about protecting individuals, not about protecting laws, and even nondiscriminatory race-neutral laws that have a racial focus would fall under their racial focus test. you know, the hypothetical we give in our briefs on that, besides a state equal protection clause, would be the federal fair housing act because it references race, it has a racial focus, in the words of seattle and hunter, and it has the ability of preventing anyone from lobbying for preferences based on their race or sex at lower levels of the government, either state or local. so under their theory, the federal fair housing act would have to be applied under strict scrutiny. and their only response to that in the brief is that -- well, the supremacy clause takes care of that problem. and we all know supremacy doesn't kick in until you first determine that the federal law itself is constitutional, and it wouldn't be under their theory. so -- so what we're asking you to do is eliminate that portion of hunter and seattle that suggests that a law's racial focus is the sine qua non of a

political restructuring doctrine test and to either >> mr. bursch, isn't >> yes. >> isn't the position that was taken in seattle derived from a different view of the equal protection clause? i mean, strict scrutiny was originally put forward as a protection for minorities -- a protection for minorities against hostile disadvantageous legislation. and so the view then was we use strict scrutiny when the majority is disadvantaging the minority. so you do, under the carolene products view, you do focus on race and you ask, is the minority being disadvantaged?

if that were the view, then i suppose we would not be looking at this, well, the criterion is race and wherever the disadvantage falls, whether a majority or minority, it's just the same. that wasn't the original idea of when strict scrutiny is appropriate. so if we were faithful to that notion, that it is -- measures a disadvantage the -- the minority that get strict scrutiny. >> well, two thoughts on that, justice ginsburg. first, under grutter, this court made crystal clear that a grutter plan is not about which minority group is being advantaged or disadvantaged. it's supposed to benefit the campus as a whole. and to the extent the claim is that preferences benefit certain classes of minorities and not others, you know, for example, it benefits african americans and latinos, but not asians, even though they're both

discrete and insular underrepresented groups, that -- then it fails under grutter. it can only be something that benefits everybody. but more fundamentally, going back to your question about the origin of the doctrine, i think it's really important to understand why we have hunter, because hunter, remember, was decided before washington v. davis. and when you look at the face of the law in akron, ohio in hunter, there's nothing in there that would trigger strict scrutiny. and so this court was searching for another way to -- to strike down a law that removed an anti-discrimination provision and made it more difficult to reenact at the higher level of the political process. it needed something to fix that. and our point is you can either construe it to do exactly that, that only antidiscrimination laws being struck down and moved to a higher level can satisfy a political restructuring doctrine, or you can look at it differently. you can say -- now that we've got washington v. davis and we all know what the intent was in akron, that that is a simpler way to address this -- this

problem and we really don't need the political restructuring doctrine at all anymore. but the reason why we had the doctrine in hunter is because strict scrutiny did not apply. >> you said that the district court found it was clear that there was no -there was no discriminatory intent, but that wasn't reviewed on appeal. >> no, it was not. but it wasn't a finding. it was actually more than that. it was at the summary judgment stage. the district court correctly concluded there wasn't even a question of disputed material fact as to whether intent was the primary motivation of the electorate. unless there are any further questions, i will reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you, counsel. mr. rosenbaum. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, let me begin, justice kennedy, with the questions you raise and then come to the question that chief

justice roberts raised. to begin, justice kennedy, there's no way to distinguish the seattle case from this case nor the hunter case. both those cases have to be overruled. here is why the seattle case is -- is identical to this case. both issues -- both cases involve constitutionally permissible plans which had as their objective obtaining diversity on campuses. seattle was a k through 12 case. this case is a higher education case. but in both instances, the objective was to obtain diversity. no constitutional mandate to relieve past discrimination. rather, in fact, as the court said, seattle, tacoma, and wasco were attempting to deal with de facto segregation. >> is that an accurate description of seattle? i thought that in seattle, before the school board adopted the bussing plan, the city was threatened with lawsuits by the department of justice, by the federal government, and by private plaintiffs, claiming that the -- the previous pupil assignment plan was -- involved de jure segregation.

isn't that -- isn't that correct? >> that's correct with respect to at least one of the districts, justice alito. but in terms of the program itself, there's no dispute that it was done pursuant to a plan for de facto segregation. moreover, the question you asked, justice kennedy >> i don't understand the answer to that question. as to seattle itself, is it not the case that they were threatened with litigation? >> yes, but there'd been no finding, justice alito, of de jure segregation. >> and isn't it correct that the district court found that there was de jure segregation? >> that is not correct. >> it didn't? >> there was -- there was no finding whatsoever that there had been de jure segregation and that there was a constitutional imperative to correct that desegregation. it was an absolutely identical situation. and regarding the accountability, your honor is correct that in seattle what we were dealing with was an elected school board and here, as the michigan brief says, as the wayne state brief says, as the court specifically found at

pages 326a and 327a of the record, this is a political process in which the regents were elected, have at all times maintained plenary authority over the admissions process itself, and that -- >> well, there are two things. number one is it delegated to the faculty. and number two, they're elected only rarely and in staggered term. >> that is no question that that's correct, your honor. but the ordinary process itself is a politically accountable process. that's what the district court found when it looked at how the system worked. >> what if the board delegated to the various universities the authority to develop their own admissions programs? >> it couldn't alter -- i'm sorry, chief roberts. >> and they did, and then after several years they decided, you know, we don't like the way it's working, they're adopting too many racial preference programs, we're going to revoke the delegation. >> absolutely fine. >> why is that any different? >> because the difference is that in the seattle case, in this case, and in the hunter

case, what's going on is a change from the ordinary political process, which your honor perfectly described. they can change it today. they can go to an affirmative action plan today, repeal it tomorrow, come back. >> so if there were a provision in the michigan constitution that says the board of regents is authorized to enact these programs, in other words delegated from the people in the constitution to the board, and then the people change the delegation by saying, no, it's no longer -- we're no longer going to leave that up to the board, we're going to make the decision ourselves in the constitution, how is that any different? >> it is different, your honor, because of the racial nature of the decision. under their theory, under their theory, the people of the state -- of a state could amend their constitution, put in the legislature two rooms, one for racial matters, one for all other sorts of matters, and say to any entrant who wants to enter that first room -- you may do so, but first you have to pay an exorbitant cover charge and then you have to mount multiple

stairs, flights of stairs, just to begin the process of enacting constitutionally permissible legislation. or think about it in a desegregation case. a student comes in -- two students come into the admissions committee. one says -- and the admissions committee says -- we have one question for you, one question for you since you're here to talk about a legitimate -- a legitimate factor in pursuit of diversity. here's the question -- you want to talk about your race, your race in the context of other factors? and if the answer is yes, that student is shown the door, told go raise between 5 and $15 million, repeal prop 2 and then you can come back to make -- make the case. whereas the student who says, no, i've just got another legitimate factor, maybe geography. maybe alumni connections, whatever that is, that person is permitted to make the case. it is a racial distinction. now, chief justice roberts, you're certainly onto something

in terms of are there race-neutral methods to get this done? of course there are. the state constitution itself could be altered so that a different committee or a different set of individuals could -- could make the decision that they don't like the way the regents are doing it. or they could do it the old-fashioned way, the way that the politically accountable system works, which is to say, we are going to work at these universities, that's how affirmative action involving race happened in the first place. that's at pages 270 to 271a and 282a to 293a. they worked for years to make that happen. >> well, i thought the whole purpose of strict scrutiny was to say that if you want to talk about race, you have a much higher hurdle to climb than if you want to talk about something else. now, you can argue that strict scrutiny should only apply to minorities and not to students who are not minorities, but i thought the court decided that a long time ago. >> exactly. >> so i don't know why that's a hard question that you asked about the student who says, i want to talk about race. what if it's a white student who comes in and says -- i want to talk about race, i'm white and therefore you should admit me, you should give me preference.

