sunday, november 18th and 19th, on c-span2. supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg on her life and legal career, including her advocacy work on equality rights and social justice. u.s. court of appeals judge ann williams moderated the event. >> hello, everybody. my name is david stern, and i am the very proud executive director of equal justice works. thank you all for being here. i am very excited. are you excited? [ cheers and applause ] [ laughter ] i thought so. i saw you in the hall. you guys are awesome. just to remind you, after a couple of minutes, we'll put our phones down. just wanted to make sure we're clear on that one. of course, we're so honored to have justice ruth bader ginsburg here to have a conversation with ann claire williams from the 7th circuit court of appeals. so justice ginsburg does not need any introduction. even if she did, judge williams will be doing it over the past hour. so you'll have a fabulous person to lead you through this. but i would like to introduce you to judge williams. judge ann claire williams, also known as the mother of equal justice works, because in 1991, six years after she joined the bench, can you believe it? she's so young looking. it's incredible. [ inaudible ] [ laughter ] but in 1991, judge williams awarded some leftover funds in an anti-trust case, which gave us the seed funding to create our program. at the time it was seven fellowships, now 300 fellowships. so judge williams, thank you. we're forever indebted to you. [ applause ] so judge williams was the first attorney of color in the u.s. attorney's office in chicago as the division chief and then she served on the u.s. district court for the northern district of illinois. she's the first and only judge of color on the u.s. court of appeals for the 7th circuit. [ cheers and applause ] judge williams also founded just the beginnings foundation, a pipeline organization that aims to increase diversity in the legal profession and judiciary by inspiring more young people to pursue legal careers. so before we begin, i want to turn to our speakers and introduce you to this extraordinary audience. because these are the next generation of public interest lawyers. they have come from all over the country to interview for public interest jobs, and to hear the two of you speak. so we are thrilled to have you here. and i'm going to turn it over to judge williams. >> thank you, david. [ applause ] good afternoon. i know we can do better than that. this is justice rbg. good afternoon. >> good afternoon! >> so you can't imagine how excited we all were that justice ginsburg said yes to equal justice works, because her heart has been with public interest enterprises, and she devoted so much of her life to helping make things better in the world, using her legal career. she said yes to this conference and career fair, yes to having this conference, and she's a rock star, as you know. second woman appointed to the u.s. supreme court. so to understand how it is you became such a force, we begin at the beginning, because you grew up in brooklyn. wonderful parent. your mom did complete high school. your dad didn't. your roots are in russia and austria. and your mother gave you some advice that stuck with you all your life. what did she say? >> my mother was born in an age when there were many things women couldn't do. and the myth was that a girl was to grow up, find prince charming, and live happily ever after. but what she instilled in me was, be independent, be able to fend for yourself. that was one piece of advice. the other was, she called it to be a lady. what she meant is don't give way to emotions that are unproductive, such as anger or jealousy or remorse. they will mott move you forward. so forget it. so that was the advice that my wonderful mother gave me and repeated again and again. >> and your mom really believed in education and believed in reading and books, and she used to take you to the library every week. and the library was above the chinese restaurant, right? and there were some books you liked, in particular nancy drew. how many of you know about nancy drew? well. this generation knew about it. now did nancy affect you? >> nancy was about the only girl out there doing things, including leading her boyfriend around. [ laughter ] everything else was of the dick and jane variety where it was a lot of fun and jane was in a pretty pink dress. so nancy drew was refreshing. in those days i had one fictional hero, nancy drew. and one real one, and that was amelia earhart. >> and your mom, i mean, you did so well in school. you grew up in flat bush, and you did -- you were actually in the orchestra, the twirlers, the newspaper, and your mom became ill during high school and you used to study by her bedside. when you were sworn in, you said your mom was the bravest and strongest person you had ever known, taken from you much too soon. but she continues to inspire you today, doesn't she? >> yeah, she died when i -- just when i turned 17. she had been suffering with ovarian cancer for four years. and finally succumbed to it. she was an amazingly intelligence person. but at her time, women just didn't have the opportunities that many in this room have. so she remembered as a teenager marching in the suffrage parades. so when she was growing up, women didn't even have the vote. >> and you never got -- because for girls, you never got bar mitzvahed, but when you went to that all-girl camp, you had the opportunity to be the rabbi. >> yes, because it was an all-girls' camp. [ laughter ] my dear colleague was the first girl bat mitzvahed. >> and then you did so well in school, you ended up going to cornell. next slide, please. and you decided to major in government. you wanted to be a high school teacher. at what point did you decide you wanted to be a lawyer? >> it must have been around my sophomore, junior year. first, i tried out student teaching at ithaca high school, and didn't love it. because i was supposed to teach about spanish-american war, and i got the syllabus. it said, everything in the united states did was right. everything the other side did was wrong, and i knew that history was not that way. [ laughter ] so i had a wonderful professor of constitutional law. he wanted me to appreciate that the united states was going through some rather bad times. it was the heyday of senator joe mccarthy from wisconsin. there was a huge red scare in the country. and people that belonged to socialist youth groups in the 1930s at the height of the depression were being called before the house unearn activities committee, and quizzed about their youthful affiliations. my professor pointed out to me there were lawyers, public interest lawyers, standing up for these people, and reminding congress members our constitution has a first amendment. it says you have a right to think, speak, and write as you believe, and not as a big brother government tells you is the right way. and also you have a privilege against self-incrimination. so you don't have to answer questions that are being put to you. so that gave me the idea that lawyers were people who were trying to make the society stay in tune