posing or being created in american government, and this fits again with your position, victoria. they were worried that extreme on what would be called the right and extreme on the left would actually cause turmoil that would break down american government, that the only way to solve the problems of american government was to find some middle reform, some middle-level reform. now, i appreciate very much randy mentioning my book, and along with david bernstein's book, too, which i think is a very good book, but i have two things to pitch for myself about that. i think if you're going to read those two books, you'd ought to review my review of bernstein, because it's a bit unfair. he wrote his book about 20 years after mine, so i had a shot back at him in a review. the other thing, if you were really interested in that subject, i ought to tell you that the book that you'll see in the gift store is not -- it's part of a series that doesn't allow footnotes. but i also wrote that book as a hardback book and all the foot notes are in the hardback book, if you want to trace my research. okay. thanks a lot. >> okay. is there anything else you'd like to say, professor burnett? we're going over a little bit. >> is this our closing? >> this is our closing. >> okay, all right. does paul get another closing, or that was his closing? i don't know. >> let's close with you. >> okay, great. well, thanks very much again. there's lots of mythology about the lochner court. we didn't get into, for example, the mythology that comes about as a result of justice holm' invocation of the social status saying the law does not enact herbert's social status, and then many have associate ad this with a condemnation of social darwinism, it is said, when, in fact, spencer was not a social darwinist of any kind. he did believe in evolution, but he didn't believe in social darwinism. and social status was really a famous book that argued for what was called the law of equal freedom. that is, everybody should be free to do what they will, provided that their freedom does not infringe opinion the like freedoms, the equal freedoms of other people. and i brought along my copy of "social statics" here so you can see it. it's a very good book. it has a whole chapter, by the way, on the rights of children and of women. spencer was way ahead of his time when it came to advocating for those sorts of rights. but the idea of the law of equal freedom inherently brings up the subject of reasonable regulation. because in fact, if everybody should be free to do whatever they look so long as their freedom does not impenned upon the like freedom of other people, that immediately calls for the regulation of liberty in some way, shape and form. in fact, as a contracts professor, the entire body of contract law is a regulation on the making of contracts. it says what constitutes a contract, when can they be made, when can they be enforced, what our defense is to them. there is an entire regulation of contracts that goes back many, many years, centuries, per happens. it's something that libertarians do not object to. the issue is not whether you can regulate liberty, but whether the regulation is reasonable, and that's not an easy question to answer. and maybe the lochner court answered it wrongly. i don't think they did, but maybe they did. but i don't think the question they were asking was the wrong question to ask. and i think we would be better off if instead of trying to rely on judges to identify which liberties that we have are fundamental, and they get super duper protection, and the liberties the judges don't think are fundamental get no protection at all, we could do a lot worse than following the prenew deal approach to the police powers, which is simply to say, of course liberty may be regulated republicanably for the common good, but now you need to come up with a theory of what that means. and then you need to hold legislatures within their proper powers. the declaration of independence says that we're each endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and it is to secure these rights, it is to secure these rights that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers -- not all power, not unlimited power, but their just powers -- from the consent of the governed. and that's what the lochner case is about, what is the just scope of the power that the government has to regulate our liberties so as to protect the equal liberties of each and every one of us. thank you. >> thank you both for a wonderful discussion. >> i want to say thank you. that was great. and it's professor nourse. my father worked in the nourse auditorium for years in the san francisco school department, so naturally, i mispronounced your name. but that was fabulous. thank you very much. american history tv airs on c-span every weekend. this month american history tv is in prime time to introduce you to programs you could see every weekend on c-span 3. lectures and history, visits to college classrooms across the country, american artifacts takes a look at the treasures of u.s. historic sites and ar chooifs, real america revealing the 20th century through newsreels, the civil war where you hear about the people who shaped the civil war and the presidency focuses on u.s. presidents and fist ladies. to learn about their politics, policies and legacies. all this month on american history tv on c-span 3. tomorrow night on american history tv prime time, the holocau holocaust. three conversations from the holocaust museums. it begans at 8 eastern with sur visor recalling her experiences. at 9 pn 05 louis lawrence talks about surviving the holocaust in the netherlands. and at 10:00 eastern, growing up in palestine in the 1930s and '40s. at cspan.org you can watch any time at your political