>> it seems to be that back-office them great pain, and this is part of a rather elaborate explanation as to why they voted to uphold this statute and invalidate the statute. i think that it would be better if people got away from that. that they could explain what has led them to change their mind. one question of accountability

and how we hold the justices accountable. one of the ways that we do that is by having them sign their names to the opinions themselves and that the justice wrote that opinion. or that they wrote an infamous opinion on behalf of the supreme court. i think that it's helpful to be able to identify this particular justice that wrote that opinion. i'm not even sure that actually possible to have an anonymous opinion anymore given the sophistication of computer databases that would be capable of this opinion. that takes us to this question. and you know it's not all about that. i think that they are at least capable of adding something valuable to the institution and perhaps what is most important not so much the drafting of

opinions for that to happen but instead, the voice of the younger generation and many of the justices are in their 70s and 80s and coming before the court involving technological issues or issues, you know i think it's incredibly valuable for the justice to have someone that they can talk to about these sort of issues. so i would be reluctant to get rid of it. >> it's really interesting for them to get that together expertise to bear. >> i have a lot of students who i would say well, if you want to inform them about technology or whatever the issue is. you know, i'm not so sure. [laughter] >> like i said, i probably shouldn't have been a clerk either. >> mentioning the justices, the utility of bringing them into the chambers, of course it raises this whole topic as well. and so i think that there's a lot to discuss about life

tenure. we might as well throw it out and see if we would like to get rid of it. >> we had nonrenewable term limits. part of it is because life expectancy is thankfully so much longer than it was in 1787. clarence thomas was 43 years old was confirmed in 1981. alayna kagan and others were 50 were never confirmed. imagine these three justices stay until their 90s you know that is too much power to be exercised by a single person for too long of a time. also too much on this history. richard nixon had four vacancies in his first two years as president and jimmy carter had no years in his first four years. eighteen year nonrenewable terms that every president that would have every two years and i think

that that would be far better. >> i don't have any objections on term limits. two of them might be better. [laughter] you could have rotating circuit judges serving on the supreme court for two years apiece. and that might be even better. >> i think that i am opposed to term limits. here are some arguments against them, one would be the constitution of the united states. there is article three section number one, which talks about the tenure that the justices have assuming that we are even able to have a constitutional amendment which i think would be able to be required. but i worry about the costs of the constant churn of the supreme court justices if there's a turnover every two years, one could imagine the justices having even greater incentive to have these sort of

strategic arguments as to not hear case or hear one. and so when you think about justice john marshall, writing some rather important opinions that shape our constitution while after he had been on the court for 18 years. and i think this could be true of oliver wendell holmes. and it incentivizes justices to think about what they are going to do after they leave the court. and that seems like a mistake to me. obviously earl warren was the attorney general of california, and then he joined the supreme court in a way that is very

compatible. and i think that one of the reasons he was able to vote in the way that he did is because he didn't have to think about the next election and what was going to come after leaving the court. so there is a real virtue in having people go to the court and understand it. and that is the last position that they are ever going to hold in their professional lives. >> the vast majority of them don't do their best, but more importantly they are so out of sync. what i like is the idea of a regular turnover is one of the ways in which you can preserve even supremacy. and yet not worry about the court during too far away

because of the constant turnover. then the question which is a good one. i don't think the justice would have a difficulty finding a good job. and this would have to change, or it probably would if it was every two years. >> you know when we learned about this with the older justices, with regular turnover that there wouldn't be such an incentive to put these young justices on the court. so i think one can make an argument that this would be kind of a capstone and not something that would come early in someone's legal career.

so i want to talk a little bit more because -- looking at the 18 year time frame, there is a recent argument [inaudible] the actual active job of serving and working day-to-day as a justice would be for the nine most junior people of the group. >> you know, i'm skeptical. i think it would require a constitutional amendment. but here, i disagree about this. when rick perry ran for president, he proposed what i

suggested 18 in nonrenewable terms, we had conservatives like this both for his poor proposing this. i spoke about this and on the rare occasion i get interrupted with applause for proposing the term limits. [applause] >> i did not do that on purpose. but i think that there's much more support than we might imagine and it could take time to build a support than to turn into this. but i don't think it's an impossibility. >> you had mentioned the were concerned about this process and i think that another number of people that support this if that would mean every president would get two nominees so that we would've liked this entrenchment problem that fate would devolve upon the lucky

presidents or unlucky presidents so there would be an expectation of regularity that may lower the stakes somewhat of this process. is that something that appeals to you? >> lowering the stakes appeals to me. whether this would do much towards that, i'm skeptical about it. i think that the high temperatures that occurred at the court confirmation hearing is something fairly new and probably contingent on the fact that we have a closely divided court and that kind of thing. i think that that's probably a more important factor in driving these things. >> you know i'm not sure that

it would lower the temperature at all because part of what raises the temperature is the fact that these high-profile cases get support in the first place. which the justice probably think that it's a bad thing on the premise. but that would have been even if we had this. so i think that i'm not entirely sure what we would get out of the term limits. and i think a perfect example and counterpoint to the idea that the justices toward this on the bench, that they are not part of current society. our speaker has been notorious at the very end of her career. and so people are getting tattoos on their arms. you know, we have had this and we may not have gotten some of

