audience. [applause] there's a fabulous lunch outside. [inaudible conversations] ..

>> anita folsom what what do you do it hilltop college? >> i direct the "cam for college professors. we worked with economics and history and political -- close to what is your that? >> guest: our goal is to give faculty members and college professors at other campuses

more information about free markets and current events and srve more information about free markets and current events and give them material for their classroom? host: how long have you been here? guest: ten years>>. host: how many books have you written or cowritten? guest: i have cowritten threey books with my husband bert..to and i'm happy to be here today. host: birch, what do you usually write about? guest: economic history.about ec the rise of the united states to become a world power.e the will propel the united states to achieve the i greatness. host: if you had to narrow that down into a semi- soundbite, what would that be? guest: i would say the rise of the united states and ability to have property rights in a free setting to establish tremendous economic development. host: where did you to meet?rayt

guest: missouri state university and he was a very young fellow then and i was a lot younger, but i graduated and then wasd working in the department and he was there is a young teacher and then we met and we have been dating. host: are you from kentucky? guest: i'm originally from western kentucky and bert is from the brusca. guest: she was the best student in the first class ever start-- taught. i did not date her until after she graduated, but i did have my eye on her. host: prior to coming to hillsdale where were you? guest: we were in houston test-- texas and bert worked for a foundation in houston we lived in the houston area for four years and before that bert was at the mackinac center for public policy here in michigan and before that he taught for 18 years of my state.

host: what is your connection to washington dc, the heritage foundation, the young american foundation? guest: i often speak at events that those groups sponsor and especially the young american foundation. i do a lot of events for college students. they have conferences for high school students and college students to teach them the principles of the united states. host: where you conservative? guest: i'm a conservative because i believe the principles that conservatives or free-market thinkers use work best for people. we study the economy. bert especially studies the economy are through the century of us history and the principles that free-market follow work h thy p. if you study the administration of franklin roosevelt and we have done the in-depth, we came up with ideas, the policies of franklin roosevelt

actually prolonged the great depression. guest: freedom works and voluntary exchange of people working with one another, businesses, competition, incentive to do well, all of that works well in freedom creates not only happiness, but it creates more prosperity in society and the more the us has moved in that direction the better we have become until we in the late 1800s and 1900s became complete world leaders l and economic development. host: what is the process like for you to to cowrite a book? guest: bird is smiling. it is difficult writing a book with your spouse. i don't recommend it. guest: we have done three, so somehow we have survived it. part of it is we each have expertise in certain area and so we leave the other one

alone in that area and do so we are writing chapters, each writing chapters and then the other one edits the chapters and so that that sometimes stirs up controversy, but we have done well. the lord has guided us and we have producedve reduc >>ree books together. host: your most recent book is not an economic history or free-market. with about? guest: it's the story of a prisoner we got to know in 1983 for the first time and he was on death row then, he was under this death sentence. he killed a man in alabama and he was in a prison in alabama on death row and in 1983, time magazine published an article on the death penalty, a large cover story because the death penalty wasn't much debated in the 80s. it has just become used again in the united states in time magazine wrote an article about rutledge and we read it

and really bert, we worse-- struck by mr. rutledge's story, but bert was the one that took action. guest: i read the story and they had described mitchell rutledge. is being really retarded. they said he could not read or write and no one visited him except his lawyer and the thing that struck me about the story in time magazine, remember it was a cover story, mitch was the only person interviewed in the article who was sorry for what he had done. he admitted that he did it and was wrong and apologized. here's a guy that could not even read or write and was subject to the death penalty and of the a author of the piece in time magazine concludedmagazine that his life was not worth anything, that he was a disposable person and so i was shockedw that he would draw that conclusion because he was the only one who actually showed remorse for what he had done it here he was in a prison and i could not sleep

that night thinking about this and especially from a christian standpoint. i thought he's about to be executed, maybe a year away from being executed and because hee is sorry for what he has done the lord can forgive him and he do son but i haven't. he can receive jesus as savior, but i thought he can't read or write, how can i communicate with him and i thought let me just try. if god is in this good things will happen, so i wrote him a letter in block letters. host: where did you write it? guest: i looked in in and out lt and there was no home in alabama , so i had to write homein in prison and i think i wrote home in alabama and pick the zip code in alabama. turns out i picked what in northern alabama and he is in southern alabama. i wrote this block letter saying you wereht to you are right to be sorry for what you did, but you can be forgiven a

and so the to heaven andshort just a very short letter and signed it and i was not sure he was going to get it, but i thought if he doesn't at least i discharge my duty and i think the lord want me to do something and i felt the need to do this and i did it and a couple weeks letter-- later 8k back in the mail and it was from mitchell. was fro it turns out i had the wrong zip code and i did not have his prisoner number either an mail is hard to get through, but someone somehow the letter to get through. turns out i found out later he had another prisoner read the letter and then he was able to compose-- because he could not read, he wasbl able to compose a letter to me in broken english that thanked me for my letter and said he wanted to continue to communicate with me and he was sorry for what he did.o so, i wrote back. anita became involved, also. that began our correspondence and

relationship with mitchell rutledge. host: how many letters werete written back and forth over the years, how he visits? guest: i think hundreds and hundreds. we don't even have the first letters now in our possession because we turned them in at one of the upcoming court hearings mitchell has gone through, but hundreds and hundreds. t we visited him the following year in 1984. we drove down. we needed to go tod florida anyway and he's in southern alabama, so we wrote and said would you like to have a visit host: was this the first time you had ever been at a prison? g guest: no, i had been at two others.ot one-time years before at a prison in western kentucky with a church group and then in the early 1980s bert and i were in the philippines and went to a maximum security prison in the philippines, also with another christian group where there was an active christian ministry to maximum

security prisoners. guest: this was incidental to other work. was a sideline. i mean, we wanted to be involved. guest: these were not long-term ongoing ministries. this was just one for each place and so with mitchell with all of these letters we thought we will visit him and-- host: what was your biggest concern? guest: my biggest concern, i think, would be communicating with him. i had been into other prisons, so i do a little bit, but this was a sit down visit with one man. host: uneducated, african-american, prisoner. guest: and his letters were still hard to understand because his written english was so bad. he went all throughent all th public school and never graduate from high f school. didn't learn to read, mainly went to high school when he was 14, 15, 16 because he

couldn't get a free lunch and often that was his only meal of the dale-- day. use on the street much of the time, so we he would get his free lunch and leave and he never learned anything, so i was concerned what we would speak about, but we drove down to alabamawe where the prison is located, small southern town. outside i was familiar with that because i had grown up in a small southern town and we pulled up to the prison early one morning to visit him and it was your typical maximum security prison with towers, guards and the towers, razor wire all around the fence and push the button. we did not have how to get in. push the button, they buzzed us through, we went in and at that time with death row inmates i believe we were the only visitors in the visiting room that day, so we sat there for 10 or 15 minutes after theyey searched as.ch

