Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will soon be the subject of a biographical movie Starring Natalie portman. She discussed the upcoming movie also participating, her former law clerk and current california supreme Court Justice goodman loop. This is just over an hour area place good afternoon, im a partner in the Supreme Court and appellate practice. I believe that laws should be a force to improve the lives of all people. Over the years ive developed a deep appreciation for everything my membership is given me including countless professional Development Opportunities and a fantastic network of colleagues and friends. At this particular moment,. Before her appointment to the u. S. Supreme court for the d c circuit, prior to becoming a judge she was a law professor at rutgers and Columbia University she served as general counsel and on the National Board of directors are nearly a decade area i had the extraordinary honor of clerking for Justice Ginsburg which was as amazing and lifechanging and. Does you would back. Among my fondest memories of that year were the champagne and cupcake birthday parties that the justice with host for each of her birthday each of her cards. So fully aware of how crazy it is to have a Birthday Party with fruit eater against her, we would plan with dave for days in advance to come up with the perfect list of questions to ask her. We learned about her summers in sweden where she was learning about sweden swedish civil procedure. Her confirmation hearings, and her beloved husband marty, a distinguished tax attorney and show supreme whose love and support for the justice is legendary. If tumbling that existed before he passed away, no doubt he would have started the notorious rpg blog health. Himself. But even when the clerkship and then, i had a deep sense of remorse about the stories that i didnt get to hear. So this next hour is a dream come true for me area is facilitated by the best interlocutor i can imagine california supreme Court Justice live in loop. Like Justice Ginsburg, he was a lot professor before joining the bench. Hes widely published expert in constitutional law, education policy and the supreme work. He was a popular and acclaimed teacher winning the uc berkeley acclaimed teaching award, and he eventually became the board of directors the dean. But long before all that, just as lou was a law clerk. A longtime friend of acs for my also clerk. And then for Justice Ginsburg. He is perfect for this job because i know that he too has a long list of questions left over from the chambers birthday parties. I am so excited to listen and as he asked them. Please welcome our please join me and welcoming the justices. [applause] welcome everybody. Thank you all for being here on a saturday afternoon. Most especially, thank you to Justice Ginsburg. Its obviously a busy time of the court. As you and often is. Thank you for spending a few minutes with us. You are now finishing your 22nd term on the Supreme Court. A lot of people have noticed that in recent years you have had quite a substantial public presence. You have a huge fan base everywhere you go. People call your rockstar, an icon, theres an opera about you and Justice Scalia. And an emoticon that looks like you. There are the tshirts, some of them also say i love rpg and my personal favorite which is you cant spell truth without ruth. And then theyre even the young women that had tattoos of your likeness. Thats love. Thats real. All of this i think is pretty unusual for a supreme Court Justice. Justice scalia get that a lot too, but i dont think theres anyone with the Justice Scalia have to, not even if the federalist society. I guess i just want to start by asking you, how did this happen . Its amazing to think of me and icon and 82 . I gave it to one law student who thought of the tumbler, and the notorious rpg. At first, i did not know quite what to make of this, because i didnt use them know who notorious b i was but then one of my lawyers explain to me, you do have something in common, youre both born and bred in brooklyn new york. I should explain right away, a number of my feminist friends agree, ginsburg comes before scilly alphabetically, so why is it Scalia Ginsburg . Also im sure you know, how important it is in our workplace. So leo was appointed some years before ginsburg. So theres also going to be a biography of you in the near future called the notorious rpg. And then theres also a biopic scheduled called on the basis of sex with family portman. Starring is you, are you in on these projects . Do you know much about them . Are you a cooperative conspirator . I can claim credit for notorious rpg. But i like it instead of my grandchildren. On the basis of sex, is that with a biopic assault, i have a nephew who is a scriptwriter. And he asked if he could write a script about a case in which marty and i were involved, in 1971. And i said yes if you would like to spend your time doing that. The case is interesting account it was the case that i hoped would be paired with roe v wade is the turning point case in the Supreme Court the case was Charles Demos who took good care of his mother though she was 92 at the time, he argued the case in the 10th circuit, this is his story. Was adoption available to a woman or a widowed or divorced mom . Laws did not get the deduction because he was a married man and he had been left out, so he appeared in the tax court and it was the soul of complicity, it was simply if our daughter would get this deduction, and makes docents. So one day, marty came into a room where i was working on something was writing, and said bruce, read this. And i turned and said marty that the tax advance, you know i dont read text cases. He said read this one. And it told the story of charles moss and he said lets take it. Marty would write the tax part and i would write the constitutional law part. Part of it is about the case, and a bar