visiting our website, c-span.org/history. former supreme court justice sandra day o'connor was nominated by president reagan in 1981 and served on the court for 24 years before retiring in 2006. recently she and three current justices, ruth bader ginsburg, sonia associate mayor and elena kagan talked about how life and work, especially for women, has changed over 30 years. the supreme court historical society and the freedom forum co-hosted this hour-long event. [ applause ]

good evening, ladies and gentlemen. i'm greg joseph, president of the supreme court historical society. i'm delighted to welcome you this evening to the society's celebration of the 30th anniversary of the first term of justice sandra day o'connor on the u.s. supreme court. [ applause ] we are deeply honored to have with us this evening, justice o'connor, justice ruth bader ginsburg, justice sonia sotomayor and justice elena kagan. this is the first time the four of them have joined together for a public program. we are extremely grateful that they've done so this evening to join in this celebration. we also want to thank jim duff,

the ceo of the freedom forum and the freedom forum for making this magnificent space available to us at the museum this evening. jim, long prior to his being ceo at freedom forum has a history with the supreme court historical society dating back to his time as administrative assistant to chief justice rehnquist and before that chief justice burger. i also want to thank society president emeritus frank jones for his generous donation to help support the events this evening. only because of illness, he is not with us this evening. our panel this evening consists of the four women who to date have served on the united states supreme court. even to summarize each of their careers with highlights would take far too long. i'll be very brief. justice sandra day o'connor was nominated to the court by president ronald reagan on july 7th, 1981.

and she was confirmed by the senate on september 22, 1981 to succeed justice potter stewart. she served for the next 24 years and she retired on january 31, 2006. justice ruth bader ginsburg was appointed to the court by president william clinton on june 14th, 1993, and she was appointed and confirmed by the senate and assumed her role on august 10th, 1993. justice sonia sotomayor was appointed by president barack obama on may 26th, 2009 and assumed her position on august 8th, 2009. the following year justice elena kagan was appointed to the court by president barack obama on may 10th, 2010, and assumed her position on august 7, 2010. we are honored and grateful to

bring all of them together to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the groundbreaking tenure as it began of justice sandra day o'connor. i'd ask everyone to turn off cell phones and blackberries. with that i'll turn the program over to jim duff. thanks very much, jim. thank you very much, greg. we're delighted that the supreme court historical society is having this celebration of justice o'connor's 30th anniversary of her appointment to the supreme court here in the annenberg theater at the museum. we're very honored you're here with us this eefrk, justice o'connor. and we're also very, very pleased and honored that justices ginsburg, sotomayor and justice kagan are here with us on a very special night. it's all the more special because it's the fourth anniversary of the opening of the museum. we couldn't have done better to celebrate that i would say. we don't have a quorum, but we have enough to great cirque here

tonight. i don't know if there's anything you might want to consider. we'll move on to some softer questions i think. justice o'connor, your nomination as the first woman to serve on the supreme court of the united states 30 years ago was certainly historic. it was also a very closely guarded secret. william french smith writes in his memoirs of hiding you and a clandestine meeting at dupont circle in front of a drugstore. >> he wanted to get me down to the white house to meet with the president. he had asked me to come back here and meet with some of the president's close advisers which i did. he had rented hotel space someplace downtown so that we could meet that day. members of his cabinet, several of them had come. they were able to ask questions.

then at the end of the day he said, and the president would like to see you at the white house this afternoon. i had never been to the white house. i had never seen it. i didn't know where it was. i said, well, where is it? he said, well, i can explain it to you. but he said, i'll tell you what i'll do, i'll ask my secretary to pick you up. she has an old green chevrolet, and she'll pick you up on dupont circle if you're out there. i had a meeting at dupont circle of an organization to which i belong. i went out on dupont circle and waited, and here came the old green car. his secretary picked me up and drove me down to the white house. we were admitted and made our way in due course to the oval office. it's so small. it's such a shock to get in there. you think, oh, my gosh, this is the white house? it's the president's office. it's this tiny little oval