always searching when you going to visit prisoners. we sat down at one of the little tables with stools around it, all attached to the floor so no one can pick up a stool. very somber environments in a few moments we heard noise outside the visiting room and they opened the door and they were taking handcuffs off this very tall black man and he looked at us and i thought that was mitch because he sent us a picture and he walked in and we shook his hand and that was our introduction to mitchell rutledge. the funny thing to me was that it was obvious mitchell was extremely nervous when he walkedel in. this was his first time visiting room and here were two white people he didn't know. he had never had a visitor and the thought immediately occurred to me, why's he so nervous we are the ones who should be nervous. guest: when that door shuts behind you you realize i am locked in this room with him. it was quite a eerie

feeling.k. guest: mitchell really wanted this visit to work. he wanted to have someme friends and someone who could communicate with on the outside, so we sat down and talked and he was very surprising. here was a very interesting young man. his grammar in the way he spoke wasn't what we were accustomed to, but he was very articulate in his own way. guest: and very smart. that's what surprised me, i mean, as a college y professor you are used to dealing with young people in their minds work he was above in a intellect and i thoughtt emotionally intelligentl inte in the way he connected to people and related to the world, above-average. host: how did the prison administration, the guards to you to showing up at this maximum-security prison? guest: over the years-- because we came back regularly. they have been very friendly and they have,

as i say they recognize how important these visits are two prisoners we began to understand later over the yearsnd that they are an incredible element to the prisoners because if you're someone on the outside who cares about you, then that elevates you and that means youou are somewhat important. it also means a sense a signal to outsiders that you can't really mess with this guy too much because he has people who care about him. keep in mind, they probably have over half the people who have no visitors at all and so that separates mitch from the others and he had no friends going into that and his lawyeron was the only one who ever visited him. no one on the outside had even taken a call from him, so this was very special for him and was significant in our lives as well. host: with you was this? guest: 1984, 32 years ago.

host: have you visited every year since? guest: at least once. guest: i would have to go back and count. guest: we are visiting saturday, for example. host: this saturday? guest: yes, you can only visit once every four weeks.sa host: why is that rule in place. guest: because of overcrowding and the state rules. every state is different and when we first got to know mitchell we could visit every two weeks when-- if you get down there. we could not do that, but he had the scene days available. a number of years ago the state of alabama rules changed the rules and lots of other states did also and now we can only visit once every four weeks and that's the only day you can go and you have to be there at a certain time, so you have to set your time up to make that day and if i don't visit this saturday, we may not see him again until december because of the way that days false. host: anita folsom, is it just

overcrowding, is that the purpose of the rule? guest: that's what we understand, but mitchell says he believes-- he thinks it's more m process to try to separate the men from the outside, but i think it's simply overcrowding. that's my opinion he's now in donelson prison, 1600 men. they have a visiting yard that will seat probably 40 families and they are visiting on saturday and visiting on sunday and mitchell's today is saturday. host: so, you are flying down to birmingham. guest: yes, and i have to go thn night before to stay over in then you have to be in front of the prison at 7:00 a.m. the nexl morning. guest: she will have to get up at 452 drive to the prison to be ready to go in because they take the cars-- visitors in order, so if you are one of the first three you can get it and have extra time with your prisoner, so it's important to be there

somewhat early. guest: you actually have to get in line with your car and a lotc of people get in line about 6:00 a.m., but they start letting people through the fence at 7:00 a.m. then, you get as long as you can. if it gets too crowded you have to leave after a few hours. this scene, i think, goes until 2:00 p.m. host: you read that article in time magazine in 1983 and mrs. 2016 and you are still visiting him in prison? guest: well, he's a remarkable man. host: what happened to death row guest: he managed to be removed from death row because of two trials that he had and the need and i'll-- i therefore both of them. pineda was not able to make the first one. our son had just been born, but the second one she was therefore and we worked character witnesses were mitch to show that we cared about him and believe in him and believed his life was worth preserving and we made that argument to the jury. but there were someth

others who mitch had contacted-- had contacted mitch as well. woman named lillian, aa nun, had become interested in him, so we had a few people there that are lawyer-- his lawyer who was hired by the southern poverty law center was brought in to help mitch and be his lawyer. he did a great job and all of us went in theren and did our best to make the case that this person should go from being executed to life without parole and we ultimately won the case. 1989, so that was fiveve years after our first years we want the case. host: and he's still in prison, though. any chance of parole?: his guest: 's sentence was reduced to life without parole and in alabama they had passed laws in the meantime, the pardons that were done by president clinton in the '90s really affected the life without parole

sentences because many states after the midnight pardon of the clintonesque-- as he was leaving office he part in dozens and dozens of people and some more, i think, more poor political favors and even money involved, but that's another story, but it affected states because many legislators were concerned that a future president or a future governor might try the same thing. they changed the law, so now in alabama life without parole the only way mitch can get a pardon is by an act of the state legislature. they would actually have to pardon him specifically. guest: we have been visiting the state legislatures, the minority leader we have given a book to an talk to him. the republican leader in prison reform, we had talked with him and both have been sympathetic ready to listen to our case and we are working through some of the legislators hoping that

mitch will be able to receive the pardon. he's been in a total of 36 years and never had a violent offense. he's a leader in the prison. our society would be much better served having mitch on the outside working to help young people prevent them from going intohe prison or working with prisoners who have been released to lower the recidivism rate. host: at what point were mitchos rutledge is letters back to you coming in poetry form? how did that happen? guest: fairly early on. one of the other friends in his life-- i believehi the sister lillian, who was a casler-- catholic sister from california. host: who moved down there. guest: after about 10 years she moved.it more guest: literally moved it to visit him more regularly. guest: she was teaching in the area and lillian encouraged him to write poetry and i think mitchell is a very talented man,

so he began writing poetry early on about his cell and about his conditions and the how small the bed was. he is 6'3" and he's on very short bed i think 6 feet long to the wide and that poem really touch me about how hard it was to rest when you're that large on a small bed and thinks a about getting it back of cookies to eat other weekend, how importanton that was, but his poetry was very primitive, but very touching and when we wrote the book we put some polling in the book and we try to put them in about the time hehe wrote them in the mental law to us and we kept his letters, of course. sister lillian made a point to keep all of his poems that eventually she had them printed and bound in a very informal way, but to keep them altogether, so when we wrote the book we went back and looked at those

poems and try to pull out the best ones that show mitch as he was and what he was thinking at the time. host: in 1983, were you a supporter of capital punishment? guest: i think this is something in 83, bert and i differ on a little bit even with one couplet i was very hesitant about capital punishment.pi although, i thought it might be a deterrent and i believed that was much more a supporter. guest: and still am, really. i still believe that it does work as a a deterrence and the penalty for murdering another person that at least a consideration of the death penalty is appropriate. now, and bitches case he did win that parted. the party was availablee to him and he was able to demonstrate to a jury that his life was worth preserving, so within the legal system mitches did live-- when hisds to