with its most basic values. so i thought, well, you could earn a living as a lawyer. and then you could do things to make things better in your community. >> and in this slide that shows your college years, not only did you get inspired to be a lawyer. you actually met your future husband. >> yes. in my first year, his second year at cornell. he was a very special fellow. >> and the slide, i don't know for some reason, the slide is not up on the college years. if you could put that up for us. because i love that slide. don't all of you? i love that slide. so go ahead, sorry, justice. >> the thing that was special about marty, he was the only boy i had met up until then who cared that i had a brain. [ laughter ] >> you were 17 and he was 18 and you were married for 56 years. and as a wedding gift to you, your mother-in-law, evalyn, gave you a gift. you actually got married in her home. what advice did she give you? >> she said she would tell me this was just before we had the ceremony. she took me aside to her bedroom and said, i would like to tell you the secret of a happy marriage. yes, what is it? [ laughter ] it helps now and then to be a little deaf. [ laughter ] it was wonderful advice, not only in the marriage that lasted 56 years, but even to this day in dealing with my colleagues. [ laughter ] [ applause ] >> so then you did get married. you had your ear plugs. go back one more on the script. you got married and you went to -- marty was -- he wasn't drafted. he went into the military. he started at harvard. then he had to go to the military. he moved to oklahoma to the social security office, and that's when you first ran into real disparity and how it affected you. tell us about that. >> i worked at the social security office in lauten, oklahoma. i had taken a government junior professional exam. and i thought i should tell the head of the office that i was three months pregnant. he said you're pregnant? well, then we can't list you as a gs-5. we'll list you at the bottom, the lowest government rating, a gs-2. you'll do the same job, but at the lower rank. and we can't possibly send you to baltimore for training. and you will certainly quit before your baby is born. and it hadn't occurred to me that things would be that way, but i accepted it. >> well, but then you realized you wanted to -- there was a chance then when you moved back that you had the opportunity to go to law school. so if we can have that slide on the law school years up on the screen so everybody can see that. you were admitted to harvard. there were nine women in your class. >> big improvement over my husband's class, had five women. >> and you did very, very well. you were very high in the class. were you the first woman on the harvard law review? >> no, at the time i was on the law review, there was one other woman. she was a class ahead of mine. >> so you were number two. >> and there had been before that -- i started in 1956. harvard didn't admit women until 1950, '51 was the first year, and there had been two women before that. >> so number three. so then marty got a job in new york and you transferred to columbia. and you were number one there. is that right? >> i tied for number one. >> as you can see, the justice is really precise. what we really need on the supreme court, do we not? and justice, jane was born and could that go back on the screen please. 4:00 meant something special. what was that? >> it meant that the babysitter time to leave had come. so she came, she was a new england nanny, very caring. she came at 8:00 in the morning when i went to class, and she left at 4:00. so i worked very hard at law school from 8:00 till when it was time to go home. and then i had a complete change in my life. i took jane to the park. we sang silly songs. we looked at picture books. she had her dinner, and by that time, i was content, more than content to go back to the law books. so each part of it was a respite from the other. from being with an infant, back to the books from the books to -- >> before we move on, there's one other thing about those law school years. unfortunately marty got sick and you had to deal with his classes and his recovery. how did you do that? >> yeah, he had a very light form of cancer in days anybody had heard the word chemo therapy. so the only thing there was was massive surgery, plus radiation. and radiation was not very precise in those days. so it was most distressing to have to go through that. harvard was supposed to be a very competitive place. our classmates rallied around us, both of us. and took notes in his chlasses. when he came home, we had tutorials in our apartment. marty got the best grades he ever got in law school was the result. when he showed up with just two weeks of classes. so his classmates were the best. >> now, notwithstanding the fact that you were number one at columbia, when it was time to look for a job, you summered at a law firm your second year, every term you applied to, 14 rejected now. there were 3% women in law school when you went through, and there's been progress, but you had a very hard row to hoe. what strikes did you have against you? >> well, first, i was a jew and the firms were just beginning to accept jews, the large law firms. second, i was a woman, and many firms said sorry, we had a lady lawyer once and she was awful. i said, how many men did you hire that didn't work out? but the killer was jane, when she was 4 years old when i graduated from law school. so if a firm were willing to take a chance on a mother -- on a woman, a mother was just a bit much. >> but finally, one of your professors came to your aid and approached judge -- >> palmeri. >> in the southern district of new york. what kind of proposition did he give him? >> it came with a carrot, and it came with a stick. so the carrot was, give her a chance. if she doesn't work out, there's a young man in her class can going to a downtown firm. he will jump in and pick up the reins. the stick -- if you don't give her a chance, i will never recommend another columbia student to you. and the judge was fierce and loyal to columbia. he was a columbia undergraduate, columbia law school after that. so this professor, jerry gunter, was a renowned professor of constitutional law. he never told me about this until years and years later. >> and so after that clerkship, you studied in sweden and that had a huge impact on you, and really informed how you went forward in terms of women's rights and your approach to the law. what was that experience about?? >> well, i wasn't off to sweden to write a book with the swedish coauthor about their judicial system. of why sweden? because the swedes had decided they would have a new code of procedure and it would incorporate what they conceived to be the best of the annual american system. so it was kind of a blend of the civil law way and our common law approach. it had been in effect long enough to report on it. so when i went off to sweden, i discovered something. and in my law school class, women were barely there. in sweden, there were already between 20 and 25% of those law students were women. i observed a proceeding in a court of first instance in