>> he wanted to get me down to the white house to meet with the president. he had asked me to come back and meet with some of the president's closest advisers, which i did. he had rented hotel space some place downtown so that we could meet that day. the members of this cabinet, several of them, had come and were able to ask questions. at the end of the day, he said, "and the president would like to see you at the white house this afternoon." i had never been to the white house. i did not know where it was. i said, "where it is it?" [laughter] he said, "i will ask my secretary to pick you up. she has an old green chevrolet. she will pick you up on dupont circle." >> i had a meeting at dupont

circle. i went out to dupont circle and waited. here came that old green carpet -- the old green car, and the secretary drove me to the white house. we were admitted and made our way in due course to the oval office. it is so small. it is a shock to get in there. you say, oh my gosh. this is the white house? it is this tiny oval place. [laughter] we sat down and talk. it was very pleasant. he was very pleasant to talk to. >> very easy to talk to. that is how it all started. >> we see lists emerge. the you think it is more difficult to keep the secret for who is being considered? >> i have been touring the museum today. i do not think you can keep any

secrets in washington. it is impossible. >> it was it a goal of yours to become a justice? >> heavens, no. goodness, no. it's certainly was not. i was not sure what i ought to do. it is all right to be the first to do something, but i did not want to be the last one of the supreme court. -- last woman on the supreme court. [laughter] >> thank goodness for that. [applause] >> if i did a lousy job, it would take a long time to get another one. it made me very nervous. >> you paid the way for great justices. >> when did you first think about it? >> when he sent ken starr and some other people to arizona to talk to me. they would not say what it was far. -- for. it could have been some cabinet

post or something like that. they would not tell me. we had some nice visits, but they did a lot of homework out there. they had gone through all my papers. i had served in all three branches of arizona's government. i had a big paper trail they had to go true, i guess. -- go through, i guess. >> who were your role models? >> for what? [laughter] >> you were a trailblazer. you were a role model for everyone else. justice ginsberg, where were you in your career when justice o'connor was appointed? did it have any special meaning for you at that point in your career? >> it was a moment -- one of those few in life where you know exactly where you were. i had been on a recent visit. -- i had been on the d.c.

circuit for exactly one year. i was driving home. i turn on the news and they said sandra day o'connor. i was about to scream. no one would hear me. [laughter] then i found out what i could about this great lady, including the impression she made on ken starr. -- what could lunches that she made when ken starr and others visited her in phoenix. i knew she had been head of the senate in arizona. you had been to a conference on federalism at william and mary. >> yes, and i have gone there are a couple of meetings with people from the british isles, lawyers and judges -- remember those? warren burger initiated it.

i've gone to a couple of those. but i certainly was not well known in the judicial community. >> justice sotomayor, where were you in your career? >> almost at the beginning. my second year after graduating from law school in the da's office in manhattan. i remember having conversations at lunch time in that awful cafeteria, talking about how long it would take far women to be appointed to the supreme court. there were bets being taken whether it would happen in our lifetime or not. so the unlikelihood, or the fact it was something we were not sure, the speakes how historic it became. only two years later, sandra

was appointed. >> what did it mean to you at that time in your career? >> there were no women on the supreme court or the court of appeals in my state in new york. most large law forms at the time were a few hundred lawyers. today there are thousands. but back then,there were a few of them that had no women lawyers whatsoever. for us, during my time at law school, the doors were opening, but they were very small openings. so the idea that this barrier had been reached so quickly was sort of an inspiration. to think that more can come. certainly meant opportunities for us. they obviously have.

ruth follow the, took too long -- too long. elena and i followed shortly thereafter. >> this is fabulous -- all of these women on the forum. [applause] >> ruth, when president reagan was campaigning to be president, he did not think he was doing too well with the female votes. he started making statements about "if i am is elected president, i would like to put a qualified woman on the supreme court." he made enough of those statements, but then about four months after he became president, justice stewart retired. he was faced with what to do. [laughter] >> he was a man of his word. >> he was. >> justice kagan, where were you in your career when justice o'connor was appointed? >> i was a few years shy of

going to law school. [laughter] i hate to rabin. -- rub it in. >> but even i knew enough to be impressed. i had just graduated from college. i remember the announcement. what a stunning thing. >> what did it have a particular meaning to you? >> i was thinking about it. it was one of the things i was mulling over. i remember the announcement. i was very inspired by it. >> work for justice marshall and -- you clerked for justice marshall when justice o'connor was on the bench. did that have particular meaning to you? >> she was a formidable person. even a clerk knew what a formidable justice o'connor was. >> did you tell your joked about the [unintelligible]

