Good afternoon. Before we moved to the third panel, the Lasting Legacy, i just want to take a moment and thank all of our Reagan Foundation trustees, in particular mr. Ted olson. Thank you for giving us this opportunity. applause throughout todays discussion, we reviewed the Historical Context of Justice Oconnors life and career and captured it significance. We have commented on the jurisprudence and now we will turn to the legacy and discuss the lasting contribution in the ways we will continue to see her hand in law and the civic life of this great country. About 15 years before he nominated Sandra Day Oconnor, Ronald Reagan delivered one of his most consequential political speeches at a law day lunch in southern california. In 1966, outlining his decision in creative society, Ronald Reagan advanced an initiative to take judges out of politics and articulated his vision of an ideal judge. He called for judges to be men with ability come up men of honor and men who are fairminded. When it came to his first nomination to the Supreme Court, president reagan delivered a nominee who realized his vision. Listening earlier today, we have gotten a taste of Justice Oconnors remarkable ability and the earnest and decent the with which she approached her life and her life and her craft. As one of Justice Oconnors clerks wrote, without fanfare, she hones her craft, deciding individual cases, answering concrete questions and in the process of providing clear and enduring answers to the most important questions of the day. She was honorable because she judged and ruled without fanfare. She was fairminded and able to decide individual cases answering concrete questions and her ability allowed her to provide clear and enduring answers to the most important questions of the day. It seems to me that the legacy presides not just in what she said, but how she did it too, with honor and fair mindedness. This dichotomy between the what and how gets to another facet of Justice Oconnor. As referenced before in her public letter to americas nearly one years ago, Justice Oconnor charged all of us to Work Together and commit to educating our youth about the and helping young people understand their crucial role as informed, active citizens in our nation. This is what president reagan called informed patriotism and why the Reagan Foundation has always had a civic mission. Inspired by our 40th president and guided by the example in charge of Justice Oconnor, today, the Reagan Institute has launched a center for civics education. Operating out of washington, d. C. , will probably embark on the work of engaging and supporting the next generation of informed, active citizens in our nation. We look forward to partnering with all of you on this truly noble cause that will take months and years and we hope you will enjoy the next panel, the Lasting Legacy. [applause] please welcome to the stage, our moderator and our distinguished panelists. [applause] lets make sure everyone can hear us. I guess you can for you with the way something. I think we are the biggest panel so we will dive right in and for those of us from a certain age, Sandra Day Oconnor was the rope that we hoped would be cast our way. Last year, i thought she was typically forthright and aspirational. I hope i have inspired young people about civics engagement and pave the way for whom may have faced obstacles in their careers. Now, even though we have way to little time we will talk about her Lasting Legacy and i will start with chief Justice Mcgregor because you knew her longer than anyone here from her days as a state legislature giver nomination and into her retirement. I was wondering how you think she changed over time. I dont mean ideologically, but in her own selfconfidence and her own being as a justice. One thing did not change as we mentioned earlier and that is the fact should brought to the Supreme Court the same characteristic every job she had her demand that everyone do the best they could, but what i think changed the most and was probably a result of growing confidence for her, those of you who remember much anyone know there were a lot of people who are not sure that this woman who they did not hear of could really do the job of a Supreme Court justice and she very quickly proved them wrong, but i think what happened over the next quarter of a century, she saw more and more what she could accomplish, what impact she could have and she was very concerned about a tax on the rule of law in the independence of the judiciary and she learned that when she went and talked, equal with take from her things they might not pay so much attention to that someone else said and so domestically and internationally, she used her celebrity i guess, but her persuasive abilities and the fact people would listen to her to make an impact in his areas and i think you see progression of that from the time she started on the court and continued that into her retirement, so that is where i would see the greatest change. You and i when we were talking prior, he talked about Judicial Independence which is not only to some extent under attack in this country, it is under attack in other countries and other countries we identify with, today and in the u. K. , for example. Im wondering what she did and im told she was pretty fearless in her foreign visits. The justice felt she had five years to really account for something. And so, at georgetown law school, she started a project that was devoted to two things civics and the independence of the judiciary. And for civics she said the practice of democracy is not passed down, but in the gene pull, but needs to be learned by each generation. Gene pool, but needs to