Transcripts For CSPAN3 Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day OConnors Judicial Impact 20240713

Institute, thank you for joining us this evening. I have the pleasure of introducing our two panelists and ted olson in just a moment. I would like to take a moment first to thank justice joining this evening. Its an honor to have you with us. Thank you. Today has been a time to celebrate the legacy of the first woman appointed to the United States Supreme Court. This evening, we have the privilege of welcoming the second and the third. Were extraordinarily grateful to justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor for joining us to honor Sandra Day Oconnor. Justice ginsberg and justice day oconnor share an unusual distinction, interesting nicknames. Justice oconnor earned the moniker fwotsc. Justice ginsberg, crowned the notorious rbg. Ill leave it to you to decide which one is catchier. The justices also share a lifelong commitment for expanding opportunities for women. It makes sense when Justice Ginsberg joined Justice Oconnor on the bench, they bonded over their role in transforming the Supreme Court. Both justices had to overcome discrimination and professional rejection. But Justice Oconnor once put a helpful spin on it. Come of age where women could easily be lawyers, she told Justice Ginsberg, they would probably end up as retired partners at some law firm, but because that route was not open to us, Justice Oconnor explained, we had to find another way. And we both ended up in the United States Supreme Court. One woman they inspired was a young attorney in manhattan. She had been working in the d. A. s office in 1981 when she heard president reagan nominated Sandra Day Oconnor. Just two years earlier, she and her law School Classmates had wondered aloud whether they would ever see a woman on the Supreme Court in their lifetimes. Little did Sonia Sotomayor imagine 28 years later, she would become the third woman on the court and make history in her own right as the first latina justice. These three women come from very different backgrounds. One grew up shooting jack roberts, one a descendents of immigrants in brooklyn and one spent her summers visiting her parents native puerto rico. They had different paths but ended up in the same place as courageous trailblazers, inspiring role models and associate justices of the Supreme Court. We are deeply grateful to them for all that they have done and all that they represent. Former solicitor general ted olson joins them on stage this evening. He is used to taking questions from justices ginsberg and sotomayor, but tonight the tables are turned. Ted finally gets to ask the questions, and that may be why he has worked so hard to help organize this event. We are deeply grateful to his efforts in making todays presentation possible. Please welcome me in welcoming the justices of the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor. [ applause ] thank you, everyone. Please be seated. Please be seated. Thank you. Thank you. I know most of that was for the justices. We are so honored at the Reagan Institute to have this program today, which those of you who have been here from the beginning know its been a marvelous, marvelous experience. Weve had many of Justice Oconnors clerks here and some of her friends and colleagues, talking about her legacy, what it meant when she was appointed to the Supreme Court, a bit about her Juris Prudence. And its been an exciting, interesting conversation. And i worried, as i was hearing this, what can we add to that . Because were going to talk about some of the same things. As the audience heard a lot about Justice Oconnor and her Juris Prudence and what she meant to the court and to america, but they didnt hear it from only perspective that the two of you can provide. Her colleagues in the history of the United States Supreme Court. And so im going to ask some of the questions that the people here, im sure, are anxious to learn about. And ill start with you, Justice Ginsberg. What was your reaction, and what were your feelings when you first heard that Justice Oconnor was going to be nominated to be on the United States Supreme Court . I was driving home from the d. C. Circuit and turned on the news, and the nomination of Sandra Day Oconnor was announced. I said hallelujah [ laughter ] but i also thought, this is a sign that what jimmy carter began is going to be advanced forward, and what jimmy carter began was to change the complexion of the u. S. Judiciary. When he became president , there was only one woman on a federal court of appeals, smirly hefstetter. He made her the firstever secretary of education. And then there were none. Shirley hofstetter . Yeah. And carter, only four years and no Supreme Court vacancy to fill he did, literally, change the complexion of the federal courts by appointing women and members of minority groups in numbers. I think president reagan was saying, jimmy carter was right and i am going to make the big stride forward of appointing a woman to the u. S. Supreme court. So you saw this as a continuum of what president carter had started, and it was a change in the opportunities for women to be a part of the federal judiciary, or judiciary anywhere . People ask sometimes, did you always want to be a Supreme Court justice . And i said in the ancient days when Justice Oconnor and i graduated from law school, what we wanted was a job, any job. [ laughter ] well, we wont talk about too much about the job opportunities, at least at the beginning. Justice sotomayor, where were you and how did you learn about this nomination, this appointment . And