>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: welcome to the program, we begin with two supreme court justices in conversation at the new york bar conversation. we talked to justice ginsburg mayer. ice soto >> i saw myself as a teacher. and thought it would be a good occupation and they weren't welcome as doctors, lawyers, engineers. realized that i was facing an

awedenens that didn't know what i was talking about and understood race discrimination, but most men at that time thought that, yes, the law was rightled with gender-based distinct ons but were in women's favor. a woman didn't have to serve on a jury if they didn't want to. >> the eavesdropping reflected curiosity and that's what drove me as a lawyer. charlie: a rare conversation with two supreme court justices. e supreme court kicked off until october after the death of justice scalia. we hear about the court and love of law from two justices. let me begin and take note of the fact that they have written

books. "my beloved world. " and just ties ginsburg's book, "in my own words." looking back on your life and even though it was incorporated in speeches, what was that like for you to put your own life in focus and how was that? is a - "my own words" collection of speeches, tributes to colleagues. rmp a pmphmpymp of me and my life is told in the introductory as my official authors have written. that will come out in the distant future.

[laughter] charlie: but your book "my beloved world" you said i am my mother. what did you mean? > as i tell her, good and bad. i am my mother's drive. she aspired to be more than her circumstances. she wanted to go desperately to go to college, and she lived in the poorest circumstances in her home community and she would watch the college girls walk by her house going to the post office, because that the town's social life at the time and all she talked about was someday going to college and getting my

brother and i into college was her living her dream. she wanted me to be a journalist. i don't think she was ever convinced there was much value in law. perhaps when i got on the supreme court, she might have changed her mind. [laughter] >> but i lived that dream for her and i lived all of her dreams because she set the capital for me of striving a way to do better, of trying to be the best person that i could humanly could be. that's how my mother did that. i tried to emulate all of those things in my mother that are best. when i do things bad, i said hat's being the problem. charlie: you once said that watching charles scanning and listening in on their conversations was an important

aspect of growing up. >> sure. who doesn't like to eavesdrop. ut i think the eavesdropping reflected curiosity and that's what drove me as a lawyer. and i always tell people, but being a lawyer is like being a voyeu rmp in other peoples' lives. you participate more, but you get to, in every case, you get to learn about how people or an industry or a government entity interacts in the world, what they do and what's important to them and to be able to enjoy that, you have to have curiosity. listening to others and their conversation was a way teaching myself things that i would not have otherwise learned.

charlie: justice ginsburg, when did you fall in love with the law? >> people ask me, did you always or a supreme udge court justice? [laughter] >> when i think what life is 1940's,this city in the be a is apiring to judge, because there weren't any. and franklin roosevelt appointed e first woman to the first federal appellate court in 1936. he stepped down the year i graduated from law school and then there were none. etlerohnson appointed hufst

and became the first secretary of education and then there were none again. so i didn't think about being a clinton becameil president. and looked around at the federal bench and said, you know, they all look like me, but that's not how the great united states works. he was determined to appoint members of minority groups and one of numbers, not as the time curiosity. he apointed over 25 member to the federal district court and the trial bench and 11 to courts of appeals and i was one of those lucky 11. no president, by the way, ever went back to the way it was.

president reagan didn't want to be outdone, so he made a nation wride search for the first woman. charlie: sandra day o'connor. hen she left the court and alito came on, it marked a change in the court, because she was gone. >> i have said more than once that the term that she left, whenever the court divided 5-4 and i was one of the four, i would have been one of the five if she remained with us. there was that enormous difference. charlie: my question has been influenced by people, your husband. your late husband had a huge influence. you have said to me that you would not have made it to the

supreme court without him. >> no question about it. people who observed at the time said, well ruth might have been on the list, maybe 22 and 2, but marty made her number one. charlie: how did he do that? >> he had a little book of people he contacted. [laughter] >> and mainly my academic colleagues and those days -- ell well, this is before my first big job in d.c. and got in touch with academic colleagues and lawyers that knew me from the lawyering work i had done and he had many letters sent to the president. and i think the most important thing of all -- and this was