the state can't say, no, we don't want to hear that? >> the state can say, we don't want to hear that whether it comes from a white person or a black person or whomever, if in fact, they are not doing it on a race-specific basis. you're exactly right, of course, about strict scrutiny. and the programs in this case, indeed, the only programs in this case that are effective, are those that have passed strict scrutiny -- >> well, i don't understand your answer then. if the student -- one student comes in and says i want to talk about how well i play the cello, all right, we'll listen to that. i want to come in and talk about why i as a white person should get a preference, you have to listen to that because you're listening to the -- to the talk about the cello, too? >> you do, your honor, when the program has passed the strict scrutiny test that we're talking about. and that's the only sort of program that is at issue in this case. of course you're correct. if it is a gratz type program, if it's unconstitutional, if it's a quota system, you don't have to listen to anybody talk about race. but we are only dealing with constitutionally permissible

programs. why it is impossible, impossible to distinguish seattle? and this argument about hunter, page 389 of the hunter decision is the reason hunter was decided. it's not a washington v. davis case. >> well, i'm not sure i understood the answer you gave to the chief justice's hypothetical. maybe i misunderstood the hypothetical. suppose the board of regents have a rule, it's written, it's a rule, that the faculty makes a determination on whether there should be affirmative action. >> yes. >> five -- and the faculty votes for affirmative action. three years later, the board of trustees said we're abolishing the rule, we're doing that ourselves. violation? >> assuming that the regents say that's fine, no problem whatsoever, no problem whatsoever. that's the ordinary political process. >> so the -- so the regents can take it away from the faculty? >> the regents have plenary --

>> but can the legislature take it away from the regents? >> not under the michigan constitution, because the michigan constitution -- >> no, no. hypothetical case. >> ok. under -- who's got the authority here? the legislature can take it away. that's not a problem in a situation where that's part of the ordinary process. >> but then the voters can't take it away. at what point is it that your objection takes force? i just don't understand -- >> where there is -- >> the declension here -- >> my apologies, your honor. >> or the crescendo, whatever you call it. >> both are music to my ears. the point, justice kennedy, is that the people of the state have multiple options available to them if they don't like the way the universities are operating. but the one option they don't have is to treat racial matters different from all other matters. the example that you gave -- >> that applies in the chief justice's hypothetical or my revision of it as between the board of regents and the faculty or between the faculty and the legislature. >> exactly. and the problem -the problem that the restructuring process gets at, because of the particular concern that this

court has shown with respect to the political process, that the political process itself not become outcome determinative, that the political process itself be a place where we can air these discussions, but not create it in a separate and unequal way to make the -- to him actually make the decision itself through the process. >> why is -- why is the faculty administration, a faculty decision, any less outcome determinative than what the voters would say? i -- i think there would be people that might disagree with your empirical assumption. >> then i'm not explaining it clearly. the first -- the -- when the faculty makes the decision, justice kennedy, that's part of the ordinary political process. nobody's allowed to win all the time. no one has to win all the time. no one has to win all the time. whatever it is, it is. that's the ordinary political process. that's how we use the political process. the problem with -- with mounting a racial classification within the constitution itself is that then -- that takes the ordinary political process to the extraordinary political process.

>> so i mean, you could say that the whole point of something like the equal protection clause is to take race off the table. is it unreasonable for the state to say, look, race is a lightning rod. we've been told we can have affirmative action programs that do not take race into account. socioeconomic diversity, elimination of alumnae preferences, all of these things. it is very expensive. whenever we have a racial classification, we're immediately sued. so why don't we say we want you to do everything you can without having racial preferences. now, if the litigation determines that we're required to have racial preferences, this statute has an exception and -- and allows that. but starting out, we want to take race off the table and try to achieve diversity without racial preferences. >> the problem, your honor, as this court stated as recently as last term in the fisher case, is that under the equal protection clause race is not all the way

off the table. and the problem with proposal 2 is that the substance and the message that it communicates is that because of the separate and unequal political track that is created with respect to the extraordinary steps that have to be taken, the message is that, even where race is being utilized as one of many factors in a constitutionally permissible way, the message that is being communicated is that all uses of race are illegitimate, all uses of race are -- are off the table, that "race" itself is a dirty word. >> why -- why doesn't the fourth amendment violate the rule you're saying -- or the 14th amendment violate the rule that you're proposing? i mean, i'm a minority and i want laws that favor my minority. not just in university, everywhere. my goodness, i can't have that through the normal legislative process.

i have to get a constitutional amendment to do it, right? >> that is correct, your honor. >> well, so i guess -- i guess that on this subject of equal treatment of the races, we can eliminate racism just at the -- at the legislative level, can't we? >> your honor, the underlying basis of the entire strict scrutiny doctrine in the 14th amendment is to preclude the government, preclude the legislative and executive branch, from making those determinations as absolute determinations. the 14th amendment sets the standards and the criteria by which we measure that. of course you're correct. that's what the 14th amendment does. it sets what the rules are in terms of how race is utilized. but what the grutter case said -- >> and you can't change those rules by normal legislation, correct? >> that is correct. >> so if you're a minority that wants favored treatment, you're just out of luck. >> you have to use the ordinary

political process. and that's all we're saying. >> no, but the constitutional amendment is not the ordinary political process. >> but the -- but the fact that it's a state constitutional amendment underscores my argument, which is that -- that in order for the -- for a -- the minority or any individual, and white, minority, whatever -- whatever the individual is, to say i want the same rule book, i want the same playing field, the problem with proposal 2 is that it creates two playing fields. >> if proposal 2 had been in the michigan constitution before any affirmative action program was adopted, would the result be the same? >> it would, your honor, because -- because it would be building in this explicitly facial racial classification into the state constitution. the problem are the separate and unequal systems that are being used to deal with race. and separate and unequal, under the 14th amendment, shouldn't come within ten feet of race. >> it's not a racial classification. you should not refer to it that way.