what was your reaction . At the time, i was an assistant District Attorney in new york county, and i was working hard. But as all of you know, ruth works harder than most of us. So i got to see it on the news that night. And to me, i had just graduated from law school a year and a half before, maybe two the year before. Year before. And at the time, there were obviously no women on the Supreme Court. There were hardly any women in the federal judiciary. There were, i think, maybe one or two women on the Supreme Courts of other states. And the idea and people, law firms were touting that they were progressive when they had one woman partner among 100. And so what ruth had started, i still have not seen the progress being made in any significant numbers just yet, but the appointment of sandra gave me a hope. It opened the door to me thinking that the progress would move faster than i had imagined. It didnt move quite as fast as i had hoped, and still some steps to be taken, but it was a door opener. It was an opportunity for women to begin to see the possibility of exploring all aspects of our profession. You see, the advantage of diversity, whether its gender or race or ethnicity, or even professional work, whatever the diversity represents, it gives people who dont otherwise think theres opportunity. It aspires them to believe there might be. And so i think seeing a woman on the court inspired not just me but so many other young women who were starting their careers. Do you think, Justice Sotomayor, that Justice Oconnor had very special qualities in terms of her character, her background, her upbringing . Well, ill tell you what i thought when i heard that made her be the ideal as the first or the only thing that scared me was she was a woman who had done it all. She was married. She raised children. She had served in the legisla legislatu legislature. She had served in the court system. And i thought to myself, oh, my god, if thats the standard im going to be held to, im not going to accomplish anything. Ruth pretty much did something similar in her work. Yes, i do think it takes those extraordinary women who broke those initial barriers, had a fortitude about them, a resilience that was absolutely necessary to be able to do what they did. Now, as you know, Justice Kagan and i are not married. We dont have children. Weve had successful careers and i dont think you have to be unmarried and no children to have successful careers but i think it helped back then, that she represented everything that people expected, and more. Justice ginsburg, what qualities did you see and experience with Justice Oconnor that helped craft her for the position of being, as evan thomas says in his book, first . Its got to be and you were second, and you were third. It has got to be, carry special burdens and a sense of obligation to the people who are out there, watching and seeing you as an example, as a role model. What qualities did she bring to that role . Sandra was responsible, more than any probably more than any justice in history for the collegeiality of the Supreme Court. That was very important to her, when she revived the tradition of having lunch together and urged o ed her colleagues to at she was also a good listener, and she had patience, and i never saw her snap back in anger. Sandra was a person who, whatever came her way in life, and some things that were not at all fortunate, she coped with. Like her breast cancer. I dont know how many women were inspired to carry on, to have courage to do what she did. And then when john oconnor became ill, how she dealt with that. Just whatever life brought her way, she just did it. That was her attitude. Part of her background was being raised, in part, on a big, several hundred couple hundred thousand acre cattle ranch in arizona. Part of growing up was no electricity, no running water. She went to school on the west coast in stanford. The two of you are from decidedly different environment. New york city, brooklyn, so forth, and were educated on the east. Does that make any difference or would it have made any difference . Of course it makes a difference. Everyone brings his or her Life Experience to bear, but i think sandras attitude, since her childhood, was she can do it. When she went out for the roundups and she rode with the cowb cowboys. And one of them said she wasnt the rough and rugged type, but she worked with us well in the canyons. She held her own, and thats what she did at every stage of her career. She held her own. Both of you broke many barriers and in many respects each of you were first, in many parts of your career, including on the Supreme Court in many different ways. Justice sotomayor, describe that. Do you feel special obligations to women or to the Legal Profession or to the judiciary because youre breaking, every day, these barriers . I dont think that i feel a special obligation to a particular group of people. I do feel, as a justice, whether im a woman or not, an obligation to uphold the values of the court. And i think that thats what sandra felt, a deep commitment to the institution, and that goes along with ruths description of her emphasis on the collegiality of the court. I tell a story that the justices were at a meeting. I dont remember if it was lunch or conference. We got distracted in a conversation about a book that described many a time in the Supreme Court history when the justices were openly hostile to each other. And someone asked, what changed th that. And some of my colleagues were suggesting the names of one or more chief judges and all of a sudden a quiet voice in the room said when women came on the