almost out of the blue, my rabbi moynihane, was senator and how did that will come about? well, it was a connection that marty was very pleased to, but it didn't come to me then. the president was on a plane with senator moynihan going to some democratic functions in the city and said, pat, please tell me, who would you pick for the supreme court? and senator moynihan said, well, mr. president, i'm not a lawyer so you shouldn't be asking me that question. the president said, i value your judgment, who would you pick and senator moynihan said ruth bader

ginsburg. >> and he said why. i think she's very good. i could not have a harvard law egree. so many things occur and you don't know if they are going to turn out to be good or bad and it was good. there was a celebration of the 50th anniversary of the building. so the building was completed in 935 and this was 1985. griswold was solicitor germ. he was to make a speech of great advocates before the court. 1985, he realizes that he can't have a list that's all men. after he finishes with thurgood

marshal and the next person he mentions is ruth bader ginsburg. >> when i went through my nomination process, i was told that everyone should have a marty ginsburg. [laughter] >> he came into the preparation session with followeders, including ruth's speeches, her entire schedule for her entire life and binders filled with tax information. >> that was the press reported inrackly and the reason they had no problem was because marty was a tax lawyer. [laughter] >> in our home, in our personal life, i did all the taxes. [laughter]

[cheers and applause] charlie: and guess who did all the cooking. marty. >> all the presidents' men descended on my apartment and to go through my papers, meart made a delicious lunch. [laughter] charlie: it was at one point, he would do all the special occasions and you would do dinners for the kids during weekdays and your daughter said maybe you should give that up, too. >> in fact, my daughter, who is an excellent cook herself, she learned from the master, i wasn't the every day cook, so i and they that i made all came out of the "60-minute

chef" no month more than 60 minutes. marty never allowed me to cook for company and he was the weekend cook. my daughter realized that addy's cooking was better than mommy and mommy should be taken out of the kitchen. [laughter] >> the result of that, my wonderful daughter comes once a month and cooks for me and fills the freezer for individual dinners and feels responsible for getting me out of the kitchen and does president feel i should go back into it. >> the supreme court refrigerator is filled with some of the leftovers. [laughter] charlie: what's the best experience for a supreme court justice.

>> interesting question. charlie: tell me. >> i'm biased, i think being on the district court was and since all of my colleagues have only had court of appeals experience with the exception of justice kagan who has never been a judge and only three supreme court justices with thrm experience. i find it hard to understand how you can really appreciate the life of a case if you haven't really sat in a courtroom toll see that case develop and to understand the dynamics that create a record, that create the discussions thatnd up coming before the court on a.m. ate review. in my judgment, if i was ever privileged to be asked as a president what should he or she

should look look, i would say prior court experience. charlie: you get to see not only the case and the stories and the people who make up the stories. >> it helps to be a lawyer, as someone said, who knows the casesand knows about more than the district judge. [laughter]

>> being a lawyer isn't critical, but there a is difference between trial and a.m. at lawyer. >> and the important difference is to build a reputation. >> and to know how difficult that can be. >> yes. ♪

>> i think there's two entirely har moan just and a person can't be deprived of life, liberty or person or person be denied the equal protection of the laws. the constitution tells us to think about the individual. and the rights that the individual has. so i don't think there is dig -- charlie: it no, sir an abstract but a reality in terms of -- >> it is ines cable for us to be

aware of the impact of our decisions. in virtually every case of every ocial impact, we are receiving friends of the court briefs from virtually every impacted segment of society. so we're -- we can't decide a big-issue case without hearing from all of the people who believe they will be impacted positively or negatively whatever our ruling might be. part of n ines cable our work. and we are talking more fundamental which is obviously you can't rule, i don't think, without at least understanding what the consequences will be of your ruling. not in terms of the law, but since the law is responsive to human developments, you have to

