justice joins a discussion on and the courtip and a panel talking about transparently in the nation's highest court. later, a look at veterans mental healthcare issues. woodruff of pbs news on womenrates an event leadership in the judiciary. from supreme court a former member of the israeli supreme court. this event was held by the museum of women in the arts in march. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> good afternoon, everyone and welcome to the national museum in the arts where leadershiparts, and come together every day. and we are so glad to have you for this evening with our three justices. to be very pleased partnering once again with the embassy of france and especially want to give a thanks to madame sofie for being a a us.erful partner with [applause] my remarks tonight are logistics. willuldville this -- we have this wonderful conversation this evening and that will end with q&a. at 6:00 we will go to the third floor for a reception and then be an hour later, i town in at 7:00 p.m. town in the great hall. to introduce madame dalatra to make her remarks. much.you very >> rest reassured we will be to english. h is a very personal event and i to thank you all for being here tonight. many of you have come from washington, from chicago and new york and canada it is very special. you are here because of the three extraordinary women. of whom i have had the know.ege of getting to justice abella from the supreme dan, the justice from andsupreme court of israel justice ginsberg from the united states.f th before we introduce each of the and begin an historic and extra order conversation i this event about how came to being and why we wanted to do it. justice and her husband erving were friends when we were posted years ago. few i was as you will all be her personald by journey and undying faith in humanity. she andearned that justice ginsberg were girlfriends. to washington it seemed natural to arrange a conversation between these two extraordinary women. that opportunity arose when i had the privilege of attending a private dinner at the former mayor of montclair's home. had justice ginsberg with her and i said ask her if she interested in conversation and she immediately agreed and she said well, why doris my friend? thiso it then became threesome with chief justice dorek. not have been possible ginsberg mottns remembering not reached out. this evening is the result of extraordinary women who pulled resources together. mary, which we just talked about, the three justices, of course. willhelmina. woodruff an icon in journalism. mrs. benefit, a force of nature washington. millstein.onnie others., many this evening's conversation is truly historic and for the first time we gather three women from courts who are girlfriends and from three countries. monument.ach a living at a time when so many people are asking where are the women, is a response. they are here. they are there. they are everywhere. have to look. we have to ask. we have to listen and we have to act. and france, my country, is taking action. each of us in this room has the power to identify leaders and ourselves.ader what has astounded me with the three justices from very backgrounds growing up in different countries, each took very similar paths. united states theed statecanad, israel, each of these women were firsts in their countries. of womens rights is a conversation worldwide across all cultures. looking to identify those anding the path for change today we have an opportunity to give three of them even more visibility. when you think about it, these women have an impact on the future of their countries for generations to come. decisions canals be altered by the courts, and it is the supreme courts that of those difficult societyial issues tad which will impact future generations. in the decades that follows as culturals look at changes in our societies around the world these leaders will be at the forefront. historians will read their interviews and biographies and this one will stand out. evening.ou enjoy this judyay i please allow you di this historicgin conversation. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, for bet evening.on behind this what a treasure it is to bring womenthree extraordinary together. it is not only my great privilege, it is an extraordinary honored and a great pleasure to be here with you. want to thank susan sterling and wilhelminas idea it was to have the museum and have the conversation in the perfect place in the city of washington this moment. let's get started. no more time wasting. just heard from sophie three path-breaking women. biographies inll the program. i want to remind everybody about who he are and where they came from truly. i'm going to lead off the conversation and then we will leave some time at the end for from you in the audience. talk.p that in mind as we first, from your left, the honorable justice rosalie silverman ibella. 2004. been appointed in just 29 years old when first appointed as a judge. making her the youngest and first pregnant judge in canadian history. she had press conference tisdaleed civil and criminal law for several years and from the moved to the ontario court of appeal before being named to the supreme court. been the way she has actively engaged in employment law,y, labor relations access to legal services by those with disabilities. so is considered and for many other reasons, and is canada'sd one of foremost experts in human rights law. the justice was born in a displaced persons camp in germany soon after the end of ii.d war her family came to condition da later.gees four years besides the distinguished legal credentials she has a degree royal conservatory of piano.n abella. [applause] [applause] plows. dorit. the honorable she sevenned in the capacity for six years, the first woman in that position. recognize the among many focus onngs for her protecting civil rights and andn rights, women, socially vulnerable immigrant workers and emphasized the review of of judicial activities of the executive government.rael's her service as president of the supreme court followed 10 years as justice of that court. to this she served as a district attorney, director and deputy in the state attorney's office and as the state attorney of israel. the first woman in that position. was born in tel aviv. dorit benish. >> and third, someone we know ruthwell, the honorable bader ginsberg, associate justice of the united states. ginsberg serving in her 21st year, only the second woman to the u.s. supreme court when she was named in 1993 by president clinton. prior to her appointment she spent 13 years serving as a forral appeals court judge the district of columbia. following a distinguished teaching career at rutgers university where she cofounded the first law journal in this country to focus exclusively on rights and at columbia university. as general counsel of the unionan civil liberties she argued landmark cases before the supreme court on gender discrimination. she was described in a profile magazine asorker the supreme court's most accomplished litigator. brooklyn,rn in new york. and as a measure of how far come whenhe law have she graduated from law school in of her class she did not receive a single job offer. bader ginsberg. [applause] talking wheret by you grew up and how you grew up. it is clear by talking to you you haveng about what written and said in the past that that shaped you. start with you, justice ginsberg. brooklyn. growing up. tell us just a little bit about was like? >> i grew up with world war ii presence.elming it was both a sad time and then i remember the exhilaration in country first on d day and then vj day. doing ting contribute to the war efforts so we were from oure wrappers foil to roll them into bags. gardens in our school and we saved from our allowance money to buy stamps to war bonds so that the end of world war ii i think was a very our country.in >> and so it was new york city you spent your formative city.in the heart of that not travel, not a lot of travel in the heart of that busiest most populous city in the country. >> yes. and note addirondacks in the summer. that is a good thing. that is a good thing. about you, you said you were born in tel aviv. growinga little about up, your family? >> i was born in tel aviv. parents came in 1933 to israel which was then palestine. israel.t the state of they were kind of pioneers movementr the forebyish people coming to israel. my background. my mother was a kindergarten was i think the for manyus in israel years for the important that she to education and to educate young children. she wrote in this field and she active. publicer was working in service. it was't an easy time, time of war and everything. was world born, it war ii. last post carde that my family got from my my aunt fromand poland was congratulations for the baby and then they were murdered there. they didn't want to come because burdenought it will be a on their children to be there in onestine and, of course, no foresaw what the terrible future for them. inas always interested education as a child even, in activity and it was just to law