Transcripts For CSPAN3 Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day OConnors Judicial Impact 20240712

On your to join us to honor Sandra Day Oconnor. It turns out that Justice Ginsburg and Justice Oconnor sharon distinction that is interesting nicknames. When Justice Oconnor was confirmed she owned the moniker f w. Oh tsv for first women on the Supreme Court. Justice ginsburg meanwhile has been crowned the notorious rbg. Ill leave it to you to decide which one is catcher. The justices also share a lifelong commitment to expanding opportunities for women. So it makes sense that when Justice Ginsburg joins us Justice Oconnor on the bench in 1993 the two bonded over their historic role and current in transforming the Supreme Court. Both justices had to overcome discrimination and professional rejection but Justice Oconnor once put a helpful spin on it. If they had come of age when women could easily be lawyers she told Justice Ginsburg. They would probably have ended up has retired partners of some law firm. But because that round 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 women they inspired women look young attorney in manhattan. She had been working in the das office in 1981, when she heard that president reagan had nodded 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 in their lifetime. Little did Sonia Sotomayor that 28 years later supreme she would become the third woman on the court and make history in her own right as the her first latino justice. These three women come from very different backgrounds, one grew up shooting jackrabbit on her ranch in arizona. One is the descendant of jewish immigrants who was raised in brooklyn. And one spent her childhood summers visiting her parents, in native puerto rico. We followed three separate paths to the american dream, but ended up in the same place as accomplished lawyers, courageous trail blazers, 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. Joining justices ginsburg is Reagan Foundation trustee and former solicitor general, ted ulcer. Ted has argued more than 60 cases before the Supreme Court. Hes used to taking questions from justices ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, but tonight, the tables are turned. Ted finally gets to ask the questions. That is probably why he has worked so hard to organize this event. We are deeply grateful to his efforts for making todays conversation possible. Please join me in welcoming the honorable associate justices of the Supreme Court, ruth gator Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. applause they thank you. Everyone, please please applause i think they should sit down. I know most of that was for the justices. We are so honored at the Reagan Institute to have this program today which for those of you who have been your from the beginning know that it has been a marvelous experience. We have 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. About her jurisprudence. It has been an exciting, interesting conversation, and i worried as i was hearing this, what can we add to that because we are going to talk about some of the same things that they heards some of the audience heard a lot about Justice Oconnor and ginsburg and what they did for the court of america. But they didnt hear it from the only perspective that the two of you can provide. Her colleagues and 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. I will start with you, Justice Ginsburg. 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. I turned on the news. The nomination of Sandra Day Oconnor was announced. I said hallelujah. laughter i also thought, this is a sign that with jimmy carter began is going to be advanced forward. And with jimmy carter began was to change the complexion of the u. S. Judiciary. When he became president , it was only one woman on a federal court of appeals. He made her the first ever secretary of education. Then he went on surely have stayed . Yes. And carter, even though he only had 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 cardter was right and i am going to make the big stride forward appointing a woman to the u. S. Supreme court. So you saw this as a continuum of what president carter had started. It and it was a change in the opportunities for women to be a part of the judiciary anyway anywhere. Yes. People sometimes ask, did you always want to be a Supreme Court justice . I said, in the ancient days when Justice Oconnor and i graduated from law school, what we wanted was a job, any job. Well, we will talk to much about the job opportunities, at least not at the beginning. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, where were you and how did you learn about this nomination, disappointment . 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 hug a year and a half before, maybe two years before washington. And at the time, there were obviously no women on the Supreme Court. There were hardly any women in the federal judiciary. There were maybe one or two women on the Supreme Courts of other states. People, law firms were touting they were progressive when they had one woman partner among 100. So what ruth had started, i still had not seen the progress being made in any significant numbers just yet. Yeah but the appointment that sandra gave me hope. Yeah 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. Still some steps to be taken. But it was a door open. 