospitalized. And then when i moved home, i was in the attic because i had to be as far away as possible from any smell of food because i just could not keep anything down. But you were great. You called while i was home, you would call periodically and catch me up on what was happening in chambers. And luckily i was able to come back when we started sitting in january after the holidays. And you treated me just like a guy law clerk. Jus. Ginsberg and your coclerks were pretty good. Yeah they were lovely. They were all rooting for you, and we knew how hard it was what you were going through. But i should say, the first law clerk i had who had childcare responsibilities was not a woman. It was david post. David had gone to georgetown at night, and his clerkship application said im going to school at night because my wife is an economist it was either the world bank or the International Money fund. Ruthanne the American Development bank. Yeah. Jus. Ginsberg and so i have, i take care of the kids during the day, take them to soccer practice. And so that was david post. Was onedmit that there other aspect to his application that made him irresistible. Most law clerk applicants give us their writing sample, the moot court brief or review. David post gave me a paper, his first year of writing a seminar. They were to write an essay, and his was on the law of contract as played out in wagners ring cycle. [laughter] could not have written a more perfect peace. Ruthanne did you even bother reading it . [laughter] jus. Ginsberg i remember that first year we did not have the , internet yet. I went to the chief and said, i have a law clerk who needs a flexible schedule, so you can he have this access at home . Absolutely not. Clerks were expected to be on the premises. The next year after that, every clerk had access at home to lexus and westlaw. So my own experience was when my daughter was born long, long ago in 1955, i was one of the few working moms in the class. And jane thinks he was the beneficiary of that because she kept getting invited to sleepovers and weekends. Skiing weekends. And she said that the parents of her classmates felt sorry for her because janes idea is the less she saw of me, the better. 10 years later, this is an example of what changed in society. My son is born, and he is going to school, and it is not at all nersual to have two ear families at all. Still, the woman was expected to take care of the childrens inoculations, new shoes, their medical checkups. My son, who today is a very fine human, was what i call a lively child and what the School Called hyperactive. I would get calls at least once a month, please come down to meet with the room teacher of or the School Psychologist or the headmaster. We need to tell you about your sons latest escapades. [laughter] jus. Ginsberg one day when i was really weary, i had stayed brief, ight writing a said this child has two parents. Please alternate calls. [laughter] and this time, it is his fathers turn. They did call marty at his law firm, and he came to the school. He was told james latest infraction. And what was it . Your child [indiscernible] it was one of those handheld elevators. And a classmate of my sons had dared him to take the kindergarten class on the ground floor to the top floor. Ruthanne how old was he . Jus. Ginsberg he was in the fifth grade. [laughter] ruthanne that is impressive. Jus. Ginsberg so martys response to this terrible thing that my son had done is, he stole the inter elevator. How far did he take it . I do not know if it was martys wonderful sense of humor or their reluctance to take a man away from his work, but after the elevator incident, the calls came barely once a semester. [laughter] jus. Ginsberg and they werejus. Ginsberg much more reluctant to take a man away from his work than a woman. Ruthanne following up on that, besides presenting a united front to schools, pediatricians, the like, do you have any advice for working families today with two earners that are struggling the balance the demands of the , career and Family Responsibilities . Jus. Ginsberg for me, the two parts of my life, each was a respite for the other. Starting when i was in law school, we had a nanny that came in at 8 00 and left at 4 00 so , my time at law school i was not wasting a minute. I was reading, studying, and outlining all of the time. But when it came close to 4 00, that was it. Close the books and went home, played with jane, went to the park with her. And then when she, after she was fed and went to sleep, i went back the books. But having that contrast, it was, by the time she went to sleep, i had had enough of the child and was ready to go back to the books. Know,ealizing that you so many men wake up one day in day, and their child is grown, and they have had very little to do with raising that child, and they regret it. The years that you will spend after your child has left the nest are not much longer, and if you lost now the opportunity to be part of the child raising to form a bond with your child, you are really missing something important in life. Ruthanne very true. And i had a similar, i used to leave here at 4 00. My kids were two and four. I would pick up a snack in the vending machine, run to get them at daycare. Ande i was here, i was here my next question is about moving from domesticity to foreign travel. We know you went back to sweden this year, earlier this year, retracing your steps, and we know that when you were there, the first time you learned a lot about civil procedure, swedish civil procedure, producing a masterwork on the subject. But we are not going to ask you about that today. What we would like to know is, what did you learn about gender equality in your visits to particular if anything the role of the courts there . Jus. Ginsberg let me correct one thing you said. It wasnt a masterwork. It is true, it was the very best book ever written in english on swedish civil procedures and also the very worst. Because it was the only [laughter] ruthanne masterwork for english. Jus. Ginsberg so you want to know what surprised me about Swedish Society . Dori what were ruthanne what were your takeaways in terms of gender equality there compared to your experience in the United States . What were the differences . Jus. Ginsberg this goes back to 1962 and 1963. Women were perhaps 5 of law clerks in the country. They were 20 in sweden. Sweden had a career judiciary. After law school, you decide, do you want to be an advocate, and you train to be a practicing lawyer. Do you want to be a judge . You take an exam. If you do well enough, you go through an apprenticeship that is similar to a clerkship, and then you go up the ladder in this judicial career. So at that time, there are many women judges and prosecutors, there were very few women in the practicing bar. But i watched one preceding. It was a trial court in stockholm, and the presiding judge is eight months pregnant. Time in the United States where if you were a teacher and you begin to show, you were out, out of the classroom. It was another