about our argument in the 10th circuit in denver, and then it includes the aclu and some women who are saying the same things that i was saying and summary but at a time when no one was prepared to listen, i think it will go into production in the beginning of 2016. Maybe by the end of the year, it will be out. Natalie came to talk to me about it. We had a very good conversation. She said, i want the director to be a woman. There are not enough women in this industry, there are many talented out there, and they do have a woman director. We look forward to it. You mentioned marty. He has been mentioned many times. Let me take you back a little bit. For many years i think, youve been described as shy and reserved. Especially compared to your gregarious and very loving husband marty who was as kelsey said an outstanding chef and always very quick with a joke. Some people called him a serial wise cracker. But first of all, do you think marty would be surprised that your celebrity . I think he would be delighted. He was always my biggest booster. The audience just saw a picture of you and marty not long after you are married. You met him during your First Year College at cornell. You said in the past that he was the first boy you ever dated who cared that you had a brain. The two of you had two kids, you also have a two career marriage. Some lawyers in fact which was unusual at the time. Can you describe a little about that. And what kind of social pressures faced with respect to your marriage and your family life and your career . Well it was a big change. And the time area for my first ill born in 1955 to the second one in 1965 when jane was small there were very few women who worked outside the home. At the time, it wasnt unusual to have a two income family. And what was it like . Its hard for todays students to imagine what it was like for women all not all that long ago. In 19 six e3, maybe 3 of the lawyers in america were women. When i graduated from law school they didnt want any lady lawyers. Until you saturday oconnor story. She graduated from law school. She was a few years ahead of me. She could not get any jobs, so she went to work for a county attorney and said if you think im good enough, after four months you can put me on the payroll. Thats how she got her job. My first job was as a District Court clerk. How did i get that job . It was a lawful at the time. He called every judge in the Eastern District and in the Southern District of new york. The answer was, will win might take a chance on a woman, but we cant risk a mother. So joe called edmond home year he who always took his calls. The judge explained her record is good, but sometimes we working on sundays. Joe said give her a chance and if she doesnt work out the measure young man of her class who will leave his law firm and finish up the clerkship. So thats the caret. The stick was if you dont give her a chance, i will never recommend another columbia law student to you. I got the job. And other women of my generation you did as well are probably better than anyone else. The second job wasnt hard, but opening up for store was tough. Now of course, you have had many clerks yourself who were parents at the time. Is that unusual . Not today. I had a number of clerks with two children, the first one i hired who was the primary custodian was a man. In his application, he explained that he was going to georgetown at night because his wife was an economist i think for the military firm of the world bank. So she had a fulltime day job he took care of the children during the day. Thats my dream for the world is that fathers take her children as much as mothers. It was Something Else about him that made him irresistible. It was his first year writing section essay and it was on the theory of contracts as played out in wagners ring cycle. So, thats actually good segue to the next question. You seem you have seen feminism change and go through many transformations from the time you were from the time you cofounded the aclu womens rights project for decades later today. Because of the work you did there, we now have the elimination of most overt forms of gender discrimination. From your vantage point, what do you think are the most pressing challenges left now . First, i dont think the meaning of feminism is change. It has always been that girls should have the same opportunities to dream, to aspire, and achieve and do whatever their godgiven talents enable them to do as boys. And that there should be no place where there isnt a welcome mat for women. People misunderstand what feminism is. I know in some corners its called the ford. Its all abouts women and men working together should help make a society a better place than it is now. Current challenges . As you said, all of the overt gender discriminations are almost over. There are a few last standing, thats unfortunate. But for the most part, the statutes that were once riddled with overt classifications almost all of them were gone. It was a combination of legislative change, tax litigation, the percent change along. Whats left, and is harder to get up, is what i call unconscious bias. Sometimes its a device that works. To overcome unconscious bias. My example of that is the symphony orchestra. When i was growing up, you never saw a woman except playing the part. Someone had the idea of dropping a curtain so the people who are conducting the auditions didnt know if it was a woman or man. And with that simple change, almost overnight, women started to show up in symphony orchestras in numbers. I was telling the story, the castleton festival a young violinist said to me you left something out, not only do we audition behind the curtain, but we audition shoeless. That device cant be duplicated in every area. Its hard to get at, my favorite case and that law of the title vii case, my colleague at columbia, it was against at t for promoting women to middle management