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 there is opportunity. It aspires them to believe there might be. So i think seeing a woman on the court inspired not just me, but so many other young women who are starting their careers. Do you think, justice Sonia Sotomayor, that Justice Oconnor has very special qualities in terms of her background, her upbringing, her qualities . Well, ill tell you what. The only thing that scared me was she was a woman who had done it all big. She was married. She raised children. She had served in the legislature. She had served in the court system. I thought to myself, oh, my god, if that is 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, a persistence 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. I dont think you have to be unmarried and have children to have successful careers. I do 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, as evan thomas says in his book, first . You were second. You were third. It has got to carry special burdens and a sense of obligation to the people that are out there watching, and seeing you as an example, as a role model. What qualities did she bring to that rule . Qvar sandra was responsible more than any probably any justice in history for the collegiality of the Supreme Court. That was very important to her. When she revived the tradition of having lunch together and urged her colleagues to attend, 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 big, and some things that were not at all unfortunate, she coped with. Doug like her breast cancer. I dont know how many women were inspired to carry on, to have courage to do which 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 a couple hundred thousand acre cattle ranch in arizona. Part of her growing up was no electricity, no running water. She went to school on the west coast of stanford. The two of you are from decidedly different environments. New york city, brooklyn, so forth. Were educated on the east. Does that make any difference or would that have made any difference . Of course that 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 round ups, she rode with the 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, described that. Do you feel special obligations to women or to the Legal Profession or the judiciary because you were breaking everyday 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. I think that that is 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 a mantra conference. We got distracted in a conversation about a book that described a time in the Supreme Court history when the justices were openly hostile to each other. And someone asked, which changed 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. laughter and Justice Ginsburg was right about that. I do remember, ruth, the first time i met sandra at the court, the first morning after mind accession that i was there. She came to visit me. I was humbled and i said to her, i was going to try to come see you and she said no, you are a new justice welcomed in. But, one of the things she spoke to me about was my obligation to attend hug the lunches that the judge the judges had. 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 and leaving the court. That emphasis on the institution. Maintaining not just its collegiality, but the sense of its importance in our society. I was going to follow up on that about the collegiality because it can be very tense i suppose i dont know none of us really know justice kavanaugh. The atmosphere from time to time must be very tense especially at the end of the term when the very controversial dishes decisions are rendered. There are sometimes very strong opinions, and strong the sense. Is 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 we played a major role. laughs it was not the end of the term. But the most tense moment ive experienced in my 26 years on the court. Was the decision in bush v. Go. It was a marathon as their Court Granted review on a saturday, brief on a sunday. Decisions out on tuesday. When it was over i sent my clerks to watch with the news castors were saying about it. To Justice Kennedys chambers, because he wrote the principal opinion for the court. Just a scalia called me that evening, to say what are you doing still in your chambers . You should go home and take a hot bath. This was the night of the decision . It was tense that case. And im not asking anything that happened that we shouldnt be talking about. We do know that there was 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 characterized it as not jabbing back, not responding to a Harsh Criticism in a separate 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 some opinions of the court, one justice saying about another justices opinion. This opinion is not to be taken seriously. In fact, that was set of justices oconnor opinion. She never snapped back, to speak of the same strident voice she did answer arguments that were made. But she was never critical of a colleague. You would never see in her opinions this opinion is profoundly misguided. And in that, i try to follow her lead. Is it hard Justice Sotomayor to resist . laughs one day. Because i read these opinions and some of them are pretty pointed. One day justice cleo looked at me and said, i really love love you sonia, your bulldog like i am. Were both new york city street fighters. He was right laughs . I have been helped and 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, suggest that some things have crossed the line. Others, have received, and i wont mention what it was about who it was, but an apology from a colleague for something that was said. In a heated argument. And that i know was likely prompted by someone else saying, what did you do . Or do you really mean that . And so, its to remain illegal, to understand your obligation, to work with each other. Assuming 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. 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. laughs . Ive never understood why lawyers dont let us do that more often. Chief does just roberts have talked about this a little bit about the context of the oral argument. Ive heard either him or someone say we are we dont talk to one another too much about the cases before our 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 we consider a case together, would have been at the petition for review stage. The discussion is pleading, but it needs to be together. Noticing the this case that has been granted review. Then, theres not much discussion before the argument. Frankly there isnt time because as it turns on, youre hearing up for the city. Your writing opinions for the sitting just passed. You may not have finished the reply belief in the case being honored the next day, till the night before. 