Life, work, and focus on gender equality. She was joined by two of her former law clerks. That was followed by a Panel Discussion on her legal philosophy. This is just over one hour and 45 minutes. Bill good evening everyone. I am the dean of georgetown law. It is a great pleasure to welcome you all here and it is a particular honor for us to welcome back Justice Ginsburg. A round of applause. [applause] bill the justice will be joining us in a minute, it is not a bait and switch. It is great to see you all here. When we were initially planning this event, we were originally going to have an in a 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, we had an enormous member of rsvps. We had to shut down the link within 24 hours. We have a satellite venue. Please come on in. Ruthanne, dori, and justice ginsberg. [applause] thank you so much. Bill you are about to be treated to an Extraordinary Program that will focus on Justice Ginsburgs legacy on gender equality in life and in the law. For our first panel you will hear a conversation between the justice and two of her former law clerks. Ruthanne deutsch and dori bernstein. They will be in conversation about her life and the current state and future direction of the law. Then, following the interview. Joan biskupic 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, fatima graves, the ceo of the National Womens law center. And elizabeth wydra, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center. A round of applause. [applause] after the conversation everyone is invited to a reception in the sport and fitness lobby. Welcome, and before i turn it over to the first panel as dean, i have to point out the influence of georgetown law on nearly all of tonights speakers. That is my job, sorry about that. Ruthanne and joan have their jds from georgetown. [applause] and, ruthanne, elizabeth, and dori are former fellows. In our litigation clinic. She has served for nine years and recently won our teaching award. [applause] judge pillard taught here for many years, before ascending to the bench and she teaches a seminar on federal practice. And Justice Ginsburgs husband was a beloved tax professor for many years. We have a Martin Ginsberg tax professorship. We are honored by her ties to our community. We have a lecture series in her honor, she has been a frequent speaker at the law Center Including to our first year class and graduating class. Just kind of walking out here and seeing all of you. One of the questions i am asked is what is my favorite moment as dean of georgetown law . It is very similar to what we 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 in the room is packed, and looking out at the sea of faces, many of the firstyear students wearing their rbg tshirts and seeing the excitement and admiration on all of our students faces. I always say what more inspiring way to start a legal career than to have the opportunity to hear from the justice. That is the opportunity we are about to have. Welcome all, and welcome back. Thank you, Justice Ginsburg. [applause] ms. Deutsch thank you dean trainor and thank you Justice Ginsburg for taking your 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. Ms. Bernstein you and marty enjoyed a wonderful partnership, a model of mutual support and shared responsibility. Your marriage was unusual, even in todays standards and unheard of in prior generations. Here is what we all want to know, what is your secret . [laughter] Justice Ginsburg there was no secret, it was luck that i met marty. It was at a time when the best degree that a girl could have was not her ba or jd, but mrs. Money 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. Ms. Bernstein this was interesting. Justice ginsburg our friends thought it was a long, cold winter. And they hooked us up. [laughter] so, for 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. The thing about marty was that he had such confidence in himself. He was very comfortable with who he was. 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. Ms. Bernstein so no selfesteem issues there . Justice ginsburg he was always my biggest booster. Ms. Bernstein so, did you negotiate the issues of labor at home or around the family . Justice ginsburg there were no negotiations. We just did what needed to be done, and at different times, i carried the labor more 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 until he did make partner. And then it switched. When the Womens Movement came alive at the end of the 60s, marty realized what i was doing was important. So, he took on more of the home work than he had before. Kitchenhased out of the at earlier times with my daughter. Ms. Bernstein did he teach himself to cook . Justice ginsburg he said two women are responsible for his skill, one was his mother, and the other was his wife. And he gave us a bum rap, he was very good. 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 daddy and mommys cooking and she decided i should be phased out of the kitchen. For me, it was like tom sawyer and the fence. It sounds like you were able to make compromises so each of you could advance your own professional goals. Sometimes, he would take a backseat on his career, and sometimes you would do that. Justice ginsburg yes. And sometimes fate made the decision for us. I had had an operation just before i started law school, so then we switched to marty doing the heavy work at home, the cleaning and the home care. Marty had an idea about child rearing, i have no idea where he read it. He had an idea that the childs personality was formed during the first year of life. He want to spend as much time caring for james as he could. Dori do you think that was right . Justice ginsburg do i think it is right about the theory . Dori yes. Justice ginsburg in part. Dori can you talk a little bit about martys family background. Was his parents marriage a more typical arrangement, or were they more equal in terms of sharing responsibilities . Arrange equal in terms of sharing responsibilities . Justice ginsburg 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, she spent most of her time on the golf course. Dori so where they supportive of your goals and choices . You thinknsburg if marty was extraordinary, his parents were more so. Had i hadom i for my motherinlaw the day i was married in the home where i grew up, and mother took me i would like to tell you the secret of a happy marriage. She knew i would love to hear it. Bewas, sometimes it helps to a little deaf. That was excellent advice. Today. [laughter] [applause] it 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 