experience that same summer, a woman named arizona had taken thalidomide. Wanted to have an abortion, but she could not get it in her home state. So she came to sweden. And that was a big story in the press. Woman writing a column, her name was ava, and the column goes to this effect. Why should the woman have two jobs and the man only one . And what she meant was it was accepted, it was for right and proper for there to be two incomes in the family, but the woman was expected to do have dinner on the table at 7 00, take children are medical checkups and the rest. In many conversations, some women that i call the queen bee types said, i dont need him to share in anything. I can do it all. I am a doctor and i have a he isshing practice, but at his armchair when he comes home. And there are others who said he should do a lot more than takeout the garbage. [laughter] jus. Ginsberg so that was revealing. I did not do anything with it immediately because there was nothing to be done in the United States. And but on the back burner and then the Womens Movement 1960s. Ve in the late i was just exhilarated with the opportunity then, finally the time was right to make a change and to have happened long before. Dori that segues into another question, the road not taken. Youve said before if you had been hired by a law firm right out of school, you probably would have spent your career as a law firm lawyer. I wonder whether you would have found that very satisfying just being a commercial litigator or whether you lucked out that you didnt get a job at a law firm. Justice ginsburg i certainly lucked out. Justice oconnor would tell the same story. She was at the top of her class at stanford law school. No one would hire her as a lawyer. So, what did she do . She went to the county attorney and said, i will work without pay for four months and if you think im worth it, then you will put me on the payroll. I got my first job at columbia law school. There was a professor who was determined to get me a job in, and he called every judge in the Southern District of new york. Every judge in the second circuit. Most of them said, even if we were to consider a woman, shes a mother. Thats too much. This great professor picked a district judge who was a columbia undergraduate and law school graduate. Froms took his clerks columbia law school. Jerry said, give her a chance and if she doesnt work out, theres a young man, highly qualified, is going to a downtown firm, and he will come in and take over. So, that is the carrot and there was a stick. Dont giveas, if you her a chance, i will never recommend another columbia student to you. I never knew this until jerry told me about it years later. I assumed it was because the judge had two daughters. He was thinking about what the world would be like for them. You gave him the benefit of the doubt. Ven if he didnt deserve it Justice Ginsburg but then after, thats what it was like for women of my vintage. Getting that first job was hard. But, if you got a job, you did it usually at least as well as the men. The second job was not the same hurdle. When i finished my clerkship, i could have gone to any number of law firms. The story Justice Oconnor tells of her experience, she said this to me, think of what our lives would have been if there had been no discrimination. What would we be . We would be retired partners from some large law firm. Because we didnt have that route to travel, we had to find another way. I think we want to transition to some less personal questions and more legal questions. [inaudible] [laughter] oh, all right. She doesnt want to ask it but i will. [laughter] it is a silly question but we know you studied with a novel with Vladimir Nabokov at cornell. Did you ever consider writing fiction . Justice ginsburg never, because i dont have the time to do that. [laughter] Justice Ginsburg the book had a major influence on the way that i read and write. He was a magnificent teacher. You are very lucky. So, whatever the road not taken, it is very lucky for all of us that you took the road not the road you did. So thank you. [applause] now, we will move to a few questions about the law. So, this year, we are celebrating the centennial of the 19th amendment, which enabled women to vote, and in the last election cycle, we elected 117 women to congress, which is a new record. We are making progress, which is great, but women have not come close to political parity in this country. We hold just a quarter of the seats in the house and senate and of course only one third of the Supreme Court, and we have yet to elect a woman as president. Over the last 50 years, the federal courts have been instrumental in accelerating our progress, thanks in no small part to your efforts. But, looking ahead the next 50 years, what do you see is the work remaining to be done . Justice ginsburg i go back to what you said about impressive numbers but not enough. That is right. There is a very important first on the Supreme Court this term. Its thanks to our new justice, justice kavanaugh, whose entire staff are all women and all of his law clerks are women. Its the first time in the history of the United States there have been more women clerking at the court than men. [applause] Justice Ginsburg so, what do i see . First, i should say what we were doing in the 1970s. We were getting rid of of the overtly explicit gender classifications. There was nothing subtle about it. It was that women cant do this or cant do that. Almost all of those explicit barriers are gone. What remains is what often has been called unconscious bias. , my bestxample of that example, is the symphony orchestra. When i was growing up, you never saw a woman in the orchestra except perhaps for the harpist. A famous music critic for the New York Times swore he could tell the difference between a woman playing the piano and a violinwoman playing the and a man. Someone had the bright idea and said, lets put it to the test and blindfold him, see how he does. He was all mixed up. [laughter] Justice Ginsburg he was certain it was a woman, it was a man. And the other way around. If he saw a woman, he had certain expectations for her. He rated her that way. After that experiment, they came up with the bright idea of dropping a curtain between the people who are auditioning and the people who are conducting the audition so they wont know if its women or men. With that simple change, almost there was almost an almost overnight shift in people showing up in symphony orchestras. I was telling this story at a Music Festival some years ago and a young violinist came up to me and said, you left out something. What did i leave out . You left out that we auditioned shoeless so they wont hear a womans heels coming on the stage. We cannot duplicate the dropped curtain in electoral politics. One of the best examples the way unconscious bias operated was a 1978, 1979,t against at t for not promoting women to middle management jobs. The women didnt about as well as the men up to the very last test, which was called the total person test. That was