♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: welcome to the program. it is the end of summer. as we prepare for the next season, we bring you some of our favorite conversations here on "charlie rose." tonight, justice ruth bader ginsburg and justice sonia sotomayor. it was taped at the new york city bar association. justice ginsburg: i thought of myself in those days as a teacher. my parents thought that teaching would be a good occupation for me, because women were welcomed there, and they were not welcomed as doctors, engineers, lawyers.

i realized that i was facing an audience that did not know what i was talking about. if they understood race discrimination, that was odious. most men at that time thought that yes, the law was riddled with gender-based distinctions, but they all operated benignly in women's favor. a woman didn't have to serve on a jury if she didn't want to, so that was a benefit. justice sotomayor: the eavesdropping reflected curiosity. i think that's what drove me as a lawyer. i always tell people, it's not , but being analogy leader is like being a voyeur into other people's lives.

you participate more, but in every case you get to learn about how people, or an industry, or government entity interacts in the world, what they do, and what is important to them. and to be able to enjoy that process, i think you have to have curiosity. so listening to others and their conversations was a way of teaching myself things that i would not have otherwise learned so easily. charlie: ginsburg and sotomayor for the hour. ♪ charlie: let me begin and take note of the fact that they both have written books. sotomayor's book was called "my beloved world." justice ginsburg's book was called "my own words," a compilation of speeches and essays she has written. i want to start with this. looking back on your life, justice ginsburg, and thinking even though it was incorporated

in speeches, what was that like for you to put your life in focus? how was that? justice ginsburg: as you said, it is a collection of speeches, bench announcements, tributes to colleagues. it's not a biography of me to the extent that my life is told. it is in the introductory passages that my official biographers wrote. that biography will come out sometime in the distant future. [laughter] charlie: your book, "my beloved world," you said, "i am my mother." what did you mean? justice sotomayor: as i tell her, good and bad. [laughter]

i have my mother's drive. she aspired to be more than her circumstances. she wanted to go, desperately go to college. she lived in the poorest circumstances in her home community. she watched the college girls walking by her house, going to the post office, because that was the center of the town social life at the time. all she dreamt about was someday going to college. getting my brother and i to college was her living her dreams. she wanted me to be a journalist. i don't think she was ever convinced that 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 have lived all of her dreams, because she set the example for me of striving

always to do better. trying to be the best person that i humanly could be. that's how my mother lives her life. so i try to emulate all of those things in my mother that are the best. and when i do the things that are bad, i remind her, that's the problem with being a little duck, you copy everything. charlie: you once said that watching a child scanning adult for cues and listening in on their conversation was an important aspect of growing up for you. justice sotomayor: sure. who doesn't like to eavesdrop? [laughter] but i think that the eavesdropping reflected curiosity. i think that is what drove me as a lawyer. i always tell people, it's not a perfect analogy, but being a lawyer is like being able year -- a voyer in other people's

lives. you participate little more than voyeurs do, thankfully, but 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 is important to them. to be able to enjoy that process, i think you have to have curiosity. so listening to others in their conversations was a way of teaching myself things that i would not have otherwise learned so easily. charlie: justice ginsburg, when did you fall in love with the law? justice ginsburg: people sometimes ask me, did you always want to be a judge? or a supreme court justice? when i think of what life was

like in this city in the 1940's it would not be your wildest dream to be a judge, because there simply weren't any girls. franklin delano roosevelt appointed the first woman to a federal appellate court in 1934. she stepped down the year i graduated from law school in 1959, and then there were none. then johnson appointed shirley hostetler. she became the first ever secretary of education. and then there were none again. i didn't think about being a judge until jimmy carter became president of the united states. he looked around at the federal bench and he said, "you know, they all look like me, but

that's not how the great united states looks." he was determined to appoint members of minority groups and women in numbers, not as one at a time curiosity's. he appointed over 25 women to the federal district court, the trial bench, and 11 to courts of appeals. i was one of those lucky 11. no president, by the way, ever went back to the way it was. president reagan did not want to be outdone, so he made a nationwide search for the first woman. charlie: sandra day o'connor. justice ginsburg: it was his choice. charlie: in fact, you said that when she left the court, retired, and alito came on, it marked a change in the court. she was gone.

