we were just down for a wonderful meeting with members of the united states supreme court this spring and i must say that the chief justice was most impressed and said that they actually locked up the press. >> when you said, justice ginsburg, that television is more responsible as one of the key factors responsible for the lengthening and perhaps a lot of posturing in our confirmation process. if you think that is what happened to congress, then i take it that you would think that supreme court justices are not the same kind of people.

those that are hoping for cameras in the supreme court to stop open because the same thing would happen. . .

that was his view. when you are sitting on a bench, if there is anyone if you who would be extremely discomfited by the notion of having cameras in the courtroom, you would defer to that cali. -- colleague. >> i think the chief justice told a bunch of us that he did not think that this is a soon to the proposition and the united states supreme court. a -- that this would be a soon to be proposition anin the

united states supreme court. >> i think every country is different. i am sensitive to the concerns that she raises. we decided to do this on a trial basis 21 years ago. we are still running the trial. we were very wary. we have some stationary cameras. we are oblivious to them. i never think about them. they tracke the council. they are unobtrusive. the broadcast those who do --

goes to our public broadcast. it is not a run at prime time. if you are an insomniac, you probably watch more than other people. it 3:00 a.m. seems to be a fine time. first they asked permission. and now they just do it. occasionally, we will get a clip on they local news. they have been very responsible. from that aspect, it has worked out well. has it changed the way lawyers act? that is a hard one to say.

i do not think we would say it has. if they did, i think we would end it right there. it is in any way is interfering with what is going on in the courtroom, with how we would hear the case, then we will not do it. that is why we are there. we had one case where in intervenor made a 10-minute barnstorming type of speech. i told him to sit down. it is inappropriate. i cannot think of other lawyers doing it. i do not think my colleague taylor their questions to the audience that might be out there.

sometimes i have trouble understanding the questions myself. nobody is dumbing down the process. nobody is out there trying to put on a performance. if they did, we would end it right away. >> do you limit argument times? >> we limit them to one hour on each side. [laughter] >> i am realizing how different our countries are. your governor general? >> i've always the deputy governor of but never the governor general.

>> that is an executive function. >> she is the rivers in ziff of the queen. -- the representative of the queen. queen. and is not exactly an -- it is not exactly an executive function. we all do that. >> you did that when you were the acting governor general. you went for the same-sex marriage. >> i happen to sign that. my colleague was signing all sorts of other bills. that is the way it is done. if the governor general is not there to assign them herself, someone on the supreme court does. which tried to make people

understand we are signing the bill we are not acting as the executive or legislative area, but as representatives of her majesty. there is no aid if needed for a supervisory role there. -- executive for a supervisory role there. it may seem different to people who live in a republic. we have inherited certain anomalies because of our colonial background and the fact that we emerged the embrace of a britain, not by revolution as the united states, but by evolution. [laughter] [applause] >> it is in our declaration of independence that the queen

refuse to give her dissent. -- refused to give her dissent. is there ever a case where she does? does? >> i do not think so. i do not think if it has been properly pass that it can happen. it is more of a formality. there can be times where we are uncomfortable as judges and you have the governor general signed this. it could be coming before our court very quickly. we keep an eye out. the public does not always understand that this is a formal function. it is a formal function. king george may have refused, but we do not. [laughter]

>> you talked about your relationship with the 10th circuit. we are very grateful. you come to the 10th circuit a newly -- annually. i wish to tell everyone what you like to do when you come in the summer. >> most recently, i liked it [inaudible] that morning i went to santa fe, it must then 10-years in a row. when he died, i thought i really did not want to go along. -- alone. my son said he would come with me.

abby who is 10 and mimi who is 12 -- it would be hard to accommodate us in a hotel. roberts said to take- casita -- take my casita. that is the best situation maker have had for our holiday in santa fe. i met gene at a 10th circuit conference in 1994. it to is in denver. -- it was in denver. it was love at first sight. her daughter even took my

children to the folk art museum on this trip. i think santa fe has one of the best operas in the world. best operas in the world. [applause] >> as a trained observer, it proves positive that your son mended his ways and turned out quite well. he said, "mother, let me come with you." >> it is time for us to begin to close. i want to make sure each of you have had your full save. >> i have. absolutely. >> we are delighted that you >> we are delighted that you came to the 10th circuit. can you give it a thought or two ? >> the hospitality has been fabulous. frank and i have been enjoying

ourselves so much. my husband has a wonderful irish tenor voice. he makes a modest contribution to what is a wonderful advance. uygur up in the rocky mountains -- i grew up in the rocky mountains. coming to this beautiful area is so special. it is a burlreally special plac. thank you so much for letting this be a part of it. >> the first time i met them why this in cambridge, england. frank, you are the leader of this exchange every year the this exchange every year the canadienans came to cambridge.

if they were the most jovial group. we enjoyed so much being with you. i gave a little talk. i do not even remember what it was about. that was the beginning of my affection for frank. i think we have gone beyond the allotted time. al is so sorry to leave this circuit. i wanted to hold onto it when the second circuit vacancy came. i asked the chief, can i have them both? he said, "nope." i enjoyed that conference so much. it is one of the most lovely courthouses in the country.

i am glad you asked marty back. i was terribly that he could have been here. you have been a most wonderful and patient audience. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for joining us. have a wonderful evening. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

bob >> tomorrow, rev. al sharpton will talk about the rally in washington. we will talk about the levy system in new orleans. "washington journal" is live starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span burda >> learn more about the nation's highest court from those who have served on the bench. read the latest bench. -- read the latest book. it is available in hard cover. >> anthony kennedy spoke at the ninth circuit judicial

conference in hawaii. this confirmation of federal judges -- he said down with a judge in a lawyer from southern california to talk about his career. this is a little more than an hour. >> thank you for the gracious welcome you have to give them. -- given me. this room is where we continued the important tradition of the circuit conference. it is for the courts, the legal profession, the lawyers, and the academy. it is not an option.

it is a necessity. it is a distinguishing mark of american life and culture that we constantly learn. this room has probably been the venue for hundreds of different conferences. people are involved in every segment of our cultural and social activity, learning how to do better. the lecture give them n to us w very interesting. he almost had a throwaway line. it was very thoughtful. he said he was anxious to get back to washington and his new responsibilities for one reason, so he could learn more. we are at this conference to learn more.

i see it in your elegant hawaiian entire. it reminds -- attire. it reminds me of a trial attorney in alabama. the jury welcomed him. his trademark when he consulted with clients and trial court was he trialno tie. -- trial court was he wore no tie. he argued cases in his usual attire. a few months later, he lost. they reversed the case for the they took away his case. if you exactly that, he was going down the street -- a few weeks later, he was going down the street. he saw the chief justice coming.

he said, did you really can say because i did not wear a tie? the justice said, no. he said, i am sorry to hear that. that would've been a better reason than the one you gave. [laughter] the structure is designed to mirror the structure of the legal profession. it included members of the branch and the legal academy.

we take this for granted. we take for granted because it is part of the anglo-american tradition. the judges are born at the bar. we just assume that this is in the natural order of things. in most of the world, that is not so. each is more distant from the other than is true here, the constant interchange, if the constant transfers we have between and among our different branches. they are simply nonexistent in most countries of the world.

the result is that if courts need rule changes, it is difficult to accomplish upon th. we rely on the legal profession, on the members of the bar and academy, to make our case. if we wind will changes, we have advisory committees. we designed the rules and that way. -- in that way. civil and criminal rules are broken. what looks like inauspicious and

sound experiment to have on an open court system is not working. the idea of meeting with attorneys and academics join me in dorendorse rules and to urger adoption of the legislature. it is not part of their culture. we are very fortunate. i hope that the public can learn more about the nature of this conference. i hope that the legal profession as a whole can learn about the issues and problems that you discussed here with great intensity.

i wish the public know the dedication and commitment of the members of this conference befor. the excellence is the business of the entire legal profession. we not only symbolizes, but we affect the reality of the structure that guard the idea of the rule along. it was fascinating to me that you began your profession with a discussion of one of the most

crucial v issues of our time, a terrorism. there are extremely capable . it became clear in the discussion that in the attack -- that the attack on the rule of law has failed. article 3 courts are quite capable of trying terrorist cases. [applause] the judge told you. you do not need a special panel.