an interviewer sitting down and having a conversation with the candidate for promotion. It was at that point that women dropped out disproportionately. Why was that . Because the interviewer had a Comfort Level facing someone that looked just like the interviewer. If the person being interviewed was of a different race, different gender, there was a discomfort experienced by the interviewer. He didnt quite know what makes this person tick. It ends up in a lower rating for the woman. Not consciously to discriminate. Thats hard to get through. There was a case before the European Court of justice, which is the highest court for the european union. Germany province in that said, for Civil Service jobs in fields that have been mainly occupied by men, if two candidates are about equal in qualification, prefer the woman. There was an argument that was reverse discrimination. Not compatible with the quality norm of the rome treaty. If you read the decision carefully, you can see between the lines, the court is understanding this is not necessarily a preference for a woman. Given her a plus as a way of overcoming the unconscious bias that would operate in favor of the men. I would say, for women today employed outside the home, unconscious bias is there. And what you talked about before, the worklife balance. But, i would be interested to know whether you think the federal courts would play as central a role going forward. What you just described that was accepted by the European Court would not be accepted by the courts here. Justice ginsburg there is a statute premised on the working woman. That is the family medical and leave act, which the court, thank goodness, upheld in an opinion by the old chief. This past week, a number of cases urged the court to revisit holdings in a variety of contexts with mixed success. In your view, i would like to know, do you think public courts of the adhering to precedent. Justice ginsburg whether the court should consider its place in the system . I think all of us do. No matter where we are on the political spectrum, the thing one each of us feels deeply is that we want to leave that institution in as good a shape as we found it. We do not want to do anything to tarnish the courts reputation. It is unique in the world. Until after world war ii, most didnt countries didnt have anything like judicial review for constitutionality. Parliament spoke the last word. It wasnt until after world war that Constitutional Courts emerged in europe and other places. What existed in germany convinced many people to think that popularly elected legislatures couldnt always to be trusted, fundamentally with human rights, so maybe to have a Constitutional Court would be return a check against a an autocratic government. So then we saw the the courts with the idea of having a court with that authority became popular. But, for many decades, the United States was just about alone in the world and having a constitution that was not just aspirational but law on the ground to be observed here and lesserw that trumped any law. One last question before the panel takes the stage. Its about cases. We know that you have said in the past that you wont tell us what is your favorite decision that you have authored yourself because that is like picking a favorite child, or a grandchild, even harder. But what about a favorite decision written by another specific, ain aboutte decision or two the 14th amendment and gender, because that is what we will be talking about . Justice ginsburg this gives me an opportunity to Say Something about the 14th amendment because most of the litigation in which i was involved was against the federal government. Where is the equal protection clause operating against the federal government. The 14th amendment says no state shall deny to any person equal protection of the laws. It wasnt in the fifth amendment for good reason. When the constitution was new, the constitution acknowledged and permitted slavery. This question of, does the congress have to abide by equal protection norm came to a head in a series of cases combined to make brown against board. One of them involved d. C. Public schools. D. C. Is controlled by the federal government so it wasnt a state. It was a 14th amendment. That is when there was kind of a reverse incorporation and the courts said that the fifth amendment due process clause essentially incorporates the explicit equal protection guarantee that is in the 14th of them. The 14th amendment. They had to do it. Could you imagine the Supreme Court saying states can no longer have law enforced segregation in schools . But the District Of Columbia cap. Can. It would be unthinkable. Whats the question . [laughter] your favorite decision about gender equality written by somebody other than yourself. Justice ginsburg you mentioned the family medical leave case. There was a case at the end of Justice Oconnors first term on the court. Mississippi university against hogan. Hogan was a man who wanted to go to Nursing School and the best Nursing School in the area was the Mississippi University for women. They wouldnt accept him. Justice oconnor wrote an opinion for the court saying you cannot deny to men or to women an Educational Opportunity because they are male or female. That was in 1992. That was in 1982. Then, in 1996, the court was confronted with the Virginia Military institute case. This time, it was women wanting access to an educational facility up to then reserved for men. The principal precedent was Justice Oconnors opinion. Thats another case where you could read between the lines. Justice powell, who was on the other side, saw the Mississippi University for women as kind of affirmative action for women, something reserved just for them. Had experienced it in life, new that the best way to upgrade pay in a field that was dominantly for women is to get men to do that. So, she didnt see Mississippi University for women including men in the Nursing Program as any kind of affirmative action. Quite the contrary. I brought it home and showed it to marty. He read Justice Oconnors opinion. He said, did you write this . [laughter] any thoughts to share on your least favorite . Justice ginsburg there have been two series of cases where the court got it quite wrong. The question of applying citizenship through a parent. The law is still i said almost all the explicit genderbased classifications are gone but in the immigration area, immigration and naturalization, this distinction remained. The parents are not married, child born abroad, if the mother is a u. S. Citizen, the child automatically acquires the mothers citizenship. If the mother is the alien and the father is the citizen, the child does not. Unless they are married. Justice ginsburg that was just wase example of the this a favor to women . No. It is saying, if the child is born out of wedlock, he is fancy responsibility for it. But she is saddled with it. I didnt see this as my colleagues did. Benignlying operating in womens favor. You said there was another one. Justice ginsburg there were two. Two