andhat i came came to love it so much. hebrew,w where we spoke we were -- the first israelis, was 6 years old when the state was established. years old. >> when, when the state was established. that?you remember >> yes, it was such an excitement that even a remember. child can it was really excitement and the were during the war, of course. and you know, we all accompany development of this state since my childhood. up to today. so that is the background in which i grew up. withu really grew up israel at the same time. >> yes, yes. >> now, you were born the war in three of brought the you together, different times and different plays but affected all of you. >> defining for the three of us. >> you were born in germany as we mentioned. is a displaced persons camp? polish.rents were moi father was a lawyer who grad my mother'skow and family were business people in the city of poland. and operatinge under german agis. married september 3, 1939 injuries not 1939. and them had a child and spent four years in concentration camp. the child was killed. found each other -- it is quite a remarkable story when i it.en to my parents tell my father ended up in a place from my mother. when she came back to poland she where my father was rails to pr api e a ty primeas epickic.hoid nobody was allowed in so she garbage with the detail. she found him in the back of the camp frail listening to the radio because they were announcing who had survived. germany.d up in i -- i'm just stunned by the have more children after something like that, but i was born july 1, 1946 so it was very soon after they got together. speak german.us my mother tongue is german us to feely wanted like we belonged. didn'tome level that i really understand i realized there wasn't any hate, there was just the dough sire to evercome -- desire to overcome and make us feel normal. polish to each other and my grandmother spoke yiddish. my father taught himself english hired as a lawyer for persons. i have wonderful letters from judges and lawyers qualifying forand recommending him when he was able to come into canada which we were finally able to do in 1950. >> why did he choose canada? >> hehood a relative here. as you know not a great record of allowing in refugees. your husband.or >> right here. but more of him later. i remember my father -- one of canada,est memory ms they quickly learned english and in the home.nglish and i remember my father coming to theom having gone loss society of upper canada to speak english, i'm a lawyer, i have done my eight years of training in europe and hired we,ans have what do i have to do to practice law in ontario and they said you can't, you have to be a citizen. that would have taken five years my sister andand my mother to look after so he became an insurance well and did well. i never heard him complain. but there was a moment when i think about it when my brain said fine, if they won't let him be a lawyer i'm going to be a lawyer. to --pent my life going >> how old were you when -- >> 4. >> so i spent my life going to barmitzvahs and wedding when people said what are you going be when you grow up i said a lawyer? i knew no women who were lawyers. all i news he couldn't be it and he wanted to be it and i would be it. it wasn't until i was 13, i read weekendsbig books on because nobody ever asked me out but that is okay. and i read -- don't believe this. >> i thought it so hard to believe now when you -- [laughter] you?at can i tell missables was the book that made me see what justice injustice was. the childhood aspiration caught up with a theory of fairness and thatught okay it was good i decided to be a lawyer. but i didn't know any women who were lawyersnd when i got pregnant in 1973 with our first son i didn't know any mothers were lawyers but i was tenacious in my desire to he couldn't be. but the most important thing childhood as an immigrant you have zero of entitlement. it is all about opportunity. working rolely hard to pay back the country for member,you to be a working really hard in school so you are the top student in school. app kno piano two hours every day because it was important to my parents. they wanted it and i was all that i livedsure in accordance with their values. was of all --it we don't grow up in a jewish neighborhood. were maybe two or three kids that were jewish of all of up,kids i knew growing public school and high school. it was the happiest home. they never complained. were bitter. there was no sadness. demons ind a sense of the house and i didn't know until much older that that was typical for the homes of survivors. they made me think i could do anything and i can't take any credit for it. they also said you will get married and have children. jewish, right? of course, you can be a lawyer but you are going to get married and have children. a way it was easier because there wasn't should i do this or should i do this. merger of aspirations and. and havell get married children. >> and you will be a lawyer. ginsberg, i don't think you mentioned your occupation of your parents. did they of influence have and other family members have on your ultimate interest the law? reader.ther was an avid she never dreamed, i never dreamed that it would be possible to be a lawyer. i was going to be a high school teacher. asked me did you always want to be a judge? when i got out of law school the object was to get a job. any job in the law. days were pretitle seven so employers were up front that want any women. my class in law school had about 500 students, them were women. can imagine what a tremendous opportunity i had women's movement came thee again at the end of 1960's and there i was a law and able to contribute whatever talent i had to nudge this movement a little further. >> what do you think pulled you law andirection of the toward the idea of wanting to have something to do with justice? >> in large part it was a cornellr that i had at university. his name was robert e. cushman. attended from 1950 to 1954. country.e for our it was the heyday of senator mccarthy who saw a communist in every corner. wanted me tosor wasrstand that our country straying from its most basic values, that there were lawyers people, many of them in the entertainment reminding ourwere house on american activities senate security committee that our constitution freedomrst amendment, fifthression, and a amendment, protecting people from self-incrimination. so it was the idea that a lawyer a profession and it was a field in which you could make things a little better. to say also that my thely was not too keen on idea of my going to law school mainly because they were my being able to support myself. but then when marty and i be aed, it was okay to lawyer because if it didn't work out i had a man to support me. [laughter] -- they weret was tamp relaxed about it after that? yes. you allurious about how have spoken a little bit about, you no, the direction of the law wasn't just the law. you all have been advocates in our own way. mentionedll as we human rights has been a passion for all of you. wasalong the way there something that kept you going. it wasn't just as you are wasn't just seeing that laws get passed by legislative bodies or that lawyers get a case argued, it justice ginsberg just said, making things better. you hearda point when inside, justice bainisch your head that said this is what i want? backwards,, looking to be sincere, i think how did i law.to it wasn't my first -- my first dream was to be also a high for history.r and i went to the university to literature.y and but really i believed that you yourto do something for society. this was part of the education i i thought thed best thing is to influence beiety through education to with a young againation. and -- generation. know how last minute decision was that i have to do a change from my routine thinking about education and i thought it go into lawn to school. you know,. >> where did that idea come from? >> i don't know. because i wanted a change. really felltarted i in love with this profession, with law. surrounding everyone, i always tell the after i went, i started to law school i met my school master from high school. was a very important personality in education. very influencial. and she said dorit, what are you going to study? then just released from the military service. i said well, i decided on law. disappointed. [laughter] >> at the end, she said you will be a judge in couldvenile courts this >> why was she disappointed initially? i think she didn't know anything. she had values about young people. what do they do? how can we contribute? only when eyes started law school i realize you can contribute much more than any other field. it took time. lawyers have their business, and this is a sin. we were looking for something with value. little girls come to me many times a month and they say, what iall i do to be a judge, and always wonder, i never thought of being a judge when i was your .ge you just do good what you have to do. it comes if you do that. done, butr said than they already start when they are eight years old, 10 years old, 12, to think what should they do ? >> yes? >> law is still a first degree in israel, isn't it? >> yes. >> you were rather young when you entered law school. not 18.re more than two years, and only then i started law school. it's the second after you study your first degree. i started when i was 20 years old. time i really thought i would prefer literature and history. i love every minute of it. >> the first woman on the israeli supreme court, who was it? the 70's.in i think women's career in law in israel was in a way easier than in the united states. >> why? paved the someone has way. during the british mandate in israel and palestine, they had a mandate. women were not allowed to argue cases in court. that. they fight for came to london. they learned women could argue someone paved. the way. women.'t have many the 70's the first woman justice. it was a few years before. what about being a woman? you made a very important point. it was inconceivable when we when weng and even started practicing law that we would ever be a judge. inconceivable. there were no women judges. the reasons that was an advantage, and especially if you are kind of an outsider. i know it's hard to talk about it if you are on the supreme court, but we know what it feels like to be an outside insider. you do what you feel is the right you to do. >> what do you mean? >> if you know you are different. i was jewish, immigrant, female and a male profession that was largely -- grandfather was a supreme court judge. a supreme court judge. it can be a great advantage to understand you are different, that you are never going to be like anyone else, and that's good. enjoy the fact that you are different. don't try to homogenize. things not to the possibility of an ultimate object does, i.e., one day i want to be on the supreme court. and you measure all your choices. you take risks. you say, sure, i will run a labor board. i will be judge at 29. nothing was against my ultimate objective because i was having a wonderful ride in the legal profession. i now give advice when i am asked to young people and say you don't know where you're going to end up. give yourself a chance. the great tin pan alley songwriter was asked, what comes first, the music or the words, and he said the phone call. i get that. the other advantage our generation had is we had the banality of the 50's with the un-american activity, but then you had the 60's. andwomen's movement, race, in the 70's the dialogue came. in which generation change was all around us. that was a great advantage. a lawyer in an environment where it was all about legal change, where you have all these groups screaming for entry into the mainstream, that was a privileged time. we wanted a better world. >> what did that time feel like for you? you were teaching during a chunk 1970's. >>eer in the 63 until i got my first job in d.c. towhat did that feel like you? you plunged right in. in civilinvolved rights issues from the beginning. >> exhilarating and exhausting. what touched me most was one of the people who came forward and said, i have experienced an in justice. system -- anegal injustice. i think our legal system can make it right. the first case in the supreme sally reed's case. she was a woman from boise, idaho. she had an adopted son. husband separated. boy.ad custody of the when the boy was a teenager the father said i want to have the child for part of the time. he needs to be prepared for a man's world. the family said ok. sally was distraught. she had a reason to be. her son was terribly depressed and took out one of his father's miniguns and killed himself -- many guns and killed himself. idaho have a law that settled the matter. it is between persons equally entitled to administer an estate , the mail must be preferred to female. wrong,hought that was and she took that case through three levels of idaho courts. when idaho supreme court ruled brilliant lawyer said that is the case that is going to change the court. they will hold the classification is inadmissible. they said once the women's movement was conspicuous more i don't people thought have to put up with this. it should be changed. >> literally she came to you? a lawyer from the aclu read the report of the supreme court called the local lawyer in boise, idaho and said the aclu would like to assist. the aclu has a mixed history early on that opposed the equal rights amendment because it was framed to protect the that women were threatened by the equal right women, but after sally reed's start aey decided to women's rights project, so from 72 until 80, i spent most of my time -- haved you -- i know you written and spoken about this. how much did being a woman affect what you were able to do and you were arguing cases before the court? >> the women of my generation had to overcome certain obstacles. ok to make indulgent buts on race or religion, women were fair game. i will give you one example. i was talking to a federal court in new jersey, and they said, i understand women have made great progress. opportunity in and i said women are not allowed to have flight training. the judge responded, don't tell women have been in the air always. i know that from experience with my own wife and daughter. say, you you don't sexist pig. you want to win the case. if you got angry that would be self-defeating. say, i haveng is to met many women who don't have their feet on the ground and then race into the next line. the last argument i had with the 1978. it was about putting women on juries in missouri. systemi had an opt out where women were not required to serve and the summons that went woman youyou were a need not serve. serve,don't want to check off here. how many people would volunteer? argument with the public defender of kansas city. i thought i had gotten out the report -- the point i wanted to make. then the justice said, you won't settle. many years later he wrote a of the familyion medical leave act. live you canu learn. justice, i described some of before you were appointed to the supreme court. how much did being a woman deputy state attorney and state attorney? >> i don't know how much it ffected. i think the story we just heard, is it is aimpressive vehicle to promote human rights and women's rights. we don't really have the equality we are struggling to achieve. what was difficult as a woman, was when i was in the ministry , i needed many times to confront the politicians. i thought they don't respect minorities,ight of so i had many fights inside the system, inside the administration. to takeyou don't have it too seriously what you say. you have to fight when you want it's rather easy. some people said i couldn't get jobs when i had to. i don't know. woman.ecause i was a we can never know what was the real reason. i think women always have to be much better to achieve. accepted for many jobs, many things. do what remains and more than that, it wasn't easy. >> you know justice o'connor's ?tory she graduated from the top of her class in stanford. no one would hire her. she said, i will work for he. after four months of you think i am worth that you can put knee on the payroll. >> that was how she got her foot in the door? is for women at the , you werewere serving fighting a lot of behind the scenes. it wasn't in the public arena. >> this was behind the scenes. it was sometimes the decisions that were taken. it wasn't easy at all. i thought if you believe you are ight, don't give up. try again and again not to give up. i think i never gave up. you stick it out? where did that come from? >> i thought we have to do justice. this is part of it. law andt to respect the respect for the both of the law. sometimes it's not so excepted. you have to fight for that. this was my experience. >> what's your experience? >> i never knew whether it was sexism or anti-semitism. it's hard to tell the reason there were exclusions. we knew there were. you just did what you did knowing you were in early days of the women's movement. in those days we all gave toeches on women and the law talk about -- here is how the law treats women. in law school i didn't know any of that. school is a meritocracy. if you work really hard you do well in school. you think life is going to be like that. then reality hit. it was from my women clients that i realized how the law treated women. opened my eyes. >> what is example? who getsts custody, divorced, matrimonial property laws? it used to be when the couple got married the husband and wife became one person. there were many examples of how the law had to catch up with the emerging reality. now we give lectures and seminars on women in the law. now the panels are, do you lie down, do you stand up? having achieved the numbers -- when we went to law school there were five women out of 150. and thes 50% conversation is different. is anestion you ask interesting one. i had to think about it when you said, what do you feel as a woman? they'll would ask judges this. does being a woman make a difference. jewish, having experienced what we experience ws and when itje gives you an insight into the importance of understanding that s a judge have to be open to reality in front of you and be