[ applause ] a few years ago we began inviting a giant of the bench or bar to offer reflections to our entering class and its been an extraordinary opportunity for our students as you embark on your Legal Education to listen to and to learn from someone whose career has shaped the law. And by attending georgetown law youve chosen to learn the law in the place where laws are made and this is evident in the speakers who have welcomed our first year students. So in the past few years people have heard from justices stevens and the late justice scalia. And we have been so fortunate the last two years this is the second year in a row to be joined by the legendary Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg. [ applause ] so i know that a long introduction of Justice Ginsburg is not necessary for georgetown students. As you progresses in your studies at the law center youll read and discuss from many powerful and Supreme Court decisions as well as her pointd and influential descents. And youll also learn that she occupies a rare place in history. Like thorough good marshal, she would be a historical figure even if shed never been a judge or justice and as im sure you all know the judge, the justice is also a cultural icon. How many of us can say that we have inspired a one act opera, two coloring books, and the phenomenon known as the notorious rbg. Justice ginsburg is also a special member of the law center community. For those of you who came down on this side, you might have noticed that we recently received a portrait of Justice Ginsburg, which we now proudly display as you come into the auditorium. Her late husband had was a belvled professor at georgetown law for many years and we have a professorship named in his honor. And Justice Ginsburgs authorized biaugrfers and co biraphers are members of our faculty. Every year invites the fellows to the court for tea for conversation. Im deeply thankful for your commitment to our students and alum alumni. Thank you, Justice Ginsburg. A couple of logistical announcements before we begin. After the justices remarks, we will go to the reception. So thats one. Thats where you go next. Two, silence your cell phones. I did mine on the way in. And then in terms of the format, the justice will talk for a little bit about the past term. Then after that ill ask some questions and we received a lot of questions from the audience. So i will time allowed, ask as many of them as i can. When i ask your question, i ask tat you stand up so that we can recognize you. So now members of our 2017 entering class, please join me in welcoming Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg. I feel so welcome and you feel mostly first year students. Is that right . A very exciting time. I remember how i felt my first year of law school. It was a new kind of learning. In college i was mostly passively taking notes but your Law School Classes i hope are engaging you so you are thinking all the time. Well, i thought we could begin by my giving you a resume of what last term was like at the Supreme Court and say a few things about the term that was thought on the first monday in october. The largest Headline News last term was the appointment of a new justice. Justice gorsuch to replace justice scalia. For 14 months we were only eight on the bench. Neal gorsuch became the 113th justice in time to join us for our last sitting in april. He had only one week between his conformation and the start of the sitting but he managed to prepare well for 13 cases. He also cast himself as a potential rival to justice citau mior, as the justice who asks the most questions at argument. The principal inhouse ben fishiary of Justice Gorsuchs appointment is justice who is no longer our junior justice. Meaning she escapes opening a conference door when a meschger knocks, answering the rare ring of the telephone and most daunting, conveying to the entourage from the Clerks Office, the legal office and the reporters office the disposition the justices made at the conference. Justice kagan also released to Justice Gorsuch, the Cafeteria Committee and that assignment, Justice Kagan suffered brumbling with good humor. Her signal achievement, the installation of a frozen yogurt machine. A new statistic was reported last term, adding to the laugh meter and the count of questions asked by each justice. It was the average number of words from the bench per argument. Justice brieer won hands down with 814 words. Justice kagan took second place with 646. Justice meyer third with 515 and i trailed with only 284. But running neck in neck as fastest justice and getting out opinions, according to a june 1 reckoning, rapid ruth and swift sonia. Twice during the term justice fryers cell phone rang in the midst of argument. Like spectators, the justices are expected to leave their phones and other Electronic Devices behind. After the second occasion, the chief justice had a replica of a metal detecter frame placed in the corridor for justice brieer to pass through before ascending to the bench. For me the most unforgettable argument of the term is a case you probably never heard of. This was a