Transcripts For CSPAN2 Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Delivers Remarks 20170508

Hosted by Georgetown University and runs about one hour 15 minutes and begins with remarks by the universities president. [applause] good afternoon everyone and welcome. Its a pleasure to be with all of you. Azhar Spring Semester draws to a close for our bernstein symposium. I wish to begin by expressing our deepest appreciation to Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg forn joining us here on campus today. Its an honor to welcome her to gaston hall and to hear her reflections this afternoon. I also wish to express our gratitude to the honorable Robert Katzmann, chief judge of u. S. Court of appeals for the Second Circuit, for all his efforts to make this extraordinary symposium possible for our community. I look for to sharing a few more words about judge katzmann in just a moment. Id also like to thank professor Mary Hartnett and professor Wendy Williams from our Georgetown Law Center who will join Justice Ginsburg in conversation today. Ive has a hartman and professor williams are Justice Ginsburgs authorized biographers and coauthors of a recent book, myw own words, published this past year. Finally we should thank all of you for being here today but very special gathering. The bernstein symposium was created to honor the memory of the bernstein. Whose work in the area of regulation and personal andstrae administrative reform continues to influence scholars today. He served as a founding dean of the Woodrow Wilson school of public and International Affairs at princeton, as president of brandeis, and for the last seven years of his life as a professor of politics and philosophy here at our school of foreign service. We are deeply grateful to michael and susan gelman, and all those have generously supported this symposium and enabled us to bring such esteemed guests to campus, including Vice President al gore, journalist tim russert, senator patrick leahy, and justices Sonia Sotomayor and stephen breyer, to take part in this forum which honors doctor burndr. Bernstein many contributo our University Community and to our understanding of the u. S. Political system. S today we have the privilege of welcoming Ruth Bader Ginsburg, associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Since her confirmation to the court nearly 25 years ago, shes brought a thoughtful measured approach to her distinguished service on the bench, building consensus and voicing eloquence in dissent. We are deeply honored to have her with us this afternoon to share her insights and reflections with our georgetown community. To introduce Justice Ginsburg is my pleasure to welcome chief judge Robert Katzmann of the u. S. Court of appeals for the Second Circuit. Judge katzmann was appointed to the federal bench in 1999 bydere president clinton, and he began his service as chief judge 14 years later in 2013. Like his mentor in this symposiums namesake, Margaret Bernstein, judge katzmann is also negates member of our georgetown committee, having talk as the walsh professor of government and a professor of law and public policy. He serves on the board of visitors of our law center and is also one of the founders of this symposium. Before his appointment to the Second Circuit, he was a fellow of the governmental studies program of the Brookings Institution and served as president of the governments institute. In 2000 he received the Charles E Miriam award from the american Political Science association. Po in 2003 as being a fellow of the American Academy in arts and sciences and 102011 received the Chesterfield Smith award from the Pro Bono Institute in recognition of his outstanding dedication to pro bono work,no r including programs regardingincn immigration. This award was presented to him by Justice Ginsburg engaged his guidance and expertise when hee served as special counsel pro bono to senator Daniel Patrick moynihan, and then judge ginsburg during her confirmation process to the Supreme Court. It is wonderful to welcome you back to campus this happen. I want to thank you again for your leadership, your generosity and your sustained commitment to community. Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming the honorable Robert Katzmann. [applause] its great to be back. Thank you, president degioia, for your generous introduction, for a living proceedings with your presence, and i might add for your efforts to promote understanding on very difficult issues that confront our society. It was Margaret Bernstein said idea that georgetown should create a position that would bridge the campuses between the law Center Downtown and the main campus. Andy worked with the law center to make that a reality. As a beneficiary of that effort i will always be grateful to him. The bernstein symposium brings the campuses together, and our program this afternoon draws upon the talents of the main campus and the Georgetown Law Center faculty. I know that my friend bill trainor, dean of the law school, regrets being out of town today, and we appreciate his participation in previous years. This symposium series is very dear to me and im very grateful to still be part of it, grateful to the Government Department and the distinguished chair charles king for all of his wise counsel. Im also very grateful to all those friends of Marvin Bernstein to make this symposium possible including those that president degioia mention. Now, this is for me this afternoon at particularly special occasion for several reasons. Music as well as being important to me as it is for so many people. What else but music and give a person a sensation both soothing and inspiring, a transporting experience and average associations in its wake in the memory . Be at the notes of beyonce, philip glass, theres some music that speaks to each of us can something universal. So it is a distinct thrill for me to introduce Azhar Bernstein Henri someone who demonstrably understand something about universal values, and someone who, in fact, has performed twice on the opera stage with the Washington National opera at the Kennedy Center, no less. The Washington Post recently praised our guest for not