justice ginsburg: i have said more than once that the term 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 was still with us. there was that in our miss difference. enormous difference. charlie: my question goes back to your influences, like your mom. your late husband had a huge influence. you said to me that you would not have made it to the supreme court without him. justice ginsburg: no question about it. people who observed at the time, ruth would have been on a list, maybe she would have been 22 or 23, but it was marty who made her number one. charlie: how did he do that? justice ginsburg: he had a little book of people that he contacted. [laughter]

mainly my academic colleagues. in those days i was teaching at -- this was before my first job in d.c. he got in touch with academic colleagues, lawyers who knew me from the work i had done, and he had many letters sent to the president. i think the most important thing of all, and this was almost out of the blue, my rabbi, my guide, was centered in moynihan. -- senator moynihan. how did that come about? it was a connection that marty was very pleased to have, but it didn't come through him. the president was on a plane

with senator moynihan going to a democratic function in the city. he said, "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?" senator moynihan said ruth bader ginsburg. why? because the long-term dean of harvard law school thinks she is very good. and this is the dean that said i could not have a harvard law degree because i didn't stay there for my third year. life is -- so many chance things occur and you don't know whether they will turn out to be good or bad, but this one was certainly good.

there was a celebration of the court of the 50th anniversary of the building. so the building was completed in 1935, and this was 1985. dean griswold was solicitor general. he was to make a speech about great advocates before the court. by 1985, he realizes that he can't have a list that is all men. so after he finishes with thurgood marshall, the next person he mentions is ruth bader ginsburg. justice sotomayor: when i went through my nomination process, i was told that everyone should have had a marty ginsberg as a muse. [laughter] he apparently came into the preparation session with folders, including all of ruth's

speeches, her entire schedule for her entire life, and binders filled with text information. justice ginsburg: well, the press reported inaccurately, because they said the reason that ginsberg had no problem with the taxes or the babysitter is because marty was a tax lawyer. [laughter] but in our home, in our personal life, i did all the taxes. [laughter] [applause] charlie: yes, and guess who did all the cooking? marty. justice ginsburg: yes. when all the presidents men, and they were men, descended on my apartment to go through the papers, marty made a delicious lunch. [laughter] charlie: and at one point he

would do all the special occasions, and you would do dinners for the kids during weekdays. i know your daughter came to you and said maybe you should give that up, too. [laughter] justice ginsburg: in fact, my daughter who is an excellent cook herself, she learned from the master. i was the everyday cook. i had seven things i made. when it got back to number seven, we went back to number one, and they all came out of the 60 minute chef. no more than 60 minutes from when you walked in the door to when it is on the table. marty would never allow me to cook for company. he was the weekend cook. my daughter, in her high school years, realized that daddy's cooking was infinitely better than mommy's, and that mommy should be phased out of the kitchen. [laughter] the result of that is that my

wonderful daughter comes once a month, she cooks for me, builds the freezer with individual dinners, and we do something nice in the evening. she feels responsible for getting me out of the kitchen, and doesn't think i should go back in it. [laughter] ♪

♪ charlie: what is the best experience for a supreme court

justice? justice sotomayor: an interesting question. [laughter] charlie: tell me. justice sotomayor: i'm biased. i think being on the district court was. since almost all of my colleagues have only had court of appeal experience, with the exception of elena kagan, and there have only been three supreme court justices in the history of the court with district court experience, but 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 to see that case develop, and to understand the dynamics that create a record, that create the discussions that end up coming before the court on appellate review. in my judgment, if i were ever privileged to be asked by a president what should he or she

look for, i would probably say someone with district court experience. charlie: because doing that, you get to see not only the case, but you get to see the stories. the people make up the stories that are in conflict. justice ginsburg: it helps to be a lawyer, as sonja said, who knows the story, who probably knows more about the case then the district does. [laughter] charlie: oh! we have a debate going. [laughter] justice ginsburg: i should say, i started out my life in the lot aw as a clerk to a district judge. i was clerk in the seventh district of new york for two years, from 1959 to 1961. justice sotomayor: but ruth, do you see appellate practice as being the same as trial practice?