his best sense. some of these things come somewhat by accident of what cases come up. jack did this experiment of what would happen if they had these 18 year term limits. and so i'm not entirely sure what we would get out of that. >> what you get is that it's not that they are not individuals. i can say that the last term six of the justices were in their 80s. and they were not all there. and it was not that they stepped in and did what we wanted in a way that would have been part of this. what we did is we would extrapolate from past opinions are we thought they would want to go. and there was not the same ability to say i don't think i want to go there. you do see a lot of this with the elderly justices becoming

exaggerated versions of them. you cannot do that exactly but think about the important things he might want to construct for your own lives. those you may want to get at the tailor and of their lives whose abilities are declining would you rather have those that are at the peak of their powers and i don't think that there's any question. saying that i will take the people that are active geek of their powers and that is, you know, there's no reason this should be different. >> one part of that they are doing incalculable damage. in part that is because the justices have remained on the court far too long. and i think the advantage of these terms is saying that we will have justices coming on the court and giving 18 years which

is a long time to make a mark on the constitution for a long learning curve. >> just curious given the arc of your career is that year part of what is overrated? >> i will say that it was an amazing experience, approaching the job and then i got to the supreme court. i was angry the entire year. it was such a disappointment and it had nothing to do with the ir optical stuff. it was sitting inside the bubble realizing what we were in. complete unawareness of consequences and the few cases where we thought we had some sense of this and i didn't come out come it took me a long time

although it's interesting. we were lost about the same time and we had this argument at the time and i was a staunch defender of judicial supremacy at the time and so it took a while. it took a long time to come around and a lot of it was because of the kind of arguments that was made. which i don't dismiss widely. there's a hard judgment to figure what benefits of having this and this is way further than what we need to. so there's some notion that this is an 800-pound political cruller, which it has been. so that we don't need to be quite so afraid of doing things that would make them more aware and make them think that they need to be more aware and so on and so forth.

>> here is the thing. he was just extraordinary and one of the most interesting human beings i've ever met. and i used to think that it must've been amazing to see him when he was in his 40s or 50s, it would've been scary. >> it's worth knowing. his powers were gone. >> he decided not to stay until his powers were completely gone. >> i understand that some of your recent work. you are view is that the court has been a part of this for the goods that it shouldn't be shy of using it.

>> there are constitutional rights of marginalized citizens and that is because the supreme court is fundamentally incapable of vindicating those rights but it's just too fragile and institutional. when it attempts to vindicate those rights, and ends up making matters much worse. so he cannot come to the rescue of marginalized youths. when you hear this all the time many would say that it's the seventh-grade conception of the core coming to the rescue and that racial minorities is inaccurate because the nation as a whole was committed to egalitarianism. and i think that that oversimplifies brown and it

would not quite land in racial enlightenment that would sometimes pretend, but even more importantly i think the supreme court does have the capacity to do this even for a very unpopular group. if you think about this from 2008 and then the court says that that is unconstitutional,. >> if you pull that opinion, it's not a great surprise. the majority of people would say yes, insert capital punishment on this. but if you think about this for that matter, more than 80% of people think that you should have a law against that.

>> if they haven't done a good enough job and it's not because of lack of capacity, it's because of personnel. and that includes bear their desires as well to afford the people. so that includes the nomination in 2006. there were 23 justices that were concerned. seventeen of those justices were appointed by republicans. only six of them were appointed by democrats.

and i think that i really do worry about people that are constantly hearing about that. and there are some people for whom going to the courthouse is the only option. and the court has stepped in and successfully vindicated right on at least some occasions. there's no reason that you can't get through. citizens united is another example of this institution. i understand that it is a powerful institution and the question is what that will be used for. >> you mentioned when you were talking about this problem. but they are not acting as a court. and so is it just a playoff of what was said? what is the court?

>> i guess they kind of monster. [laughter] and it really is two of them. i think what the justice said is a sign of that. there's the political and then there is illegal. and so for a variety of reasons the legal court is smaller than i think it should be and the political order is much bigger than i think it should be. maybe if they had different justices in accord with how to interpret the constitution i would feel differently. but i don't think so. >> i strongly disagree. i think the assumption is the value neutral judging, that there can be the ability to

assist. what is cruel and unusual punishment. >> no rights are absolute. and inevitably there is balancing. so whether it's a fundamental right or racial minority, is it diversity in the classroom. the court has to decide if there is a legitimate government interest. so they still ask if there is a legitimate government reason and the answer is obviously there is no legitimate government reason. but all of these are part of that.

and all of these are legal questions and there's no way of having a value neutral judgment and one is political and one is not. it all involves this. >> one thing that is interesting is social science research that indicates that the public understands that so although there is a political culture that forces the judicial nominees to day my job as the supreme court justice is to supply the facts, the public knows that's not true and they are okay with that. in a way the public seems to want them to say that. or they wouldn't be required to say it. and the public also understands that judging is part of this.