>> it is a racial -- >> it's the prohibition of racial classifications. >> no, your honor. >> every prohibition of racial classification is itself a racial classification? >> no, your honor. the problem with proposal 2 is that it is -- just as in hunter, just as in hunter -- it is an explicitly facial racial classification. it singles out race for different treatment. my goodness, this was borne -- this campaign started three days after grutter itself. the author said the purpose of it was to get rid of racial preferences. >> well, if that's how you're using racial classification, i thought it meant, you know, it's directed at blacks or asians -- >> no. >> or no. in that sense, the 14th amendment itself is a racial classification, right? >> well, it sets the standard -- >> in that sense, the 14th amendment itself is a racial classification. no? >> i don't agree with that, your honor, because i'm measuring it as a racial classification by the 14th amendment. and that comes back to justice ginsburg's argument. his argument, his revisionist history of hunter, his -- was -- was about motive.

but, your honor, that had nothing to do with the problem in this case. when the court looked -- when the district court looked -- may i finish my answer, chief justice roberts? >> yes. >> when the court looked at this particular issue, the concern was the way that it racially divided the political process itself. what he is saying is that, well, there may be all sorts of motives. that's a rational basis test, and that has nothing to do with the racial classification. the definition i'm using, justice scalia, is this court's definition of a racial classification, for which all sorts trigger strict scrutiny. thank you very much. >> thank you, counsel. ms. driver? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, we ask this court to uphold the sixth circuit decision to reaffirm the doctrine that's expressed in hunter-seattle, and to bring the 14th amendment back to its original purpose and meaning, which is to protect minority rights against a white majority, which did not occur in this case. >> my goodness, i thought we've

-- we've held that the 14th amendment protects all races. i mean, that was the argument in the early years, that it protected only -- only the blacks. but i thought we rejected that. you -- you say now that we have to proceed as though its purpose is not to protect whites, only to protect minorities? >> i think it is -- it's a measure that's an antidiscrimination measure. >> right. >> and it's a measure in which the question of discrimination is determined not just by -by power, by who has privilege in this society, and those minorities that are oppressed, be they religious or racial, need protection from a more privileged majority. >> and unless that exists, the

14th amendment is not violated, is that right? so if you have a banding together of various minority groups who discriminate against -- against whites, that's ok? >> i think that -- >> do you have any case of ours that propounds that view of the 14th amendment, that it protects only minorities? any case? >> no case of yours. >> some people think that there is a difference between the plus and the minus. some judges differ on that point. some agree sort of with you, and some agree sort of not. all right? let's think of those who agree sort of, and then i have a question. and you know this area better than i. so think of grutter. grutter permits affirmative action. think of the earlier cases. they permitted affirmative action where it was overcome, the effects of past discrimination, but probably not otherwise. now, that's what i want to know. are there areas other than education where affirmative

action would not be forbidden to achieve a goal other than overcoming the effects? have you got the question? and does an answer come to mind? >> i think that affirmative action programs could -- could be permissible under employment. for instance -- >> ok. so there are a set. >> that's right. >> fine. if there are a set, what i -- what i'd like you to explain, if -- if you can take a minute, is think of how a city is set up. there are a vast number of administrators. there are a vast number of programs. it could be an administrator somewhere says he'd like to give a preference, maybe for good reason. but then the city council votes no, because there are other ways of doing it, by, you know, first come, first served or some other criteria that doesn't use race.

are all of those unlawful? every one? do you have to leave it up to the -- no matter what the subject, no matter what the -- or are you going to draw a line somewhere? is there a line that you could draw that would take your case on the right side from your point of view, but would say we're not giving power to every administrator in the city to decide on his own whether to use racial preferences without a possibility of a higher-up veto -- >> which i don't think you want to say, but maybe you do. >> no. i think these are very fact-based determinations. and so, somebody could make a decision that they wanted to use what you're calling racial preferences. and that could mean a range of things, and that could be subject to a veto higher up. yeah, i agree with you. >> so what's the line? is there any line that you can say, look here. we were trying to be very helpful, and all of a sudden they put this thing on the ballot, you can't even get it through. ok? that's your basic point. but if you think of -- you have to write something, and that something has tremendous effect all over the place. so what kind of line is there,

in your opinion? >> i think hunter-seattle provides the line. i think it says that if you have a law that has a racial focus, and that law, part of proving that it has a racial focus, is that it takes a benefit that inures to minorities and it removes that benefit and it restructures the political process and places a special burden on minorities to re-ascertain that right, yeah, i think that's a proper rule. because it's -- it's -- >> can i -- can i come back to the question that the chief justice and justice kennedy were asking before? essentially, it's their question. let's say that the -- the decision about admissions criteria across the board is basically delegated to the faculty. all right? and the faculty adopts some sort of affirmative action plan. and now that is overruled in

favor of a colorblind approach at various levels going up the ladder. so maybe it's overruled by the -- by a dean, or maybe it's overruled by the president of the university. maybe it's overruled by the regents. maybe, if state laws allowed, it's -- it's overruled by an executive department of the state. maybe it's overruled by the legislature through ordinary legislation. maybe it's overruled through a constitutional amendment. at what point does the political restructuring doctrine kick in? >> i think in this case, the difference between what other groups can do in order to get preferential treatment for their sons and daughters and what racial minorities are subject to, the level of distinction places such a high burden on minorities. >> well, that really -- that really isn't responsive to my question. let's say exactly what was done here is done at all of these levels. at what point does the doctrine kick in?

when it goes from the faculty to the dean? from the dean to the president, et cetera, et cetera? where does this apply? >> i think it depends on where it is that minorities face a heavier and special burden. >> it can't be that, because the normal political process imposes burdens on different groups. i thought the line was a very simple one, which is if the normal academic decision-making is in the dean, the faculty, at whatever level, as long as the normal right to control is being exercised, then that person could change the decision. so if they delegate most admissions decisions, as i understand from the record, to the faculty, but they still regularly, besides race, veto some of those decisions, and race is now one of them, then

the board of regents can do that normally. so could the president, if that's the way it's normally done. it's when the process is -- political process has changed specifically and only for race, as a constitutional amendment here was intended to do, that the political doctrine is violated. have i restated? >> you have, you restated it very well, and i agree with you in principle. >> but i still don't understand your answer to justice alito's question. suppose the dean has authority in the bylaws of the university to reverse what the faculty does, but you have a dean who just does not like affirmative action. he is dead against it. and he makes the decision to reverse the faculty. do you have a remedy? >> i don't think it -- i don't think hunter-seattle applies. >> all right. then you have justice alito's question. then it's the president of the university, and then it's the legislature. >> i think you need two things -- think you need the

decision-making body. if the university of michigan regents decided tomorrow to eliminate affirmative action programs and there was no prop 2, they have the legal right to do that. they are the decision-making body. and minorities still could go and lobby the regents, still could go and talk about the questions of racial equality difference >> but would that be true -i'm sorry. would that be true if they had never gotten involved in admissions criteria before? they have the authority, but they left that to the university officials. >> i think if they have the plenary authority to do that, yeah, i think that, again, if they wanted to eliminate affirmative action programs and they had that plenary authority and it was guaranteed by the michigan state constitution and it had existed for 150 years, and they chose to enter this area, i think --

>> i don't see how that is consistent with justice sotomayor's answer to my question. don't the people of michigan have -- don't the people of michigan have plenary authority? >> in this case, the particular -it's -- they are applying that plenary authority in -or in a way that is racially focused, and creates a political process that is disadvantageous to minorities. >> i'm not saying instead of political process. don't let me put words in your mouth. think what you think here. you say where the authority is divided in a certain way, and that is true under the constitution of the state. so the state government lacks the power. and then you have to take the power from the people and change the constitution, and when you do that in respect to a benefit, then, in respect to benefits, washington -- you know, seattle and hunter kick in.