even accepting your premise, which is being a lawyer is critical. but there is a difference between trial and appellate lawyer. justice ginsburg: an enormous difference -- the important thing at the trial level is to build a record. justice sotomayor: and we know how difficult that can be. justice ginsburg: yes. charlie: when you decide cases, do you think about -- are you looking and saying, we have to do what the law tells us by looking at precedent and looking at the constitution, but do you also say to yourselves, what is going to be the impact on people? these decisions we are making? justice ginsburg: i think they are entirely harmonious. when the constitution says nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property, it is for any person.

nor shall any 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. i don't think -- charlie: but it's not an abstract. it is a reality. justice sotomayor: it is inescapable for us to be aware of the impact of our decisions. in virtually every case of every significant social impact, we are receiving amicus curiae briefs, friends of the report briefs, from virtually every impacted part of society. 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 the ruling might be. that is an inescapable part of our work. but i think ruth is talking more

fundamentally, which is obviously, you can't rule, i don't think, without at least understanding what the consequences will be of your ruling. not just in terms of the law, but since the law is responsive to human developments, you have to know what will happen more broadly to be able to understand the choices you are making. justice ginsburg: there are some cases where the law is clear and certain, but you have to be a certain age to run for office. but that's not the kind of case that we get. the special thing about the supreme court is for the most part, we don't take cases where everybody agrees. [laughter] we wait for what we call splits. that is other judges disagreeing

about what the federal law is, the constitutional provision, what it means in a particular context, or a statute passed by congress. the wonderful input that we have is by the time the case gets to us, we have the benefit of what other good minds on benches, state and federal, have said about it. the interesting thing too though, at the district court level and appellate court level, and appeals court, there is a higher place it can go. but when you are on the supreme court, the buck stops here. this is it. you then are making the decision that is the final decision. the court is. justice ginsburg: the district that sonia was talking about, they are the real power holders in the system, because they sit alone in the courtroom. you can't get out.

you are stuck with that judge for the day, complete is filed until they file a judgment. you go up to the court of appeals. sonja lost power when she went to the second circuit. justice sotomayor: i lost a lot of power. [laughter] justice ginsburg: you are not the lady of the manner anymore. you have to carry at least one of the nine to prevail. in the supreme court, the magic number is five. i have often said when i write for the court, it is never as 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 your life as a litigator has influenced your sense as a supreme court justice?

justice ginsburg: i am sensitive to what it is like to be on the receiving end of questions. i had a fantastic fortune in that i was alive and a lawyer when the women's movement was revived in this country. what we were saying in the 1970's, successfully winning case after case, exactly what women have said since abigail adams and even before, but society wasn't ready to listen. the changes in the lower aw where catching up to the changes that had already occurred in people's lives.

to be able to advocate for that cause, to see results that could not have been achieved even in the 1960's, but a fantastic opportunity, and also exhausting. charlie: those briefs that you wrote, and those decisions you had influenced, are they the proudest achievement of your life? justice ginsburg: yes, i would say. i thought of myself in those days as a teacher. my parents thought that teaching would be a good occupation for me, because women were welcomed there, and they were not welcomed as doctors, lawyers, engineers. i realized that i was facing an audience that didn't know what i was talking about. they understood race

discrimination, that was odious, but most men at that time thought that yes, the law was riddled with gender-based distinctions, but they all operated benignly in women's favor, like a woman did not have to serve on a jury if she didn't want to. that was a benefit. to get them to see, that says something about a woman as a citizen. a citizen has rights and obligations, obligations as well as rights. men know they are an essential part of the citizenry because they can't escape civic duties. but women, they are expendable. we really don't need them. to get across that message that this pedestal that many men thought women were on, they were

spared the necessity of earning a living, that was a myth because it was never true for poor women -- to get them to see that what they regarded as favors, and the wonderful expression that justice brennan use, the pedestal, much more often than not, turned out to be a cage because it confined women and limited what they could do. to get the court to understand that there really was gender-based discrimination, that was a challenging job. justice sotomayor: i was just going to say, as groundbreaking as your work as a litigator was, i think the notorious rbg will live on a lot longer. [laughter] [applause]