onlyin her performance but for her writing as well, and i quote, her timing, delivery and vitriol which she wrote herself were all even more polished and hit every mark. The headline observed, before adoring crowds, justice prevailed. [laughing] justice writing superb delivery, i think you know where im headed here. Her story was indeed not about the reaction to Justice Ginsburgs reading of a consequential opinion from a Supreme Court bench, or the reaction to one of her wellcrafted speeches to a university or a law group. No, the Washington Post story really was review of it Justice Ginsburg already acknowledged as a variable rockstar in the story, as also come at a quote, an actual opera star. On thursday, march 9, the Kennedy Center opera house was filled with an adoring crowd that roared with adulation for her at every opportunity. Ginsburg rules Washington National opera, another Washington Post headline read. Justice ginsburg is, of course, also a Supreme Court justice, a national icon. Also a [laughing] the subject of books, art, tshirts, and i understand soon a movie Starring Natalie and portman. [laughing] its true. Why is this in fact, so . In part, Justice Ginsburg is celebrated for her impact as a judge on this country size court, the second woman ever on the Court Country size court for her contributions to the lofty feldman, for her methodical, really analyses and concise, elegant prose. An in part no doubt it is because of her trailblazing role before the coming, for coming a judge of womans advocate. I think also its because the American Public admires her character, her values and feel a connection with her. And i witnessed that connection first as president degioia noted in the course of a confirmation journey in the summer of 1993 when she was first thrustt International Celebrity when i accompanied her to capitol hill at the invitation of her senate sponsor, Daniel Patrick moynihan, an experience that i will always cherish. For me the most telling moment of that confirmation came in response to question from a senator kohl of wisconsin. And he asked her, how would she want the American People to think of her . And Ruth Bader Ginsburg replied quietly, i would like to be thought of as a person who cares about people and does the best she can with the talent she has to make a contribution to a better world. That, i think, captures her. She is a person with seemingly limitless capacity for friendship and kindness in ways large and small. No matter the weighty burden of her daily life. She is a friend for the chilly winters of life, someone who places others before her own convenience, as i have observed. Somewhat of conviction and determination, a person with a true sense of the aesthetic, taken by the Simple Pleasures that life has to offer, be it a beloved aria or a horseback ride. And to know her family, her incomparable partner, marty, and are accomplished children and did her entire family is to have a sense of what for her on life blessings. And makes each of us appreciate what is truly important. Justice ginsburg is somewhat of grace, prodigious work habit, yuma, dignity and style. So in Justice Ginsburg the public observed someone from s whom the law is not about abstraction for her life in law has been about working to ensure that each of us can realize his or her potential. For her life can until the most difficult of challenges both professional and personal, but she is always been determined to meet them, to through the obstacles to secure a Better Future for those of us here now, and those who follow. That enduring connection face she established with the American People watched the confirmation hearings was based on their perception that in this age, too often gripped by glitz and self promotion, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was someone whose virtues were and are very real. E early on i could sense thaton connection as persons of all ages asked her for an autograph and she agrees with prejudice. I think its actually very affirming of our country and of ourselves that this intellectual powerhouse woman draws huge crowds and is a fixture extolled in pop culture. The occasion of our marvere Bernstein Program is a recent publication of my own works, which is a collection of Justice Ginsburgs writing. Its a great read and i cant recommend it enough. Indeed, everybody here will get a copy. The book has been widely heralded in book reviews as a collection of thought for writing about perseverance and community and a lot of reflecting an abiding commitmenw to protect outsiders and others as a core american value. As a tonic to the current discourse showcasing the justices astonishing intellectual range from law and lawyers and operative tributes to louis brandeis, when rehnquist and gloria steinem, paying tribute to those who came before and others who work with her. As writing, my own words are in model for all of us. Precise, then read, beautiful structured, like a wonderful piece of music. Joining me in conversation now are Justice Ginsburg and her two colleagues on the project, Mary Hartnett, an adjunct professor at georgia law focuses on International Womens rights, and Wendy Williams, office of law emeritus at georgetown law, best known for her work on the subject of gender and law. Please join me now as we welcomw Justice Ginsburg and our colleagues on stage for a conversation. Both o [applause] [cheers and applause] i have never heard such applause. In a university institution. Thats really extraordinary. Justice ginsburg, if i might begin, why this book of writings and why now . The original plan, bob, is that wendy and mary would write a biography, my authorizedy biography. You started in the year 2004 when you came to me . They came to me and said, someone is going to write about you, so you might as well designate people you trust, and we volunteer. The idea was that they would write the biography and then as a supplement we would have a selection of my writings. 