that is undisputed. number two, you don't need an army. you just need a very few number of people with some fairly unsophisticated weapons to target the most critical substations in this country and tris not very many. i am not going to reveal specific numbers because that would be revealing things we shouldn't be talking about. but what was there, we did pacific modeling on load flows to show that you can, in pack, take down the entire grid by hitting a very few number of these substations. so this gentlemen who wrote this column has not done the analysis. he has not done the studies. really doesn't know the details of, in fact, what could be done. >> host: let's talk toal in watertown, tennessee. republican caller,en the air with jon. go ahead.

>> caller: thank you for taking my call. how do you know they were ak-47's. >> guest: because we had the graph. >> caller: i am letting you know for those of us who know what we are talking about. it could be any number of wap obs. who do you work for now? are billed as the former chairman? are you not energy attorney that is probably also registered as a lobbyist? is that true? >> guest: that is not true. >> caller: ok. who do you work for? >> guest: excuse me, sir, if i can answer. i am a partner in the law firm in san francisco. work on the emerging technologies at that firm. >> caller: what i am getting at is that your bill here as former chairman as if you are coming to this from a non-bias perspective

and you already said things that were unprovable primarily the ak-47. it is just as important for people to know the context of your presence there. thank you. >> host: ok. al before you go. you seem interested in the topic. why is that? what do you do? oh, we lost him. jon wellingoff, would your company benefit from any reforms that were put into place to protecting the grid system. >> guest: no, i done do work in this area with respect to physical security that is not my client base. >> host: why do you think he took issue with the evidence of the ak-47. >> guest: i don't know. my under standing the round is, in pack, an, a k-type round. don't understand what the point was there. was a specific round to have low

enough velocity to instead penetrate the cooling fans which was their target. they targeted the cooling fins. >> host: ok. we're talking to jon welling how far, hes the former chairman of the regulatory commission and served from 2009 under the bush administration then became chairman in 2009 and served before that under the bush administration then carried over to the obama administration. the wall street journals the topic. rebecca smith had the story. a must ry assault on a power grid back in april of 2013 in california. susan is in california, san diego, go ahead, susan. >> caller: yes, good morning. thank you for c-span. mr. wellingoff, i am very interested in your conversation. i also saw you this week on the pbs news hour talking about this same topic. as a person who lives in san diego and who was here when our

grid went round, a couple of years ago, do you think it is some kind of unexplained accident in arizona, apparently. just want to back up what you are saying about how frustrating and disastrous this could be on a longer-term basis. luckily, the grid came back up in san diego after four to five hours. everything was ok. but had this gone on for any length of time, it could have been a problem. that is all ahad to say. want to than thank you for bring this up and focusing attention on it. >> host: ok. jon grab ahead. >> guest: thank you, susan. that the point. the only outages we have seen in this country have been relatively short duration. the out oink that susan talked about in sentenced, then, this was the big 2003 outage in the northeast which took out 50 million people for three to four days. it was from a tree touch on a

transmission line. it shows you that ultimately, you know, again, a coordinated attack buy few number of individuals on a number of substations could have a much more prolonged and devastating's ecotone this country. >> host: what were the economic impacts of those outages? >> guest: tens if not hundreds of millions ofle lar. certainly the figure on the 2008 outage rib am sure it was bee job the tens of millions of dollars. probably in the hundreds of millions of dollars. >> host: right. in alaska, republican callerrer, go ahead, dwight. >> caller: hi, think the whole issue with the thing with the power grid is overlooking one of the more important aspects. sure. some radicals are going out with their weapons. i think, you know, the power grid could be hardened enough to ort nary bullets are not going to cause anymore problems. the things like solar flairs and

outages that cause outages that could be not just, you oh, in america. it could be the whole planet. right now, you know, there is no safety devices on our grid like, you know, like metal things or ultrathat could protect our grid against power surges are the sun. you know, i have written letters to the power companies saying rareas times here, even in juno, i get no response from them. that is, to me, a bigger issue. our own sun could knock us out quicker than a terrorist group. those things are totally rounds. they could not penetrate the shell of one of the big transformer. there moise way. they may knock out the minor or smaller pieces of equipment and take the thing down for a short period of time. that is not going to do it. it would take antitank fun to blow up the big transformers

because the shell on those things is three to four inches think, i think. >> host: ok. jon? >> guest: i don't want to comment on what the gentlemen said because i would be getting into details the traps former case that probably shouldn't be disclosed. but ultimately, he is right about the solar flair issue. those vulnerabilities. those vulnerabilities, i know folks are looking into now, and look at, you know, working with americans and gaining reg lagses to put in place the type of commitment the gentlemen is talking about it. it is important to ensure that from the major solar flair or any other type of electromagnetic pulse situation like that, that we don't, in pack, have an out age. we do need to protect against that as well. i will say that he is wrong about the case of the transformer and you would be very surprised as to what type

of weapon, in fact, could destroy one of those transformers. >> so it needs to be better protected? >> absolutely. >> and we certainly can do that. there is multiple techniques, and litigation measures we can take. i mean the simplest one. every single one of these substations that have the high voltage transformers is surrounded by simply a chain link fence that anybody can see through at 1200-yards with the scope and the rifle. we could make them ok. you can not see the individual targets within the substation. in addition to that, we could putt in better cameras and better lighting as well. we could even put barriers up which are inexpensive of concrete movable barriers that we have used overseas ult mel times before. that will ensure that, you mo he, some bullet ballistic

projectile could not, in fact, penetrate through them. there is lots of easy ways, farley inexpensive ways to protect the systems. host host whats the cost? whats the dos do this? degrees where will, we're not. that's the first point we have to understand. there is 45,000 substation. there is only less than 100 that are the high-voltage critical substations that need to be protected. so numb per one, we're talking about a limited number. number wo be the cost, you know, i don't have exact estimate. you can imagine what it cost to put a fence around a perimeter that is maybe several hundred yards. and to put, you know, more sew is call ited calm reason a lighting and think concrete barriers. cannot imagine that it is more than, you know, $1 million or a couple million per substation. preading that over the cost of the entire taxpayer is about of

the united states, you know, would be very minimal amount of money to spend to in shore we do not have a major outage that has consequences of extreme economic damage and also potential, you know, health and safety issues as well. >> host: all right. we are talking to jon wellingoff about a snipe are attack at a substation in california back in april of 2013. kevin, you are up next in ohio. democratic caller. >> caller: yes. >> host: ok. go ahead. >> caller: all right. yes, sir. am just wondering. work at the sites. the last few transform hes we put in big transformer. they were made in ind why and just to hear about the wait time on these huge critical pieces of equipment it boggles my mine we don't have a stockpile of these.