worried about how could i manage Harvard Law School with an infant . If you dos advice, not want to go to law school no one will think less of you. If you really want to go to law school, you will pick yourself up and you will start feelings stop feeling sorry sorry for yourself and find a way. Do i really want this enough . And if i do, i will find a way. Speaking about support, a supportive loss is really important for women who recognize that parenthood requires flexibility, and for women to achieve their goals professionally, they need a boss who understands that. We were both moms and we can attest that you walked the walk for sure, and we were grateful for the flexibility that you gave us. It allowed us to do the jobs and be moms. What was it like for you in the workforce balancing work, family, and what were the challenges that you faced when you first started working after law school . First, let merg your boysow old were when you clerked for me . He was 10 years old when i started. And benji was two years older. You were pregnant. By thea was two time i clerked, luisa was three. I got pregnant with isabel during. Justice ginsburg that was a tough time. Dori not a happy pregnancy. Nice kid, but Justice Ginsburg you were first a staff attorney and i was getting these memos that were just outstanding, head and shoulders above the rest. I said who is this . And how about part 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 many weeks. Weeks. Bout four i was first hospitalized. 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 could not keep anything down. You were great. You called while i was home, he 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. Like au treated me just guy. Justice ginsburg you were pretty good. For you, andooting we knew how hard it was what you were going through. Whofirst law clerk i had had childcare responsibilities was not a woman, it was david. He had gone to georgetown at said and his application im going to school at night economist wife is an at the world bank or the International Money fund. Justice ginsburg the american develop ruthanne the American Development bank. Justice ginsburg i take care of the kids during the day, take them to soccer practice, and that was david post. I will admit that there was one other aspect to his application that made him irresistible. Most law clerk applicants give us a writing sample or a court brief. David gave me a paper, his first writing a seminar. Essay, ando write an his was on the law of contract as played out in wagoner wagners ring cycle. Ruthanne did you bother reading it . Remember, weurg i did not have the internet yet. Said ito the chief and have a law clerk who needs a flexible schedule, so 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. Experience was when my 1955. Er was born in i was one of the few working moms. James thinks he was the beneficiary of that because he kept getting invited to. Leepovers and weekends of otherhat the parent classmates felt sorry for him. James idea was the less he saw me the better. 10 years later, this is an example of what changed. My son is born and going to school, and it is not at all unusual to have two money earners in the family. Still, the woman was expected to take care of the children, inoculations, shoes, the medical checkups. , who today is a very fine human, was what i called a lively child and what the School Called hyperactive. Please comecalls, down to meet with the room teacher of the school or the psychologist. We need to tell you about your sons latest escapades. One day when i was really wear y, i had stayed up all night. Parents,y son has two please alternate calls. This time, it is his fathers term. They called marty and he came to the school. Told james latest infraction. What was it . The elevator. Le it was one of those handheld elevators. Someone had dared him to take the kindergarten class from the ground floor to the top floor. Ruthanne how old was he . Justice ginsburg in the fifth grade. Ruthanne that is impressive. Justice ginsburg martys was what has he done . How far could 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 cars the calls came barely once a semester. They were much more reluctant to take a man away from his work than a woman. Justice ginsburg ,uthanne following up on that besides presenting a united front schools, and pediatricians, do you have any advice for working families today with two earners that are struggling to balance the demands of the career and Family Responsibilities . Me, theginsburg for two parts of my life whereas was a respite for the other. When i first started law school we had a nanny, so my time at law school i was not wasting a minute, i was reading, studying, and outlining all of the time. When it came close to 4 00, that was it, i close the books and ayed with myl daughter and went to the mall with her. When she was fed and went to sleep, i went back the books. 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. That so many men wake up one day in their child is grown and they have had very little to do with raising that child and they regret it. Years that you will spend after your child has left the nest are much longer, and if you have lost that early opportunity to be part of the child raising to form a bond with your child, you are missing something important in life. Justice ginsburg there ruthanne very true. 4 00 and leave here at my kids are two and four. I would grab a snack and go to daycare and while i was here, i was here. And i was at home i was with them. My next question is about moving from domesticity to foreign travel. We know you went back to sweden 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. We will not ask you about that. We will not ask you about that. [laughter] aboutt did you learn gender equality and in in sweden . It was the very best and also the very worst. [laughter] a masterwork for english readers. [laughter] you want to know what surprised me about Swedish Society . Inwhat were your takeaways terms of gender equality there . Compared to your experience in werenited states and what the differences . This goes back to 19 two to 62 and 1963. Women were perhaps 5 percent of in our country and 20 in sweden and we had a career judiciary. You had to decide if you want to be an applicant are you practicing law and you go up the ladder. At that time, there were many prosecutors, and there were very few women practicing law. Proceeding, it was trial court in stockholm and the presiding judge is eight months pregnant. If you were a teenager and began to show in the United