>> you know i don't know that they are necessarily okay with the court asking if this is another political entity. but i think that there is an understanding that the justices have thoughts and experiences and i think that getting an increased diversity, we are talking about this as well, getting a diversity of experience more folks had been in public interest, but i think that the idea of the court as mentioned as a protector of rights is something that we shouldn't overlook. the idea that you can achieve things that you can before is equally important.

while it is true that most of the states didn't have this on the book there was a hard-core group and i think that's very important to note that even if the court is not necessarily leaving on the and, many would say that but certainly there are states that will not without the court telling them to recognize these constitutional rights to quality and that's a very important role of the court. >> all of this is part of it. but what is bizarre is the nuance in this debate and i don't mean this debate but the debate of the society at large. so there's some completely value neutral analysis that you are using unless you're doing something wrong. on the other hand there's a big difference in the relative mix and there's also legal

considerations and i feel comfortable saying that 20 or 30, 40 years ago almost at no time would that be in the supreme court. and so it tells you that something has gone seriously wrong. it's incapable of saying that the court should have a role. and now we have to enable them to do anything we want. so it's interesting because there's no question that this was not established as part of the background political culture reflected in the pledge back at the time and what you got and what made this work is that it's the culmination in the legislation that you get. the civil rights act. and so is a popular political movement and the notion that you don't want people to be engaged in the political side. so the question is how do we wind a balance where we don't

have to say that they are going to be our protector of rights and no matter what they do or how unprotected it is we have to protect their authority because someday we hope that maybe they will do something that we like. i remember when they were talking about this when the court decided about this. they said those opinions around. and then they use that to do 2500 things. that will go both ways. so that question is can we have a system as we did when we can have pushed back. we want to know what are the devices to push back. jurisdiction, other things budget slashing is fun, court packing is fun, who did this in american history? jefferson, jackson, teddy roosevelt. franklin roosevelt.

it's only in the last 50 years that we have understood what judicial independence must mean. all of those on the face of the constitution, they are such a threat that we can't do it. so we need to be be balanced and recognize that the pushback has to come both ways. sometimes we need to be able to push back. you know they say you may disagree with but it would be unpatriotic. so that would not have happened and so they didn't feel that they have the ability to do this even though they were pushing to do that at the time. so it is that dynamic that we need to be aware of. and so we do need some devices it's good to talk about what they are with term limits and possibilities. but we have moved in a public

debate so far from now. my fans are ralph gave it. and the notion of challenging this judicial supremacy is what you get. ..

and it takes time. the debate shifts. suddenly for the 1st time really the debate shifts to how you interpret the constitution. that is a knew development. the dominant position shifts because the left flats on this idea and now we have agreement from left to right but the court should tell us what our rights are and what the constitution means and now we have to wait for someone to die or amend the constitution. >> a little bit going on today it seems to me on some of the various jurisdictions in the not-too-distant past it was liberals who had a

very generous idea of standing. all of a sudden basically into.that a plaintiff had a sketchy as they come. let's not investigate there standing. question is standing of abigail fisher. the fisher case even though she graduated from college and there is now redressability from the standing doctrine and so on and maybe that reflects what your talking about. >> there you have to separate the litigants choice from the court decision. i don't i don't understand why the university of texas now challenge are standing. i don't know why the solicitor gen.'s office to bring a challenge to standing. so there it is not the supreme court. it is litigants choice. terms of the supreme court i

want to be clear what we should not think of the supreme court as the brutalizing standing. the last major standing case. reverses amnesty international where the supreme court ruled five to four that no one would have standing to challenge federal law giving the national security agency the ability to intercept communication. no one can show that their communications were intercepted by the nsa. there is a terrible decision in terms of standing in a very restrictive. >> some of y'all were clerking, the court took twice as many cases were even more as it is deciding. some of the things that you are still taking too many cases. as the court deciding too much? >> i think they are not taking enough. they are just taking the wrong kinds.

there are lots of important decisions that need to be resolved. the professor named arthur helmand did a study of the courts practices. what he found was there seems to have been a cultural shift on the court away from an obligation to resolve certain words. now they can always find some way of saying it is managers with. if i recall correctly he said that justice white was the last justice on the court really took the obligation to clarify the law whether they take the allegations seriously. he suggests with a lot of data that is pretty much gone now. i just think that is

unfortunate. they should take more cases. more law and less politics without suggesting that you can have a purer version. >> i. >> i think -- i don't think that it matters. i think -- what i said at the beginning there are a reasonable number of cases that are technical legal cases. you need someone to resolve the. they have a lot. >> and then in any given term -- >> get rid of the law clerks. >> in any given term -- and it does not matter whether there are 75450 cases. there are four or five typically that are the big cases and the while we're here are the ones we care about command there would be those in either domain. so i don't think you are going to affect the fact that there are these issues that the supreme court assumed and always have. and i don't think it changes

from 150 150 to 75. >> i agree with be a marginal change. >> depending on how you define. impossible for although i should.out that there was a time the supreme court decided hundreds of cases that no one clerks. >> it. >> it was opinion. >> well, they decided the case is the. they were acting like judges. that is not an impossible thing to do. >> are there any kinds of cases that the court is ducking or failing to take note? >> second amendment cases. they recently denied the second amendment case. the dissent from the most. >> anything else? >> identify a system.

every time every time i see cases where there is a real sort. inexplicably that is denied. this year the court had oral arguments and 68 cases. after the court decided the case is the vote was 73. were that it was 65. as recently as 1980s the call the call was the siding a hundred and 60 cases in your. the opinions of gotten much longer. the number of cases goes down late closeout. also in dissent, some criticisms in the opinions

may be like opinions, locked opinions, that is one of the rare instances when we do have transparency. having those opinions being written away is interesting and understandable why it's only a good thing. i would note on cases that the court should be taken, cases involving purely because the court granted the case about the destruction and counted as evidence of television i were there was a circuit split on whether you can have a nonunanimous a nonunanimous jury sentence person to a life of our labor.