2004 became 2010, and so i suggested, why not let the order, to the book of writings first and then the biography. You were very enthusiastic about it, that i did, so was hillout h publisher. Her of [laughing] someday, someday, maybe they can tell you when their biography will appear. [laughing] its such a best seller as is. There will be some lead time before the book is actually published. No pressure on us. Tell us, wendy and then mary, about the process of gathering and choosing the materials to be published. But first, the forthcoming biography, we cant publish yet because this is ginsburg keeps doing Amazing Things and we want to cover them all. [cheers and applause]e materi selecting materials was a lot of fun, but i have to tell it wasnt easy, and heres why. Justice ginsburg sn extraordinarily prolific writer and speaker, and not just as a Supreme Court justice, not just as a judge, nudges as a law professor or a litigator. Fi for the first piece in the collection we actually went back over 70 years to a piece that Justice Ginsburg wrote when she was in eighth grade. [laughing] it probably will not surprise you to know she was editor of her School Newspaper in Public School in brooklyn, the name of the paper was the highwayt herald, and the piece, the first piece in this book she wrote, came when she was in eighth grade. Other items in the School Newspaper talked about the circus, the school play, but young ruth wrote about the ten commandments, the magna carta [laughing] the bill of rights, thets declaration of independence and United Nations charter, which had just been adopted. [laughing] [applause] oh you could understand the enormity of trying to select just enough to fill a book as opposed to gaston hall. And to wendy and i met with Justice Ginsburg and kind of got a big picture of the shape without the wanted the book to be in, and then wendy and not exchanged 28 draft of an outline and the great thing about working with Justice Ginsburg is she has a phenomenal memory. So we would talk about a particular speech and she would say we might want to consider the version i gave in paris in 2008 where i talked about brown v. Board of education, and so we did. Justice ginsburg has an amazing staff led by kim mckenzie would then go actually find that piece. So we were aided in that. The other fun part about selecting pieces, we also need to select photographs. And so Justice Ginsburg, when to speak at georgetown law last year, came in event of a speech into my office with this literally wallpapered with pictures of Justice Ginsburg at every phase of her life, and of marty and of her family. And so we had a fun time picking out the different photos for the book. And then finally the last part was writing the introduction material, Justice Ginsburg wrote a beautiful introduction to the book. And then wendy and i had a challenge in the writing an introduction to each section if we could just put in the whole chapter wed already written up for the forthcoming biography. We had to winnow out just a few of the key parts, and delete something for the future. So we did that. Just a few words. First of all, i just had to do a shout out to marry because she keeps me on track and on time, which, as anybody who knows me knows this, its an incredible job. And she has been the gobetween among the three of us, making sure that we all produce and when were going to produce and what we want to do. And telling us there are certain things that cant go in the boon because we have a page limit. So thats what i went through, and it was stressful, extreme and stressful, it was also wonderful. I think its fair to say that one of our goals, consistent with what we know of the justice, was that we would make it accessible, not just to lawyers in the Legal Profession, but to the general public as well. And i hope we achieved that goal. You will be the judge of that because you all have the books in and you can let us know whether you think we did it right or not. And, of course, the main job was to capture the essence of the justices style, which is unique, enter substance, which is a remarkable performance, and seminal boil it down to its essence and present it in a book. So i want to say our efforts, i just cant help myself, i have to throw this in, our efforts improve nudges her own words but a couple other little tidbits as well. And one of them, well, you already know that she loves the opera, right . D the she starred in it opera. Well, quite starred, but, and the problem is she cant sing very well. [laughing] so she said it she could she would be a diva, but as it was she has a pretty good job. Y [laughing] one of the things we include, included in the book is an excerpt from an opera. And some of you may have heard of it, its called Scalia Ginsburg and you get a little taste of an opera about the Supreme Court and these two justices in this book. And the second thing im especially fond of here is there are two excerpts really come to speeches in honor of the justice by a splendid guy Ruth Ginsburg calls her life partner. The late, great tax lawyer and law professor at georgetown, martin ginsburg, known to all as marty. So i think youll find things n their that attune to she is, but by some others at the core of it is our effort together to present you with the essence of what she believes and how she operates and how she thinks and what she has contributed. So thats it. Justice ginsburg, before you were on the Supreme Court you of course litigated in front of the Supreme Court in the 1970s. Yo you are ahead litigator in the womens rights project of the aclu. You took part in 34 cases for the Supreme Court, either lead litigator or colitigator. You won five out of six cases you argued there. Can you talk a little bit about how you develop your legal strategy . Those good old days the legal strategy was clear. The first was to convince judges that there was such a thing as genderbased discrimination. They tended to thinkd to t differential treatment of women as operating benignly in womens favor. So the Supreme Court never saw a gender discrimination case it regarded as anything but favor to the women. Go back to 1872 or 73, but anyway, this woman seventythree. Women qualified to be a member of the Illinois State bar in all respects but one, the one she was a woman. And the court could rationalize that by saying, some things go on in courtrooms and a lady wouldnt want to be