know what's going to happen more broadly to be able to understand the choices you are making. >> and there are some cases where the law is clear and certain, like you have to be a certain age to run for office. the case we get. the special thing about the supreme court is for the most part we don't cases where everybody agrees, as we wait for what we call splits and other judges disagreeing about what the federal law is, whether con stutional provision, what it means in a particular context or against a statute passed by congress. so the wonderful input we have, by the time we get the case, we have the benefit of what other

good mines on benches, state and federal have said about it. charlie: interesting to me at the district court and a.m. ate court level, there is a higher place that it can go, but if you are on the supreme court, the buck stops here and you are making the decision that is the inal decision. >> the district judges were talking about, they are the real power holders in the system because they sit in the courtroom. you can't get out and you are stuck with that judge from the day the complaint is filed until the final judgment and go up to the court of appeals. then -- >> lost a lot of power. >> you were not the lady of the manor anymore. you had to carry it toll prevail

and the supreme court and the magic number is five. so i have often said, when i write for the court, it's never s if i were a queen. i have to take into account the views of my colleagues and reflect those in the opinion. charlie: how much do you think has ife as a legitimator influenced your sense as a supreme court justice? >> well, for one thing -- charlie: historic role you have played. >> i'm sensitive to be what it is like to be on the receiving nd of questions. fantastic fortune in

that i was a lawyer when the women's movement was revived in this country. what we saying in the 1970's, it's the case, the same thing at abigail adams said before but society wasn't prepared to listen in the 1970's. society had already moved from the changes in the law to catching up to the changes that had already occurred in people's lives. so to be able to advocate for that cause, to see results that could not have been achieved even in the 19 0's, was a fantastic opportunity, currently

ex hill rating. charlie: those briefs that you wrote and those decisions that you have influenced, the proudest achievement of your life? >> yes. i would say yes. and i thought of myself in those days as a teacher. my parents thought that teaching would be a good occupation for me because they would be welcomed there and weren't welcomed as lawyers, doctors and engineers. an lize that my facing an audience, if they were facing odious,s krim, that was but most men thought it was rid gender distinct ons.

a woman didn't have to serve on a jury if she didn't want to and that was a benefit. that says something as a woman as a citizen. the citizen has rights and obligation, obligations as rights. men know they are part of the sit renry, because they can't escape. but women, they are expendable, they really don't need them. to get across that message, such a ped arch is stal. many men thought they were spared to earn a living. hat is a myth. and to get them to see what they

regarded as favors and the wonderful expression that justin stal n used, the ped arch turned out to be a cage and confined women. to get the court to understand that there really was gender-based diss trim nation, that was a challenging job. > i was just going to say as groundbreaking as your work as a egitimator was and notorious r.b.g. will live on a lot longer. [cheers and applause] [laughter] >> what do you think of that? >> it is a absolutely amazing.

and for an 8 -year-old woman should be notorious. [laughter] >> i understand where it comes rom, that's the one thing. >> my diss sent in the shelby county case and and that was the

laugh laugh charlie: you are a role model for many people, how do you see that? and you have spoken about supreme court might be very, to see aficial to have latino wome be in this will world. >> earlier, we were in conversation with your editor, your book editor, and we were talking about when i embarked upon writing my book, i asked my memoirwhat makes a great and your editor and mine have said the identical same thing,

that leaders can lead and feel when truth is being spoken or when it's sort of a put-on not to be believed or accepted. to the extent that i continue to try to live my life as a normal honesty within an that i define as valuable, rying to be both human and a justice, not that you're not -- [laughter] >> then i think i give people hope about being able to achieve the things they want to achieve, eastbound even though they might perceive in themselves limitations that the society society is otherwise imposing on

them. charlie: you two can dream your dreams? >> and don't have to let the limitations that others impose n you or the once you put on yourself will potential. that's what i perceive my role to be. to be continuing to be as much as i can be and those others who ive lives can also hope. charlie: be a part of the american frab rick life. >> they can be, too! [applause] >> there was a line i used in the introduction to the book about the five jewish justices

and the question is, what is the a book e tweb between cheaper in the garment district and the supreme court justice and i said one generation, the opportunities opened to my mother and those opened to me. charlie: one generation? >> one generation. >> i once asked you because you are often called the thurgood marshal of the women's movement and you have said to me that's a comparison you reject because -- >> thurgood marshal went into didn'tn in the south and know he would be alive at the end of the day.