that's. that's a clear constitutional violation. incredibly important constitutional values. >> i would identify as involving cases they that should take more. seems to be reluctant. the context of student rights and the elementary and secondary school context the the court hasn't heard a case involving student rights in the last six terms during the roberts court the winning case and the involvement. so there are three ill-equipped to get involved in this arena.

someone is cases are incredibly contentious. the lower courts need guidance from the supreme court in order to be able to deal. >> the kind of cases that are being -- >> one of the major issues the area that the circuit courts are at odds about his speech that happens outside of school context of computer. ultimately goes back in the school. that doesn't fit into the traditional doctrinal categories anyway. that is one of the major issues. a case involving religious speech by students the court

wants to seem to get involved. the courts involving students wearing the american flag to school. that was impermissible. the exact context cinco de mayo. rebellion, maybe even the father was a very divisive issue. it seems like there will be would be a place for the court to step in and get involved. >> a case we for. >> i have no opinion on this i. i don't. it's one of these areas i don't think i no enough. >> you had mentioned court stripping is a valid way of

constraining the court if the public so desires. the most recent occasion that i can think of was when some people in congress that concern the call was relying too much on foreign law and there was a house resolution passed i think, not with the expectation that a result in some serious piece of legislation. expressing protest that the court and in a justice or judge who decided to quote foreign law should be impeached. you know, it has kind of come down to that. what about court stripping is appropriate constraining mechanism? what then would stop congress adopting an from adopting an unconstitutional

law in a blatantly unconstitutional and for putting the supreme court and lower federal courts from being able to review it? if congress can do that then we have lost what the judicial branches therefore. you also mentioned another example. the possibility the possibility of budget cutting. just yesterday the kansas legislature passed a law. of the kansas supreme court decides funding should be stripped if anything is a violation of separation of powers it must be that. >> i want to jump in again. if you have a simpleminded simpleminded, simplistic conception of the way democracy works, this is where working in the past is helpful. again, the idea with these devices his was the threat is realistic you something even. the court is acutely conscious of how far it can go and the jurisdiction stripping proposals were routinely reduced.

that was not because of judicial supremacy. if they go about the responsibilities responsibly it actually is an 800-pound gorilla in politics. they play the judicial role in the judicial way but there's a difference between -- it is clear that he took pride when he can say what i am doing is what everyone else the country thinks is bad and wrong. yes, we want your independent judgment, but it should be in light of what the rest of the country thinks. the way democratic politics works is these things become the.of engagement. these engagement. these issues are flushed out. it started the debate. it provided the grounds on which we had public engagement that produced

real political activity, the civil rights act of 1964 which was so much better and such a better solution command you don't get that when the court is effectively deemed to be a shadow operate. never completely shuts off. the way people respond is not just a part of whether they agree or disagree. it is probably a part of the extent partly a part of the extent to which they feel entitled to disagree. i treat my i treat my boss differently i disagree with him or her than i do my subordinates. whether the court sees itself is our boss was subordinates will affect profoundly the way it operates. if you look historically you get a better balance with these devices being available, nothing you can't imagine the parade of horrible's. we have some reasonable responses.

it did not stop being the martial court but pulled back and probably to the benefit of the country pullback in the introduction of all these bills. bills. the availability of the threat, not the ideal way to do it. this is where our constitution leaves us. none of them remotely imagined the court playing this kind of home. thinking role. thinking of a different problem of english, lies the problem. i don't i don't care if he's guilty or innocent. of one convicted. there were stuck. so the term limits, super majorities for appointment also devices you can use. these are the ones we had. i would rather have that than nothing. >> having cards collected. people have questions. >> i want to pick up before we get to that. i think part of what your

comments reflect is that things are kind of working now. we have these pushback from the other branches. branches. you know, when congress does not like what the supreme court has done it passes a law. we have the pres. able to say after citizens united for darius effect, it's a problem. he speaking to the american people in a way that he is empowered and entitled to do so. i think what i think about the question of whether the court is a failure in a part of it is self-interested. nobody getting supreme court. if i think it's a failure that i might as will not get get out of bed in the morning. i think in many important ways it is a failure. part a failure. part of that is because it is the independent judiciary that i found was put in place's -- is that of some of the european models that was not as. the legitimacy of the institution is reflected in

the fact that the american people view it as legitimate evil and i disagree when they disagree with it. in some ways that is an institutional success i would say. you're looking at an independent judiciary i think it only seems to be that way if there is some sort of idea that the court acts according to law and not just politics. no one has said this more often than chief justice roberts. of course i think we have a lot of instances and even in the roberts court era where that is not seems to be true for citizens united reaching out to something they did not have to decide. another another major test when you have scholars from across the ideological spectrum. when the court will follow while politics. i think that something to watch whether or not the

court is. >> a conversation is promote quite a few good questions. i will turn to those in our last few minutes. are there lessons or reforms from state supreme court's that could inform the federal supreme court? >> i will give an example of a number of states that have the selection system.