the judicial fraternity and the legal profession and the law school's have a background experience and materials. judges can learn to do this. then we switched from that predominant issue of our time, an issue where our national survival is at stake as well as the rule of law, off to a single case of a woman who claimed to be mistreated or brutalized by the police. that dignified man who had a noisy neighbor and not know it to do about it so the neighbors sued him. neither of them had an attorney. we found out that there are

ways to provide attorneys for the f unrepresented -- for the unrepresented. i was taking notes. in 70% of civil cases in the united states, one litigant is unrepresented. i did not know that. the judges and the legal profession are committed to fix that. it is an astounding figure. are there problems in the judicial system? of course. there are delays. there are excessive costs. of course. we are learning more. what you learn in this conference must be shared. they must be shared with others

in the profession and public. it is important to the public to understand that the excellence of the federal judiciary is at risk. for this, we need to the understanding -- we need the understanding and help of the public and legal profession is a judicial excellence is cast upon a sea of indifference, the rule of law is in peril. [applause] the bar as a whole and the

public and the congress ought to know the figures. the eastern district of california is part of that district that extend from fresno to the oregon border. we have five active judges. the statistics tell us that we need 15, 1200 cases per judge. many to be committed, dedicated -- they need to be committed, dedicated judges. they are struggling with this case load. their dedication must be recognized. the fact that this conference occurs is an absolute necessity. i have a few comments about

these different branches of the profession. let me make a few comments about law schools. the original purpose of law reviews of western half case, and -- of law reviews was to have a case comments. we are one of the only professions that encourages criticism by those that are not even members of our ranks yet, law students, two lawyers -- cuckoo lawyers. they have nothing. it is surprising how often grants are insured in the case. there is no case comment.

parted this is the time line. we have a very efficient system for the adjudication of issues in our judicial system. it is more understandable reasons. lawson's want to take time and the painstaking. -- law students want to take time and the painstaking. do you know my clerks to do? they read blogs. attorneys weigh in on it. the definition of the golden age of any thing is when you were there. i remember law review comments. maybe the world is changing. law schools must be careful to remain relevant to the appellate process. they will come immediately to us without a benefit for them.

i was at an event not too many years ago. alice at lunch with the dean of harvard and the dean of yale. in order to make conversation, i said, what is different about law school now than many years ago?

one of them said that when you went to law school the professors thought of themselves first as lawyers and second as professors. now it is the other way around. i thought about it. i said, well, i can understand this. it is important for the legal academy to maintain their own excellence. if we have to have lawyers of multiple degrees, economics, science, literature, fine. i can understand. it is very important that law professors cannot either explicitly or unconsciously to

appreciate or disparage the practice of law. the law schools in their reviews should ask themselves how better they can help the legal profession. one way they can do this is by empirical studies. we make assumptions when we write appellate case is based on what we think we know is happening in the legal profession. and this is rather dangerous for someone who is not practice law for 30 years or do not have a beer with the boys and see what is going on. we need empirical data. the question was this.

the court of appeals have thousands of applications from those who are subject to a deportation order. they want a deportation order states of the court of appeals can hear the case. to what standard should the court of appeals use? should be a much stricter standard? police said it should be the usual standard. we were tempted, knowing the work load, to relieve them of the irresponsibility of applying the more relaxed standard -- the responsibility of applying the more relaxed standard. we were certain they would be available to the standard.

we were not sure whether or not their work load allow them to look for it. we could have studies on that. did the court of appeals have enough time to do it. laboratory analysis and analysts does a report on an alcohol simple, it does that expert have to testify in the court?

she had a rather strict rule. in many cases, the person that performed the test has a comfortable -- has to come. they said the guy will fall. we will disrupt trials. we will have quite unnecessary demands on already overloaded lab technicians after waiting in the courtroom for two or three days. our prosecutions being dismissed? this is something that is very easy to study. it is odd to me that in this age of statistical empiricism,

that we do not have more data. we have done very little to help us. another case was versus townsend. a seaman asks for maintenance in addition to an 1c worthiness claim. he asked for punitive damages. one of the questions was, if you allowed them in maine and is, will there be a routine request for punitive damages which would be changed the dynamic of settlements and litigation.

it'd be very easy to track the number of cases in which the major jurisdictions contract that and do the studies so we know. is congressional action needed? it seems to be that this is very important for law schools to do. the state of arizona vs. gant. if the policeman arrest the driver of an automobile, puts the driver and the back seat of a poll -- patrol car, handcuffed -- can cut some so that he is restrained, that the patrol officer could search the car for weapons are contraband. the supreme court held that is not true. there is no safety concern because he is in the back of the patrol car. there may be some circumstances in which can search, something

like well-founded suspicion, or you can just have a police officer stan there until the tow truck comes and you can do an inventory search. but what about the dangers to the neighbors and to other people from guns that might be in the car? can we have statistical data to show that one side or the other was right in this debate? after all, the constitution talks about unreasonable search and seizures. this is a factor in reasonable. these are the kind of empirical studies that i think the law schools would be well abies to make. -- well advised to make. something i addressed to the law schools and the bar, judges must take out of this one. we have a crisis in attracting preeminent attorneys to the bench and keeping them with us

once they come. in addition to the obvious need let the congress has elected to follow with reference to compensation, there are other factors as well. is the selection process in the confirmation process working the way it should for district and circuit courts? forget the supreme court, that is a whole different set of problems. it would be of immense importance for the bar and the academy to have studies, dialogues, conferences, about how well we are doing in the selection and confirmation of judges for the united states district courts and courts of appeals.

and the delay factor i have already mentioned, were the judges in the eastern district of california have a 1200 case for judge caseload. if that study could identify certain neutral principles, certain criteria, certain standards that could be followed in that process, then maybe they could be applicable to supreme court confirmations as well. it is of immense importance that the public have confidence in the confirmation process. separation of powers was designed to fix accountability, not to obscure it. it was designed to assign responsibility, not to evade it. the congress has the responsibility to determine whether or not we are going to have a judicial branch of excellence, and i think that the constitution demands that

and it is their constitutional duty to do that. these kind of studies might be the basis for more productive dialogue with the members of the congress of the united states on this issue that is so vital to the tradition of excellence and to the prestige and to the respect of the judiciary of the united states. i was fascinated that you had this productive discussion on the whole idea of case management, and it was interesting that the judges received the awards. mr. westerberg, a practicing

attorney from ohio received an award. it was interesting how important it was that all three of those people are committed to excellence in the federal courts. arbitration or alternative dispute resolution is, of course, or was an undiscovered, and export realm, and it is of immense importance, but simply because there is an option for alternative dispute resolution does not mean that the federal courts should be complacent about sending cases to arbitration.

it is a source of concern to me that the federal courts, which i have always thought of as the fairest, most efficient, most neutral, most prospective forum for the resolution of disputes, is now seeing far fewer civil cases. there is talk of the vanishing caseload. in part, if there is sound judicial management, that is because there is no vanishing judge. the judge has just entered the process earlier. there are other problems that the cases are not coming at all. with the cases that are here, they are not vanishing if a judge has participated in the settlement mediation, and discovery management process. in 1975, it was my first judicial conference. i practice law in the beginning of the 1960's and 1970's. how can some judge tell me how to try my case?

that is a fair question, if it did not have a false premise. it was not my case. it was the court case, the systems case, the public's taste. -- a public pose a case. -- the public's case. it benefits the public to have a judicial system in which the trial of cases is managed. i get much of my information on this subject from all of you here, from a superior court judge in los angeles in charge of complex litigation, and david levy, former u.s. district judge, and former chairman of the standing committee on federal rules. they all tell me that the good

news and the bad news is the same. all the participants in the process want more judge intervention, more judge time. that is good news, because it means there are systems we can learn, standards we can apply. in so many choices now we have not narrow them down. every case is different. there are systems that judges can apply to make litigation more efficient. the bad news is that more judge time is required. you know the problem, if you commit to many judicial resources up front in the case does not sell, then maybe you have wasted your time. but the expertise and the commitment and dedication that the bar and the bench and the academy showed in discussing this problem and this challenge here is immensely reassuring.