in the same line. Justice ginsburg it would be hard for people of a certain age to think of a colleague i heere, john paul stevens, had been in the navy in world war ii. There were a lot of madame butterfly stories at that time. I guess he didnt conceive of his buddies, no matter how many children they sired, as having any kind of bond, being financially responsible for them. Its hard to break through that particular mindset. I agreed with Justice Stevens in most cases, but in these cases, we have a very strong disagreement. Thank you so much, justice. This has been such a lovely conversation and really a treat. We all really appreciate your coming here, especially just a handful of days after the end of the term. I cant believe how fantastic you look given that youve just been through the end of another term. [laughter] [applause] so now, ruthanne will escort you off the stage. What . [laughter] and i will call the panel up to do the second part of our program. [applause] Justice Ginsburg thank you. [applause] but wait, there is more. [laughter] we are privileged to hear from a panel of highly accomplished lawyers who bring a variety of perspectives of gender equality and Justice Ginsburgs work. After the discussion, we hope everyone will join us for a reception in the lobby. I would like to introduce our skupic, a, joan bi fulltime cnn legal analyst covering the Supreme Court for 25 years and who has written a number of books on the judiciary. She has written several books on judiciary, most recently of chief justice john roberts. As you have already heard, a Georgetown University law School Finalist for the Pulitzer Prize of journalism in 2015. Thank you, joan. [applause] joan thanks to all of you for being here and staying here. [laughter] joan we appreciate it. I think we know just about everyone on the panel but just to refresh your memory, to my pillardt is judge nina of the d. C. Circuit. Gibson, a professor from Colorado State has also written a book on the legacy of Justice Ginsburgs dissent and ,o my left is Elizabeth Wydra the president of the Constitutional Accountability Center and the woman who thought of this idea with Justice Ginsburg and why we are all here. [applause] left, fatimaar goss graves, the president and ceo of the National Womens law center. [applause] joan we are going to cover a lot of ground with Justice Ginsburgs life and legacy but first, we want to take advantage of what we just heard. All of us have probably seen Justice Ginsburg in action multiple times but i wanted to ask each of the panelists, what jumped out . Start the want to part when she said something about your brilliant legal argument in the hibbs case. But that is nothing new. What struck you . One thing about Justice Ginsburg is that she worked for the American Civil Liberties union, womens rights project, but she is not necessarily just advocate orghts champion or jurist, she is really someone who stands for for sex equality or gender equality. It struck me again and again in the remarks that she made how much she thinks it is important that men have opportunities to do things typically associated with femininity just as its important for women to have women to do things that are considered typically male. She has a signature style and we will hear from professor gibson about her rhetorical style. But one thing that i noticed deutsch wase telling the justice how important it was to her as a new mother to work for a boss who was flexible, she said it is so important for women, the question was, to have someone who understands where we are coming from and the justice didnt take issue with that framing. But then she turned around and had, the first clerk that i who had parenting responsibilities was a man, so she championed him as well. So accepting it but also leaving her own mark. Then she had this moving statement where she said, so many men will not take as active as a role in raising their children as they might and then it goes really quickly and they regret it. Again, it is a piece of her the her advocacy, that this is a thing of value for people and parents. So, for me, that was so crystallizes her advocacy and her worldview about gender. Good point. Katie gibson . To hop on that, her work and comments on gender reveals how an awareness how rigid norms of masculinity are for women so there is that recognition. That creating a world where theres more space for those different gender performances is good for everybody. I was struck by the conversation with her clerks and how much of an advocate she was for her clerks as well. That made me realize how important it is to have people with diverse Life Experiences in positions of power. That is really what struck me. Thanks. Fatima . Things thate two struck me. One was the advocate for clerks and the story that she noticed the writing. I have a million questions to follow about have you applied, how many women dont apply. I thought that was a very beautiful story. But the second thing i was sort of hanging onto every word that unconsciousay about bias and thinking deeply how our laws are really illequipped to address it. The case that she raised was one example of how a law clerk how our laws were illequipped to address that unconscious bias that leads people to be less promoted and received lower pay. The case she did not discuss was was case, where that really a part of what they were trying to get at. That an overall policy of leaving it to managers to decide person by person whos going to allow that unconscious bias and maybe not unconscious, on purpose bias to sneak in. She described briefly and it had me thinking what it would look like great. Thats a good place for us to go to as we move along. Elizabeth . Yeah. I think it was really thought, to see these three highpowered, brilliant women on stage talking about the fullness of life and law and the way in which you make choices about life and their careers have intersected. That story about justice urg coming to talk to firstyear students. It is not just about children. I am the new mother of a sixmonthold, so i was listening intently to all that. Its also about what you want to get out of life. To hear three voices talking about that openly was just really impressive. One thing i was really excited to hear, certainly the unconscious bias discussion i thought was interesting. What if we had a Supreme Court of Justice Ginsburgs . What kind of unconscious bias jurisprudence when we get out of that would we get out of that . Like heaven. [laughter] i have heard her say the following so many times. It is a great remark she heard from her motherinlaw when she was getting married. Dear, sometimes it pays to be deaf. I have of course repeated that many times, but this is the first time i heard her remind people that she adopted that view not just with her husband, marty, but with two different faculties and also today at the Supreme Court. [laughter] which of course interests me. [laughter] i think everybody here knows the general outlines of her life story but just a reminder to segue first into her