charlie: and what do you think of that? justice ginsburg: i think it's absolutely amazing. [laughter] that an 83-year-old woman should be notorious. [laughter] justice ginsburg: that i have said, i understand where it comes from. justice ginsburg: that i have you know the famous rapper, notorious b.i.g. we were both born and bred in brooklyn. [applause] justice ginsburg: but more than that, i think that the nyu students who dreamed up this notorious rbg, it started with my dissenting decision that took the heart out of the voting rights act of 1965. she was angry. then she thought that is not a productive emotion. i want to do something positive. so, she took my dissent in the shelby county case and that was the beginning of the notorious

rbg. [laughter] charlie: you are a role model to many. how do you see that? and you have spoken before about the supreme court may be very beneficial to have, to see how a latina woman sees this world. justice sotomayor: earlier we were in conversation with your editor. your book editor. we were talking about when i embarked on writing my book i asked my editor, what makes a great memoir?

and my editor and yours as well have said the identical thing. honesty. and, that readers can read and feel when truth is being spoken, or when it is a put on that is not to be believed or accepted. to the extent that i continue to try to live my life as a normal person, and with an honesty that i define as valuable, trying to be both human and a justice, not that you are not, then i think i

give people hope about being able to achieve the things they want to achieve, even though they might perceive in themselves limitations that society has otherwise imposed on them. so -- charlie: you too can dream your dreams. justice sotomayor: yes. you don't have to let the limitations or the ones you feel yourself disable you. both trying and potentially achieving. that is what i perceive my role to be. to continue being as much sonya as i can be. so those who have lived live somewhat to the one i have can also hope. charlie: and feel they are part of the fabric of american life. justice sotomayor: i am. they can be, too.

[applause] justice ginsburg: there was a line i used in the introduction to the book about five jewish justices. the question was what is the difference between a bookkeeper in the garment district and a supreme court justice? my answer was "one generation." the difference between the opportunities open to my mother and those open to me. charlie: one generation. it was an important generation. i once asked you, you are often called the thurgood marshall of the women's movement. you have said to me, that is a comparison you reject -- because?

justice ginsburg: when thurgood marshall went into a town in the south -- in the morning he didn't know whether he would be alive at the end of the day. i recommend everybody a book called "devil in the grove." you will get that sense of what those lawyers were up against. they in fact did not know whether they would live to see another day. that was something i never encountered. my life was never in danger. that was an enormous difference. as far as technique, i copied thurgood marshall's technique. [laughter] justice ginsburg: he was a brilliant lawyer.

he led the court to get to brown v. board. step-by-step. he said, these are vastly unequal. they knew they had to have some legal training for african-americans. so they set up this vastly inferior law school. when he had his building blocks in place and made the big pitch, and so the aclu women's rights project, which i co-founded, that is what we tried to do to get there. not in one giant step, so that by the time the big step came it would be inevitable. because they had all the building blocks that led up to it. justice sotomayor: do you think you have reached that stage? justice ginsburg: no. but considering where we were,

considering that in 1961, the liberal warren court told wendell android eight, -- told wendell and hoyt, the woman we would call battered, who had been humiliated to the breaking point by her philandering abusive husband, she couldn't bear it anymore. she spied her sons baseball bat, picked it up with all her might, and she beat her husband over the head. that was the end of the humiliation. and the getting of the murder prosecution. florida didn't put women on juries in those days. 1961. the supreme court said we don't understand what this 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 is not going to be called. thinking if there were women on my jury, perhaps they wouldn't

acquit me, but there's a good chance they would have convicted me of the lesser offense of manslaughter and not murder. well, she was convicted of murder by an all-male jury. the warren court thought that was ok. as late as 1961. the change did not come until the burger court, the had a reputation for being conservative. and yet, that court brought down one federal law after another, one state law after another on the ground that they discriminated arbitrarily on the basis of gender. charlie: what does that say about the way the court works? and time? justice ginsburg: there was a great constitutional law

professor who said the court should never be influenced by the weather of the day. but inevitably it will be influenced by the climate of the era. that is 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 was happening in the larger community? the climate. justice sotomayor: i'm wondering whether i should answer at all. [laughter] justice ginsburg: i will say -- [laughter] justice sotomayor: she gets more cover than i do. charlie: that is an interesting expression in itself. meaning?