convenience, on your desktop, laptop or mobile app. go to cspan.org. here you can type in the name of a speaker, sponsor or bill. review the list and click on the program you'd like to watch. or refine your search. if you're looking for the most current programs, our home page has many current programs ready for your immediate viewing, such as today's washington journal or the events we covered that day. cspan.org is a public service, so if you're a c-span watcher, check it out at cspan.org. coming up, the supreme course food preferences and topics of conversations at shared meals. and customs dated from 19th and 20th centuries. this took place at the national museum of history here in washington and it is just over an hour. >> so, it's absolutely a thrill to see so many people here for this kind of a program. my name is john gray, and i have the wonderful privilege of being the director of your national museum of american history, particularly on nights like tonight in which we really take a look at american history in unique and unusual ways. we are really honored to be joined by tonight's panel, supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg, supreme court justice sonia sotomayor. [ applause ] katherine fitz. [ applause ] and supreme court society publications director clair cushman. [ applause ] it is now my privilege to introduce the 13th secretary of the smithsonian institution, dr. david scoudon, a board-certified cardiologist, a jazz musician, and he was most recently the president of cornell university and previously served as president of the university of iowa. dr. scourton has interests in learning as wide as the smithsonian. and most importantly tonight, he's a pescataria. >> thanks, john, for the introduction. and thank you on behalf of the american people for the great job you do. so innovative and creative at this amazing museum. [ applause ] especially in such an interesting election year, we all appreciate everything you and your colleagues are doing to share so many aspects of the story of america and to aspire us all with that story. esteemed colleagues and friends, welcome to this unique opportunity, a word i don't use lightly, to find out more about the highest court in the land and how its members have worked and dined together. the supreme court and the smithsonian have long had close ties. since the 19th century, the chief justice has served as the chancellor of the smithsonian board of regents. i am indebted to chief john roberts for his work in this capacity and for the guidance that he has provided me in my transition, my first year at the smithsonian, and the education about the smithsonian and for his ongoing leadership. justice sotomayor and justice ginsburg, i thank you and your colleagues on the court for your crucial work that underpins our democracy. thank you. [ applause ] i know i speak for everyone by saying you are pioneers and role models and exemplars of the nuanced and principled thinking that undergirds the american rule of law, and i am glad to say friends of the smithsonian. justice ginsburg and justice sotomayor have each shared their fascinating stories with us as part of our smithsonian associates program, and they are both represented in the national portrait gallery on nelson shank's painting "four justices," which also features justice kagan and former justice objection connor. i invite you, if you haven't, to see it on display at the portrait gallery through october. the national postal museum has stamps that feature legal giants like justice william brennan, louis brandeis, and this very museum has in its collection the robe sandra day o'connor wore as she was sworn in as the first woman justice on the supreme court. the seismic shifts in our nation's history have typically been characterized in part by struggle. the politics have frequently been hotly contested, but as this year's contentious presidential election unfolds, it's good to remember that politics can end at the edge of a plate. this is because food brings us all together. it is communal. it is ritual. food has always bound civilization, as is evident in a centuries-old phrase and tradition of breaking bread. one of my favorite variations of this term is it's hard to remain enemies when you've broken bread together. nothing exemplifies that sentiment more than the close relationship shared by justice ginsburg and the late justice antonin scalia. the picture of the two of them on top of an elephant on a trip to india for me was worth many thousands of words. these brilliant colleagues put any differences aside, whether traveling the world or simply breaking bread together here. convening people to explore our shared humanity and a measure of shared wisdom is what the smithsonian is all about. from discussions of current topics to educational programs to events like this one that examine our common bonds, the smithsonian is at heart a place where people can come together. thank you for gathering so that we can hear some fascinating stories and partake of some food for thought. john? [ applause ] >> thank you very much, secretary skorton, and thank you to our partners at the supreme court historical society for their support of this program. we also welcome the staff of the supreme court and the offices of justices ginsburg and sotomayor and many other distinguished guests. tonight we are really honored to be joined by two members of the nation's highest court, and they have come together to talk about food. in fact, this is one of those rare and special times when the justices will speak publicly on topics outside the law. we are the home of julia childs' kitchen and so many other national treasures related to food and its consumption and its production, and we do so for a reason. we make the intimate