advocacy and then talk about her time on the bench, and then connect her early years of litigation for the quality equality agenda across the board. The characterization she gave this time about meeting marty was a little bit different, i thought, because i dont remember her talking about getting set up on a blind date. There were significant others elsewhere and it was very cold in cornell. I found it very nice. [laughter] she said many times, marty was the first guy she dated who thought she had a brain and was happy she had a brain. They meet at cornell, then both go to Harvard Law School. Shes got her baby at the time. Marty falls ill, she takes care of him, and takes notes in his classes and is doing so well but nonetheless, he does recover from his illness and graduates before she does so then they moved to new york city for his job. What happens then is after that clerkship, she takes a research position. Her, into academia served just as she talked about how Sandra Day Oconnor was served by going into Public Service and government life. While shes at columbia and rutgers, she starts to study more discrimination issues. In 1972, she, with the aclu, founds the womens rights project and i want to start with her unusual strategy of finding men womenintiffs rather than who face discrimination. I will refer to one of the early cases that she won before this agreement the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court struck down a Social Security law that provides survivors benefits to widows with small children but not widowers of small children. So, i want to talk about what was distinctive about that strategy. What was her inspiration . Why that was so different. You are in this line of work at the National Womens law center. Talk about that. As she was giving commentary that case,ing about and others, where it was not just the male plaintiff thats important but to challenge the notions that was so embedded in our culture about the proper roles of men and women both at home and at work and the presumptions of who is the breadwinner and who is not so who is working for pocketbook money or not. That case in particular is interesting, because it did what she was trying to do a bit on the stage tonight. She talked about the harm for men who are left without the income they need but also the harm for women who would be working in their career and not continue to provide for their families upon the death as men could. I was struck by her continued ability today to point out how stereotypes these is harmful for men and women. I will tell you that that strong trope of who or who is not a breadwinner in our society is one that we have clung on to deeply and one that shows how these payp in how practices happen today. The data shows that men get sort pay andherhood bump in women get a cut in pay after having children. So, it is one of the hard and difficult tropes that are difficult to detect and difficult to defeat. The cultural stories we tell ourselves are as important, i think, as dismantling the explicit and not so explicit legal structures. You know, i am going to ask katie about the rhetoric. First, want to ask you about that counterintuitive notion of trying to argue to a decisionmaker with a plaintiff that would not be so predictable. Is that a good strategy in terms of equality litigation . Just pick up on that. I think absolutely. The idea that she came to the court with the plaintiff with the justices then that were all men of course to identify with is very smart as a litigator. That is a really smart strategy. I think she drew inspiration from the Civil Rights Movement that came before yher. The idea that you would bring a case of a graduate perhaps before a school child. Could identifys with, with Higher Education and that idea to try to find a place even if you are not represented on the court you can find commonality. I love that we have this event on Thurgood Marshalls birthday because in so many ways, Justice Ginsburg is an inspiration in the way that Justice Marshall is an inspiration. He was obviously an advocate and then a justice. He founded the naacp in the way she founded the womens rights project at the aclu and both were brilliant litigation strategists. The way that she has talked she talked about tonight. I love the part where she talks about the way there is a reverse incorporation. The equality mandate of the 14th amendment, which came after the civil war, and applies explicitly to the state transformed the entire constitution. The fifth to amendment, it transformed that part of the constitution. As our constitution goes through its iterations of progress, the entire project, just as the entire country is transformed. Justice ginsburg as an advocate has an intellectual approach to it. To communicate these ideas and then we are told the story of sex versus gender and grammatically this is sex discrimination. About, we talked earlier she had an assistant and kept typing sex, sex, sex and kept putting it in everything. It could be offensive and then she started to say gender. I know you have written about how the rhetoric of the law has challenged some forms. Norms. Talk a little bit how the about how her advocacy challenged the the language of the law and how her rhetorical perspective enriched our understanding of her litigation. I think that perspective allows us to appreciate the discursive struggle at the heart of the early advocacy. She uprooted patriarchal scripts and challenged an entrenched genre of legal language that silenced the experiences of many others who did not fit the mold. Her litigation strategy is described as incremental and clearheaded about the constraint of working in the judicial. Ystem or i is more of a sweeping strategy that challenged the rhetorical landscape of the law for five decades. That posture is evident in a quote she recited to conclude her first oral argument before the court in 1973. Standing in front of nine male judges, she said i ask no paper favor for my sex. All i ask of my brethren is that they take their feet off our necks. Asked about it later, she said it had a certain shock quality. [laughter] theres a posture of dissent that runs throughout her arguments for gender equality as she confronts the deep exclusions that live in the language of the law. She often refers to that literature class that she took that taught her to appreciate paint ar of language to moving picture. She has used this throughout her career to challenge narrow imagination, to see from a broader vantage point. That isteaches us inherently disruptive. Scripts of objectivity must be confronted challenged to create feminist judgment in the law. A lot of us appreciate Justice Ginsburgs voice of dissent today. A close look at her rhetorical legacy shows she long articulated a sharp and strategic voice of dissent to make way for more inclusive constitutional community. Thats a great point. Even as she stood before the court and had that remark, she just said it so evenly, they probably werent sure what hit them. I was reminded recently and recently of