case, but i believe capital punishment needs to be considered still. host: there's several conversations going on in the country today about prison reform and whether or not these are correctional institutes or just penal institutes.ti what are your views on that? guest: there is no rehabilitation that takes place. mitch subject to rehabilitate yourself, so the atmosphere within the prison is totally unsuitable for rehabilitation because prisoners are locked up in a state of nature inside the prison. mitch talks about seeing my fiends when he first came in and you see people in effect dominating other people and almost owning them, a virtual slave system and this kind of survival of the fittest you see within the prison setting.hi once mitch became a christian, he converted

and became a christian. he said i want to live the kind of life, so the challenge to mitch and others to convert as well was how to practice your faith in this atmosphere that is so dreadful for someone to practice his or her faith in, so that's the kind of difficulty mitch is faces in the way he has done over the years and what he has dealt with, hostile people is fascinating. we talk about a lot of the in-depth how peoplee want to confront and fight him and how he deals with them, how he talks with them and how eventually he maneuversth them in a different direction. it's quite impressive, niches actions of the way he's able to stand up for himself and it's a model for others. that's why he was elected for the honor dorm. he was selected as a teacher to teach other prisoners.ec he did learn to write. he's received college credits work here's a man that started illiterate and then has college credits. he works on death row

and was elected by the other prisoners to be their leader. he's in the honor dorm. he's a model for others and prisoners who have read his book almost uniformly said mitch, you have told my story as well. your life, your hard background is my story as well and many of them are amazed at what he has done to overcome that. host: at one of his trials you two were accused of supporting him so you could write a book and profit off-- host: the prosecutor accused of that.: this w guest: this was 30 years later.a [laughter] guest: not our intention at the time. guest: yes, the prosecutor and he is doing his job. he was very good.d at t he had looked up the background and at that time on bert-- i had not done any writing and byth

that time bert hadd written three history books and came right at us, you are doing this for profit because what other motive which you have. guest: i just wrote a article it the wall street journal and he was convinced that we were a ringer in the defense had gotten there because it was too much to be true that this fellow who is politically conservative would come into this setting and argue for the release or at least the removal of this prisoner from death row and so he thought it must be-- we must have some alter your motive and he did not understand we were absolutely captivated by this man's story and we believe in him and we're fighting for him because we believe in him and god was guiding our relationship. guest: exactly. host: when the book came out, was mitch rutledge able to do any interviews?iews o was he able to correspond with anyone in the press to talk about this book? guest: not a great deal, as you can imagine.

it's very limited. there is a website death on hold book.com. that our publisher nelson publishing has put together and theysh actually have his voice on the website talking about his experience, but it's limited access. we do have a friend in california who is working on a small documentary on mitchelll and he's been able to get permission from the state of alabama and he went in and set up an and set u interview, but interviewing mitchell takes a lot of red tape to get an. host: anita folsom, are there to meet people in prison in america today? guest: i believe there are. i don't think anywhere near everyone who is in prison should be in, but we have seen that there are a lot of people, particularly men-- i'm no expert, but i would call them clinically

insane. they have to be separated from the public. and they are dangerous and mitchell will tell you that and he has been in cells with some of them and it's frightening. some of them have to be removed from society, but there are people in prison, i think, who are in there who can get out and do well and there are many people, many ministry groups working with prisoners when they get out. it's hard to sometimes identify everyone and as mitch says that had to rehabilitate themselves in this place. they had to get themselves together. about sad thing is that so many of the men in prison have no one on the outside. they have no support groups. their parents areei probably dead just as mitchell's are. mitchell's mother died when she was 29. she actually gave birth to mitchell when she was 13. he was 16 years old when his mother died and then

he was on the street and so many men have said mitch, this is my story also. they don't have parents or their parents have dried-- died in drug shootouts or drug overdoses and the main problem that leads to this is the breakdown of the family. about is the national disaster we are dealing with. host: anything to add to that? guest: i think if you look in the rise of the prison ovulation in the united states in the 70s and 80s follows a good rise in the birth of unwed mothers giving birth to childrel with the father was not present. the fatherlessness is very significant here and we always know that the hoped-for prisoners were we going to the visiting yard that we will see a father, which we don't often do. we see a father coming to visit that child that's in prison. first of all, we don't see too many in the prison who have fathers active in their life, wow but when we do we know

that prisoner has more hope than those without that male figure. host: what was it like for a former republican county chairman to work with a southert poverty law center? guest: that was very interesting, yes. dennis volsky who is a hero in the story, alsost --or host: he is, he is mitch rutledge's lawyer. guest: we are still in touch with him.who we guest: he defended mitchell in the first trial and subsequent to hearings, three trial hearings to get his sentence reduced and dennis is from ohio, originally. he works for the southern poverty law center and started inw the 70s to work down there practically free of charge and help men like mitchell rutledge and southern poverty law center would only take desperate cases and mitchell's was pretty desperate , so dennis took it to defend him and stuck with him all through the hearings.the he was pretty interesting.g.

dennis being a very good attorney, he was glad to have character witnesses. he just silly said i never expected to republicans to show up to testify for mitchell rutledge. there were a number of people pro and con at the second hearing, resentencing hearing for mitchell, sister lillian was there, we were there. host: pam in the story as well. guest: correct to. host: a woman from virginia. guest: she was a supportive. she's an admiral's daughter. she could not attend at the trial, but she was at home routine for everyone to do their best and sister lillian was there and dennis, even with his background he was funny because he put sister lillian on the stand for the defense first because sister lillian was a very gentle person and she was one of these

that she thought everyone should be let out and they would do much better the next time and she did not want her-- he did not want her ruining the whole thing or say that thomas o he gave her a lot of coaching and then he put me on the stand and then bert because he could not painted bert as a bleeding heart liberal, so dennis was delighted we were there, but i did have to poke dennis a few times and said dennis, i want you to know your two star witnesses are republicans and he would say i know that. [laughter] guest: he was delighted and itnd has opened the doors for us to discuss political issues which often can be done today for people on different sides, but we have respect for one another and we have helped one another o and we both enjoy being in the company of one another.t: host: death on hold, much of that is in mitch's voice. guest: it is. host: is there a limit to the proceeds he can receive from this?