stockholm. the presiding judge was eight months pregnant. and there were the counterpart of jurors sitting on the bench with her. there was a woman, a writer named ava muberik, who wrote a column in the stockholm daily paper to this effect. why should the woman have two jobs and the man only one? what she meant by that was by the '60s it was accepted that a family to do well economically needed two earners. but the woman was expected to have dinner on the table at 7:00, to have his slippers ready for him. to take the children for their medical checkups, buy their new shoes. and so ava's tag line was, "he should do more than take out the garbage." that stimulated a lot of conversation. as some women said, she's absolutely right. others said, i can do everything. the queen bee type. i wouldn't think of asking him to help me do what i can very well do. but i thought that she certainly had -- had the better point. if you have two earners, an ideal family has two parents, two earners. two care-gives. so that was in the early '60s. i decided that was the right way to go. also that summer simone beauvais' book. i put it on the back burner, because times were not right in our country for there to be any big step forward. >> but then times got right when we look at the next slide. you were a law professor from 1962 to 1980. and you wrote the first textbook on women and discrimination. you also started the women's rights law reporter. you were the first tenured professor at both schools, women -- >> second at rutgers, first at columbia. [ laughter ] >> and one of the things that you noticed at both schools was that your pay was not equal to male professors' pay. so how did you handle that? >> i was hired in 1963. that was the year the equal pay act passed. and my good dean -- he was a very good and kindly man -- explained to me that i would have to take a significant cut in salary. i expected that, because rutgers was a state university. but when he told me how much, i was startled. and i asked, well, how much do you pay so-and-so? it was a man who had been out of school about the same time that i had. and he said, well, ruth, he has a wife and two children to support. and your husband has a good-paying job with a new york firm. that was considered entirely right and proper. but there are women whose eyes were opening at rutgers. not only -- the entire campus. and so without making a big splash, an equal pay act suit was brought. we didn't even try to make it a fancy title 7 suit. just straight equal pay. and it was settled in 1969. the lowest increase was $6,000, which in those days was quite a bit more than it is today. so the doean learned from that experience. [ laughter ] >> so here's the lesson. okay. here was a young law professor. saw a wrong that needed to be righted. so sometimes you look at her, you think, you know, she's born with a gavel in her mouth. or a gavel in her mouth -- or a gavel -- but she was young, just like all of you. and saw a need to do something. and she got involved, and she stood up to get it corrected. so that's the lesson. can we have that slide again? because it turns out, your daughter also followed in your footsteps, and you were the first mother/daughter tenured women at columbia. >> yes. >> and then the other thing that you did, it wasn't just an issue of your pay and the professor's pay. you were very concerned about the maids and janitors. because there was disparity there, as well, right? >> it was my very first week teaching at columbia law school. so now this is what year in 1972. an ardent feminist came to me and said, "columbia today gave layoff notices to 25 maids and not a single janitor. what are you going to do about it?" [ laughter ] so i went immediately to the vice president in charge of business, and i told him, columbia is violating title 7. and you should combine the seniority lists. if you must lay off people, then you do it by seniority with women and men together. i was told, we are represented by a very good firm. so thank you for expressing interest. and would you like a cup of tea? [ laughter ] well, that friday, there was a motion for a preliminary injunction against columbia going forward with the layoff notices. before that, there was a press conference at columbia that had some very outstanding women. bel bella abs was there. susan sontag. gloria steinem. and then the equal employment opportunity commission sent their chief counsel down to argue for the preliminary injunction. the union whose contract called for separate seniority lines for men and women, so that every woman would have to go before the first man was fired, the union switched sides. and columbia was astonished. they were there all alone. and protested to the union representative. this was your contract that we signed. well, we can't enforce a contract that violates title 7. [ laughter ] so the injunction -- preliminary injunction was issued, and lo and behold, columbia found it wasn't necessary to fire anyone. they could take care of the excess in the maintenance department by attrition. persons left. they weren't replaced. the women who were involved, they were remarkable. they didn't care whether they were paid less than the men. they expected that. but they wanted a job. they wanted to keep their job. they did not want to be forced on to welfare. they had very little self esteem when it started. but in the process, they came to appreciate themselves, as they should. and two of them ended up being shop stewards. >> and you then, with this kind of activity and this kind of leadership, wanted to focus on women's rights issues and founded the -- co founded the aclu women's rights project and also learned a lesson in terms of pregnancy. so at some point, you were pregnant again, but you handled it a little differently. >> well, yeah. i didn't announce that i was pregnant. [ laughter ] i was at that time on a year, two-year contract. and i feared that if i told the dean that i was pregnant, my contract would not be renewed. so instead, i borrowed my mother-in-law's -- the ever-supportive mother-in-law's clothes. she was one size larger. and i was able to get through the spring semester. my son was born early in september. and on the last day of classes, i said to my colleagues, when i come back in the fall, there will be one more in our family. [ laughter ] so that ended the speculation about my gaining a lot of weight. [ laughter ] >> and so then in that project, working with the aclu and the women's rights project, you won five out of six cases before the supreme court. first is reid versus reid, women have the right to serve as an administrator of an estate. a front taro military housing benefits for husband equals wives. the one that you lost at the time, but later won, khan, property tax exemption not equal for surviving husbands and wives. you won weinberger, child care survivor benefits for husband equals wives. calfanno social security survivors benefits for men equals wives. and finally, duran, women have the right to serve on a jury. so when we look at these cases and then i just have to get to the one. so it took a while. but in '88, the florida legislature amended their