place. we sat down and talked, and it was pleasant. he was a man very easy to talk to. >> yes. that's great. >> that's how it all started. >> these days we see lists emerge. there's not so much secrecy around the finalists. do you think that's because it's more difficult to keep a secret as to who is being considered, or is it a different approach. >> i've been touring the museum today. they will tell you, i don't think you can keep any secrets in washington today. that's impossible. >> was it a goal of yours to become a justice? >> heavens no. goodness no. it certainly was not. i wasn't sure what i ought to do. it's all right to be the first to do something, but i didn't want to be the last woman on the supreme court. >> thank goodness for that.

[ applause ] >> if i took the job and did a lousy job, it would take a long time to get another one. it made me nervous about it. >> you paved the way for some great justices. when did you first think about it? >> when he sent ken starr and some other people out to arizona to talk to me. they wouldn't say what it was for. and so it could have been some cabinet post or something like that. they wouldn't tell me. and we had some nice visits. but they had done a lot of homework out there. they had gone through all my papers, and i had served in all three branches of arizona's government. so i had a big paper trail they had to go through, i guess. >> who were your role models? >> for what? >> you were a trailblazer. >> goodness. >> you're the role model for everyone else, i suppose.

justice ginsburg, where were you in your career when justice o'connor was appointed? did it have any special meaning for you at that point in your career? >> it was a moment that -- one of those few in life that you remember exactly where you were and how you felt. i had been on the d.c. circuit for exactly one year. i was driving home, turned on the news, and the news was -- >> for heaven's sake. >> -- sandra day o'connor. i was about to cheer, but no one would hear me. then i found out what i could about this great lady including what good lunches she made when ken starr and whoever came with

him visited her in phoenix. i read -- i knew she had been the head of the senate in arizona and on a trial court, intermediate appellate court. you had been to a conference on federalism in william and mary. >> yes. i had gone to a couple of those meetings with people from the british isles, lawyers and judges. remember those, that warren burger initiated? i had gone to a couple of those. but i certainly wasn't well known in the judicial community of the nation. >> justice sotomayor, where were you in your career? >> i was almost at the beginning, my second year after graduating from law school, two years after i graduated, in the

d.a.'s office in manhattan. i remember having conversations at lunchtime in that awful yale cafeteria talking about how long it would take for a woman to be appointed to the supreme court. and there were bets being taken whether it would happen in our lifetime or not. so the unlikely hood or the fact it was still something we weren't sure of bespeaks how historic it became, that only two years later sandra was appointed. >> what did it mean to you at that time in your career? >> in law school there were no women on the supreme court. there was no woman on the court of appeals in my state, new york. most large law firms that at the time were a few hundred lawyers. today there are how sands. back then there were still a number of them that had no women

lawyers whatsoever. so for us in my time at law school, the doors were opening, but they were very, very small openings. and so the idea that this barrier had been reached so quickly was sort of an inspiration to think that more could come and that certainly that opportunities for us would grow. so they obviously have because ruth followed, took too long. elena and i followed shortly thereafter. >> this is fabulous to have all these women on the court. [ applause ] >> i will say for president reagan, when he was campaigning to be president, he didn't think he was doing too well with the female votes. he started making statements about, if i'm elected president,

i would like to put a woman, a qualified woman on the supreme court. and he made enough of those statements that then about four months after he had become president, potter stewart, justice stewart retired. there he was faced with what to do. >> well, he was a man of his word. >> he was. justice kagan, where were you in your career when justice o'connor was appointed? >> i was still two years shy of going to law school. hate to rub it in, you know. but even i knew enough to be impressed. i had just graduated from college actually. and i remember the announcement and thinking, what a stunning thing. >> did it have particular meaning to you? had you thought at that time about going to law school and perhaps becoming a judge or justice? >> you know, i was thinking about it. it was one of the things that i