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 descent for four people i am hoping that i will pick up one more vote. And mostly, that hope is disappointed. laughs . I remember vividly one term, when my senior colleague assigned a set of descent to me, so the court divided 72. In the fullness of time, the judgment came out six to three. But the two had swelled to six. And the seven had shrunk to three. It cant happen. Its not over till its over. laughs . I think that was your gibber who said that. I didnt know ruth was familiar with him. laughs . She always pleasantly surprises me. Justice oconnor was often the one to ask the first question on the court. It was a very tough question and it really required the advocate to be prepared for something in the record. Something about and you do that to. You ask often the first question as you do justice so no mayor. You breaking the ice or youre trying to find a weakness . I know Justice Oconnor was getting it started. Yes i always wait until she asked the first question. Pardon . I always waited for hot for her to ask. That was a signal that we could stop the soliloquy and ingrates and a conversation. laughs . The the most hopeful moment for me was the first argument after Justice Scalias death. I think we were all a bit shell shocked. I remember sitting there, and the poor advocates standing up there, and talking and no one was interrupting him. Unheard of when the justice was a life. Probably unheard of now. That may be at time in which i felt like i had a had to break the ice. Because it was a painfully long time. You could see it in the court advocate, he was sort of looking around. What is happening here. My problem is that i was a District Court judge, when your District Court judge its your fight them. You dont have to wait for anybody, its hard to adjust waiting for eight other colleagues to have a say. So thats my problem. Im still trying to bring it under control. But i do think that when any of us asked a question. Its because the issue is important to us. Of course. Now Justice Oconnor was one time i understand, a cameo appearance and kept henry v. Yes the queen of france. And she said, happily a womans voice may do some good. 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 that make, is it sexist to say that, or stereotypical to stay that . Sandra would probably quote as she did many times, a minnesota Supreme Court justice, coin. 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. Sandra would have followed it up by saying, we each bring our Life Experience to the table, growing up female is not growing up male. And you could see the difference in an opinion that Justice Oconnor wrote, at the end of her very first term of the court. It was hogan 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. Hogan challenged the exclusion as a denial of equal protection. One of the then justices, justice powell, looked on the reservation of the Nursing School to women, as a kind of affirmative action for women. So it was okay. But sandra if you read between the lines which she saying. 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. So that was an insight that she had, she had recognize 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 as i on their stand, i remember this pretty well, you cited her language in that decision in your decision in the United States versus virginia. Which you also played a major role. That one im very proud of. The vote i cant recall what the vote was. It was one person who agreed with you justice goglia that was all. But it was only an eight justice court. I understand that Justice Stevens who was in the majority signed that to Justice Oconnor. And she said that should go to ruth . Yes. Can you tell us about that . What happened and why did you do that . Why did justice evens offer the dissent i mean the opinion for the record. To Justice Oconnor. Because seniority is a major factor in our workplace. If you were the junior justice you tend not to give 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 rightly i should write the opinion. Does that happen very often . It says so much about the generosity of her peer. It hardly ever happens. What can you add Justice Sotomayor about a womans voice . Youre going back to my confirmation hearing. laughs . This was the first in 1981, now were 38 years later. Something like that there are three women on the court. Justice ginsburg has said she will be happy when theres nine. I said the question is. When world will be enough . So the answers obviously it will be enough when there are nine. laughs . Nobody asked any questions about alter is when all women. I think people feel that you have a point. I can tell from the reaction. Justice sotomayor do you have any other thoughts about that . I i used as an example in some of my speeches something that has been in the virginia case. Involving the stop furred case, involving the young woman who was stripped search in her school. Because of an allegation that she was seen taking an aspirin. It was a no drug case. I wasnt on the court, so i am repeating something that was public knowledge. Apparently some of my male colleagues were asking questions to suggest that this strip search was equivalent to students and dressing 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 privacy of one body. And the idea that an opinion could have been written by one of our brothers, that might have suggested that that this search was something less then an in front, and dignity to a young girl would have been 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 its not the way the questions were going. I said it a 13yearold girl is not the same as a 13yearold boy. In a 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, something comparable. But she was taken to the girls bathroom, stripped search, she was then taken to the Principles Office, and he sat in a chair outside the Principles Office her mother came to call 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 change. They were no longer joking. About it. I read that column where you made that point quite clear during the argument. So the point being, in my raising that example is that clearly we come to judging with our Life Experiences. That includes every bit of it. And i remind people, that wise old man and why is old women disagree and come to different conclusions on the court. In 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 