present. Or the next one, we can take that will be reenacted in the Supreme Court on monday. This is a 1948 case, the michigan Supreme Court passed, michigan legislature, passed a law that said women may not tend bar and less lsp or the wife or the daughter of the male bar owner. When they came to the Supreme Court, it was rather grim but it does talk about and seemingly things going on at taverns and saloons, best to keep this dinky little woman out. Or even later, 19621 , stood trial for the murder of philandering of an abusive hasns been. There were no women on florida juries and the Supreme Court saw that as a favor to women, women, after all, where the center of home and family life, therefore, they should not be distracted by being called away from the home for jury duty. So the objective was to let the court understand that these classifications capture as Justice Brennan said sometime in the 1970s, not on a pedestal but in a cage. That was the job to persuade the triers that there was such a thing as genderbased discrimination. And then our immediate target word lawyers that Wendy Williams described so well as creatingia separate fears for people. So there was the woman who took care of the home and the children, and the man who took care of the families economic wellbeing. And many, many laws were written with that picture i found life should be organized in mind. So the effort was to say theres something wrong with that picture of the world. There are many women who are nor particularly good at the home job, but may be very good atat firefighter or police that were offlimits to the time, and the armenian men who genuinely care for children. Men w so the law should speak about parents rather than mother or father. R the object was to break down all those explicit genderbased distinctions so that people could be thomas expressed to, people would be free to be you and me, whatever your godgiven talents, you could do it. And youre being male or female should not hold you back. So maybe you would like to add to that. In the 70s when the was a litigator for an organization based in San Francisco called equal rights advocates. Still in existence and going strong. Well, it was an amazing ten years, really nine years iea guess, that Ruth Ginsburg led the burgeoning womens Legal Movement in this country. Legal movement in this country for women. Part of the strategy was that she taught law on top of being the Supreme Court litigator and she was schooling the justices rather than attacking they both need to be closelytioi scrutinized by courts to insure equal protection of the laws for women. And for people of color. So she tried to get the court to do that, and characteristically [laughter] i would say, when the Supreme Court didnt quite bring itself to do that, she picked a middle approach and brought them along. And then, in the end, she went on the Supreme Court and got to write an opinion that pulled that all together for all time. Let me, if i might, ask you about your views about dissents. Theres a very thoughtful reading in the book about the role of the sense, you discussed the importance of respecting an opponents view even when publicly disagreeing as you exhibited, for example, in shelby v. Holder. The Voting Rights act case. We talk about dissents and how Justice Brandeis would sometimes write a dissent and then not, not publish it. Theres a whole book of his unpublished dissents. Could you give us a sense, Justice Ginsburg, of your philosophy of dissents . When you write a dissent, how you think about dissents . I had great role models in that respect, brandeis and holmes. I think it was holmes who said if i dissented in every case where i thought the court got it wrong, no one would read my dissents. [laughter] so im going to save them for the ones that really matter. Re i keep on my desk the unpublished opinions of mr. Justice brandeis. These were opinions that brandeis had labored over but then, in the end, he thought what the court had done wouldnt do any harm, so he would bury it. It would become a graveyard dissent. So his view was that his voice would be all the more compelling if he [inaudible] his dissents for when it really mattered. And carl dozer was the same kind of justice. A great law professor who clerked for brandeis remarked that this thennew justice, cardozo, very often when it can came down to the published opinion suppressed his vote at conference. Many times he voted one way at the conference but then joined the courts opinion going thendi otherway, always on the view that what the court was doing would do no harm. It was okay. And so i do not take every opportunity to dissent. I do try to save them for when, when it counts, when it really matters. Could i jump in for one secondsome. Absolutely. Another example of Justice Ginsburgs generosity with her time is i taught a course this semester on the role of dissenting opinions, and we had a surprise guest lecturer one evening. And i thought Justice Ginsburgs security detail was going to attack to administer cpr was going to have to administer cpr to at least one of the students [laughter] thank you again for doing that. In your book, you include your rose garden acceptance speech, which i remember well s and your Senate Confirmation hearing opening statement. Looking back, what stands out to you about the nomination, confirmation experience . One vivid memory is of a very bright, thenyoung man who was my guide who was appointed by senator Daniel Patrick moynihan. [laughter] to take me around the halls of the Congressional Office buildings. And bob we would be walkinggr to, say, a particular senators office, and bob would say this is what hes interested in. And it would be wise not to talk about this, that and the other thing. [laughter] and that was the honorable robert castman. [laughter] what i remember was the congeniality, the civility of those hearings, that entire process. I was nominated on june 14, 1993, and i was confirmed on august 3rd. There was a truly bipartisan spirit in the congress. My biggest supporter on the Judiciary Committee was orrin hatch. The vote was 963, and never mind that i had been on the board of the aclu and cofounder of the