question presented. Could a naturalized citizen be stripped of her citizenship if she committed an offense and failed to report it on her citizenship application . The chief justice was visibly shaken. Some time ago, he confessed, of course outside the statute of limitations, he drove skilkt miles an hour in the 55. Per hour zone. With such a confession prompt cancellation of naturalization he asked . Justice kagan used cant recall how many times ive lied about my weight. Responded, unless you did so under oath. The court released 62 decisions and argued cases last term, dividing 53 or 54 in only 9 of the 62 decisions. In comparison to that sharp agreement rate, we disagreed in only 15 of the cases. We were unanimous in the bottom line judgment in at least 31 cases fully half the decisions rendered and argued cases. And in 21 of the 31 unanimous judgments, we were unanimous in the opinion as well. So agreement you can see is substantially higher than sharp disagreement on the court. We decided several high profile cases and i will describe some of them. Two cases came to us from the Second Circuit. Sessions, moraly, santana against habasi. Both were among the most closely watched. Morali, santana concerned a birth right citizenship statute that treated unwed u. S. Citizens mothers more favorably than unwed u. S. Citizen fathers. A child born abroad to a u. S. Citizen mother would acquire citizenship at birth if her mother had had previously resided in the United States for a continuous period of one year. Unwed u. S. Citizen fathers were subjelkt subjel subjected to a more demanding residency requirement. Because his fatherant lived in the United States more than five years after turning 14, moraly santana did not meet the statutory qualifications for u. S. Citizenship at birth. Congresss spesification of different physical presence for unwed mothers and fathers, the Second Circuit held. It was incompatible with the equal protection principal. Six of the eight participating justices addressing the toughest question in the case the court ultimately concluded that striking down rather than extending the favorable treatment for unwed mothers was the remedy congress would have preferred it known of the constitutional infirmity of the genderbased differential it enacted. That was so, we explained because the longer residency pare period applied to parns as well as unwed fathers. Congress, we thought would not have wanted the exception for unwed mothers to swallow the main room. The mitigation stem from the governments Immediate Response in new york city to the september 11th tragedy. Plaintiffs sued Prominent Department of justice officials and wardens of the metropolitan Detention Center in brooklyn, new york. Where plaintiffs were confined for periods running from three to eight months. Those arrested had over stayed their visa s but were not accusd of any criminal law infraction. They alleged discrimination based on the perception that they were muslim and they alleged gross mistreatment. Many of their allegations were confirmed in an Inspector General report which corroborated that the plaintiffs were held in cramped cells for over 23 hours a day, kept awake day and night by bright lights and loud sounds, denied access to basic hygiene items, toilet paper, soap, towels, tooth paste and eating utensils. Denied for extended periods telephone calls to family and lawyers. Allowed no mail or visitors, frequently strip searched and subjected to physical and verbal abuse. The the District Court dismissed most of their claims, reversing in part the Second Circuit held that many of the claims could pass the courts threshhold. The court took up that case with only six sitting justices. Soto miorbecause she had had been in the Second Circuit during earlier stages in the case and Justice Kagan because she was our solicitor general while the case was pending. And Justice Gorsuch had not yet joined the court when we heard argument. Four justices voted to reverse in principal part pivotal to the courts decision was a 1971 precedent the case was bivens gensz six unnamed agents of the federal bureau of narcotics. Directly under the constitution. In bivens and self it was the fourth amendments ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. Even kwhen there was no statute granting a right to sue. Restrictively reading the precedent the court held that bivens did not reach claims like those asserted in abossi, given the apeling interest in national security. Justice brieer descented in an opinion i joined. He took the unusual step of sumerizing his descent from the bench. That meant he thought the court s opinion was not just wrong but egregiously so. Without a right to sue, he urged the constitutional safeguards against arbitrary detention would be toothless. He guided the court in a case decided soon after hernandez against mesa. The episode there ensued. A Border Patrol age nlt on the texas side of the border. The agent spied while the the boy was playing in a cover separating the two countries. The boys parents sued the offices seeking monetary compensation. With all of the courts judges