diversity, of a diversity of education, eight of legal experience, thats why sandra gave ruth the via my case. She had spent her life on the issues of equality for women. It was a fitting tribute to what ruth had done. Thats sort of why i asked a question about Justice Oconnor growing up on a vast ranch and our zone now. I couldnt do have to think 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 run out of airplanes and gotten in the back of boats. I dont do any of that stuff. laughs . These are indestructible. She also went around a golf course faster than anyone ever. And a heck of a tennis player to i gather. She came from the west, and went to stanford. Justice kennedy came from the west, now we are all pretty much from the eastern part of the United States. All of you went to gayle or harvard law school. Most of you went to ivy league undergraduate. Princeton was a big part of it. Theres not much diversity in that respect on the court now. Is that anything that you think has an impact . Some high courts have proportional geographic representation. So a certain number of justices come from the west coast, provinces. We dont do that, in fact it was one stated that for a time it was vastly over represented. And that was our sonia, because there was chief justices oconnor and rank hearst. Population of arizona that. Until justice goglia passed away, there were four view from five boroughs of new york city. So we were diverse, the only thing we were messing with staten island. laughs . Im sure the president if he had an opportunity, 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 a southern seat or Something Like that. Should that matter . Diversity of experience includes where you grew up. By the way you have to have one western Justice Breyer grew up on the west coast in san francisco. Yeah but then he wound up at harvard. Is that a special taint. laughs . You left . Yes and i have no harvard im going to ask a question about Justice Oconnor was a trail blazer. People knew who she was, this was maybe the first time for in a long time that someone knew somebody. The name of somebody on the face of somebody on the United States Supreme Court. In that sense, she was not a role model, a trail blazer because people would look at her and see this is attainable, and this makes a difference. You have each been very much out in public. Youve written a best selling book, Justice Sotomayor. Youve got your own tshirt factory. So, to what degree relinquishing your privacy. The court wont let cameras in the courtroom, and there are various reasons we dont need to talk about that. Youre relinquishing your privacy to explain, or make available to the American Public your experiences, and your feelings, and who you are. That has to have a big impact on the American People. And women in particular. 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 and 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 perform that function . My mail was flooded with letters that went like this. Last year or five years ago, Justice Oconnor visited our law school or bar association. Our country and 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, its a Justice Oconnor was here, it was most recently as monday when i was in roland, north carolina. Womens college called meredith, and 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 and every state of the union. And to be available when the government wanted an ambassador who was not part of the political were world. To help countries that were struggling to install the rule of law. To give them encouragement and assistance. The tagline of the letters that i got was, she was here, now its your turn. laughter what goes through your mind when you are inundated. I am sure, with invitations, both of you to be here and here and here. And you have very hard jobs. This is a very demanding work that you do. But you take the time to go to barrs oceans and go to state law schools and travel. What goes through your mind . You feel that is 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. I dont let outside arrangements saw john interfere with the time that i must reserve to read the opinions below, the briefs, prepare for the roller humans arguments. While the term is ongoing, i try to limit the amounts of my distance travel. But we do have visitors at the court all the time. We have School Children to the graduate level coming. Many of the groups i speak, to speak to that one of the courts conference rooms. What im getting at, is why do it . Why do you give that much more Justice Sotomayor, why do you give that time to the people that you go and visit to talk to . I know this is truth for Justice Ginsburg. It is certainly true for me. You do give up a sense of privacy. There is virtually no place in the United States that i can travel without people recognizing me. We were in portugal together this past summer. I hired a driver to take me around the city. It took me to one of their famous bakeries. As i walked in, there was a puerto rican family who saw me walk in and surrounded me, and this poor driver then saw the entire story, the entire bakery come over to take pictures with me. He finally sat down and got me the miniature pastry want to me to taste and looked at me and said, who are you . But that does happen. You are right. You do 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 vince, the huge ones you see in a building where they take the individual may 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 . He said oh, 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 myself, okay, what do i want to accomplish as a justice . That is what im asking. What is the legacy . I made a decision that my legacy was to reach out as many children as i could to inspired them to first becomes typically involved and secondly, not to give up hope for themselves. And just virtually everything i do is geared to that and, whether it was my memoir, and my preface i tell i explained 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 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. And so that makes it easier for me to choose among the invitations i get. Now, obviously, you do some things im here, right . Not many kids in here. Or at kids. Because there are people who 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 i civics, 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 i made conscious decisions about where i can have the great 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 fervently that partisanship in politics started when they stopped teaching civics in schools. And and shes right. applause and i bear her standards in terms of the same thing. We have to go back to talking to each other and really talking. And really understanding what civil participation means. That is a wonderful answer. Wonderful approach, and it is another reason why we are so grateful that you are here. You are in a position because of who you are, people will listen, watch and learn from here. People will be inspired by you. Justice ginsburg, you have not at all shied away from being a notorious rbg. Every woman and girl in my family has tshirts or mugs or whatever it is. She does, too. You havent backed away from that all. Youve joked about the fact that people want to have their picture taken with. You yes, and im 86 and a half years old and everybody wants to take a picture with. Me its absolutely amazing. Rbg was started by a second year student at New York University saw with the courts decision in the shelby case that held a key provision that the Voting Rights agent of 1965 so the student was at first angry and then thought to herself, anger is not a useful emotion. Doesnt get you any place. She was going to do something positive. So she took the bench announcement of my dissent in Shelby County case and she started a rong, and then it took out into the stratosphere. There was a wellknown rapper the notorious b. I. G. , and people asked me nobody knows about him anymore. The two of us have something very important in common. We can maybe . We were both born and bred in brooklyn new york,. And shortly after that, your paths converged. But there is value in the same as what Justice Sotomayor was saying, is value, i think the American People, to young people, two women and men, to hear you, see you, be aware of you. They learned about the court. They learn about the institution, but they learn about your life story. Both of your life story are so inspiring. You must be aware of the fact that people are drawing inspiration about themselves all the time. Because of this. If i didnt give people hope saw, i mean giving people hope is tremendously satisfying. It really is amazing the number of products, even most recently, i was sent a set of air fresheners, closet fresheners. Bathroom glasses. I think its that. People want something hopeful. They want to believe that its 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. That brings us back to Justice Oconnor. She was a believer in, i can do it. She would tell people, she would tell her clerks, just do it. Now when she writes in her book about being sent out miles and miles to bring lunch to the ranch hands when during a round up and she had a flat tire and had to explain to her father why she had showed up late, they said she just start earlier next time. But with her, she was determined to overcome all kind 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 that is facing disadvantage, that is also the lets then you are both giving to people. You can do it. I was 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 had a first sitting, and i was expecting that the chief justice would assign to me a unanimous decision in a one issue case, instead, chief Justice Rehnquist decided assigned to me a miserable a reset case. Probably the most dense statute congress to ever pass and it was not unanimous. It was six to three. Justice oconnor was one of the three. I complained to her. I said sandra, he was not supposed to do that to me and she said ruth, you just do it. Just do it. Get your opinion in circulation before he makes the next set of assignments, otherwise who will risk getting another unpleasant case. But that was her attitude about everything. Just do it. About her, we have heard a lot about how she was both a consensus builder and a trail blazer, and i suppose that in some sense, being one is the antithesis of the other. You are out there writing a singular descend, strong dissent, and chief Justice Rehnquist, when he was just an associate justice, was singular descent line, that must be somewhat intention with being a consensus builder. You think about that, Justice Sotomayor . Well, i do, because im not the consensus builder. I think there is attention. However, i dont think that i must admit i dont think that Justice Oconnor worried about being a trail blazer. I think she focused her life on just doing it. And for her, what was right, she would not accept that others would not understand it. And so you read it in evan thomas is book, she really, by force of, i think, the personality, basically forced people to either join her or leave her, but she really worked on consensus in the sense that this is the right thing to do. Working on a consensus and bringing people together and getting five votes, sometimes does not accomplish when alone dissent can do. It wasnt alone dissent. With the dissent made a huge difference. There is a role for. That from time to time she did do that. And so that is why i am asking. When do you decide im going to get out there and maybe read my dissent. Some day in june. As you know, most of the time, the sense are announced, but not summarized from the bench. You also, the courts opinion will say justice so and so joined by justices so and so, dissented, period. But if you think the court got it not just wrong, but egregiously wrong, then well speak out at the session and announced youre dissension at the bench. Which i did in Lilly Leadbetters case. It was five to four, not alone dissent. But my tagline was, legally leadbetters case involved title seven. My tagline was the ball is now in Congress Court to correct the error into which my colleagues have flown. And there was just a wonderful coalition. Saw huge majorities on both sides of the aisle to pass the Lilly Leadbetter fair pay act, which was the first piece of legislation president obama signed when he took office. But i had a model for that, because years before in the late seventies, 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 so startling. It swapped a coalition you that very quickly mended title seven, to read simply, discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is discrimination. Thats the pregnancy disability act. Yes. So i call it the pregnancy umbility act. But the notion that he could not be sex discrimination because after all, the world is divided into non pregnant people. That includes many women and all men. laughter and then there were these pregnant people, and they were on women, so it couldnt be gender based discrimination. The same thing with Lily Leadbetter and her case. So the sense can really make a difference in certain circumstances, Justice Sotomayor. 