States, you were out of the classroom. Teacher and began to show in the United States. You are out of the classroom , you were out of the classroom. A case from arizona, she wanted to have an abortion but could not get it in her home state. So, she went to sweden. That was a big story in the press. There was a woman writing a why should a woman have two jobs and the man only one . Accepted, taught right and proper, to be two incomes in but the woman was expected to have dinner on the table by 7 00 and take the no children for medical checkups. Some women were the queen bee types saying i dont need him to share in anything, i can do it all. There are others who say he should do a lot more than take out the garbage. [laughter] so, that was revealing. I didnt do anything with it immediately because there was nothing to be done in the United States. But, it was put on the back burner. Lateit came alive in the 1960s, i was exhilarated with theopportunity that finally time was right to make the change. That segues into another question, the roadmap 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. You would haver found that very satisfying just being a commercial litigator thatether you lucked out you didnt get a job at a law firm. 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 you do . She went to the county attorney and said i will work without pay. After two months, if you think im worth it, then you will put me on the payroll. I got my first job at columbia law school. Wase was a professor who determined to get me a job in called every judge in the Southern District of new york. They would say, even if we were to consider her as a woman, shes a mother. Thats too much. This great professor picked a district judge who was a columbia undergraduate. He said give her a chance. Out, therest work a young man, highly qualified,hos going to advance our firm he will come in and take over. So, that is the carrot and there was a stick. I never knew this until jerry told me about it. Because he had two daughters. He wondered what it would be like for them. You gave him the benefit of the doubt. After, thats what it was like for women of my vintage. Getting that first job was hard. , you didou got a job it at least as well as the men. The second job was the same hurdle. I could have gone to any number of law firms. Story Justice Oconnor tells, think of what our lives would have been if there had been notice from a nation. What would we be . Partnersbe retired 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. [laughter] , all right. Oh, all right. She doesnt want to ask it but i will. [laughter] did you ever consider writing fiction . Never because i dont have the time to do that. [laughter] had a major influence on the way that i read and write. It was a magnificent teacher. You are very lucky. Taken,tever the road not it is very lucky for all of us that you took the road not taken. [applause] now, we will move to a few questions about the law. So, this year, we are celebrating the centennial of 9th amendment, allowing women to vote, and we elected 117 women to congress which is a new record. But women have not come close to political parity in this country. 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 to be done . 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. Justice,ks to our new 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 are more women clerking at the court than men. [applause] so, what do i see . First, what we are doing we are 1970s, wein the were getting rid of the overtly explicit classification that women cant do this or cant do that. Almost all of those explicit barriers are gone. What remains is often is one called unconscious bias. One example is the symphony orchestra. When i was growing up, a famous woman in the a orchestra except for the harpist. A famous music critic for the New York Times swore he could tell between a man and a woman playing the instrument and they said lets put it to the test and blindfold him. He was all mixed up. [laughter] was certain it was a woman, it was a man. So, if he saw a woman, he had certain expectations for her. After that experiment, they came up with the bright idea of theping a curtain between people listening and conducting so they wont know if its women or men. With that simple change, almost there was an almost overnight shift in people showing up in the orchestra. I was telling this story at a Music Festival some years ago came violinist up to me and said you left out something. Like what . We auditionedhat hearess so they couldnt the tapping. [laughter] we cannot duplicate the dropped curtain in politics. One of the best examples the way we operate 19781979 from not promoting men in general. And up to the very last test , which was the colored person test. An interviewer sitting down having a conversation with a candidate and at that point that women dropped out disproportionately. Why was that . Because the interviewer had a Comfort Level because they look just like the interviewer. If the person being interviewed was of a different race , different gender, there was a discomfort experienced by the interviewer. Up in a lower rating for the woman. Discriminate . To thats hard to get through. Case before the European Court of justice for the european union. For Civil Service jobs in germany, many are occupied by men. If two candidates are equal in qualification, prefer the woman. There was an argument that was reversed is termination. Discrimination. Linesn see between the the court is understanding this is not necessarily a preference for a woman. Its a way of overcoming the unconscious bias that would operate in favor of the men. Say for women today outside the home, unconscious bias is there. And what you talked about before, the overt bias. But, i would be interested to know whether you think the federal court would play a central a role Going Forward. That wasjust described accepted by the European Court would not be accepted by the courts here. There is a statute premised on the working woman. Thats defending the medical leave act, which the court, thank goodness, upheld and an opinion by the old chief in an opinion by the old chief. Week, a number of cases urged the court to revisit prior holdings. In your view, i would like to know, do you think public andion of the court fixed hearing whether the court should consider its place in the system . All of us to. Of us feelsg each deeply is that we want to leave that institution is 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. After world war ii, most didnt countries didnt have anything for