the dedication and commitment of the members of this conference have my admiration, and for your attendance here, you have my most respectful banks. thank you very much. -- my most respectful thanks. [applause] >> justice kennedy, but chief judge kosinski, congress chair and conference colleagues, justice hugo black speaking to

the supreme court said, no higher duty or more solemn responsibility rests upon this court then that of translating into living law and maintaining this constitutional shield. for the benefit of every human being subject to our constitution, of whatever race, creed, or persuasion, justice kennedy, i believe that the conference's participants would suggest and i am sure this idaho kid would say, we thank you for making that your creed and doing what you do on the supreme court and coming here to address us. [applause] you will now hear the

questioning of justice kennedy by two we have chosen to represent with questions from judges and from lawyers here, to question him today. we first have asked our conference chair, chief judge oregon solace from the southern district of california -- chief judge irma gonzalez. i think you all know chief judge gonzalez. there are some facts in the brochures, or not in the brochure, which i thought were interesting. she is the president of the ninth circuit district judges association. she is also the first mexican- american woman appointed to the federal branch, and in the law blogger underneath their robes,

she is a super hottie of the federal judiciary. [laughter] [applause] we also asked to join her the chair of the lawyer represented coordinating committee, who has been recognized as one of the best lawyers in america for bankruptcy and creditor rights law, a fellow of the american college of bankruptcy, a partner in the century city office of steptoe johnson, llp. she has written articles and published in the national law journal. these two wonderful people will now ask justice kennedy questions on our behalf. [applause] >> justice kennedy, it has been

a privilege to get to know you a little better here at the conference. we have spent some time together and it has been a real privilege. i am going to ask the big questions and robyn is, too. we are hoping that at the end of our time here with justice kennedy, there'll be a few minutes left over for those of you in the audience who have some questions for justice kennedy. so i will start. justice kennedy, teaching is near and dear to your heart. i know that you teach in austria during the summer for the month of july, and i have also learned that you teach in china. my first question has to do with of course used to teach in salzburg, law and literature. one of the books that you discussed with your students there was shakespeare's hamlet. can you explain the reason behind your choice of this particular play for discussion,

for trail a lot and literature, and secondly, do you believe shakespeare makes a strong case for an insanity defense by hamlet? [laughter] >> cannot explain my choice? no, it is completely idiosyncratic. i have a list of the 10 books that every lawyer should read. i tell my law clerks and young people, you cannot write anything good because you have never read anything good. [laughter] the list is not really shocking or astounding. the trial by frans kafka. i change it from time to time. i was thinking i was going to read to you for the closing of my speech, a book that thought

about this morning. i forgot to read it to you. i thought maybe implicit in your question was hamlet? why not ago measure for measure or old merchant of venice -- plato's republic does not work. maybe merchant of venice might have been better. portia becomes a super lawyer in is that great speech about the quality of mercy.

it is twice blessed, it blesses him who gives in him who takes. it is the mightiest and the mightiest. a magnificent speech. women in literature and life often signify equity. antigone, portia, and literature, joan of arc, rosa parks in life symbolized justice and equity. porita is wonderful, except she does not follow her own rules. she is really guilty of in -- vindictive sentencing. once he does not accept the settlement offer, she becomes just ruthless in what she does. the other one is "measure for measure," about a corrupt judge. isabella is a wonderful heroine in "measure for measure."

as you go through, you see all the characters have a certain flop. it reminds judges that introspection is one duty of our profession. i am amazed at how you can be a judge a long, long time and keep asking yourself the question,

what is it that is making me do this? what are my standards? those are probably the better spake -- shakespeare books for law and literature. i choose hamlet for idiosyncratic reasons. a couple times, are produced the trial of hamlet. we have two wonderful psychiatrists testify as expert witnesses on whether or not and let should -- hamlet should plead insanity at the key moments when he stabs the man behind the curtain. that is the high point of the play. i wrote the last rewrote the last 12 pages. then i have to the news reporter shocking event that he was just in a coma. the jury has to read -- a hole play is the record. everything in the play comes in. the best kind of teaching is to teach in an oblique way.

the best way to teach kids is to make a side point so that he or she is really learning something and they don't know it. this is a marvelous way to teach hamlet. the law professor usually testifies for the defense -- excuse me, for the prosecution. a marvelous forensic psychologist. we have had the dean of the columbia school in madison and psychiatrists testify for the defense. hamlin has, according to the defense, bipolar disorder. it is a marvelous way to examine the whole play and human motivation. so often, you know the facts, and you know who the culprit is, but you don't know why he did it. this is a marvelous example of

how literature can enrich your view of life. the last time we did it, it was at the kennedy center. the eisenhower theater -- they sold out in 48 hours. it is because the ticket was only $20. [laughter] on the way out, and hamlet has a tough time getting even six boats for the jury -- 6 votes for the jury. . . getting even six boats for the jury -- 6 votes for the jury. on the way out, there were high school kids and college students are doing about the issue of senate because insanity on the way out. i don't take a position on

whether or not he is sane or insane, because i am the judge in the case. i wish to blame and understood more often what it is -- i wish laymen understood why we recurred -- reserve judgment, what we don't discuss pending cases. it is partly because the dynamics of decision making or that you have to make up your mind at a particular time. et have committed yourself before hand to the idea, it is hard to change your mind. we owe it to the profession, to the judiciary, to the rule of law to keep an open mind. ronald reagan had moral concerns about mutually assured destruction, the rule that if we have an atomic attack, we will immediately retaliate.

he is to talk about a just a little bit. i thought it was very important for him to talk about the moral grounds, but he did not have to make up his mind. the moment will form your decision, and that is why don't take a position on hamlet. >> thank you for allow me to address it with these questions to >> i forgot, i was going to read for the end of my speech, and i forgot. james gould wrote this book in 1942, "my generation." the gunmen is a prosecuting attorney and thinks he wants to be a judge.

-- the young man is a prosecuting attorney. his dad gives him this advice. in the present, everyday is a miracle. the world gets up and goes to work and is fed and in the evening comes home and is that again. to make that possible, so much has to be done by so many that on the face of it, it is impossible. everyday we do it and every day we will have to go on doing it as well as we can. so it seems that is all we want to do, ever. what you want of me? we just want you to do the impossible picks that is what our district -- we just want you to do the impossible. that is what our district judges do. [applause] >> i want to thank you for allowing me to address you.

did you see the dynamics of the court changing as a result of elena kagan's nomination as associate justice, and if so, how? >> there is a replacement juror. the whole dynamic changes. it is a difference jury. steven briar was junior justice for longer than any, other than what other justice, for 11 years. nine people in the same room for 11 years he was getting good at the job. of course, when that mix changes and there is a new face, it is a completely dark court. john stevens -- a completely different court. john stevens had one of the most marvelous legal minds i have ever encountered.

he will be tremendously miss, and it will be a different court, but we have experienced it -- the system works. we have gone for the same issue, so you tend to refine your remarks. when you have a new justice, you tend to strut your stuff all over again. anphen brieyer had interesting comment. not long ago i was then the county courthouse in sacramento. i walked up the steps were my heart used to miss a beat. we did get nervous when we go

into conference. you have to argue for or six cases, this time before a new colleague. you get nervous, because you want to be well-prepared and you don't want to mistake the law. -- mistake a lot. and you just is reminds us that we must be committed again to be as excellent as possible. i am sure she will be simply a wonderful colleague. and i don't think it is important that you have been a judge before you come on the court. i think there should be a mix. i think she will bring marvelous experience [applause] . >> i have a follow-up. >> a couple of years ago i told ruth bader ginsburg, i am from the west, and i am surrounded by new yorkers.

three new yorkers, none of whom is lacking in self assurance. [laughter] i said something has to be done. she said no, you have bronx, queens, brooklyn, you need manhattan. and sure enough -- what is next, s.i.? >> as a trial judge, i would like to know whether you believe is important to have a trial judge on the supreme court, one with trial experience, and whether that makes a difference in how that justice would approach his or her decision. in this case i am talking about judge sotomayor. >> i think it is important. district judges and circuit judges sometimes have a different approach. law clerks we get from courts of

appeals think the record that was made in the trial court is something you read may be in an idle moment of curiosity. [laughter] i said no, this case began in the district court. trial judges know that. if you ask any justice, in the judge, what is the ideal background for a judge, you will listen and pretty soon you will hear his or her own autobiography. [laughter] so course, crile experience is of immense importance. -- trial experience. i wanted to be a district judge, and i could never get the job. i suppose a lot of people would be glad to accommodate me at this point. [laughter]

>> is there any and nonlawyer, alive or deceased, who would you would desire to serve as a colleague on the supreme court would you? >> a nonlawyer, alive or deceased. on the deceased, i would give an interview to plato, but i would not hire him. [laughter] i would give him an interview because i would want to thank him for making me a platonist, which i am. political theory was my particular interest in school. for six weeks you are a plague platonist and then you are and .ristotlelian

i can you suggest a utopian state -- how can you suggest a utopian state? i think abigail adams, maybe. she was phenomenal, and was the mother of presidents and the husband of another. i think she understood the purposes of the founding fathers. in the present day, i think gordon wood would be wonderful. i have had the privilege of teaching with him a couple of different times for a few hours at a time. his book is called "the empire of liberty."