see, where are not dealing with past discrimination. >> this -- what we're talking about in terms of affirmative action are constitutionally permissible programs that were shown to this court to be the only way to achieve racial diversity and integration at the university of michigan. and whether you -- whether you explain that by looking at the reality of the inequality in education for black and white michigan or whatever it is that you come up with that requires that, the university has shown that this is the only way to achieve diversity in which racial diversity is a part of the -- is a part of the

quotient. and so to take away that right from the university and from the regents -- and i just want to go back to one of the questions that was answered. if you look at the law schools, the medical schools, the professional schools now in the state of michigan, there's been a precipitous drop in underrepresented minority enrollment in those schools. we are going back to the resegregation of those schools because of the elimination of affirmative action. >> to what extent does your argument depend -- i thought both hunter and seattle speak in these terms -- that the policies that are more difficult to enact are beneficial for the minority group. >> say that -- i'm sorry. can you repeat -- >> to what extent does your argument depend upon the assumption that the programs that you say are now more

difficult to enact are beneficial to the minority group? >> i think it's an important component part, because i think it's in the benefit to the minority group that it's especially important >> well, why do you >> that the political process be on a level field. >> right. what if the question of whether it's a benefit to the minority group is more open to debate, whether it's through the mismatch theory that taylor and sander i guess have adopted, or other theories? do we have to assume in your favor that these definitely are beneficial to particular minority groups? >> certainly the minority voters of michigan believe them to be, because 90 percent of black voters in michigan voted against prop 2. and i think that that's a clear indication of the popularity of these programs and the perceived benefit of these programs. >> there may be a difference between popularity and benefit. in other words, you want us to assume that the programs are beneficial to a minority group? >> yes. and they are beneficial to minority groups. they may -- they may serve to provide benefits for the population beyond minority

groups, but they are a benefit if they -- >> your opponent says otherwise. he says that minority students have taken tougher courses, they have been better qualified to be admitted, and all sorts of other benefits. so it's certainly a debatable question. >> it's a debatable question in another forum in a different case, and in fact i think that case was the grutter case. this case isn't just about whether or not affirmative action benefits minorities. it's also the restructuring of the political process and the special burden that's placed on minorities. it's not -- if you want to go back to debating the -- whether affirmative action -- >> you're changing your answer, then. your answer to the chief was it does depend and now you are saying it doesn't depend on whether it benefits minorities

at all, it's just whether it places a -- a greater burden on minorities to change it. which is it? >> no, i >> one or the other? >> i think it's a two-part test. i think the first, the first thing that you look at is, is there a racial focus to the law, and is the benefit that's been taken away something that inures to minorities. and i think the second part of the test, and that's why i think seattle/hunter is such a narrow doctrine, is whether there also has been a restructuring of the political process and a special burden placed on minorities. it requires both. >> thank you, counsel. mr. bursch, you have 4 minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. i'm going to start with a sentence from crawford, decided the same day as seattle, where this court defined what a racial classification is -- a racial

classification either says or implies that persons are to be treated differently on account of race." it doesn't say anything about laws with or without a racial focus. and we think that is the test that ultimately should come out of the decision in this case. now, my friends on the other side disagree with that, because if that's the test section 26 is constitutional. and so they draw this false dichotomy between laws that involve race and laws that don't involve race, we will put them in two separate chambers of the legislature and charge a fee if you want to talk about -- about race. and we know that can't be right, because of, chief justice roberts, your observation that the whole point of equal protection is to take race off the table when everyone is being treated the same. that's why they can't

-- >> you quoted -- you quoted from crawford. >> yes. >> and there is an opposing quote in seattle itself on page, what is it, 486? >> yes. >> "when the state's allocation of power places unusual burdens on the ability of racial groups to enact legislation designed to overcome the special condition of prejudice, the governmental action seriously curtails the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied on to protect minorities." and it quotes carolene products. so -- and then the following sentence is -- "in the most direct sense, this implicates the judiciary's special role, not of treating the individuals as individuals, but the judiciary's special role in safeguarding the interests of those groups that are relegated to a position of political powerlessness."

so the rationale of seattle is that notion that we can't put hurdles in the way of a disadvantaged minority. >> justice ginsburg, there is two problems with that. first that's where the respondent's theory most closely knocks up against grutter, because you are right -- under seattle and hunter you've got to have a policy designed for the purpose of primarily benefitting the minority. but if that's the policy, it violates grutter, which is supposed to benefit everyone. but the bigger problem is if you treat a >> diversity does, but when you take away a tool for diversity that's what seattle is saying is wrong. >> right, but the bigger problem -- >> you can't take the tool away simply because it may include race as a factor, simply because you are changing the playing

field. >> but justice sotomayor, the biggest problem with respondents' test, with applying the literal language of seattle, is that as i said, the federal fair housing act, the equal credit act, a state equal protection law that mentions -- all of these things fall in the category of laws dealing with race. some are discriminatory. >> seattle and this case both involve constitutional -- seattle and this case both involve constitutional amendments. so why can't the law -- the law be drawn -- the line be drawn there? if you change the allocation of power in one of these less substantial ways, that's one thing, but when you require a constitutional amendment that's really a big deal. >> because that would still invalidate the michigan equal protection clause which has a racial focus that says you cannot discriminate based on race or sex, and yet no one would argue it should be subject to strict scrutiny. >> that's the benefit to a minority group. but what i'm thinking is go read the cases. you yourself seem to say these cases seem to apply alike to the

benefits or to the discrimination against it. i mean, there is lots of language in seattle. >> right. >> you come -- now, suppose you take that and say, all right, it was meant in context, but the context includes constitutional amendments because with the constitutional amendment you are restructuring. now you would lose on that theory, but there would be a limitation on the extent to which the people have the right to move powers around. >> justice breyer, the limitation has to be not only that, but also that you are repealing an antidiscrimination law, not an equal treatment law. or again, otherwise the state equal protection clause has to fall. so to the extent that i am right, that is a way that you can narrow hunter and seattle, and section 26 has to survive. if i am wrong about that, then respectfully seattle and hunter should be overruled. either way, it does not violate equal protection to require equal treatment. thank you. >> thank you, counsel.

>> they all agree it was released long before the science is ready based on economic interests and political interests. and the process itself i don't agree is irrelevant. because the process of genetic engineering causes massive collateral damage, hundreds or thousands of mutations up and down the dna, far more than conventional breeding, and they don't evaluate it. so some independent scientists

looked at the corn after it was on the market and found a gene that was silent switched on. so you may have an allergic reaction frol eating the corn unlabeled as containing ab allergen but the process creating a switch on of that dormant gene and the change of 43 other genes. and as for gmo's, here are the organizations. no problem with gmo's. are all of these part of the conconspiracy that a person skine terrific training has just uncovered? here are a bunch of other organizations not with some scientific sounding names. these are real medical and rotective organizations.

i could come up with dozens of these. the australian and new zealand food safety group. is this reasonable that something that is extraordinarily a poison here, this is this fear mongering this is nonsense and all of these organizations are just ignore it? >> you can watch the entire debate tonight at 8:00 eastern ere on c-span. >> i remember on saturday the first conversation i had with a group of people at that table with the 2 on it. it wasn't about where you're from, what's your school like but about ukraine.

it was about politics, it was about our beliefs on education and religion and after that moment i was like, wow, this week is going to be intense. but it's been really cool to see the evolution of all of our friendships and bonds from just talking about politics. we've been talking about our experiences what we've learned who we've met. and this is an experience i'll never forget. >> i've always kind of been really cynical about it and thought i can never real gloy that far in politics and politics is such a caustic environment but kind of slowly throughout the week have kind of chipped away at that opinion that's been so ingrained in my head. maybe i do want to make a difference and stay local in my community. because like president obama suggested, he told us don't get cynical. because this nation doesn't really need any more cynical people. that's not going to help us relieve the problems that we have. >> one of the things i know

gets brought up is social media. we're able to express our opinions very easily. we can just send a tweet about what we think. and i think that starts conversation and we like to talk a lot. so there's conversations, social media. and we just like to get our opinions out there. >> i think this whole week has been about learning. i come from a small town where it's very politically homo genic and there's not much chance for people who don't think the same to get their opinions out without being ridiculed. and being here has given me an opportunity to learn other viewpoints and to also get my eas out with youth fear of being shunned. >> high school students participate in the senate youth program held in washington. sunday night at 8:00. >[applause]