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 those cases, the pregnancy discrimination act and leadbetter acts as well, and sometimes it has it in other ways. You i did a descent from a denial in an alabama case about jury overrides and there was old ultimately a legislative fix that occurred when groups galvanized to change that is. 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 to change. Certainly a can. Justice stevens by you nominate Justice Oconnor was justice older justice . Goglia was. There were only nine votes against. Only three. Three. Thats that breyer guy that was nine. 31 in your situation . I riyadh a point where the snow turning back in terms of the pretentiousness the confirmation process and what kind of damages that do to your institution . If you think back way back to 1980. When i got my first job in bc, i was appointed to the court of appeals. The chair of the Judiciary Committee was ted kennedy. The ranking minority member was those who Work Together well qualified judges appointed to the federal court. It was the same thing 1993, when i was nominated then senator joe biden, chair the committee. Oren hatch with the ranking minority member on that Judiciary Committee not my biggest thats the way it should be in 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 how the justice about done is there anything i dont know whether justices can do anything. I know chief dot Justice Roberts has spoken about it. Is there anything that the citizens are citizens that we can do, exhort people to be more decent civil in the process. Anything else . Its not just exultation. It is both speaking out publicly about it, if politicians here the outcry, they will respond. They often and mostly do, but we have to educate the public about the problem. We have to educate them about the risk that continuing to perceived judges as partisan creatures, will cause in terms of our institutions. I dont know i mean, when i look at the newest i certainly dont hear a lot of intelligent conversation. Explaining this issue as a non partisan issue. As one that is basic to our survival, as a democracy. I think we do, i speak at law school quite frequently. I tried law dean and professor for not building more attention, or not focusing more attention on the importance of lawyers and of lawyers and educating the public. And themselves graduating from law school with respect to the process. Think about how many people on the Judiciary Committee have graduated from law school. And look at how many of them are active, that meaty remains incredible. That trained lawyers did not do not believe that it is important to judge on the basis of qualification. Youre absolutely right and i think the American People feel very strongly about this. Its awful to behold, and very damaging to to the judiciary particularly, to your court. Our time is up i think youve been fantastic. applause applause weeknights this month were featuring American History tv programs as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan 3. On friday night, a look at the Supreme Court historical society, founded in 1974 to collect and preserve the history of the nations highest court. Neither gannon evening of the programs with yale law professor justin driver, on the 1956 southern manifesto, a document written by congressional members who oppose the Supreme Court 1954 brown versus board of education decision. Which will that segregated schools were unconstitutional. Watch friday, beginning at 8 pm eastern. Enjoy American History tv, this week, and every weekend on cspan 3. Every saturday at 8 pm eastern, on American History tv on cspan 3, go inside a Different College classroom and hear about topics ranging from the american revolution, civil rights, and u. S. President s. To 9 11. Thanks for your patience and for logging into class. With most College Campuses closed due to the impact of the coronavirus, watch percent professors transfer teaching to a virtual setting. But reagan met him halfway reagan encouraged him, reagan supported him. We freedom of the press which well get you later, ill just mention a madison originally said the freedom of the use of the press. It isnt the freedom to print print things and publish things, its not a freedom for what we call Us Institution the press. Lectures in history, on American History tv on cspan three. Every saturday at 8 pm eastern. Lectures in history is also available as a podcast. Find it where you listen to podcasts. Youre watching American History tv, exploring our nations past every weekend on cspan 3. This week, were looking back to the date in history. The threat is nearly invisible in odd and ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence, it is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national world. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meeting of our own lives and in the loss of the unity of publisher for our nation. The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of america. Follow us on social media at cspan history for this for more this day in history clips and post. Of next, justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor share stories about the Supreme Court who traditions. Including the justices food preferences and topic the conversation at sheer neil. We also learned about custom dating to the 19th and 20th century from Supreme Court curator catherine. This discussion