>> here is my justice o'connor joke. justice o'connor -- one of her achievements on the courts is she founded an exercise group. she liked to have women clerks come. i failed to come to the exercise group. [laughter] >> i noticed. >> that is the story. [laughter] i used to play basketball instead. one day i tore something in my leg playing basketball. i was on crutches for a few weeks. the day after it happened, i was on crutches on, walking down the hallway, and justice o'connor was walking the other way. she said, "what happened?" i said i tore whatever i tore playing basketball. she sadly shook her head and

said, "it would not have happened in exercise group." [laughter] >> i am sure that is true. >> sandra encouraged me to attend the class, but it was a o'clock in the morning. as everyone knows, i am a night person. >> i told you the same thing. >> i have not done too well and getting them to class. i still have my class. i went this morning, as a matter of fact, at 8:00 a.m., and it was good. that really mattered to me. to have that class. in all the years i was in arizona, i had an early-morning exercise class. >> if you were a trailblazer in many ways. -- well, you were a trailblazer in many ways. that exercise class at the

supreme court was one of the first in that regard. what are you doing for exercise now? >> i go to my exercise class. what do you mean? >> do you play golf? >> once in awhile. i am not very good. and that's not much exercise, you know? >> it is for me. i do a lot of walking. >> how do you enroll in that? maybe it is in less. -- enlist. >> i got justice breyer in there a few times, but he did not want to be the only man. if you would join, midweek to get it going again. >> president reagan assigned your nomination on august 19, 1981. you were confirmed by the senate on september 21, 1981 by a vote of 99-0. you took your oath on september 25, 1981. we have seen remarkable changes in the appointment and confirmation processes. do you have any observations about the current state of the nomination process?

>> if it is less likely to be a 99-0. >> well, it's less likely to be 99-0. it seems to be a little more controversy than there was at that time. at the time i went on, it was expected that whoever was the incumbent president would fill the vacancy on the court. if you did not have horns and look to frightening, they would confirm the nomination. i think it has changed a little bit since then, i am sorry to say. >> justice ginsburg, you have had more recent experience. do you have any observations to make now? and just -- and justice sotomayor, justice kagan, too? you are safe. you are on the court. >> it was a much different process far sonya and elana. -- i was a beneficiary of the

senate judiciary committee's embarrassment over the nomination of justice thomas. they wanted to make sure it was civil, that there were women. my hearing -- it was rather dull. the vote was not 99, but it was close. 96-2. -- 96-3. justice breyer was also in that atmosphere. 1993-1994, we were truly bipartisan. -- the senate was truly bipartisan. senator hatch was my biggest supporter on the committee. i wish we could get back to the way it was in those years. >> what about your experience? >> i think what we have fallen prey to is the public's expectation that there are

answers to every question, that a hearing will be a place where this prospective judge will say yay or nay to whatever social issue. and outcome. i think that so long as that expectation continues to be fed by both the pundits who examine our records for how we are going to vote, that we are never going to satisfy anybody with the system as it currently exist. the reality is that what you are attempting to do is get clear answers to how we will rule on cases coming before the court -- i think it would be non judicious and if you have a nominee who says this is the way i am voting.