womens rights project and one of four general counsel to the aclu. Not a single question was asked about my aclu connections. For justice breyer, who came one year after, it was pretty much the same; a collegial atmosphere. Watching most recent confirmations, i wish there was a way that we could wave a magic wand and get back to the way it was and the way, the way it should be. We can only hope. [laughter] we can only hope. I, what i remember about some things about that process was that the white house brings in experts to talk to the nominee, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg knew more about each suspect than the experts. [laughter] each subject than the experts. [laughter] and it was, i think, a very humbling experience for all those coming in. That was really the best week for me, because i could choose any law professor i respected to bring me up to speed in various areas of the law. And i realized how popular Ruth Ginsburg was on not just when people would come up to her and ask for an autograph, but the senators across parties all wanted a photo opportunity. [laughter] so we would, we would go in to the talk to a senator, and it became clear what the senator really wanted was a picture to send back. [laughter] and i also remember very fondly senator grassley. There was a group from iowa that was putting on some ice cream demonstration in the capitol, and he said to thenjudge ginsburg, would you mind coming with me to this ice cream demonstration . And we went. And it was, you know, a different time than we have now. Yeah. It was the Dairy Farmers the Dairy Farmers, right. Exactly. [laughter] it was the most spectacular selection of ice cream in every flavor [laughter]ta it was delicious. [laughter] it was delicious, i remember. You have a new colleague as of a couple of weeks ago. How does the court change when the composition changes . Every time we have a new justice, we have a new court, and that means we would get a photograph of the new court, which i will give to my law clerks when we have it done. I think the person who is happiest to welcome a new justice is the departing junior justice. [laughter]junior now justice kagan, no longern, junior justice. The junior justice has the job of opening the door if anyone knocks during a conference. [laughter] answering the telephone, but most daunting of all, staying after we leave and giving all of our decisions, what cases did we grant review and different whatever actions we took at conference. She relays those to the entourage from the clerks office, legal office. And then the junior justice of late has had one more assignment. The junior justice serves on the cafeteria committee. [laughter] so that was an uphill battle for justice kagan. But she did succeed in getting a frozen yogurt machine. [laughter] [applause] then the musical chairs, our seats change. Everything is done by seniority at the court. So you asked about change when a new justice comes onboard, i think the biggest change in the 24 years ive been there is when Justice Oconnor retired. There have been other changes but not of the consequence of Justice Oconnors leaving us. Just from a personal point ofthf view, where there were two of us and we didnt look alike and didnt talk alike, but when Justice Oconnor left, there were these eight, most of them rather wellfed men [laughter] and then there was this small little woman. So the picture was altogether wrong. [laughter] true. Now with three of us, were spread all over the bench, and thats much better. It was lonely when Justice Oconnor left. Yeah. Much better. [laughter] let me ask you, Justice Ginsburg, most of the people in our audience today are College Students. When you were in college in the 1950s, which classes and professors had the biggestst impact on you . H well, ive talked about my european literature professor, vladimir nabokov, who literally changed the way i read and the way i write. He was a magnificent teacher. Ive listened to what you said, bob, when you made that extraordinary, fine introduction two courses that i took at Cornell University that have stayed with me and enriched my life, music 101 and 102 [laughter] and fine arts 101 and 102. So for any of you who are College Students, i would recommend whatever it is your main interest, do take courses in music and art. I agree. Youve made a lot of great decisions in your life, and this goes back to something that wendy had mentioned. Truly a great decision was the marry marty ginsburg. Could you tell us something about that momentous decision . Marty and i met when he was 18 and i was 17. He was in his second year, i was in my first year at cornell. He had a girlfriend at smith, i had a boyfriend at columbia law school. [laughter]lfriend,ad but theres a long week, often a cold week in between weekends, so friends thought that marty and i would probably like each other. I could go to the movies with him or to the college spa, and so thats how we started, as just friends. Then when marty gave up hisri chemistry major because it interfered with golf practice [laughter] he became interf in fairness, he was on the golf team. Yes, he was. He then switched to government, and he would ask what courses are you taking, and then he would sign up for the same. [laughter] the same courses. Somewhere along the way i realized that marty was the first boy, probably the only boy i had ever known who cared that i had a brain. [applause] a friend of mine, a college classmate, said, ruth, you are fantastically lucky because marty is so secure about himself that he will never regard you as any kind of a competitor, any kind of a threat. And marty, for all the 56 years we spent together, he was always my biggest booster. My first year of law school marty was bragging to his classmates that his wife was going to be on the law review. In those days law review was strictly on the basis of grades can. No writing competition. And the only woman on the law review at that time, she said, i looked at you, you were this little twerp [laughter] and your husband is bragging about you. And, of course, i did make the law review. [laughter]an c as i said, marty was my biggest booster. And another great thing about him