many of the utilities house their spares at the same substations. you know, you shoot out the operating ones. cue shoot out that spares at the same time, the other issue is there is a very long lead time for the transformers, minimum of six months and. >> usually you know 12 to 18 mons to mcthe transformers there is only three companies in country in the united states that make them and shall yes many are made overseas in core rewhy and india and other places, so you know, the supply chain is along and very difficult one and replacing these transformers would not be am easy thing someone were to knock out a large number of them in a coordinated attack. how much do they costs? what is their role inwhat do they do? each one of them costs tens of millions of dollars. the role of the transformers is

to step up volt ame from a number of generators that are in the area so these substations are located where there are a number of large generating stations and step up to the voltage so then the voltage can be electricity can then be transmitted on high voltage transmission lines to the centers to our city and towns where we immediate the power. >> well, so, that is what a substation is then basically ma yes. it is on the grid that allows us to step up voltage of power and some instances step it down as well when we get closer to the loads. but these high voltage ones that i am speaking of are primarily to step up that voltage so that ultimately it can be transmitted on these very high voltage transmission lines. the other 345 or the 500 or in some instance the 765-kilo vault line. >> what does the united states' grid stim look like ingest guest

well, three separate parts. there is three grids. there is western grid, there is eastern grid, then there is texas. texas is not strongly interconnected into the rest of the united states. in fact, texas is not under the jurisdiction of the federal regulatory commission for transmission with reception of reliability so that does have the responsibility. these three grids are separate. they operate separately malt lit. once you are into the grid area, if you do something that one portion of the grid for exle pell. if there is outage in florida. it is actually felt in maine. you can, you can sense the frequency incursion in maine if there is power plant, for ex pem, that guess out in florida. so because of that, because of that because of this ber cob mecktiveness of the frequency across the entire interconnect that is why taking out a number within the sper connect can

destabilize the entire connect and bring it down. >> host: here is a tweet. was the super bowl power outage a few years back an ind is calf potential problems? >> guest: well, that was local small distribution substation transformer, that was my understanding. i done think it was necessarily en caned is of problems certainly not any near to the magnitude of this april 16th purposeful attack that was just, you know, a random outage that was an equipment failure. >> i want to show the viewers a map of the grid system in the united states. then john welling off, another tweet from our viewer. he says looks to me like we are burying the lead here that the national media sat on a major story for nearly a year. >> guest: well, it is interesting that, you mow shall it took rebeccahit to dig this

out. you know, certainly, you know, i provided her some information but she got the vast amount of information from multiple other sources and really, you lo, flushed out the entire story, it is, it is curious that no one else picked up this story for such a long time. >> is the fbi talking about it? >> i done have any contact with the fbi. >> should they be addressing it, though you? are addressing it publicly? guest test i cannot speak for the fbi. it is my understanding it is still under investigation and it is also my understanding that their policy not to talk about ongoing investigations. >> host: rebecca smith right writes in her story, ho one has been arrested. >> guest: yes. again, this particular investigation of who did this, you know, talking about the led, it is not the story. in my opinion, the story is ultimately that we need protect the substations across the country and that we have it now

known to us that there are individuals capable of carrying out these kinds of attacks so because of that ultimately let's retect these things let's not see any future attacks to succeed to this level. >> another tweet from the viewer who says attack could have been buy anyone angry at u.s. government for any incrust is such as the persecution of mar mr or something else. andrew in new jersey, nent independent caller, hi, andrew. >> caller: hi, good rng. >> host: good morning. >> caller: first of all, let's not forget the lessons of 9/11. okay. we have not learned anything. you got the immigration and service that is charged with keeping track of who comes into this country, where they are, and there was immigration service out in california that pressed a few years ago was backlogged and sh eded the documents which means no more

paper trail. you done know who these people are. second of all, how easy is it to go and buy a high-powered rifle at a gun show but no background checks or you need the money to put down, they don't do any background checks at a gun show. the gun laws in this country have so many in them you could drive a mac truck through them. >> i know you are not a gun expert. the first part of the comments. >> i am not a gun expert. i am not, i would not advocate doing anything to restrict our second amount rights. think again, what we need to do is protect the fa cycle thinks which is fairly essie and inexpensive thing to do. >> on twitter, though, so we need more federal regulations, which means more bureaucracy, bigger government control of energy sources, would that be the result come? >> well, i am not suggesting that they control the energy sources.

am simply suggesting there be an agency who put together a coordinated plan, give that plan over to the owners of this infratk ture to ensure those owners carry it out. >> then another tweet from redding, what should be done protect american infratake ture wearierless power transmission alleviate vulnerability. >> well, one thing that would alleviate vulnerability if we have our own power source and certainly people are moving to that. many people are starting to put in solar systems on their houses and put in natural gas generator and small cogenerators in their businesses as well and if, we go to a more distributed system, that obviously will be one that is much, much less vulnerability to this type of centralized attack on a system that is vulnerable to that type of an attack. >> the callle from alaska said that up there, they are on some

sort of independent system. what does that mean? well, that is true. alaska is on an independent grid as well. i mean, their grid would not be subject to going down, for example. you took out the western grid in the united states. it would not affect alaska. their grid is not interconnected with the grid in the united states. >> host: area. guest because canada is between us and them. >> host: ok. >> guest: we are interconnected to the caid mainian grid. it could in fact fact the canadian grid in part going down but alaska parts are so remote that they, their grid is an independent system from the rest. just like texas is an independent grid from the rest of the united states as well. >> host: kim, republican caller. >> caller: the question i have is, number one, regulations

really is not one of bush's big deals. all i can hear that is he is saying he wants taxpayers to pay for the infratk ture upkeep. that is what i hear. >> host: chairman. guest well, that is true. i think the taxpayers are the ones who should pay as opposed to the individual rate payers in each individual utility area that has these high volt ago in transformer substations because protecting those is going to protect en throughout the country. everybody is going to benefit so everybody should pay. dave in ohio, democratic caller. >> caller: good morning. >> host: good morning. >> caller: i got a few point first when blu of our the caller a awhile back about rareas weapons. there is pistols that shoot 7.65's for him to think they were all ak-47's is ludicrous.

second, it was stupid to bar ry this story. everybody knows that when a crime is committed, you have got to take care of the -- you have to bring it out. you have a short window that things can be taken care of or citizens or, you know, information can be gleamed, you bar ry it for a year then bring it out. you know? it makes it look like it was some type of black operation. >> host: mr. wellingoff? >> guest: well, it was a sophisticated operation. in fact the 7602 round that they used was very carefully chosen for the job because they were not targeted the cases. they were targeting the cooling fins which were much, much thinner material. so those bullets very easy penetrated the cooling fins. their target. they knew exactly what they were doing.

>> here is a tweet from one of the viewers ob the topic. related to power outages. can your guests explan the great new york city black outthat occurred years ago? guests there was one in 2003 that blocked out new york city and the northeast. the explanation there was, again, a tree that you know was in a storm touched on the lynn and caused a fault on that line and that fault then cascaded through ohio and throughout the northeast and ultimately brought down that whole center of the country which makes my point that these interconnects are set up in such a way that one event in one area can have a devastated effect on a very large area very far away. >> what types of company, what types of companies or how many companies operate the nation's grid system.

oh, there are-dreads of companies that operate different parts of the grid system, different parts of the transmission system in the grid, so they there are multiple companies. there are large operators that are independent in some areas called independent system operators regional transmission organizations and but other areas have just private companies that own the grid as well or in some instance publicly entities look the tba, it is a mix. it is a huge mix across the country. that is why it howled -- that also makes my point. that is where we should come back to it being a national problem, organized at the national level, because there are so many multiple different kinds of private and public companies who own and operate these assets. >> the attack on power gritteds are a reason to keep aspect of sur ray lens programs. she wants to know where there

any picture or film of the attack of this substation in california in april of 2013. >> yes, there are. there are. there are camera videos very granny camera videos that was released by the santa dollars are sheriff's office. i believe in june or july. but they only show, again, you lo, very had doey figures you can see the muzzle flash from the ak-47's, you can see flashes of hit hitting the fence or the bullets hitting the fence or going through the fence and i saw evidence of that when i was there touring the site and you could also see the flashlight very clearly before initially signaling the commencing firing and also signaling to stop firing. >> during recent hearings it came out when you were for chairman pe n investigation into this and you were also briefing members of congress about what happened.