guest: yes, and i think some people have wondered why we are listed as the author's. we put it in mitchell's voice because without that was much more effective. guest: and mitchell wrote, it was an interaction. we could never interview him, so the book was written by mitchell writing letters that we would edit the letters and send them back and then he would edit our edit.. it took years to write the book. host: the other thing is mitchell basically had to give us the facts. some of the sentences in the book are mitchell's sentences. much of it is our taking the facts of mitchell's lives and putting them together, but we did all of the interviewing. we caught all of the characters involved., we i we interviewed dennis. we interviewed some of the sisters, pam's sisters who are in the book. we interviewed, of course, sister lillian

we knew her personally very well, so we talked to all of these people put it together, so we put it in mitch's voice, but he did not really write the book.n he gave us the facts and we had to fit it together in his speech and grammar, when you are writing a book you have derided a certain way, use certain words in the about paragraphs and that's not what mitchell is thinking about, but it'sin definitely has story. host: this a story is similar to a lot of the cases or situationn of brian stephenson from montgomery, alabama. guest: he works with death penalty prisoners and he has been very effective and he backed into it also. he didn't necessarily start want you to do that, but he stumbled into it and that is correct. host: "death on hold: desperate prayer and the unlikely family who became god's answer" is the name of the book.

bert and anita folsom are the two authors that worked with mitchell rutledge. guest: death on hold the book.com. host: this is the tv on c-span2 speed network tv is on twitter and facebook and we went to hear from you. tweet us, twitter.com. /book tv or post a comment on her facebook page. facebook.com. /book tv. >> here are some of our featured programs today, thanksgiving day on c-span. >> after 11:00 a.m. eastern nebraska senator on american values, the founding fathers and the purpose of government. >> there is a huge mindedness in american history, but it's not compelled by the government. >> followed at noon with former senator tom harkin on healthy food and the rise in childhood obesity in the us. >> everything from monster six burgers with

1420 calories and 107 grams of fat to 20-ounce cokes and pepsi's, 12 to 15 teaspoons of sugar feeding an epidemic of childhood obesity. >> at 3:30 p.m. wikipedia founder talks about the evolution of the online encyclopedia and the challenge of providing global access information. >> there's a thousand entries and i know there's a small community there. five to 10 really active users, another 20 to 30 that they know a bit ended a start to think of themselves as a community. >> after 7:00 p.m. an inside look at the years long effort to repair and restore the capitol dome. at 8:00 p.m. justice kagan reflects on her life and career. >> than i did my senior thesis, which a great thing to have done and taught me an incredible amount, but also taught me what it was like to be a serious historian interested in archives

all day, every day and i realized it was not for me. >> followed by justice clarence thomas at 9:00 p.m. >> genius is not putting a 2-dollar idea in a $20 sentence. is putting a 20-dollar idea in a $2 sentence without any loss of meaning. >> just after 10:00 p.m., exclusive ceremony in the white house president obama will present the medal of freedom, our nation's highest award to 21 recipients including nba star michael jordan, singer bruce springsteen , and bill and melinda gates. watch on c-span and c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> this photo was sent to me in an e-mail in 2012, weeks-- days after president barack obama was reelected in 2012. it was at the top of an e-mail from the christian coalition of america and i was struck by it at the time

because it became right on the heels in between the election thanksgiving and it's had this caption underneath it: family at prayer, pennsylvania, 1942. that's the image here. of course, black and white photo. white family saying grace before a meal and then it had this line of text further explaining kind of the transition from the photo to the message, christian coalition of america sameness: we will soon be celebrating the 400th anniversary of the first things giving and a god has still not withheld his blessings upon this nation. although, we now richly deserve such condemnation. we have a lot to give thanks for, but we also need to pray to our heavenly father and ask him to protect us from those enemies outside and within who want to see america the story. so, that's the message that comes from--

attached to this image after the reelection of president barack obama in 2012 and at the time i was not working on the book yet, but i immediately saved it because it seemed to me a kind of artifact and symbol of this visceral reaction to the reelection of barack obama in 2012, so parts of the book is about unpacking like what is that about when we see these reactions and this has a throwback imagery to a kind of previous time, mythical golden era, what's behind that sense of missed all shut and loss and grief as of the book is called "the end of white christian america" and i went to say to prevent confusion, what, i mean, by white christian america is a metaphor for the whole cultural institutional edit this that was built nonexclusively, but primarily by white protestant christians in this country that really did set the tone for a national conversation and really shaped a lot

of american ideals. i mean, it would not be hard-- many of you may have walked here, to walk far without tripping over an institution that was started by white christian america, white protestants, ymca, ywca. it would not be hard to find these things and yet these kinds of institution in the world that they were really a part of has passed from the american theme, so that's really what the book is about you can see this with a number of demographics, architecture. i will focus a bit on the demographics to set up conversation. if i could show you just one chart-- unfortunately, going to show you a few more, but if i could just show you one, it would be this one. it shows real changes that happen just over the last eight years. shaded in this light gray, period of barack obama's presidency and this is all white

christians together, percentage that all white christians, protestants,confident-- catholic, all up together comprise of the american population, so in 2004, 59% of the country and by 2008 when president barack obama was running for president, that number was 54%. today, that number is 45%. it was 47% 2014 and in the next year our latest data shows 45%, so just turn the last two election cycles during president barack obama's presidency we have across this amazing a threshold and moved from being a majority of white christian country to a minority white christian country in a short amount of time, so this is in fact even if people don't know these stats that well i think many white christians particularly white christian conservatives feel the shift in their bones and this is part of some of their activity we are seeing. to put one more symbolic issue across this same time period, i'm putting

up here support for gay marriage over the same period of time and so if you just go back to 2008 , what you see is that only four in 10 americans supported gay marriage when barack obama was running for president in 2008 and that number today as 53%, so we have gone from a country where only about four in 10 supported same-sex marriage to being a majority. that's a major cultural shift on pretty big issue in a short amount time. so, part of what the book is telling us is really about unpacking the reactions and the grief and anxiety around the reactions to these kind of demographic and cultural change that we see really in the last decade of our nation's life. >> you can watch this and other programs online at book tv.org.

>> good morning. welcome. i am president of the national capital region and i welcome you today. on behalf of the chapter, i think, i can speak for everyone here about exactly how excited and how honored we are to have justice ruth bader ginsburg and former solicitor general ted olson here with us today. [applause]. >> i also want to think so much james williams who's a former former member of our board of directors.

jim vela, our vp for programming and eileen our executive director for all of the work they put into this event and they deserve a round of applause. [applause]. >> so, with that i will turn things over to james and he will do the introduction. thank you. >> thank you for those very kind words. t it's a tremendous honor to be here today to introduce our guest and it's always difficult when we have guests of this caliber to find thees right words and adjectives in terms to describe them. there are a few thatat come to mind, tighten, dedicated, principled, dynamic, engaging, brilliant, thought leaders and pioneers. what has been most personally inspiring for me though has been the

role of civil rights leaders whether it's a fight for racial orgh gender equality or marriage equality or freedom from discrimination. both ted and justice ginsburg has assured that our country honors this promise of equal justice for all justice ginsburg was nominated by president clinton taking her seat 1993. prior to her apartment to the supreme court she served from 1980 to 1983 on the bench of the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit. before her point me to the bench she was professor of law at rutgers law school fromtgw 63 until 72 and columbia law school from 72 until 1980.. she has also served on the faculties of the seminar of american studies in aspen institute and is a visiting professor at many universities in the