ap you will o book get that sense of what those warriors were up against. in fact, didn't know whether they would live to see another day. that was something i never ever encountered. my life was never in danger. and that was an enormous difference. yes, i copied thurgood marshals' by nd he led the court step step. he argued cases when he told the court and not before the court today.

>> and when they couldn't bear it anymore, signed her son's baseball bat and picked it up and put it over her head and the beginning of the murder prosecution. that's why they didn't put women on juries in those days. the supreme court said, we don't understand what the complaint is about. any woman who wants to serve can go to the clerk's office and sign up. if she doesn't sign up, she's not going to be called. the thinking was, if there were women on my jury, perhaps they wouldn't aquit me. but there is a good chance they would have convicted me of the lesser offense of manslaughter and not murder unless convicted

and that was jury ok. that was 19 1. the change didn't come until the court that had the reputation to be conservative. nd yet, that court struck down one federal law after another, one state law after another on the ground that they discriminated ash temporarily on the basis of gender. charlie: what does that say about the way the court works? there was a great constitutional law professor who said, the court should never be influenced by the weather of the ay, but inevitably, it will be

influenced by the climate of the era. and that's what the court of the 1970's was influenced by. charlie: is that what the court of the 21st century has been with respect to marriage equality and same-sex marriage, influenced by what is happening in the larger community? the climate. >> i'm wondering whether i should answer at all. [laughter] charlie: why are you wondering? >> she gets more cover than i do. charlie: that's an interesting question. meaning she has given more, what, latitude? >> i think so. and rightfully so, she has

earned it. she has rightfully earned it. >> i'm old enough to be her mother. [laughter]

so i volunteered and only women so e committee and what's

funny. ruth, do you think you are comfortable with dealing with a woman? i said what makes you think the day after this it is composed only of men? and the truth was, they sent the vice president, who happened to be a woman and one of the people to speak. came outened as people of the closet, people stood up and said, this is who i am and i'm proud of it and we looked around and who were they, our next-door neighbor, our child's best friend. when that happened, there was no longer the same we-they difference. they were part of we. these are people we love, that e work with.

that was something that gave impet tuesday to the gay rights went t because people into neighborhoods that are all- white or african-american. there was a sense about that that once people stood up and said this is who i am, that made it an enormous difference. >> if you count the decades from plessy versus ferguson accepting segregation as compatible with the 14th amendment to brown versus board of education, it was over 50 years and it took us that long to live the societal expectations of what true

equality had to mean. i think ruth is pointing to the fact that we have a society that -- s to think about differently and those experiences teach both the society and yes, justices at times. charlie: is there a special bond twin the three justices that are women on this court? >> i would say there is a special pride that i have with . newest colleagues little girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice. where boys, males and snails and publicy dogs' tails. all of you who have visited that

my newest colleagues are not shrinking violets. [laughter] >> and take an active part in the colloquy that goes on in our oral arguments. >> if i may take the liberty of relaying this story. charlie: all right. and tice kagan was sworn came in to greet all of the justices and she got to justice ginsburg and said, justice ginsburg are you happy with the wo sisters i've brought you? ruth paused and looked at him and said, i'm very happy, but i'll be happier when there's five.