i have the name wrong, but it does not go into great depth of how it is that we could have this magnificent documents affirming freedom, the constitution, one of the greatest documents ever penned by the human hand, and we had slavery, and women could not vote. that is the duality we have to live with. i think john didion who was in high school -- joan didion would be the voice of my generation. maybe hurtado desoto -- hurtadho

desoto. i think maybe for the living, lisa randall, author of "warped passages." there is another of astrophysicist in santa cruz. i think they could bring important perspective. physicists have to think in terms of metaphors. they are the first to discover dark matter. we are close,i hear. if we could discover the nature of dark matter, we would have a

unified theory of creation for the first time in human history. that would solidify the bonds of humankind. but physicists would be fascinating as colleagues because they deal in metaphors. ophysics say there is a drop in the ocean but there is also an ocean in a drop. dark matter is so dense that the earth would be the size of a .ecaa what happens in washington, if you want a certain solution, you propose a ridiculous thing on either side and everyone adopts the thing in the middle. in physics, the ridiculous solution often turns out to be true.

i think lisa randall is a brilliant writer. >> i want to remind all of you that at each table there is a bookmark that has been provided by justice kennedy about rule of law. my next question has to do with the rule of law. justice kennedy was telling me the other day that he teaches in china, in beijing, each year. one of the most difficult tasks for him is to explain or define the rule law -- the rule of law. can you tell us how you do it, and if there really is some way to translate it, and do they get get? >> the phrases are troublesome. it merced you had to wear the yellow star, that is the law. -- hitler set you have to wear

the yellow star. but that is not the rule of law. when i was in china in the late 1980's, i was met at the airport by an attache from of foreign ministry. he said i want you to know, just last week, we adopted the rule of law. [laughter] what he meant was, they had enacted a statute or decree saying that the government was bound by the law. this didn't ask what was the rule of law? the chinese love descriptions of three principles. i said it is binding on the just, and itit is is enforceable and accessible. i used that later to write this

out, and it became the guide to the un commission. this is the iconic, and alterable traditional definition of the rule of law. i think it is the 12th version, and it is just my attempt to explain it. a lot is just -- recently a comment made by justice that i cannot document, the council argued that the supreme court and he says what we seek with this principle is justice. holmes allegedly is credited with saying, young man, this is a court of law, not justice.

i don't particularly buy into that philosophy anyway, and i think that is a false choice. that is just a false dichotomy. you can have a lot less justice. the whole idea of what the appellate court is and what is records do, when you have a problem that has not been resolved yet, you fill in gaps. you can do it one of two ways. you can look at every case, or you can have a principal when you are making law. when you do when you do so, you should do so with the idea of making justice. in most of the world, there are no graduate law schools. the u.s., canada, south africa, recently japan -- the only ones

with graduate law schools. lott is undergraduate -- law is undergraduate. that is true in england as well. you can do graduate -- post- graduate work. in china, the law is graduate -- undergraduate. when i went over there in the early 1980's, i thought the curriculum was broken. te.was by ro you had to memorize the statute of limitations in 50 states. who cares? the college administrators, the president, the provost, the beans -- they all agreed they should change the curriculum. china is no stranger to the academic intransigence. they were not going to change -- the professors. they had been teaching for years. we decided to leapfrog that and have a graduate law school. it is funded completely by the

government. it is one of the graduate schools of pekin universe g city, one of the finest -- university, one of the finest universities in china. it would be 600 students at the end of three years. everything in china is numbers. it is 1.3 billion. if you four get the billion, the 0.3 -- forget billion, the 0.3 makes the em still one of the biggest countries in the world. it was designed to get students with diversity. there were 6000 applications for 200 places. they got it down to 500 and

decided to have personal interviews. they wanted standard questions for the interviews. in china, the young people love movies made in england or the u.s. they seem to be able to watch almost any movie at any time for free. [laughter] they are real movie buffs. they know all of that stuff. one of the standard questions was, why do you want to go to law school? what inspired you to go to laws school? they could not say, might aunt w -- my aunt was ajudge o -- a lawyer. father waws a they would often say that they were inspired by movies.

the movie was "legally blonde." [laughter] >> when we were talking about this the other night, i said "my cousin vinnie." >> i had never heard of this thing. we went out and rented it and watched it. [laughter] when i went over there to teach this class, i understood. in going to this new law school, this new venture, they were taking our risk -- a risk. were not sure this new culture of law -- they were not sure if this new culture of law would be welcoming or effective. it identified with the protagonist -- they identified with the protagonist, reese

witherspoon. >> we were speaking with our grandson, talking about you, getting ready for the conference. he asked me what i should know about you. given your tenure, what you believe is your greatest contribution. how would you like future generations to remember you? >> that is for others to judge. they can put the most -- i think the most difficult case is the one i'm working on today. [laughter] i just hope that my tenure might teach that you have a duty of introspection. it is not just an egocentric exercise. it is to find -- you have to share your reason with your colleagues first and then with the bench, then with the bar.

the law will survive because we give reasons for what we do. you must be honest about examining those reasons. >> thank you. we have several other questions. since we are running a little bit low on time, if anyone would like to ask a particular question of the justice, we have microphones set up. any questions? i see someone coming to the microphone in the back. >> justice kennedy, i was wondering if you could in part -- impart your wisdom regarding the secret of a successful marriage. [laughter] >> we were in china and my wife, mary, is a marvelous school teacher.

she was invited to a school -- a high school for women. then i came because i had a break in the schedule. we were in class together. headmistress' was with us. they were on their good behavior. they knew we were dignitaries from abroad. i started to ask people questions. some girl in the back kept shaking her head. finally, she raised her hand. it was in chinese and had to be interpreted. the headmistress says, uh -- i am not leaving china without knowing that question. [laughter] and so she said, justice kennedy, we're very interested in american cases. can you please explain to us

the bobbitt case? [laughter] that was the case in which the woman had the poor taste to mutilate her husband. of course the class roared with laughter and i got very red. i said, that is why i brought my wife. she can answer that question. [laughter] the secret of marriage is to realize that every day is more beautiful. [applause] >> any other questions? i will ask one last one. is there any message you would like to ipmart -- impart to the judges here and the lawyers? >> i think you should know the

admiration and respect that i have for your dedication. i missed the practice of law. i loved the practice of law. i would just ask judges to remember they are the guardians of freedom, and lawyers to remember that they are the counselors, critics, and the conscience. >> a thank you. >> beautiful. [applause] >> coming up, speeches by sonia sotomayor and justice ruthbade bader ginsberg.

rev. al sharpton will talk about the rally that he has organized. we will discuss the levy system in orleans. also the faith and freedom coalition chairman ralph reed. >> learn more about the nation's highest court from those of served on the bench. read our latest book, "the supreme court." yesterday, sonia sotomayor spoke to students at the university of denver law school. of denver law school. she talked about her career in the law and the recent decision on miranda rights, in which she dissented.

she was appointed by president obama in 2009. this is one hour. >> thank you to all of you for being here. before we begin, i will do the movie reminder. please turn off or silence all of your cell phones. thank you. i would like to thank our co- sponsor in this -- the colorado campaign for inclusive excellence. to double our co- sponsor -- thank are co-sponsor in this -- the colorado campaign for inclusive excellence. we have been working in colorado and nationwide. i would like to thank the many people who made this possible, especially our associate dean and the event planners. thank yoto all of you who made this happen. [applause] if you ever doubt whether strong

intellect, hard work, and good, old-fashioned human decency can carry you to t top of the competitive and prestigious professions, you need look no further for inspiration than justice sonia sotomayor. she grew up i the bronx public housing process -- project. she attended high school, then princeton and yale law school's on full scholarships. -- schools on full scholarships. she excelled in high school debate. for those of you who served on various law reviews -- you have heard my pitch on the benefits of this -- justice sotomayor was an editor on the yale law journal. she served as district attorney in the new york city -- district office. she did commercial litigation in new york, first as an associate,

then as a partner. in 1991, president george h. w. bush appointed her to the u.s. district court to the southern district of new york, and then in 1998, president bill clinton elevated her to the u.s. court of appeals for the second circui in 2009, president barack obama appointed her as associate justice of the u.s. supreme court. a telling insight about the justice comes from one ofer former clerks who came to speak to us yesterday. the clerk pointed out that the justice loves kids of all ages. she sees in them all that is possible and all that is great about us. that is why she is here -- to inspire all of us. please join me in welcoming toast it -- a welcoming justice somayor -- in welcoming

justice sotomayor. [applause] >so, thank you. let me tell you a little bit about e format. we will begin with questions from five denver-area student leaders at the center microphone. after their questions have been answered, we wil open the floor to questions from all students. to me sure we get a good cross-section of studio audiences, we have divided the floor into blue, green, pink, and yellow. alternate from section -- we will alternate between the sections until the hour is up. our students will make sure each section can get to the microphone. sarah will keep us on track.