is he, he said he learned early on from two women that it would be good for him to develop skills in the kitchen. [laughter] and he said those two women were his mother and his wife. [laughter] well, it wasnt fair what he said about his mother, but it certainly was about his wife. [laughter] we had an arrangement where i would to the everyday cooking, and marty would be the weekend and company cook. I was never allowed to cook for guests. And co [laughter] and my daughter, around her Early High School years, noticed this enormous difference between daddys cooking and mommys [laughter]r] and decided that mommy should be phased out of the [laughter] so marty became the only chef in our family. And when i moved to the Supreme Court and the spouses met quarterly for lunch and they shared catering responsibilities, marty was always the number one pick to do the lunch. H. [laughter]th there is, in fact, a book which you can get at the Supreme Courts gift shop, its called supreme chef. The supreme chef is marty. Its a collection of his recipes. It was inspired by martha annelito who is also a very good cook, and she, when marty died, she thought the best tribute there could be to him was to have a cookbook of his recipes. The thing about him is that he was so remarkable in so many ways, if you just thought about him as a tax lawyer or as a professor of tax, he would be extraordinarily distinguished in those ways, but all these other talents golf, chef and he really was a unique person. It was a real privilege to be his, to be his friend and to be his colleague. A privi you include some wonderfulnd writings by marty. Do you have a favorite . A theres a great introduction of me that finish one of those is in martys own book, the audio book . Yeah. The introduction of the Fellowship Program at georgetown. We have a tape of that. But the other was a speech that marty had written and was planning to give to the tenth circuit judicial conference in the summer of 2010. Well, he died in june that year, but his speech was already written out. E so i went to the tenth circuit, and i read martys speech. I didnt have quite the timing that he would have had, but it was, it was okay. And that talk is the basis fork this film that will be in progress, i think, in august theyll begin filming. Is that the Natalie Portman film . Yeah. [laughter] so one last question before with we turn it over to the audience, and that is as wendy and mary have pointed out, in the book there are excerpts from the opera, Scalia Ginsburg. And weve had excerpts from it at our Second Circuit conference. There have been full performances in, i know, in virginia and in glimmer glass glimmer glass is this summer. Glimmer glass is this summer. Its august 4th and 13th. August 4th and 13th. [laughter] you tell us something about can you tell us something about your decision to incollude those excerpts . Us Say Something about the opera, anything youd like about your relationship with Justice Scalia before we turn it over to the students . The opera was written by derekbynes who was a music major at harvard and has a masters in music from yale and then decided that it would be, it would be helpful to know a little bit about the law. So he enrolled in his hometown law school, the university of maryland law school. And when he was in his constitutional law class, he would reading these sometimesdueling opinions, scalia for the court, ginsburg in dissent, ginsburg for thehe court, scalia in dissent and decided that this could make a very funny opera. [laughter] and in addition, would convey a little bit about, about the law. So to give you the flavor of ite it opens with Justice Scalias rage aria. Its very handelian in style. And it goes this way justices are blind. How can they possibly spout this . The constitution says absolutely nothing about this. [laughter] so that sets up Justice Scalia. Then i add to him. I tell him that hes seeking bright Line Solutions to problems that dont have easy answers. S. But the great thing about our constitution is that like our society, it can evolve. So that sets it up. Is plot is roughly based on mozarts magic flute [laughter] and Justice Scalia has to go through a certain number of trials [laughter] and he has been locked up in a dark room being punished for excessive dissenting. [laughter] and then i enter through a Glass Ceiling m e [laughter] [cheers and applause] i enter to help him get through these trials. And commander [inaudible] asks me how can you come to his assistance . He is your enemy. And i say, no, hes not my enemy, hes my friend. And thats really the theme of the opera, how two people who think differently about some very important things can, nonetheless, genuinely like each other, enjoy each others company. One of the things that Justice Scalia would do every now and then, hed read one of my opinions whether he agreed with it or not, hed call to correct my grammatical errors. [laughter] he never sent this through i the channels, never on paper but always in a telephone call. My typical of Justice Scalia was we disagreed softly in the e Virginia Military Institute Case that questioned where virginia could maintain a facility that offered great advantages but that was closed to women. We went back and forth, it was like a pingpong game many times. Scalia came to my chambers one day and through down a sheaf of paper and said, ruth, this is my penultimate draft of my dissent in the vmi case. Hi its not yet ready to be circulated to the court. But i want to give you as much time as i can to answer it. We were into june already, and c the clock was running out. So i took this draft on the plane with me to albany. In i was going to the Second Circuit judicial conference in lake george, and reading it absolutely ruined my weekend [laughter]in but i was grateful that he gave me the extra time to respond. And i think my opinion in the vmi case is ever so much stronger because i had the benefit of Justice Scalias criticism. One quick footnote. I called that case [inaudible] by accident. That was an earlier case. So the vmi case, which is officially entitled United States v. Virginia yes. Is, is the case in which she pulled it all together. She