statute to extend the tax exemption to widowers. you focused a lot on men, and their rights in your strategy. why was that? >> first, to illustrate that the discrimination in the law -- laws that divided people into separate spheres. the home and raising children, that was the woman's sphere. earning for the family was the man's. so if a woman had a job, she was considered a secondary pin money earner. not the earner who counted. so she is not going to get any protection for her family in the social security laws. the wisen feld case involved a man whose wife was a math teacher in a high school. she had a very healthy pregnancy. the doctor came out and reported to steven, your wife gave birth to a healthy boy. but she died of an embolism. he vowed then he would not work full time until the child was in school a full day. and he figured that between the social security benefits and earning up to the earnings limit under social security, he could just about make it. when he went to the social security office, he was told, we're sorry, but these are mothers benefits, they're not available to fathers. when -- that case was presented to the supreme court, we explained that the discrimination began with the attitude toward women. wisenfeld had paid the same social security taxes that a man would pay. but when she died, her family didn't get the same benefits that a man's family would get. and so the discrimination starts with the woman. and then the man, as parent, is disadvantaged. he hasn't got a choice to spend time with the child. he's got to work full-time. and then the argument that prevailed before my later chief, and then he was justice rehnquist was totally arbitrary from the point of view of the baby. why should the baby have the opportunity for the care of a sole surviving parent if the parent is female but not if the parent is male? so the idea was, this discrimination against women, this putting women in a cordoned off place in a man's world, hurts everybody. it hurts men and it hurts children. >> and this work that you did was recognized by president carter. and, in fact, the university of chicago dean jeffrey stone said you were the single-most important woman lawyer in the history of the republic. and you paralleled thurgood marshall, who was the most significant lawyer as it related to african-americans and others of color. when you were appointed to the court, it was by president jimmy carter to the court of appeals, and you made the statement, you never thought becoming a judge was possible. that was because of everything that had gone before you. >> first, i'd like to make a correction. >> all right. [ laughter ] >> and it's about the most remarkable thurgood marshall. yes, i copied his technique in trying to bring the court, trying to educate the court, take them one step at a time to the ultimate goal. thurgood marshall in his lawyering days, when he got up in the morning in a southern town, he didn't know he would be alive at the end of that day. my life was never threatened. so there is an enormous difference. still, when he argued cases and would say to courts, separate but equal is not before the court today. these facilities are unequal. and when he had a sufficient number of building blocks, then he made the argument. separating children, for separation of children by race and school. can never be equal. so that notion of leading the court to where you want them to go, but taking them -- not attempting to take a giant step, but taking them there. one short step at a time. that was his technique. and it was a winning one. and we copied it. about being a judge, when i attended law school, there was only one woman in the entire history of the country who had ever served on a federal appellate bench. and she was florence allen, from ohio. she stepped down in 1959, the year i graduated. and then there were none again. until 1968, when president johnson appointed shirley huff stetler to the u.s. court of appeals of the 9th circuit. >> and when you were appointed, there had been 12 before you. and when we look at the numbers in terms of the federal judiciary, from 1789, 409 women in the state courts, 31% have been women. when we look at the -- historically on the district court, 12% now 26% historically. 12% on the circuit now. 27% -- this is on the federal court. and in the supreme court, out of the 113, four. and now three out of nine. 33%. people certainly know that women are on the court. that's one of the points that you made and that women are here to stay. and you then went on to the supreme court. your nomination went 50 days, compared to what's going on now. what's your wish or desire or dream in terms of how nominations move through the system? >> well, before we get to president clinton, let me give a big plug for jimmy carter. i said that women were barely there. that was true for members of minority groups, as well. jimmy carter looked at the federal bench, and he said, you know, they all look just like me. they're all men, and they're all white. but that's not how the great united states looks. so i'm going to look in places where people didn't look before. and i am going to appoint members of minority groups and women, not as one at a time curiosities, but in numbers. he had only four years in office. he had no vacancy on the u.s. supreme court to fill. but he literally changed the complexion of the u.s. judiciary. and no president went back to the way it once was. so reagan was inspired to appoint the first woman to the supreme court. so it was jimmy carter who was not a lawyer, who was responsible for me. >> and you're absolutely right. the contribution he made was extraordinary. president clinton -- yeah, president clinton nominated you to the supreme court. the vote was 96-3. and one of the comments you made was you hadn't accomplished anything alone. what did you mean by that, and how can that help these students as they move forward in their careers? >> well, not only didn't i do things alone, i had the people who were working with me. it's hard to be a loner. if you have like-minded people working with you. and you are supporting each other in what you're trying to accomplish. that makes an enormous difference. with my appointment, and this is also true of justice breyer, who came a year later, there was a true bipartisan spirit in our congress. you can probably not imagine that today. but my biggest supporter on the judiciary committee, the senate judiciary committee, was not a then senator biden. he was the chair of the committee. he was certainly supportive. but my biggest supporter was orrin hatch. i wonder whether he would touch me with a ten-foot pole if my nomination had come up. [ laughter ] in the current century. but my hope is that we will go back one day -- one day, somebody will blow a whistle, say i'm playing for both our houses, let's get together and work for the good of the country. [ applause ] well, can you give them a little window into what your hours are, and the kind of work load that you have? just because -- [ laughter ] >> my hours depend on whether we're sitting. if we're sitting, then i get up, 7:00 in the morning. i try to get to the