link between food and our history, and in doing so, we help our nation understand the past in order to make sense of the present and shape a more humane future. food history, food stories and our own love of food awaken vivid memories that create an awareness and an empathy for all. with that, just a few ground rules. first, please limit your photography to the first two minutes of the discussion after i leave the stage. please remember to turn off your cell phones. it is now our honor to introduce tonight's panel on the fascinating, delicious topic, the importance of food at the supreme court. please join me in welcoming our distinguished panel, justice ruth bader ginsburg joined the supreme court in 1993. previously, as part of an extensive and distinguished legal career, she was appointed to the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit. justice ginsburg attended harvard law school and received her llb from columbia law school and served on the law review at both schools. justice sonia sotomayor joined the supreme court in 2009. previously, as part of an extensive and distinguished legal career, she served on the u.s. court of appeals for the 2nd district on the u.s. district court, southern district of new york. justice sotomayor earned a jd from yale law school, where she served as editor of the "yale law journal." katherine fitts is curator of the u.s. supreme court and tonight's moderator, clair cushman, is the director of publications at the supreme court historical society and author of a number of books on the history of the court. thank you all for joining us at our table, and we look forward to this discussion. thank you. >> thank you for that introduction. on behalf of the supreme court historical society, i'd like to thank the smithsonian for partnering with us for this event, for hosting us in this beautiful room, and especially to its staff for organizing it. on a cold, february night in 1790, the justices met and held their first session of the supreme court in new york city. after they adjourned, they went to a tavern in lower manhattan and ate dinner. they dined with new york district judges, the attorney general, and had a really good time. they made 13 toasts, including one to the president, one to the constitution, and one to the new national judiciary. so, since its very inception, the supreme court's justices have found ways to come together and share meals. as they're appointed for life, they often sit on the bench together for years, if not decades, and they look for ways to enhance cordiality and cooperation by, as you said, breaking bread together. tonight we're going to examine the evolution of some of the court's customs involving food from the early 19th century and then hear about what some of these distinguished justices have to say about current practices. let's start with the marshall court era when john marshal of virginia presided over the court from 1801 to 1835. he sat on the court. there were six and then seven justices, and they were appointed from all up and down the eastern seaboard, from boston all the way down to georgia and then eventually out west to kentucky. they came to washington to the supreme court sessions alone. they left their wives and their children in their home towns. they didn't move their families to washington. because the court term was very short. during the marshall court era, it was usually about two months long. accordingly, chief justice john marshall arranged for them all to live together in a boarding house, and they took almost all their meals together. so, katherine, why did john marshall want the justices to live, dine, work and socialize together? >> well, i would say that i think the primary reason was that he wanted to build the bonds between the justices. i think it also goes to say that the court started off with a very nomadic existence. they were in new york when that was the seat of the nation's government. then they moved to philadelphia, and then they came to washington. and i think also at the time, we have to remember that in washington, it wasn't the city, of course, that we know today, and so there were very few places for the justices and members of congress who would also come kind of on this transient schedule to washington. so they lived in the boarding houses to kind of gain that fraternal bond and to also come together. and i think john marshall also wanted the justices to kind of learn to come together and speak in one voice to try to give the court some stature. >> so, when they were eating in the boarding houses, were they in a private room or were they with other guests? >> i think at times they probably shared some meals with other guests, but when they went to deliberate their cases, they met in private for those discussions. >> so they actually ate dinner and deliberated cases at the same time? >> according to stories, that is the case. >> so, was there no conference room available to them at the court? or what was the situation like in the capitol? >> yeah, well, i probably should have prefaced my earlier remarks with that. when the court moved to washington, of course, there was the president's house, there was the capitol, and even though we had a third branch of government, there was no place for the supreme court to meet. so graciously, a room was made available in the basement of the capitol, but it was not -- that was just a small committee room. i think it was 30 by 35. and then eventually in 1810, the supreme court got their first chamber on the ground floor of the capitol building. so that's the era that john marshall comes to washington and leads the court. >> john marshall had a great fondness for madeira wine, which of course as you probably all know is a fortified wine imported from the portuguese