sitting, the fifth circuit held that because the boy was shot while he was on the mexican side of the border, the ninetyfoufo amendment did not apply to the offices use of deadly force. In an unsigned opinion, the court instructed the fifth circuit to consider as an initial matter and in light of the abossi decision whether a claim could be mounted under bivens. Again justice brieer descended and again i joined him. The coalvert was a jointly controlled and maintained area. Justice brier emphasized it was policed by both mexico and the United States. It should not have been material in our view. Where in the coalvert the bullet fire and struck the boy. A case coming to us from the federal circuit, mattel against tam. Targeted a provision of the l m lanm, a trademark act. A law that prohibited the patent and Trademark Office from registering a despairaging trademark. Rock front man, simon tan sought to trademark the name he chose for his band, the slants. His aim was to reappropriate a term long used to despairage members of a Minority Group and to render the term instead of a racial slur, a badge of pride. The patent and Trademark Office refused to register the mark on the sole ground that it despa despairaged people of asian descent. Sitting with all of its judges, a fractured federal circuit held that the provision that banned disparaging marks a viewpoint discriminatory measure incompatible with the First Amendment. We afirmed that judgment. There were two opinions, each for four justices but all of us agreed that a trademark is the trademark holders speech and not the governments speech. The underlying issue had received considerably more attention in the dispute over the nfl s Washington Redskins trademark. The patent and trademark aufls canceled protection for redskin trademarks in 2014 at the request of a group of native americans. A federal District Court ruling that redskins was disparaging to a substantial compositive native americans. The appeal to the Fourth Circuit was placed on hold pending our decision in the slants case. One of the problems these cases present is what exactly does disparaging mean . Beauty is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. To the Trademark Office examiner, slants was a racial insult. To the slants themselves, it was an expression of pride in their heritage. I check before coming here to find out what had had happened to the redskin case. In june the Fourth Circuit had had asked the parties to inform the Court Whether in light of the decision in the slants case oral argument was necessary. All of the lawyers, the ones for the plaintiffs, the native urmarecons that complained and the lawyer for the redskins and the government agreed that the slants case was controlling and that there would be no need for oral argument. In another First Amendment case, packing hm against North Carolina, the issue was access to the internet by former sex offenders. A state law made it a felony for a registered sex offender to access a broad array of commercial social networking websites that the offender knew did not restrict membership to adults. Packingham had served a sentence for taking indecent liberties with a 13yearold. He had served his time and several years later, he posted a note on his Facebook Page celebrating his success in getting a traffic ticket dismissed. For that posting, he was charged with violating North Carolinas law, banning him from using facebook, also amazon. Com, web md, the New York Times, the Washington Post and scores more. In defense of the statute, North Carolina stressed its vital interest in protecting children from sexual predators. But the law was stunningly over broad, the Supreme Court held because it barred him from all of the Online Platforms individuals use to gain information and engage in ordinary and protected speech. For example, interacting with their elective representatives, obtaining Online Education and finding gainful employment. Applying the First Amendment to the internet, the court recognized will be a trying task and no doubt the future will bring more opportunities to address the matter. The religion clause of the First Amendment in Trinity Lutheran church. The case involved an application by the church to participate in missouris scrap Tire Grant Program to resurface a playground at its preschool and day care facility. The state department of Natural Resources denied funding on the ground that Trinity Lutheran was a church. And the department did so relying on an article of the Missouri State constitution that read no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly nor directly in aid of any church, sect, or denomination of religion. Trinity lutheran challenged the departments ruling, urging that its exclusion from the Grant Program violated the free exercise and equal protection clauses by discriminating on the basis of religious status. Disagreeing with the lower courts, the Supreme Court held that excludeing the church from the Grant Program violated the federal constitution. A generally available benefit the court reasoned could not be with held on account of the beneficiaries religious