-- i think you have to be suspicious of a nominee who says this is how i am voting. it would suggest this person is coming in with a made up mind and an unwillingness to listen. having said that, i at least found that my personal meetings with the senators were very civil by in large. to that extent, it was easier to deal with the sort of public grilling that i received, knowing that it was each of us playing our role. for purposes i wish were different because it did become sort of role-playing i do not know if we are going to be able to satisfy people so long as the expectation of what they are expecting remains to be seen. -- remains the same. >> justice kagan? >> there is no doubt that we experienced a different process from the two of you. i remember at one point during

the process, people were asking me what i thought of all the things justice ginsberg wrote. i'm being asked as much about justice ginsberg as she is being asked? is it not enough that i have to answer for? i wish there was more bipartisanship in the current process. with that said, i do agree with justice sotomayor -- the senators of both political parties treated me fairly and respectfully. it is a shame it has come to a pass where republicans feel as though they cannot vote for the nominee the democratic president and a vice versa. >> this may be more of an issue with the appellate and district courts, but do you think it would be helpful if the senate imposed a role on itself to vote up or down on the nominee because some of the appellate and district court nominees strive for over a year in the

nomination process. >> i think it is a problem for the courts of appeals and the districts. sonya, you have experience with that. >> it was nothing it was just a couple of months for both of us. >> the supreme court nominee is going to be short. it is one to be top priority and it will go through in a matter of weeks. but it is still the case and has been for some time that you can be nominated to a court of appeals and wait months. >> i had a thing for the -- 18 for the district courts as well.

>> if they would set a time limit on themselves, and vote up or down, move on, and that would be helpful. justice o'connor, you arrived at the court, i recall, in an atmosphere of civility. justice powell and others. it continues to this day. justice thomas spoke last week at the university of kentucky, which won the national basketball championship. [laughter] >> you noticed? >> any comment that he has never heard a harsh word or on kind word spoken in conference with the conference in which the nine justices meet? how important is civility in the work of the court? >> it is a small group of nine. i think it is exceedingly important that everyone be polite, kind, and pleasant to each other.

i think that is vital. you have to disagree on the merits, but you can disagree agreeably. i think that is very important. the court does well on that score, i think. >> how is it preserved when there is turnover on the court? someone with the historical society has written in a book, "court watchers," that justice white gave you his chambers manual. to assist you. are there other ways - >> i never knew there was a manual. i never got one. it was the internal operating manual within his chambers. he came it to me and said, "do not open this until you are confirmed." if you are confirmed, maybe it

will be of a little help. my first thought was to update it. -- my first job every year was to update it. i gave one to sonia sotomayor and elena kagan when they came on board. >> there are wonderful traditions at the court and stability in recent times has -- civility in recent times, been a strong attributes. do you think the other branches of government should emulate it? is that possible? is there a different structure? >> you just have nine members on the court. it is a small institution. they live and work in quarters that caused them to see each other frequently. i think it is very, very important that relations remain cordial and friendly and thoughtful. i think they have. i think we are lucky.

>> there was a time when the senate was known as a "gentleman's club." when there was a great deal of cordiality. >> that is gone. [laughter] >> if justice ginsberg will remember the other day we were having this conversation about why there is more civility in more recent times on the court then perhaps in its earlier history. do you remember what you said, ruth? perhaps you do not. you said it is because we have had women for the last -- [laughter] >> that is especially true for justice o'connor. justice thomas told me we had a tradition on the court where we ate lunch together after we hear arguments and have conference. it ends up being 10-12 times a month. justice thomas once told me that if ever you went a couple

of days without going, justice o'connor would appear on the doorstep and say, "clarence, why are you not there? it is lunch time per "you encouraged everybody cooper dissipate in those kinds of -- everybody to participate in those kinds of communal activities. i think that is very important. >> i do, too. >> and justice ginsburg, was justice o'connor's presence on the bench good for you? -- of particular help for you when you joined the court? >> yes. my adviser, my big sister. she told me a little bit, just enough for me to get by in the early days. -- then i came to her with a problem when the chief made a finalist --

legend was the junior justice would get the easiest case. i had gotten a miserable case. the court was divided 6-3. i went to sandra the thinking that she could persuade her friend to revise the economy. -- good friend, the chief, to revise the assignment. she said, "ruth, just do it." [laughter] get it out before he makes the next set of assignments. that is really our attitude towards life. she just does what needs to be done. >> justice o'connor, when you're on the court together, you were called justice o'connor on one occasion and advocates seldom seemed to confuse the justice scalia at.