ready to really listen, because their story may not be your story. difference between a judge having an agenda and a judge ally listening, i remember the conversations in the 80's and the 90's. all of those things meant to dismissively rebut arguments about why he quality was important for women. i remember thinking, you can't judge it from a majority perspective. you have to look at how the law looks to the people who want access to it who don't have the views of the majority. that's how i learned to understand what judging was all to twothat you listen sides. one side is always mad at you. you have to be ready to be unpopular. when you are a judge, you are an theitution that has responsibility and independence to take a stand that is unpopular, so when people say it's an agenda or activism or reverse discrimination, i think what they are saying is, i don't like the results, so they throw a label around the decision-maker to say, what do you expect? she's a woman. whatever identity they attribute to the decision. i think the best judges are people who understand what it feels like not to have the same privileged world we all experience. >> you use the word outsider. you know what it's like to be an outsider who is empathetic to others. like to clarify one thing. you used the word agenda twice. agendas don't make agendas. we are receiving always. we don't make the controversies that come before us. but we do our best when they are on our plate to decide them. we are not like the political branches that do have an agenda. >> it attributed to us. the 90's,he 80's and the discourse was extremely critical of judges who were progressive. it was critical because they said they had an agenda, which is the worst thing you can say about a judge, because what it suggests is that the decision-maker has an intellectual basket that will accept evidence and information and keep the shape of the basket, and judges are supposed to allow the basket to change. when somebody said you have an agenda, it's a way of dismissing results and saying what do you absolutely at is contradiction to what judges actually do. we listen, but that doesn't mean we have an agenda other than trying to get it right every time. >> there is another restraint on you. you don't sit alone. i am 800.people i say, imagine making every single major decision every day with eight husbands. don't know about you, but isiding to go to a movie hard enough, but eight, and they didn't choose you and you didn't choose them? it's really extraordinary. eight forced marriages. it butave never heard that way. >> and the three of us have in to filehat it allows us dissenting opinions. >> i don't want the afternoon to and without -- i don't know where we are because i don't have a watch and i am having such a good time. i think that three of us have another thing in common, speaking of eight husbands. have been very lucky because having a partner at home who is utterly supportive and encouraging and therefore you -- there for you and lets you be really exuberant when you feel feelst, cries with you, the joy when the children are crucialll, that is so to the soothing soul that people in difficult jobs have. i'm not saying it's difficult, but it's stressful, and that makes all the difference. tribute. ay to stand up while you are having tribute paid? [applause] >> and marty. >> we all agree. you've made it. you really made it. >> i want you to weigh in on this conversation we have been hearing. >> about the husband. >> about the husband i must say. it's much more difficult for me decide what toto do in court. those are the most difficult. courts do not have an agenda. we all agree. people do not understand it, because they think different. they should have an agenda. we come from a different point of view. this is the branch of government. we don't have an agenda. we can choose the cases. they started -- especially in our court -- we opened the door we don't decide. we can dismiss the case and say there is no legal cause, but when it comes and we express our say,ons, some people may of course, it's their agenda. women.re about they care about arabs because they are a minority. this is not a truth. we are independent. this is the right value. one government comes, and one government does. those are the values that exist in this society. >> how hard is that to do justice in such a polarized environment especially like the one we have in this country. >> one of the things that makes is that all of us with highercourts statutory questions. we have many more questions involving statutes congress and i wish the press more often would notice the cases in which we have unusual s, where you can't predict who is going to be on what side. we are also in systems where judicial independence is pride. i have a job i can keep as long as i am able to do it. . -- to do it. -- to do it full steam. you retired. >> a political point, and then i will take questions. >> this is supply-side rhetoric. we all got the language throwing around here when people try to delegitimize the integrity of supreme court's. important toreally deconstruct what the criticisms were. activism was not an expression i ever heard about a decision that restricted rights. i only ever heard it when a court expanded rights. reverse discrimination i understood as a remedy to reverse discrimination. the merit system. you would have to look in the meurer and say we had one until 2000, so merit system is a suggestion that affirmative action contradicts it made no sense to me at all. we were trying to get people into the system who had been next looted. we say that because the rhetoric around rights is the most controversial of all. governments are elected by and they are responsible. if you want to be reelected you are attentive to what the majority says. committed to being controversial. people debate our decisions, and they should. 75 to life soith we can make calls that we think are the right calls. think about what this public opinion means, which newspaper, so the notion there is such a magical thing that will vindicate or censure what you want to do, you don't have that constituency. your constituency is time. >> i think in my country it's a special situation. easily that weed have to decide sometimes the need to protect rights is more important. we need security. security, but we try to balance. this is not popular. sometimes this is what is riticized. >>to the public interest. this is tough sometimes. feel you need courage for this? >> it necessary for the judge to decide if it is the right thing. >> i think you need courage, and do you want to comment? >> we have those cases. i don't think there's any country in the world that has them in a more tense atmosphere than israel. your colleague said, if we are so overwhelmed by security that we surrender our abilities than our enemy has one because we , so become just like them the idea this can't be swept up by the need for security. basic valuesntain of the system. >> because israel has done it the way they have, every western democracy and the world follows their jurisprudence because they have been able to transcend daily stress and find jurisprudence of right anyway. it has made them a world leader in that area. >> this is the guarantee for democracy. we have the values of democracy to keep. question from the audience. right here. >> is adrian. >> hi. >> i think you are right. >> my mother was the first woman judge in delaware. rosalie came many years ago to speak in delaware. see you today. my mother was appointed i the governor. -- by the governor. electaware we do not judges. in many areas where it was an appointment, and the olden days it followed the male line. over time appointment of judges has given the appointing party more than an opportunity to bring diversity. have many places in the united states where judges are did. -- are elected. that's where you may see an agenda. my question really is, i know in the united eight we have places inre judges are elected. canada and israel, are there some judges and court systems where there is an election? >> are you kidding? i remember in judgment at nuremberg there is a scene where marlena dietrich is walking with spencer tracy. i love movies. oscar night for me is a religious night. she said, this is your country? i remember it was so odd the notion that you are directly responsive to the public for the decisions where you have to choose a side that may not be the one giving you the money. who do you go to for fund raising? i'm not saying there are very good judges who are elected. theory ofg about the an election where you are directly responsible to the majority for decision-making. , ifou are doing sentencing you are doing constitutional rights, you are having to decide a minority versus a majority interest, and if you really like hearing a judge and you want to go back for another seven years, you are going to work very hard at not annoying the people you are going to go back to for money and reelections. i know sandra day o'connor is working really hard on this. the notion of populism is so that onehis country -- democracy is not just about