court. And Justice Ginsburg was right about that. I do remember, though, ruth, the first time i met sandra at the court. The first morning after my induction that i was there, she came to visit me, which i was humbled and i said to mffher, s going to try to come see you. She said no, no, no, youre a new justice. Im welcoming you. But one of the things she spoke to me about was my obligation to attend the daily, the lunches that the judges had. And she told me she had told the chief that it was his obligation to continue the tradition. So, it continued even after her taking senior status, leaving the court, that emphasis on the institution of maintaining not just its collegiality, but the sense of its importance in our society. Well, i was going to follow up on that about the collegiality. It can be very tense, i suppose. I dont know. None of us really know except for justice kavanaugh, but the atmosphere must, from time to time, be very tense, especially at the end of the term when some the very controversial decisions are rendered and there are sometimes very strong opinions and strong dissents. Does that collegiality carry through, even when there is a lot of tension in the decisions and sometimes in the language of the decisions . Justice ginsburg . Ted, this is an episode in which you played a major role. [ laughter ] it was not the end of the term, but i suppose the most tense moment ive experienced in my 26 years on the court was the decision in bush v. Gore. It was a marathon. The Court Granted review on saturday, briefs filed on sunday, oral argument on monday, decisions out on tuesday. When it was over i sent my clerks to watch what the news channels were saying about it to Justice Kennedys chambers, because he wrote the principle opinion for the court. Justice scalia called me that evening to say, what are you do ing still in your chambers . You should go home and take a hot bath. This was the night of the decision . Yes. Well, it was tense, that case. And im not asking anything that happened in, you know that we shouldnt be talking about, but we do know, we do know that there were a lot of difficult feelings about whether the court should have taken the case or how the court was going to decide the case. Justice oconnor has famously not jabbing back, a concurring opinion. Is that part of what youre talking about . She responded to ideas, but never to individuals. You would never see in an oconnor opinion as youve seen in other opinions one justice saying about another justices opinion. This opinion is not to be taken seriously. That was said of Justice Oconnors opinion. She never snapped back to speak in the same stride enter voice. She was never critical of a colleague. You would never see in her opinions this opinion is profoundly misguide d. And in that, i tried to follow her lead. Is it hard, Justice Sotomayor, sometimes to resist . Because i read these opinions. [ laughter ] and some of them are pretty pointed. One day, Justice Scalia looked at me and said, i really love you, sonia. Youre a bulldog like i am. Were both new york city street fighters. He was right. I have been helped in restraining myself with the intervention of colleagues, which is one of the things that you asked about how do we maintain that collegiality. Other colleagues will step in, have conversations with you and suggest that some things have crossed the line. Others, i have received and i wont mention what it was about or who it was, but an apology from a colleague for something that was said in heated argument. And that, i know, was likely prompted by someone else saying, hmm, what did you do . Or did you really mean that . And so its to remain collegial, to understand working with each other, assume each others good faith. It gets challenged when you disagree, but thats the time when you need to come to your senses, and the group needs to continue insisting upon the nature of our family. So i was going to ask about the oral arguments. Sometimes the oral arguments the justices are asking of the advocate questions but theyre really talking to one another. Is that true . You know that feeling that youre being talked through and not to. [ laughter ] and ive never understood, ruth, why lawyers dont let us do that more often. [ laughter ] chief Justice Roberts has talked about this a little bit about the oral the context of the oral argument. And ive heard either him or someone say we dont talk to one another too much about the cases before oral argument. This is the first time correct me if im wrong. This is the first time weve talked to one another and were doing it through the medium of the poor guy or woman standing six feet away. Is that true . The first time that weve considered a case together would have been at the petition for review stage. The discussion is fleeting, but at least we would have been together and noticing this case that has been granted review. Then theres not much discussion before the argument. Frankly, there isnt time, because as the term goes on, youre gearing up for the sitting. Youre writing opinions for the sitting just passed. You may not have finished the reply brief in the cases being argued the next day until the night before. So thats why there isnt much in the way of discussion before the oral argument. But we are constantly trying to persuade each other. Every time im writing a dissent for four people, i am hoping that i will pick up one more vote. Mostly that hope is disappointed [ laughter ] but i remember vividly one term when my senior colleague assigned a dissent to me, just for himself and me. The court was divided 72. In the fullness of time, the judgment