the inspiration of polly murray on Thurgood Marshalls work and her work. It is quite a daring reference she put into her early briefs. Nothing was ever in the face of people, which goes to these comments that you made in the beginning about her demeanor and approach to a challenge that doesnt seem too outright challenging. Also, though, if you look closely at her brief, which she calls the turning point case, theres a lot of Strong Language in that brief that i think we overlook sometimes when we focus on her careful, measured legal strategy. She quotes the declaration of sentiment that says the history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries on the part of man against woman. Which is a bold statement for the time. So i think that there is a boldness that is there if we were looking for it. Also, in terms of deciding lots of womens voices in this brief, she recited theories of feminism. I think that was a bold challenge to who matters and whose experiences are centered. I see a boldness in that, too. Yes. Good point. So then, she gets on the d. C. Circuit and shes talked often about how much she wanted to end up on the second circuit. She was up in new york. Thats where marty had his job. She couldnt get herself on the list for the second circuit. She did get on the d. C. Circuit, which turned out to be quite the springboard for the Supreme Court. She often will talk about the lucky stroke that happened because a judge was playing tennis, had a heart attack, she gets that spot in 1979. And so, she gets on the court and shes talked a lot about how marty moved down to teach at Georgetown University law school and they have a life here. She, as we heard today, loves to talk about the worklife balance that occurred. I know you do, too, judge, with all these connections, both in terms of the Civil Rights Advocacy and the fact that your husband had taught at georgetown, too, before becoming the legal director of the aclu. What do you make of how she characterizes her juggling act . How do you think judges today engage in the same balance . I was a colleague marty was a colleague of ours here. When i was a law professor, he was a professor here at georgetown. What a lovely human being. One of the things she commented on was how confident he was. His confidence allowed him to be a more egalitarian parent. She also uses the word luck when she refers to her ending up with marty i have to say the same thing for myself. My husband is both, my choice of him as a life partner, one of the luckiest choices i ever made. His confidence has allowed him to be very much a partner in raising kids, taking care of the house and home and having a fulfilling career. In terms of her work on the d. C. Circuit, one of the things that is very different about being a court of appeals judge court,ing on the supreme the Supreme Court you always have the same cast of characters. Everything is the same panel. On the court of appeals, you get different draw. You will have two colleagues, its a very different kind of personality challenge. She was on the circuit at a time when the court was dominated by more conservative voices. Part of her way of being as a judge really has its roots in that soil. Her ability to use a combination of her own personal credibility, her very technical prowess with doctrine and very unrevolutionary affect, but also one of the things i really admire in her opinions, some of the famous opinions shes written for the Supreme Court that she developed on the d. C. Circuit is her use of history. She will stop and go back decades, centuries, and give you a history of how we got to where we are. She did that in a very beautiful dissenting opinion in an early case she mentioned in the sequence about nonmarital children inheriting their citizenship from their fathers or mothers. This is seen as benign, may be almost affirmative action for the women that they get to convey their citizenship. She goes back to 1790 in that opinion and talks about this period when only mens citizenship mattered. She brings you up to the present. Its the professor in her, its the former d. C. Circuit judge in her. Someone who is faithful to precedent, faithful to history. It comes together in this kind of quiet power that is the Justice Ginsburg we know. I want to followup on that quiet power of using the history that Justice Ginsburg has. Weve all heard Justice Scalias claim of the original is him originalism mantle. He was really well known for that. When you look at Justice Ginsburgs opinions, she is quite a brilliant, progressive originalist. She once said at a lecture that she counts herself as an originalist. She weaves together the text of the constitution at the beginning was not something that was inclusive of all of us on this stage. It changed over time, fortunately. She draws upon that text and the history and uses that along with precedent in a way that is extreme the powerful and now, with justice scalia, and more conservative court, it is a powerful voice but in a much quieter way. I dont think there will be a play about Justice Ginsburg called the originalist, but she is one in her own way. This is a good time to segue into her work on the Supreme Court. She was not bill clintons first or second or third choice in 1993. Byron white announced in march of 1993 that he was going to retire. The president turned to mario hoto first, who have been have been hot had been hot. The president looked at a co uple other people. Marrieder ginsburg was to a tax lawyer, so her records are perfect. It was janet reno, then attorney general, who said as the Clinton Administration was sputtering a bit over the choice, go back to ruth gibbons burke. The truth was rita gator been ruth bader ginsburg. She was not as widely embraced, i think, by liberals as some other candidates might have been. Badersaw today, Ruth Ginsburg has a way of in a pinch putting on the charm. Clinton decides he will interview her. We are in june. She goes to the white house to meet with the president , does her full ginsburg thing. The next day she goes to the , announces her, and describes her as the Thurgood Marshall of the womens rights movement. She comes on, she is approved. This is another staggering footnote from the era. She was approved 963. Who can imagine that today . On august 3 and she takes her judicial oath on august 10. This is another staggering thing and are highly polarized times. Firstppened to be the appointee of a democratic president in 26 years, because the last one have been thurgood had beenunder lbj Thurgood Marshall under lbj. It was so interesting how many times she referred to Justice Oconnor today. Justice oconnor, in that first term, wrote a decision in a Sexual Harassment case in harris versus. Justice ginsburg added a concurring statement that underscored the unequal treatment of women in the workplace at the time. She said the critical issue is whether members of one sex are advantageous forms of conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are not exposed. We talk about the early markers should put down. Therent