judicial review for constitutionality. It wasnt until after world war ii that they emerged from europe and other places and what. The court that existed in germany convinced people the popularly elected legislatures societiys basic fundamental rights. To have a Constitutional Court would be one test from turning into an autocratic government so then we saw the the courts with the idea of having a court and thats when it became popular. But, for many decades, United States was alone in the world with the constitution that was not just aspirational but on the grounds of the here and now. One last question before the panel takes the stage. Its about cases. We know that you have said in past you wont tell the favorite decision that you have authored yourself but what about a favorite decision written by another justice or the 14th a favorite decision or two about the 14th amendment and gender . This gives me an opportunity to Say Something about the 14th ndment because most of my the 14th amendment says no state shall deny equal protection. It wasnt in the fifth amendment for good reason. Constitution was new, the constitution acknowledged and permitted slavery. Of does then congress have to abide by equal protection norm came to a head in a series of cases combined one of them involve the combined into brown versus board. One case involved the d. C. Public schools. There was a reverse and the court said the due process clause incorporates the explicit equal protection guarantee. Its in the 14th amendment. Imagine the Supreme Court saying states can no longer have law enforced segregation in schools . It would be unthinkable. Whats the question . [laughter] decision aboute gender equality written by somebody else. The familyioned medical leave case. The end of case at Justice Oconnors first term on the court. Mississippi university, a woman 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 school for women. They wouldnt accept him. Justice oconnor wrote an opinion for the court saying you cannot deny two men or two women women in or to Educational Opportunity an Educational Opportunity because they are male or female. That was in 1992. In 1996, the court was confronted with Virginia Military institute. This time, it was women wanting access to an educational facility up to then reserved for men. Cedentincipal pre was Justice Oconnors opinion. Case where you could read between the lines. Justice powell was on the other it as affirmative action for women. Upgrade pay in a field that was dominantly for women is to get men to do that. She didnt see Mississippi University for women including men in the Nursing Program is any kind of affirmative action. Quite the contrary. I brought it home and showed it to marty. He said, did you write this . [laughter] thoughts to share on your least favorite . There have been two series of cases where the court got it quite wrong. The question of applying citizenship through a parent. Still in , immigrationrea and naturalization, this distinction remained. Married,ts are not child born abroad, if the mother is a u. S. Citizen, the child automatically acquires the mothers citizenship. Andhe mother is the alien the father is the citizen, the child does not unless they are married. Example one more was this a favorite to women . Note. No. If the child is born out of wedlock, he is fancy free, hes out of it. I didnt see this as my colleagues did. Said there was another one. There were two. It would be hard for people of a certain age to think of a beenague i revere, he had in the navy in world war ii. There were a lot of stories i guess he didnt conceive of his buddies, no matter how many bein havingy sired, as any kind of bond, being 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. 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. And i will call the panel up to do the second part of our program. [applause] 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 moderator who is a fulltime cnn legal analyst covering the Supreme Court for 25 years with written several books on the judiciary published , most recently 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, jo. [applause] thanks to all of you for being here and staying here. [laughter] we appreciate it. We know just about everyone on the panel but just to refresh your memory, to my far right is the judge from the dc circuit. Katie gibson, a professor from Colorado State has also written a book on the legacy of Justice Ginsburgs dissent and to my. And to my immediate right the is 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] the president eft, and ceo of the National Womens law center. [applause] 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. I want to ask each of the panelists, what struck you . Did you hear something new . What jumped out . I know the part when she said something about your brilliant legal argument [laughter] that is nothing new. [laughter] what struck you . One thing about Justice Ginsburg is that she worked for the American Civil Liberties union and womens rights but she is not necessarily just a womens rights person but really someone who stands for sex or equality or gender equality. Again in me again and the remarks that she made how much she thinks it is important that men have these opportunities to do things normally associated with femininity just as important for women to have those important opportunities. She has a signature style and we will hear from professor gibson but one thing that i noticed when ruthanne was 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 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 said the first clerk that i had was a man so she championed him as well. So accepting it but also leaving mark. Own movinge had this statement when she said so many men will not take as active as a role in raising their children as they might and then it goes very quickly and that they ey regret it. Again, it is a piece of her the authentic part that this is a thing of value for people and parents so for me that was crystallizing with her advocacy and her role about gender. To hop on that, her work and comments on gender reveals how an awareness how rigid norms of masculinity are for women so theres that recognition to creating a world where theres more space for those different gender performances is good for everybody. The conversation on 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. One was the advocate for clerks and the story that she the writing. I have a million questions to follow like how many women dont apply. I thought that was a very beautiful story. But