i think any pres. to voluntarily create. create a commission bipartisan and say you want to name two or three supported by two thirds of the group and promises other to pick from those names are asked for additional names. as names. as an example of alaska is used assistant and success. sarah palin, barack obama put on the ninth circuit. many think she's a liberal judge. jimmy carter created merit selection, selection district court, federal court of appeals. i think i can make the argument. certainly among the best definitely most diverse in american history and he might have done that for the supreme court had he only have a supreme had a supreme court vacancy. any president could create such a merit selection commission. >> any other ideas? >> i have one question. with the merit selection system laid to the potential nomination of the public figures with senators who played an important role in public life of what is

instantly to the more traditional way of judges of the courts of appeals? i am drawn to the old model and it's hard to imagine. anyone selection. that's one concern. >> political experiences. next line is john robertson with bader ginsburg. i think it could produce another. i think it depends on how we define marriage.

that would be. >> the state focus question. you talked a lot about the failings of the lifetime appointment system. many have term limits. state judges are subject to attack as especially with regard to being soft on crime. what crime. what is the answer to traditional impartiality back i take it this asks us to reflect on the dangers of the election system. we we certainly have seen recently in the state courts this constant for one example of the mess that is created of the recent judicial election and the unseating of cheese to --

chief justice abrams a terribly messy situation. electing judges have any merit to as an idea. >> i think i agree with justice o'connor. it's a pretty bad idea to elect judges. we have seen in the states some of the problems. you know, i think that it also to me raises while we want to have why some folks who criticize the court want to make it more like the democratically elected branches. i cannot imagine right now anyone saying even with all the problems that is more like this congress. like that's a good thing. i think that that is something to keep in mind. >> let me just be clear. i

certainly would argue the traditional elections have been a good thing. where they come from historic. who who controls law the jacksonians made for codification. and to judicial election as a way to make sure the people who control the commonwealth would be somewhat subject to control. the interesting thing is once you have judicial election establishing itself is regularized and they get picked up much later. there is a certain irony there but the way elections have played out is not a good thing. there are all different ways to produce accountability of independence. they thought this was to have each of the branches of government had a different. a different. long-term election by state legislatures. we have lots of options.

but that is not to say that we have to go to the other extreme. the other.i would say the congress, are you serious? nothing could be worse. the solution is to fix that don't want to give up on a. >> tried to have having more justices solve or create more problems justices throughout the 20th century but nothing in the constitution tells us how many carter should designate the right size. does it matter? >> you can manipulate.

>> when lincoln gets elected they increase the size of the court because they want them or say. when johnson gets elected the shrink the court. when grant is like to be increased according to. you have to look at it in isolation. you would not have a today because people say because of things that were being said in congress in the 1930s be shouted down across the spectrum. president obama makes this one off and. a very criticize. that was a

long way. go back and read the congressional debates. that is debates. that is a debate that does not exclude the possibility of judicial review and does not assume the court having failed. the senate confirmation was no longer required by the constitution. constitution. setting that aside, what about the blue sky idea getting rid of senate confirmation. >> it would look more like congress. >> if there was no senate confirmation required? we have to remember historically 20 percent of presidential nominations were rejected and almost always on ideological grounds. in the 20th century and even this century confirmation battles occur when the senate is a different political party that the president.

the same political party. i think that you have a very important check. completely appropriate and i am thankful the senate rejected. think out different the law would have been. rejected precisely because of his ideology. one of the checks that is built into the system is senate confirmation. different political parties. >> and we can't get rid of senate confirmation. an interesting subset is what about a spending the nuclear options. you essentially need 60 votes.

they set forth majority rule maybe we should not have that. right now because of the deployment of the nuclear option for court of appeals judges. that is something that is a possibility under the constitution. >> of the supreme court retain that power and authority so i confirmation will not change because it is the political controversy it happens on the side. the confirmation hearings provide you a place where it's not like they would make the appointments. largely the same debate. >> on that line harriet miers was briefly nominated. so i think that is a real a real phenomenon. it is possible that the

senate confirmation process itself intimidates some people who may otherwise be attractive justices. very seriously and consideration. i don't know what made it back off. ..

>> >> hot -- and other debates that have taken place always have the general assumption we will enforce the judgments in any other context. but who will stick to their dens for the longest with

that public deliberation that is designed to create. >> so everybody here knows with the justices to do the initial betting -- vetting of what you are worth which is subject to receive the full role so it came about in the '70s and subject to various kinds of criticism. >> i think it is partially responsible. is used to be every position

was read by nine law clerks they tend to know the issues the justices were interested in but now it is read by to. one for the cleric had won if justice alito is not participating i think it was better nine people rather than to people. >> it was true years ago there is a strong norm in favor to deny the supreme court clerks if you cruz off and the justices decided bauhaus that love is a providence said you are not popular nobody is criticized to mistaken they recognize i think it is the serious problem for when the clerks

disappear. [laughter] >> i could say with a fair amount of confidence that is what they needed to decide. so do you think this is an area where changes could be made leica quota or having a third-party entity to have say which cases are granted? so that third-party has been a recommendation over the years in the 1980's maybe it is less salian today.

with us cited said the dockage bid to become chief justice that has not happened. so we should talk more by that is exactly. but i expect if there were a quota the effect that they were said take so much of those cases in a summary fashion even though i'm sure the justices would be irritated to have one hour of oral argument if they're ready to decide on the merits. i don't think that quota will come. i think that seems odd.