was mulling over. i remember the announcement and feeling very inspired by it. >> you clerked for justice marshall when justice o'connor was on the bench. >> true. >> was that of particular meaning to you? >> you know, she was a formidable person, even a clerk knew how formidable justice o'connor was. >> oh, i hope not. >> you're going to tell your joke about your cast. >> about what? >> the cast. >> here is my justice o'connor joke when i was a clerk. justice o'connor founded -- one of justice o'connor's achd chooefmentes on the court is she founded an exercise group. she likes to have women clerks come to the exercise group. and i failed to come to the exercise group. >> i noticed. >> well, that's the story, in

fact. i used to play basketball instead. >> that's good enough. that's okay. >> one day i tore something in my leg playing basketball and i was on crutches for a few weeks. the day after this happened i was on crutches, i was walking down the hallway and justice o'connor was walking the other way. she stopped and she said what happened? i said, well, i tore a whatever i tore playing basketball. she sadly shook her head, and she said, it wouldn't have happened in exercise class. >> and i'm sure that's true. >> elena, i want to tell you, too, sandra encouraged me to attend the class, but it's at 8:00 in the morning. everyone knows i'm a night person. >> i told her the same thing.

>> i haven't done too well getting them to class. i still have my class. >> i was going to ask you. >> it's still going on. i went this morning as a matter of fact at 8:00 a.m. and it was good. that meant a lot to me, to have that class. that just really mattered. in all the years i was in arizona, i had an early morning exercise class. >> you were a trailblazer in many ways. that exercise class at the supreme court was one of the first in that regard. what are you doing for exercise now? >> i go to my exercise class. what do you mean? >> do you still play golf? >> once in a while. i'm not very good. that's not much exercise you know. >> it is for me, i do a lot of walking. how do you enroll in that? maybe it's enlist? >> see me. i'll get you in. >> i got justice pryor up there a few times. he didn't want to be the only

man up there, too. if you'd join, too, maybe we could get it going. >> president reagan signed your nomination to the court on august 19th, 1981. you were confirmed by the senate on september 21st, 1981 by a vote of 99-0. you took your oath on september 25th, 1981. we've certainly seen remarkable changes in the appointment and confirmation process since then. do you have any observations about the current state of the nomination process and what -- >> it's less likely to be 99-0 i think. there seems to be a little more controversy than there was at that time. at the time i went on i think it was expected that whoever was the incumbent president would fill a vacancy on the court. if she didn't have horns and look too frightening, they'd confirm the nomination. i think it's changed a little

bit since then i'm sorry to say. >> justice ginsburg, you have had more recent experiences with it. do you have any observations to make now about -- now you're safe. you're on the court. any observations to make about the process? >> it was a much different process for sonia and elena than it was for me. i was the beneficiary of the senate judiciary's committee's 'em bar rax rasment over the nomination of justice thomas. they wanted to make sure they were civil. they wanted to make sure there were women on the judiciary committee. so my hearing, it was rather dull, and the vote wasn't 99, but it was close. it was 96-3.

justice bri your was also a beneficiary of that atmosphere. the senate back in 1993 and '94 was truly bipartisan. senator hatch was i think my biggest supporter on the committee. so i wish we could get back to the way it was in those years. >> what about your experience? >> i think that what we've fallen prey to is the public's expectation that there are answers to every question. that a hearing is going to be a place where a prospective judge is going to say yea or nay to whatever social issue and outcome an individual member of the public believes in. i think that so long as that expectation continues to be fed

by both the pundits who examine our records routinely about how we're going to vote and certain issues or not, that we're never going to satisfy anybody with the system as it currently exists because the reality is, if what you're attempting to do is to get clear answers to how we're going to rule on cases that are coming before the court, i think you better be suspicious if you have a nominee who says this is the way i'm voting, because it will suggest that that person is coming in with a pre-made-up mind and an unwillingness to listen. having said that, i at least found that my personal meetings with the senators were very civil by and large.