elections. about institutions that work and check and balance off of each other. some are elected, and some are not. the judiciary scrutinizes the elected officials. you have to be independent. you have got a different mandate. people always say, who are these people anyway? they are not elected. they are not supposed to be elected. they are performing a different function. >> it's the most frequent question i am asked when i go abroad. impartialu have an judiciary when you elect your judges? we know how it originated. there was great distrust of the kings justices. people wanted to have a say in who would be there judges. their judges. it isn't something i can explain when i am asked that question. i can say i am glad to be part of the system. >> i am a guest in the united states, so i'm not allowed to say what i want about the system. against the principles of independence of , but i understand the historical background. sometimes when you have a tradition based on historical background it's very difficult. this is why it won't be easy to change, but it's against all the principles we believe in. >> question? >> yes. >> i am greta van softer in. en.suster my question is for the visiting judges. i am curious when you look at our trial system if there is anything you could tinker with. when i see the british system and the defendant in the back i think he looks guilty. i like the way we put him in the court. is there something about your system that you think might be a little bit very -- a little bit that we should perhaps tinker with? to both of our judges? >> i just said what i think about our system. serious, i think nowadays the privilege -- we have a wealth of communication, and we and werom other systems referred to the canadian system. we have a lot in common, and we learn from each other. it's not only a matter of majority. it's the values. >> is there any procedural difference that might be a little bit different and something to look at? odd and weis sort of might do this that are? we don't have a jury system. we are different because we have a different background. you carry your history, but we can learn from each other, and we try to do that all the time. >> in canada, juries are used for what? >> most references have civil juries, but we have big criminal cases. >> i think that is a good question, and here is why. the one thing all of our countries has in common is we have a real problem in court. that is the access to justice problem. we were talking about change before. findf the expressions i least comfortable is they think it is a valid rebuttal when they say we have always done it this way. there is a light old joke about lawyers. how many lawyers does it take to change a lightbulb? change? here is my story about what frustrates me about the way we resolve adjudication everywhere. in 1906 the dean of harvard law onool wrote an article based the speech he gave to the american bar association called civil -- public dissatisfaction with the civil justice system, and in the article he talked was, how slow the system how expensive it was, how it was becoming a trade instead of a profession, how it was too adversarial, and i thought about that. i thought, people probably went to his lecture with the horse and buggy. still using leeches. i don't know how we listened to music. maybe that thing that goes around and around. look at every profession today and compare it to 1906. doctors have experienced in order to find better ways to save lives. what engineers do is totally different. we didn't have planes then? if you took a lawyer from 1906 and gave him training, he would feel perfectly at home in our court room. i don't get that. doctors, experimenting with life, and we won't experiment with justice? i think we need a fundamental shift instead of tinkering around the edges. systemook at what the would look like if we were starting it today. how would we resolve civil disputes? criminal cases are different? anyway, i have views. an agenda. >> greta, see what you stirred up. a question in the very back. address thiske to to the justice. you have a very complicated ,ourt system in israel particularly in family law. i am really interested in how you deal with religious and cultural aspects of law when you are dealing with secular jews and ultra-orthodox jews and arabs in the same court system. >> it's true we have a complicated system. again, we only have religious not onlyand divorce, for jews. for arabs and muslims and christians. we have only their religious tribunals. totry to do more and more achieve. i would daresay i may have an achieve civil rights, but our court, our supreme court can and does review the decision, not from the substance of religious law, but through procedure. it's not perfect, but we can review these decisions and more and more to apply our civil in religious courts. it's not easy. that kind ofccept tension. i think if we are talking about women's rights, equality for women, they still suffer because we have this system of religious marriage, and this is a very difficult issue that should be changed. just speaking of israel, or are you? >> to clarify what the question family law has given over to religious authorities. under jewish law as i understand cannot get a divorce. you can only receive a divorce. me if this is true. there is supposed to be a man who said, let's see what the courts are doing. they are going to put me in jail. and there was a man for years and years in jail because he refused to give his life. that's how the civil court tried this one-way direction of religious law. law forve sacred family every purpose. and other things, but divorce is in the hands of the court. all other courts -- this is a very serious problem. the court may send a man who refuses to get a divorce to prison. we had cases. this was a very famous case where he was ready to die in prison. not to get a divorce. it happened. there is public work trying to change the law. >> may be one more. this gentleman right here. >> i would like to ask the of question. during the process of negotiation leading to a hopeful palestinian and israeli peace, new conversation has arisen on the side of israel as to the recognition of israel as a jewish state. constitutionalhe implications of this new theersation in terms of rights of minorities in israel? >> i don't want to go into the question of political conversations or trying to reach but israel,, according to the basic laws we -- this is our inc. -- our constitution -- it's a jewish democratic state. jewish and democratic. colors of thesic israeli law. constitution, legislation. what does it mean? we have a minority of arabs. according to the declaration of have thence, they right to quality. the question, what does this mean to be a jewish state. toon't need palestinians recognize because i believe we are a jewish state. this is our law. we have not always agreed what does this mean. all a home forof all the jews. this is the idea. this is the home of the jewish people. parties whogious think it should be a religious state. this is not what we mean when we are talking about a jewish state. there is no contradiction to be a jewish state. , yes, ity other state is a democratic state and has to reflect the rights of the minority. i see no contradiction. the political matter is completely different. think what he means is to recognize this is a home to the jewish people. >> one last question. you both have your hands up. >> i am going to try to sneak in. i think what is understood to be the liberal side of the spectrum. is that a coincidence or something more? you talked about what it is like to have eight husbands on the court. i am curious about what it's like when those are wives and what is the impact to have more than one woman on the court at a time. >> she got two questions. follow-up. >> what about the question of women on the left side of the court? >> the breakthrough in the wased states supreme court the appointment of justice sandra day o'connor. and the arizona senate, but we in every case that involved women's opportunities. i didn't hear the first question, but i would like to .ay how great it is it makes a difference in the picture that has been made. i sit close to the middle. justice kagan is on my left. justice sotomayor or on my right. children in school, and watch what is going on in the and they see the women are not there just to look good. my colleagues are likely participants. anyone who has been to the court knows that. journalistsveral counted the number of questions each justice asked, and they decided justice sotomayor or won the prize even more than justice scalia. the women are not shrinking violets. lonely being the only woman. for sandras better who was a more imposing presence. >> i don't think there is anyone questioning how imposing you are. you can take both questions. >> if i am asked if it's a coincidence, this is for social logical research. i think you are right that women are more on the liberal side. not only when we are talking rights,nder and women's true that mosts of the women justices are on the liberal side. you have to be very careful