i will now turn the floor over to our first question. thank you again, justice sotomayor. [applause] >> can i just say thank you to the dene and everyone else who worked on putting this wonderful event together -- dean and everyone else who worked on putting this wonderful event together? and do all of you who are here -- you touched my heart in a deep and profound way. i thank you for taking the time to share this moment with me. i wish you could stand here in my shoes for a few minutes and look out. it is an absolutely are inspiring feeling he -- awe- inspiring feeling to be standing up here and having you looking up at me. it is a little strange.

the whole year for me has been filled with strangeness, but a nice strangeness. each moment has had a measure of magic that i could not repeat that any other moment. thank you for coming today. anyway, let's start with the first question. if you cannot hear me, tell me. i am usually loud enough. my friends do not complain. [laughter] >> good afternoon, justice sotomayor. my question is, how was life different living from the bronx to princeton university? >> the first week i was in princeton, i spent virtually every night loong for the cricke who was makg noise in my room. [laughter] the only cricket i had ever seen was in a cartoon about "jiminy

cricket." i knew it had long legs and made bad boys. i tookhat route apart every single night. -- room apart every single night. on the weekend, one of my friends came to visit me. i told him about the credit. he started to laugh. he told me, it is not in t room. it is on the three outside the window. i had never -- on the tree outside the window. i had never had a tree outside my window. i felt like i was in an alien land that is h often described it. it was totally different from anything i had ever experienced. first of all, i do not know if you have seen pictures of princeton. if you have not come and go on the internet and look. it is made up of gothic -- collegiate gothic architecture.

it is like it is out of a storybook. there is grass everywhere, trees everywhere, big, beautiful buildings. you almost feel like you're somewhere in europe, walking through four or five centuries ago of history. the people who are there are so different from me. they were from different parts of the country, many from across the world. many of them had experiences that i had only heard about. they took spring vacations in the bahamas, in europe, and they had read books that i had never even heard of. "ulysses." i have not heard about that when i was in high school. i started to read it and i almost fell asleep.

the public is that i was different. i came -- theoll -- the point is that i was different. it took a lot of work to make a life for myself in that environment. did i feel completely apart of princeton when i had left? i had mastered princeton by all traditional criteria. you may know that i graduated pretty high in my class and received a very prestigious honor their. i had done everything that was expected of a person going to a place like princeton. did i ever feel completely comfortable? do you ever? when you are that different? i am on the supreme court today. i am one of nine extraordinary

people. i did t include myself in 993 the other eight are just brilliant. every morning i get up -- in i that nine. that nine. -- i do not include myself in that nine. that nine. the other eight are just brilliant. every morning i get up and know that i can just keep meeting every challenge. eventually, i will become comfortable enough to say, even if i am a little bit different, it is ok. i guess that is where i am now. it is ok. thanks. [applause] >>hey know? ok. >> i am a freshman year at the

university of denver. in high school, i was on the the 18 -- debate team. i was curious about your experience with debate in high school and how that impacted your education and how it impacted your eventual nomination to the supreme court. >> i do not know how your debate competition goes on. when i was in high school, we would show up at a local college somewhere -- not so local. once we traveled to buffalo, got snowed in, and decided i would never go north for colle. and i did not. you went to a big room. you were paired into teams. you were handed the topic and the side that you had to argue. you had 15 minutes to organize your thoughts and then the

debate started. that exercise probably assisted me in every stage of my professional life as a lawyer. the moment, as a lawyer -- even as a person in almost any profession, that you can see both sides of an issue, that you can muster the best arguments on either side, and come to a resolution as a debater or a lawyer or a judge, in terms of making a choice after knowing what l of the arguments are, and understanding them, then you feel that you are making a right decision. there is rarely are right or there is rarely are right or wrong answer -- a right wrong answer. what -- people wonder why the

law is not clear. the law is clear. human behavior is not. that is what the law addresses. the activities, relationships of people. anytime you're dealing with that -- when you are applying that conduct to law, it is never quite black and white. as far as me as a judge goes, and my career, it has always been, have understood all of the arguments on each side? have i fully appreciated what both sides are trying to say to me? and have by then come to a conclusion that i think is commanded by -- i then come to a conclusion that i think is commanded by the law? being on the debate team was the foundation of that learning for me. for all of you who are debaters,

it is important, not just if you want to be a lawyer or judge or justice, but in all of your relationships. if you can deal with people by being passionate about your own views but sensitive to what motivates other people, what their views are, why they think of it is important, you can improve your relationship with them. [applause] >> good afternoon, justice sotomayor. thank you for coming to our school. i'm the president of the student bar association here. as a law student, i will ask a legal question. since miranda versus arizona was decided in 1966, a long line of decisions has eroded productions persons facing police interrogations' enjoy.

-- protections persons facing police interrogations enjoy. there is a heavy burden to prove that someone has waived miranda. there is a warning that any statement can constitute an implied waiver of miranda rights. you wrote a passionate dissent. do you believe that a majority of the court has expressed the view that the protections of miranda are essentially no longer necessary? in other words, are the purposes of miranda protection -- this is what the law school has done to me. [laughter] in other words, are the main purposes of the miranda protection -- to prevent coercive interrogation -- no longer something the court is concerned about? thank you very much. [applause]

>> i am glad you recognize what law school did to you. [laughter] for all the young lawyers in this audience -- or young lawyers to be, when i start talking to my law clerks about legal research, the first thing i tell them to do is to explain the problem to me without using one word of legalese. i y to them -- because what happens often to lawyers is, you start using legal terms and you forget what they mean. often, if you look at what the legal term means, it gives you a pretty clear answer to whatever question you are looking after. i am not accusing you of that. i am going to translate, i think, what your question meant. [laughter] for the students who did not

read it. the court, in the case he mentioned, was faced with the question of whether or not a defendant who had remained silent for a number of hours during police interrogation -- whether he had waived his right to remain silent when a police officer came up to him and basically asked him whether he had asked god for forgiveness fothe murder he had committed. he shook his head yes. i am simplifying the tax greatly, but those are the essence -- the facts greatly, but that is the essence of it. did the defendant, after hours of not saying anything, when he spoke, waived his right to silence? what the majority basically held

-- again i am simplifying things for this conversation -. it is always dangerous to do this. he should not take this as a mplete explanation. you should always read it. for the purpose of your question, the majority held that, the defendant knows of his rights, in this case, it was a clear finding by the below courts and that the defendant knew he had a right to remain silent. if he speaks in the face of that silence, one could assume that he waived his rights. that is, in essence, what the majority said. i descended -- dissented on the prior that the court's cases had demanded that a waiver of the right remained silent --

a waiver of the right to remain silent had to be more explicit. a defendant had to say, yes, i'll waive. i want to talk with you. your silence was not proof of a waiver. there were cases that had said that in the history. do i think that the majority is revoking miranda? no. one of the most interesting things i w given by justice souter, whose seat i took on souter, whose seat i took on the court -- in one of our first conversations, he said, this job will be eminently easier for you if you except that the people -- accept that the people you're working with our people of good faith. you may disagree with them, but

each of them is doing what they think is right under the constitution and the law. you may think they are right about their conclusion, but if you did not ascribed evil motives to them -- do not ascribe evil motives to them, you will find that the disagreement is something you can engage in with passion and respect. what do i think? i think that i was right. [laughter] i do think they were wrong. some people on the court joined me in sang they were wrong, but not -- it was not done out of an intent to undo miranda. they're holding was that the person who knows their right and chooses nevertheless to speak as made a statement. they believe that. this is a question of your

perspective and what you think it works best in terms of your view of the constitution and its protections. [applause] >> hi. i am from denver south. >> what is that? high school, college? >> high school. cultural issues such as immigration and religious tolerance often make it to the court. should the court considered the political culture of the nation in various decisions? >> one beauty of being a justice for life -- which all federal judges are -- is that we're charged with not considering the

political views of the time. we're charged with looking at the constitution and what belongs command -- the law commands. it is difficult to answer that question in the abstract. there are situations in which a certain dangers -- searches and seizures, for example. we have to make determination whether certain police conduct in searching either a person or place is reasonable. how do we draw our conclusions on reasonableness? in part, by thinking about what the situation is. under what situation are the police officers doing the confronting? what are the experience is the society has had -- experiences the society has had in those

kinds of confrontations? is it political? no. it is a societal situation that we take into account. there are other questions where it would be completely inappropriate for us to look at at the society's political reaction is because the constitution says you cannot. we do not permit laws that abridge freedom of speech. that is not an absolute law, because there are restrictions to speech that we permit within certain circumstances and not in all. if you are a judge or justice in that situation, you have to be careful to put aside the political views and look at what the law commands you to look at making your choice. with respect to the situations

you are talking about -- religious freedom and immigration law -- i am sure some others did it will ask me my views on those. clearly, i cannot give them. first of all, i have not really examed the arizona law in detail. i have seen what you have seen in the newspapers. i have not read the arguments. i do not know what the other courts will do. i have not formed an opinion yet and i will not until i hear the case, the same with other issues that involve religious tolerance. there is an important issue involved in these questions that all of you have to bear in mind. by the time the case comes to the court, it is because some dynamic in the society has had a confrontation. it means that interest groups in th society have done something

either to create an law or to crte a sittion that is going to impact another group. that is why waiting for the courts to resolve these issues is not what all of you should be doing, whether you want to be lawyers or not. just to be good citizens -- we should all be actively involved in shaping laws that get past, it involves -- get passed, involved in changing them when we do not agree with them. waiting for the court to do that is giving away your rights of citizenship. citizenship means participation in the development of our law, our society. for all of you here, there are big and important issues, critical to many communities.