identity. In a case i joined, justice mior said the clauses need more of a separation of church and state. More concern questions stemming from the courts 2016 decision against hodges. Ob obergafelled held that we sum airline reversed a decision of the Supreme Court of arkansas concerning birth certificates. We held that a state may not deny to marry samesex couples the right afforded by state law to married opposite sex couples to have the name of the birth mothers spouse entered as the second parent on the childs birth certificate. On the same day that we saw, we granted review in a case under the colorado antidiscrimination act. A case that has gotten more attention, i think than any other on our current docket. Al against colorado silver Rights Commission. A baker, based on his religious believes refused to bake wedding cakes for samesex couples. He would sell them cookies and ordinary cakes but he would not create a cake celebrating their marriage. Colorado sanctioned him for violating the states antidiscrimination law and we will decide in the term about to begin whether the bakers claim to freedom of religion prevails over the states application of the antidiscrimination law. For the current term we have so far granted review in 26 cases, one garnering considerable interest is carpenter against the United States. The stored Communications Act permits the government to obtain without getting a warrant cell phone records that reveal a persons whereabouts over the course of several months. The petition in carpenter asks whether the kaurngsitution requires a warrant to access such records. The sixth circuit answered no, it held that a cell phone user voluntarily shares information, including her where abouts. And no warrant is needed to gain the information. We also agreed to hear gill against witford. Wisconsin asked us to review the ruling of a District Court in joining wisconsins redistricting plan as a jerry mander. So far the court has held racebased jerry manders unkaurnu unconstitutional. But has not found a reliable measure of fairness for determining whether a partisan jerry mander violates the constitution. In three consolidated cases we will consider Employment Contracts purporting to relinquish in favor of binding individual arbitration the right to pursue class or collect v litigation. Such employer dictated contracts, employees urge violates the National Labor relations act. Which protects workers rights to act collectively for their mutual interest. Additionally the government supported the employees but recently it switched sides and now relying on the federal arbitration act suports the employers position. The switch place puts us at odds with the position taken by the National Labor relations board, petitioner in one of three cases and formerly represented by the solicited general. The acting solicitor general has given the lobby permission to brief and argue its own views so we will have two arguments by government representatives on opposite sides of the issue and that will boo ea first for me in the nearly 25 years i have served on the court. Finally on june 1, the government filed a petition seeking review, halting the president s travel ban. That decision affirms an injunction against implementation of the executive order limiting travel to this country by persons from six predominantly muslim countries. The government also filed an application requesting a stay of the Fourth Circuits injunction pending the Supreme Courts review, as well as the stay of another injunction of the same executive order coming from the District Court in hawaii. After the ninth circuit upheld the hawaiis junction, they asked us to treat that stay application as a petition for review from the ninth circuits decision. The Court Granted both petitions, the one from the ninth circuit and the one from the Fourth Circuit. And consolidated the cases for argument in october. The court also stayed the injunction in part. Foreign nationals were it bona fide relationship with the person or entity in the United States continue to be sheltered by the fourth and ninth circuits injunction. A relationship is bona fide if it is a close familial relationship and that includes grandparents ear documented tie to a u. S. Inhad stugz a student admitted to a u. S. University, a worker who has accepted employment from a u. S. Company, a lecturer invited to address the u. S. Audience. All those people would qualify. As to those individuals, the executive order may not be enforced pending our decision on the case granted review. Theres only one prediction thats entirely safe about the upcoming term and that is it will be momentous. And now im ready for my conversation with your dean. That was wonderful. What a privilege to be able to hear from Justice Ginsburg this term and last term. So thank you so much. So actually im delighted to. Actually, one thing id like to do is talk about some of your cases, both as a litigator and on the court. Since our first year students are here, one of the things that is true about this class, you may get a sense just looking out over the audience is most of our first year