>> thank you all very much. thank you. you all very much. thank you for the introduction. welcome to new jersey.

i hope we won't be having nearly as much interaction as i had with your predecessor. it will be better for me if we don't have to do that at all. thank you for the introduction. thank you for arranging the renewal of this trip despite the wonderful winter. members ofelcome the congress who are here as well. of course, i want to add my congratulations to governor byrne. for every governor who will someday be an x governor -- governoronr, to see a who serve some difficult times still be yet he -- still be here at 90 does great things for me. . you are an incredible example, governor. [applause]

governor loves to come here every year. the reason he does is the reason why all of us,. it is to renew relationships. it is to hear from the business leaders of our state. what is going on in their particular business. the overall business climate that they see in our state. to make sure we stay in touch with each other. dependent's future is in large measure on the people in the room. those you represent and employ. i am proud to continue a long perdition of governors who come the businessss community on the challenges and opportunities we see before us over the next year. i understand these remarks are being broadcast live by c-span tonight. but that will tell you is this lyricalthe quietest

might in america and months. [laughter] we are going to do the past we the 15best we can for people out there watching c-span to bring them as much entertainment as we can over the next number of minutes. i said there are challenges and opportunities. there always are. i sees particular time, the challenges and opportunities melding together. when we think back on what has gone on in our state over the last five years, the recovery we have made has been exceptional. but it hasomplete, been exceptional. i want to remind you of a few of the things we confronted a little more than four years ago when we all gathered here in 2010.

we were confronting a budget crisis in the middle of a fiscal year that only had less than four months remaining. we had to reduce spending by between theion beginning of february and the middle of march or the state of new jersey would not have met payroll for the second pay. payarch -- for the second period in march. we had declining state tax revenue. unemployment rate. the business community that was stymied by the troubled national economy and burdened by the wet blanket of years and years of tax increases in the state of new jersey on those businesses and their employees.

we confronted a situation where we had to decide very clearly which path we were taking. there were two paths. the path we took for the last decade, which was to once again increase taxes, not do anything about spending, and continue to burden even further the business community and the citizens of our state. those who proposed this despite the fact that they had already seen in independent study done by boston college that said in the four years prior to 2009, $70 billion in wealth had left our state. not diminished wealth. departed wealth. it went to states like florida, north carolina, delaware. even pennsylvania. despite that, there were voices that still called and still call today for increasing the tax

burden on the people of our state and its businesses that employ the people of our state. we chose to take a different path. to make the pledge we would reduce the size and scope of government. to make a promise to the people and businesses that we would not increase taxes given the volume that they had endured over the course of the last decade. how have we done? if you look at the budget we februaryjust this past you takel year 15, if up the entitlement programs that we have, pension payments, payments for health benefits, and debt service, take those items out, spending on every tther item in the state budge ,s $2.2 billion lower, fy15

and we spent in fiscal year 2008. we have 6000 fewer employees on the state government payroll today than when we stood here four years ago in 2010. we made the pledge to make government smaller and less to expensive because we knew it was the only way to avoid what had been the in bev ability -- inevitability of ever-increasing on their businesses, income, and items they purchased. they knewesses, there were ever-increasing taxes as well. we increased -- we decreased billion.taxes by $2.3

billsonomic incentive which are leading to more businesses staying in new jersey and more businesses coming to new jersey and creating jobs. 130 thousand new private sector jobs since we took office in 2010. all these things are things that were hard-earned victories. ultimately, bipartisan victories. during my entire time, we have had a democratic legislature. none of this would have gotten and the -- would have gotten done without our colleagues in the legislature and their support. people ask me what it is like to be a conservative republican governor in a blue state working with a democratic legislature. i have said, these are the people of new jersey. they have an enormous since of humor. [applause] [laughter] they have decided to elect me

twice. and give me a liberal democratic legislature. they're like 13-year-old middle school students in a science class. they take that experiment into the basement. they mix things together. they say, let's see how this will work. what will happen if i mix these two things together? be therection would was nothing but combustibility. combusting me, a soft-spoken thoughtful guy, with the shy thoughtfulft-spoken senate president, would lead to nothing but an academic atmosphere that would lead to the secondouse, oldest one in operating, to be blown up and sent to rubble.

that. not led to that natural skepticism and cynicism that many new jerseyans have has been undercut. factrge measure by the that we have decided to work together to solve problems. we decided to compromise with each other. mean i was get what i want. i wake up every morning security knowledge i will not get nearly everything i want. the good news is, so the steve. that partnership, the most consistent i have had over the last four years, with leaders in the democratic legislature, has led to the economic growth we are seeing in new jersey and an atmosphere that has convinced people there are times when government can work for them. for years andese this progress and made difficult decisions.

now, as we look forward to the next four years, are we going to go forward or backward? this beingples of not hypothetical questions, but actual questions. in issues we are confronting as we speak. first, people have complained in new jersey for as long as i have lived about property taxes. in the 10 years before i became governor, property taxes increased 70% in 10 years. eventrend is so obvious, patrick murray's polls can get this right. just wanted you to know i knew you were here, patrick. we haveast three years, seen three years in a row of property tax growth of less than two percent. [applause] why is that?

it is because for the first time in a long time, we are actually honest with people and each other. we passed the two percent cap that did not have 15 exceptions. cap,-- after we passed the we did the next that you needed to do to make the cap real. so taxes would not increase. services would not be increased -- decreased. that is to cap the celery to public sector workers at two percent. we sunsetted it for april 1 of this year. when i was back negotiating that, while he april -- why we picked fools' day. i think i am beginning to understand.

averaged axes have 1.7% increase over three years. public-sector employee wages average 1.86%. the climate where inflation is 1.1%. the system is working. this year, we propose the renewal of that cap. the legislator sent -- legislature sent me a bill that was riddled with many of the sins of the past. i use that subtle device that governor byrne used many times, the conditional veto, to send it back what i thought was appropriate to keep the progress going. senate jersey state agreed with that conditional veto by a vote of 33-1. we stand here tonight without an interest arbitration cap because the assembly has failed to act. this is one of the moments where that question is being asked.

are we going to go forward or backwards? if we do not pass the cap, let me tell you what will happen. one of two choices will have to be made by mayors, county executives, all across the state. to go to be -- valid to ask permission to raise taxes of up to present. currents know in the climate that is not an election you would want to be on the wrong side of. the alternative, if the voters refuse to increase taxes beyond andpercent, it is broad massive cuts and layoffs. who tells you differently is not telling you the truth. there are only two choices. increase revenue, decrease spending. that is it.

in this context, we have the assembly failing to act. it it is one of the key questions for new jersey's economic growth and vitality. as many of you already know, and i hope you will continue to say out loud, property tax growth that goes back to the seven willnt per year range squash economic growth in the state. from coming tole her state to live and work. that is a fact. the fact that we have to live with and deal with directly. we will continue to work with our partners. partners on both sides of the aisle, a 33-1 vote in the senate, 120 mayors and other county leaders who came with me and the lieutenant governor to urge the assembly to act. we need to move forward on that piece of legislation and get it done.