i do not know what the answer is. you, individually, may not know what the right answer is, but you have to work at finding it together. you have to work hard at either passing laws that you think to the right thing or changing those which you think to the wrong things. don't wait for the court. start the process much earlier than when the confrontation develops. [applause] >> afternoon, justice sotomayor. i am a senior here. i am applyinto law school to pursue a career as a corporate attorney. what challenges did you face as a corporate litigator, both in general and in terms of your ethnicity? thank you.

>> iould give you pat answers. i will try to give you a more direct one. what i found when i moved into the corporate world was that my greatest problem was that i did not have access previously to people in places of power so that i could make the contacts to get the business that i needed to develop in my firm. a complicated concept, isn't it? law firms are businesses. they need clients. how do people make clients? they usually make them from people they know. generally, not always, but often, the people you grow up with, the people that you go to camp with, the people that you do things with -- they are the

people who become your business leaders -- to become business leaders working in corporate settings. through those relationships, they bring new business. when you come from a background like i do, where there was not that corporate familiarity, it becomes harder to make those inroads. obviously i develop some of my business from my contacts at princeton and yale. those and garments let me meet those kinds of people. -- those environments let me meet those kinds of people. a lot of my friends in the law firm wer -- had clients who were people they grew up with or were the parents of their friends from school. i developed my business the different way. you'll learn how to do that when you are challenged and cannot do it in the traditional way. i took the clients that the firm had andigured out what

additional business i could develop with those clients. i took three of the firms bigger bigger clientsm's and i developed areas that they had not had with the firm previously. that is what got me the partnership. you have to be creative in meeting challenges. in terms of entering the corporate area, that was the biggest disadvantage i found. i know that i have spoken previously to other student groups about writing. e biggest challenge that most students -- not just minorities, but frankly the entire population has --is an understanding that the persuasiveness of lawyering is not the argument you make in the court. getting up and talking to a judge -- it really does not matter how articulate or inarticulate you are.

if you have a strong case and you have made a persuasive case in your papers, you are going to win. that is probably true about almost anything you do it as a professional you persuade in your riding. -- in your writing. that is the task that every student has to spend most time on, in my mind, learning how to write tightly and concisely. that takes a lot of effort. i've talked about what i did in college to improve my own riding. -- writing. i went to the biggest bookstore in new york and bought grammar books from first to 12th grade and spent the whole summer reading those books to teach myself how to write right. i still work at it. it is not natural for most

people. it takes practice to do well. if i were going to talk about a second structural challenge to success, it would be improving my riding -- writing. [applause] >> thank you. the next question will come from a student in the blue section. >> good afternoon, justice sotomayor. sotomayor. i'm a senior at abraham lincoln high school. it is an honor to ask you this question. in your remarks on may 2000 -- may, 2009, you said and the along the lines of, "are at --

our founding fathers have set of principles. times have changed, and so have the principles." what your beliefs about the words "all men are created equal" and calling illegal immigrts "aliens"? in what direction is immigration reform hding? >> it was the declaration of independence which spoke about allen being equal. they did not mean all men, because they excluded blacks and excluded women. it was not all people are eal. obviously has changed. we have grown into a society borne ferom -- from brown versus

board of education that it does mean all men. we have grown through legislative -- not constitutional -- actions -- most people do not recognize this. most of the change in equality for women came through legislative reform. the right to vote. the court followed with requiring equality of women in the workplace and in other fields in other ways. it was not just the constitution. it was the law that opened the door for women. what will "all men are equal" begun to immigrants is a more complicated question because of the constitutional power over immigration that is ven to congress and the president. a change in that area is likely

to beat a little slower and -- be a little slower and require much more legislive action ben court action to b, top be frank. to the extent of the coury is focused on this, it requires more meaningful conversation about that principle. what do we, as a country, want equality to me in this situation? there is no clear answer in the constitution. we will find it more in its principles and in the country having a conversation about how it wants that issue to look. [applause] >> the next question will come from a student in the green section.

>> i come from thomas jefferson high school where i am a senior. what gave you the motive to become -- to accomplish all the things that you have? >> i am the most stubborn person you can imagine. [laughter] i really mean that. when i was little, my family used to talk about me being so hard-headed. i know how to work and compromise on issues between people. when it comes to me and doing things, i keep getting knocked down and i will just keep getting up. when i was 2 years old, i did not like eating.

i used to bunch up my cheeks like this to shut them so my mom could not show the spoon in -- shove the spoon in. my mother would put her hands around my cheeks and forced it down my throat -- force it down my throat. we would do that for hours. [laughter] every time i did something that she thought i was wrong, she would put me in one of the timeout corners and say, come out whenever you change your mind. i would sit there forever. she would have to give in to call me to dinner. these are not great qualities. [laughter] i can asse you she did not think so when i was little. there is an essence to the idea

that every time you get knocked it down, you get up and try again. that is sometimes really hard to do. when you get embarrassed over failure -- that happens to me -- you get embarrassed and you want to walk away. there is nothing more degrading to yourself than when you feel you have been embarrassed. and yet, getting up and saying, ok, how my going to not let this beat me? what do i have to do to make this work? try again. go a different way around it. that is what has helped me succeed. i do not often tell this story. when president clinton nominated

me to the court of appeals, i was not certain i wanted to go. i loved being a district cour judge. i was not sure i wanted to leave being a trial judge. a lot of people started putting up resistance to my aointment. [laughter] one day, i looked at a bunch of my friends and i said, why am i fighting so hard for a job i am not even sure i want? i answered my own question by saying, if they had not fought so hard, i would have given up earlier. i could not let them beat me. as i said to you, that is hard to say to people. when you fail, it is just tough to try again. it is really worth it. you will eventually get through. [applause]

>> thank you, your honor. now, a question from a student in the ping exception -- pink section. >> hi. i am and 8 greater -- an eighth grader. how did you feel when president obama nominated you to be judged on the supreme court? -- to be a judge on the supreme court? >> let me tell you what happened that day. i got up at 6:00 in the morning to go to the white house. i was going to get ready to go meet the president and have him announce my nomination. as i walked into the room where we were going to meet the president, my whole family was

there. they had been brought from florida and syracuse to the white house. we were sitting around. i was hugging and kissing everyone. the president and vice president walked in. from that moment till almost today, i have been living a fantasy. i have often said i keep waiting for someone to pinch me and wake me up. i do not really want them to, but i keep imagine it is going to happen any moment now. when i walked from the back towards the podium, it was like my whole body started floating in space. there was sonia walking and talking and getting kissed by the vice president and the

esident. i was totally shocked. it is impossible to describe what a moment like that is. i heard the president talking about me, saying things i did not even know. [laughter] and it was the most exhilarating, the most incredible moment anyone could ever have. the most special part of this whole process, for me, and iay this to you so that you go away from this experience with me today aspiring to reach a moment like that for yourselves. despite all of the wonderful things that had happened to me, perhaps the most terrific was perhaps the most terrific was watching my younger brother cry on television.