came out 63, but the two had swelled to six and the seven had shrunk to three. It can happen. Yeah. It aint over till its over. I think that was yogi berra that said there, wasnt it . I didnt know ruth was familiar with him, but she always pleasantly surprises me. Justice oconnor was often the one to ask the first question. Yeah. When she was on the court. And it was always a very tough question and it really required the advocate to be prepared for something in the record, something about and you do that, too. You ask often the first question, as you do, Justice Sotomayor. Are you breaking the ice or are you trying to find a weakness . I know Justice Oconnor was, you know, getting it started. Yes. I always waited till she asked the first question. Pardon . I always waited for her to ask that was kind of the signal that we could stop the sy sylloquoy. After Justice Scalias death, i think we were all a bit shell shocked. And i remember sitting there and the poor advocate standing up there and talking, and no one was interrupting him. Unheard of when the justice was alive. Probably unheard of now. That may be a time in which i felt like i had to break the ice, because it was a painfully long time. You could see it in the poor advocate. He was sort of what is happening here . [ laughter ] my problem is that i was a District Court judge. And when youre a District Court judge, its your fight. You dont have to wait for anybody. Its hard to adjust waiting for eight other colleagues to have a say. And so thats my problem. Im still trying to bring it under control. But i do think that when any of us asks questions, its because the issue is important to us. Of course. Now, Justice Oconnor was one time, i understand in a cameo appearance in henry v. Yes, she was the queen of france in the treaty scene. And she said happily a womans voice may do some good. And then what does that mean in the context of a justice on the Supreme Court . Is there a womans voice . What does it mean . What difference does it make . Is it sexist to say that, or ster ster stereotypical to say that . Sandra would probably quote, as she did many times, a minnesota Supreme Court justice gene cloyne who said at the end of the day, a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same judgment. And i think thats true, but sandra would have followed it up by saying, we each bring our Life Experience to the table. Growing up female is not the same as growing up male. And you could see the difference in an opinion that Justice Oconnor wrote. It came out at the end of her very first term on the court. It was holden against Mississippi University for women. This was about a man who wanted to become a nurse, and the best Nursing School in his area was the Mississippi University for women. Holden challenged the exclusion under equal protection, and one of the justices, justice powell, looked on the reservation of the Nursing School to women as a kind of an affirmative action for women, so it was okay. But sandra, if you read between the lines, what shes saying is if you want to improve the status of women in the nursing profession, the best way to do it is to get men to want to do the job, because the pay inevitably will go up. [ laughter ] so that was an insight that she had. She recognized that reserving that school to women was not a favor to women. So that decision struck down that exclusionary policy, as i recall. Yes. And then i understand, i remember this pretty well, that you cited her language in that decision in your decision in United States versus virginia. Yes, in which you also played a major role. That one im very proud of, but the vote i cant recall what the vote was. [ laughter ] there was one person who agreed with you, Justice Scalia. That was all. [ laughter ] but it was only an eightjustice court. Yes. I understand that Justice Stevens, in the majority, assigned that to Justice Oconnor and she said that should go to ruth. Yes. And so can you tell us about that . What happened . Why and what did you do with that . Why did Justice Stevens offer the dissent the opinion of the court to Justice Oconnor . Because seniority is a major factor in our workplace. So if you were the junior justice, you tend not to get the most exciting cases, and i was pretty junior then. But sandra recognized that this was something i cared a whole lot about, and so she told Justice Stevens that i should write the opinion. Does that happen very often . It talks of it says so much about the generosity of her spirit. It hardly ever happens. What can you add, Justice Sotomayor, about a womans voice and the fact that there youre going back to my confirmation hearing. This was a first in 1981. Now were 38 years later, Something Like that. There are three women on the court. Justice ginsburg said shell be happy when theres nine. No. I said the question is, when will there be enough . The answer is, obviously, it will be enough when there are nine. [ cheers and applause ] nobody asks any questions about all the years when all nine were men. Well, i think the people feel you have a point. I could tell from the reaction. Justice sotomayor, have you any other thoughts about that . I use, as an example in some of my speeches, something that happened in the virginia case, involving the spotford case, involving the young woman who was strip searched in her school because of an allegation that she was seen taking an aspirin. I wasnt on the court, so i am repeating something that was just public knowledge. Apparently some of my male colleagues were asking questions to suggest that this strip search was equivalent to students undressing in the