-- they do not confuse justice scalia and justice breyer. what you think that is the case on your joint tenures? >> the time to be confused would have been justice souter and justice breyer. "they look something alike. that could have confused people. >> i think you were never called justice ginsburg. >> there were some misstatements up there. i remember one of my former law clerks make a mistake. he knew. [laughter] they get so nervous up there, anything can happen. there was a former solicitor general, >> it was a tense time for the advocates. they get up there and are so concerned about anything, that anything can flip out. -- slip out in terms of culling

names. >> your comment about justices souter and breyer reminds me of a story justice souter wrote about dinner one evening downtown. someone came up and said, "justice breyer, i think you are the greatest justice on the court. i really admire your work. can you tell me who is your favorite justice on the court?" [laughter] justice souter said, "by far, the greatest into light on the -- intellect on the court is justice souter." [laughter] >> you know the story about the national association of women's judges had a reception after my appointment. they put on a t-shirt that read "i am sandra, not ruth." >> i once saw an argument where the lawyer confused two women. i think it was when you were on the court.

i think it may have been justice ginsberg and justice sotomayor who are confused. 20 minutes later, they confused two men on the court. i take it was purposeful. i think he realized he had done it once and darned if he was not going to do it again with the gender neutrality. [laughter] >> we have not been confused -- the three of us have not been confused. then i thought it happened once i think it was you and i. i am told you cannot always hear were the voices are coming from. and giving them an excuse. >> what were your biggest challenges in joining the court? you probably had different kinds of challenges. justice o'connor, you being the trailblazer --

>> you write opinions that not only deal with the issues, but in a way that is useful and will be long lasting. that is a challenge. it really is. many of these issues are issues that are ones for the lower courts that have been in total -- where the lower courts have been in total disagreement, sometimes for a long time. things that matter or are important or the court would not have taken them. whenyou have to put down on paper permanently the test you are going to apply and see how it works. that is a challenge every single time you really want to do it well. you will not know until many years have gone by how well you have succeeded. you cannot tell instantly.

>> for me, opinion writing was new because i was on the d.c. circuit for 13 years -- was not new, because i had been on the d.c. circuit for 13 years. but what was new was death penalty. i had no idea the supreme court deals with so many 11th hour applications. >> justice sotomayor -- >> it was walking into a continuously running competition. -- conversation. i cannot say how many conferences might first year a justice would explain his and sometimes her position and i thought that that explanation would be coming out of left field. and it would take justice

stevens, or sometimes justice alito or breyer -- what are they talking about? to lean over and say, this has to do with the peccadillo they have. i certainly had not anticipated being part. that went on frequently. i remember the first time when justice taken came in when she -- when justice kagan came in when she leaned over and said, "what are they talking about?" there was some sense of satisfaction that after one year i could explain some things. that is the way it is when you are working with the same eight people. the same nine people working together. it is a long running conversation at times. at moments, coming into the middle of that, can be like that. >> very interesting observation. i remembered justice brennan

saying to me -- he been on the court for a couple of decades. the thing about serving so long, you have seen all these issues before. the ongoing conversation, that is a very astute observation. justice kagan, you are a veteran now. are there still challenges? are you adjusting? >> everyday is a challenge. i had never been a judge before. just figuring out the mechanics of the job -- i have four clerks. what do i do with them? what is the best process for drafting an opinion? when do i read the briefs? a day before? a week before? all of those things, which i think my colleagues figured out which processes work for them.

i continue by trial and error. i try to figure out what works for me. >> has serving as solicitor general help define that helpful? >> hugely helpful. you look at the court from eight different vantage point. -- from somewhat a different vantage point. sometimes i think the job does not really changed at all. as solicitor general, my life was spent trying to persuade nine people. and now it is just trying to persuade its people. -- 8 people. >> justice o'connor and justice ginsburg, you both are the only females on the court during a period of time. -- both served as the only female on the court in a period of time. you both expressed hope for another female appointee during those times. it may be obvious, and obviously it should be, but why is it so important to our country and the court? >> maybe you have not noticed, but i think 51%-52% of the

population are female. [applause] i think they notice when politics are dominated by one -- public bodies are dominated entirely by one sex. people care about that, and they should. i think that is part of the deal. >> when you joined the court in 1981, the court heard 184 cases that term. they heard 82 cases last year. >> is that not amazing? it just shows you are not working. -- very not working. -- they are not working. [laughter] >> as they would say in kentucky, -- do these youngins had it easy?