jobs. There were several criteria, that women did at least as well as men up to the last test and that was called the total person test. It consisted of an interview, meeting the candidate, and then doing evaluation. Women felt disproportionately at that stage. And why . Because the person conducting interview was generally white male. And anyone who was different making interviewer feel quietly uncomfortable. If he had personally looked look like him, he was comfortable. If it was a Minority Group or woman they were strangers. And it wasnt the case of deliberately setting out to avoid promoting women, it wasnt that at all. It was this unconscious bias. That operated. You announced you now sit on a court that has three women on it area i sit on a court that has a majority of women on it including a woman is chief justice. Do you think that the law would be much different if there were safe for five women on the u. S. Bancorp . I think its pretty good we have three now. Three makes a big difference because theyre all over the bench. I sit in the middle because of them around so long, and Justice Kagan is that my left just as some of the mayor at my right and then if you have come to watch the show at the court you know that my colleagues are not tripping back. Theyre very active in the questioning. At the end of the day, a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same judgment. And yet, there are some cases which i think with it come out the other way if they were five women. Or more. Another is carhart case, the poncho case. Another, the two cases involving children whose parents were not married and they could become citizens at their mother was a citizen, but not the father. The Supreme Court was wrong about that twice. There are issues where it starts to predict the result wouldve been different, but for the most part we wrote more light than any two other justices. Even more than Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia. I look forward to the suitor ginsburg opera. Couple of months ago, you appeared on time magazines 100 most influential people in the world list. Which is quite an honor. You should see this lovely picture they have the from your first year cornell which is just a beautiful picture. The inscription that accompanied your listening, was written by your colleague Justice Scalia who said this, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has had to distinguish legal careers either one of which alone entitle her to be one of times 100. The other is your career as a professor and a lawyer. I guess i now ask you what did you learn from your experience as a lawyer . The importance of having a sense of humor. Some advice ive told many audiences is the advice that my motherinlaw gave to me on our wedding day, buddy and i were married in his home. His mother said dear id like to tell you the secret of a happy marriage, and that is its not that thats sometimes to be a little hard of hearing. Such good advice. Especially in dealing with buddy who was a very funny fellow, but in dealing with my colleagues. So president clinton nominated you for the Supreme Court in june of 1993. To fill the seat that was vacated by Justice Byron white. Some pictures of that. And you are confirmed by the senate exactly 57 days later on august 10, 1993 by a vote of 96 to three. Mustve been nice. Im just saying. Anyway other than the happy outcome, what do you consider the most memorable art of your confirmation process western mark the bipartisan spirit that existed in that congress. Probably my biggest supporter was orrin hatch. My biggest problem the white house handled preparing me for the confirmation process, they would for questions like you were on the aclu board and the year so and so, and that year they passed resolution ask. How did you vote and would you defend that position today . And my answer was stopped, there is nothing that you can do to persuade me to that mouth the aclu. But not a single question was raised about my aclu connection, i was very fortunate, the next year, how do we get back to that . I dont know what the magic will be. I was a beneficiary of what it happened in the Clarence Thomas nomination. The committee was embarrassed they added to for mine. They had a meeting with the committee before the public hearing. It was those of you that if there was anything battle my record, they would bring it out and however chance answer before he went public. And all of my record, that only the fbi files, there wasnt one thing questionable. So they said what do you think we should do to improve the confirmation process . And i said i havent yet been confirmed, so im somewhat hesitant. I still have to this day of supply of drawn thurmond teaching that he gave me. He was in my class the spring court nomination. So since being on the bench youve been a very vigorous voice on a whole range of equal protection cases, not only sexist donation, but its in the Racial Discrimination area, and disability cases, most recently in the Shelby County case, you can do very lively dissents about the Voting Rights act. I wanted to stop and ask you you have at times compared the interesting progress thats been made so rapidly on questions of discrimination based on Sexual Orientation contrasting that with our more enduring difficulties with racial inequality. What you think explains the difference in how sticky the issue of racial inequality has been . I think that when gay people began to stand up and say this is who i am, when that happens people look around and its my nextdoor neighbor of whom im very fond, my child is friend, even my child. They were people who belongs to our community. It wasnt and still today there is an there is a high degree of segregation. In schools so i think the difference is we picture, when it comes to raise, but gay people once we find out that they are people we know and we love and we respect and they are part of us, i