you pick up from about what we saw in the early jurisprudence before the bgorious rpg moment our rbg moment. I was thinking about the many sex discrimination cases where Justice Oconnor wrote the opinion and Justice Ginsburg joined. In the jackson versus birmingham e, it was a case that said it was a title ix retaliation case. I was intrigued by that. I also thought it was interesting when she was pressed on her favorite decision that she did not write. She said the hogan case, which of course is the precursor to the vmi case. Hearing her talk about how important that was, and the hogan decision, of course, was a male plaintiff. Described,s, as she about the integration of the all womens Nursing Program. Meant it meant what it in the the a my case, not just case, not justi about integrating the military academies, but what that case etc. The about our ability to that case said about our ability to and think about sex stereotyping generally. Had wasd that she loving the hogan case, then being able to be the author of that court decision, which laid. Ut standards for how we view. The last thing on my mind about this in thinking about in more case, another harassment case, that involved a supervisor harassment from not that long ago. Justicecase, ginsburg told the story to remind us all and reminded the the many ways you can experience harassment from somebody who may not be your formal supervisor. That person that can take away your shift and change the nature of your day to day work. Same type ofbe the liability. , inway in which her dissent that the said she walks through what its like to be that worker and experience that and have the harassment coming from someone who is effective the your supervisor effectively your supervisor. The problem in the majority opinion is that it took a very narrow view. This is a problem for congress to quickly fix. You got it wrong. I think that you see that as a theme in other cases, where she is saying, you are failing to understand what it is actually like to be in the shoes of the person. You mentioned sex stereotyping. Been injudge, that has litigation you are involved in. What is the importance of her sex stereotyping approach . Standard ask about the that she originally pushed for to match races, nation race discrimination. How do you understand that . One of the central things that is a legacy of joint efforts of various justices, but ruth badergator ginsburg signature on it is this concept of sex stereotyping. Idea ofs the stereotyping and says it does not have to be derogatory. Days, and the old maybe its not like this for those of you generations later, but we used to think a stereotype had to be an insult. If it was not an insult, it is not a stereotype. She says a stereotype is an overgeneralization that is not accurate. Again and again, there are situations where for the vmi case, this is a private military style school. The challenge to the exclusion of women comes a generation after women are in the military academies. They are in west point, at colorado springs, at annapolis. Method and have this its appropriate for boys. It isole school is like, not necessarily known nationally before the case, but a very highly endowed school. You go there and your career in business, military, politics is made. I think at the time of the case it was the highest capital endowment of any Higher Institution in the country. A lot of people are like, what woman would want to go there . The upperclass students yell at the incoming students for any little infraction. You are down doing pushups. Very much boot camp, trial by fire, thought to be something to take rowdy boys and make them into civilized and upstanding men. Women who were qualified and who wanted to build. Go. Anted to she takes the idea of stereotype and ships it into, if there are , we lookmen or women at them individually. They have the right to be treated as individuals and to be treated equally. In vmi, she goes back to the beautiful history of the school. There is no corresponding singlesex school for women in the entire state. Findsthe court of appeals , she tries they try to create one. Of does a weathering job showing how it is not providing equal opportunity for the women who want to go. You are questioned about the your question about the role of stereotyping. [laughter] thats ok. [laughter] back on want to link thisreat thing about vmi case. Her ability to connect, so the principal deputy, she had a great ginsburg like these of oral advocacy. Vmis treatment he says, magic at the time when law schools are just imagine at the time when law schools are just opening two women. To women. We are going to have a separate law school for the women. To me, at the time it seemed hokey and simple. The bench was wrapped. They did not interrupt at all and it really spoke to them in a way that these cadets marching around in lexington, virginia did not. That is a perfect segue to you, katie. What you saw in her litigation strategy, her litigation rhetoric, then emerges in her opinion in exactly the way the judge with characterizing the judge was characterizing. What did you observe . I think just where we can see those early rhetorical commitments today. A good example is in the reproductive rights case, in terms of her fierce attention to language and pushing back on abstract conventions that universalize experiences. That pushed opinion back on Justice Thomas after he repeatedly referred to women who exercise their right to choose abortion as mothers. Lights work has made her king be aware of the language as woman as mother has been mobilized through history to restrict the rights of women. Lifework has made her keenly aware of the language as woman as mother has been mobilized through history to restrict the rights of women. She reminded the court that nearly 11,000 women are severely assaulted every day in the United States. Unnecessary restrictions on abortion place these women in great harm. Her commitment to context can be seen. She admonished the majority and emphasized that the cost of a iud is out of reach for many women. I think we see those things, those early pieces of her advocacy in those ways, in really profound ways. Would just had exhibit a we just had exhibit a, in terms of the backandforth between Justice Ginsburg and thomas. Her efforts to foreground different voices and different lived experiences as one of the great feminist promises of her rhetorical legacy is one of the great feminist promises of her rhetorical legacy. I was going to turn to you in terms of the Shelby County dissent. As some of you know, it was not until 2013 that the notorious rbg meme was even created. It was one her dissent in the Shelby Countys when her dissent in the Shelby County case just electrified the internet. Maybe if you would start off segueing from what shes done for womens rights to a Broader Group of civil rights issues that were probably there all along. Now it is more evident with her as the senior liberal on the bench. When katie talks about the way in which she uses language to bring out kind