>> it was a devastating amount of work. you had to go through all of the petitions. that was news for me. i could not do it quickly. i could, after many years. that was hard. then to have so many opinions as to deal with. very challenging. >> i would like everyone to know i still work long into the night. i do not think the job is any easier. i think one thing has been reduced substantially -- in the old days when you were hearing 150 cases, you would get terribly fast opinions where someone -- fractured opinions were someone would announce the report. an opinion were justices so and so joined part 1d. i think with fewer cases, there is less of that. >> it would be.

>> yes, from external observation, i will tell you the opinions are crisper, cleaner, and easier to understand these days. it is probably better for the court. there are several theories as to why the court is hearing fewer cases. everything from a cure conflicts among the circuits to -- i guess my question is are there mechanical reasons internal to the court as to why there are fewer cases? >> i would be interested in hearing that. i am not sure why the number of cases the court is granting are fewer. i think the number of petitions are still high. >> there is an increase, actually. one reason justices are working just as hard, you have to research the petitions.

-- review so many petitions, over 8000 a year. >> i am not quite sure how you managed that number of hearings. >> i am not sure, either. >> i know because i have looked at many of the studies and the discussions about why the court is taking a lesser numbers now. i was not sure of any reason as being at the reason. -- did i hear -- and here to any reason as being the reason. even be part of it now, i think the court purposely -- i do not think we look at the number and say we cannot take more than x this year, so we will turn this case down because it adds to much to my work load. i can only speak for myself, but i am very conscious of that. -- about, is this a case with

procedural vehicles or not. a lot of those cases i read from years before, the court was not even reaching the issue because there were vehicle problems they were addressing and resolving instead of reaching the substantive questions. >> there is one contributor to it that is not the whole part, but a large part. until 1988, when you came on, there were still >> until 1988, there were still many must- decide cases. the jurisdiction was mandatory. for civil rights advocates in those days, it was a great thing. you could go to a three-judge court and challenge a statute as unconstitutional. you could go to the supreme court on appeal, skipping over the court of appeals.

nowadays we have not -- >> that must be part of the reason. there has to be several reasons the numbers have dropped. that could be. >> it's part of it. >> the current court appears to be more active in questioning from the bench than some earlier courts. statistics have been gathered in that regard. is it a different manner of judging? is a personality-driven? i know you do not disclose what goes on inside the court's conferences, but does that add to the initiative to ask more questions from the bench? and communicate to each other

through questions from the bench? how would you explain the increase in the number of questions from the bench during oral arguments? >> maybe women ask more questions, i do not know. what do you think? [laughter] >> i think it was on the rise before there were three. >> law professors. that has got to be it. >> it is very much a matter of individual style. a justice came to see me and said, "i want to give you some blackmun. do not ask any questions because if you do ask many questions, you will ask many foolish ones. -- if you don't ask many

questions, you won't ask many foolish ones. [laughter] >> that is good advice. what did you say? >> and was disappointed that i did not take his advice. [laughter] >> we hear a phrase now that washington is broken and the observation is usually made about the legislative process, which appears to be at an impasse on many difficult issues -- even the budget is difficult to pass. compromise appears more difficult. that is a phrase that has never been used to apply to the judiciary, to my knowledge. why do you think the judiciaries works relatively well by comparison to the other branches? is it because you make decisions and not avoid them or kick them down the road? how would you explain the differences?