while members of congress thinking about moving forward howled they think about moving forward on some sort of legislation? we talked about this earlier. then, who gets the power to prevent something like this attack happening on a larger scale? >> guest: well, i think congress should consider giving some agency the authority to address known threats and vulnerabilities that this is one of those in this in tans. it would include cyber security, things like net and other cyber vie viruses that, in pack, can infiltrate the electric system and have devastating effect. so i think it is something that congress ultimately should consider because, again, i have stated, it is a national problem. >> what about smart grids? what are they? what role could they play? well, smart grids are ultimately systems that embed intelligence

into our existing grid and centsing equipment into our existing grid, we are putting on to the high voltage transmission system, for example, they call phase monitoring units that monitor every four second, the phase angles and other data from the grid that can come back to grid operators and do things like help prevent the 2003 blackout by giving grid operators a quicker view of what is happening and then, you he, separate parts of it if possible to ultimately reduce the possibility of these outages and improve the reliability. so smart grids can help these things. other things that can be done with respect to gritted configurations as to put them into more regional and more local microgrids with dc direct current buses or switches m

between them that can separate these grids if one part starts to go out, separate it from the other part of the grid and it can be done with the smart grid technology. that is expensive to i do. is much more ex pensive than protecting the substations, but it would be another technique or another means by which you could reduce the impact of the outage if someone went after one of these substations. >> jon, the former chairman of the federal energy reg willing story commission served as the chairman from 20089 to 2013. hes with on the panel in 2006, put on there by george w. bush, but served under two different administration. we thank you, sir, for your time this morning. getting up early in sa san fran >> coming up, supreme court justice elena kagan addresses the new york city bar

association. on "washington journal," and discussion on privacy laws and the future of employee benefits. "washington journal" is live each morning at 7:00 eastern. >> one of the things that we dangersout our physical and what i always think -- what keeps me up at night is what can happen next. i wonder what your greatest fear is as to a physical attack into our country? general? side, and attack --in start infrastructure our transportation, health care, financial is an area we have to pay close attention to, our energy sector. on the kinetic side there is a

range of things that keep me up at night. when you see these mumbai style attacks, the mall in nairobi, the boston marathon -- those are the type of things we have to continue to work together in the intelligence community to make sure we are working as seamlessly as possible to share everything we have, not only within the defense side, but also on the federal, state, local, tribal level. that is an important aspect of what we are trying to do in the intelligence community. integration. >> the senate armed services ride --e looks at world worldwide threats. on book tv, the savanna book festival. this president cost a dayend -- president's

weekend, the portraits gallery. justice elenart kagan praised her colleague ruth bader ginsburg at an event hosted by the new york city bar association. city bar association. she highlighted three cases justice ginsburg took gone early in his/her career -- early in her career as an attorney. we will also hear briefly from justice ginsburg. >> could we get started, everyone? i am sorry to interrupt, but i think i am predicting that what you are being interrupted for will be worth being interrupted about. thank you for coming out tonight in what seems to be our weekly snowstorm of the season.

i am the president of the new york city bar association. this is a terrific night for all of us as we have the honor to be in the presence of two supreme court justices. that may be a record here in this room. both of whom braved the snow and the train tonight to be here. we especially are honored that they made that sacrifice to come. as you can imagine from looking around, the response to our invitation about this event was immediate and overwhelming. within minutes, it was sold out and tickets being sold on stubhub and other places. i apologize the seating is tight, but it is usually the case given the honor read -- on honoree. we are happy that there are

reportedly over 100 law students -- law students in the crowd. the city bar established this lecture in justice ginsburg's name a number -- a number of years ago. her achievements as a law year, law professor, and judge. this is our 12 ginsburg lecture and justice ginsburg has been involved in every one of them since the inception of the series. we are happy for her continued presence. [applause] she has been a voice for justice and gender equity and civil rights for many years. in terms of her own background, not to spoil the agenda, but she will be introducing the other

justice who we are honored to have beer here tonight, justice elena kagan. to be here tonight, justice elena kagan. [applause] ofill not steal the thunder justice ginsburg by talking about justice kagan. justice ginsburg was top among the women in her class at cornell university before attending harvard law school, where she was only one of nine 1959 in the class of before she transferred in graduated from columbia law school. upon graduation, she clerked for the southern district of new york. she became the second woman to join the faculty at rutgers university school of law. jeter at columbia, she became the first tenured woman on the faculty. she founded the women's rights project and is director of the project, she argued many court

cases, including many before the u.s. supreme court, which challenged sexual stereotypes and pave the way for better opportunities for women. during her time at columbia, she served on our city bar executive from 1974-1978. prior to her -- to the supreme on the u.s.erved court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit. it is my privilege to invite justice ginsburg to the podium to introduce our distinguished speaker justice kagan. after that, i will come back up the cuts we will have a q&a following justice kagan's remarks. people in the audience will be allowed to ask questions of either justice. thank you, justice ginsburg. [applause]

[applause] >> thank you. i am glad to see the snow did not discourage the members of this intrepid audience. it is my great joy to introduce to you this evening's lecturer, my dear colleague, the most honorable elena kagan. justice kagan has worked in the law in just about every capacity.

she has served all three branches of our government, , anded private practice devoted many years to legal education. a professor at the university of chicago and then as a harvard law school she became harvard untiln 2003 and served 2009, the year president obama appointed her solicitor general of the united states. kagan'sstice appointment in 2010, what a wise and witty participant she is in oral arguments. ,er opinions display the best

she never seeks to carry the day and her style is engaging. clarity, fluency, and giddy humor, that she was an assigned an altogether easy case , but i know the hours and hours one must spend to make it sound that way. endeavors, she has been a star performer, first woman to become dean of the harvard law school, first woman to be confirmed as solicitor general, and in 1973, first woman to inaugurate a ceremony at manhattan's lincoln square synagogue.

you likely do not know she was commandeered by the first branch for a special assignment in the summer of 1993. commissionedbiden elena to prepare him for my confirmation hearings. she may have read some of my , articles i wrote in my law teaching days. asked, but i hope it did not include reading this during book i co-authored in the early 1960's, civil procedure in sweden. [laughter] more in the did you know term whenin the 1987

she served for justice thurgood marshall, she was a regular reliable guard in pickup basketball games played on the of ourr -- top floor marble palace, the highest court in the land. she showed how sharp -- how far she would go to foster collegiality. under the tutelage is of justice scalia, she became a fearless hunter. the personal trainer with whom she boxes has been my physical 1999ss already and since -- fitness guardian since 1999. folk cross best job combination on the federal bench. elena accomplished in a made