second, i was hanging on to every word what she had to say on unconscious bias in thinking deeply how our laws are illequipped to address it. But the case that she raised was one example of how a law clerk how our laws were illequipped to address that unconscious bias when it comes to pay. That was really a part of what they were trying to get at. An overall policy of leaving it to managers to decide person by thatn whos going to allow unconscious and on purpose bias described, she briefly and it had me thinking t it would look like thats a good place for us to go to as we move along. Elizabeth . I think it was really wonderful 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. About what Justice Ginsburg said to talk to the firstyear students. Im a mother of a sixmonthold, so i was listening intently to all that. Its also about what you want to get out of life. Hear three voices talking about that. What if we had a Supreme Court of Justice Ginsburgs . Like heaven. [laughter] i have heard her say the following summary times. So many times. A great remark she heard from her motherinlaw when she was getting married. Dear, sometimes it pays to be deaf. This is the first time i heard 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] everybody here knows the general outlines of her life story but just a reminder to segue first into her advocacy and her time on the bench and then to 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 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 , but i found it very nice. [laughter] she said many times he is the first guy she dated who thought she had a brain and was happy she had a brain. And then they both go to Harvard Law School and then brings her daughter, jane, with her marty , marty falls ill she takes care of him and takes notes in his classes and is doing so well , nonetheless, he does recover illness and graduates before she does so then they moved to new york city for his job, she has to transfer to columbia where again she makes the law review and is the first in her class. Despite that, she cannot get a job. While shes at columbia and studys, she starts to more discrimination issues. She with the aclu found the womens rights project and. Over just her unusual strategy of finding men as plaintiffs were women who where women face discrimination. One case, the Supreme Court struck down a Social Security that provides survivors benefits to a widows 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. Talk about that. As she was giving commentary i was thinking the others worse were not just the male plaintiff thats important but to challenge the notion that was so embedded in our culture with 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 i felt like she was trying to do a bit on the stage tonight. She talked about the harm or men who are left without the theme they need but also 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 am struck by her continued ability today to point out how they hold onto the stereotypes being 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 Pay Practices happen today. To show that men get that bumped into a fatherhood bump in pay but women get a cut in pay after having children. So, it is one of the hard and difficult tropes that are difficult to defeat. So, the stories that we tell ourselves are as important as dismantling the explicit and not so explicit legal structures. About thato ask you counterintuitive notion of trying to argue to a decisionmaker with a plaintiff who is interpretable. Who isnt so predictable. That a good strategy in terms of equality litigation . Absolutely. With the idea 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 smart strategy and as i think she drew inspiration from the Civil Rights Movement that came before her, with the a caseat you would bring of a graduate student someone before justices who could identify 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 adjust us. 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 she talked about tonight i love the part where she talks , about the way there is a reverse incorporation. The mandate of the 14th it appliess explicitly to the state to transformed the entire constitution going back to the for the moment. Back to the fifth amendment. Justice ginsburg as an advocate has an intellectual approach and then to communicate these ideas and then we are told the story of sex versus gender and this is sex discrimination and then to talk earlier who is typing up a lot of her work who said sex, sex, sex everything in it could be offensive and then she started to say gender. I know you have written about how you challenge some norms so talk a little bit how the her advocacy challenge the d 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 struggle at the heart of the early advocacy. Patriarchal scripts confronted the entrenched genre of many others who did not fit the mold. So, the litigation strategy is described as incremental and clearheaded but what is measured is a more sweeping strategy that challenged the rhetorical landscape of the law for five decades. Evident in ais 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 for my sex. All i ask is that they take our feet their feet off our ne cks. She said it had a certain shock quality. [laughter] dissents a posture of that runs throughout her arguments for gender equality with those exclusions that live in the language of the law. Literatureto that class she learned from knobby nabukov and she uses this throughout her career to challenge to narrow the imagination in to see from a broader vantage point. Her legacy teaches us that is inherently disruptive and with that objectivity must be confronted and challenged the must be confronted and challenged to create feminist judgment in the law. A lot of us appreciate justice dissents voice of today. 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 said it so evenly, they probably werent sure it hit them. Reminded recently and inspiration of polly murray on Thurgood Marshalls work and her work, its a daring reference she put into her early briefs. Nothing was ever in the face of people, which goes to these comments made in the beginning about her demeanor and approach to a challenge that doesnt seem to outright challenging. 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 separation of the historyat says of mankind is a history of repeated injuries on the part of man against woman. Which is a bold statement for the time. Boldness that is there if we were looking for it. Also, in terms of deciding lots of womens voices she recited the reason feminism theories of feminism. That was a bold challenge to who matters and whose experiences are centered. I see a boldness in that, too. Then, she gets on the d. C. Circuit and shes talked often about how much shes wanted to end up on the second circuit. 