>> to be part of the course calendar if you go on the web site hodeida says on the calendar. that has happened so we see a phenomenon the last time is a lot easier to get a case credited j. larry that is one kind of impetus. but if they're literally cancel the april arguments then carry over those cases granted then to expedite the

briefing schedule with those cases of the january calendar that i hear you but we could add to that because to think they were now working hard enough. should there be a third outside court to inform them >> there is something to be learned from the lower courts in this regard that there is a rocket of the server edition of lawyers for the law firm's and that

is because the injustices assume that they are there then the eager supreme court lawyer will take it pro bono. and to recommend that decision with the staff counsel for the court and that is something to think about with those prisoner appeals so that might be one instance to have the administrative body in the lower courts. >> the one saying that concerns me with that of increasing number of

instances without the oral arguments in to fake it is more common for says the of merit this is about convincing the court it is worth hearing. the opposition comes to the court this is the right vehicle when the court decides without the previous with the oral arguments they've making the decision will we believe is necessary and there has been a lot more of that in the last few years. >> that is a very good point that brings us back to the initial point of lack of transparency. if there is one instance it is the opinion that is a

blinding judgment which is problematic for that reason. >> but it is a summary judgment that is your point. >> without having notified the parties of the decision on the merits. we do have to stop there is a reception down the street one block south of here at the afl-cio headquarters beginning at 630 please have your name tag with you for admission and take you for your attention. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. the team back over one decade at the university of chicago lost cause first involved because i believed in its mesh -- mission the privilege two's support acis.

is giving me countless professional development justice ginsburg is well-known. i will give a little bit of it anyway. [laughter] she served on the u.s. court of appeals and prior to becoming a judge to is a law professor at rutgers and columbia university over decades of service she has been an unwavering advocate for women on the bench, as one of the founders of the women's rights project reserves less general counsel for nearly a decade for cry had extraordinary honor to clerk for her which

was as amazing am life changing experience as you would expect. among my a fondest memories words up champagne and cupcake a birthday party she would oppose all clerks and secretaries just to think how crazy it is to have a birthday party with amorous spader ginsberg we would plan in advance the questions to ask her if we did pretty well we heard amazing stories of her summers since we didn't over civil procedure and we heard about this first supreme court arguments and over her beloved has been a distinguished attorney and chef supreme his love and support for the justice is legendary f. tumblr had

existed before he passed away no doubt he would have started meritorious rbd himself. [laughter] [cheers and applause] but it but i have a deep sense of remorse of all the questions we didn't get to ask some of this is the dream come true one more chance to hear about the incredible career facilitated by the california supreme court justice. also a law officer before joining the bench a wide the published expert in constitutional law and educational policy a popular and acclaimed teacher and evidently the associate dean also on the board of directors for a number of years. [applause]

but long before all of that the justice was a law clerk first of this d.c. circuit and then for justice ginsberg said he is perfect for this job because he also has some long list of questions left over from the chamber birthday parties please join me to welcome the justices. [cheers and applause] >> welcome. thank you for being here on the bus saturday afternoon and especially thank you to justice ginsberg it is a

busy time of the court so thank you for spending a few moments with us here. so that your finishing your 22nd term and a people have noticed in recent years you have the president's you have a huge vienna-based everywhere you go. [cheers and applause] people call you a rock star and the icon there is an opera about you and justice scalia. [laughter] there is the emoticon and t-shirts with the notorious rbg and then my personal favorite you cannot spell truth without roofs.

[cheers and applause] -- ruth then even those that have a tattoo of your likeness. [laughter] that is loved. all of this is unusual for a supreme court justice and justice the league gets that battle think anybody has his tattooed not even at the federalist society. [laughter] so i want to start by asking how did this happen? [laughter] >> it is amazing. i into read it to a student who started the notorious

rbg at first i did not know what to make of it because i did not know who the jury is a b i g was. [laughter] but you were both born and bred it brooklyn new york i should explain runaway ginsburg comes before sculley yes alphabetically how important security is in the workplace. [laughter]

so if they came before ginsburg. >> there will be a biography called the notorious rbg the life and times of ruth bader ginsburg also of biopic with natalie portman. run on these projects? >> i do with the notorious rbg but i like it and so do my grandchildren. i had a nephew who is a scriptwriter. he asked if he could write a

script and i said yes. is interesting because the case was the commissioner of internal revenue he took good care of his mother and she was 92 at the time. if it was a woman or a widow or a divorced man?

he did not get the deduction because he was a married man. but if i were a dutiful daughter this makes no sense. sought-after i said to read this i said that is tax and i don't read that if he said read this one and it is the story. the never write the constitutional law part but she would write the tax part so this is about the case.

and then it includes the aclu and what i said in the '70s to have a role in this to go into 2016. and we had a very good conversation toussaint want the director band-aid to have a woman director. [applause]

we look forward to it. you already mentioned many times you have been described as shy and reserved especially compared to your loving husband who was always very quick with a joke. son people called him a serial wisecrack her. some people would be surprised at your celebrity? >> i think he would be delighted. [applause] that was not long after you were married but you said he

was the first boy that you dated that care that you had a brain. you had it to kids and a to a career marriage that was unusual at the time can you describe that period and what social pressures you would face with your career? >> from my first child born in 1965 then james 1965 but when schaede was small there were very few women who worked outside the home. weld by the time james was born it was not that unusual.