students are women. Which were very proud of. And so but that wasnt the case when you were a law student. The contrast is gigantic. My entering class at the Harvard Law School included over 500 students, nine of us were women. The big jump from my husband had, who was one year ahead of me. His class had about 500 men and five women. So, we were strange. We were curiosity. What was that like . Let me follow up with question from one of our students. Okay. Very good in the balcony. So lydia writes how do you think the Legal Profession has changed in its attitude and treatment of women since you began your career and what is your advice for women navigating the legal field today . How has the Legal Profession changed in its at turd and treatment of women since you began your career . When i graduated from law school there was no antidiscrimination laws. There wasnt even an equal pay act. There were no title 7 principal, antidiscrimination in Employment Law and employers were entirely up front about wanting no lady lawyers. Sign up sheets for interviews for summer jobs or permanent associates come graduation, often said men only. I dont know how many times i heard from potential employers oh, we had a woman once at this shop and she was dreadful. The obvious response how many men have you had that didnt turn out the way you anticipated . But for women of my generation, the really hard thing was to get the first job. Once you did, you performed it at least as well as the men, often better. So the second job was not the hurdle that the first one was. And this was not just private law firms. Federal judges. I would have given anything to clerk for judge learned hand on the Second Circuit. The judge for whom i clerked lived around the corner from that great judge hand and when i finished early enough i would ride up town with them and id sit in the back of the car and this great man would say anything that came into his head. He would use curse words my motherer never taught me. And i asked him judge hand, i dont seem to be inhibiting you by my presence in this car. Why wont you consider me as a law clerk . And he said young lady, im not looking at you. I was in the backseat so its as though i wasnt there. But that was the attitude prevailing at the time. Now id say the difference is that all of the closed doors are now open. Theres nothing a woman cant do in the law. Among the crazy things that prevailed when i started out. The u. S. Attorneys office would not accept women in the criminal division, only in civil. Kwh i asked why i was told well, there are some tough criminal types and we cant risk having a woman be a prosecutor. And i said have you seen who works at legal aid for no pay or very little pay . People who are representing those tough criminal types. You have a much closer relationship than the prosecutor does and many of them are women. But there were those irrational distinctions. The antidiscrimination laws made a big difference. While i was a law teacher, when i was teaching at columbia, there was a lawsuit brought against a dozen top law firms in new york for discriminating against women applicants for employment. The women at columbia and nyu had a collaboration. They had a collaboration with some of their favorite male students and they asked the male student when you interview someone for a summer job or permanent job, ask level with me what do you really think about women lawyers . And thats the basis on which they got the 12 defendants. The case was assigned to judge constance and immediately the defendants moved to have her recuse herself. Why . Shes a woman so she couldnt possibly judge this case fairly. She was a woman with a sense of humor, which she needed in the kind of life she led. And then who could be impartial because either youre a man or a woman so nobody would be qualified to hear this case. So the all the overt barrier s are gone. What remains is harder to get at. The perfect example of that is a title 7 case that was brought in the late 70s against at t for disproportionately dropping out women applicants for middle management jobs. The women did as well as the men, at least as well as the men on all the standard criteria. But they flunked disproportionately at the very last step and the very last step was a total person test. Total person test was an interviewer interviewing the prospect for promotion. It turned out that all of the interviewers were white men and when they faced someone who was like them, there was a certain familiarity. There was a comfort level. I know what this person is like. But if the person sitting across the table is of another race or if a woman, theres discomfort on the part of the interviewer. I dont know quite how to relate to her. It wasnt a case of i dont want any women to be promoted. It wasnt deliberate discrimination but that unconscious. And if people question whether that exists, think of the symphony orchestra, which in my growing up years never had had a woman. Reporters and critics swore they could tell the difference between a woman playing and a man. The New York Times critic was very definite about that. Someone