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 will often talk about the lucky stroke that happened because a judge was playing sheis, had a heart attack, gets that spot in 1979. 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. Today, loves to talk about the worklife balance that occurred. 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. He was a professor here at georgetown. One of the things she commented on was how confident he was. Be confidence allowed him to a more egalitarian parent. Luck endingout her up with marty i have to say the same thing for myself. My husband, 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 house and home and having a fulfilling career. Work on theof her d. C. Circuit, one of the things that is very different about being a court of appeals judge from being on Supreme Court 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 a circuit at a time when the court was dominated by more conservative voices. As aof her way of being judge really has its roots in that soil. Her ability to use a combination of her own personal credibility, prowess withnical 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. Backill stop and go youdes, centuries, and give 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. , may beseen as benign 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. Her, itsrofessor in 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. Scalias heard justice claim of the original is him. Ental originalism mantle when you look at Justice Ginsburgs opinions, she is quite a brilliant, progressive originalist. At a lecture that she counts herself as an originalist. Texteaves together the from the constitution at the not being something inclusive for all of us on this stage and then it changed over time, fortunately. She draws upon that text and history and uses that along with precedent in a way that is extreme the powerful and now, and morece scalia conservative court, it is a powerful about scalia the originalist. I dont think its can be a play about Justice Ginsburg called the originalist but she is one in her powerful progressive this is a good time to segue to her work on the Supreme Court. As strange as it seems today she was not bill clintons first choice or second choice or third choice back in 1983 when byron wright announced in march 1993 that he was going to retire the president turned first to mario cuomo who hemmed and hawed and played hamlet on the hudson and then said no. And the president looked at a couple other people as some of you might remember this is the arab tax problems and the nanny it was actually janet reno then attorney general who said as the Equipment Administration is sputtering a bit over the choice go back to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I dont know why you didnt think about her more seriously. The truth was in part because of her record was moderate relatively speaking for a liberal on the dc circuit at the time she was not as widely embraced by liberals and other candidates might have been. But as we saw today Ruth Bader Ginsburg has a way of in a pinch being able to put on the charm. Clinton decides he will interview her and by this point we are in mid june after byron white has announced march 19, 1993 she goes to the white house to meet with the president , does her full ginsburg thing. Immediately says this is it. I dont want to see anyone else in the next day goes to the rose garden and announces her b for today and describes her as the marshal of the womens rights movement. Having been given that line by Daniel Patrick moynihan who was one of her biggest supporters along with marty in terms of getting her position here she comes on shes approved this is another staggering footnote from the era she was approved 96 bthree. Who can imagine that today . On august 3 she takes her judicial oath on august 10 and this is another staggering thing in a highly polarized time she happened to be the first appointee of a democratic president in 26 years. The last one before that had been thorough good marshal under lbj. It was such a different time. In her first term Justice Oconnor is still on the bench and i thought it was so interesting how many times she referred to Justice Oconnor today. Justice oconnor in the very first term happened to write a decision in the Sexual Harassment case harris versus forklift systems. Justice ginsburg added a concurring statement that underscored the unequal treatment of women in the workplace at the time and she said the critical issue is whether members of one sex are supposed to do some pages forms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are not exposed. I thought maybe we would talk about those early markers that she put down. When you pick up from there about just what we saw in the early jurisprudence before we had the breakout rpg notorious rbg moments. If i could pick up on your Justice Oconnor, as you were talking i was thinking about the money many money sex discrimination cases it was actually Justice Oconnor who wrote the opinion and Justice Ginsburg joined in the case. In david versus monroe case which is the case that applies to peer harassment in schools. In the jackson versus birmingham case that said with the title nine retaliation as we were talking i was intrigued by that and wish he was here to ask about that. I also thought it was interesting when she was pressed on her favorite decision that she did not write but she the cold in case which of course is the precursor to the vmi case. Hearing her talk about how important that was in the hogan decision of course it was a male plaintiff and the case was as she described about really the all womens Nursing Program but what it meant in the vmi case not just around integrating the military academy which is so important but what that case says really about our ability to look at classifications Going Forward and think about sex stereotyping generally. That feed that she had their with a loving the hogan case and then being able to be the author of that Court Decision was laid out the standard for how we view our bbthe last thing i think really is on my mind about this and in thinking about in more recent times another harassment case that involved a supervisor harassment from not that long in that case it was the opinion Justice Ginsburg sort of told