-- an amazing feat at harvard law school. didn't -- students once discontent began to like the place. how did she manage the transformation? not so much by fundraising and constructing new buildings, although she was champion at both. in her own words, i looked around for little things i could do, things that don't cost much money, don't take too much time that you don't have to have a faculty meeting to do. among things that fit that bill, she discovered you can buy more students happiness per dollar by giving people free coffee than anything else. justice, she heads the

cafeteria committee, a truly disheartening assignment. not much one can do to make it better, but she found something she could fix even on a slim budget. a frozen yogurt machine dispenses sustenance all can enjoy. i leave off with a characteristic example of her quick wit. at the hearing on her confirmation, senator lindsey graham asked whether she thought miranda warnings should be given to terrorists. the infamous christmas day underwear bomber, for example. her, where asked were you on christmas day? it would be inappropriate to a

dress an open question that might one day come before the board. the senator persisted. i just asked where you were on christmas. response, senator, like all jews, i was probably in a chinese restaurant. [laughter] [applause] with enormous pleasure, i invite you to join me in welcoming justice elena kagan to the podium. [applause] >> thank you, thank you. sit down.

ginsburg deserves a standing o, i have not been anything yet. you, justice ginsburg for that wonderful introduction. i think christmas day story is going to follow me every place i go. there is nothing i will never write for the u.s. supreme court that is going to be so much quoted as that line. i'm still going to try. you so much to the new york state bar association for having me. it is an honor to be here to talk with all of you. especially because you have given me this wonderful opportunity to talk about one of the living giants of american law, ruth bader ginsburg. i am very grateful for that. the court,years on serving with justice ginsburg, i have come to admire her more and more each day.

as a judge, a colleague, and a friend. they say life on the court can be a little cloistered and i did not realize until recently that , -- twos on the outside folks on the outside, justice ginsburg is more than that. too many of them, she is a hip-hop icon. notorious rbg. [applause] they sell these truly. she is the subject of an opera, a comic book, a tumblr, and the blog. -blog. the ruth bader gins i'm going to disappear for my

second prop. she is a bobblehead. bobblehead because the head bobbles. here she is, i know you won't be able to see this. she is standing on the ground of arginia military institute, coed.e she made this is a safe. what she is doing is she is pulling from the safe the $.13 less per dollar that lilly ledbetter was paid relative to her lowest paid male colleague. that is justice ginsburg the bobblehead. there is also some reference to copyright law in here, but i will spare you that. did you know that buzz feed has 19 reasons ruth bader

ginsburg is your favorite supreme court justice? [laughter] funny,y were all pretty but 19 was a little bit much. i thought i would give you a sample. here are two of them. first -- [laughter] [applause] [inaudible] [applause]

there are 17 more reasons why justice ginsburg is your favorite justice. you can make them up. after this is over, go talk with your friends and come up with your favorites. senselly makes absolute that justice ginsburg has become an idol for younger generations and especially for younger women , of whom i am just delighted to see many here. her impact on america and american law has been extraordinary. one way to see that impact clearly is by looking at the women who have served on the court. about 25 years separate the first two, sandra day o'connor and justice ginsburg from the next two, me and justice sotomayor or. in those 25 years, the world changed for women. 's in justice sotomayor

post law school past were easier . when justice ginsburg started out at harvard law school in 1956, she was part of only the seventh class to admit women and not 500 person class had eight people. did you say nine? i do not know. one of us is right. [laughter] >> could we settle on a .5? alle on-campus dorms were four men -- the on-campus dorms were all ferment and half of the classroom buildings, so were the restrooms. you had to make a mad dash across campus when the need struck. the dean that the time had a

tradition formous the few women students who were there. every year, he would invite all of the women in the first-year class for a lovely dinner at his house. , of all sit at one table course. when dinner finished, the dean would assure everyone into the living room, where you would ask them one by one to explain what they were doing at the law school occupying a seat that could've been held by a man. predecessor,o my who has gotten a lot of grief for this practice, i recently heard justice ginsburg give the story a charitable interpretation. apparently, years later, the dean told her he did not -- he had not meant the question to be skeptical or on time -- or unkind.

stories too have tell the doubting thomas is on the faculty. i do not know. [applause] [laughter] as a former dean myself, i admired the man's capacity to spin, but i am not sure i believe it. justice ginsburg was already a rock star. she shot to the top of her class . she was selected as an editor of the harvard law review. even being the notorious rbg was not quite good enough. the start of for 30 year, she made a request -- a for third year, she made a request of the dean. her husband had just graduated from law school and started a job in new york when he was diagnosed with a serious illness. she asked the dean if she could complete her last year of law school at columbia while still

receiving a harvard degree. he refused saying if she was going to spend her final year at columbia, all she could get was a columbia degree, not one from harvard. somehow she survived that deprivation. [laughter] ,he graduated from columbia getting the highest possible honors from that school as well. i am just going to digress a bit. harvard lawsequent school deans, including me, hisred to right wrong and to give justice ginsburg the harvard degree that she should have gotten earlier. she always refused. i heard her say a couple of years ago that her husband told her she should hold out for the real prize, an honorary degree from harvard university.

he was a very smart man and justice ginsburg received that honorary degree a couple of years ago. back to my real story, although justice ginsburg excelled at two great law schools, she had a tough time finding a job. law firms refuse to hire her. one told her they already had a token woman. when she applied for clerkship, the great judges of the error declined even to consider her. he did not want any women in his chambers because he would be inhibited in their presence. he would not break the supreme court tradition of hiring only mail clerks. -- male clerks. she did get a hardship on the southern district of new york because the great professor

threatened a judge and made him hire her. after that, she was hired by rutgers law school and became one of the first female law professors in the country. even that came with a string attached. rutgers told her she was going to be paid less than her male colleagues because your husband has a very good job. against the striking background of gender bias, justice ginsburg succeeded marvelously. she eventually became the first woman tenured professor at columbia law school. she founded the aclu women's rights project. she was appointed by president carter to the d.c. court of appeals. i president clinton to the supreme court. she did all of this by -- while raising two children. the first was born just before she started law school.

jane followed her parents into the lobby coming to columbia law professor and one of the copyrightforemost scholars. the second shared his mother's love for opera and is now the founder and president of the grammy award-winning record label for classical music. i know justice ginsburg would attribute her ability to have it all to her husband. as everyone who knew him could tell you, he was a brilliant man, hilarious and witty. a world-class tax lawyer and chef and an all-around mensch. when i was dean at harvard, at a panel i was moderating once on worklife balance, a professor, one of my colleagues was asked by a student, how she'd had managed to combine such a great career with such a great family life. she gave a four word answer. mary the right guy.