us and abroad. in 1978, she was a fellow at the center for advanced study in behavioral scientists inat stanford, california. 1972, then professor ginsburg was instrumental in launching the women's rights project of the cerebral liberties union lastly, but not least she definitely has the distinction of having the best nickname in the history of any supreme court justice, the notorious rpg. ted olson is a partnerthe un in the washington office is. he was solicitor general of the united states during 2001 to may 2004 from 1981 until 84 he was assistant general in charge of the office of legal counsel. he has argued 62 cases before the supreme court and has prevailed in over 75%-- let me say that again 75% of those

arguments, remarkable achievement. his cases have involved separation of powers, federalism, voting rights, the first minute, equal protection and due process, sentencing, jury rights, punitive damages, taking property, commerce clause, telecommunications, 2000 presidential election-- i think we remember that one, bush versus gore. campaign finance, same sex marriage, again a civil rights pioneer in other federal constitutional and sagittal questions. i'm grateful for all they have done. at the end of the chat,take a f justice ginsburg and ted will take a few questions from theon audience and you will be able to interact. without further ado justice ruth baderce ginsburg and ted olson. [applause].

>> thank you, james. thank you, louise. you can imagine what a pleasure it is-- pardon? >> is the microphone working? mine is? >> can you hear me? i think so. you can imagine what a pleasure it is for me, and advocates, to be able to ask questions of a supreme court justice. [laughter] >> however, i suspect you will hear her turn the tables on me very soon after we get started. at the risk of repeating a couple of the things that james said about justice ginsburg i went to add a word or two of w my own before we starts our dialogue. i don't know where the fireplaces. i think it's behind. as james, i'm sure, that the toughest thing about introducing someone like justice ginsburg is that

it's tempting to say either too much because she has accomplished so much and lead to such a distinguished life in our society and in our culture or too little because you already know who she is and what she has done and you are here to hear from her and not for me, but i cannot resist the opportunity to say a couple of words aboutbo this woman, this remarkable woman, a remarkable career and a life we all admire work i understood this event sold out in an hour and 15 minutes. that's a tribute to the fact that people have such great respect for you justice ginsburg.vi if i was limited to five words a couple came up when james' introduction i was a pioneer-- sheod said that.comm commitment, courage, passion and, to me, most of all warrior. i would like to explain that, justice ginsburg grew up in brooklyn.

her older sister died when she was six, her mother struggled with cancel throughoutca justice ginsburg's high school years and passed away the day before graduation, a very daunting beginning. she attended cornell university, was elected to phi beta kappa andwa graduated first among the women in her class, then harvard law school. one of nine women in a class of 500. when her fellow student and husband marty ginsburg whom she met on a blind date was diagnosed with cancer, she attended class for both of them, took notes , typed her husbands papers and cared for both him and their infant daughterin took when he recovered and took a job in new york city she transferred to columbia law school and becamere the first woman to be elected to two major live reviews, columbia and harvard. i saw the picture in the book, the rbg book that

i will mention in a moments. two women out of 60 on the harvard ally review and they have your picture equally balanced with two women there among all of these 60 men, type-- was first in her class at club via. turned down for a united states supreme court clerkship because like justice felix frankfurter because as the "new york times" reported because she was a woman. if she was discouraged, she remained undaunted and as a professor the second woman to join the law faculty at rutgers, she founded the women's right lie reporter. she became the first tenured professor at columbia law school push out that he broke onwh judicial procedure in sweden. this was after mastering swedish. somewhere early enough in our relationship, she saw the name olson and

she thought maybe that might be swedish and she asked if i could speak swedish and i had to point out that i was norwegian and i did not speak swedish or norwegian. she later transferred the swedish code of civil procedure into english. now, civil procedure is tough enough, but in swedish? as an advocate for women's right and gender equality she change the world. she personally argued six cases in the supreme court, winning all but one and when-- one a summary reversal in another case without even an argument. the cases she startedan started an avalanche for gender equality. justice ginsburg served for 14 years on the dc circuit was the second woman after sandra day o'connor appointed to the supreme court. she replace justin-- justice byron white and

is now the most senior of three female justices on the court. just a word or two more. she was diagnosed with colon cancer in 1999, and underwent surgery, radiation chemotherapy. she missed zero days on the bench. in 2005, she was diagnosed and underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer. 12 days after that surgery she was againn back in court hearing arguments. her husband for over 55 years, martin ginsburg, an internationally respected professor and practitioner of tax died in 2010. she was back in court the next day. just as he would have wanted. you will find out today that justice ginsburg has a wicked sense of h humor. the careful and i can tell you from personal experience having argued over 50 cases while she was on the bench, that

she is as well prepared or better prepared than any jurist i have ever experienced. she is often the first justice to break the icee and ask questions, those questions are penetrating, focused andne tough and as an advocate very intimidating. so, wanted to say those few words about you because i did have the opportunity to do this and i thought we would start off with, there is about to be published or is being published, you can tell us today-- >> october 4. >> october 4. who's paying attention; right next this beautiful book, my own words, which has excerpts of justice ginsburg's speeches, speeches about her, as things about marty ginsburg and other things like that. it has a beautiful coverer and with beautiful pictures in it and i'm going toit ask you to tell me a bit about its the book butbo

first of all i have to do what james did in the other book, which is really fun is the notorious rbg, which is a fabulous book with all kinds of fun stuff in it i and little lessons about how to be ruth bader ginsburg. you are an icon. what justice on the supreme court is named after a wrapper? my wife pointed out on the way here that baskin-robbins was 22 name and ice cream-- is that what it was? >> ben & jerry's. >> i get the ice cream people mixed up. i will eat any of it. ben & jerry's wanted to name an ice cream ruth bader ginger and i heard something-- this can't be true, about praying mantis. >> it is absolutely true. >> tell me about it. >> a praying mantis

named after me.ng man [laughter] >> does this praying mantis do things that other praying mantis is due? t >> the pictures i've seen, she's wearing a collar. [laughter] >> tell us about this book, "my own words". tell us about how it came to be in what's in it. >> well, this book was originally planned to come out after myofascial biography. i have two official biographies and chose the speeches and articles that are in the book. they thought of writing about me and 2003, and it's still a work in progress. so, i said let's flip

the order into the articles and speeches first. this was dead, my writings and an introduction to each section by mary hart and wendy williams, my official biographers. they came to me in 2003 and set like it or not people are going to write about you, so you might as well select people you trust and we volunteer. >> and so far you still trust them? >> yes. you read some of those italicized introductions and they are very good. they are both very good. >> i saw in one of them the advice you got from your future mother-in-law about marriage. >> from marty's mother, yes. it was the best advice i ever received.d. it was on my wedding day

and we were married in marty's home. his mother took me aside and said, dear, i would like to tell you the secret of a happy marriage. the secret was, it helps sometimes to be a little tough-- death. [laughter] >> with that she handed me a pair of earplugs, which was the bestar earplugs. that advice i followed through 56 years of a wonderful marriage and in every workplace, including my current job current is something thoughtlessghter] or something said in just two and a doubt. >> works on the supreme court to? >> yes, it does for me. >> what is it like to be

such an icon?s it m what does it mean to you that people know who you are, the notorious rbg. there's an opera named after un justice scalia and all of these things, what is that mean to you?ou? is it all court or do you kind of enjoy it? >> i think it's amazing work on 83 and everyone wants to take a picture with me. [laughter] >> notorious rbg is the creation of a second-year law student at nyu. now graduated. .. decision in the shelby county case that declared unconstitutional part of the

voting rights act of 1955. this student was displeased, angry and then she said well i've learned from someone i admire that anger is a useless emotion and it doesn't advance anything so think of something positive in the something positive was to put my 2 cents in the shelby county case in the tumbler and it took off into the wild blue yonder from there. when my law clerks heard about this tumbler they said do you know where notorious rbg comes from a set of horse i do.