[laughter] do you know why? i knew he loved me. i never knew he loved me so much. if you have a moment in your lives where you can share a special event with your family and look at them and look at the joy they are getting and the joy they are feeling for you, it really is the most touching part of this experience. when i say watching my brother cry, what i mean is learning how deeply he loves me. i hope you have that opportunity

to feel how much they love you. to feel how much they love you. [applause] >> next question. >> i am a senior at the contemporary learned academy. thank you for the wonderful opportunity that you have given us today. the odds you have overcome our extraordinary. -- are extraordinary. what advice would you give to young people who feel they are being held back by their financial situation? thank you. >> i do not want to b flip, because i do not intend to. but i actually believe in

getting into debt for education. for me, there is nothing more important long-term, then getting the best education that you can add whatever cost you -- at whatever cost you have to pay. that often means getting more loans than you think you can afford, and working more jobs than you think you can do, but i do not tnk there is an opener to doors in ts society greater than education. education open your eyes -- opens your eyes to the world a it lets you fly without a plane. it lets you experience the world in a very direct way, because it lets you think about things more deeply and more sensitively then you could on your own -- than

you could on your own. it is about learning things you would not seek or experience in your everyday environment. you cannot let money hold you back. it means srifice. i actually started working when i was in high school, during my freshman year summer. i worked summers and all year round. i worked for two years at two jobs, even on a full scholarship. i know it is hard andough, but you just cannot let it get you down. you ve to do a lot of research on looking for every financial assistance out there.

i got a scholarship from the new york state rehabilitation society. ands a juvenile diabetic i did not know that i qualified. i applied and got it. who would have thunk? i didn't. i was researching every scholarship. found out my local church had a scholarship, so i tried for it. was not big money. it was small amounts that added up. that put me through college. [applause] >> good afternoon, your honor. i am a junior. i was wondering what was your main goal that you wanted to achieve by becoming a supreme court justice?

what do you want to most influence? thank you. >> when i was being prepared for my senate hearings, one of the questions i was asked was, when i die, what is the legacy that i want people to talk about? that is the one preparation question that i had the most difficulty with. i will explain why. i am one of nine. i cannot actually influenced the development of any area -- any specific area -- influence the development of any specific area unless i can convince others to

interpret them in the way i think isight. to talk about a legacy in a particular area of law is not something i am equipped to do. so, if it is n a change in law, because we did not make it, we interpret and apply it, then what is the legacy i could leave as a supreme court justice? what i came to, in terms of answering that for myself, was i hope that, at the end of my legacy, people will say to me that she was a justice that people understood and knew appreciated their pblems, and that the decisions i reached were always based on a

principle based in law. if i can be known as someone who respects law, then i can teach others and guide them into what is happening in our society. is happening in our society. if i can understand the issues they are involved in, i will ve fulfilled my legacy. [applause] [applause] >> good afternoon. i am from the denver center for international studies. i am a jew near there. i am a jew near there. -- i'm a junior there.

what is the biggest sacrifice what is the biggest sacrifice you have had to make in your life and why? >> this is getting more personal than you may want. [laughter] it was taking this job when i know that i am on the tail end of my mother's life. for those of you who are young year, you probably cannot appreciate that. my mother's health is not perfect and i know that. she went into the hospital two days ago in florida. i am not there. i knew that the responsibilities of this work were likely to keep peace -- keep me from spending

as much time with her as i would want during this stage of her life. that has been my biggest sacrifice. [applause] >> thank you, your honor. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon.

>> there is -- as i said to you earlier today, there is no

black-and-white line. it is all very much a gray area. how much the courts will permit, but congress to go in terms of was that it passes, each a statute will raise a different set of questions and a different set of balancing. there is no clear awer to your question. >> i go to palmer high school in colorado springs. i was wondering, in your use,

did you experience agrees to profiling -- did you experience cial profiling? if so, how did you overcome that? >> not in the way that many others do. i have a white skin tone. that is really helpful to avoiding profiling. it is not likely -- i came ov the border with a friend many years ago and she was a mexican- american citizens from california and we were in the car together and they stopped our car and the only one the pullout was hurt. -- they pulled out was hurt. if that was because she was dark skin. -- as they pulled out was her. that was because she has dark

skin. i have an understanding of what the larger society's expectations of me are. so, i have understood -- it was very painful on the court of appeals and on the supreme court nomination process

this is the way it is. >> will have to work harder at what i do. what i do will be better because of it. [applause] >> thank-you justice sotomayor and thanked all of you for being here.

>> next, on c-span, supreme court justice ruth better ginsberg's beat set a conference -- speaks at a conference. later, to party activists talk about their affects on national politics. >> this weekend, on c-span2 book tv, marvin olasky speaks on the politics of disaster. alexander zaitchik speaks of. for a complete listing of this week's programs and times, go to booktv.org. >> we have plenty of people in government in d.c..

we need to get out from the belt way and hear from our constituents. >> while congress is on summer break, some congressmen are holding town hall meetings in their districts and we have been covering them. watch on line on the c-span video library and see what your congressman has said from across the country to the house floor. it is free on your computer any time. >> earlier this evening, supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg delivered the speech that her late husband had planned to give pan she participates in a discussion with others. this is one hour 15 minutes.

>> if you have semmelweis that may erupt, it will be excited dogs. if you will turn off all mobile devices that might interrupt, that would be wonderful. it is a delight to walk all of you here and it is a special honor to have our once circuit justice -- -- ruth they are ginsburg back with us again tonight. -- justice ruth bitter ginsburg with us again tonight. she attended law school before returning to law school. she made law review and became the first woman to achieve that honored position at two major schools and after a year at columbia, she gradually did at the top of her class. the years following -- she

graduated at the top of her class. the years following, she had some interesting matters in the 10th circuit. she battled maternity leave rights for teachers. she was the first woman hired with tenure at columbia law school. her star continued to rise three it should join various law associations and committees. president jimmy carter nominated her to serve as a judge on the u.s. court of appeals. she served as a justice until president clinton nominated her to succeed our own legendary byron r. white. in 1993, she became the second woman on the supreme court. joe biden said that justice ginsburg was a nominee that holds a rich vision of what the

constitution promises of liberty balanced by a measured approach to the job of judging. a couple of years ago, the ginsbergs were visiting my wife and me in santa fe and i invited marty to deliver a speech. he asked why me. i told him it was because he was the funny tax guide. [laughter] i thought that he would come and talk about tax law, but instead, he prepared another speech. after his untimely passing, justice ginsburg called me and said that she would like to come give that speech tonight. that speech tells about part of her career in the 10th circuit which created a legacy for law that we could all be very proud of. will you join me in welcoming

justice was bitter ginsburg. -- justice ginsburg. [applause] >> my dear husband who was a great tax lawyer got an extension for our 2009 tax return. but he had his 10th circuit speech all written out and i know he would want you to hear it. bear with me, my timing will not be like his, but i will do the

best that i can. as you have heard, my field is tax law. when chief judge henry asked me to speak to you today, he hinted it might be on my favorite subject. naturally, i prepared a long paper addressing the supreme court's performance in tax courses. surprisingly, he reacted with hostility. [laughter] i will only speak instead about the only significant thing in my life when i will recall to you the one case in which we serve as co-counsel for it it was also the one occasion that either of us were privileged to argue in the 10th circuit. fascinating as you will surely

find this reminiscence, all in all, you are the losers, for i promise you that the supreme court's performance in tax cases is an exceedingly funny subject. [laughter] in the 1960's, i practiced law in new york city and ruth began her law teaching career at rutgers law school in new york. one of the courses she taught was constitutional law and she started looking into equal protection issues that might be presented by statutes that differentiated on the basis of sex. a dismal academic undertaking because back then the united states supreme court had never invalidated any legislative classification that differentiated on the basis of sex.

then, as now, at home, ruth and i worked evenings in adjacent rooms. her room is bigger, and i must interject. it is not so. in my little room, one evening, in the fall of 1970, i was reading a tax cheat and came across a litigant who, on a stipulated record, was denied a $600 dependent care deduction even though the tax court found the operative facts, save one, but the statute perfectly. his 89-year-old depended mother lived with him -- dependent

mother lived with him. charles payton unrelated individual at least $600, in fact a good deal more than that, to take care of his mother when he was away at work. and there was just one small problem. in the tax court, it served to do him in. the statue awarded the deduction to a taxpayer who was a woman of any classification, a married couple, a widowed man or a divorced man. but not to a single man who had never married. mr. morris was a single man, unmarried.