she is given more what? latitude? justice sotomayor: i think so and rightfully so. she has earned it. no, no, no. she has fully earned it. justice ginsburg: it is only because i am old enough to be her mother. [laughter] justice ginsburg: but i will say something about what happened. when i was growing up, people who were not heterosexual were in the closet. they did not reveal who they were. i remember the first time in this very space, there was a program in the new york city bar about the problems gay and lesbian people encountered. things like renting a house, or finding a dentist. i was on the post-admission legal education committee. one member of the committee or another would sponsor every

program. no one volunteered to sponsor a program gay activists alliance asked to have at the city bar just to explain the problems they encountered. so i volunteered, i was the only woman on the committee. one of them giggled. i said, what is so funny. they said, ruth, do you think they will feel comfortable dealing with a woman? i said, what makes you think the gay activist alliance is composed only of men? [laughter] justice ginsburg: the truth was they sent their vice president who happened to be a woman, as one of the people to speak. what happened i think is people came out of the closet. people stood up and said this is

who i am and i am proud of it. who were they? our next-door neighbors. our child's best friend. maybe even our child. when that happened there was no longer the same we-they difference. they were part of "we." these were people we loved, that we worked with. that was part of something that gave impotence -- impetus to the gay rights movement that was much harder with racial discrimination. people tended to live in neighborhoods that were either all white or all african-american. there was that sense that once people stood up and said this is who i am, that made an enormous difference.

♪

>> is there a special bond amongst the three justices that are women? justice ginsburg: there's a special pride that i have in my newest colleagues. because, don't you know the old

nursery rhyme, what are little girls made of, sugar, spice, and everything nice? that's the little girls are made of. little boys, nails and snails and puppy dog tails. well, all of you who have visited the supreme court know that my newest colleagues are not shrinking violets. they take a very active part in the colloquy that goes on in the oral arguments. justice sotomayor: if i may take the liberty of relating a story, the day our newest colleague was sworn in, the president as is customary was there and came in to greet all of the justices. and, he got to justice ginsburg and said something like, justice

ginsburg, are you happy with the two sisters i have brought you? [laughter] justice sotomayor: and ruth paused and looked at him and said i'm very happy. but i will be happier when there is five. [laughter] [applause] justice ginsburg: the answer to that question, when will there be enough? when there are nine, of course. ♪ charlie: there are only eight now. justice ginsburg: it is not a good number for a collegial court. charlie: and you hope that this after the election, that there will be a consideration by the senate before the new president takes office? and to act on the issue? justice sotomayor: we hope there will be nine as quickly as

possible. we function as nine. justice ginsburg: i thought we did remarkably well last term when there were only three cases that could not be decided because there was an even division. but they were important cases. it means uncertainty will continue on those issues until there are nine. charlie: you have said to me, you missed justice scalia. justice ginsburg: yes. charlie: justice breyer was on with me in new york last week and he said i miss the spirit of justice scalia and the debates with justice scalia. i am sure you feel the same way. justice sotomayor: he made us laugh. charlie: that is what it was. justice sotomayor: and he made us think.

he challenged us to think. those are ingredients for interesting conversation, and for lively discussion. charlie: you once said to me you both loved opera. but you said he could sing better than you. justice ginsburg: i can't sing at all. charlie: but they are writing lines for you in the opera that you will perform in when? justice ginsburg: november 12. it is a speaking part. [laughter] justice ginsburg: there is an opera. scalia ginsburg. it is a comic opera of course. but the composer, he tried to say in a nutshell what is the difference between the two of us? it opens with scalia's rage aria. the musicians, you know a rage

aria is typical of handle. -- of handel. the justices are blind. how can they possibly spout this? the constitution says absolutely nothing about this. he is searching for bright solutions to problems that don't have easy answers. but, the great thing about our constitution is that like our society, it can evolve. so that sets up -- and then we have a wonderful duet at the end. [laughter] justice ginsburg: it says, we are different, we are one. different in the way we approach the interpretation of legal text, but one in our reverence for the constitution and the court.