gym. For those who are women, i think most of us know that puberty is a time in which there is a heightened sensitivity to the privacy of ones body, and the idea that an opinion could have been written by one of our brothers that might have sugg t suggested that this search was something less than an affront to the dignity of a young girl would have been an appalling writing. I do think, and my colleague, Justice Ginsburg, was heard to say after the argument that she thought that her male colleagues didnt understand what it was like to be a young girl. I said it at the it stopped the way the questions were going. I said a 13yearold girl is not the same as a 13yearold boy in the sense of the invasion of her privacy. This girl was accused of having drugs. The drugs turned out to be one advil and the other something comparab comparable. But she was taken to the girls bathroom, strip searched. She was then taken to the Principals Office. And she sat in a chair outside the Principals Office till her mother came to call for her. Her mother was outraged and sued the School District for what had been done to her daughter. But i think in the middle of that argument, the tenor of the questions changed. There was no more joking about it. I read that colloquy. You made that point quite clear during the argument. Yes. So the point being, in my raising that example, is that clearly we come to judging with our Life Experiences, and that includes every bit of it. And i remind people that wise old men and wise old women disagree and come to different conclusions on the court in many, many decisions. So, its not the wisdom of gender, it is simply the wisdom of life and coming and bringing as many perspectives as we can to the process of judging. A diversity of background, a diversity of education, a diversity of of legal experience. Thats why sandra gave ruth the vmi case. She had spent her life on the issues of equality for women. And it was a fitting tribute to what ruth had done. Thats sort of why i asked the question about Justice Oconnor growing up on a vast ranch in arizona. I couldnt do half the things she did. Pardon . I couldnt do half the things. She rode horses. She fly fished. I go across the country to hear judges telling me how she came to visit and they would be out in the middle of this ice cold river, fly fishing. I believe she hunted. I know ruth has flown out of airplanes and gone in back of boats. I dont do any of that stuff. [ laughter ] these are indestructible women. She also went around a golf course faster than anyone. A heck of a tennis player, too, i gather. And she came from the west and went to stanford. Justice kennedy came from the west. Now you are all pretty much from the eastern part of the United States. All of you went to yale or Harvard Law School, and most of you went to ivy league undergraduate. Princeton was a big part of it. So, theres not much diversity in that respect on the court now. Is that anything that you think has an impact or some high courts, canadas high court, has proportional and geographical representation. A certain number of justices come from the west coast provinces. We dont do that. In fact, there was one state that for a time was vastly overrepresented, and that was arizona, because chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Oconnor. The population of arizona is not im told when Justice Scalia passed away there were four of you from the five buroughs of new york city. We were diverse. The only thing we were missing was staten island. [ laughter ] im sure whoever the president was would have been looking for someone, 50 years old from harvard and staten island. Theres quite a few of them, by the way. Should that matter . There was a time, earlier in our history, when there were certain geographic areas were presumed to be it was a southern seat or Something Like that. Should that matter . Diversity of experience includes where you grow up. You left out one westerner, justice brier grew up on the west coast in san francisco. But then he wound up at harvard. [ laughter ] is that a special you left. Yes, and i have no Harvard Law School degree. Justice oconnor, people knew who she was. This was the first time in a long time that someone knew somebody, the name of somebody and the face of somebody on the United States Supreme Court. In that sense, she was a role model, a trailblazer, because people would look at her and see this is attainable and this makes a difference. Youve each been very much out in public. Youve reawritten a bestsellin book, Justice Sotomayor. Youve got your own tshirt factory. [ laughter ] so to what degree, relinquishing your privacy. The court wont let cameras in the courtroom. Theres various reasons. We dont need to talk about that. But youre relinquishing your privacy to explain or make available to the American Public your experiences and your feelings, and who you are. I mean, that has to have a big impact on the American People, and women in particular. Do you make that decision consciously . Im going to go out there because im not just a justice, im a public figure and its important for me to be out there and answer questions. You go to a lot of places and give interviews, to law schools and bar associations. You speak in public a lot, Justice Sotomayor. What goes through your mind with respect to that . How much privacy are you willing to give up in order to maybe perform that function . My mail was full of letters that fluttered like this. Justice oconnor visited our Law School Bar association, our country. She did go to all 50 states. She was a great ambassador of the United States to other places. So, the