deductions are a matter of legislative greece. if the taxpayer were raising the constitutional objective, forget about it. everyone knows that the tax code is immune from constitutional attack. [laughter] let me digress for a moment to tell you that in the tax court, although not a lawyer, he had written a brief. it was one page and it said, "if i were a dutiful daughter instead of a dutiful son, i would have received that deduction. that makes no sense. " it was from that brief that the court thought he may be raising

a constitutional objection. that remains in my mind. it was the most impressive brief i have ever read. when i went into the big room next door -- [laughter] i handed the advance sheet to my spouse and folder to read it. ruth replied with a warm not, "i don't read tax cases." [laughter] i told her to read this one and returned to my little room. not more than five minutes later, it was a short opinion, ruth stepped into my little room and with the broadest smile you can imagine said that we should take it and we did. we took the appeal, pro bono, of course, but since the plant was

not indigent, we needed a pro bono organization. we thought of the aclu. they wished to review our proposed 10th circuit brief which was 90% ruth's and the rest mine. when they read the brief, he was greatly persuaded. a few months later, the aclu had its first sex discrimination people protection case in the u.s. supreme court. -- equal protection case in the supreme court. nell asked ruth if she would take the lead in writing the supreme court brief on behalf of appellate sally reed. ruth did and reversed the decision of the idaho supreme

court when the supreme court upheld for sally. it was good for sally and ruth, who decided to hold down to jobs at columbia where she had moved from rockers and the other as head of the aclu -- from rutgers university and the other as head of the aclu. now, back to morris. the 10th circuit found mr. morris to have been denied equal protection and therefore reduced -- reversed the case and allowed him to take his $600 deduction. amazingly, the government's decision was served. the 10th circuit decision cast a cloud of on constitutionality

over hundreds of federal statutes, losaws that differentiated solely on the basis of sex. in those pre computer days, and there was no way for us to test the government's assertion, but to but the attached to the position -- the petition a list of those hundreds of suspect federal statutes. he was denied and the computer list was a gift beyond price. [laughter] over the balance of the decade, in congress, the supreme court and other courts, ruth successfully urged the and

constitutionality of those statutes. -- the and constitutionality of those statutes. -- the un constitutionality of those statutes. -- the unconstitutionality of those statutes. those statutes. this would help force the litigation that brief actively pursued until she joined the d.c. circuit in 1980. all in all, and great achievements from a tax case told exactly $296.70. as you can see, in bringing those tax advance sheets to ruth's big room 40 years ago, i

changed history. [laughter] [applause] for the better. i rendered a significant service to the nation. i have decided to believe that it is the significant service that led to my being invited to speak to you today. even if you had in mind a topic below less cosmically significant and substantially more humorous, such as a supreme court performance in tax cases, ruth and i are truly delighted to be back with you in the 10th circuit once again. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you. thank you, please be seated. i better take this with me. >> can someone help us move this podium?

[no audio] >> try that.

justice ginsburg, thank you for this unforgettable moment. it is incredibly moving to have you join us tonight and share your memories of marty and his work room and his tribute to you. i am greg kerwin. it was president franklin roosevelt's who held a series of fireside chats on the video beginning in 1933 in the deaths of the great depression -- the depths of the great depression. those intimate talks reassured a scared nation. here, tonight, nestled in this

beautiful location at the foot of pikes peak, my vision of the fireside chat is more like that of a camper's campfire talk in a national park. we tried to get a fire going in your, but the marshals were not happy about that. -- going in here, but the marshals were not happy about that. we will gain insight about their lives and their contributions to our justice system. this fireside chat is a signature event for the historical society. sandra day o'connor joined us in 2006 and justice stephen briar in 2008. with tonight's program, we could not find two more interesting guests. i will come so many of our members tonight. you are the people that make this impossible. for those who are not already members, please join us.

you can sign up tonight. we need your support to come to new -- to continue to make these programs possible. for the remainder of this unique program, we are thrilled to welcome justice ginsburg back and beverly mclaughlin and learn about their careers. robert will introduce the talk. he began in 1994 as a circuit judge and then chief judge and he decided this year to tackle a new challenge and become president of oklahoma city university. please join me in welcoming robert henry.

[laughter] -- [applause] >> welcome again. i am getting in touch with my feminine side this evening. >> it is about time. [laughter] >> i have been introduced justice ginsburg and a black to introduce our other two panelists. justice beverly mclaughlin is the first female chief justice of the supreme court of canada and was the first one appointed to that court. she received her b.a. and m.a. degree. she won the gold medal for being the top student there and was

editor in chief of the alberta law review. she is the chairperson of the canadian judicial council, the board of governors, and the advisory council of the order of canada. she has been awarded 21 honorary doctor of law degrees. in a speech, she laid out many of the difficult roles of the judiciary. she concluded with four myths that she thought should be abandoned by the public. these myths were that there was always one right little answer to a dispute. two, there was one right factual answer to a dispute through the three, a judge's mind is a blank slate and they decide in mechanical, not human ways. and finally, that the judge is superhuman. >> i changed my mind on the last

one. >> i was going to say, when i think of you, i change my mind on the last winter it will come to being with us tonight. >> thank you. [applause] >> nina totenberg is back with us tonight. her father is still teaching violin at the university and has stopped his active concert career. nina has won so many awards. she won an award for excellence in broadcasting did she won -- broadcasting. she has been honored seven times what the american bar association. she is a frequent contributor to major newspapers and periodicals. including the "new york magazine" and others.

she is an honor recall rotten -- and moderate colorado -- an honorary coloradoan. >> when ruth ginsburg was nominated to the supreme court, i took myself over to the watergate and interviewed marty. almost verbatim, he told me that story. at some point, i needed to look up that case and i could not find it. i could not find it for anything because i heard charles morris, not charles moritz. i was looking up the wrong name. do you know what became of mr. morris? what kind of contact to have with him? >> all i know for sure is that

he took great care of his mother, even when she was 93. [laughter] >> i wonder how hard a sell was it to the 10th circuit back then? >> you are asking -- they did not considered an easy case, although they came to the right conclusion and had a perfect opinion. [laughter] >> my notion was so we were going to pass sally reed's case with charles moritz's case. it did not work out that way. the 10th circuit took a long time to decide this case.

it was well over a year between the argument and the decision. by that time, sally reed's case was in the supreme court and so we did not have the perfect pairing. >> i think that the judge has a comment. >> sometimes it takes us a while to get it right. [laughter] >> judge holloway is still working six days a week. you had another interesting 10th circuit case involving stillwater, oklahoma. credit verses' boren. >> oklahoma had a very city law. [laughter] >> it said that girls could by the near beer at age 18, but the

boys had to wait until age 21. the thursday boy is -- the thirsty boys brought this case. i did not become involved until it was in the 10th circuit. they did not make it a class action. they did not think that was necessary because if it took a long time, there was an endless supply of 18 year-old in the fraternities. [laughter] >> it was a convenience store owned are a woman. it was to her advantage to be able to sell her beer to the boy is. it happened that craig turned 21

after the supreme court agreed to hear the case. a lawyer from stillwater moved to substitute another plaintiff. the u.s. supreme court said no. that left the owner of the convenience store absolutely dependent on the case. it was a wonderful third party standing case. [laughter] >> no one denied her equal protection, but she felt the economic effect of the discrimination against the thursday -- thursday -- thirsty boys. the case was going to be the case where the court announced an elevated review standards for the classification.

no longer >> a rational basis do, but heightened scrutiny would apply to all such classifications. we wished they would take another case to make that announcement. we were very pleased that after that, gender based classification would be looked at closely and would not pass muster unless there was an exceedingly persuasive justification for the classification. we have an anniversary of the case in oklahoma city. the case was 20 years old. the store owner was there and she said that she wanted to sell her convenience store, but she knew that it might be

important for her to be in the case and so she held onto it. there was greg, i think he had become a lawyer -- there was greg, i think he had become a lawyer -- craig. i think he had become a lawyer. [laughter] the mother of the very first thirsty boy, and we had a lovely time. [laughter] chief justice but laughlin -- chief justice mclaughlin, you were the third woman on the canadian supreme court and there are now four. we all know that in sociology they tell us that there is a point when there is a critical mass when a minority -- when a

group that has not been part of the action suddenly its sea legs and really has more influence than it did when it was a much smaller portion of the institution, what ever that institution is. i wonder if that has been true at all on the canadian supreme court. >> i have been a woman of one on a state or provincial appellate court, which was quite lonely. when i came on the supreme court of canada it becomit was a muchr

situation than i had been before in terms of dynamics. i still felt that there was, shall we say, we do not use this phrase quite the way you do, but a higher level of scrutiny. even though we worked three -- we were three. i would be judged not only for what i say in conference, but there would be some fought in the back of one of my colleagues minded that she is saying that because she is a woman or whatever. i am not complaining, it was a wonderfully welcoming atmosphere, but the numbers made you paranoid. i know my female colleagues felt the same way. there is this perspective that

some how, there is this dynamic going on. -- somehow, there is this dynamic going on. i do think that things have changed. i think that we have arrived at the point on our court where people don't think in terms of gender. i think that we just think of each other and interact with each other as colleagues. i will just addled and it don't. some people -- i will just add a lot antidote. -- little antidote. the first woman leaned over and whispered in my heranear