Then q a with jeanettea coal director of the Smithsonian Museum of african art. Then your calls and comments on washington journal. Retired Supreme Court justice jeanpaul stevens spoke with Georgetown University law students wednesday on his life, legal career, and the Supreme Court. Justice steevepbs has a new book, stevens has a new book. In the book he outlines six ways the constitution should be amended to protect democracy. Justice stevens is the second longest serving justice in the history of the Supreme Court. He retired in 2010. This is just over an hour. Well, good morning, everyone or good afternoon. Its its a great pleasure to welcome Justice Stevens to georgetown law school. This is this is a new tradition that were starting today and it grows out of two programs that weve had in the past few years. So a few years ago Justice Sotomayor spoke to the first year class. And last year Justice Kagan spoke to the graduating class. And so a number of the faculty were thinking what would be a good new tradition would be to have a leading member of the bench and bar come in at the start of the year to talk to our first year students about their career and to offered a vice about legal careers as people start their legal studies. So i can tell you how delighted i am that Justice Stevens is joining us here today. So a round of applause for Justice Stevens. [applause] maybe i should quit while im ahead. [laughter] thank you all very much. [laughter] so just a few housekeeping matters. If you have cell phones, turn them off. Ill wait. And what were going to do is Justice Stevens and i will talk and a number of students submitted questions in advance and so i will read those questions in addition to some questions that ive written. If we have time at the hour well have hand mics and well ask questions. Its great to see so many distinguished alumni and faculty and senior staff, my wife Allison Treanor and so many great new students. What a great way to start the ear. We normally say that our guest needs no words of introduction. Thats actually true today but let me say a few things about Justice Stevens career before we start the questions. Justice stevens is a knave of chicago native of chicago. And as the baseball postseason is starting right now, i think its worth noting that he was present at the 1932 World Series Game where babe ruth pointed to center field and called the home run he was about to hit. And i believe you had the scorecard from that game in your office. I do. Was kept by Justice Jacksons court years before because a lot of time had gone by. But when he hit it he went through his library card and gave me the card. Oh, my god, thats terrific. Thats terrific. Jim marsh is his name. Justice stevens went to the university of chicago as an undergraduate. Enlisted in the navy in december of 1941 hours before the japanese attack on pearl harbor. Won a bronze star for his rvices as cryptographer, informing american officials were going to se attack. He clerked for Justice Rutledge on the Supreme Court. After that he went into private practice in chicago specializing in antitrust law. And then he was appointed to the seventh circuit. And he was nominated in 1975 by president gerald ford. President ford wrote that he chose Justice Stevens as having the finest legal mind that i could find. Justice stevens commitment to justice, integrity regarding to the rule of law imbodied the the st yd ideals of judiciary. I cant think of of a better speaker. So thank you. I first met Justice Stevens. I was at Fordham Law School as the dean and abner green and one of Justice Stevens clerk put together a symposium in his first 30 years in the Supreme Court. A to my surprise i received letter from president gerald ford about Justice Stevens and id like to start by quoting from that letter because its really extraordinary. Storian study dear deans trance, thats my favorite part. Historic and economic events that occur to evaluate their presidency. Normally little or no consideration is given the longterm effects of a president s Supreme Court nominees. Let that not be the case with my presidency. For i am prepared to allow history judgment in my term of office if necessary exclusively by my nomination 30 years ago, Justice John Paul stevens of the United StatesSupreme Court. Criminal his views on law. He served his nation well at all times carrying out judicial duties with inteelect and without partisan concerns. Its an extraordinary letter. I dont know i dont know any other president who has ever made a president like that about a Supreme Court justice. If the dean introduces me like this, im happy to do so. That was a wonderful letter, i must say. And im very, very proud of it. I thank the dean in his part in letter that hangs in my chambers. As i look out at the group i know youre not all freshmen but it reminds me of my first day in law school in booth hall at northwestern law school. The shape of the room is similar to this. Its set in a little higher up as you go. And those of you who are freshmen are youre going to have a fine year ahead what made you decide to go to law school . You mightally thought be an english teacher . I did. Principal causes. The g. I. Bill of rights than e more opportunities otherwise would have been available. Wrote me a letter. He was five years older than i lawyer. He was a he wrote me a letter recommending that i go to law some of d describing the benefits of being a lawyer the rewards that he being able to use his skills helping people who help. Needed and it really made an impression on me. He described what he really enjoyed with his work. He was in practice with another chicago, and he never joined a big firm. He did a lot of good things. Change nfluenced me to my thinking. To nd that convinced you pursue a legal career . That together with the g. I. Bill, of the right. Did