think thats what counts for the difference. And there really is, when gay people reveal who they were, there was a kind of discrimination began to break down very rapidly. Once theyre no longer fit in the corner. Can you tell us a little bit about what went into your thinking process on the Voting Rights case . That was a much courted dissents. Your famous line about throwing an umbrella away in a rainstorm because youre not getting wet. Tell us a little about your thinking process in that case . It was very much it was very much the view that i had the screw of a similar segregation case a few years before. It was about Jefferson County kentucky. Theyve been under a federal court decree to desegregate. And then the court said now that the county is up to speak, they dont have to be under this thumb of the federal judge anymore. Im going to dissolve the injunction. People in that county said we liked the plan. We would like to keep it. And the Supreme Court said no you cant because thats delivered discrimination on the basis of race. In the Shelby County case, it was one of the most successful pieces of Legislation Congress ever passed. And it passed by overwhelming majorities on both sides of the aisle. The Voting Rights act of think most of you know, went this way. If you had a bad record of keeping people from voting, then any change you made in the system had to be cleared either by a District Court, or by the attorney general there was a methodism to get out. If you should you had a clean record for x number of years you could then bailout. You didnt have to wait until the whole state was up to speed. They had a builtin mechanism for getting out. The Supreme Court held that the coverage formula was outdated. That from 65 to 2000, things are changed, so congress had to redo the formula. But practically what senator and what representative is going to stand up and they my state or my county still discriminates. Thats impossible. Its impossible to come up with a new formula for that reason. And yet, there was the bailout mechanism that would work when they had been a genuine change. And politically, it wasnt impossible to do the kind of revision that was needed, so it was most successful piece of legislation largely inoperative. So youve written a number of memorable dissents, especially in recent years. You wrote a separate opinion on the Affordable Care act case areas you wrote a very vigorous dissent in the hobby lobby case, we talked about gonzales versus carhart. The partialbirth abortion case, and there been title vii cases about whos a supervisor under title vii. I think you may know that saturday night live recently did a couple of skits about you. This is like nine if you could show that. The comedian kate mccann and plays you at the head staff the judge is dishing out these feisty oneliners and then dancing after everyone. Im not going to ask you to dance for us, but the what i really want to ask. Is how you go about writing your dissents. In terms of tone and style your tone is actually not sassy, its respectful. It also makes a point. How do you think about the right balance . We have a lot of colorful writing from the supreme works how you think about yours . As you did i try to have the dissent drafted before i get the majority opinion. For me it was quite a turn, that was the year all this tshirt business began that year people were distraught that i didnt say i respectfully dissent. What they did notice is that i never say respectfully dissent. My colleagues of been seen as criticizing the court is being profoundly misguided. Or once this opinion is not to be taken seriously. You showed no respect at all. I never used respectfully, i would say i dissent or moreover, for the reason stated i would affirm the decision or of the state of appeals. Or reverse the decision. So now, because of your seniority on the court, you have the assignment power both the majority opinions and you happen to be senior, and the dissenting opinions where you happen to be senior area what goes into your thought process with respect assignments . If theyre not majorities yet, when we split 54, i generally wait. I think theres kind of a consensus thats in the case of the health care, the commerce portion hobby lobby, Shelby County, as the most senior pores person on the defense side, i should read the dissent. As for the rest, i try to be as fair as i can to distribute them evenly. Its been less troubling from my colleagues about that. When you think about when you think about your two decades now on the Supreme Court do you think there are things that you feel more surefooted about today than you did when you first began . When i was a new judge, i had been on the d. C. Circuit for 13 years area i wasnt too quiet. I asked a lot of questions. My then chief for whom i came to have great affection decided i been a little smartalecky. Instead of giving me what is traditional of the junior justice, that is in easy one issue unanimous decision, he gave me the most miserable record case, where the decision was 63. I went to complain, since do this, he said ruth you just do it. Just do it. Get your opinion and circulation before he makes the next assignment, otherwise you are likely to get another case. But that was her attitude towards life. Whatever was put on her plate she just did it. So right at the beginning, my relationship with the old chief in that first year, it was interesting that you mention the supervisor kate, and that first year on the bench, the question was when most are supervisors are unable to organize under the nlrb and i said of course they are employees, not supervisors. But that was for four people. And then coming around the other way, its very hard to be a supervisor under the bench under the bad decision. So you mentioned Justice Oconnor, when you arrived at the court in 1993, you were only the second woman ever to serve on the highest work, your colleague