labeling judges. there is something in it. there was a time when we were five women in the court. we sat sometimes in groups of three. we had a panel of three women justices in the court. you could seeng they were suspicious. what are these three women doing here? it doesn't matter anymore. having women in the court is not an issue anymore. believe we will have a vacancy and there will only be three more women to the court. >> i actually never thought about why or whether women are more liberal. it's true in canada we deny onen -- we have nine women the supreme court. i would say all of them are progressive. the supreme court in canada is generally progressive anyway. let me tell you how great it is to have a lot of women colleagues. when i joined the court in 2004, i was appointed with another colleague from the interior court. we became for women on the court. in not only normalizes the perception of the public that your supreme adjudicators can be of either gender. courtreat inside the because there is a collegial spirit when you have got people who have gone through the same experiences. it always put my colleagues back when a couple of women are arguing and it goes something like this. i don't think the charter was meant to deal with this issue. don't forget the decision we decided in 1903. i like that necklace a lot. that we -- [laughter] in the middle of the most sophisticated debate, we will notice a piece of jewelry. that ist few times of remember them going, are you allowed to do that? am i allowed to notice your socks? it is a much more collegial and i would say less pretentious -- it's not one ought to behave this way because one is a supreme court judge. just nine people, many of whom happen to be women, and it's a privilege. so many more questions but our time is up. let's just say thank you to these amazing women. [applause] >> thank you. >> the supreme court heard a case this week that will decide the fate of a technology company that streams local broadcast television to customers' computers, phone and tablets. the supreme court is looking at whether aerial is violating copyright law and must play licensing fees to broadcasters. we will have that oral argument tomorrow 8:00 eastern on c-span. up next on c-span, a discussion on supreme court transparency, which journalists and law professors. and then remarks from secretary of state kerry on russia and ukraine. and in about 90 minutes, mental health care issues facing u.s. military veterans. among those speaking at the event, former rhode island congressman patrick kennedy. next, discussing transparency in the nation's highest court. freedom of the press and coalition for court transparency hosted this n.y.u. event in washington. >> i want to welcome you all this morning. thank you for coming. my name is tony morrow and i am on the steering committee of the reporters committee for freedom of the press, which is co-sponsoring this. and i want to thank n.y.u. also for sponsoring this event. supreme so covered the court for 34 years and have been immersed in these issues for pretty much all of that time. this is the second discussion we have had on the subject of transparency at the supreme court. the last one was a few months ago. the theme then and now really is that transparency in the case of the supreme court is about way more than just allowing cameras in the court. of course, that is very much on our wish list. we will see these other issues elated to transparency develop even more this morning than over the last event. we have a terrific panel to discuss these issues, led by dahlia, it's my great pleasure to introduce her. she's also on the steering committee of the reporters committee for freedom of the press. another panelist sonny west used to be an intern at this reporters committee. dahlia covers the courts since before the turn of the century. when she arrived on the beat and ever since she's been a breath of fresh air bringing tremendous insight as well as a touch of humor to covering the supreme court beat. when she writes about a supreme court argument, you almost don't need cameras. emphasis on almost because her writing is so vivid. before i turn it over to dahlia, i want to mention if you would like to give the supreme court a piece of your mind on these issues there's the scotus booth of truth upstairs where you can tape a brief video with your views on these issues. i will turn it over to dahlia. >> thank you, tony. i want to redouble tony's thanks to the various sponsors and to n.y.u. for this absolutely gorgeous venue. and you all probably know that last fall for the first time in story some advocacy groups knocked a camera into oral argument for the first time ever we got to see live video of oral argument, which actually looked more like a sighting of the loch ness monster. it was awfully blurry and confused. but america went kind of crazy and people were interested in it, reminded -- especially those of us who go back and forth to the court and get to be in those arguments, the extent of which the branch that is meant to be the most transparent and open and everything that you need to know about the courts working is contained in the four corners of the opinion is actually completely unknown and unknowable to 99.9% of the american public who were glimpsing for the first time blurry judicial shoulders and getting very excited about it. so we're here to talk about transparency. not just cameras but all of the aspects of transparency. but i want to 0 just open by saying that transparency means not just that we can't see the workings of oral argument. but it means we also can't hear the workings of oral argument until the court releases audio on fridays. we can't readily access their website when we on the day the health care cases came down tried to access their website, it crashed. the best source of getting information about the court is not, in fact, the court's website. it's other websites. we don't know the justices' speaking schedules. we don't get copies of their speeches. it's very difficult to get their financial disclosures. don't get me started on their papers. so this branch that's supposed to be open and one of three coequal transparent branches of government is awfully hard to get into. and so that's what we're here to do today. and we thought in lew of me -- in lieu of me reeling off introductions of panelists who are amazing each in their own right, i'm going to ask each of them to just introduce themselves to you and tell you for half a minute who they are, why they have skin in this game. then i want them to answer a question that is completely open ended because that's the kind of hipsters we are. and the question is going to be, what does transparency at the supreme court mean to you? we will start right here with willie and go down the line. just ten seconds on who you are and why this is an issue that's important. and if you would sort of develop an idea about what transparency means to you. >> sure, thank you, dahlia, very much. it's a real pleasure to be here. i'm a partner at the partner goodwin proctor here in d.c. why am i here? i'm here because i'm a lawyer who briefs and argues cases before the supreme court. i used to work for the justice department and now i'm in private practice. much of work -- my work is before the supreme court as well. what does transparency mean to me? as lawyer and advocate, it's not about the cameras, it's not about the papers, it's not about the speeches and certainly not about financial disclosures. it's about the decision of cases, which after all is the justices' a number one job, to decide cases. when they decide cases, what do they decide and what do they decide them based on? those are kind of transparency things that get me up in the morning. because the courts will often say we're a transparent branch because everything is public. the briefs are public. they're on a website, not the court's website. the oral argument is public. it's transcribed easily, peruseable on the court's website and so on. does the court limit itself to what's in the briefs or not? and i think one striking example of that is through buried in justice kennedy's juvenile life without parole opinion from a couple years ago where he was developing some statistics about how many young offenders were incarcerated for interment life without parole. you see in that opinion very unusual citations including letter to supreme court library from federal bureau of prisons. letter to supreme court library from i think district of columbia, department of corrections. basically the justices had asked other parts of the federal and municipal d.c. government to do research for them and provide that information, secretly, not copied to the parties and i'm not revealing inside information because i don't have any but the solicitor general did not participate in that case. it may have been a surprise the attorney general, slit iter general the bureau of prisons report that the bureau of prisons was opining or providing factions on this fairly complicated and nuanced issue. i think it was a surprise as well. so when you're standing in the