suggested lets put him to the test. Lets blind fold him and see if he can tell the difference. He was all mixed up. And then another person came up with the it bright idea given what happened with howard tal been. Why dont we drop a curtain between the people who were applying for jobs in the orchestra and the people who are conducting the audition. That way they wont see the unconscious bias will be eliminated. And i told the story at a Music Festival some years ago a young vi violinist came up to me to tell me i had left out something. You left out that we audition shoeless so they wont hear a womans heels coming on the the stage and with that simple change, there was almost an overnight change in the composition of symphony orchestras. So now if you go to a concert, you will see women all over, not just as harp players. So if we could replicate the drop curtain in every sphere of indeavor, it would be wonderful. Since we cant, you have to try other ways to overcome the unconscious bias that still exists. So and so much of the change, so much of the advances in test so much of the change as a litty gator, how did you decide to focus on equality for women . How did i decide to become a famous feminist lit gator . [ applause ] its a fair way to put the question. I was a beneficiary of a sea change of the times in what the professor would have called the climate of the era. I can illustrate by comparing my daughter when she entered kindergarten and my son. My daughter was born in 1955. There were very few working moms in the class. My daughter, by the way, is a law professor, world leading expert in copyright. She said her schoolmates parents felt sorry for her because her mother worked, so she was often invited for after school and weekends. My son was born 10 years later, 1965. It was no longer unusual to have two earner families. In fact, it had become the prevailing pattern. Once peoples lives had changed, it became time for peoples lives to catch up and cases you couldnt win even 10 years earlier. Two of my favorite cases from the bad old days, one is the state of michigan passed a law that said a woman cannot serve as a bartender unless her father or husband is the owner of the establishment. That immediately put a woman and her daughter out of work. During world war ii, when so many men were off defending our country, women began to take jobs they hadnt taken before. One of them women did rather well at was bartending. The Bartenders Union didnt like that when the boys came back home and wanted to get the women out, so michigan passed this law. It was a case of a barrier that put these two women out of business. The Supreme Court said that was okay. It was okay because places where liquor by the drink is sold can be dangerous. They made very light of it. And then in 1961, when the court decided the case of hoyt against florida, it was a woman who today we would call battered her philandering husband humiliated her to the breaking point. She spied her young sons baseball bat in the corner of the room and brought it down over her husbands head with all her might, he fell, hit his head against the hard floor end of their altercation and beginning of the murder prosecution. They didnt put women under those rules. She argued it denies me the opportunity to be judged by a jury of my peers. My peers, of course, include women. The Supreme Court in another glib opinion said women have nothing to worry about. They have the best of both worlds. If they want to serve they can go to the Clerks Office and volunteer. And the exemption is perfectly reasonable because after, the woman is the center of home and family life. You can imagine how gwendolyn point must have felt when she received news about that decision. What about me . Her idea was if i had women on that jury, they might not have acquitted me but very well might have convicted me of the lesser crime of manslaughter, not murder for which she was convicted. That was up until 1961. When the turning point came in the superioritys decision in 1971, in a case called reed v reed, it was brought by the acul wrote the brief for the challenge of sally reed. On that brief, replaced the name of two women, Dorothy Kenyon and polymurray. These were women who had said the same thing we were saying in the 1970s and said it in the 40s, the 50s, when society was not yet ready to listen. Dor t Dorothy Kenyons mission was to put women on every state in the union. And murray was a woman so far ahead of her time seeking both Racial Justice and gender equality. One of the things that propelled me was an article polly murray and her friend, Mary Eastwood wrote, called jane crow and the law. She pointed to all the laws that said women cant do this, women cant do that. I think jane was an apt name for that. So we put those two names on the brief although they were by jane kreit sr. Didnt participate in writing the brief but we knew we were standing on their shoulders and they kept Society Alive when society was not yet ready to listen. I was riding a wave of fantastically lucky. In the 70s, the Womens Movement was coming alive all over the world, it was not just