i think justice ginsburg would agree and she certainly found the perfect partner. wouldt think even marty make the path easy for justice ginsburg in the legal world of the 1950's and 1960's. every step of her way was marked it, andeverance, gre downright courage. 20 five years later, my experience was very different. when i graduated from law school in 1986, almost 40% of my classmates were women. female law firm partners and professors were not exactly the norm, but their numbers were growing and they weren't thought of as tokens or curiosities. almost all federal judges and justices were more than happy to hire the brightest women as their clerks. although i won't say i never felt any bias, it was pretty

easy for me to take the path of my choosing. a couple of times, i happen to be the first woman as dean of harvard and solicitor general. they were meaningful and important. hadit was a fluke that they not happened already. the dominoes were more than ready to fall. betweenlains this golf justice ginsburg experience and mine? in large part, the answer is simply justice ginsburg. as a litigator and as a judge, she change the face of american antidiscrimination law. more than any other person, she can take credit for making the law of this country work for women. in doing so, she made possible my own career and later on the careers of many of today's

devotees of the notorious rgb. i want to explore her contribution by looking at six of her greatest hits. three of the cases she litigated as a private attorney and three antidiscrimination opinions she has written as a justice. i think they show the remarkable progress the country and the law have made thanks to justice in sprigs efforts, it -- justice ginsburg's efforts. i demonstrate another thing i want to talk about, which is her excellence as both a law hereunder judge. lawyer and they judge. as a law professor, she was a path marking scholar of civil procedure and one of the first compared to this --

comparativists. path marking, have you ever heard that word before? it appears in over 30 of her opinions. it also appears not to have existed. oh well. among her less well-known she wrote the definitive american volume on civil procedure in sweden. when the supreme court base is a tricky question of swedish civil procedure, we always go straight to justice ginsburg. [laughter] as a judge, she has authored onstanding opinions federalism, statutory interpretation, separation of powers, and civil procedure. for the students in this room,

if any of you want a refresher course on personal jurisdiction, i recommend you read justice ginsburg trio of opinions. today i want to focus on her contribution to women's rights because however important personal jurisdiction is, that is the work that has most change the world. senseimportant to have a of what the constitutional law of gender equality was like before justice ginsburg founded the aclu women's rights project. that is easy enough. it did not exist. as justice ginsburg has put it, the constitution was an empty .upboard the one exception was the 19th amendment, which had given women the right to vote in 1920.

the law was still riddled with gender distinctions, open discrimination. the supreme court had yet to declare a single one of those laws of violation of the equal protection clause. everyone is familiar with the when litigating race discrimination claims in the 1940's and 1950's. there were difficulties they faced absolutely unique to that effort. even those lawyers could point to a handful of legal precedent paying lip service to racial equality. for the nascent women rights movement, it was all but nothing. ont justice ginsburg drew was the rapid change that was occurring in social attitudes about women and their role in american life. mind,t ongoing change in

she approached the cause of women's equality with a remarkably strategic mind. justice ginsburg's first brief before the supreme court was in 1971. she has said this case was .erfect and the law, perfect her client was sally reed who lived in idaho with her son separately from the sun's father. her son committed suicide and she filed to come -- petition to administer his estate, which consisted of just a few items of personal property. the father filed a competing petition to administer the estate. -- and i'mded quoting -- males must be preferred to females. that was that. the father's petition was granted over the mothers. just as ginsburg saw the cases

potential. the idaho law was a relic dating back to the days when women's -- women could not hold property. the discrimination was unmistakable. the the case made it to supreme court, justice ginsburg took on the brief. wrote- the brief she strikes the reader as stunningly ambitious. it made the case for subjecting all classifications based on sex to the highest level of judicial review. at a time when not a single such classification had been invalidated by the supreme court. the brief aims to be more than a legal document. it tries to educate the court about social changes regarding the treatment and status of women. educate andwas to to spark judges and lawmakers understanding that their own

daughters and granddaughters could be disadvantaged by the way things were. in line with that goal, the brief began with a simple proposition. in very recent years, a new appreciation of women's lace has been generated in the united states. it marshaled on array of social science research to show that women were just as qualified as men to administer estates. some of the evidence justice ginsburg that before the court had to do with women's aptitude for managing homes, sly attempts to appeal to the more conservative members of the court. the brief was littered with citations to literature, history, biography, and more, all tending to show the appalling treatment of women over the years and the intrinsic injustice of sex-based discrimination.

the brief cited favorable decisions of the west german federal constitution reports, not sweden. decisions before it became verboten to consider such things. if our supreme court noticed what the west german constitutional court was doing, the justices might ponder how far behind can we be? the court ruled unanimously in sally reed's favor. it itshort paragraphs, struck down the law as an irrational gender-based. argued ginsburg's brief the court held the idaho law was the very kind of arbitrator of .egislative choice however much ideal -- idaho

choicean easy way, the may not lawfully be mandated solely on the basis of sex. the court did not go so far as to subject gender classifications to heightened scrutiny. but the broad language planted the seeds. water is a long way away. i feel like you have to do a marco rubio. [laughter] ginsburg's first world -- oral argument came a year later. case was ain that lieutenant in the air force. her husband was a full-time student at a small college in alabama. under federal law, a married male servicemember always

qualified for a housing allowance, but a female do servicemember only qualified only if she covered three fourths of the income. the theory appeared to be that most women in the military were supported by their husbands and not the other way around. the women did not usually needed government subsidy. she fell just shy and she did not get a housing alliance -- allowance. justice ginsburg moved the ball forward. this was not a challenge to an antiquated outlier statute, but to a federal law in everyday use. it was also a case that cut to the heart of stereotypes. the facts involved and inversion of traditional gender roles. the court was forced to decide

whether a law that relied on increasingly out dated notions about gender could be defended on that basis. was compelling. she identified mistakes in stark terms. this was a law that helps keep a woman in her place, a place inferior to those occupied by men in our society. she made a forceful push for subjecting interbase classifications. she skewered arguments that women did not need protection because of their numerical superiority. racee would suggest that is not a suspect criterion in the district of columbia because the black population here outnumbers the white. those of us who occasionally have to lean in to hear justice ginsburg's questions from the bench, this oral argument is a

reminder that she has forcefulness to spare and she wants it. the argument went well enough, but afterwards, the former dean, who was then solicitor general, came over to congratulate her. say, you are ok. [laughter] now i am claiming you. 8-1.ourt ruled justice ginsburg one most of her cases. the lead opinion of four justices reads like a ginsburg brief. it bemoaned the paternalistic attitude that it once been firmly rooted in our national consciousness through citations to literature, history, and sociologist. they recounted the mistreatment of women. it showed how misguided any

defense of this discriminatory law was. justices --- four justice ginsburg finally achieved something close to that result three years later. the law was a historical artifact of curiosity. oklahoma defined the age of majority for certain alcohol purchases of 21 for men and 18 for women. he was a man under 21 and he wanted beer and he sued to get it. [laughter] ginsburg filed a brief on craig's behalf.

it has long been remarked that part of the genius of ginsburg as litigator was her careful client selection. greg was one of several men she represented. genderlped show that lines were harmful, not just to women, but also to men and children. this tactic occasionally picked up an extra vote from an otherwise hesitant judge and it also served a deeper function, laws that afforded women special treatment were also -- were often seen as favors to them. justice stewart once remarked that he thought it might be better for women if the equal rights amendment were never ratified. that way women's rights groups would be free to challenge only those laws that gave them worse treatment while keeping the ones that in a fitted them -- benefited them. ginsburg confronted this

notion head-on and demolished it. on the surface, the law may appear to afford young women a liberty withheld from young man. , thedeeper inspection gender line drawn by oklahoma is revealed as a manifestation of traditional attitudes about the expected behavior of males and females, part of the myriad signals and messages that really underscore the notion of man as societies active members and of women as men's quiescent companions. she punctuated this with the citation. how many of the justices do you think had read that? [laughter] brief is also notable for a more subtle legal reason. although justice ginsburg's previous breeds that are good. badly for treating gender like

-- recognizing the court had been willing to meet her halfway and justice ginsburg argued for a moderately heightened scrutiny, writing they should be invalidated if they were based on overbroad generalizations. that argument did the trick. the majority struck down the law , adopting a standard for gender-based classifications known as intermediate scrutiny. justifying such laws on the basis of archaic and overbroad generalizations or traditional notions of women's roles would no longer be possible. after her triumph in those cases, justice ginsburg was appointed to the d c circuit by president carter. i carry a minor grudge about justice ginsburg tenure there.

when i was a law student, i had the good fortune to be offered a clerkship by several of justice ginsburg's colleagues. harry edwards. the only one of president carter's nominee to the d c circuit who thought me not quite ginsburg.h was judge frank, if she did not even interview me. t loss,e overcame that, too. she was nominated to the supreme court by president clinton and confirmed by the senate 96-3. the kind of vote these days you would assume is a misprint.