you like law school . I did. It a great deal. As i said, this reminds me of it. At the time northwestern was a smaller school, a smaller faculty, maybe eight or 10 people on the faculty, and they were all fine people. Dean green was a torts proffer nat nathan son the common law proffer. Group. Re a fine it was a small enough class so you got to know the professors and you, i think, benefited and small all class number of professors and and change between student faculty. As our students are beginning heir legal careers do you have any advice for them about what they should be doing in law school . Corny to say, but you better study hard. May not as easy as it seem. And it pays off if you do. Really y it more if you work at it and it is worth the study hard. Should that is very good. Paying attention. As they are thinking about their legal careers do you have for them . That is the one thing funny, i said this to more than ne group, that should realize when you start practicing law that your most important asset reputation for integrity nd you must always remember, you have to play by the rules. It is terribly important. People know about it and the word will get out. Asks are the questions you a faithful person and if so as your faith informed and sha shaped your career . I dont know exactly how to answer it, but we i read that the extent to which it might have effected my court. N the and i think a lot about my in these cases. Y mother was a christian scientist and her mother was a christian scientist before her Christian Science unday school and so forth and that was the religion that had the greatest impact on my own work on the court. And i would often think about wheth i had a question whether a statute was being fair r unfair to a religious minority i would often think about what requiring medical things es and certain like that, which the christian in, tists do not believe they dont believe you need any medical attention at all, and i about how my mother would react to being such a law. Obey and generally i found that she that the ould think general good was more important the individual insistence own interests. That is very interesting. That i want to important were mentors to you . Well, i dont really know. Think of anybody as a mentor. Ustice rutledge obviously taught me a great deal and my faculty at northwestern taught me a great deal. Edward j. Johnston who was of the law artner firm i worked for the first three years in practice was a admired and respected. As i havent thought of him a mentor so im not is sure i have any monthors. Learn from you Justice Rutledge . A great deal. Rned example one example, court the problems of the is you get a certain number of pauper cases where the fund or person without that will file a paper in andwriting or typewritten or something look that and he procedure when i was a clark is those papers went to the chiefs clerks. He had three clerks and the other had two. With prepare a memorandum on all of those and call it a flimsy. Those were the days before computers. Box eight by er six or Something Like that and up chiefs clerk with type an original and eight copies and the memo with pauper cases around it all the chambers. At it and in k many chambers they would read , i will s memo an arize saying it is illinois prisoner has exhausted remedies. Justice rutledge insisted that is clerk get the original papers and go through and make an independent judgment on what was going on. He taught me, and my coclerk, every case is important. You have to find out what is brush it efore you off. So part of his job as he looked every as to be sure litigant was heard and at these dustin responsibility than any of the other justices. Fo another thing i learned from him same idea, every case is important, and he thought it to let every lawyer know that their arguments had and thought ed ful fully. Wrote long are opinions than anybody on the court and he let the ul to try to reader know that the argument had been considered and the for rejecting it. As a result, he wrote much longer opinions than some of the others did, much longer opinions than i ever wrote. Learn the respect of litigant that he felt. He wrote his own opinions is point i want to make. E wrote his own opinions on yellow pads which are not so necessary with computers nowadays. But he wrote them in longhand value of earned the writing the first draft of opinions. Followed the same practice although my law clerks made additions to many of the opinions i wrote. I always wrote the first draft. Largely because judge rutledge did it. It, his first draft was generally typed up and that was it. Final. The he did not go through a series of changes. There would be changes suggested by justices from other chambers he would sometimes accept them and sometimes he wouldnt. His own firstmuch draft. That is what i was going to say i learned the importance of the draft because you do learn much more about a case we you rather than t accepting a draft prepared by someone else. You the first Supreme Court justice who had been a Supreme Court clerk . No, i was the third. Whom rst was byron white,. Had met during World War Two i guess i was second. Bill rehnquist had been a clerk. Bill was senior to me as a but he was a law clerk later. He clerked for jackson. There are several former clerks on the court. A did your experience as clerk shape your work as a justice . Oh, ex. Understand the cert. Rocess better didnt ask to join the pool when that came along. Had a feel for court. Oes on in the as our students start law talk a little bit about what the cert pool is and you didnt participate in it . Is a pool i dont know whether the word pool to the memos or the people that write the memos. The justices all justices alito have cert so they every cert case all receive the same advice from court. So if the cert pool writer a