>> one thing is we do not set our own agendas and we do not have an initiating role. we are a totally reactive institution. we do not say this is the year we will take care of the fourth amendment. we react to the petitions for review. i think that is part of it. we do not have a platform. we do not have an agenda to put forward. we are reacting to the issues people bring to the court. >> i think we have to explain our reasons and not just in a cursory fashion. i think, justice o'connor, you wrote something about this awhile back. almost every judge has an internal need or drive. for consistency of some sort. you do not want to be arbitrary yourself. i think that makes us in some

ways less reactive to what is happening outside of our court room and to the legal issues we are watching and considering. >> what would you say the attributes are of a good judge, a good justice? what advice would you give the young women and young men in the audience who might aspire to be a judge or justice someday? >> you have to think clearly, be reasonable and rational, write well, and just have a sense of fairness, i think. all of those qualities come in, and others as well, but it is a

challenging job to be an appellate court judge and to try to explain well the reasons for everything you do. that is very challenging. >> i asked justice o'connor if she had a role model and she rightly pointed out, in her own way, that she was a trailblazer. probably did not follow the path -- but i will ask you -- who was your role model? how important is it to young women today to see you on the bench at the supreme court? >> sandra and i come from the era when women were simply not judges and very few of them were lawyers. 2%-3%.

>> that -- >> that's right. >> if that. >> there was no title vii. judges were up front in saying there were not interested. the change has been enormous. in our lifetime. >> i could not get a job when i got out of law school. >> we are all the better that you are now serving. and i mentioned to -- this before, justice ginsburg, one of >> i mentioned it to this year before, justice ginsburg, one of my best friends had you for a course in law school and said you're the best professor they had ever had. [applause] >> he was not in any of justice kagan's classes. [laughter] >> that is right. i do not know anybody who went to harvard. [laughter]

>> it is so important, and i think we all agree, to see you on the bench. you are an inspiration, not just to my daughter, but to my sons. the way you go about your work is wonderful for the country. there are a couple of other questions. justice o'connor, you have a said you work with civic education, which you now have dedicated to the most important work of your life -- i tried to debate you on that. >> there is so much discussion in public venues about the judicial branch of government and activist judges. i used to take it was a judge -- think it was a judge who would get up and go to work in the morning, but people have other ideas about activist judges.

much criticism -- and it seemed me it was primarily a lack of understanding by many people about the role of the judicial branch. of course they have to decide questions we do not like and which were not there, but it is not the judges of bringing these things. i really thought we needed to enhance the education of young people about how our government works. the reason we got public schools initially in this country was with the argument we had to teach young people how our government works, about the system the framers developed, how it all works, and how people can interact within the system. we were finding that barely 66% could name the three branches of government, much less say what they do the percentages of people who understand how the

system works are so small a and there is a real job to do. we had a conference at georgetown law school and had wonderful people participate they talked about the problem and it really did boil down, i think, to lack of education. i got some people together and we started eight website called -- started a website called icivics.org and geared it to young people, middle schoolers, primarily. we did it with games because young people that age spend 40% hours a week behind a screen, whether it is television and/or computer. i only needed about one hour a week. we developed some games with the help of some wonderful teachers who knew what principles needed to be included

in something for that age group on the subject. we succeeded in producing a fabulous website. i spent a lot of time trying to get it in use. we have people in all 50 states. we are getting about 5 million hits a day. that is not nearly enough, but it is a good start. it is taking effect and it is very effective. >> that is wonderful. we are going to devote a lot of time here at the museum to civic -- newseum to civic education and outreach programs and would love to work with you on that. quite good. >> i have to ask, when you walk in the building, there is a tablet in the front -- the first amendment of our constitution. we had a visitor visiting with a friend of mine. he was from russia. he walked to the building and observed some of the exhibits. he said, "we have free speech

and free press in russia, but the difference here is you are free after you speak." [laughter] that was a rather profound observation, but there is a very substantial reason for that. it is an independent judiciary that protects our first amendment rights, our bill of rights, and distinguishes us from others. do any of you have observations about the importance of that in our system of government? >> tremendously important and it is very fragile. in the very beginning -- a cartoon after the revolutionary war shows some

tories being hauled off. the caption is " liberty to speak for those who speak of liberty." it was not until the last century that the first amendment became a major item on the supreme court docket. in the beginning, the performance was nothing to rave about. world war i cases where people were being charged with offenses related to what they were saying about the country's political situation. it is in part due to some pretty great justices. starting out as dissenters -- all of them today the law of the

land. >> i think we would all agree that the country is far better off that all of you have served and are serving on the supreme court of the united states. we are very grateful and honored for you to be with us here this evening in celebration of justice o'connor's appointment to the supreme court. thank you for being here. >> please, join me in welcoming -- thank -- of justice o'connor, ginsberg, sotomayor, and kagan. [applause] >> that is lovely. >> and we want to thank the freedom forum for making this part of this evening a wonderful event and we look forward to partnering again.