letters that i got after Justice Oconnor was here, as recently as monday when i was in raleigh, north carolina, at a Womans College called meredith. They were very proud that Sandra Day Oconnor had come there in 1991. I dont know how she managed all the invitations that she got, but she made a concerted effort to speak in every state of the union, and to be available when the government wanted an ambassador who was not part of the political world to help countries that were struggling to install rule of law, to give them encouragement and assistance. So the tag line of the letters that i got was, she was here. Now its your turn. So, what im going to ask you, too, Justice Sotomayor, what goes through your mind when youre inundated, im sure, with invitations, both of you, to be here, to be here, to be here. Youve got very hard jobs. This is demanding work that you do. But you take the time to go to bar associations, to go to state law schools and travel. What goes through your mind . Do you feel that thats important for you to do, what Justice Oconnor started pretty much, and you both have been doing . The most important thing is the courts work. And i dont let outside engagements interfere with the time that i must reserve to read the opinions, file the briefs, prepare for the oral arguments. While the term is ongoing, i try to limit the amount of my distant travel. But we do have visitors at the court all the time. We have School Children from second grade to the graduate level coming. Many of the groups i speak to, i speak to at one of the courts conference rooms. What i am getting at is, why do it . Justice sotomayor, why give that time to the people you go and visit and talk to . Well, you asked i know this is truth for Justice Ginsburg. Its certainly true for me. You do give up a sense of privacy. And there virtually is no place in the United States that i can travel without people recognizing me. We were in portugal together this past summer, and i hired a tutu driver to take me around the city. He took me to one of their famous bakeries. As i walked in, there was a pewter re puerto rican family who recognized me and this driver saw this entire bakery come over and take pictures with me. He sat down and got me the miniature pastry he wanted me to taste and he said, who are you . [ laughter ] but that does happen. Youre right. You give up a sense of privacy when you go out to the public. When i first got to the court, there were these three garbage collecting bins, the huge ones you see in a building, where they take the individual baskets and put it into a huge big one. There were three of them sitting there with letters. And im looking at them and opening them, and the mail delivery guy comes in, and i say, three of these . And he said no, no, no. Theres three more downstairs. I had all the letters opened that year and i organized all of the different groups who wanted me to speak. And i sat down and said to myse myself, okay, what do i want to accomplish as a justice. Thats what im asking. Whats the legacy . I made a decision that my legacy was to reach out to as many children as i could, to inspire them to first become civically involved and, secondly, not to give up hope for themselves. And just virtually everything i do is geared to that end. So, whether it was my memoir, where in my preface i explain that im writing my book for those people like me, who come from difficult backgrounds in the hopes that they will understand that they, too, can have a good life and a meaningful one. My most recent book that just came out this summer just ask is geared to children with chronic life conditions. And the entire message of the book is that we are equal in every meaningful way to everyone else. Not many kids in here, at least not young kids. Because there are people youre fond of, and i am fond of Justice Oconnor. And you do things because there are people that you love and who are important to you, who ask you to do things that you do. But virtually all of my appearances have a relationship to children, and thats why when Justice Oconnor stopped being able to be actively involved in icivics, the organization she formed and launched and cared about so deeply, when they asked me to join the board, i joined it, because her message is very much in keeping with my own. So, ted, i make conscious decisions about where i can have the greatest impact. And with the two goals in mind that i set forth, which is to give people hope who might not otherwise have it and to inspire people to believe in our government and our system of government, and to have respect for the court system. And i think if one starts that process in young people that it can very much change the tenor of our country. Justice oconnor believed very ferventally that partisanship and politics started when they stopped teaching civics in schools. [ applause ] and shes right. And i bear her standard in terms of saying exactly the same thing. We have to go back to talking to each other and really talking, and really understanding what civic participation means. Thats a wonderful, wonderful answer, wonderful approach. And its another reason why were so grateful that youre here. This youre in a position where, because of who you are, people will listen. People will watch. People will learn from you. People will be inspired by you. Justice ginsburg, you have not at all shied away from being the notorious rbg. [ laughter ] every woman and every girl in my family has tshirts or mugs, whatever it is. She does, too. You havent backed away from that at all. And you joke about the fact that people want to have their picture taken with