of, i would say reality, lived experience. And walking through the way you experience harassment in the workplace. One of the ways she did that in the reproductive autonomy context is taking abortion in many ways from the jurisprudence of privacy to equal citizenship stature. Privacy is something you do in private, in the dark. By saying, how can women be equal in the Public Square . How can we be equal in our lives if we cannot even control our own reproductive decisions, our own bodily autonomy . How can we possibly enjoy that promise of equal citizenship in the constitution. I think that is an extremely powerful. Shift. She did that also in other contexts. I think the abortion context is probably where she is most known for this equal citizenship stature argument. She does it in the Racial Justice context as well. Theink her opinions in admissions programs cases talk about that. The idea that it is obvious when there is a policy of inclusion versus exclusion. It is about whether or not we are trying to make real the constitutions promise of equality that was put into those postcivil war amendments. In Shelby County, it is like taking your foot off our neck. She did not hold back and said throwing out the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights act that was working so well is like getting rid of your umbrella because you are not getting wet in a rainstorm. The idea that she can use this language to make things real for people, even when it is difficultlike questions of the law or preclearance. That is not something that rolls off the tongue. Maybe in this room it does, but not for other people. That equal citizenship stature idea motivates her, not just in women rights cases, gender equality cases. I think the idea that it is not just women, it is gender. How can men be full, equal citizens . We have run out of time mostly, but we did not talk about the disability rights context as well. How can people be full, equal citizens if they do not have access because of a disability . She has that in her jurisprudence as well. Any quick, concluding thoughts in the civil rights area . Then we will hit on the lesbiangate rights cases lesbiangay rights cases. Picking up on your equal citizenship point, i think that is the question before us one forward and whether it is the range of abortion then or the many abortion bans or many other restrictions. I think it is extraordinarily important. I think we will see a connection between that and the range of cases, whether it be lgbtq equality or beyond that. Judge, i know that area is important for you. Do you see her jurisprudence translating and affecting that area as we see cases coming down the pipe . One of the things that is interesting about her focus on individuals, in some ways, it can be seen as a more conservative way of thinking about equality. Rather than thinking about groups and what they need and how women are differently situated, but i think there is a real potential in her way of framing sex equality, in particular, focusing on stereotypes and how assumptions about how people should behave according to their sex. If you are a woman, here is the appropriate behavior and how she has always tried to question that and assure that peoples opportunities are not restricted by the end of generalization. I think this has a lot of upside. Een this in some of the briefing in cases asking the court to understand title vii, the employment discrimination protection, as extending to discrimination based on Sexual Orientation or trans status. If you are someone who is born male or assigned a male sex at birth and you go to work as a life, is itr adult under that equal protection jurisprudence . Is that akin to discrimination against a woman who shows up at vmi, or a man who shows up at a Nursing School and is told, no1 no. This is an idea that we are going to see pushed. There are obviously different challenges, different issues that it raises. That whole idea about stereotyping is something that has new field. Right, right developed by her. Katie, you have the last word. I think it is important to emphasize the democratic promise that lives in the rhetoric of ginsburgs jurisprudence. Rhetorical outward posture as a she situates the law within the world. Her sustained practice of connecting legal argument to olympics arians, her citation of nonlegal voices of authority,. Er calls for action while we celebrate her legacy and appreciate her individual accomplishments, in many ways, her rhetorical legacy points back to the people and reminds us that we have work to do, too. We have a responsibility to build alliances, speak up, mobilize protests, defend the constitution. Important be the most lesson in this particular moment for moving the work of gender equality forward. Ok. So right across my first, lets thank our panelists. [applause] [cheers] [applause] rewarded fore all your endurance. There is a reception across the green in the hotel building. Justice ginsburg loves to have her wine with everything and there are treats, so please join in. Thank you again. [applause] [crowd chatter] cspans washington journal live everyday with news and policy issues that impacted. Thursday morning, we talk with Harry Jeffrey of cnn news on mother the American Dream is still attainable. Us to talk will join about the youth vote in campaign 2020. Be sure to watch washington journal live at 7 00 eastern thursday morning. Join discussion join the discussion. Thursday, joe biden and his wife hold an event in marshalltown, iowa for the fourth of july. Watch starting at 2 30 p. M. Eastern on cspan. You can also watch online at cspan. Org or listen on the free cspan radio app. On cspan skew and eight cspans q and a. 10 years later, he would win a 49 state landslide and it all came apart. Columnist and political commentator pat buchanan, who served as a speechwriter and Senior Advisor to president nixon, discusses his book nixons white house worse, the battles that made them broke a president , and divided america forever. I remember saying, you will have to keep the dean tapes. I did not think they were going to be that damaging to us and keep the tapes, the Foreign Policy stuff. The stuff you need, you really should take. I said take the rest out and burn it and shut down the special Prosecutors Office now before this thing grows into a monster. I did not know it at the time, but nixon had called in hague and entertainment decided that he should burn entertained this idea that he should burn the tapes. I did not recommend burning subpoenas. There was property that was executive privilege. Everybody knew it. If you simply got rid of them and said, it in peach and be dammed, i think he would have impeach and be dammed, i think he would have moved. He said in his memoirs, if he had burned the tapes, as i urged him to do, he would have survived, and i think he was right. Today, director of the u. S. National economic council, larry kudlow, spoke to reporters outside the white house. He took questions on preparations for the fourth of july and economic talks with china