was down there last month, a couple months ago to celebrate the anniversary of that decision at vmi, and there was a crowd even bigger than this. And up in the, up there a huge group of people in identical uniforms, the vmi cadets, who gave her a standing ovation. So and there were women up there among them. [laughter] and now i have a photograph in my chambers of the women cadets at vmi who are doing very well. The school is, now realizes it made a very wise decision. [laughter] well, well hear now from the audience some questions. We have a hard stop at 5 15. [laughter] i knew this was going to happen. Well, if you could if you can ask your question, please, be brief. This is just for the georgetown community, questions from the georgetown community. Tell us your name and what year youre in. Im ali [inaudible] class of 2020. This is the best moment of my life right now. [laughter] [cheers and applause] my question is just for all the young women in this room, what do you see as some of the Biggest Challenges theyll face, and what advice would you give them if you were going to sit down with them. Challenges. Well, for you the challenge is more daunting than the ones that we faced. I spoke before about there being explicit gender lines in the law, so women cant be firefighters, cant be police officers, cant be pilots of planes. Those doors are now open to you. But whats left is what isof ple called unconscious bias. My best illustration of that is the symphony be orchestra. When i grew up, you never saw a woman in the orchestra. The music critics thought that they could tell the difference between a woman playing the violin and a man. Same form of instrument. One day someone came up with a brilliant idea, lets drop a curtain to so that people who w are doing the testing dont see the people who are auditioning. And with that simple device, the dropped curtain, women began to show up in symphony orchestras in numbers. Sadly, we cant repeat that in every, every area. My favorite decision in that line from the 70s was of amy title vii antidiscrimination law, title vii case against at t for not promoting women into middle management jobs. The women did great on all the standard criteria, but they flunked the last test, the total person test which was an interviewer interviewing the candidate for promotion. It wasnt a deliberate attempt to screen out women, but the interviewer had a certain Comfort Level facing someone who looked like himself. If he were confronting a member of a Minority Group or a woman, there was a strangeness. He felt uneasy. Its getting over that unconscious bias that remains a problem. Together with whats called the work life balance. How do you arrange work so that people can have a family life as well as a work life . I think those are the two biggest hurdles. Be my my advice is find how that lies among men as well as women who want to change things, and think of yourself as bob said i did as a teacher. So dont react in anger, because thats going to be counterproductive. If you call someone a sexist pig, youve turned him off. [laughter] so people can was it difficult arguing before the Supreme Court in those early 70s . I said, i felt more like a Kindergarten Teacher more than anything else [laughter]i because the knowledge that i had that they didnt have, and i had to try to communicate in a way that they would find appealing. Justice ginsburg, thank you so much. It was an honor to hear you speak today. My name is donna, and im a grad student focusing on foreign security. And im wondering as someone whos interested in, hopefully, joining the Legal Profession at some point, hopefully both women and men can make equal contributions of law, but are there areas in which you think women maybe should become more involved or do you think would be able to make more of an impact at this time and hopefully Going Forward . Women can excel in any areaom of the law that interests them if theyre willing to put in the hours of work that it takes to become expert in one area or another. So with no doors being closed, i think women should choose what they feel is their, that they are best equipped to do. Would you like to add to that . D in a way there are areas in the law, maybe youre referring to this or asking this question, that are still predominantly male by practice. Yes, thank you for rephrasing. Yeah. And i am sure there are. But remarkably, the general trend has been to include women everywhere, and much is owed to Ruth Ginsburg for that, of course. But the law also requires now, of course, that you not be discriminated against on the basis of your sex. So we can hope to see men doing legal jobs that perhaps were thought to be reserved for women like the states or Something Like that back in the day. And that you could be a lawyer doing Security Work for the United States. Right. And one extra postscript which is really something Justice Ginsburg speaks about a lot is that no matter what area you go into and its also a georgetown tradition if you do try to give back somehow to either changing the law to make the world a better place for others or tutoring someone. Theres all sorts of ways to do it, Public Interest work, pro bono work. Thats something the justice often speaks about, that its a profession, and we are privileged to be in it. So in a sense, we owe a debt back to society to carry on tha tradition. Owe a and i would like to say that the honorable Robert Katherine has been a great Robert Katzman has been a great leader in that regard. He saw a crying need in the immigration system. They need lawyers to represent them, and he really made it happen with this project that is now Going Forward in new york. You have how many, how many lawyers are we have, the immigrant justice corps in the field has 78 fellows. In two and a half years, it has served over 28,000 immigrants and their families. If you look at our fellows, it turns out that most of them are women. A lot of them are first generation americans. Proud to say that Georgetown Law Center is well represented in terms of the fellows of the immigrant justice corps, and if youre interested as College Students when you graduate, there is something called a Community Fellows