the notorious dig and i were both born and bred in brooklyn new york. >> have you thought of writing any of your opinions in a wrap? [laughter] they are doing it on broadway now. tell me, it's so much fun i have to talk about the opera. you are a great lover of the opera and a great lover of shakespeare and we are spending a little time talking about some of these things because they are such fun things and you'll have a chance to ask a probing questions about the supreme court. your relationship with justice scalia, a lot of people are mystified by that because you were on somewhat opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. he served again on the d.c. circuit. he wound up often on opposite sides of cases decided in the

supreme court, sometimes justice scalia in such a colorful fashion with the pretty harsh in his language and yet you were great friends. how did that happen? why were you such great friends and what does that tell us about life on the court? >> our relationship should not have been surprising to people who watch the core. they would have known that justice scalia was exceedingly fond of justice brennan who was also on the opposite side in many cases and justice brennan usually enjoyed justice scalia's company as i did. he has an extraordinary ability to make you smile, even laugh. when we were on the d.c. circuit together on a three-judge panel,

justice scalia would whisper something to me and i had all i could do to avoid laughing out loud and sometimes i have to pinch myself. people sometimes ask me what was your favorite scalia choke and i said i know what it is but i can't tell you. [laughter] and it was such fun being at the washington national opera with him twice. and to be part of the scalia ginsburg. some of my family and friends say why as ginsburg and scalia alphabetic way. as ted knows scalia even though he was three years younger was

appointed to the court before i was and that's why it is scalia ensberg. it's a comic opera as you would expect. it will be, it had its world premiere in castleton virginia last summer. it will have its next production at the opera festival in cooperstown new york so if you are interested you can go to the baseball hall of fame and go that evening scalia ginsburg. the setup, i should tell you how it came to be. very talented young man derek wang a music major and has a masters in music decided it would be useful to learn a little bit about the law. so he enrolled in his hometown law school, the university of maryland, he's taking a

constitutional law course and he is reading these dueling opinions, scalia ginsburg. he said to himself this could make a very funny opera. and i will give you just a taste of the opening pieces. it starts out with scalia's rage which goes like this. that justice is blind, how can they possibly -- the constitution says absolutely nothing about this. and then i explained to him searching for bright line solutions for problems that don't have any answers but the great thing about our constitution is that like our society, it can evolve.

so that's the setup. that's roughly based on that -- justice scalia is locked up in a dark room and being punished for excessive dissenting. [laughter] and i come to help him out. i entered the scene through a glass ceiling. [laughter] and as in the magic flute i joined him for the last trial and we sing a duet. we are different, we are one, different in our approach to the interpretation of legal text but one in our fondness for each other. our reference to the constitution and the institution we serve. >> and that friendship in that relationship tells us so much

about how and we all could learn frum, our relationships with people who have different perspectives. justice scalia was fond of saying that you made his opinions better because he would run them by you and correct me if i'm wrong, you would point out various vulnerabilities or weaknesses in his opinion and he go back and sharpen his words but he said to her precipitation because he learned this when you are together in the d.c. circuit. he would exchange opinions and he respected your intelligence so much that he wanted to run them by you. >> i would say i was the beneficiary of that relationship more than he was. when i wrote an opinion and scalia wrote a dissent he identified all of the ross spot so every opinion of mine of the

scalia dissent is much better than the first draft. he was also an excellent grammarian. sometimes he would call me whether we were on the same side or not and point out the slips i had made and grammar. sometimes i would call him and say why don't you tone it down? this is so strident. you were going to lose your audience. you would be more effective if you would just put down the dash a level. most of the time he did not listen to me. >> i could tell from reading some of his dissent opinions particularly. they're there some difference between when you have to write for the court and you when you write a dissenting opinion. you explained that to me the other day. he obviously didn't temper some of the language.

i'm thinking of the marriage equality case, the two cases and so forth. >> you can also think of one of the 25%. >> let's talk about that one. [laughter] i had forgotten about that case. [laughter] i argued that case. it was for the virginia military institute. i represented the commonwealth of virginia and vmi as you know everyone here knows was an all-male situation and a part of the university of virginia system. it was a relatively small component of the system and it was taught on an adversary or system is what they called it on the theory that some young men needed to be an all-male environment in order to get their bearings.

>> to get through the route line. >> the rat line so the challenge was at eyelids the equal protection clause because women were -- and i argued that case and it was a 7-1 decision. i got one vote. >> i had six people. the chief concurred in the judgment of the opinion and you captured justice scalia. you do need to capture him. >> you mean my advocacy wasn't necessary to win and it didn't do any more than that. >> i was just telling a story about the aftermath of the vmi case. i had a letter from ibm i graduate saying that in his life

he had met many women who were at least as tough as he was. he had a teenage daughter and was glad that she would have the opportunity if she wanted it to attend vmi. and i heard from him some six months later, i keep the letter where i could see it every time i want to be lifted up. in the letter was some tissue paper. i opened the paper and it looked like a toy soldier. the letter said, this is a pen that is given to the mother of every year by graduates at the graduation ceremony. ..

that's a beautiful story. that's what it takes us to the fact that you were such a pioneer. not every justice on the supreme court has argued cases in front of the supreme court. john roberts i think argued 39 when he was in civil crack this for a long time. you were representing the aclu and you are one of the earlyon people to bring this case is about gender equality, challenging federal statutes

particularly that denied equal e rights to women. >> or men. >> that's right. well is that light arguing those cases? we were talking the other day it reminded me that justiceic thurgood marshall who was with the naacp legal defense fund arguing the cases and you pointed out the difference. but then segue into what it was like for you. >> i copied his strategy and he developed the law and steps. you probably remember the first case in that series when texas

realized that it couldn't deny admission to law school to african-americans simply because of their race. so they set up a separate law school for them. thurgood marshall argued separate but equal not before the court today that the schools are so plainly an equal but when people make that comparison there is a difference that marshall's life was in danger when he would come into town to represent someone my advocacy was a challenge within was never in danger. and another difference with

racial discrimination but when i started to argue cases endeavoring to strike down the law but there is a hard time to get that because they thought of themselves as good husbands and grandfathers and they thought women were offered nate pedestal. justice brennan has that wonderful image that all too often that pedestal turns out to be a cage and protects women from

achieving whatever they could from their god-given talent. so getting the judges to understand that gender discrimination was bad for society. for men and women and children but none of the cases in which unrepresented that these were every day people were with the disabled people. to have a young son when he

was of tender years. and apply for custody as they become the custodian. candidates severe depression. and then committed suicide. to say i'm sorry this is what the idaho law says.