islands of madeira. he was not alone. madeira was very popular with most of the founding fathers, including thomas jefferson, his rival. apparently, the shaking and the saunalike conditions in the ship's hold gave it a very complex caramel flavor that they liked. so katherine, tell us a little bit about john marshall and madeira. >> well, i think john marshall also gained his taste for madeira in richmond. in fact, he was part of a -- and i'll hopefully pronouce this correctly -- but a quaits club in richmond, which was essentially a barbecue club for gentlemen. and john marshall was one of the founding members. and the coits club had their own punch and madeira was one of the primary ingredients along with cognac, rum and sugar and mints thrown in for fun, i think, but madeira was one of the primary ingredients. coits was a long game at the time, kind of akin to horse shoes and they would throw these iron rings at megs. and one of the reasons they got together was to have this bond. and supposedly, john marshall was vigorous in enforcing his laws that politics and religion was not to be discussed. and if anyone was caught discussing those, they were fined a case of champagne, which would then be consumed at the next meeting. >> and apparently, he had bottles labeled "the supreme court" to bring to the boarding house to share? >> i think there were others that played on their fondness for madeira. and yes, there was a supreme court label madeira. >> which sort of gave it the seal of approval, if john marshall buys it, it must be good? so, marshall had a great ally on the court, a man named joseph story, who was appointed from massachusetts. and apparently, storey had a weak stomach, and he was a tea-totaler when he arrived in washington. that didn't last long. and he wrote to his wife that the justices tried really hard not to drink too much wine. they had a rule that only on rainy days and for medicinal purposes would they. but apparently, this was not a bright-line rule. >> this is true. >> you know the story about the rainy day, which is told in various versions. they drank only when it rained. and the chief justice said, he looked out the window and the sun is shining brightly, and he said, "somewhere in the world it's raining." >> mm-hmm. >> justice ginsburg, you have an anecdote about joseph's wife, sarah, as well. >> yes. sarah and joseph's story were very close, and she didn't like him to be away at the capitol city for weeks at a time. so she decided she'd come along with him. and that made chief justice marshall rather uneasy. he said it would be all right if she dined with him. she would add a civilizing influence. but she mustn't be around when they are discussing cases. she didn't want to distract justice storey from the work he was to do. as it turned out, sarah's stomach was no better than joseph's, and the boarding house fare did not agree with her. so she left before the term ended, but it was the beginning of the end of the boarding house. one justice or another deciding, why should i have this boarding house fare when i can be living with my family? and i think johnson left and then another and another. and what happened when the boarding house style of living ended, the fence began to appear in the court. john marshall did a remarkable thing. the tradition was, the tradition we inherited from england, was that each justice wrote his own opinion. so, say there was a panel of five judges, there'd be five opinions, and then the lawyers had to figure out what the decision meant. marshall's idea was that there should be only one opinion, it would speak for the court, there should be no dissents, and he would write the opinion. it's remarkable in that early marshall court, almost all of the decisions were written by the chief justice. but when the boarding house living broke down, so did the unanimity. >> so, there's evidence that the marshall court justices liked to share regional food products with each other. they were very proud of the foods from their hometowns. for example, john marshall sent virginia hams up to joseph story in boston, and story reciprocated by sending down salted cod along with a recipe for how to cook salted cod, because it's not easy. you have to soak it, and he wasn't sure that the virginians would know what to do with it. so, my question is for both justices, starting with justice ginsburg. are there modern examples of justices today on the court bringing food from their hometowns or back from their travels? >> on their hunting trips. we had an intrepid hunter on the court who would bring everything back from fish to fowl to bambi to wild boar, and he was very generous in sharing. >> justice breyer not so long ago decided that he needed to introduce his grandchildren to pheasant caught by our colleague and presented the pheasant, cooked it and presented it at home to his grandchildren but explained that they had to be careful because there might be pellets in the game. >> yum. >> and they refused to eat it. so, he ate it alone. >> another favorite was -- it's called beef jerky. it was made by sandra day o'connor's brother on the lazy b ranch, the family ranch. and, oh, a couple of times he would bring a large supply of beef jerky and distribute it. >> did you try it? it's apparently quite spicy. did you -- >> it is very spicy. >> yeah. >> i would have loved it. >> and i understand that justice breyer and justice kennedy have brought wine for the court to share? >> only on very special occasions. but it was the traditional dinner before the state of the union message. and one year, justice kennedy came with his special bottle of opus 1 from california. >> he's also brought duck from california. >> that was the first time i fell asleep during the state of the union. >> well, justice sotomayor, i