it is hard for today's students and then in america i graduated from law school but they had a woman but i will tell you another story. to the top of her class in stanford a few years ahead of me, she could not get any job says she volunteered to work for a county attorney and said if you think i am good enough you can put me on the payroll.

my first job was in the federal district court how did i get that job? to be in moscow at the time was in charge of the clerk shipping and called every judge in the eastern and southern district and the answer was her daughter is four years old so he called the columbia law school and the judge explained sometimes you worked on a saturday or sunday how can i count on her?

he said gifford a chance if not there is a young man in her class that could finish it up. so if you don't give her a chance there will never recommend another law school -- stated to you. but i got the job. when you got day job you did it better than anyone else but opening staffers store was hard. >> nag you have many clerks yourself and is that unusual?

>> not to day. a number of clerks have children with the david post is now teaching at temple with that application as the economist so she had a full time day job. so that is my dream for the world. there was something else about david post with his writing sample to be first

year writing section and it was part of the cycle. [laughter] blessed taiz day could segue to the next question. you seem to go through many transformations since the time you co-founded the aclu with for decades later and because of the work you did there we have the most overt forms of gender

discrimination is so what are the most pressing challenges ford gender equality i don't think the meaning of feminism has changed for with the girls to have a save opportunity to dream and aspire. and if there is not a welcome mat. read that is that women and men together should help make society a better place.

[cheers and applause] >> current challenges? >> all of the over gender classifications there is a couple left but for the most part this statutes that were once riddled with overt classifications almost all of them are gone. with that said unchanged -- the sudden change to push back but sometimes is the

example of that. when i was growing up somebody had the bright idea to drop a curtain for the people who were conducting the audition there would not know if it is a woman or a man and that simple change almost over night women bothered to show up. i was telling this story at a festival and they said not only is it behind the curtain but also it cannot

be duplicated in every area. with my colleague at columbia and at&t not promoting women to middle management. and it was called the interviewer with a candidate to get the evaluation. because a person conducting the interview was generally a white male.

but they were strangers and i am deliberately setting out to promote women. it was not that at all. >> you announce that i sit on the accord that has a majority of women including as the chief justice. do you think the law would be much different with four or five women? >> ice think it is good that we have three now. that makes a big difference

but i have to get around so long. [laughter] justice justice kagan is on my left and justice sotomayor on the right you know, that it i a braddish ranking five lead - - five lead back to the questioning. and the day but yet there are some cases that have come out the other way and one of them is the lily the better case.

but those two cases involving children whose parents could become citizens the supreme court was wrong about that. but there are pieces if the result would have been different but we've wrote more alike than any other justices even justice thomas court justice scalia. [laughter] [applause] >> i look forward to the

opera. >> you appeared on "time" magazine 100 most influential people. we have some pictures of that purple you should see a lovely picture from the first year of cornell is beautiful. the inscription in that accompanied the listing was accompanied by justice scalia that ruth bader ginsburg has had to distinguish legal careers either one of which alone would entitle her to be in the 101 is your career as said judge java circuit than the supreme court then your early career as a professor and lawyer. so what did you learn from your experience as a lawyer that best prepared you for your role as a judge?

>> the importance to have a sense of humor. [laughter] and the advice that my mother in law and gave to read when we were married his mother said i would like to tell you the secret of a happy marriage and that is sometimes it helps to be a little hard of hearing. [laughter] i found that to be such good vice dealing with martin to was a funny.

[laughter] president clinton nominated you for the supreme court 1993 to fill the seat that was vacated by justice white. we have some pictures of that. you were confirmed by the senate exactly 57 days later by a vote 96 / three. that must have been nice. [laughter] just saying. [cheers and applause] what you consider the most memorable part of the confirmation process? >> the bipartisan spirit of

the congress my biggest supporter was orrin hatch. my biggest problem was the white house handlers to take me through the process they would put questions like you were on the aclu board and they passed resolution asks how did you vote and would you defend that position today? i said stop there is nothing you can do to persuade me. i think they are a vital institution. [applause] but not a single question was raised about the aclu connection.

justice beyer was fortunate then next year but how do we get back to that? i know what that will be. but i was a beneficiary of what had happened from the clarence thomas nomination and the committee was embarrassed they had the committee before it with supposed to be anything bad record i would have a chance to answer. but all of my records nothing was questionable. so they said tell us what should read do to improve the confirmation process?

and i had not yet been confirmed so i was somewhat hesitant. [laughter] to this day i still have the of supply of thurman keychains that he gave me. here is there for the supreme court nomination. >> since being on the bench of the u.s. supreme court has been a vigorous voice of equal protection in cases not only sex discrimination but disability, most recently the shelby county case you had a lively dissent about the voting

rights act but i will ask you, at times you have compared interesting progress that has been made so rapidly on questions of discrimination based on sexual orientation contrasting with the enduring difficulties with racial inequality. what you think explains the difference in the issue of racial inequality has been? >> i think when they people stand up to save this is who i am, when that happened people looked around that my child best friend people that belong to communities

and still to date there is not a high degree of segregation of living patterns in the united states. i think it is the difference but for the gay people once they've known doubt they are people that we know and love and respect and are a part of us that accounts for the difference. then it is a kind of discrimination that would break down very rapidly.