[laughter] in her years on the court, she has issued countless great opinions, but i want to focus on ,hree, two of them dissents that are brought into sharper focus her contributions to women's equality. justice ginsburg wrote the in 1996. the case arose out of an effort to admit women to the virginia military institute, a military college. for over 150 years, the school had been restrict the two-man. men.stricted to virginia agree to open a satellite school for women. this institute for leadership was nothing like the real deal. it employed less qualified

faculty, offered fewer degrees, and did not give students in the opportunity to participate in a military training program that made via my great. -- vmi great. in 1950, the university of texas law school argued that it could exclude african-americans from its flagship campus and place them in a non-accredited law school just for blacks. the court deemed that arrangement a violation of equal protection understanding the new school had none of those incapable ofch are objective measurement, but which make for greatness in a law school. in 1996, virgin you was arguing it could do the same -- virginia was arguing it to do the same thing to women. theice ginsburg wrote opinion deeming this arrangement unconstitutional. -- opinion professed

classifications based on sex could be upheld only if they had a persuasive justification. justified byctions broad generalizations about efforts tobenign help women could not stand. applying these principles, she rejected virginia's rationalizations that its system of single-sex schools was intended to provide a diversity of educational opportunities or to maintain the rigorous physical regiment. a wealth of the store: sociological knowledge, she compared those explanations associationsat bar once gave to exclude women from the practice of law or policeman bashed or police departments once offered to exclude women from their ranks.

she refused to accept any explanation based on what women would prefer. most men would also prefer not to be subjected to the physical rigors of vmi. a point on which even our dissenting colleagues might agree. the opinion is an exemplary piece of judicial craft. with her characteristic attention to detail, she explored the many facets of vmi and the sister school in order to illustrate the profound differences between them. she synthesized a generation's worth of precedent and in a matter of a great common-law judge, recast all of those prior cases into the role that there must be a persuasive justification for any

gender-based distinctions. justice ginsburg faced a vigorous dissent by justice scalia. an experience that can be like facing down the locomotive. justice ginsburg says the dissent written in justice scalia's powerful style ruined her weekend. [laughter] but she also said it made your opinion better. one is struck by how elegantly and effectively she response to the many objections justice scalia raises, maintaining the flow and structure of her opinion without ever getting bogged down in squabbling. it has been 18 years since the vmi case and some kinds of victories are harder to come by. the law of gender equality has

not changed much in the interim. they are still the constitutional touchdowns. title vii of the civil rights act still bars employers from discriminating on the basis of gender. the court has somehow found reason to cut back on certain antidiscrimination protections. with two ofnclude her dissents. they show how she has remained steady right on the law and reality of gender discrimination even when the courts turned in the opposite direction. it illustrates her ability to speak to people beyond the court in order to rectify the errors. her dissent has become iconic.

the facts of that case are well known even to nonlawyers. she sued. andjury found in her favor a judge ordered goodyear to make up the difference in wages. the court of appeals throughout the judgment of the supreme court affirmed. the legal issue may seem dry at first glance. title vii allows individuals to sue for axa discrimination only when they are less than six months old. in the view of five justices, she was complaining about acts of discrimination that will -- that were many years old. true, the court admitted her

paycheck was lower than those of her male colleagues. the court ruled that those skimpy paychecks were effects of past discrimination and she could not use them to satisfy the statute of limitations. her dissent is remarkable for many things. first and foremost, it it is literally correct. paid discrimination occurs repeatedly over time. the court long ago held that they can challenge a pattern of discrimination each time a new act occurs. she was in her rights to challenge good year. justice ginsburg had often found herself in a position of arguing that judges should change the law to protect women from unequal treatment. in this case, she did not need

to urge that kind of change. the supreme court had already created a world of legal rules much like the ones justice ginsburg had originally envisioned. she was acting for faithful application. it was the majority that was changing the rules by retreating from the decisions the court and congress already made. majoritiesng the errors, her dissent cuts through the clutter. diction, every page result in understanding of realities in gender discrimination in the workplace. occurs in small increments.

small initial discrepancies, she stated, may not be seen as meat for a federal case, when the employee trying to succeed in a nontraditional environment is averse to making waves. , and employeesed initial readiness to give her employers the benefit of the doubt should not preclude her from later challenging the continuing payment of a wage depressed on account of her sex. i suspect when justice ginsburg wrote those words, she remembered her own discrimination and her own experience of pay discrimination as a young professor at rutgers and her battle on behalf of of plaintiffs. endsce ginsburg's dissent with a clarion call for legislative action. she told me several years ago at

harvard law school that this dissent was directed squarely at congress. it was saying, you could not have meant what this court said you meant so fix it. that is what congress did. justice ginsburg opinion was possibly the most effective dissent of this generation. it instantly turned her into a national figure and thrust equal pay into the forefront of public debate. less than two years later, congress enacted and president obama signed the lilly ledbetter fair pay act. that law adopted the theory put forward in justice ginsburg's dissent. the statute of limitations for challenging pay discrimination restarts with each new discriminatory paycheck, as it always should have. i want to conclude with another

dissent. it is more recent met from only last term. it is a dissent i joined. the issue is not terribly hard to grasp. under antidiscrimination law, an employer is responsible for workplace harassment perpetrated by a supervisor. it was not completely settled who qualified as a supervisor. it could be anyone who exercised substantial control over employees. the other option was it was only someone who could formally fire, demote, or transfer an employee. the plaintiff was an african-american woman who worked as a catering assistant and alleged a catering specialist who oversaw her work, but did not have formal power to fire her, had harassed her on the basis of her race.