court, you speak your piece, sit down and chief justice says the case is submitted. the briefing is all done. oral argument is all done. then researching begins so the transparency concern i have is justices of on view that as the beginning and not the end of the fact at law and science gathering process. justice breyer i think is also fond of citing social science and other secondary literature in his opinion. in most cases none of which is cited by the parties, his own research. that's how he decides cases. he finds it useful. how do you respond to citations and convince hem not to rely on them because you have not seen them until they appear in his opinion? >> hi, i'm clay johnson. i'm the c.e.o. of a company called department of better technology. i'm a former presidential innovation fellow. used to be director of sunlight lab at the sunlight foundation and before that founder of blue state digital. we made barackobama.com in 2008 and a bunch of other things. i guess i'm here to present the technical aspect as you can tell by my lack of tie. what does transparency mean to me in terms of the supreme court. i think it means three things in desending order of primplete first thing is means to me is education. there are no other fields in the world i can think of where the players at the top of their game are obfuscated from public view. imagine if you will, we took every beautiful skyscraper and wrap td in a cardboard box before you could see it, or the scores to the super bowl were the only thing you saw from the big game. and this has an adverse effect i think on people who aspire to these jobs or to aspire in the legal profession not to be able to watch people who are at the top of their game deliberate before the court and argue before the court. i think that that's a remarkable law. the second thing is history. transparency means history to me . disservice great to the dignity of the court to make bush v gore or citizens united are captured in low resolution audio files and that's it. and moreover, because of various technical things, oftentimes webpages are cited and arguments all of the time but someone did a study more recently that said, about 30% or so of all of the links cited in these arguments are now gone. so we're not taking that sort of technical step of archiving the context of these decisions at all and as we further rely on technology, especially the web in order to do that, this level of context being removed seems to be a great disservice to our children and to the people that are going to come after us. and finally, it's about accountability. i don't find that argument to be the biggest and most important one. although it is important. i just find that my work both inside and outside of the federal government, you know, going to someone, anyone and saying hey, i would like to place a camera behind you so i can watch and scrutinize everything that you do in realtime tends to be a tough ell. so i tend to lead with more substantial arguments like, this does not reflect on the dignity of your job. so i think those are the three things that matter the most to me around transparency. and why i care about this issue. >> good morning. i want to thank gabe for inviting me and tony and dahlia for hosting it. i'm excited to be here. my skin in this game is pretty serious. i teach constitutional law at georgia state in atlanta. it's ironic to me that the supreme court might be the least transparent court in the united states because at best i am with judge pozner that it is a political court. i in fact don't think it's a court at all. to the except there are transparency issues to begin with judges i don't think the supreme court really counts as a court. i will give you a great example of that. every year thousands and thousands and thousands of people send surpetitions to the supreme court. lawyers spend hundreds of hours working, fee are paid, parties are incredibly vested in this. maybe the most important decision the justices make is which cases to hear because if they don't hear a case, then whatever happened at the appellate level is the final say and we're done. and we don't even know which justices voted to grant cert in a particular case. this is an incredibly important public vote on a matter of public concern and there's simply no reason why we shouldn't know this. and it's relevant, truthful information about a public body. now, they may argue that too much would be read into who decides to grant cert and all of that. but the bottom line is, i was litigating supreme court cases in the 1980's with some of the leading litigators at the time, and at the trial court level, we had a short state case and the entire effort was to make the record such that justice o'connor would be pleased. and this was five years before o'connor would even see the case. so much speculation going on anyway. if we know that four moderates vote to grant cert in an abortion case, we have some idea where justice kennedy might stand or at least where they think justice kennedy may stand. that might be wrong. it may be right. but who votes should be a matter of public record. which leads me to my overall point. with the president, with the congress, with state lectures, there is a presumption of transparency and then there has to be a good reason for secrecy. if there's a good reason for secrecy, to print that and presumption can be overcome. when it comes to the supreme court of the united states, there is a huge presumption of secrecy and only if that's overcome do we get transparency. and that to me doesn't make any sense at all. i have now run this by a lot of supreme court litigators and law professor and no one has yet given me a good reason why we can't find out who voted to grant cert in a particular case. if we don't have a good reason for it, the public should know relevant, truthful information. >> i'm bruce brown. i'm executive director of reporters committee. for freedom of the press. and i'm here because the committee was underrepresented as a -- i thought we had to balance the panel out. for the reporters committee, which represents the interests of journalists and covering institutions like the supreme court, obviously, we care deeply about the immediate access to see and hear what goes on in the building. just care about it not for us but, of course, public at large. there's a groit moment described in the book, fourth estate in the constitution, about the oral argument in richmond newspapers which came along at the time when the press had been losing access cases when it had been arguing for some kind of special privilege that it had. laurence tribe, who argued the case for the newspaper petitioners is after just another example of the press coming in and asking for some kind of special protection for its own interest. and tribe responds and says no, the access we're seeking is the access that belongs -- excuse me, to the general public. and that was the core for the access law, that was the moment that tipped the scales and the court in richmond newspapers then grant this historic decision recognizing the right of access. again, not just for the press but for the general public. and when we at the reporters committee think about access, we're thinking not just in the short term. can we get reporters into the court to cover the hum of what happens in a particular news cycle building, but also the long term? dahlia mentioned papers and supreme court papers. and one issue we're also very interested in is trying to really force the court away from this ad hoc system of each justice deciding on his or her own when and how and under what circumstances to make papers available and to move instead to something more regularized like what you have in the presidential system now, which was put in place by legislation 1978 deem those papers property belonging to the public. and not subject to the particular decision making of any particular justice when he or she leaves the court, and when you ask what access means to me, everyone that responded in terms of extreme particularity, i wrote some statistics down. my wife's grandfather was a friend of justice douglas and we discovered when he passed away that he had a number of letters from douglas and we were kind of trophy hunting going through the papers and seeing the stuff. so i looked it up online to see what i could find out about the papers of justice douglas and where they were. and, of course, you go to the supreme court website and immediately send you someplace else because it's not the kind of thing that they are collect and gathering, although they should. as you make your way through a number of other websites, i found with great particularity great information about the papers of justice douglas, which i will share with you. they're at the library of congress. there are 1,787 containers of apers making up 716.8 linear feet. there are a total of 634 -- excuse me, roughly, i will give you anaprox mitt now, 650,000 items. one box of classified documents and seven oversized documents. that is transparency. that gives a member of the public, reporter, some sense of a particularity with