a u. S. Phenomena. The u. N. Declared in 1975 international womans year. There were women and men advocating change. Change in what had been the separate spheres stance of the law. That is, the man was the breadwinner and woman was the caretaker of the children in the home. If either one stepped out of his or her proper role, it would be disadvantaged. So a number of the cases brought in the 70s involved male plaintiffs. Like steven wisenfelts case. He had a tragic event in his life. He was married to a High School Math teacher. She had a very healthy pregnancy. Went to have the baby. The doctor came out and said, mr. Wisenfelt, you have a healthy baby boy but your wife died of an embolism. He vowed he would not work full time until his child was in school full time. Between parttime earnings, plus Social Security benefits, he could just about make it. He had heard there were Social Security benefits when a young child is left with one surviving parent. So he went to the Social Security office and asked for childcare benefits and was told, were sorry. These are mothers benefits, theyre not available for fathers. So that was typical of the way the law worked. The discrimination starts with the woman as wager. She is considered a pin money earner, and though she pays the same Social Security taxes as the man pay, her family does not get the same protection from government. There was discrimination against the male as parent. He would have no choice, he would have to work fulltime in order to support himself and his child. Then, as my old chief, who was then Justice Rehnquist said, this is totally arbitrary from the point of view of the baby. Why should the baby have the chance to be cared for personally by a parent only if the parent is female and not if the parent is male. We were really out of the room in the 70s. All these distinctions that had been taken for granted and accepted were no longer possible. The u. S. Civil Rights Commission did a study of all the provisions that discriminated on the basis of gender. Those were almost all gone by the end of 70s. Its really a brilliant model you came up with when youre arguing before a male Supreme Court finding cases males are discriminated against. It wasnt hard to find because in automatic those cases seem to me to start with discrimination against the woman. The man is disadvantaged as a parent because the woman is not considered a true member of the labor force. Anyway, it was great to have the opportunity to be part of that change. Which would not have been possible. It really was extraordinary. I think as i said at the outset, i think you and Justice Thurgood marshall are the only members of our court in our lifetime who really would have been historic figures because of what you did before the court. What you did in terms of fighting for womens equality was really transformative. I followed his lead in this sense. In a number of cases, Thurgood Marshall went before courts and said separate but equal is not before the court today. These facilities are vastly unequal. When he had won several case, he said, now, its time to tell the courts forced separations of the races, separation forced by the law. Can never be equal. He had the building black r blocks on the way and he tried to take cases clear winners and say to the court all classifications by gender should be reviewed with suspicion. There should be a heightened standing of review. We copied Thurgood Marshalls strategy but i always feel uneasy when people make that comparison. Thurgood marshall, when he was appearing in southern courts, would wake up in the morning and not know whether he would be alive at the end of that day. My life was never at risk, my personal safety. The think were all in your debt. So transformative. Katie oneill has a question. Katies question is Justice Ginsburg, what do you think is the most pressuring issue for women today . In other words, what would the next big victory for womens rights look like . The challenges is, i think, hard tore get at than getting rid of overt classifications. I just explained the unconscious bias phenomenon. And then theres the question of having a family life and a work life, having a balance between those two. Im always sad to hear people say, to climb to the top of the tree in the Legal Profession a woman has to forego marriage and children. It left me very puzzled, think offering my dear colleague, sandra day oconnor, who has three now very adult boys. I had two children. My chief for a while on the d. C. Circuit had five children. One thing is essential for that, to have satisfying family life and work life is partner who thinks your work is as important as his. You were very fortunate to have a partner like that. Yes. I said many times that someone who was a superb teacher of tax in georgetown [ laughter ] he was the first boy i ever dated that cared that i had a brain. We miss him. He was remarkable. Yes. He had many talents. And in one of them, he was a great chef. [ laughter ] one of the most popular books in the Supreme Courts gift shop is called supreme chef, marty is the supreme chef. [ laughter ] the spouse