was appointed by president reagan 12 years earlier. So when you think back to that time, and your experience now working with a very wide range of colleagues, what do you think youve learned about the art of persuasion . Is it possible to persuade ones colleagues . If so how . Im really interested. Possible, yes. Is it something that happens often . No. I can remember one dissents the John Paul Stevens assigned to me. The dissent came around, devoted conference was seven to two. The opinion came out six to three, but the two had swelled to six. That was some heady experience, turning a dissent into a comfortable majority. Theyre trying to persuade each other all the time. So comfort vote is one way, you try to write your position of persuasively as you can and hope youll be able to peel off one or another vote. But most of the time that doesnt happen. Do try, yes you do. Its very true, when people are provided, the author of the majority or of the dissent is trying to pick up one more. In your experience, how does that persuasion happen . Is its on paper, or in person, or how did the justices, apart from sitting around the conference table after arguments . It is largely on paper. It is read my dissent, read it carefully used to persuade the bucket. As you know, there is no vote trading. Theres no if you side with me outside of your mac case, that never happens. So we mentioned rehnquist a few times, its well known you have a very warm relationship with Justice Scalia as an interesting polar opposite, but its perhaps less well known that you also have very warm relationship with chief Justice Rehnquist. Who among other things to the meaningful step of assigning you that the my decision and eventually himself wrote the majority decision in his case upholding the family relief position of the fmla. Can you describe a little bit about your relationship with chief Justice Rehnquist . How to the two of you have such Good Chemistry . I think was cool at first but i learned to improve when sandra and i were talking about what to do about the ladies dining room. The court is very traditional institution, so is the date ladies dining room. We came to him with the proposal he said wed like to rename it the Cornell Wright was dining room. The chief had a very happy marriage, his wife had recently died. And he couldnt resist. He had thought that he had seen her suffering from cancer. The year that i had my first bout with cancer, and could not been more supportive. After the surgery he called me into his chambers and said ruth, ill give you Something Like this assignment. I said no im ok now wait till the chemotherapy and radiation starts then i be what thats like to be kept Light Sources which case you want . Cite out which one and he said thats the one i was in i find myself. But he assigned it to me. I watched his relationship with his granddaughters. When his daughter and then divorced, he was a substitute father to those girls. He wanted them to keep in tune with their swedish heritage. He would take them to the seal fast at the swedish ambassadors residence. And they loved him dearly. That was the sight of him a lot of people didnt see. He was the chief in midpassage. In the family medical leave act he said ruth, did you write this . It was the chief. So, when you think back, across a couple of decades what do you think has been the biggest changes . Whether its Public Perceptions of the court, the lawyers who appear you before you, the nature of the docket, what do you think are the biggest transformations question mark right now, the public is mad about anything that has to do with government, says the Supreme Court is left, but not really as much as congress. The big thing in the courts composition came now when we had a new chief, but when Justice Oconnor left us. And ive said many times, the year that she left, every time i was among four runs and five, i would have been five instead of four she remained with us. Me ask you another big picture question. I think many observers, and we are now seeing some books written about your corpus of work, many people have describe your approach to judging as incrementalist. And indeed, after confirmation hearing, heres what you said. Is that terrible . Quite in your case, its very good. He said my approach, is neither liberal nor conservative rather it is rooted in the place of the judiciary, judges. In our democratic society. On other occasions, youve spoken out against judicial activism noting that the Current Court is one of most activist in history if you measure it in terms of willingness to overturn legislation, youve written long ago that roe versus wade perhaps went too far too fast. In contrast to the stepbystep approach they characterized much of your litigation approach as a lawyer. I just want to ask, have your views about gradualism change that all in the course of your two decades on the Supreme Court . Or has it reinforcers of the gradualism . I dont know i would use the word gradualism. I do think its healthy for system if the courts and the congress can be in dialogue. I think of some great examples of that, when the courts in the 70s said discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is not discrimination on the basis of sex, it was a correlation to pass the pregnancy discrimination act people from all parts of the political spectrum were on board for that. That was repeated again with lily ledbetter. Subject to statutory interpretation, there can be a healthy deck and forth between the Supreme Court and the political branches. The courts is not in a popularity contest, and it should never be influenced by todays headlines, by the weather of today but as freud said inevitably, it would be affected by the climate of the era. I think thats part of the explanation of why the gayrights movement has advanced where is today. The climate of the era. The court is really in front. Even in brown people were, there