the court dismissed the suit. it was possible the person who was harassing her was not her supervisor under any definition. the real problem was the court's reasoning. the majority said only with similar power could qualify as supervisors. it is thought that was the simplest role and so, the best one. justice ginsburg filed a dissent , joined by three other justices. in my humble opinion, it it had the majority dead to rights. supervisors who can threaten employees with inferior work assignments are for elite -- are fully capable of harassing and abusing them as supervisors with formal power to demote or transfer. this conclusion followed readily from our prior cases. -- knowledge of the

realities of workplace discrimination showed how blinkered the contrary rule was. i thought how professors can harass their secretaries, even though they have no formal power to fire them. justice ginsburg illustrated through a series of cases just how often that kind of harassment can occur. and so how much workplace discrimination the majorities rule would allow. but in this decent too what is perhaps most notable is its closing. as in ledbetters justice ginsburg called on congress to intervene to correct the wayward interpretation of title seven, in which a court adopted

interpretations of it that congress later had to reject and correct. the passage seems a bit wearied as if to say haven't we been through all this before? but it also has the sound of a boxer jumping back into the ring for another round. others who fought so long and hard might have grown frustrated for disappointments a fight equality entails. but as anyone who knows her can tell you, as the trainer whom we share as justice ginsburg told you often tells me justice indefatigible. justice ginsburg would have been a giant of the law even if he would have never been a justice. the same is true of her although

she has brilliantly extended those contributions as a judge. more than any other individual ruth bader ginsburg is responsible for eliminating sex discrimination from american law. how has she done it? one of the constants of justice ginsburg style extending from the brief in 1971 to the advance decent in 2013 has been a keen attention to the realities of gender discrimination. partly no doubt this comes from personal experience, the doors that shut on her when she graduated, the paid discrimination as rutgers. it also must come from her many years from listening to and fighting for other women who suffered from even greater discrimination. as a it will gator she used this owledge to rebut every dated rationalization to refute gender

discrimination. and she relied on it to give the court a full understanding of the justices she was seeking to correct. as a justice too, she cons at that particular timely returns to the realities of discrimination to show how to correctly apply anti-discrimination principles. another equally important feature of justice ginsburg's approach has been her sensitivity to the role of courts in our democracy. now, that may seem paradoxical for a person who led a law reform movement. but it was and is a crucial part of her thinking. at her harvard conversation, she told me and i'm quoting her words, the courts are reactive institutions. they are not out in the vanguard of any social movement. ile they can put their imprimteter on the side of change they cannot lead it. her work as a justice has reflected her understanding of

this delegate balance. as lawyer, she urged and sometimes shamed the court to catch up with the events occurring outside its doors. but she also recognized that change could not come all at once. she chose her clients, her cases and her targets with exquisite care to avoid pushing the court too far, too fast. and much the same way as a justice, she has often been a tempermental conservative who prefers the gradual common law approach to the sweeping rule or understand necessary holding. she has been critical of certain wade ost notably roe v. for having voted to expansively and too quickly. but she also recognizes that when the time is right, courts can play an important role in ratifying society's progress and a well placed decent can become

an important spur to justice. and there's a third piece of the ginsburg style, one that has become especially impressive to me since i joined the court and that is simple mastery of legal craft. that appears in the appellant brief she wrote as a lawyer which are models of precision and power. and so too her opinions reflect this great apparently inborn gift. each opinion is crist lean, exact and elegant. every word is carefully chosen and perfectly apt. every sentence well considered. every argument organized coherent and to the point. you're never afraid that a stray word or thought may cause some unforeseen bad consequence down the road. of all the justices, justice

ginsburg drafts her opinions the most quickly. yet, when i read them i'm always struck how error-free and polished they are. we have a practice of inviting others to comment on our opinions and ask for changes. i almost never have anything to say about justice ginsburg. they are ready to be published the moment they are circulated. she's a judge's judge. and every time i read one of her opinions, i feel as though i learn how to do my job a little better. justice ginsburg has also taught me something more personal being a member of an institution like the supreme court isn't always easy. we disagree about a lot of things of great import, matters on which we all feel deeply. it's a commercial part of the job not to take those disagreements personally. partly that's because there's always another case and if we're

to remain open to persuasion and also able to persuade others. we need to stay on good terms. but partly it's because the court is an important institution, an institution that the country needs to work and it's just not going to function well if its members aren't able to cooperate. no one performs that difficulty better than justice ginsburg. she knows about what the law requires and what the law demands. but she's also a model of respect and collegiality with every member of the court. she mansion to be universally admired and beloved by me, by justice scalia, by everyone in between. [laughter] without sacrificing and iota of her principles or convictions. she told me once that her secret

comes in part from something her mother-in-law told her back when she and marty were young. what's the secret to a successful marriage she asked? sometimes her mother-in-law says, it pays to be a little deaf. sometimes it pays to be a little deaf around the court too. [laughter] and justice ginsburg knows just when to do that. i've seen justice ginsburg maintain those values of collegiality even when it's toughest. our tradition at the court and it's usually a lovely, lovely tradition. is to have lunch together after the conferences in which we discuss and vote on cases. the rule at those lunches is no more court talk just friendly conversation about sports and movies and music and things like that. now without giving any specifics, i can tell you that i

once left a difficult conference, maybe the most difficult since i joined the court. and i found it almost impossible to imagine going to lunch with my colleagues. [laughter] we had just had a very serious disagreement about a very tough issue. and i wasn't so inclined to immediately switch that off and chat about the movies. i told justice ginsburg that i didn't think i would go. she was understanding but quite firm. you have to go she said. you have to act as though nothing has just happened. her temperament, her maturity and judgment, her calmness and wisdom helped make the courts the institution it is. and of course, when the nore tores you r.b.g. tells you to go to lunch, you go. -- nor tores you r.b.g. tells

you to go to lunch, you go. and so i went. one last story. one this one coming from one of my clerks. a few months ago the court held a seminar of sorts for women in he law for the women law law clerks. they dealt with gender discrimination, issues that are still present but unimageably different than in justice insburg law of age when it was fanciful. justice ginsburg surprised everyone by walking into the room by asking questions. as soon as she entered, one of my law clerks told me, all of these young women stood up and applauded. it was like seeing a legend walk in the door, my law clerk said. i know that i'm her colleague and not one of her army of 20-something groupies. [laughter] but every day i feel much the

same way when i see justice ginsburg walk down the halls, think i'm seeing an era. she has done a lot in the last 40 years to make america an equal and just society. it's an honor to sit on the same bench with her knowing how much she's contributed to my life and much more importantly to the lives of women around the world. thank you, justice ginsburg. [applause]

>> thank you, everyone. that was wonderful. so i -- i think, i hope we have time for just a few questions. and i believe that it will be permissible to pose questions to either of the two justices if that's ok with them. the crowd in the room and the technology lnology in the room is such that if you do have a question, i'm going to ask you to raise your hand, to stand up and to ask your question as loudly and clearly as possible if -- if necessary i will rephrase or rearticulate the question. and again, we have limited time. it's getting late. i think it's still snowing but if anyone has a question, please raise your hand and we'll try to deal with it. right there. thank you. >> justice ginsburg, i was -- i

was wondering if you could explain something about your opinion in virginia partly through the opinion you discussed the differences between men and women and you say that there's something to be celebrated? and i'm wondering if you could talk about why you use a word like "celebrate" especially when there was so little to be celebrating? >> i would ask to repeat the question -- >> the question was in the virginia case, justice ginsburg's language identified reasons to celebrate the differences, am i right, between men and women and the question is why use the word "celebrate" when there was so many things in the fact pattern at issue not be celebrated. it's a tough one.

justice ginsburg? >> well, don't you agree that it is something to celebrate that we have a world made up of both men and women? i celebrate that i have a daughter and a son. my life as my colleague mentioned was enormously enriched by picking the right life partner. so what i meant to say is that we are not alike. we don't look alike men and women. we look different. well, the world couldn't go on if there weren't both of us. [laughter] [applause] >> in the back? >> can you hear me? i can be really loud. [laughter] >> i'm a second year law student atfordham.