the next a vital issue we need pensionsith, again, is and public-sector health benefits. let me give you a statistic that should startle you. for fiscal year 16. for the first time in new jersey 's history, we will spend more money on retiree health benefits than on health benefits for active employees. think about that. we will spend more money for the health benefits of people who were doing nothing than for people who are doing something. for our state. if that does not convince you, over $50 billion underfunding of our pension system, that this is a course that is bound to careen us into

economic distress and disaster, i would commend for your review the case study of the city of detroit. the city of detroit which in the 1960's was the wealthiest city in america. bankruptcy.clared they have declared bankruptcy. why? $11 billion in debt. $2 billion in cash during -- i was no math major, but i know that is a problem. of the $11 billion in debt, $9.5 billion was retiree health benefits and pensions. but for those crushing burdens, detroit would not have declared angrily. in the same way we saw general motors and others have to

declare bankruptcy based on the same type of crushing burdens. now i have heard folks in the legislature say, the governor is overdramatizing this. it is not a problem. we will grow out of it. i have to tell you, i have been a long -- around for a while. i used to hear democrats kill republicans for saying we would grow out of federal budget deficits. now in new jersey, we have democrats telling republicans we will grow out of this problem. is there anybody who really believes we will grow out of the $50 billion- underfunding of our pension system? let me tell you what it is doing.

god for bid, to actually cut taxes. here is what it is doing. budget, of year's every new dollar in spending, is to payery dollar for pension, health benefits, and death services. six cents for college education, k-12 education, health care institutions. drug rehabilitation. -- a leadsthing nothing to cut taxes and make our state more affordable for the people who live and work there. this is not a problem we will grow out of, everybody. let me be clear to you.

this is not about politics for me. running it in the state again. i am done. the nextdle through couple of budgets and make do. and leave this mess for the next person. that has been none too many times in the state. new governors who, and with hopes and aspirations and plans. peopley have sold to the of new jersey in good faith, only to find the bag they are left is significantly heavier than anybody told them. remember, in the 2009 election year, the people of new jersey were told that the fiscal year 2011 budget headache $6.5 billion deficit. budget had a $6.5

billion deficit. deficit turned out to be $11 billion. not $6.5 billion. ont gift was left on my desk 2010. this is not about me. this is about the next person, wherever he or she is. what we are going to leave them to deal with. so we can ignore it, if you like. but it is not going away. it will impact each and every one of you and your businesses and employees. i probably will be be least affected person of the bunch. you will see me leaving, waving, smiling, relieved. [laughter] in one who was walking should be the one who is going to be nervous.

let's not do that. we know how to fix these problems. they are fixable. but it means looking people in the eye and telling them they are getting less. they are getting less for a good reason. a happy reason. one should -- that should bring them joy. they are living longer than any actuary anticipated when they set up the systems. that is good news, not bad news. ray governor? -- a governor? governor? [applause] this is not a static game we play. changeses like yours and adjust to different social and economic conditions. if you do not adjust, you will

become a dinosaur and to become extinct. every day, the challenge for the leaders in this room is to read the markets. situation in our society. to adjust your business model to new conditions. you can't say, i set up this business model and adopted it. i don't care about the change conditions. you promised me i could do this. that is not the way it works. why should we believe that government has the entitlement to work that way with other people's money? a $2.25 billion payment to the pension. the largest payment ever made by any governor in the history of new jersey. that payment, the single payment 15, is moreear -

than any governor did. it is not that we are walking away from the obligation. we are stepping up to the obligation. we are not ignoring what needs to be done. despite that, $.94 of every dollar next year will be spent on those three items. that is not a business that is growing. that is a business that is burying itself under obligations it can no longer step up to. are we going to go forward or backward? standard & poor's has told us we are going backwards because we are not dealing with the issue. they commend us for the changes we made in 2011, but they have told us what folks in the legislature are telling you is wrong. you don't have to take it from me. take it from them. they say what we have done is good but not nearly enough.

we are not going to grow out of this. we are going to have to be adults. we are going to have to actually fix it. we are going to to look people in the eye and tell them, cannot do this anymore. thing the federal government refuses to do, we need to set an example to do in new jersey. people inct the washington dc to finally step up to the plate and meet their obligations, tell us the truth on both sides of the aisle, then we better do it ourselves in our own state. or we are nothing but hypocrites. are things better in new jersey than they were four years ago? of course. they are significantly better. revenue in the state budget is higher. businesses are looking to grow and expand. new businesses are coming into new jersey.

they are better. did this can be turned around in the blink of an i -- this can be turned around in the blink of an eye. i would much rather be a flyingr who had revenue in over the transom and my biggest problem was trying to figure out how much to cut taxes, how much to increase programmatic spending on things we care about, investing in our childrens' future, and not be the guy standing here telling you we have to make hard choices and decisions. we need to do that now. we need to do them together. i'd much rather be the other guy. but this is what i have been given. accept a position of leadership, it doesn't come with a guarantee of sunshine and

rainbows. it comes with the guarantee to do something great everyday if you have the guts to do it. i believe i have partners in the legislature who know and understand this and will do this. regardless of party. but we have set up a political system that doesn't reward the people all the time. what is happening in the legislature, they are slathered -- scared. they are scared to have to say this out loud. it is unpleasant. it is difficult. but it is necessary. confront and 2-3 years if we do not do this is a state with declining economic

circumstances. more people departing the state. businesses that are wondering if the investments they made were the smartest and for them to do. we don't want to do that. we don't have to do that. our citizens deserve better than that. much better than that. and so i will continue to talk about this. not as i love to, but because i have to. not because it will bring people out of their seats, applauding wildly, but because i hope it will keep you in your seat thinking about whether or not we be tto be degeneration -- he generation who leaves this place better for our children and grandchildren then it was

for us. our country over the last 238 years has been built on freedom, and each ofsperity, us feeling that solemn obligation. for us togood enough use up the great resources of our state and this country for our own creature comforts and benefits. are smart.e kids they will figure it out. no one did that to us. they gave us a leg up. they gave us an opportunity. to inherit a greater country and state than the one we were given to read -- we were given.