[laughter] [cheers and applause] >> so the answer i give to the question, when will there be enough and you're nine. [laughter] charlie: there are only eight now. tell us what it has done? >> it's not a good number for the court. charlie: ap you hope after the election and there will be a consideration by the senate before the new president takes office? >> i think we'll hope it will be done as quickly as possible. charlie: because -- >> we function as nine. >> what we did remarkably well last term, three cases that couldn't be decided because there was an even division but

they were important cases. charlie: you have said to me you miss justice scalia. justice breyer was here last week and he said i miss the debates with justice scalia. i'm sure you feel the same way. >> he made us laugh. >> and he made us think. he challenged us to think. the ingredients for interesting conversation and or lifle -- lively discussion. charlie: you said you both love opera and he could sing better

than you. they are writing lines for you in the opera that you will perform in, when, when's it coming up? >> it's a speaking part. here is an opera "scalia-opera," a comic opera, of course, that the composer who wrote it, tried to say in a nutshell, the difference between the two of us. ar opens with scalia's rage inch a and it is this. the justices are blind. how can they possibly talk about this. the constitution says absolutely

nothing about this. for e is searching solutions to problems that don't have answers. but the great thing about our constitution is like our society, it can evolve. so that sets up -- [laughter] >> and then we have a wonderful duet at the end. e are different, we are one. different in the way we approach the interpretation of legal text, but one in our reference to the constitution and the court. charlie: one thing that justice scalia said, probably wasn't the best idea of how many supreme court justices that came from harvard or yale and wasn't a great deal for the supreme court

trmmost of them didn't have -- i may be wrong. regardless of whether he said it or not -- [laughter] >> i'll give you that. >> since i'm from yale and ruth spent time of her time at harvard. charlie: you got your degree from columbia. when you switched to -- from harvard at two years to columbia, harvard would not give you a degree. >> i had to stay. charlie: yoir husband was moving to new york, correct? >> yes. >> i didn't want to be a single

mom. marty had been diagnosed with a very severe cancer and didn't know how he was going to live and didn't want to be apart that year and didn't want to be a single mom to my then two-year-old daughter. and i asked if i could complete i education at columbia where would get a harvard agree. -- degree. and cornell had taken the first year. she transferred into our second year. i said to the dean, is this a battle we will have in year two or three. and the first year is by far the most important. i have one or two.

>> come back to the point. charlie: what is lovely about this story, they wanted to give you a degree to the law school. >> that's when my elena kagan and every year, she said, ruth, we would love to have you a harvard law degree and my husband said hold out. charlie: and they give it to you. and there is a picture of you in your chambers of you receiving it and one of your heroes singing. plaacido eing sung to om inch nmp g omp.

>> in the part because we are a pointed for life and that means a that a change, fundamental changes in the court take a very, very long time to occur. and so, we're never going to be completely on an even keel with the sort of experiences of a society. we are going to be offkeel a little bit. but i do worry a little bit, a ot, not about diversity in its sense but i worry about it in terms of the lack of professional and life experience diversity that our court has. and i say that despite being a little different in my colleagues and life sprepses,

th justice thomas came backgrounds but we don't have the important experiences to the law. for example, we have no criminal defense lawyers on our court. we have one civil rights lawyer right now. there are so many other incredibly important civil rights issues right there continuing to be the civil rights movement for ethnic minorities and also for handicapped people. we have practitioners with small medium-sized experience and few people from gee graphical experiences in the united states and as you noted, very little in terms of religious differences

and even less. hat is a lot of areas where we don't reflect the germ society. does it do harm? not necessarily. ut it does harm to the courts' reflection of attempting to be broader in its outreach to people. and so it's like everything else, if we are being asked to judge so much of what goes on in our society, i think what the court does will be received better if we're a little wider in what we represent. charlie: great to have two new yorkers back home.

mark: i'm mark halperin. john: i'm john heilemann. with all due respect to all those people stressing out about the election, a word of advice dan harris. from meditation expert >> namaste. ♪ john: all right. on the show tonight, clinton foundation in cold stations, vladimir putin's cyber deprivations soothing powers of meditation. but first, the politics of feminization. high-profile women on both sides were out in full force today. in winston-salem, north carolina this afternoon, hillary clinton made her first campaign