grant or a denial, he is making that recommendation justices instead of ust one, which is the case before the cert pool started. In that job there is of recommendation is to eny and so i think the cert pool has an adverse effect on of cases that are granted. Talk important lets about oral argument. How important is oral argument . While i was there, i considered in a very important part of the process. It frequently changed your thinking on the case and gave into a techniq particular issue that might not you in just to reading briefs. In fact, i think the oral argument is that it tly important explains why they dont televise the argument. Televising the argument might bring about changes in the that you cannot anticipate. Because whenever television gets arena, it sometimes has unexpected impact on the being televised. Strongest argument against televising is that if it broke, dont fix it. I think it reflects the fact that the justices think the arguments are important. I thought they were importa mportant, and i think my colleagues felt the same way. Question, justin is asking do you think the Supreme Court architects should be video and broadcast live . And you dont think there should be . I have ve to confess, changed i have vacillated. Omewhat on the issue because it would be a healthy thing for the public generally as theyss the arguments go on because i think they would impressed and probably surprised how well of the the Members Court are and the questioning brings that out. It would be well to have eople have the opportunity to see arguments. , on balance, think better off not making a as ge that may not be important a fit. It is a close question. Recognize ck you . Pardon . Do people rock you . I would think do people recognize you . I would think another reason of elevising it is would make you more public . That is one reason nor not doing it. A ause you are really not public figure that is well generally. Your name may be none but we i a name like john stevens it is sort of like john smith. I was almost never recognized court. The has questioning changed over time from when you started at court . Well, i havent been to any retired, but e i m informed that there is even more activity in the questioning than we i was there. And there were a lot of then. Ons pluses and minuses on that because everybody has an ask any question he or she wants but if you take too much time it defeats the purpose of the argument. When you asked questions what goal . Ur very often an was issue that was not fully spelled briefs or sometimes i same question of both adversaries and the question would help you a problem that was bothering you while you are thinking about a case. A on occasion you would ask question when you had pretty your ade up your mind and adversary was making an argument that really didnt hold water then you would ask a designed to e expose the flaw in the argument. Ost of the questions i asked were seeking information i hought might be helpful in making the case through. As people are starting to think about being an advocate is advice that you would give them . The first advice is read the do anything you else so you know what the case is all about and you know all case tails in the yourself. Ecause the judges on the bench frequently will rely on lawyers in the briefs. So the first thing you have to know is really know the record. The second thing is you have to think through what you want to number of row the points down. You dont read the argument, no point reading what but you in the brief, put points down to emphasize and get through those points before makes it estioning impossible. Brief writing . Do you have any advice for people as brief writers . What makes a brief effective . Youve got to , be honest in your briefs. You have to acknowledge that there is a serious problem in a head on. Meet in dont try to bury it in a because the people who are going to read the brief are people and are not oing to be misled or easily satisfied with a glib answer. So you must think through the explain them to as best you can. Very e you realize that intelligent, good lawyers are brief o be reading the and try it figure out what to do based on what you say in the brief. Talked earlier about the way in which the fact that your christian scientist affected your thinking about religious questions on the court. E you served in the military. Affect your view of issues on the court . Yes, im sure it did. Have the workat i i did in the navy was analyzing communications and get you can out ofce the communications. Ost of them i could not be read. Some could be read and cryptographers. Ryptographers but my specialty was radio intelligence. And who was ffic sending messages to whom and so forth. The hing i can remember ahead of me whom i had eded told me he received a message from a new battle ship to the base in a, the naval the south pacific, and if that ew battle ship was down there required some very important forces about where our might best be located. Forway, he suggested i look more evidence for this particular battle ship. Forth not long after i took over the desk i got the same messages that he had sign had nd the call been garbled and it was not the attle ship he thought it was the personnel base and in a so i learned garbles. Are of when in turn is something reading statutes you have to be ware of the equivalent of garbles. There are scriveners errors here, are times when the statute clearly doesnt reflect the draftsman intended hich is one point my friend scalia violently disagree. Never look atould legislative history. Think you should look at as much of the legislative history can to make sure you understand the statute and the ords they use were not the. Quivalent of garbles so that particular experience did have an impact on my statutes. To. I was at an want last week i bought his back. It