you. Yes. Im 86 1 2 years old and Everyone Wants to take a picture with me is absolutely amazing. [ applause ] but the notorious rbg was started by a secondyear student at New York University law school who was displeased with the courts decision in the Shelby County case that held unconstitutional a key provision of the Voting Rights act of 1965. This student was at first angry and then thought to herself anger is not a useful emotion. It doesnt get you any place. She was going to do something positive. So she took the bench announcement of my dissent in the Shelby County case, and she started a blog and then it took out into the stratosphere. She called it the notorious rbg because there was a rapper, the notorious b. I. G. Nobody knows about him anymore. [ laughter ] but the two of us have something very important in common. What can that be . We were both born and bred in brooklyn, new york. [ applause ] and certainly, after that, your paths diverged. [ laughter ] but there is value, the same as what Justice Sotomayor is saying, theres value, i think, to the American People, to the young people, to women and men, to hear you, see you, be aware of you. They learn about the court, the institution, but they learn about your life story, both of your lifes story. You must be aware of the fact that people are drawing inspiration about themselves all the time because of this. Well, if i can give people hope, thats tremendously satisfying. Those such as it really is amazing the number of products, even most recently i was sent a set of air fresheners, closet fre fresheners. [ laughter ] bathroom glasses, but people want something hopeful to believe that whats important to them is shared by many other people, but i think its that more than anything, the desire to have something positive in your vision. I think its that plus its also this brings us back to Justice Oconnor. She was a believer in i can do it. She would tell her people, she would tell her clerks, just do it. When she writes in her book about being sent out miles and miles to bring lunch to the ranch hands during a roundup and she had a flat tire and had to explain to her father why she had showed up late, he said just start earlier next time. But with her, she was determined to overcome all kinds of obstacles, and she wasnt offered a job, like you, when she graduated from law school. The idea that you can accomplish things as an underdog or someone thats facing disadvantage, that is also the lesson, as youre both giving to people. Thats the message youre sending to people. You can do it. Im going to tell you a story about just do it, Justice Oconnor, one of her favorite expressions. It was my very first term on the court. We had the first sitting, and i was expecting. The chief justice would assign to me a unanimous decision in a oneissue case. Instead, chief Justice Rehnquist assigned to me a miserable arisa case, probably the most dense statute congress ever passed. In any case, it was not unanimous. It was 63. Justice oconnor was one of the three. I complained to her. I said, sandra, he wasnt supposed to do that to me and she said, ruth, you just do it. Just do it, and get your opinion in circulation before he makes the next set of assignments. Otherwise, youll risk getting another unpleasant case. [ laughter ] but that was her attitude about everything. Just do it. Well, now, about her, weve heard a lot about she was both a consensus builder and a trailblazer, and i suppose that in some sense, being one is the antithesis of the other. If youre out there, writing a strong dissent and chief Justice Rehnquist, when he was an associate justice, was of singular dissent lot, that must be in somewhat contention of being a consensus builder. You think about that, Justice Sotomayor . I do, because im not the consensus builder. I think there is a tension. However, i dont think that sandra and i must admit that i didnt serve as long with her as ruth did, but i dont think that Justice Oconnor worried about being a trailblazer. I think she focused her life on just doing. And for her, what was right, she wouldnt accept that others wouldnt understand it. And so from you read it in evan thomas book. She really, by force of the personality basically forced people to either join her or leave her, but she really worked on consensus in the sense of this is the right thing to do. Working on a consensus and bringing people together and getting five votes sometimes doesnt accomplish what a lone dissent can do. It wasnt a lone dissent, your ledbetter decision but the dissent made a huge difference. Theres a role for that. I know from time to time, she did do that. Thats what im asking. When do you decide that im going to get out there and maybe read my dissent some day in june . As you know, most of the time, dissents are announced bu summarized from the bench. The courts opinion will say justice so and so joined by justice so and so dissented, period. But if you think the court got it not just wrong but egregiously wrong, then you will speak out at the session and announce your dissent from the bench which i did in this case. It was 54. It was not a lone dissent. But my tag line was the ledbetter case involved title seven. And my tag line was the ball is now in Congress Court to correct the error unto which my colleagues have fallen. And there was just a wonderful coalition, a huge majority on both sides of the aisle to pass the ledbetter fair pay act which was the first piece of legislation president obama signed when he took the very next congress. Yes. But i had a motto for that. Years before in the 70s and late 70s, then Justice Rehnquist