but the great thing is that with three levels of the and a whole court. i did not get involved to the supreme court. this was the everyday woman and in which they conceived to be an obvious injustice. then to have laugh housing allowance mathematical in dental facility man whose wife died in childbirth with

the social security benefits to takes care of the sole surviving parent. so to think that is an obvious injustice. and we have a legal system. >> day you think the nature of those cases would help you to be successful because so many came before with similar issues raised and dismissed? and you change your culture

is that the nature of those cases or your advocacy? we are not there completely but it is a completely different world but you make as huge a big change. >> the with those cases and the woman knew all day tavern that michigan passed a law you have to be male unless your husband or

father is the owner of the establishment. and today to be called a battered woman taking her to a the of breaking point the baseball bat was hit over the head and now the murder prosecution. and then the supreme court said that was okay. but in the decade as the '70s one case after another of the gender lines. why?

because the society had changed of course, with the reactive institution they don't lead the way. into exile raid the direction of change. it was already the burger court. with a whole series of cases . those said into the '70s with the way that men are. from the women's domain.

and then from 61 it was an enormous change. and then to illustrate that that my children are 10 years apart. just before i started law school. there are very few working moms but then 10 years later when my son was born that

was not unusual. there were many people in his class. summit things working in that direction. there was the time by the time she had her last child and now for many years and in spending most of the adult life that doesn't have any child care responsibilities. that is one factor.

and then to pay the tuition by that tied it was all over the world. and that the united nations had declared all of these things and people were not traditional. so with that change that had already occurred in society. >> with that synergistic effect because of your

leadership and what you are doing they read about those cases said they will cns justice but those teachings but then to be appointed to the united states supreme court. talk about that. tell us about justice o'connor when she was appointed the first woman to be at the supreme court and what it was like and what it meant to what came along after word. >> the appointment of sandra

day o'connor but the is not how did his aides looked. he was determined to put women of minorities in numbers in members in the federal court. not as curiosities, but in members. so i was one of the lucky 11 then appointed that lays 25 to the district court. no president underwent acted the way it once was and left out

people anymore, but when women became president, not only am i going to continue to appoint women to the bench, but i would like to go down in the history both as the president who appointed the first to the supreme court. he made a nationwide search and he came up with the super nominee in the sandra day o'connor. when sandra came to the court, she was all alone for 12 years. and i rode there is a bathroom labeled men and vendor had to go back to the chambers. the sign of change was evident when i came to the court because they hurried up the renovation

in the room. they installed the women's bath room inside.[laughte >> now there are three women on the court and there must be a huge difference for the issues we talk about it there are three and not just one person or even to. >> i think i'm the public perception is so much better when we have the children in and out of the court and they can see that women are all over the bench because i've been around so long towards the middle one is justice soda my door the other is justice kay and.

sell one-third of the court that as you know very well i am not -- recall leagues are not shrinking violets and with that competition between justice scalia but in the macdonald case in then to say that justice o'connor ahoy so low that nobody calls heard justice or justice can give. [laughter] >> news said that mail

justices were confused so what is that like for oral arguments? when i first argued encased 1983 with not very many questions and very pistes all only answer the question what's going on? >> both. one is the advocate to make the decision makers.

the question may be about a point and have a chance to answer that. but more than occasionally, and it is talking past the advocate to each other, trying to influence the way a colleague is thinking about the case. >> some people find that strange because you're in court appeared your in the same building. you can talk to your colleagues without the presence of the lawyers and the oral argument. that's not dialogue tape plays among the justices prior to oral argument? >> when we decide whether we would review the case then.ssedu

we don't often discuss cases before we go on the bench and the reason is it's a very hot edge that everyone is prepared is easy in the sense that we're just preparing for this evening. we have no opinions to be writing. it is faster and faster. i am sometimes reading briefs the very morning of the oral argument. we haven't gotten our own act together long enough to talk about the case. there are exceptions when we do,

but then the conference is very close to the argument. >> within the next day or so we are going to turn this over to the groups of the conference where you decide -- you express how you want to go. >> yes, it will be wednesday afternoon we'll talk about monday and tuesday cases in friday morning about tuesday and wednesday cases. we go around the table andnd strict seniority order. sometimes there's cross discussion, but sometimes achieve for another justice will say enough talk, it will come out in the rating. and then we go on to the next case. >> i'd like to keep asking questions, but genes will be

angry with me. we know that those of you out there have questions. i want to thank you for at least a part of this theme has been a pleasure for me. >> without microphones. there's a microphone here if you've got a question for ted or the justice, please work your way to the microphone. obviously goes without saying, but no question about pending judges before the court. if there are questions, please come forward.. don't be shy. we set aside this time for you. >> justice ginsburg, thank you so much for being here. you tax something about the evolution of society. my question for some of us that might be in the doldrums lately about the discourse in society and kind of looking out for the world is right now, the only

thing hopeful for a moving forward, especially to november. >> when i visit university campuses, and i was just yesterday in the day before at notre dame. there was a huge audience and all of the young people that i've met were very determined that there was not going to do days work for day paid that they were going to do something with the larger society. something to prepare tears in our system. i see a in my own granddaughter who's now a lawsuit.

and very much engaged in societal problems i am an optimist about the future. >> thank you, your honor. >> justice ginsburg, thank you are making your appearance here. it's an honor to have you. we have more in common that you might think. my wife was born and raised in brooklyn and also my name is chris wallace and if you didn't know, the birthday of the notorious b.i.g. is chris wallace. my question is whether there is one opinion reviewer on the descent that you're particularly ashamed of or disappointed with that really sticks out to you.