remember -- i understand that when you first joined the court you brought a treat with you from new york for the other justices. >> well, i shouldn't be telling tales, but the colleague on this panel with me i was told enjoys sweets. and so, i brought a box of new york pastries with me for our first conference together. i only learned later that the treat she's most fond of is muffins. >> and now we have our own pastry chef on the court. >> so, many justices have had food-related traditions with their clerks. harry blackman famously liked to have breakfast with his clerks every morning in the supreme court cafeteria. and chief justice warren burger, who was a great lover of good food and wine and a good chef, would make bean soup for his clerks on saturdays. i've been trying to get a recipe, an exact recipe for that bean soup, but it seems to be a little of this and a little of whatever was around, but quite delicious. i'm going to ask both justices, do you have particular food traditions with your clerks? >> lots of them. >> okay. >> i love food. and so, i do. routinely on weekends when the bagel shop near the court was open -- it's now closed and i'm heartbroken -- i would bring bagels in on the weekend and buy all sorts of cream cheeses, and we would spend a lunch hour eating fresh bagels. i eat with my law clerks at home fairly regularly. they come over to my place every couple of months. and their charge is to find a new delivery place that can send, that can deliver something, some food that's new for us. it's also in my clerks' manual that one of their responsibilities during the year is to identify a restaurant i haven't eaten at. and it has expanded my knowledge of d.c. restaurants that way. so, yes. and i guess my final food-related tradition with my clerks is when i travel, particularly abroad, but anywhere in the united states that might be different than the local spot, i bring back chocolates from that place or their traditional sweets. and if you come to my office, almost always, there is candy, which is a very unusual thing for a diabetic, isn't it? i once had a child ask me, how could a diabetic have candy in her office? and my response was people like it, and they come to talk to me more when they know there's candy in my office. >> it's true. i have to say, sometimes i make a detour just so i can stop by, especially around halloween when the supply is enormous in your chamber. >> i have a really big halloween bowl. >> justice gunsburg, as you mentioned, getting back to the 19th century, so by the 1940s, the justices were bringing their families with them and living in washington. they became part of the washington establishment, part of washington society. you were instrumental in helping the supreme court historical society get published the memoir of melvina harlan, who was the wife of john marshall harlan who served on the supreme court from 1877 to 1911. so, could you explain a little bit about the elaborate social functions that supreme court wives had to undertake in that time period? >> let me say a word about melvina's memories. i was trying to get information for a talk for the supreme court historical society on the lives of supreme court wives. and there was precious little because most correspondence, the men's were saved and the women's wasn't. the library of congress found buried among the justice's papers this manuscript called "memories of a long life." and it's the story of melvina harlan, a girl who grew up in indianapolis in an abolitionist family. she marries john marshall harlan, harlan from kentucky, a slave state. it's a remarkable book. and thanks to the supreme court historical society, it was the first publisher is now out in randomhouse modern library book. but one of the things that melvina describes is at home mondays. the justices' wives were expected to have tea for anyone who wanted to come. it could be 100 to 200 people on an at-home monday. they would serve scones and cakes and sandwiches. sometimes they would hire musicians so the young people could dance. all of this was not paid for by the federal government. it was the private responsibility of the justices. and then some time in the course of the afternoon, the justice would come out for 15, 20-minute appearance. this went on for a long time. >> yeah, until the great depression, when it finally put an end to all those sort of social traditions. very expensive for the families to bear the cost of. >> but they continued to have into my appointment at the court a ladies' dining room where the spouses met. it got to be a little embarrassing when two of the spouses were men. so the story of how we changed that -- the supreme court is a very tradition-bound place. sandra o'connor and i thought how should we suggest to the chief that the ladies' dining room should be renamed? and she came up with a brilliant idea. let's tell him we want to call it the natalie cornell rehnquist dining room. his wife had died some years before. he was devoted to her. and so, we now have the natalie cornell rehnquist dining room in lieu of the ladies' dining room. >> let's shift gears a little bit and talk about the lunch break. katherine, i understand that in the 19th century, oral arguments went on for a very long time, and so court sessions lasted from 11:00 to 5:00, and then they were shortened from 12:00 to 4:30. what did the justices do about lunch? >> so, believe it or not, while oral arguments were going on, one or two justices at a time would slip behind the bench, and their messengers would set up tables, and the justices would eat lunch behind the bench while oral arguments were actually going on. >> so if you were sitting in the courtroom listening to oral argument, you couldn't see the justices eating because they were behind