and he did a great job. Legislative that history should be used am interpreting statutes. It is interesting. He has had a lot experience in spent a couple of ears working as a staff member in congress michaeyself. Who have had ople more experience in congress are prone to study the history you learn y think because t the statute of your background there. That is a good book he wrote. Your experience working in conditioning then affects the congress affects the way you perform in court . It does. One occasion i was talking to a congressman about a is too much it s detail but about a bill and i was finding a complication in and he had a little trouble understanding it and he the judgesnt we let decide it. And he thought it was appropriate for congress to in the rtain gaps legislation that could be filled through the judicial process. And you agree with that . With that completely. You cant imes when anticipate every problem that is going to rise as a result of a statute, and i think it is a mistake for congress to try to in trying to h answer every possible question. Is your approach to constitutional interpretation words, kind ofher more openended . Is right. That i guess that is right. One difference between statutory can retation and constitutional interpretation that has been said in many court should be more willing to take a second at a constitutional provision because nobody else can correct it. But when a statute has been construed i was a very firm starry decisis in statutory cases because congress can always change it. Got it wrong the court should stick with having a valuable and let Congress Take responsibility for editorial changes in statutes. History you tutory look at some sense of what congress had in mind. Constitutional history you are not so much concerned with what the drafters had in mind. No, i dont think that is 100 true. It is part of your analysis. Find out what to you can about the framers views. But that is not necessarily the answer. In fact there are some onstitutional provisions that are construed today to have a meaning directly opposite of but the framers intended they didnt really understand the full implications of some of enacted. Sions they y favorite example of that is under the religion clauses the clause was t esigned to protect the christian religion but onchristian faiths were not intended to be protected and that is demonstrated by contemporary writing. Look at the problem today you obviously cant have for om of religion just protestants and catholics and jews and mormons and so forth. So the principle the framers broader than the actual attempt. He same for segregated schools for example. Connell have your changed over the time you were on the court . I sitont think of any as here today. Another question, a few other questions about your service on wanted to ask i you about. Asks during your time in the Supreme Court who is justice you worked with . Scalia. Nk nino he has a wonderful sense of humor. I think that he would qualify. They are an intelligent, nice group of people. , i mentioned my byron white. When we were in Conference Room in the conference except the justices. No law clerks and no cetera. Ries, et there is a telephone in there. So we the gone rings it is a wrong number. If they have a message they knock on the door and the junior to get up andance the door. Was junior justice for many, many years. Tom clark used to describe the justice as the highest country. Rman in the but byron white, when the phone generally pick it up and say joes bar and it number. A wrong i will tell you another one byron. Do with thing to anything. He was a great athlete. m sure you know who byron white was. If you dont, then it is a than i eneration gap think you should. He was an allamerican football layer and he was a generally very good athlete and he would and he would go up there and dribble the basketball by himself and shoot baskets. And the sound in the courtroom distracting. As a result of byrons there is a firm rule on the court that you may not court sketball while the. S in session along . The justices get yes, they really do. They are all wonderful people. You have some pretty firm disagreements, theres in doubt that. But everybody understands sort that you arel rule just doing the best you can. You put stronger language in your opinions tan you should. It rarely happened that there were times that i had some in an opinion and another justice might say really want to you would d normally accept the advice and change the language. Benjamin barb bindeman writes which justice did you most admire and look up to and why . You know, i thought about that. I read the question in advance. Im really not sure because i different areas i admire different justices for difference reasons. I really admired all of them. Theyre exceptional people. I like to say thurgood marshall. But my strongest admiration for him is the work he did even before he was the justice. I mean, his work as a trial lawyer around the country, i think is seldom appreciated. The hard work he did and the risks he took he was very remarkable person. Im not sure who one other example was my friend because he had been encaged during a form of intelligence in a war. So we had some background in come common. Hes a good friend although we frequently disagreed on the merits of the cases. Now, did the deliberations among justices affect the outcome . Nishwari asked that question. How much deliberate lation rations occurs and how important is it . Well, its important but the amount and it varies with the cases. Some cases are deliberation is very brief. But the deliberation almost entirely occurs at the conference at the end of the week. On friday we took the cases from tuesday tuesday. Wednesdays we discussed the monday cases. But the deliberation is orderly at the conference. The justices speak in turn