was a brief we were fighting a war against racism and in that war until the very end, our troops were rigidly segregated by race. Now, the soviet union is going to the United States, its a constant embarrassment. Its time for segregation of the school to end. That was the position that the United Government was taking. It made it easier for the justices and a nearly took in 13 years from brown be board and 11 virginia. To declare miscegenation laws unconstitutional. And lots of opportunities, but they waited. Until the climate of the era. Have largely changed. The court can be important in reinforcing it social change. And it can hold it back as well but it doesnt initiate. Does that say that the court is supposed to be counter majoritarian some people would argue that its unrealistic to makes dust or expect the court to be at the forefront it should be majoritarianism. But our constitution has the bill of rights that says these are the rules the congress has to abide by, so the court should be vigorous and enforcing the rights of in the bill of rights, and in the 14th amendment. The court is the guardian. The constitution makes the court the guardian of those rights. So yes the court must be vigilant, but we cant do what say a Political Party can do. Heres our platform, this year were given try to get through this and that. We have to wait. It has to start with the people. If it doesnt serve the people its not going to get to the court. You have to have a concerned citizenry to press for these right. Let me take us out of the law for a second. And ask you is our time runs out here for your most important mentors . People ask me what women were my role models i say, one was real one is fictional. The real one was a millionaire heart, and the fictional one was nancy drew drew. In my college years, certainly lost all, i never had a woman teacher. People asked me did you always want to be a supreme Court Justice . I wanted to get a job in the law. That was my goal. Women werent on the bench in numbers on the federal bench until jimmy carter became president. He deserves tremendous credit for that. He was in office only four years, he took the a look at the federal judiciary and said you know ladies, thats not how the United States looks. He was determined to appoint members of Minority Groups and women in numbers. Not as limited time curiosities. He appointed at least 25 women to federal District Courts, and i was one of the lucky 11 appointed to the court of appeals. If he said, in october of 1980, when he had a reception for the women he appointed even though he had no Supreme Court, he hoped he would be remembered. How he changed the complexion of the u. S. Judiciary. And no president like that its a president reagan be outdone. As your foot to be a lawyer, with the skill and the 70s to help move that. Progress in society. Along. To say they kept the message alive even when people were not prepared to listen. And we owe them a tremendous debt. How lucky we are. Just think of the quote, the first case, it comes out unanimous judgment and most of the others came out the right way in the 1970s. So i count myself enormously fortunate to be around when it was possible. Fortunate to be around when it was possible. To move society to the place where it should be. For the benefit of all of us. Everyone is the beneficiary of gender discriminate of ending gender discrimination. Thats how the old chief was persuaded. With the Social Security benefits that will help them. Those benefits were from other fathers. The court decided that case, i think it was in 1975. It was the unanimous judgment, one was that it was discrimination against the woman is wage earner, her Social Security taxes dont get for her family the same protection and then a few of them thought it was discrimination against the mail as parents. He would not have the opportunity to render personal characters child. And then right was stolen said totally arbitrary from the point of view of the baby why shouldnt the baby had the chance to be cared for by parent only if the parent is female and not mail. Its that realization that we will all be better off if we end the discrimination. If we end the era of women are for the home and children and manner for the outside world. Both should be in both worlds. [applause] before we go, let me say on behalf of everyone here, i think we are all in or mislead fortunate that you have live the life that you have. And been such a tremendous inspiration to so many generations, and we look forward to what still to come. Thank you so much. [applause] next, actor gary sinise talks about his advocacy for military veterans. And the work of his foundation. Then michigan senator Debbie Stabenow and house leader discuss funding. After that, a house hearing on funding at the smithsonian museums. On the next washington journal Washington Post reporter discusses his journey to charleston south carolina. Former Deputy Assistant attorney general talks about a crime laws and policies in the u. S. And former health and Human Services secretary Michael Leavitt discusses the work on state contingent plans if the Supreme Court rules against the administration on the health care law. As always, we will take your calls. Washington journal live at 7 a. M. Eastern on cspan. Some were sitting kind of front left of the chamber so it becomes into the chamber becomes into the center doors and sits down and is almost looking directly at sumner. The problem is sumner is not looking at him. Sumners head is valid. He is literally signing copies of the crime against kansas speech. The professor gets up, walks down the center aisle with this change came, approaches sumner who is again totally oblivious brooks reaches them, this is cane over his head, and says mr. Sumner i have read your speech over twice. It is a label to my state and my relative. Summer looks
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.