and i want to know if either of you have any advice? >> i don't think that needs to be repeated. >> i have enjoyed everything i have done in the law. but what has made me so satisfied with my career is what justice kagan spoke about. that i spend a lot of my time doing something outside myself, doing something that i hope makes life better for people who are not as fortunate. so you will have a skill that you can use to make a living but also to help make things a little better for other people, to repair tears in your communities.

we should ask the once great dean -- he must have been telling students all the time. [laughter] >> well, it turns out that justice ginsburg could have been a great dean too because that's what i would have said. [laughter] >> very funny. >> for justice ginsburg. how do you feel about the educational institutions that still only admit women on the there toy that those institutions are nurturing and otherwise protecting women. n example might be such as barner college is still women only even though columbia accepts women as well? >> in the v.m.i. case, one of the best friends of the fort brees was filed by the seven

sister colleges. there was nothing the state of virginia offered to its women that could compare with v.m.i. so a state can't make an opportunity available only to omen or only to men. my daughter went to an all-girl 12thl from kindergarten to grade. i think that the school she went to was the best school in the city of new york. so v.m.i. was not about single-sex schools. it was about a state providing an opportunity to to one sex only. by the way, there is one person in this room who knows about it.

and that is ranela, my swedish friend. [laughter] o you remember the book? it was called "dalabin" and so that was the closest i could come to the translation of that. >> well, that's good. now i know the origin. and again i agree with everything with justice ginsburg with one exception because i went to the best single-sex school in new york city. it was at that time single-sex. so sorry, jane. >> in the red? [inaudible] -- way better. [laughter]

>> we read your opinions and that's the way that you convey the messages that you've talked about. what can we do as individual attorneys, women attorneys to advance women in the law and in society generally. we've got to be able to do something to even the playing field. >> that's a good question. >> think the question is what can individual women do generally speaking not as supreme court justices but to even the playing field, even still in the community as it still needs to be done? correct? >> well, you find the place the audience that needs a little education, you give it to them. nd that was -- i am a little

worried that the gains that slowed and ade have backslide. ven be a i wonder why today's women aren't as fired up as the women in my generation were about ssuring that women have an equal chance to as pyre, to ollow their dream. >> although the women who have made you into a hip-hop icon. [laughter] no, i think -- yeah, sometimes maybe younger women don't -- don't appreciate how hard -- how hard the struggle has been, right? and maybe don't always

appreciate it as much because of the -- you know, i think it's a great question. i think different people find themselves in different positions and different roles and there's no one right answer for any -- for everybody. so it's great that you're asking the question. >> i'd like to ask you a question. you watch the super bowl -- [laughter] w did -- [applause] >> she did better than peyton manning. [laughter] [applause] freezing out en on that field. >> it started in the 50's. [laughter]

and what you have been trying to do is get the court reflect what the current sentiment of the country. i don't think the current sentiment of the country is journalism. so what do we do about that? >> you seize the opportunity to correct people who have the rong idea. i've done that in an opinion or two. [laughter] >> i think maybe two more questions. blue. >> thank you, justice, this is really, really fantastic. i wonder if either of you would speak on the supreme court's sort of unwillingness to allow

cameras in the courtroom during arguments. >> well, i don't know why elena's view is on that question. here's one aspect that perhaps the public doesn't notice as much. what we do in the main is not seen in the courtroom. before we come on the bench to hear a case, we have read the opinions that the other judges, the other judges who past on the same question. we read the party's briefs. briefs. the precedent in point. .f there's a good article ecome bomb to the tee with the

arlingtons. what you'll see are two people having a conversation with the justices. and may come away that the best debater would win that question. it would be a false impression to think that the oral argument is what is decisive in most cases. it's not like a trial where you see it's all happening there, witnesses testifying. the hard, hard work is done back in our chambers. >> i think it's a really hard issue. she's taken offsides in this position. obviously there are reasons to have cameras, tarns parent si is an important thing in government institution. and for the most part i think

the court would look pretty good. i think it's actually, you know, nine people who come prepared every single day, important cases, less important cases who are thoughtful and smart and really trying to get the questions right, all nine of us. and so i think -- when people come to the court, it's actually kind of -- kind of impressive actually. when i was solis itor general, i would come in the quourt the cases that i argued and whenever someone in -- would co anymore and watch how they worked. i remember thinking if every america would see this. because i think it would be good for "people" to see that. but i do agree request justice ginsburg there are opportunities for people to misunderstand the nature of what we do. and to take snippets of

conversation in an argument taken out of context to think that's what won or lost the case. and that would be a very unfortunate thing. i don't know -- it's a good example of what you see depending a little bit of where you sit when -- i think as i rved on the court, i've come to see more than i once did the reasons why maybe cameras would not be such a good idea. that they would actually -- in addition to what justice ginsburg said that it might actually change the proceedings themselves, i think people naturally ham a little bit when cameras are on them or speak in sound bites a little bit more than they otherwise might. so i think that something -- i think we're going to have to become more transparent.

but i'm not necessarily sure at putting a camera in for every argument is the way to do it right now. >> one more question. [laughter] >> thank you so much for being here. this is exciting. [inaudible] > at home tests for sufficient context -- corporations can spread their business around in a way to effectively inoculate them against -- can you speak a little bit about projected way or ffects one another corporate accountability?

>> i'm not going to try to epeat that question. the ere was a case about ad days of the dirty war where atrocities had been committed by the government and the charge brought by argentineans was that the affiliates in argentina collaborated with the government the ll or injure some of employees. do you think that that was the suit that belonged in the united states? argentina is where it all happened. -- of them were available is it appropriate? do you think it would be

appropriate for the united states to be the operator to be the forum in which that case is heard? [inaudible] >> in light of what it said. but doing business and the agency theory that was completed, that yes, that general jurisdiction could have stood. >> well, then it would be the court for the world because every life corporation could be sued in the united states in that theory. and that would make us look a rather arrogant to our nations, to other nations in the world community who has the kind of attitude towards jurisdiction and i'm -- i first began to think about these questions when i was studying civil procedure

of sweden. [laughter] where the notion was you don't bring a suit where you happen to grab the person who committed the wrong. but it depends on where it happened. where the events insuit occurred. it's a logical place for the constitute be brought. >> we were asked before about giving advice and my last piece of advice is don't mess around with justice ginsburg when it omes to personal jurisdiction. [applause] >> thank you all for coming. and at home, thank you. thank you.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> the new c-span.org website gives you access to an incredible library. updated each day through nonstop coverage of national politics, history, and nonfiction books. find staley coverage of official washington and more than 200,000 hours of archived video. everything c-span has covered since 19 87. our video is all searchable and viewable on your desktop imputed, tablet, or smartphone.

just look for the prominent search bar at the top of each page. -- makes-span.org has it easy to find people and events from the past 25 years. it is the most comprehensive video library in politics. >> "washington journal" begins the moment. we will look at the day's news. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. president obama will talk about house democrats at their caucus retreats. live coverage at 10:30 eastern. and a discussion on the korean peninsula and u.s. national security. that is that 1:15 eastern. coming up and the next hour on "washington journal" patient privacy rights -- the future of employee retirement benefits.

and then the agriculture department will look at food security in statute issues. we will also take your phone calls. host: the republicans met on strategy and the democrats are meeting on strategy. we want to hear from you. what do you want from washington. do you want more laws? is there a legislative interest that you have? what direction do you want to see things go?