going around the table. And usually the discussion is over after everyone has spoken but sometimes on the more difficult cases there would be back and fort later on. But by the time the conference is over most of the cases have been decided and will not be will come out the way the way theyre designed to conference. But there are some cases that are difficult and these deliberations that occur at later times on spontaneous occasions you cant really say. And when you were the senior justice and the majority and youre thinking about who do we sign the opinion to what are you thinking about in that part of the process . Well, it varies. Youre concerned about distributing assignments fairly and equally is one thing. Mainly the primary thing when i was assigned responsibility was to try to pick the justice who would do the best job writing an opinion. On occasion, you would think that if someone was it was a very close case and one persons vote was in doubt, i would think thats the person who ought to write the opinion. Because i found very often that when youre writing out an opinion you your views become more firm than they were before. So i thought if you sign the case to the person who was least committed hes most to stick by his original vote once hes spelled out the reasons for it. Where as if you assign it to someone whos not who is clearly on that side, he may lose the court if its a 54 case. So thats one and other areas is the person as you think might has shown the best understanding of the case is the person assigned it to. George Theodore Phillips asks how do you build a majority . Do you have strategys . Well, no. No, you just do your best at the conference or explain the reason why you think the case should be decided in one way and hope youre persuading the others. You might further try to convince them or unconvince them whatever it might be. But most of it is just straightforward discussion of the merits. So Justice Brennan kind of famously talked about, its a theme two majorities through charm and personal persuasion. He was a charming guy brennan wilson. I liked him very, very much. And he was very effective advocate too. But im not sure that charm really persuades many members of the court. But i think brennan and scalia were very good friends. They were very charming people but they didnt convince themselves all that often. I wouldnt ask you what case they might have convinced each other on. I dont have one readily in mind. So i want to go back to your nomination. So were you surprised to be nominated for the Supreme Court . Well, yes. But after the after the might explain the time frame was quite short between doug lass resignation and the nomination and during that period, the newspapers had a list of people that they thought were likely nominees and i was surprised to find myself mentioned publically as a possible nominee and then i was even more surprised, of course, when he made the decision. I think, yeah, it was really it was a remarkable decision by president ford because it was a time in which the nation was still suffering from watergate. And there was a real crisis and belief in the rule of law. And for him to make there were a lot of people who were being pushed forward for different groups, conservatives. Ford would say that carla hill would be a good Supreme Court to nom name. And president ford decided that it should really be someone who was with outstanding integrity and deep connection to the rule of law and he picked you. Thats why he was so proud of your selection. He wrote me an awfully nice letter. So with your your what was the preselection like . You saw your name in the newspaper. And then i think four or five days before he actually made the decision, he had a dinner at the white house at which he to which he had invited maybe 25 or 30 judges most of whom had been newspaper candidates or Something Like that. And i was invited to that dinner and i met president ford for the first time at that dinner and very important justices were there too. We kind of knew that we were being that that the the pending nomination had something to do with the dinner. Wow. [laughter] and i do remember meeting the president for the first time he came over to our table and talked about the financial crisis in new york. The federal government was asked to pour in some money. I dont remember the details, but i do remember being very distinctly impressed about the fact that the president was obviously a good lawyer and thoroughly understood the issues and explained what was going on in a way that that the average person could not have done it. He was a very articulate person even though hes not known generally for that. Hes a very likable person. He was really a decent person. Ive come to the conclusion he he made good appointments. [laughter] he was a great president. So and so how do you find out that youre nominated for the Supreme Court . Well, i told the story about phil strong. That would be great. Another judge who had been seriously mentioned and as i understand during the final decisionmaking process there were two or three or four who were most seriously considered. One of them was my colleague phillip tone from chicago who had been working for rutledge and joined the same law firm in chicago which i started. And after i left the firm, we continued to be good friends and eventually he was appointed the court of appeals two or three years after i had been appointed. So we find ourselves being us a tenseable competitors good friends for the vay can sit. And we had vacancy. And we said its kind of hard to do your regular work not knowing whats going on here. And so we agreed each of us agreed to tell the other one if we heard anything about the nomination. Then my my our opportunity to get the job. So about three or four days after we had that conversation, it was the friday