we are now at that crossroads. those problems get bigger, not smaller. we have to decide, all of us, about whether or not we will meet that solemn obligation. i can tell you this. i don't want to be part of the generation that is ultimately judged to have failed the first next to generation of americans. i don't want to be part of the generation that will be judged that way. believe me, we will be judged. we will be judged by how we conduct ourselves in these decisions. when we bury our heads in the withand assuage our guilt the creature comforts we have gotten because of our efforts, but more partly because of the efforts of our ancestors. it is ansy choice. -- easy choice to me. it is time to make a few people

unhappy so the greater good can be achieved. [applause] i don't know who started the applause, but i was hoping to go through the entire thing without any applause at all. you disappoint me a little. this speech is not about me coming here and patting you on the back and telling you how great you are. i am not here for you to tell me that, either. that is not what friends. friends oweot what friends. i came down here tonight to let you all know that despite the fact that the easy route for me would be to cruise for a set -- cruise through a second term and not confront the problems and leave be bad for the next

person, i will not do that. at least not willingly. [applause] the good news of tonight. these problems are fixable. because of the greatness of the people in this room, they are not only fixable, but they can be conquered. i wassk me all the time, at a school in long beach island. i got two great question. me, does youro job come with perks, and is one of them a cell phone? i don't know where kids come up with these questions. the second question was, what is the best part of being governor? tonight telling you the way i answer that. the vest thing about being

ivernor is every morning when get up, i know i have a chance to do something great. i don't do something great everyday. i am human. but i wake up every morning knowing the people of new jersey have blessed me twice with a job that gives me the chance to do something great everyday. if that doesn't get you out of bed, i don't know what well. -- will. despite these challenges, the challenges have molded with the opportunities. this is an enormous challenge we confront. the opportunity is to make new jersey both actually and of civiclly an example mindedness, self-sacrifice, and american greatness that can lead

an example for our entire country. we have done it before. we can do it again. if we do, i suspect that many of the people in this room will be at the forefront of that fight. if you choose to be, i thank you in advance for it. i ask you undecided, to consider the alternative. weaker rnative is a america. that is unthinkable. butjust for our children, for the citizens of the world who need america to be a strong, successful, constant back and -- for what their lives can be. let us resolve together to confront these problems with honesty and integrity. the spirit of togetherness. if we do that, i believe in my

heart that the citizens of our state will reward us with economic growth, opportunity, freedom, and austerity like we have never seen before. -- prosperity like we have never seen before. we will be able to say we have done our jobs. when our time on the earth is over, we will be able to pass the torch on to the next generation, >> we did our job. now it is your turn. if you care that much about our state, said why. let's resolve to fix our problem's honestly and fairly and make this a that are place for our children and grandchildren. thank you very much.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] next, a conversation with u.s. supreme court justice sonia sotomayor or at georgetown university. she talks about her childhood and her legal career, including her time on the high court area she's introduced by judge robert katzman. >> good afternoon, everyone. welcome to georgetown. it is my pleasure to be with you for one of the very special events, the symposium. i wish to express my deepest appreciation to justice

sotomayor for joining us this afternoon. justice, it is an honor to have you here, and i know that i speak for everyone in this room. i would also like to thank the chief judge of the u.s. court of appeals for the second circuit for being with us this afternoon and for all of his work to make this symposium possible. i look forward to introducing him to you in just a few moments. i also want to thank the professor, the associate professor at the law center, for moderating our discussion today. the chair of our government department will offer comments. thank you for joining us for this very special event. >> eloise, you can ask me. >> this is going to get good.

i do a lot of these, so i can tell you this is going to be a lot of fun. the symposium was created in memory. they continue to influence scholars today. at princeton, he served as president. and then for the last seven years of his life, as professor of politics and philosophy here, on our campus that georgetown, it is a privilege for us to host this symposium, and it is an honor for the ongoing discussions with policymakers and students on the challenges and opportunities confronting our institutions.

in past years, we have been glad to welcome valerie jarrett and others to this, and we are deeply grateful. tonight, we have the privilege of welcoming justice sonia sotomayor or and hearing her perspectives on a life in the law. for over three decades, she has served work as a prosecutor, as a litigator, and a judge, and to introduce justice sotomayor or, i want to introduce chief judge katzman for the second circuit. president clinton appointed him to the federal bench in 1999, and he began in september 13. like his mentor, the judge is a valued member of the community, having taught on campus as a professor of government and a professor of law and public policy.

he is currently a member of the board of visitors of our law center and is one of the founders of this symposium, and he continues to oversee and organize. he chaired the conference committee of the judicial branch before his appointment to the second circuit, a fellow of governmental studies programs at the brookings institution, and he taught classes at the universities of oregon and ucla and georgetown. in 2001, he received an award from the american political science association. in 2003, he was named a fellow of the american academy of arts and sciences. we are so honored to welcome me back to campus this afternoon. thank you for your leadership and generosity. you're sustained commitment to our community. ladies and gentlemen, please

join me in welcoming judge katzman. [applause] thank you, president,r extremely kind remarks. it's always great to be back at georgetown and to have a chance to see you and my many colleagues. many here this afternoon stirs the mystic cords of memory. it's a very personal experience. thinking back some two decades ago when the bernstein lecture was launched with vice president gore and continued with so many luminaries. i must also mention another

mentor of mine, daniel patrick moynihan. it's been great to be connected to this georgetown community. i've enjoyed coming back here, enjoyed being on the board of visitors for many years. i've witnessed the hard-headed leadership of dean treanor in these very difficult times. i knew bernstein very well. he really was one of two people who was responsible for my joining the faculty. before we get to the main event, i'm going to speak to you very briefly about three people -- marver bernstein, sonia sotomayor, and eloise pasachoff. my friend marver bernstein admired individuals of professional excellence, committed to public service, of high moral character, and striving to reach beyond their seeming grasp until they attain their aspirations no matter the difficulties. marver bernstein would have loved sonia sotomayor. you students here at georgetown may primarily know of justice sotomayor as a trail-blazing supreme court justice that she

is. upon her nomination to the supreme court, the third woman ever nominated, the first latina, her name and fame skyrocketed so that to this day she can't walk down a street with someone, without someone, a cab driver, a bus driver, anyone, coming up to her and telling how inspiring her life story is, what she means to that person, to that family. time since we've gone out since her appointment. she is accessible to everyone. indeed, she is the people's justice. people of all youths feel a connection with her. those who must struggle every day, often people of color, feel

that their dreams can be realized because of her. the warmth and respect given to my friend is palpable. sonia, regardless of what is going on in her life, is always friendly, takes a photo with the person who comes up to her. she gives it her all to everyone 24/7, 365 days a year. who is she? who is sonia sotomayor? i remember sonia sotomayor in law school. she stood out for a number of reasons. she was brilliant, principled, hard-working, determined, caring about others, generous and full of life. after law school we lived in different cities had different jobs. and this being before e-mail and internet lost touch. but our paths crossed again when she was considered for judicial appointment to the southern district of new york by president clinton and senator moynihan. i can well remember saying to senator moynihan when he said, "who is sonia sotomayor?" , and i said, "well, she's brilliant, principled, hard-working, determined, caring

about others, generous, full of life, and will make an outstanding judge on the district court. and beyond." i joined the 2nd circuit in 1999. she was on it beginning in 1998. we fast became close colleagues. on the second circuit if asked how would i describe her, i would say, well, brilliant, principled, hard-working, determined, caring about others, generous and full of life. and now almost five years on the supreme court i would say pretty much the same. as someone very proud to call sonia a close friend, i can personally attest to her extraordinary prowess and excellence on the bench. she is a judge's judge, a lawyer's lawyer. no one loves the law, its structure, its history, its language more than she does. taking apart an argument,

pulling apart the pieces, analyzing the logic, tracing the precedent, connecting the case of the constitution, relating the issues to history and today's world, satisfy her intellectually and i think emotionally. she loves what she does. no one on the bench is more prepared than she is for oral argument. no one more eager than she is to explore what is going on on a case in the effort to get it right, to get that decision right. thinking about sonia sotomayor, it is not just her professional dedication and excellence i admire. it is also her incredible generosity as a friend to so many. she is a friend, as i've said, for all seasons, in good times and bad. i also admire her ability to live a full life, to incorporate life's great pleasures be it travel, dance, restaurants, an expansive social life.

now, whether you're interested in law or not, the justice history of her life can't help but interest you. each of you here today is the beneficiary, will be the beneficiary, of an extraordinary gift. the justice is my beloved world, extraordinarily autographed by her for each of you. think about that. 1,000 copies autographed by a busy supreme court justice. [applause] by the way, i know you're going to love that book so much. it's free to you, but you're going to go out and buy some more copies. [laughter] it's available in paperback for your siblings, your friends, your cousins. i fully expect that of each of you.