the story to remind us all and remind the public about the many ways that you can experience harassment from someone who may not be your formal supervisor. The person who could take away the ship and change the nature of your day today work in that if that person is controlling your ability to do her job there should be the same type of vicarious liability. The way in which in that she walks through what that is like to actually be that worker and experience that and have the harassment coming from someone who is effectively your supervisor in my mind its really just opens up the problem with the majority opinion which took a very narrow view in that case she said this is a problem for congress to clearly fix. He got it wrong you are failing to understand what its like in someones daytoday lives. I think that you see that as the theme in other cases where he is saying, you are failing to understand what its like to be in the shoes of that person who has come before us. And not know how much everybody else is being paid and suddenly discover it. He mentioned sex stereotyping i know judge told her that thats been both the hips case and vmi litigation you were involved in what is the importance of her sex stereotyping approach and we dont have that much time left but i want to ask about the standard that she originally pushed for, the scrutiny to match race discrimination and then went another route. How do you understand that . One of the really sensual things that is the legacy of joint efforts of various but really has Ruth Bader Ginsburg bin this concept of stereotyping as a violation of equal protection laws. She takes the idea of saratoga, she said stereotyping it doesnt have to be derogatory doesnt have to be because i think in the old days maybe its not like this for those of you generations later but we used to think stereotyping just had to be an insult. If it wasnt an insult it was in a stereotype. She ends up saying no, a stereotype is an over generalization thats not accurate. Again and again there are situations where for the vmi case this is private military style school that challenge to the exclusion of women from the Virginia Military institute comes a generation after women are actually in the military academy. They are in west point, they are out colorado springs, at annapolis, but bmi is like we have the method and its really appropriate for boys and the whole school its like a very not necessarily that known nationally before the case but barely highly endowed school place where you go there in your career in business and the military and politics is made. I think of the time of the case at the highest per capita of anybody of Higher Education in the country. It was really a plummet thing. A lot of people are like, what woman would want to go there . Its this very, upperclass students yell at the incoming students. Any little infraction you are down doing pushups. You are very much boot camp trial by fire you break them down to build them up. Thought to be something to take rowdy boys and make them into civilized and upstanding man. Yes there were women qualified and women who wanted to go so she takes the idea of stereotype and really shifts it into if there are atypical men or women the men who want to go to the Nursing School women who want to go to a vmi or citadel, we look at them individually. They have the right to be treated as individuals. And to be treated equally. In bmi she goes back to the beautiful history of the school. How it is this idea that its standing for the singlesex education is completely implausible because there is no corresponding singlesex school for women in the entire state. After the liability they try to create one and she does a withering job of pointing out how its not providing equal opportunity for the women who want to go. Your question is about the role of stereotypes. [laughter] its okay. This is great. [laughter] and i did want to link back on one great thing about this case. When it was argued in the Supreme Court the principles Deputy John Newell argued and this went back to the panels about her ability to connect to the Principal Deputy general had a great ginsburg like piece of oral advocacy where he likened vmis saying we are going to reserve this technique which is designed for men and reserved for men imagine at the time when law schools are just opening to women and they think, it wouldnt really be right for women to be in the socratic method with their harshly questioned. To have them have these difficult exams. We should have them in a more cooperative more seminar like so we will have a separate law school for the women. To me at the time it seemed kind of hokey and simple but the bench was wrapped. [laughter] they didnt interrupt at all as he spun out this example and it really spoke to them. In a way that i think these cadets marking the rounded lexington virginia did it. It wasnt their language. It was their language. Thats a perfect segue to you katie about how what you saw in her litigation strategy and her litigation rhetoric then emerges in her opinions and exactly the way that judge pillard 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 the experiences. Just this term she wrote an opinion that pushback on Justice Thomas after he repeatedly referred to women who exercise their right to choose abortion as mothers. In ginsburgs lifes work made her keenly aware of how language of women as mother has been mobilized throughout history to restrict womens rights. In the area of reproductive rights also her voice of dissent has proved especially committed to challenging these abstract language conventions that universalize the experiences in women and flatten their differences in her dissenting to bb our commitment to context and difference can also be seen in her hobby lobby dissent. As she admonished the majority and emphasize that the cost of an iud is out of reach for many women. Its an entire months pay for those making minimum wage. I think we see those things, those early pieces of her advocacy in those ways. In really profound ways. Its amazing we just had exhibit a in terms of what you were just talking about back and forth between Justice Ginsburg and thomas. I think what her efforts to foreground different voices and different lived experiences is really one of the great feminist promises of her rhetorical legacy. I was going to turn to you elizabeth in terms of the Shelby County dissent and other dissents that first of all as some of you know it wasnt until. 