charlie: one thing justice scalia said, it probably wasn't the best idea that how many supreme court justices came from harvard or yale. that wasn't necessarily a good idea for the supreme court. do you agree with that? and most of them had judicial experience at court of appeals level. justice sotomayor: i thought she -- he did not think that. charlie: didn't he say something like that? ok, regardless of whether he said it or not. [laughter] justice sotomayor: i will give you that. since i am from yale and ruth spent part of her time at harvard -- justice ginsburg: columbia has had a lot of great justices. charlie: you got your degree from columbia and when you

switched to columbia from harvard for your third year, harvard would not give you a degree. you got a degree from columbia. justice ginsburg: they said i had to stay for the third year. charlie: your husband was moving to new york. justice ginsburg: yes. i did not want to be a single mom. there were two things. marty had been diagnosed with a severe cancer. we did not know how long he was going to live, we didn't want to be a part -- we did not want to be a part that year. i didn't want to be a single mom to my three-year-old daughter. so i asked the dean if i successfully complete my education at columbia, well i get a harvard degree? absolutely not. you have to spend a third year here. i had the perfect rebuttal. a classmate of mine had taken her first year of law school elsewhere.

she transferred her second year class. i said to the dean, she will have year two and three and you're going to give her a degree? the first year is the most important. you say that. i have year one and two. charlie: to come back to the point, what is lovely about this story, they then wanted to give you a degree to the law school. justice ginsburg: that is when my now colleague, when she became dean. elena kagan. when she became dean, every year she said ruth, we would like you to have a harvard law school degree. my husband said hold out for an honorary degree.

charlie: and they gave it to you. justice ginsburg: sadly one year after he died. charlie: there is a picture in your chambers of you receiving that in your crimson. one of your heroes singing to you. justice ginsburg: being serenaded by placido domingo. can you imagine? charlie: she has labeled the photograph, "woman in ecstasy." justice sotomayor: i said just recently, there is no way the supreme court could ever be reflective of the society in terms of experiences. in part because we are appointed for life. that means that a change -- fundamental changes in the court take a very long time to occur. so we are never going to be completely on an even keel with the sword of experiences of the society. we are going to be off a little bit. but i do worry, a little bit.

not a little bit, a lot actually. not in the traditional sense of thnic and gender but in the traditional sense in lack of professional and life experience diversity that our court has. i say that despite being a little bit different than my colleagues in some of my experiences and certainly my life. justice thomason i came from backgrounds, somewhat dissimilar from our colleagues. but none of us have the breadth of the experiences to the law. we have no criminal defense lawyers on our courts. we have one civil rights lawyer. ruth right now. there are so many other incredibly important civil rights issues out there, we have

a few practitioners with small and medium-sized practice experience. and we have very few people from geographical differences in the united states. and as you noted, very little in terms of religious differences, and even less in terms of educational experiences. that is a lot of areas where we don't reflect the general society. do i think it does harm to our judging? not necessarily. but it certainly i think does harm to the court's reflection of attempting to be broader in its outreach to people. >> if we are being asked to judge, what the court does will be received better if we are a little wider and what we represent. >> by the way, there was one state of the union that was vastly overrepresented. it was stanford, arizona.

we had our chief justice and sandra day o'connor. both states with a relatively small population. it was finally confirmed they did date. [laughter] charlie: it is great to have two new yorkers back home. ♪ whoooo.

you're searching for something. like the perfect deal... ...on the perfect hotel. so wouldn't it be perfect if... ....there was a single site... ...where you could find the... ...right hotel for you at the best price? there is. because tripadvisor now compares... ...prices from over 200 booking... ...sites ...to save you up to 30%...

...on the hotel you want. trust this bird's words. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices.

reporter: i'm emma chandra, and you are watching "bloomberg technology." atop u.s. commander said the third wave of additional u.s. troops will begin arriving in afghanistan within days or weeks. president trump has not given an exact number of how many he plans to send. in singapore, the remains of u.s. sailors have been found aboard a damaged american worship. the bodies were found in a flooded compartment of the uss john mccain. 10 sailors went missing after the ship collided with an oil taker. it is the second collision in two months for a u.s. warship. charlottesville has decided to cover up statues of confederate generals. there was a uns