program for College Graduates who can work in communitybased organizations. A large part of the problem is that immigrants live in fear, and you can really do somethingg substantial if you try to make their lives easier by giving them a sense that the American Dream can be their dream too. G m and the commitment for the fellows is, what is it . Its two years. Its a twoyear guaranteed fellowship with the prospect of a third year. And the fellows are trained in a boot camp. They then get to work with nonprofit organizations. A number of the organizations happen to be organizations that deal with problems of women and children. We have a, the immigrant justice corps has had a Rapid Response team in texas that has helped over 1,000 women and their children. So its remaking the immigration bar and providing a whole new generation of leaders. Its been a real inspiration to work with these people, and thank you for well, it is it is a sterling example of seeing a need. There was nothing, bob had nothing when it began, and now flour bishing fellows flourishing fellows program. And id like to mention another effort to do what my Dear Colleague Justice Souter called doing something outside yourself if youre a true professional. So Justice Oconnor saw a need for children to learn about the government. Ou most Elementary School students didnt, you ask what are the three branches of government, they couldnt tell you. So she started this icivics program pitched to middle School Children thats now been introduced in schools across the country. But that idea of seeing a need, knowing that you have a talent that can help respond to the need. Oh, my god, im so excited. [laughter] we are too. Im oliver, im a sophomore from the school of foreign service. I have two questions. The first one you have one question. Okay. [laughter] in the context of ginnedup classification, do you think it is necessary to improve from the intermediate [inaudible] will you do that . Do i think its necessary to have levels of scrutiny . Because i think when we deal with president , we will use the strict scrutiny, so i think we ought to deal with sexism. There is a need to look with special suspicion at any law that disadvantages a group of people. Especially when those people are not proportionately represented in legislative Decision Making or executive Decision Making. So, yes, i do think that there is a need to give heightened scrutiny to laws that disadvantage any class of people. We have time for one last question. Wow. [laughter] my name is john, and im a student of chemistry at the college, and i was just wondering, youve had an incredibly impressive tenure on the court, so i was wondering what decision you were most proud of and what most disappointed you. That question is like asking me which of my six grandchildren [laughter] am i most proud of. All of them. I i love my job, and every case is important so i couldnt single out any one case and say thats my favorite. I do think a case that has beeni mentioned, the vmi case, gave me great personal satisfaction. Even the title of the case, u. S. Against virginia. When women first aspired to become leaders in the military, west point, annapolis, air force academy didnt admit them. Di so litigation was started in the 70s against the military academies. St it was started by women who thought they possessed the necessary qualifications but were excluded. By the time we get to the vmi case, its no longer the women seeking to get in, although there were many who did seek admission to vmi, it was the United States government telling the state of virginia. The government has an antidiscrimination policy. You cant exclude people simply on the basis of their gender whether its excluding a male from a Nursing College in mississippi or a woman from vmi. So it was the United States government saying that is the policy of the United States, and, virginia, youd better get on board. [laughter] so then it wendy and mary were with me in february when we were at vmi, and it was most exhilarating to see, to meet and talk to the women cadets who are going to be engineers, nuclear scientists. So thats one decision of which im very proud. I also liked the Lily Ledbetter decision [applause] i was on the losing side. It was a 54 decision. But i thought that my colleagues had misinterpreted title vii. So after describing what lilys case was really about, mys realy tagline was the ball is now in Congress Court to correct the error into which my colleagues have fallen. And in very short order, congress with huge majorities on both sides passed the Lily Ledbetter fair pay act that adopted the position that thead defense that the dissent took in that case. Justice ginsburg, its been a extraordinary honor for all of us. Thank you for being here. Id like to thank Wendy Harnett i mean, mary harnett and Wendy Williams. Heres the book, if we can get a closeup of book. Ms. [applause] id like, also, to thank Georgetown University president jack degioia, professor charles king, chairman of the Government Department, for hosting this symposium. Rt id like also to thank erin sharkey, erin hudson, jeffrey bible, mary haines for all of their support, andrea barrow. As noted in your programs, please exit gadsden hall and head to the first floor of this building in order to receive a copy of your my own words. Make sure to bring along the ticket located in your program. Thank you all for coming. Have a good evening. [applause] [inaudible conversations] and were live this morning as the national Antidefamation League is holding its National Leadership summit today near washington. Beginning with the head of the adls center on extremism. Later today, fbi director james comey will speak to the group, and you can watch that on cspan at 1 30 p. M. Eastern. Live coverage of this panel about to get under way here on cspan2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] good morning, everyone. Good morning, everyone. Good morning. Id like to welcome you to the Antidefamation Leagues 2017 leadership summit, particularly to this Interactive Workshop on the state of antisemitism and hate crimes in the United States. Welcome those of you watching on cspan today as well