had come to the conclusion that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is not discrimination on the basis of sex. That was startling. It sparked a coalition that very quickly amended title seven to read simply discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is discrimination. Pregnancy disability act . Yes. So i can call it the pregnancy ability act. But the notion that it couldnt be sex discrimination because after all the world is a divided into nonpregnant people, that includes many women and all men. And then there were these pregnant people and they were all women. So couldnt be gender based discrimination. The same with livy ledbetters case. So dissents can really make a difference. And certain certain circumstances, Justice Sotomayor, you i believe they do. I think they galvanize groups to do what civic participation means, to go out there and lobby and move for reform. It happened in both cases, the pregnancy discrimination act and the betsy ledbetter act as well. And so sometimes it has it in other ways. I did a dissent from a denial case in alabama about jury overrides. And there was ultimately a legislative fix that occurred when groups galvanized changed that in alabama. They can have they can draw a spotlight on issues that the public should think about. And if they are as outraged as we are, it can move change certainly it can. Justice stevens was confirmed by unanimous unanimously in the senate. Justice oconnor was also. Justice scalia was. There were only nine votes only three. Three. Thats that breyer guy that was nine. I dont know. Yeah. But it is now 31 in your situation and the last few theres been over 40. Are we at a point where theres no turning back in terms of contentiousness of the confirmation process and what kind of damage does that do to your institution . If you think back, way back to 1980, when i got my first good job in d. C. I was pinted appointed to the c appeals. The chair of the Judiciary Committee was ted kennedy. The ranking minority member was strom thurmond. Those two worked together to get well qualified judges appointed to the federal courts. It was the same thing 1993 when i was nominated then senator joe biden chaired the committee. Orrin hatch was the ranking minority member. On that Judiciary Committee orrin hatch was my biggest supporter. Thats the way it should be. And the way i hope i will see again in my lifetime. But it will take people who really care about our country to say enough of this dissension. Lets come together and do the work that should be done. Justice sotomayor, were about done, is there anything that i dont know whether the justices can do anything. I know chief Justice Roberts has spoken about it. But is there anything that the citizens and citizens that we can do to extort people to be more decent, civil in the process . Anything else . But its no the just extortation. It is speaking out publicly about it. If politicians hear the outcry, theyll respond. They often and mostly do. But we have to educate the public about the problem. And we have to educate them about the risks that are continuing to perceive judges as partisan creatures will cause in terms of our institutions. I dont know that i mean, when i look at the news, i certainly dont hear a lot of intelligent conversation explaining this issue as a nonpartisan issue. As one that is basic to our survival as a democracy. And so i think we do. I speak at law schools quite frequently. And i chide professors for not building more attention or not focusing more attention on the importance of lawyers and of lawyers in educating the public and themselves graduating from law school with respect for the process. Think about how many people on the Judiciary Committee have graduated from law school. And look at how many of them are acting. That really to me is incredible. That trained lawyers did not do not believe that it is important to judge on the basis of qualification. Youre absolutely right. I think the American People feel very, very strongly about this. Its awful to be whole and very damaging to the judiciary particularly to your court. Our time is up. I think youve been fantastic. Youre watching a special edition of American History tv during the week while members of congress are in their districts due to the coronavirus pandemic. Tonight, we focus on franklin d. Roosevelt with this month marking the 75th anniversary of his death. Starting at 8 00 p. M. Eastern, a u. S. Office of war information film depicting scenes from the 32nd president s funeral and buy graphical information about his successor, harry truman. American history tv now and over the weekend on cspan3. Every saturday night American History tv takes you to College Classrooms around the country for lectures in history. Why do you all know who lizzy borden is and raise your hand if you had ever heard of this murder, the gene harris murder trial before this class . The deepest cause where well find the true meaning of the revolution was in this transformation that took place in the minds of the American People. So were going to talk about both of these sides of the story here, right . The tools, techniques of slave owner power and well also talk about the tools and techniques of power that were practiced by enslaved people. Watch history professors lead discussions with their students on topics ranging from the American Revolution to september 11th, lectures in history on cspan3 every saturday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern, an American History tv and lectures in history is available as a podcast. Find it where you listen to podcasts. In 1981, president