be learned by each generation. [no audio] she felt there was a misunderstanding by an people of what judges did and their role in democracy. She felt it was her responsibility in she had the bully pulpit to explain to young people what role a judge was to maintain a rule of democracy. She traveled with titles and, she traveled to asia, to africa and that with judges everyplace she went and she believes our judges could be an asset and of course today, it may be there are things we can learn from judges abroad. You say she went toe to toe with some guy in china. Not in china but it was a judge on the Chinese Court and she traveled to china and the judge insisted that the Supreme Peoples Court had the last word and she was equally insisted [indiscernible] she was correct about that, but willing to go to her with the professor from beijing university. The single decision she really regretted was the fifth and decisive vote in a case the current unconstitutional in a case occurring unconstitutional that was in 2002. She wasnt a newbie at all so why did she do that . I think in a dont know. I know she regrets that vote, but i think her goal, she wrote a concurrent opinion and the current one state that if you elect judges, you set yourself up for this problem and we should not try to maintain judicial and the limiting what judges say in elections and her whole point was that states would think about this. It turned out that it did not have been in there was not a lot of Movement Towards marilyns election in traditional elections became more partisan, more money flowed into them, more like legislative elections and less like something that an independent judicial candidate they, so my unfailing own failing, this is what is going to happen. Be realistic and be practical. It did not work out this way. One of her main decisions was subsequently struck down. I wonder what her thoughts were about that. It happens that i was with her when she learned of Citizens United decision and she herself and said anything that was critical of the current court, but she commented that they dont understand and this will not work out well. If you look at the two opinions, i think you can see why Citizens United was not an oconnor opinion. First of all, it overturned the decision from seven years ago. It also that the mcconnell opinion that had given great deference to the registered deference whether spending money in campaigns or certain times could be harmful to raise the appearance of corruption and in mcconnell, they had accepted that argument. The thing that would trouble her about Citizens United is Justice Oconnor really try to deal with the four corners of the case presented to her and not make any sleeping comments in Citizens United far beyond the question presented to the court, so i think if you compare the two, it is pretty clear why she thought it was a bad opinion. Kathleen, you were in her first crop of law clerks and if theres one thing i learned from evan thomass book it was that as much as Justice Oconnor was i could not say terrified, but certainly understood the challenges before her in which she undertook this position in which she never operated in a federal court, she was thrilled to be playing in the big leagues in that effect, could you talk about that . She was very visible in the way she conducted herself. There was a fair amount of stress. We felt that we worked harder because she had to when we circulated an opinion, she was almost singing her way back to the chambers and she persuaded someone to join one of our opinions, that was a big moment and you could tell she felt like she had really made a difference. When she left the court and founded ultimately civics, and youve been on the board since the beginning, how do you think her vision of all those years of everything from National Security to abortion, the issue shes played a decisive role in how wide this country is, i wonder how her vision animated her idea of civics. I think it comes partly on her time on court and partly other things she did. She decided that i civics is her greatest legacy and a lot of people have doubts about that because it seems little counterintuitive. One of the things i learned is if she says something that was counterintuitive, you should stop and think about it because youre probably right. This comes out of love not only for the court, but were the court fits in with overall democratic structure. She really understood how it all works and how dependent it always. You cant have a functional democracy if you dont have citizens who can play the role in it and i think what she saw is that people dont understand what judges are supposed to do and as a result, we are in danger of losing that functional democracy, so her decisions on the court, they can be overturned. Some of them have a shelf life, but the need for our functional democracy goes forever and i think today we have civics that is not well educated because we have eliminated it on the curriculum and as a result, students dont know the role. What i civics has done is to create an interactive set of simulations where students can play roles in our democracy is and really learn how it is supposed to work and we are currently teaching over 6 Million Students per year. I think the justices family has actively been involved in this. One of the biggest a compass was is legislation in arizona by her son scott. I think if we reach her goal, it is on par with her other legacies. She loved going out in the early years to meet with young people. They loved her. That was very exciting. I will tell one story on julie osullivan. In the very earliest civic days, she took her son danny to the court and