after thanksgiving, president ford called me up. And my secretary wasnt there. But anyway, he explained you have to nominate me. And i was very compleezed. I told him so. And i was very pleased. Were he said were going to announce this at 1 00 in the afternoon in washington. I ask you not to tell anybody until we announce it publically. I said, id like to mr. President , but i had this problem. I told phillips that i would let him know if i had heard anything. And the president responded by saying, well, im sure if you tell them i asked him not to tell him, hell understand and i forgive you. I said well, im unhappy about this solution but of course, i did what the president requested and i left the office. And didnt come back until about 5 00 that afternoon. I visited with my mother, my Christian Science mother. She was then about my age now. Anyway i get to the office did you tell your mother . Yes, i did. [laughter] i knew she wouldnt tell anybody. [laughter] anyway, i did [laughter] anyway, to finish the story, when i got back to the office about 4 00 in the afternoon, the phone rang again and i answered it. It was the day after thanksgiving and my secretary wasnt there. And the person at the other end said im calling from the white house. And the president has asked me to tell you that you can tell judge tone. Were going to announce it publically. And i thought thats a pretty thoughtful guy that would take that back and seriously call me. And after i hung up phil tone walked in the office to congratulate me. Hed already heard it. [laughter] an interesting little thats a great story. Reflects so well on president ford. Ive often thought about that that he had an awful lot on his mind, he told me that i could keep my promise to phil. He was an extraordinary man with great judgment. Yeah. [laughter] so let me ask you a fe questions about six amendments your most recent book. So what did you its about a book for six amendments that you think we should have for the constitution. Right. How did you come to write it . Its interesting. I think i explain in the first chapter, it was the newtown massacre that after the shootings up in connecticut there was a New York Times story that stated that because of the decision of the Supreme Court a few years ago, the data bases that an f. B. I. Uses to check out purchases on firearms are not entirely complete because some states are not do not provide all the detail that the f. B. I. Requests. And the reason they dont do it is because of the Supreme Court decision is the prince case. I had to state it in the decision. They had very unwisely adopted a rule which is an anticommandeering rule that prohibits the government compelling state officials to obey any federal command even though world war i draft, world war ii drafts were largely conducted by state officials and not paid by the federal government. But because it was an efficient way to run. But anyway, the court dropped this anticommon deering rule which i thought at the time was unwise. And this New York Times story, they really should change that. So the proximate cause of the book was that story. I think i explained that. And after i wrote that i thought there are other things that should be changed to such as the gerrymandering, terrible practice. Nobody can defend on the merits. And the court could apply the racial gerrymandering they could apply it to political gerrymandering. So i put in a chapter about that. I had a chapter about Campaign Financing and then the other chapter that i thought was the most interesting in the book is the notion that a state official doesnt have to obey federal law because the king of england was back in 1500 used to ask immunity that strikes me as somewhat unwise. So i made those four chapters and i thought having having written those i thought i also should include chapters about the Death Penalty and gun control both of which i think should be changed. So the Death Penalty there should not be Death Penalty . Thats right. Its a very simple reason. Im not perhaps as persuasive as i should be. But we now know that the our criminal Justice System is by no means infallible. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high burden but it does not avoid the real, very serious risk of executing someone who is found guilty unfairly. And thats the reason michigan doesnt have the Death Penalty because one of the legislators had participated in an execution of an innocent a man who turned out to be innocent. Oh, my gosh. Yeah. And of the six, if you could pick one, whats the most important amendment to to put in effect . I think the gerrymandering. Its the most important law of Campaign Finances is a close second. And why gerrymandering . Well, i think its a much more two reasons, its very rarely defend on the merits. If you government officials have a duty to govern impartially try to advance their own political interests when theyre acting in a political position. They clearly have a duty to draw district lines in a nonpartisan impartial way theyre not doing it. Everybody knows it. And you can tell by looking at the maps which districts are crazy shapes and if you if you if you play the same rule that you apply to racial gerrymandering which you can put an end it to. And it really distorts the political process. I think it makes primary elections more important than general elections. And as i say on the merits it clearly needs to be changed. One of the points that you make in the book is that because districts are partisan it forces people to the extremes. Democrats to the yes. Democrats to the conservatives and i think thats why were politically this way. I worked for the howls judicial area committee. And most of work in congress at that time, the parties worked in a collegial basis on high visibility issues. They would take the partisan positions and make more