>> by dissent? >> ashamed about the majority came out. >> i would say disappointment. before i was disappointed in bush v. gore and citizens united in shelby county. not as disappointed as in constitutional cases because i was convinced that the court had read title vii wrong. there was someone else who could fix that. so the last line in the lead that her case was the ball is now in commerce is court to correct the error.

billy ledbetter fair pay act was the first legislation that president obama signed when he took office. >> thank you. >> thank you for coming today, justice ginsburg. i was hoping you might share with some of your thoughts since i know you're an advocate for access to justice and for lawyers to roll in public interest work. maybe you would share with us some of your thoughts on access to justice issues that can rent out only the profession, but obviously society at-large. >> society up large as well as -- [inaudible] >> law is a privilege profession. i think there's more of a monopoly in the united states than any country in the world and because of that come the lawyers have an obligation to give out, to contribute to

society. law students that if you get a good paying job at a law firm, you have a skill that you use, but if you're a true professional, you would do something as basic before a fighter so to get back to the community. i think community surveys is a tremendously important. it would probably have a gap. after high school so everyone

would be involved to do some kind you can help teaching. for a society -- an ocean -- [inaudible] >> thank you. >> justice ginsburg, i am a 20 or practitioner in and out of the federal court and it's a great honor to be here today. i do have a question concerning the shelby county case. i have a question about the shelby county case. i have lived in the lower south

and particularly alabama for many years and was very disappointed with the decision as i thought it or not and what i think of as the second reconstruction of the south with the impact of shelby county with the solar rights legislation or if dusting of the rights litigation. >> you read the newspapers and see that it is ongoing. the preclearance process is no more common but a number case says the voting rights act and some of them are before the court at this very moment so i don't want to say anymore after

they've been in the headlines as well.el so hope is not gone. there is still a mechanism. but as i said, long rant i am optimistic. i wouldn't predict that congress will change the formula for wet jurisdictions are included because i can't imagine a senator or representative standing up in congress and say yes --n. [inaudible] >> maybe we better leave it at that. >> justice ginsburg, thank you

so much for coming here. i guess when you started your remarks on the image in your reverence for the constitution, but also spoke about how principles and things can change. often times when people talk about the reverence for the constitution, it's obviously in the biblical sense. unlike the religious document, the constitution can be amended but it hasn't been for almost a year's. do you think the failure to amend the constitution or the fact that it hasn't been amended for so long is it self a risk to the constitutional system? the >> do i think -- >> is it a risk to the constitutional system has been made so hard to amend the constitution very seldom has been amended. it's been quite a while. >> think of some of the state can't do two shows that are easy to amend and then go on.

i think the framers of the with constitution made the amendment process difficult for that reason. they meant this to be the fundamental instrument of government, awfully hard to change. of course i am disappointed. i still led a strong proponent of the civil right amendment being ratified. even so, you would ask me when the equal rights amendment went down to something comparable in the d.c. resident and we still don't have a cause of to shin and when you think of some of

the amendments, every time the supreme court right to have nine decision that people don't like, somebody proposes a constitutional amendment. let's have prayer in the schools. so on the wall because i see the risk of being that i wouldn't like putting the cons to shin, i think it is good our constitution is not easily amended. >> okay, so these three folks and i will take a question and i'm all wrapped up. >> justice ginsburg, mr. olson, thank you justice ginsburg is the father of four daughters. w want to thank you for her work on behalf of women's rights allowing my daughters to pursue things they want to do and are passionate about instead of things people think they ought to do.

my question is really for both of you, either one of you. i have been teaching mom to engineers at the university of maryland for a number of years and over the years, theye demographic that changed so that a great number of the students are foreign. mi re: imac [inaudible]

-- and our fundamental legal structure for her so they can understand it in our context.se with that background, do you have any recommendations on how to teach the students law in america and the fundamentals of the end any recommendations on reading? >> i think we all appreciate that although among nations in the world, the united states is not particularly old. we have the longest surviving cons to two should still t enforced in the world. there was an old joke about the french constitution and someone goes into a bookshop in the days

and friends and request a copy of the french can't do to shin and the shopkeepers says we don't deal in periodicalr] literature. not that it always is superior, but it different. our tripartite system of government compared to parliamentary systems that take hold and most of the world that our constitution is not aspirational. if laws can be applied here and now. many constitutions have magnificent guarantee and the right not to be hungry, but how does the court enforce suchsu right? what's ms constitution is the

law, the highest law to apply. so maybe it would help if it could be educational for the other students to ask these students what is there? what is the place of the constitutions in their system? who have the last word on whether legislation is constitutional. that was a brilliant thing in the very first supreme court did that chief justice marshall developed. judicial legal constitutionality. it didn't exist in the world with rare exceptions until after world war ii. the system is unique and if you

can -- one idea i have for you is to compare the system with ours and that will enlighten the students who are friendly and native state. >> thank you. >> madam justice, thank you so much for spending time with us today. i'm particularly interested in your view of how the in-house counsel role has evolved over the last 10 or 20 years and where would you like to see it go? >> or hats tag would be a better person to comment on that. what i observed his enormous growth in the role and the size of in-house will.

>> and the responsibilities as opposed to outside lawyers. >> in the law firm and am heartened to see the participation of the in-house counsel in pro bono work. in this town, the pro bono institute has a number of firms. the council has been instrumental in getting the younger staff to engage in pro bono representation. >> thank you. >> justice ginsburg, thank you for everything you've done to advance equal rights for men and women. do you have any advice for us on

how they can best carry on that legacy and continue to fight the good fight for equal rights for every human being? >> the easy job, that is the explicit gender lines, almost all of them. unconscious by, so my favorite example of bad weather people in the music world who conducted allegations that they could tell the difference between the women playing an immense. they give critics of "the new york times" that cast that is all confused. he got it wrong as often as they got it right. so somebody came up with the

brilliant idea so that the people who are doing the selecting all know who was behind the curtain. it was an almost overnight change into offices all over the country. women begin to appear in numbers that explain. unfortunately, we can't duplicate that in every field of endeavor. i think back to one title in case in which i had some involvement in the 70s with at&t for disproportionately rejecting women from the middle that jobs. the wind and with the standard criteria for doing so as the men. the last step is what they call a total person cast.

the total person tested the interviewer meeting with candidates and then at that age women dropped out disproportionately. not because the interviewer is conscious of bias against women, but there is a natural rapport when you're dealing with someone who looks like you. you have a comfort level with a different race, different gender. you feel uneasy and not maybe reflect the inherent choice who will be promoted, not consciously. that remains a problem and of course the young women who say i'll get any job i wanted the world. what i'm going to do when the

children come, how are you going to arrange your life to have both the workplace and home life. i have one thought that was going to be easy with technology , but the firms don't seem to be moving that fast to be flexible. the people, men and women who are in law firms or in-house counsel should get together with each other. and make it known in by your example that you can have a home life in the workplace. one of my former law clerks had

three young children. she has a three day schedule a firm and they are just delighted with her work because she is the library at your fingertips at home. so it should be. it should be much easier to have a balanced life than it oncewas. was. but don't be shy about speaking out. have company when you do so so that you're not a lone voice. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you.

>> thank you are much for us to guess, pioneers, fill a leaders, titans, all those wonderful things. thank you for coming. enjoy the rest of your week. [applause]

.. >>. [inaudible conversation] okay, good evening everyone. can everyone hear me at the very back? no? i'll talk more for the moment and then we will fix that. thank you for your participation in the back half. that evening and thank you, all of you for joining us