the Supreme Courts spouse meet quarterly for lunch and they Exchange Catering and they rotate catering responsibility. Marty was always number one pick to be cocaterer. So martha and alito decided a perfect tribute to him would be a cookbook. I know he would have loved to have a cookbook with his name on it. He had about 150 recipes on a disc. She picked 30 out of them. I showed the selection to my daughter and she said, mother, daddy would not have picked those. Sorry. Okay, you pick them. So all the recipes in that book are picked by my daughter. Thats funny. One entry under salad, says janes cesar salad. She put in one of her own recipes. Were almost out of time. Mentioning martys book brings to mind and this is where well end, a book im sure will soon be a hot seller in the Supreme Court bookshop, a book on your workout routine, authored by your personal trainer, bryan johnson. I actually, last week, i gave a speech at a nationalization ceremony in judge moss chambers and brian called everyone to order. I knew he was your trainer, so i said, whats the justices routine. He said, first, he wanted to see me do a plank. So this is the picture. [ applause ] but he didnt want to give away the secrets in advance of the book. So could you describe your routine . I could describe how it started. Brian has been my personal trainer since 1999. It was the year of my bout with colorectal cancer. Nine months of chemotherapy after surgery and six weeks of daily radiation. When we came to the end of that stressful time, my husband said, you look like a concentration camp survivor. Youve got to do something to build yourself up. So i asked around and a District Court judge told me about brian, who worked in the Clerks Office in the d. C. District court. She said he was training her and she thought he would be right for me. It has been a long time we have been together. And he takes me slowly up to the level that i can reach. I can be exhausted at the end of the day when i meet brian and spend an hour with him. Id come back feeling fresh. [ laughter ] so i understand that you can do 20 pushups and you dont use your knee, is that correct . Yeah i mean we started we started by just standing up pushing against a door. Then we did the knee thing. For many years we have been doing regular pushups. Very good. So one final question, so could you tell our students about parasailing . About . Parasailing. Oh, parasailing. I dont do it anymore. I was teaching in a Summer Program in nice and the hotel overlooked the beach. I watched these parasails in splendid colors and thought that would be a fun thing to do. My husband thought i was crazy. So we were on the beach and the dean of Hofstra Law School, this was a Hofstra Law School program came walking across the beach. And i said, dean, how would you like to parasail with me . He said, why not . His wife was aghast. But the two of us were up in the clouds together. It was a wonderful experience. At first, when they pulled us up, i thought, my goodness, i will fall off. When we got up in the air and i realized we were very secure, a good harness around us. It was it was quite wonderful. I believe the deans wife said something to him about oh something about if theres anything happens, be sure that shes the one thats saved. [ applause ] well, she was very wise and were delight this was such a privilege to hear from you. Justice ginsberg, you are in every way an inspiration. Your work is a champion for justice, your work on the court is really something that could not be more inspiring than it is for our students as theyre starting. This is a small token of our thanks, let me present to it you. Thank you very much. Id like a big round of applause. [ applause ] i hope youll please all join us in sport and fitness. Thank you very much. This weekend on american history, Temple University professor andrew eisenburg on the Environmental Movement in this 1970s. What i want to argue here is the noble environmentalist was sold just like big macs and cars. At 10 30 p. M. , father and daughter john penny and heather penny a former d. C. International guard f16 pilot, talk about their experiences during 9 11. We take off and we head northeast into a serene and peaceful and silent sky. Theres no one airborne. We head out to the northwest and we never find anything. We were not heroes that day. The American People were the heroes. On sunday 6 p 00 p. M. Harri tubman. We think she got epilepsy and opened it up for her to hear from god and heard voices and singing. It was terrible on the physical side but absolutely amazing for her faith. At 7 00 on oral histories, the series continues with eric draper. That image that shows dan bartlett, the Communications Director pointing to the tv, that was the first time we started seeing the replay of the second tower getting hit. American history tv all weekend every weekend only on cspan3. Now, experts from the United Nations and state department discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the u. S. Refuge resettlement program. This Heritage Foundation event is 90 minutes
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.