court by shortly after 9:00. so that's for those two weeks. the next two weeks, when we're doing two things. we're writing opinions from the sitting that just ended and we're gearing up for the sitting that will follow. then i have an unusual -- my hours are unusual. my day starts about noon. and then i work often straight through the night and get maybe a couple of hours sleep. >> right. at 84. all right. and so with the -- there has been significant progress for women, and you are famous for this, you know -- do you think that's enough. >> well, the question that's put to me is, now you're three. when do you think there will be enough? it's obvious. when there are nine. [ applause ] and people at first reject that answer. but then realize that for most of our country, there have been nine people on the supreme court bench and all of them male. and all of them white. >> so one of the cases that you really are proud of is this virginia military institute case, something that was decided in 1996, that integrated it, and now 194 women out of 1,700. and you made this statement, i will never compromise when it's a question of freedom of speech, press or gender equality. you came back to campus in 2017, and that was quite a remarkable visit, wasn't it? >> yes. the staff had wanted me to come the year earlier to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the decision. i didn't quite make it, but i got there in 2017. it was an exhilarating experience for me to see how much the school welcomed and appreciated their women students. they have this slide up to see -- >> they have the slide. >> so these are women -- >> this is a slide, the u.s. virginia military institute. is that up? okay. now it's back. go ahead. >> there were many who wanted to be engineers, nuclear scientists. just about everything. and the school had adjusted to their presence. now, the general in charge said, in the beginning, it was a little rocky and we made some mistakes. we said, okay, we have to take women, but they're going to be treated just like the men, and that means when they -- the day they come on campus, they will get their head shaved. well, you see from the pictures of the women cadets that they realized that that was not really necessary. [ laughter ] >> and in terms of voting patterns, it comes up a lot, and hold the slide for a minute. when we look at the statistics, 40% of the cases the court has decided -- it's unanimous. 40% less than that. and only 20% of the hot-button 5-4 cases. the cases that are listed here in areas that affect so much of our american society and they're just hot-button issues. how is it -- and there have been in the last 30 years many chief justices. yet you're able to work together, and particularly, you ask about justice scalia, who was often on the opposite side. how are you able to manage that? and what's important about what holds the court together? >> collegiality is essential in a multimember court. we can never do the important work that's assigned to us if we didn't genuinely respect each other and in most cases genuinely like each other. i've liked justice scalia for a long time. i met him first when he was on the faculty of the university of chicago law school. he gave a speech to the american bar association on some administrative law issue. i disagreed with most of what he said. [ laughter ] but i was captivated by the way he said it. it was so amusing. and then we were buddies on the dc circuit. one thing that we had in common is we both really tried hard to write incomprehensible opinions. our style is quite different. his is attention-grabbing. mine is milder. but we both worked very hard about getting it right and keeping it tight. >> one of the cases, you really differed with him on was bush versus gore. and i think he told you to take a hot bath. [ laughter ] >> well, that was at the end of the day. this was a marathon. the court granted review on saturday. briefs filed sunday. oral argument monday. decisions, and they were multiple opinions, out on tuesday. it had been a long and trying day. justice scalia called me in chambers. it was 9:00 at night. he said, ruth, why are you still at the court? go home and take a hot bath. it was good advice. and people ask, well, how after that -- you had a sitting very soon after that decision issued. how did you work together? the answer is, we revere the institution we serve and we know we can't do its work if we're going to be at logger heads with each other. so we went on to the january sitting, and it was almost the same. an interesting thing about bush v gore. as strongly as i disagreed with the result, the supreme court decided the case, there was no rioting in the street. everybody accepted the result. that's not true in many countries in the world. >> so there was another case, lily l lilly ledbetter versus goodyear. you wrote a very famous dissent in that case. and it had to do with the filing of the equal pay lawsuit when it had to be filed. and you said you were dejected, but only momentarily these issues are going to come back again and again. there will be another time, another day. and here that was corrected by the lilly ledbetter fair pay act. and i know you have this photo in your chambers. one of the things that happens when you file a dissent, you wear a specific collar, right? >> so everyone knows when i come into the court with that collar. [ laughter ] i don't -- ordinarily, dissent is unnoted by the majority opinion author. and the dissent doesn't summarize the dissenting opinion. i did in the lilly ledbetter case, because i wanted everybody to understand lilly's situation. she was an area manager at a goodyear tire plant. she was the only woman who held that position at her plant. one day, someone put a slip of paper in her mailbox with a series of numbers. the numbers, she recognized right away. was the pay of every area manager. and she saw that her pay was less than the pay of the much younger man that she had trained to do the job. so she said, i've had it. i'm going to sue. and she brings the title 7 lawsuit. accompanied with an equal pay claim. and she got a sizeable jury verdict. when it got to the supreme court, the supreme court accepted goodyear's argument that she sued too late. title 7 says, you must complain to the eeoc within 180 days of the discriminatory incident. well, lilly, you were discriminated against for a dozen or more years. you're way out of time. i tried to explain in the dissent something that every working woman knows. that if you were the first woman in a job that is dominantly held by men, you don't want to be perceived as a complainer. and you don't want to rock the boat. so you go alone. besides, if you did sue early on, you could be sure what the defense will be. the defense would be, there's nothing to do with her being a woman. she just doesn't do the job as well. but then her employer, year after year, is giving her good employment ratings. so they no longer have the defense that she doesn't do the job as well. so she has a winnable case. but my colleagues said she sued too late. my simple theory, and it -- is that every time she receives a paycheck, the discrimination