and i want to thank all of the members of the supreme court historical society for your support will help put on programs like this and to tell those few it is not too late -- there is plenty of time. a supreme court history.org. there is a reception in the atrium and with that, we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite rp. 12 >> this year's studentcam competition asked students across the country what part of the constitution was important to them and why. today's third prize winner selected the first amendment.

>> what we've done here in new haven -- >> the freedoms people fight for and die for every day. >> the first amendment to me it is all about the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. and what we have done here in new haven is we are trying to reclaim democracy. and democracy to me really means freedom to assemble, freedom of speech. i have to be my own lobbyist. that is what we do is we lobby for ourselves and we lobby for everyone else who can't be here. >> without the first amendment, would not be any other -- people would still be treated poorly without any say and just the machines, you know?

i love that the people out here are standing together united. ♪ ♪ >> freedom of assembly is another part of our important first amendment rights. i have supported and urged no restrictions for the tea party or occupy wall street movements because they are people, coming out in different directions somewhat, but they are trying to express themselves through peaceful assembly. i think that is what makes america great.

when the pilgrims set sail for the new world, they left an old world full of religious oppression where their views and the leaves had been denied by the authorities. and so, the new world offered them an opportunity for freedom of religion, for a chance to express in a safe way. 150 years after that, the signers of the constitution recognized that religious freedom had to be an essential part of any structured government in america. and so, religious freedom was adopted as part of the first amendment. >> the meaning of the first amendment in our constitution is it provides each citizen in this country with the opportunity to worship as he or she feels moved by his heart and soul. >> i know that this country was founded by individuals who left their countries of origin because they were unhappy with

their government and with the restrictions imposed on religious life and liberties. they wanted something better. participatory government, freedom of speech, separation of church and state. these were among my earliest lessons and american civic life. in america, we do protect these differences. we protected different expressions of faith. we assembled in our houses of worship to pray and chant and recite secret scriptures or simply come together in communion and draw strength as a community. >> freedom of information, what

it enables reporters to do is hold government officials accountable. it is important, no matter what. they tell you some much of the surface but there are ways you can find out what is really going on. there are websites and freedom of information requests that -- things like campaign donations, votes, travel records, so you can see what's -- what the person representing you an office. you would not necessarily know what is going on without freedom of information. someone could raise your taxes and not tell you why. there really are not many checks and balances with freedom of information and freedom of the press. >> freedom of the press today is under some attack, though, because the print media has cut back dramatically and

consequently newspapers that used to cover the doings of the general assembly are covering it far less now. "the hartford courant" cut back on the representative for the capital, and consequently freedom of the press is in some danger not just in connecticut but the united states as a whole. >> information is power. and it is a powerful, powerful weapon in the hands of a free people, because it unmasks the lies, rips off the bandage of the seat for all to see -- twitter, facebook, text messaging, cell phone videos -- how starting late rapidly

unmasking the lies of tyrants. >> documents released from the freedom of information act can now be updated on the internet so it is available not just to the person who made the request but for the whole world to see. >> go to studentcam.org to watch all the videos and to continue the conversation, go to our facebook and twitter pages. >> looking at some of the live coverage of this morning across our networks. here on c-span, 11:00 a.m.

eastern, international monetary fund managing director christine lagarde is at the brookings institution to discuss the imf agenda and give her assessment of the global economy. on c-span2, 10:00 a.m., day two of the national action network's annual conference, focusing on issues important to civil rights. labor secretary solis will give remarks at 11:00 for the administration's plans for creating jobs and stimulating the economy. on c-span3 at 8:45 a.m., former president clinton and white house senior adviser valerie jarrett speaking at the import- export bank. the lineup this morning on "washington journal" includes "wall street journal" editorial board member stephen moore, to talk about the budget proposal, but that rule, and tax policy. then howd