the bench or a screen, but could you hear them? >> you could. i mean, kind of much like we're kind of raised in the courtroom, the bench is raised as well, then there was a partition and there was an opening behind the three center chairs. but there was a partition. and so, the justices would be seated kind of at these tables. but you could certainly hear the clattering of knives and forks and dishes. the messengers sometimes would bring meals from the senate restaurant. and if you're wondering why i have this little prop here, there's also a story that's repeated that one of the justices decided that they wanted to have a split of champagne with their lunch. and as the messenger was trying to open the bottle, supposedly, the cork flew out over the bench. >> and weren't some of the oral advocates concerned that there wasn't a quorum on the bench when a couple of them had slipped away? >> there was. there was one instance when two members did not attend an oral argument because they were ill. and then again, we would have one or two justices kind of slipping behind the bench to have lunch. and so, as the story goes, an attorney asked the justice, asked the chief justice and kind of paused and asked the chief justice, well, are we sure there's a quorum? and at that time, there needed to be a quorum of six justices. and chief justice fuller at the time assured the attorney that even though you can't see them, you can probably hear a few of my colleagues eating, you know, behind the bench, and asked the attorney to proceed. >> brave lawyer. >> and so, when did the lunch break first get inaugurated? >> so, i think a few weeks after that incident, around 1898, the court then initiated a lunch break, a half hour only between 2:00 and 2:30. >> but i've been working on, researching a supreme court cookbook, and i found so many anecdotes about justices bringing their lunch boxes with them to the court and brown bagging it. why would they do that if they had the senate cafeteria? >> well, i think as we will hear a little bit later on, we had certain justices that liked certain things for lunch. so, i think that's one of the reasons that the justices brought. and i think also because of the timing, and within that half hour, it wasn't like the justices could go and have lunch at a restaurant. and then there were times when the senate restaurant was also closed, because when the court was meeting, sometimes, you know, the senate wasn't in session. but i also learned that the senate also had these little luncheonette counters that were not too far. and since the court kind of inherited space from the senate over time, i think they were kind of close to the senate restaurant and these luncheonette counters, so sometimes food would be brought to them. >> so in 1935, the supreme court got its own building. and what were the facilities like? >> so, chief justice taft was in charge of the supreme court building commission. and so, one of the many requirements for the new supreme court building when they were finally able to get a home of their own was that there would not only be a cafeteria for the public and for the attorneys, because again in that short window, the attorneys were also trying to go out and find something for lunch. there would be a cafeteria and the justices would also have their own separate dining room, and it had to accommodate at least 18 people and it had to be in close proximity to the justices' conference room. >> so, the half-an-hour lunch break lasted until 1970, when chief justice burger expanded it to an hour. so i'm going to ask both of the justices -- well, actually, i'll start with justice ginsburg. so, you now have a full hour. you have a beautiful justices' dining room. what goes on during the lunch break? and do the justices all generally try to attend on days when the court's in session? >> i will defer to my colleague for that one because she is a regular at the lunch table. i will show up whenever the court is conferring or we confer in the morning at 9:30, and then by the lunch break, i will go with my colleagues for lunch. and occasionally, other times, if when justice o'connor came to town or nowadays when john paul stevens is with us, and for birthdays. now, that's a nice tradition is whenever a justice has a birthday, the chief brings in some wine, and we toast the birthday boy or girl and sing "happy birthday." we're missing our chorus leader, because truth be told, most of them can't carry a tune. >> i'm one of them who can't. i go regularly. and it's a wonderful experience. we have lunch planned after every court argument day or morning and after every conference day. and ruth comes to the lunch regularly on conference days. there generally is at least five people attending, five of the nine justices. occasionally more. all of us have fairly active schedules, so it's hard to make it, even for myself, every lunch. but justices will come somewhat regularly on their own pattern of regularity. almost everybody will come when some of our retired justices return for a visit, whether it's justice stevens or justice o'connor. we do have the birthday celebration. you asked what do we talk about. we have a rule similar to chief justice john marshall's rule, which is we don't talk about -- well, no, different than his, because they used to talk about cases. we don't talk about cases. that's our absolute rule. there is no topic that's off limits, but we try to avoid controversy. so, we're very guarded about raising topics that we think might create hostility in the room. that doesn't mean we don't talk about politics, but it's not in the great depth that we might do in the privacy of our home, okay? the most common conversation is about a fascinating book that one of the justices is reading. all of the justices