is renewed. starts again. so she can sue within 180 days of her paycheck. and the tag line of my dissenting opinion was, the ball is now in congress' court to correct the error into which my colleagues have fallen. and there is president obama signing the lilly ledbetter fair pay act. the first piece of legislation he signed when he took office. and there's lilly right behind him. and women who were applauding what he did. so then nancy pelosi is the only one who didn't get the dress code. [ laughter ] >> she didn't get the red -- she didn't get the red memo. and then in chambers, you have a life. you refer to your clerks as your family. your family. and you made this statement so often in life. things that are impediments turn out to be great good fortune. do you think if you had gotten that job as partner when you applied with one of those law firms that you would be here today? >> she said, well, suppose we had lived at a time when women were accepted at the bar. you know what we would be today? you and i would be retired partners from some large law firm. so at the time, we thought that was not good. that we weren't retired. but because we had to go a different route, we ended up being supreme court justices. you never know. >> which is a very good thing. now, looking at balancing husband and work, if you could put that slide up. marty was that life partner who thought your work was as important as his. and marty was also quite a chef. and in the early days, you were also cooking for the family. and at some point, your daughter, jane, asked you to stop cooking. [ laughter ] >> well, daddy was the company and weekend cook. i was never allowed to cook for a guest. [ laughter ] i had a book. it was called "the 60 minute chef." nothing took longer than when you get into your apartment, 60 minutes later, dinner is ready. i had seven things that i made. and i went through them in order. when i got to number seven, i went back to number one. [ laughter ] marty loved cooking. and it wwas quite an accomplish chef. so my daughter jane decided, daddy should do more than the company and weekend cooking. he should be the everyday cook, as well. so for me, it was kind of like tom sawyer and getting the fence painted. [ laughter ] when marty died seven years ago, jane took all the responsibility of making sure that her mother was properly nourished. so she comes once a month, she spends all day cooking, fills the freezer with food, and we do something nice together in the evening. then she comes back the next month. so she will be here on november 13th is the next time. [ laughter ] [ applause ] and incidentally, the evening activity will be her lecture -- i don't remember where it is, but she's the world leading expert on copyright and trademark. so she will be speaking about it. >> and you've said that you can't have it all all at once. over your life span, you think you have had it all. but you can't have it all at once, right? >> yes. and that was in answer to an article that was written by a well-known woman complaining that men can have it all, but women can't. and i said, looking back at my long life, i have had it all. but not at one time. and in a marriage, you adjust to what the other needs. and so there were times, like when my husband was determined to become a partner in five years, that i was doing the lion's share of the homework. when the aclu women's rights project started, marty realized the importance of that work. when i got my first good job in d.c. on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit, people would ask me, is it hard commuting between new york and d.c. every day? and i thought, what makes you think i'm doing that? [ laughter ] or to show you that some things are a lot better. when i was introduced that first year at a reception, more often than not, when judges were introduced the hand went out to marty. the answer was, she's judge ginsburg. i'm still hopeful. [ laughter ] >> now, you also -- if we go to her hobbies, we're not going to go into all of your hobbies, but you love music. and you've actually been on stage in an opera, an opera was named after you and scalia. you've been serenaded by placido domingo. and so that was quite a moment for you when you were on stage, wasn't it? with justice scalia, and the opera being written. >> oh, the -- i was on stage with him as a super, as an extra, twice. the opera -- well, truth be told, i'm a monotone, so -- i couldn't play my own part. [ laughter ] but it's a wonderfully amusing opera. and it sets -- first the difference between the two of us. so his opening aria is a rage aria, and he sings the justices are blind. how can they possibly spout this? the constitution says absolutely nothing about this. [ laughter ] and then i explain to him he's searching for bright line solutions to problems that don't have easy answers. but the great thing about our constitution is that like our society, it can evolve. that sets up the difference. and scalia, the plot is roughly based on the magic flute. scalia is locked in a dark room. he's being punished for excessive dissenting. [ laughter ] and i enter through a glass ceiling. [ laughter ] [ applause ] to help him. [ applause ] and then the man who is testing justice scalia said, why would you want to help him? he's your enemy? and i -- he's not my enemy. he's my friend. and then we sing a duet. [ laughter ] we are different, we are one. different in our approach to reading legal text, but one in our reverence for the u.s. constitution. and for the institution we serve. >> so your son has your love for classical music and opera, and he started his own company. marty was the first chair of his board, an award is given in his honor. and patrice, your daughter-in-law, is quite an exquisite singer. so classical music. then your other hobbies -- you have many -- traveling, music, working out. 1999. so who got you on that path? that was marty again. >> yes. it was -- at the end of my year-long bout with colorectal cancer. and marty said, you look like a survivor of a concentration camp. you've got to do something to build yourself up. so i asked around and gladys kessler, who was a u.s. district court judge, said i have just the right person for you. >> can you put that slide up again? working out. >> he is -- he works in the d.c. district court clerk's office. but in his spare time, he's a personal trainer. so i have been with brian since 1999. >> and his book is -- the book is already out. she does 20 military-type pushups. she does 30 planks -- holds a plank for 30 seconds. and so she's actually left the white house dinner so she can make her appointment with brian. and so influential that now justi justice kagan does kick boxing -- >> she does real boxing. >> real boxing. [ laughter ] >> real boxing. and then doesn't justice breyer now sign up? >> right. >> and he says she is tough as nails. so then we have the making of the notorious rbg, which the two law students commenting on your shelby county decision. and hobby lobby. those dissents named you that. but you didn't even know who notorious was, did you? [ laughter ] >> yeah, my law clerks told me about notorious b.i.g. and i