which it's disclosed there a confidence that a justice who served on the court for what, 45 years, something like that, that those papers are preserved, they're out there for scholars, journalists who are writing books. when you see something like that in relationship to one justice, it begs the question, why can't we have that for them all? thanks. >> all right. i'm sonya west and i'm really honored to be on this panel today because this is an issue that is really near and dear to my heart. i was very briefly a reporter in my college and post-college days, including internship at the reporters committee, which was amazing. but decided to go to law school with this hope of defending journalists, which i did for a few years after law school, including in california, trying and usually failing to get cameras into the courts in california system. so this is an issue i had a great honor of clerking for justice stevens so i got to see sort of behind the scenes what was going on with the court and also became very interested in what the court coverage was of what i was seeing. and that's when i became a big fan of dahlia's work. because she did such a great job and became an even bigger fan of tony's work, who i already had been following. and i'm now associate professor at the university of georgia, where i teach constitutional law and media law and i write about press issues. and so in terms of what transparency means for me, i'm going to mimic a little bit of what eric said but i feel like what transparency means is the presumption should be a right of access. and that the burden should be on those who oppose access. in this case the justices, that whether or not there's actually a first amendment right of access in some of these issues, i think there are arguments that there could be. we should nonetheless have sort of the first amendment presumption that we're going to have public access to this information. and the problems i'm seeing right now, and here i am going to talk about cameras in oral argument even though i agree we should not be completely focused only on that issue. there is a wide range of other issues that matter. is the reasons we're getting the responses we're getting to the arguments clay laid out really well are not meeting that bar in terms of why we can't have cameras at the oral argument. and the arguments we're hearing from the justices, and we just get this piecemeal when they're asked about it. and they're asked about it all the time when they appear at law school or panels, basically fall into three concerns. one is concerns about participants. that they will engage in show boating and grandstanding. that just doesn't add up when we look at what's going on in all of the other courts that are allowing cameras in, all 50 states have cameras allowed into their courtrooms in some form. canada's had cameras for more than 20 years. this issue of showboating just doesn't stand up. it also doesn't make sense when you think about what a big deal oral argument at the supreme court is. justices already know that everyone is watching who asks the first question, who sounds a little bit critical in their question. they keep track of who makes the audience laugh. they know they're on stage here. advocates know, willie attests to this. they're not thinking about the audience. they're thinking about justices and making their points and reading justices. the idea showboating would occur i think just doesn't add up. the other concern is about what the media would with w camera access. concerns about snippets and sound bites. belief there's concern with jon stewart and stephen colbert would do with these clips. but again, that doesn't add up with the fact that already what we tend to go from the court is snippets and sound bites. we just get it in audio form or we get it in quotes in the newspaper. we just hear about this question or that question. and so the area we're hearing more these days from the justices and i find concerning is that we're hearing from the justices, even justices sotomayor and justice kagan at the confirmation hearing supported cameras in the courtroom are starting to say these things. this is the trend. we see nominees start out in support. get on the court and start to change their mind, which suggests we can't really just weight out this issue. it's not just an age issue. this is a concern about the public. we keep hearing this concern that the public won't understand what they're seeing. they won't understand oral argument is just part of the process. they won't understand that the justices have to be harsh on both sides. they might think someone is getting ganged up on. i type this to be a very concerning issue because it suggests that more information is actually going to be bad for the public. that the public needs to be shielded from information. and it does seem to have an elitism to it, that already those of us who do read the transcripts and listen to the audio or read the reports from the supreme court press corps, that we're the types that can understand where oral argument falls in the process but tv would reach a different kind of audience who wouldn't understand it. so i find this very concerning and i certainly believe it doesn't meet the bar of is this argument good enough to go against our presumption that i think we should have of accessibility and openness. >> i want to give you a chance to react to one another but i want to ask another question. and i think it clicks at one theme we're hearing today. undergirting this conversation about why the courts are different from the other branches of government is just i think this sort of chronological argument we're different because we're different. we're just different. if there's more transparency, we will stop being different. yet almost every variation of the problem of transparency comes down to the idea, look justices are different. that means their papers are treated differently. it means their decisions are treated differently. it means access to them is treated differently. we can't see the texts of their speeches because they're different. i wonder if anyone wants to take a crack at this question of are they different? are they just different? and if they are, you know, some of these arguments begin to make sense. so, clay, looks like you want to go. >> i think to an extent they're different because these are the only people inside of government that don't need television in order to get their jobs. you know, i suspect that a member of congress cannot get elected without television. i suspect the president cannot get elected without television. without stepping in front of a camera. without being in the public. whereas a justice can. so this idea of i guess the confirmation hearings or that r, but this idea television or video or their rency is part of duty becomes sort of difficult because it wasn't part of the job interview process, right? so i mean that would be my case for culturally why they are different. i also think that, you know, you have to look at the supreme court as a leader, so to speak, for the entire judicial branch. for all of the courts. the interesting thing is it when you look at the supreme court's use of the internet and start comparing it to the lower courts, the supreme court is actually doing quite well. sort of like my 1-year-old is doing quite well at speech compared to my cat. but still, you know, he's doing quite well. and i think that you're not going to see much change in this field until the supreme court changes because the supreme court represents the end of someone's career all without cameras, all without television, all without transparency. and as such, why would i -- why i never hange now when had to do that my entire career? i never found the people at the end of their career are the first to embrace new technology. so the point is not different in any way that would justify reversal of the presumption of transparency in government. >> sure. i meant culturally. >> and also they do have the nomination hearings -- not really hearings, but they're on tv. and there's no problem going on talk shows to hawk their books. but the truth is, the supreme court justices are less like judges than any other judge maybe in the world. they're the only judges in the world with life tenure that serve on the nation's highest court. only ones. their decisions as judge pozner repeatedly said are essentially political. the only secrecy -- i don't want to see their draft opinions. that is fair. i don't want to hear deliberations with law clerks. that's fair. everything they do that's public it's just a small thing but it's thing.mall at ace scalia was conference in atlanta last friday. only person who said you can't tape record, video record scaliaents is justice and then it turned out that it theally something happened, supreme court justices, and now no one gets to see it and a a publicficial making speech, ranted about how same abortion are not in the constitution and shouldn't be protected and ranted and got embarrassed at the end and no one saw it. if he's going to come to atlanta and go to the governor's mansion