they played video games with the justice and the justice got very energized and said this would be a greay way to teach young people about civics. It is really part of the extended park family. This is a woman who did not do her own emails and now she is sponsoring video games because that is where kids are. Getting involved with Civic Literacy and making sure people have access to documents and the fact that she knew, even though she was not a tech person, to reach young people, we have to use the tools of today and be open to that. Public libraries and libraries all of the country are saying we need to have that available on our websites and connect. Justice oconnor really hated the term swing vote because she thought it suggested some sort of ambivalence or indecision, but i have to say in 25 years on the court, she was the fifth and deciding vote in 330 cases and in various cases infuriating the right or the left, so i want to ask each of you what you think in hindsight will be her most Lasting Legacy as a decision in the textbooks . Let me start with you, ruth. I dont think she minded at all being the deciding vote. I think she likes being the deciding vote. The court is changing so much, i dont know how many of her opinions will survive, but at least as part of the development, i think in the area of gender discrimination and i think at least as part of the development, i think it will survive. Im married to a law professor and i am pleased to announce my two favorite decisions from our term is still in the textbooks 30 years later. Im not seeing a lot of recognition in the crowd. My husband is a tax professor which i think is an important perspective on the justice. We were the first term, so a eighteen month ago, she had been on the intermediate Appellate Court and a year and half later she is running these cases and still talking to students because they are so important to an area of law. Linda . I think her most lasting decision was her earliest decision, hogan versus mississippi womens university. She came on and there were boxes of case files all piled around her office for. She organized the system to try to get to the first conference in the fall so she would look competent and when she got there, she found out justices organized their system different than the obvious one, so she had to run back and reorganize her casebooks. In her head, she is saying its ok to be the first, but i dont want to be the last. She gets a case, hogan vs. Mississippi, where the eight male justices are divided four to four, so she has to make the fifth vote on whether it is constitutional to segregate public universities by sex and she cast the decisive fifth vote to say that it was unconstitutional to segregate public universities by sex. In 1981, it was 15 years later that the court decided United States v. Virginia military case, so i would say she lay down United States verse Virginia Military case, so i would say she laid down her i think appropriate because we are a Reagan Institute, south dakota versus dal and it was a case where she was on the losing side, but important point is that there was only so far that the federal government should be able to go in coercing states because there are so many federal grant and aid programs and there is a linear projection from what she said and in some of the cases, where the states are turning their power to the federal government, so that was an early marker, which are having repercussions today. I often observed that it may be a gender difference but she arrives at the court and has everything piled up and does not want to be humiliated at that first conference and she does everything to be completely up on everything and Justice Scalia arrived at the court at a similar time just before the first conference, looks at all the stuff and says i cant possibly be up on this and he didnt. He went to the next conference. That is where the first nonjuror resonated and the idea that you dont want to be the last answer to have that joy, saying, she is something. Justice oconnor had a very different approach to judges. Could you talk about that difference . That response to a question about legacy will stop Justice Oconnor, i love what some consider and in some sense judging tradition and so she is making decision in very much a casebycase way and each one confined to its facts. This is going to constrain her legacy, what is an undue burden for abortion. As each burden came in front of her about which one was undue and which one was not, that is not something you pass along very easily. Justice ginsburg came with a very well worked out liberal prudence from her training at cornell under robert cushman. She said her vision was of an everincreasing circle of inclusiveness. She had a big vision of what should happen. Justice oconnor got to enact her can her vision into law and Justice Ginsburg, not so much once she got onto the court. Just a skin spur not so much when she got on to the court. There is been a lot said today. , but im sure there has been a lot said about Justice Oconnor as the groove of the court and the story that is in thomas this book about her persuading Justice Thomas when he first got to the court after his confirmation hearing. He says that she is the glue that holds this place together. The court was often very divided five to four on the biggest cases. I suppose the ultimate one was the case where oconnors idea of breaking bread with will make things better did not quite work. Not as well as she had hoped. There were some references earlier today about terms and which clerks became divided, and to understand how important this is to Justice Oconnor you have to really keep in mind