looked up a little bit about him. and said, we have something very important in common. what do you have in common with the notorious b.i.g.? we were both born and bred in brooklyn, new york. [ applause ] but i think shawna, who was a second year nyu law student when she started this, it was after the shelby county decision. she was angry. she thought that the court decision was egregiously wrong. and then when i said before about not wasting time with being angry, she said, i'm going to do something positive about this. so she started tumblr. and it starts with my dissent in the shelby county case. it's gone on from there. >> and so she evolves from extraordinary justice to notorious. and keep this slide up, because there are some other things coming. so i particularly like the princess gown that you're wearing. all the t-shirts that have come up. the little girls that are imitating you. of course, this is my favorite t-shirt. [ laughter ] and then there were many books written about you even before you became notorious. but now we have coloring books and story books for children. more books have come out about you. and, in fact, your own words, which was published october 4th, 2016. how does it feel to be so notorious? [ laughter ] >> it's amazing. now, going on to 85, everyone wants to take a picture with me. [ laughter ] >> and, in fact, there's going to be a biopic on the basis of sex, felicity jones is going to star in it. and she's going to play you. so we really look forward to seeing that. >> she is at this very moment they're in montreal. >> filming. >> filming it. >> they're already filming it. so we'll look for that. and i love this. women belong in all places where decisions are made. and so little girls who look like a justice in every respect. earrings, gloves. and you're not just a role model for those little girls. but you are a huge role model for me. because at one time i was president of the federal judges association. hold that frame. and i was at the white house. i had to introduce president bush to our group of about 600 federal judges and spouses. and there was a letter that you wrote to me in may -- let me get that date -- of 2001. a letter that i have had in my scrapbook my whole career as a judge. that cheers on a job well done, particularly impressed by your words at the white house. conveyed the message in an appealing way. hope the second branch really listened. with every good wish for your life and works next chapter. and so that's something that's inspired me. you were such a role model. and then, of course, i know that you are a role model for everyone. and that anybody who has come into her life, she's a role model that she inspires. and so we look at now lessons that you have. and are there any you want to point to that you would like to discuss with the students before we open it up to questions? any particular one? because these are all things that you've said. >> i would just like to make a comment about this audience. i am so glad that there are so many bright young people who want to make the world a little better. who want to repair the tears in our community. i have a granddaughter who just graduated from law school. she's -- she has a clerkship now. but after that, she wants to have a public interest job. and i have a step grandson who is in his first year of law school. and he is already inquiring about public interest work that he could do the summer after his first year. i've said that if you're just going to engage in a work a day lawyering, well, you have a skill, and you're pretty much like a plumber. but if you are a true professional, then you will use at least some of your time to work to make life a little better for people less fortunate than you are. so i applaud this audience. and i wish you very satisfying careers working in the public interest. >> and you've said that -- i think recently you've said that you think that if hillary clinton had been a man, she would have won the election. and you've also said we are not in the best of times, but you are an optimist. so tell us about your hope for the -- hope for the future. >> yeah. well, i'm -- i borrow a line from martin luther king who said, "the arc of the moral universe is long. but it bends toward justice." and to that i add, if there are enough people who care about a safe and just world, to do the work necessary for us to keep our planet safe for our children and grandchildren, and to see that our most enduring values are fully respected. >> so in terms of -- i have to ask this question. our final two questions. how long, justice, will you remain on the court? >> well, i used to have an answer that worked for a lot of years. it was, justice -- when he was appointed, he was the same age as i was, 60. and he stayed for 23 years. so i expect to stay at least as long. well now i passed brandice. so my answer is as long as i can do the job full steam, i will do it. [ applause ] >> you had said that you prayed you would be all that your mother would have been if she had lived in an age when women could aspire and achieve and were cherished as much as their sons. i think we can all agree here, you have been way more than your mother could have dreamed or imagined. transformative. phenomenal. inspirational. that's who we have before us. justice ruth bader ginsburg. [ applause ] >> thank you. [ applause ] >> can we do a couple questions? >> if you would like to -- >> sure. >> she said she would take a couple. >> do you want to, or not? >> yes, let's do three. >> over here! i'm sorry. >> she's got the mic. >> oh. >> you have to hold on. >> okay. >> hi, justice ginsburg. -- >> and tell us your name and your school and -- what year? >> oh. my name is elizabeth hyde. i'm a second year at mckinnie school of law in indianapolis. and out of your entire tenure on the bench, justice ginsburg, what is one decision or opinion that you think should have gotten more attention? and whose significance has been overlooked? >> there are a few decisions. very few of the supreme court that -- that don't get attention. i spent 13 years on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. and i would say, although i worked very hard on my opinions there, too, i realized that they were not going to be widely read. even so, i gave each case the best that i could give it. so in general, i don't think back about, well, did this opinion get enough attention or not. because i was given very good advice. i -- a senior colleague on the d.c. circuit when i was a new judge, he was judge edward tab. and he said, you're going to work very hard on these sometimes complex cases. but when the opinion is released, don't look back. don't worry about things that are over and done. go on to the next and give it your all. so my advice is, be a forward-looking person. >> another question? she needs a mic. hold on. although we could all here you before. [ laughter ] >> i don't need one. but thank you. good evening, justice ginsburg. judge williams. thank you so much for being here. >> your name, your school, your year. >> my name is evelyn batista. i go to nova southeastern university in davie, florida, fort lauderdale. and i've read your