for purposes that i wish were different because it did become role playing in front of the cameras. i don't know that we're going to be able to satisfy people so long as the expectation of what they're expecting from the process remains the same. >> justice kagan, do you have -- >> there's no doubt that the two of us experienced a different process from the two of you. i remember thinking at one point during the process people were asking me what i thought of all the things that justice ginsburg as wrote. i thought i'm being asked as much as justice ginsburg as she was asked. isn't there enough that i have to answer for? i wish there were more bipartisanship in the current process. that said, i do agree with justice sotomayor that senators of both political parties i felt treated me fairly and

respectful respectfully. it's a shame it has come to a pass where people, republicans feel as though they can't vote for the nominees of democratic presidents and vice versa. >> this may be more of an issue with the appellate courts and the district courts. do you think it would be helpful if the senate imposed a rule on itself of a time frame to vote up or down on a nominee rather than -- because some of the appellate and district court nominees drag on for over a year in the nomination process. >> i think you're right it's a problem pour the courts of appeals and the district courts.

that would be helpful, it seems.

i think that's very important and the court does well on that score, i think. >> how is it preserved when there's turnover? the book "court watchers,"

justice white gave you, manual to assist you. are there other ways in which -- >> i didn't know there was a manual. i never got one. >> that's where all the secrets are. >> i'm finding out all these secrets. >> the internal operations within his chambers. >> within his chambers. >> he sent it to me in the d.c. circuit, and he said don't open this until you're confirmed, but when you're confirmed, maybe it will be a little help. >> oh, good. >> so my clerk's job every year is to update it, and i gave my manual to sonia and to elena when they came on board, so that was a tremendous help. >> there's wonderful traditions that the court and certainly civility in recent times has been a strong attribute of it. do you think that the other branches of government should

emulate it? is that possible or are they so different in structure? >> i mean, they are different. you just have nine members on the court so it's a small institution, and -- and they live and work in quarters that cause them to see each other frequently, and i just think it's very, very important that the relations remain cordial and friendly and thoughtful, and i think they have. i think we're lucky. >> there was a time when the senate was known as a gentleman's club. >> mm-hmm. >> when there was a great deal of cordiality. >> mm-hmm. >> and that has gotten -- >> that's gone. but we must not let it go at the court. >> if justice ginsburg will remember the other day when we were having this conversation about why there's more civility in more recent times on the court than perhaps in its earlier history, do you remember what you said, ruth?

perhaps she doesn't. >> no. >> she said it's because we've had women for the last -- [ applause ] >> oh, dear. >> well, my guess is that that's especially true of justice o'connor. justice thomas once told me we have a tradition on the court where we eat lunch together after -- after we hear arguments and after we have conference, so it ends up being eight or ten or 12 times a month, and justice thomas once told me that if ever he went a couple of days without going, justice o'connor would appear at his doorstep and say, clarence, why aren't you there? >> lunchtime. >> lunchtime. >> and, you know, you -- you encouraged everybody to participate in those kinds of communal activities. >> yes. >> and i think that's very important. >> i do, too, yeah. >> justice ginsburg, was justice o'connor's presence on the bench of particular help to you when you joined the court?

>> yes. my adviser, my big sister. she told me a little bit, just enough for me to get by in the early days, and then i came to her with a problem when -- when the chief made assignments at the end -- end of my first sitting. the legend was that the junior justice gets an easy unanimous case. >> and i think it's true. >> yeah, that's right. >> but the old chief gave me a miserable case in which the court had divided 6-3. >> oh, yes. >> so i went to sandra thinking that you would persuade her her good friend archie to revise the assignments and i told her and she said, ruth, you just do it.

get it out before he makes the next set of assignments, and that's really her attitude towards her life. just does whatever needs to be done. >> when justice o'connor and were you on the court together, you called justice observing nor on more than one occasion on each term and advocates seldom seemed to confuse justice scalia and justice breyer. why do you suppose that that was the case during your joint tenures? >> i think the most likely to be confused would have been justice suitor and justice breyer because they looked something like that. >> they confused people. >> i never would were called justice ginsburg. >> i'm not sure. there might have been. there were misstatements. one time iwa