speeches and so forth. But congress was a legislative body on which the they were all all one team for the most part. Its an amazing transformation in that period of time. And the book is really remarkably powerful on each of the six amendments. So, id urge all of you to read i. I think we have time for a couple of questions. So do we have the aaron, if you could state your name. [indiscernible] my name is caleb graves, Justice Ginsburg said she beliefs the worst decision been the court. Do you feel strongly about a decision you disagree with to state the same, what you think would be the worst decision by the court . Well, i think that probably the worst decision thats been handed down while i was in the court was bush against gore. That really was quite wrong and i think it game more and more obvious and specifically the order prohibiting a recount and the state court was appropriate than following state rules. Citizens united was bad enough. But the judgment was bad enough. And why was bush vs. Gore so bad . Well, i think it gave the public the incorrect impression that courts are Political Institutions rather than doing their best job at trying to figure out what the law is. Thehe case arose out of senatorial election in indiana between two candidates and a recount had been ordered. I dissented from my two colleagues which thought the recount increased the risk of an erroneous count ballots, which i thought was quite wrong. That case was reversed. Recount had continued, it probably would not have altered the outcome of the elections. Thereve been some studies that indicate that is the case. The thing that may have produced the result is the ballots they had in palm beach county, pappy canon pat buchanan was on the ballot and he received a large number of ballots in an area which have wouldve voted democratic. Gore lost more votes to pat buchanan than he did to his opponent. That conceivably could have made a difference. They had a very strange ballot. It was hard for the voter to use. I think we have time for one more question. I want to ask about your thoughts on the equal rights amendment. I know it was not addressed in your book. I was wondering if you could talk about that and if you think it is an effective means for change. The question is, in your book, you dont talk about the equal rights amendment. Thats right. Should equal rights amendment have been adopted and what difference would it make . That was an issue when i went to the confirmation process. Ever ofhe tactical saying i did not think the equal rights was necessary. I thought gender discrimination could be curtailed. The National Organization for women opposed by nomination because i took that position. They also opposed me for some opinions id written for the fact that i was not a woman. [applause] reason, by the way. [laughter] i really dont think it would make much difference if you have equal rights amendment adopted. The case law would still be the same . I think so. Ginsburg bader in the case that berger wrote olving the Estate Holding it was a rational irrational to disqualify women. That is a groundbreaking case and i dont think he is given enough credit for that decision and they did not rely on any particular scrutiny, he basically said this is a lot of nonsense. [laughter] looking at your confirmation proceedings, should the other the other concerned that was raised, people were concerned about your health. Thats right. [laughter] i think youve proven them wrong. Two years earlier, i had a heart bypass operation and it was a new procedure at that time. In the weight of history and the fact that you were nominated and confirmed, it it was next ordinary moment in the history of the country. For more than 30 years on the bench, you were next ordinary champion of the rule of law and we were all very privileged as our students are starting their legal career, to be able to listen to you. On behalf of the entire georgetown law community, i would like to present we have ties, but we dont have bowties. You a clock that commemorates this occasion. Stevens, tojustice the first year class. A big round of a plausible. Thank you a big round of applause. Thank you. [applause] next, q a. Your calls and comments on washington journal. Foundation hosts a discussion on the visa waiver foundation. Looking at the security concerns raised by the program and how it affects intelligence gathering efforts. Like today at noon eastern on cspan 2. This week on q a, our guest is johnetta cole, the director of the Smithsonians National museum of african art. She talks about her thoughts on Race Relations in america today. The last time i looked, you had 61 Honorary Degrees. Has that gone up . We just came through a commencement season. Let me say, i do not take the degrees lightly. A part of having been into the academy and having invited individuals to receive Honorary Degrees, i consider this quite an honor. A privilege, a joy, to be acknowledged for doing work. That is what an Honorary Degree is about. The fact that it can be connected to the younguns, as i like to call young people, to their lives. Could we even assume that it could serve for inspiration for them . What is your approach to the commencement address . A new speech every time . I love commencements. Remember, i am trained as an anthropologist, so i know the importance of ritual and of ceremony. And i cannot think of a more a grander ceremony. However, that commencement speech is the toughest speech to do. One of my sons says, you know, my mom is good at speechifying. I do my best. I do not like just recycling. But in every commencement situation, you have competing interests. The students basically just want this over. The parents would like it to linger, to assure them that their child has been welleducated. The faculty, they would like some real intellectual stuff going on here