are veracious readers. and someone is always reading something that they think the rest of us would like. we sometimes have conversations about interesting exhibits in the wonderful museums of d.c. that's how i learn they're here. i don't have to look them up. i just wait for a colleague to tell me that they've gone, and i figure out which ones i want to go to, okay? we will tell funny stories on each other. someone will tell about an experience on a vacation or an experience with a grandchild or a child. there is just the normal type of conversation that people have who want to get to know each other as individuals rather than as justices. >> you left out one major topic, to which i don't contribute, but you do, certainly, and that's sports. >> ah, yes. i'm sorry, ruth. you're right. but actually, i only contribute really on baseball. the real sports person is elena kagan, our colleague. >> and it used to be -- we should start this up again -- every once in a while, we would invite a guest to liven the lunch table conversation. thinking back on past years, we've had supreme court justices, one from south africa, one from india. we've had secretaries of state. condoleezza rice was a lunch guest. the head of the zoo, which is a smithsonian institute. and michael khan, who heads the shakespeare theater. we've had presidents of the european court of justice. we had the presidents of the european court of justice and the european court of human rights. you had only two so far who have been repeat lunch guests. and those were alan greenspan and jim wilkinson, who not so long ago headed the world bank. and the reason is that those two have an uncanny ability to eat lunch and speak at the same time. [ laughter ] >> but ruth, that's stopped since i got there. >> it has. we should start it up again. >> i don't know. i wasn't a part of that tradition. but i do know that the justices have fascinating guests who come join them. and every once in a while we will get a smaller group of justices together in someone's chambers to meet that guest. i know ruth i invited you when i had -- >> martina -- >> exactly. when she was receiving the kennedy center honor. and steve has invited me. but i think there are lunches, smaller lunches of that type that do go on. >> speaking of lunch, i've been researching the lunch habits of various justices and i find that they fall into two paradigms, the healthy eaters like louis brandeis who brought two pieces of whole wheat bread with fresh spinach in between. and on the other extreme, you have justice harlan, who was what they called in his day a gourmand. he loved french cheese, he loved wine, and his wife would send him giant platters of french cheeses for his lunch. so justice ginsburg, i'm going to ask you first, where do you fall in that spectrum, and how do you sustain yourself during the day? >> for 56 years i was married to chef supreme. my husband was a great cook. we didn't mention the spouses' lunches. >> we'll get there. >> we'll get there later? okay. he was a big contributor to food at the court. he would make cakes for everybody's birthday, all of the justices' birthdays, or my law clerks' birthdays. and in the days when we didn't have outside food before the state of the union, he cooperated with sometimes marion scalia, sometimes mary kennedy in making the pre-state of the union dinner for the court. >> for those of you who don't know, justice ginsburg was lucky enough to be married to martin ginsburg, who was a brilliant lawyer of tax law and also a remarkably talented chef. i'd like to maybe just get back to the question about what you eat for lunch, justice sotomayor. [ laughter ] we don't want to let you off the hook. i know you've been very open about managing diabetes since your childhood. how does that play into how you sustain yourself during the day. >> i'm assuming that because of the culinary skills that ruth tends to eat relatively lightly at lunch and i don't think that you vary it greatly. am i wrong, ruth? you don't vary your lunches. >> no. >> they're pretty simple. >> but my dinners, my husband died in 2010 and my daughter has taken on the responsibility of making sure her mother is properly nourished. [ laughter ] it's only right because she phased me out of the kitchen at an early age when she learned the difference between mommy's cooking and daddy's cooking. [ laughter ] so she comes once a month, fills the freezer with food, when there's an overflow i bring it to the court and put it in the court freezer and we do something nice together in the evening. >> i vary my lunch and i shop for myself every week. the day varies on the availability of time and i bring my food in and have it put together so that i can experience something different everyday. every once in a while i will order in. my favorite order in are two, one, a local japanese sushi place and another a local indian place. but most of the time i do eat very healthily, i have a lot of salads and i love salads because you can vary them with the ingredients so no two salads i have that are ever identical. i have occasional sandwiches but i also like making sandwiches in interesting ways with healthy ingredients. so i'll put turkey or tuna fish or boiled eggs but then i'll put roasted peppers on it, pickles, sometimes, whatever suits my fancy to increase the taste. i eat a lot of fruit salads because i can vary those with the types of fruits that i eat. so for me eating is sacred. you should not waste a meal. [ laughter ] and so it can be simple and healthy but it has to be tasty. >> with respect to food, we span a wide range because in contrast to sonia who has a very well prepared diet, it was my dear colleague david souter who ate one thing only for lunch. plain yogurt. [ laughter ] no fruit, just plain yogurt.