autobiography. and you haven't gotten it, i recommend it. >> it is not an autobiography. >> it's not an autobiography. it's selected speeches i've given, articles i've written. the biography -- the two people who are on that book with me, wendy williams and wendy hartnett, are my official biographies. >> yes. >> they started in 2004. our original idea was that their biography would come out and then a book of selected writings. but that's 2004 until now. so i suggested a few years ago, why don't we flip the order? let's do the selective writing first. and that's how my awards came to be. >> and so let me give a pitch for the book. if you go to the supreme court -- supreme court gift shop, there are autographed copies of that book. and also marty's cookbook that we didn't get to talk about. which is a number-one best-seller. "supreme chef." go ahead with your question. >> thank you for the correction, justice ginsburg. my only question for you is, i have seen that you've been through a lot in your personal life and as a woman on the bench. and we've discussed a lot about the need for more women leaders on the bench and in the legal profession. what advice would you give to our male counterparts to help support women's leadership? because i don't want to make them feel like they're left out of the discussion. and i know a lot of allies who want to help, but they're not sure how. >> i can think of one advice. perhaps not to tell your peers. but one of the things i tried to do when i was presenting gender discrimination cases in court was to get the judges to think about what they would like the world to be for their daughters and their granddaughters. the -- that's one answer. another is, when the women's movement came alive at the end of the '60s and i realized that there was a possibility to get rid of all these arbitrary gender-based lines in the law, i went to the aclu. i didn't go to an all-women's group, because if this change was to be made solid, it had to be men working together with women. men putting what i call equal citizenship stature for men and women. high on the human rights agenda. together with freedom of speech, equal citizenship stature. and i think that many of the men who i've worked with originally who might have had doubts, when they realized what the history was, and and how arbitrary it limitations on what women could do were they became feminists. >> another question? we need a mic over there. hello i'm a recent graduate of law innel for fll and an equal justice where it follows sponsored by the bar foundation. thank you to them. it's an honor to hear you speak today. in my last year of law school i focussed prenominately on native american rights. we'd often open our books, look at opinions and look tat and say no, it's ginsburg, what's going on? or look at opinions and -- it's clearly ginsburg but scalia. one of those case s that shook e and still to this day confuses me is oneida. you said right now that you don't look back, that you're forward thinking and after tat case out two or three years ago we had had an adoptive couple with a baby girl. when had onide a aso crippaled the native american community that you fought in your agreement of soto mier's consent was your moving forward to rectify something of the past? >> when you're on the losing side, you have to remain hopeful in this way. yells, maybe the court didn't get it right today. but they will have another opportunity and when i think of the history of the u.s. supreme court, think back to the time around world war i. when people who were opposed to the draft and expressing their views were arrested and charged with some criminal offense. there were two justices at the time. justice holmes and justice -- who said free speech -- these people have a right to speak their mind. and the law shouldn't touch them for doing just that. they spoke just for themselves but in the fullness of time, those first amendment free speech descents are the law of the land. so the hope is that -- i think it was chief justice ruth who said the center is often writing for a future day, a future day when the majority will understand something they misperceived at an earlier time. >> and the issue of gay rights has been something that has seen an evolution as well. with the court. >> yes, i think you once asked me what accounts for the burst of progress in that area? and i think i said to you trz rar big difference between how our society has come to respect peop people whatever their sexual preference. and race discrimination. to our sadness our country is still segregated in many places. people live in different neighborhoods. but when the gay rights movement got to point where people said i'm not going to be in the closet anymore. i'm going to say who i am and i'm proud of it. we looked around who are these people? they were our child's best friend, our next door neighbor, sometimes our child. they were part of we. so there wasn't the same we/they separation that as retarded the end of race discrimination. >> final question. >> [ inaudible ]. >> in 1942 she was diagnosed with bone cancer. she bumped her knee on a tricycle. she spent a month in the hospital, she went on to private school. she graduated valedictorian as in high school. she went on to college. she married, she myself, my brother. she took twins to term. they died. but all on crutches with one leg. there was no prosthetics then. my mother had breast cancer at 30. she had had to have double mastectomies. she was one of the first chemo patients ever in it althi80s. anyway, an inspiration my mother and so my life has been trying to fulfill some kind of shoes that i never could and as much as i love it, it's such an awesome burden to be it one that continues to go through wall because you get bloody when you're the first. my question is and it's very personal. on the days, the moments where it's a weight and it's heavy to be it notorious rbg, what do you do? >> the question is what do i do -- >> when you get over burdened, overwhelmed. you look at citizens united and some of the other cases that are crushing with we read your descent. how do you go on? how do you take that next step? >> well, one of the things that epihad helps a lot is my family. my daughter and my son and now four grandchildren and two step grandchildren. they help me through both of my cancer bouts. so another is realizing the importance of what i'm doing. and i can't give way to any kind of burnout. but i can stop for a moment, read a chapter of a book, listen to an opera recording and before i was on the supreme court i would take a walk by myself. stop for a while and you go back to it because you realize it's very important that it be done and that it be done right. >> and so that is the last answer by the justice. i do want to present you justice though with a bouquet from my favorite artist in kenya. >> oh, how beautiful. >> these are hand beaded flowers. and you represent so much and a thing -- a woman of beauty and strength and inspiration and so we hope these will help inspire you on those days when you need inspiration. so that you will stay there forever. [ applause ] >> oh, they're beautiful.