2013 that the meeting was ever created. Decision inn her Shelby County case just electrified the internet. Ifh the time we have left you say didnt from what she has done for womens rights to a Broader Group of civil rights issues that were probably there all along but it is now more evident. Lived experience and walking through the way that you experience harassment in the workplace. One of the ways that she did that in the reproductive autonomy is taking abortion from the jurist prudence privacy isce and something you do in private, in the dark. By saying how can women be equal in the Public Square if we cannot even control our own reproductive decisions, our own bodily autonomy how could we enjoyed that product of equal citizenship in the count the jewish and thats constitution. The abortion context is where she is looking over for the argument. I think her opinions in the race conscious admissions programs in idea that it is obviously the policy of exclusion versus inclusion. Whether or not we are trying to make real the constitutions promise of equality that was put into those posts civil war amendments. County, taking your foot off of our net, she did not hold back and said throwing out the preclearance provision and that wasg rights act working so well is like getting rid of your umbrella because you are not getting wet in the rain storm. The idea that she can use this language to make things real for people, even Something Like difficult questions of the law or preclearance. Thats not something that rolls off the time. Idea citizenship stature , ior five motivates her think the idea that its not just women at that it is gender. We did not talk about it that in the disability rights context as well. How can people be full, equal citizens if they dont have access because of a disability. She has not in her jerk burdens as well jurisprudence as well. Picking up on the equal citizenship point that is the question before Going Forward and whether it is the abortion bans or the many other restrictions that are alike like abortion bans. Important and i think that we will see a connection between that and the be lgb t q,r it i know that area of a law interest you also. Do you see her jurisprudence translating and affecting that area . One of the things that is. Nteresting about her women are differently situated and members of minority groups. But i think there is a real potential in her way of framing sex equality and in particular of focusing on stereotypes and assumptions about how people should behave according to their sex. If youre a woman hears appropriate behavior and how shes question that and assure that peoples opportunities are not restricted by that kind of generalization. I think it has a lot of upside and you seen some of that in the briefing in the cases asking the courses to understand title vii in discrimination production as extending to discrimination based on Sexual Orientation or if you are someone who is born male or assigned male sex at birth or gender at birth and you go to work as a woman in your adult life, is it under the equal protection jurisprudence, is it really a kin to discrimination against a woman who shows up at dmi or a man who shows up at the Nursing School and is being told no you are not behaving in a way that corresponds to what as we or society or you as someone born into x sex should be. This is an idea that we are going to see pushed. Obviously different challenges in different issues it raises but really the whole idea about stereotyping as the target is something that has new fields. Katie, your business is words . You have the last words. I think its important to emphasize the democratic promise that lives in the rhetoric of ginsburgs jurisprudence. There is an outward rhetorical posture as she situates the law within the world within complexities of difference. Within traditions of injustice. Her sustained practice of connecting legal arguments lived experience. Her calls for action outside of the court after they did dialogue after the judiciary that invites a broader range to claim agency in shaping the meaning of the we can see examples of this democratic comet in the various publics that moved into action and response to some of her recent dissenting opinions. While we celebrate her legacy and her individual accomplishments in many ways her rhetorical legacy points back to the people. It reminds us that we have work to do too. We have a responsibility to build alliances, to speak up, mobilize protests. This might be the most important lesson in this particular moment for moving the work of gender equality forward. First lets think our first, lets think our panelists. [applause] you are all rewarded for your endurance. There is a reception across the green. Justice ginsburg loves to have one with everything and theres streets over there. Please join in. Thank you again. [applause] [inaudible conversations] after after the Supreme Court ruling live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Morning, and talk about the news that iran has exceeded its limit on stockpiling uranium. Then a law professor at the university of baltimore talks about her new book, how to read the constitution and why. Join the discussion. Tonight, on cspan. After nixons last press conference, 10 years later, he would be in a 49 state landslide. And then it all came apart. Columnist and political commentator tester decanting, who served as a speechwriter and Senior Advisor to president nixon discusses his new book. I wrote him a memo saying he would have to get dean to testify. I did not think it would be that damaging. I said take the rest out and burn it and shut down the special Prosecutors Office before this thing grows into a monster. I did not know at the time but hague andad called in entertained this idea that he should burn the tapes. They said it will be obstruction of justice. Recommend burning subpoenaed tapes. They were his property. Executive privilege existed. Said, impeach and the damp. I think he would have moved right through it. He said in his memoirs if he had burned the tapes as i had urged him to do, he would have survived. Tonight at 8 00 eastern. Current and former federal discuss thedges Human Factors judges consider in court cases. From the university of california berkeley law school, this is 90 minutes. My name is terminally jeremy. I have been here for a little and a proudyear member of the bench of the Northern District of california. This program is something that jeff rosen and i have been thinking about and dreaming about for some time. We worked together on a number discussion and the in ourcial independence
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.