>> can you tell us about your process on the voting rights case? that was a much quoted to set your famous line about the rainstorm if you are not getting wet. talk about that case. >> it is very much the view that i had of the segregation case several years before it was about jefferson county there were under a federal court decree to desegregate but to be up to speed to be under the thumb of a federal judge any

more sewellel dissolved the injunction. but the people of the county said we like the plan that was kept in place we would like to keep it. and the supreme court said no. that is discrimination on the basis of race. in the shelby county case it was the most comprehensive peace that was ever passed with overwhelming majority on both sides of the aisle. the voting rights act as you know, worked this way if you had a bad record to keep people from voting in any change you made in the system had to be cleared either by the district court or by the attorney general.

if you had day cleves record you could bailout on the county by county basis so they had that built-in mechanism to get out. but the coverage formula was outdated. things had changed so congress had to redo the formula of that what representative will stand up to say my state or my county still? it is impossible to come up with a new formula for that reason so developed a method would work when there was a

genuine change. and politically it was impossible to get the revision needed so that was the most healthful peace of legislation. >> you have written a number of those in recent years and you wrote a separate opinion written affordable care at and it is a the hobby lobby case that congress listen to. we talked about gonzalez with the partial birth abortion case and then who was a supervisor so i thank you may know that "saturday night live" recently did a couple of skits about you on

the weekend update. if you can show them. [laughter] the comedian that plays you as us sassy judge you dishes out the feisty one-liners then dancing after. [laughter] i will not ask you to dance for us but feel free. [laughter] if you have got it but what i really want to ask. [laughter] is have you go about writing your descend with a tone and style? how do you think about that by balance?

>> i tried to have that this then drafted before i get the majority opinion that is how i tell this story but you will remember that was the era of bush verses gore. it all began that year. i dissent. it did that say i respectfully dissent but i never said respectfully. [laughter] so they would just criticize the court's opinion that

this opinion is not to be taken seriously. [laughter] then you show no respect at all. [laughter] so i never used respectfully more over for the reasons stated if vacate around the other way or to be reversed. >> so now you have the assignment power of the majority opinion is senior of the dissenting opinion what goes into your thoughts process with the seidman's? >> it is not majority at. if it is five / four so i have succeeded to the role that john paul stevens had.

i think there is a consensus in the case of the health care and hobby lobby and shelby county as the most senior person on the defense side azurite the descent. so i tried to be as fair as i can to distribute evenly. >> when you think of your two decades on this supreme court, do you think you feel strongly about today than when you first began? >> cry was the new judge i was quiet. the very first sitting in

october i ask a lot of questions even though i was kind of a smart alec at the end of this sitting to the gatt that junior justice he gave me the case it is not the person she said just do it. just doing a. state your opinion is in circulation before the next one. [laughter] that was her attitude. but she just did it so that

was the beginning of my relationship but it is interesting you mention about her first year on the bench with the supervisors for not able to organize or unionized and i said and of course, they are employees not supervisors and then shoot come around the of their way it is hard to be a supervisor with that decision. >> you mention in justice o'connor 1993 were only the second woman to serve on the

court said justice o'connor was appointed by president reagan 12 years later. when you think back to that time with your experience over 22 years working with the wide range of colleagues , what do you thank you have learned about the art of persuasion? is it possible to persuade your colleagues in and if so, how? i really interested. [laughter] >> it is possible. yes. is it something that happens often? no. [laughter] i can remember one dissent that was designed to meet it came around it was seven / judy opinion came out six /

three. i turned that into a comfortable majority opinion. we tried to persuade each other all the time. if one votes one way you tried to write the opposition as persuasive as u.k. and to peel off another vote but most of the time that does not happen. but when they're closely divided with the majority or of the descent just to get one more vote. >> with your experience how does that persuasion happen? is it on paper or in person? apart from sitting around

the conference table. >> it is on paper read maya descent read it carefully so you are persuaded by its. [laughter] so if you side with me in this case it is never happens. >> we mentioned the chief justice rehnquist a couple of times it is will the and you have of warm relationship with justice scalia as polar opposites but he also had a very warm relationship with chief justice rehnquist to among other things took the step to us i knew the decision and himself wrote the majority decision upholding the provision.

can you describe that relationship? how did the two of you have such good chemistry? >> it was rocky at first but we were talking about what to do as a very traditional institution we came to him with a proposal we would fight to read name it because the chief had a very happy marriage but he could not resist. [laughter] he had not seen her but the year that i had mine he

could not have been more supportive. after the surgery he called me into his chambers i would give you something for this assignment i said i am okay. wait intel the radiation he says in which case do you want? i told him which one he said that is the one i was going to resign to year. [laughter] but he assigned to that to me. but their relationship with his granddaughter's almost a substitute father he wanted to keep in tune with the swedish heritage to take them to the festival's and

they loved him dearly that is decided him a lot of people did not see so i consider him as the chief enigma them with the family medical leave act i brought home that decision and he said did you write this? [laughter] >> when you think back across the couple of decades what is the biggest changes you have seen in the courts? is it day perception? . .s anything to do with government so the supreme court has slipped but not really as much as congress -- as congress has. [laughter]