"my beloved world" is a book for the ages, attesting to the extraordinary life, an industrious life, of a highly accomplished and truly accomplished cosmopolitan lawyer and judge. the world inspires us, gives hope to dream, to overcome obstacles to not give up, to realize the potential that is within each of us no matter our life circumstance. no wonder "my beloved world" within days of being published was ranked number one on "the new york times" bestseller where it lived for weeks and weeks. for us, her readers, "my beloved world" is now our beloved world. and for many reasons, as we will explore, this compellingly readable, multi-layered memoir about an important judge is already an american classic. justice sotomayor and i share in common a former clerk, eloise

pasakoff, now a distinguished professor of law at georgetown university law center. i first met eloise nearly a decade ago. she was not only an amazing law clerk with a penetrating mind, sharp analytical skills, and mature judgment. she was and is a wonderfully giving person. her career has been nothing short of spectacular, few beta kappa from harvard, mpa from kennedy school of government, harvard law school. she was in 2012, the steven s. goldberg awardee for distinguished scholarship and education law, already a beloved teacher. her teaching and research interests include education, social welfare law and policy, administrative law, governance, and regulation. i predict that if she's not a dean or a university president

or a judge, who knows, the sky's the limit. she's really extraordinary. so when thinking about this evening, eloise pasachoff immediately came to mind. it is now my great honor and privilege to present in conversation the extraordinary eloise pasachoff and my friend and my sister, the truly extraordinary associate justice sonia sotomayor. [applause] >> well, thank you, judge, for that incredibly generous introduction. hello, justice sotomayor.

>> hello, eloise. >> it is such a pleasure to be with you here today. >> i always love having you back. i don't think he mentioned that she was my law clerk my first year as a supreme court justice. that's what we share in common, but we share a whole lot of other things in common. when he called me sister, i called him my brother. and you can see why. no one could have a more loyal and supportive friend than bobcatsman. and i joke with him all the time that there is a protocol in the federal system. you get to be chief judge by seniority. and i was appointed before bob. and in the normal course of things, i would have been chief judge first and he would have followed me. so to speed up his appointment, he managed to get me appointed to the supreme court. [laughter] >> so i actually wanted to start

by talking with you a little bit about your first day on the supreme court, which i was privileged to watch as one of the law clerks your first year. so just to set the scene a little, the senate confirmed you on a thursday. i recall i think you were sworn in over the weekend. >> mm-hmm. >> and monday morning, 9:00 a.m., there you showed up for work. >> i did. but actually, it was earlier because i showed up and went to the gym first. >> oh, well. [laughter] as judge katzmann says, she lives a full life. has a good set of priorities. >> and i went to the gym, and i came back. and sitting in the outer office talking to the law clerks was justice stevens who became a dear and very close friend in the year i served with him. we went into the office. he welcomed me to the court. and i said to him, "i had just asked the security guards that morning if you were in the

courthouse and they told me you hadn't arrived yet" he said, "i wanted to beat you to the office." so we're talking, and in walks sandra day o'connor. now, you have to understand, from the moment i had been nominated by the president on memorial day in that may, something happened to me where i had an outer body experience. for a year and a half it seemed to me as if i was watching myself go through these incredible things that were happening around me. it was almost as if i had to disengage from my emotions or i would become so overwhelmed that i would be ineffective. and this was yet again another one of those continuing moments where two icons of mine in the law walked in to say hello to

me. that was the start of my morning. as you must understand, it is breathtaking. i lived for a year and a half hoping nobody woke me up from my dream, that nobody would pinch me and that i would wake up and think this was just a fantasy. but that was the start of my day. >> what a start. >> yeah. >> so i wanted to ask you about one of my recollections of that first day as well. in addition to meeting all of the other justices who were in the building, you also made a point of going around and meeting all of the elevator operators. we went to the cafeteria, and you made a point of meeting the workers. >> we had lunch. >> we did have lunch. >> are you going to tell them they made me chair -- >> they made her chair of the cafeteria committee. she does important work. >> yeah. and the following july "the washington post" did an

evaluation of the government cafeterias in the city. and the supreme court cafeteria got an f. [laughter] >> i think it would have gotten an f-minus beforehand. >> at any rate, the chief sends me a letter the next day because elana kagan had been nominated. he said, sonia, you're fired. i wrote back and said, "this was according to plan." [laughter] at any rate, yes, we did do that that day. i was overwhelmed by the building, by the way. >> it is a beautiful building. >> for those of you who are coming to this university, if you don't take the time to come to the supreme court and take a tour, you're doing yourself a big disfavor. it is not only a beautiful building. it's an impressive historic building. and our tours will teach you so much about the law and about the constitution and about our

seriousness as justices concerning the role we play in protecting the constitution. so i encourage everybody. i know how busy you can be as students. i was one of them. i did very little exploring of the community i lived in, but it is worthwhile to take advantage of coming to the court one day. it's important. >> one of the things i took from your meeting with the justices, from meeting with the elevator operators and the folks in the cafeteria is that in addition to the majesty of the law, in the ways you've just spoken of, that the law is a human institution and that relationships matter. >> well, one of the things that i became struck with my very first day and it continued and has continued to this day is how many employees in the supreme court have been there either since the beginning of their careers or for decades.

one of them that day came to visit me, the head of our historical society. he said to me, "justice, i love this institution. and because i love this institution i will be your friend forever and i will guard you and your reputation and the court's reputation with my own life." that attitude sort of comes through the building. but what you're asking is something a little bit different. i very much understand that in one succeeds by themselves. i often hear some people say, "i made it on my own, nobody helped me." and i keep thinking inside of me that's just not true. it can't be and isn't true of anybody because whether you run

a business or you're in an office or you're a supreme court justice, you've got people working around you to support your effort. and if you don't take the time to recognize that, then you're forgetting that basic truth. we don't work alone. you have to be grateful to those who help you. and that's in part what my book was about, was to talk to people about looking around their lives and recognizing those who have participated in reaching where they are. >> let's talk a little bit about that more. there's a real theme in the book about the role of mentors and the role of being open to finding mentors, working with mentors, but also about the role of taking ownership of your own learning and seeking opportunities to learn out. there's a wonderful story in the book about how you sought out

one of your 5th grade classmes to ask her how to study. i wonder if you could tell us -- well, tell us that story. it's a great story. then maybe tell us a little bit about how you see these themes of working with mentors and taking charge of your own learning at the same time maybe in a way that would be relevant for the folks in the audience. >> you'll learn in the book that i started out in grammar school as a not very good student. i attribute a great deal of that to the fact that i had started my life learning spanish before english. and it wasn't until i got to school that i actually began to be taught english. so rather four rocky years of school of not quite understanding what was happening around me. and obviously my grades reflected that. then my dad dies, and we had a prolonged period of time in which my mom was depressed.

i fled to reading to be able to escape the sadness in my home. that may, in some ways, have saved my life because it gave me a window of another world. i tell kids all the time reading is your passport to the universe. you can visit anyplace, not only in the world but in the entire universe, just through books. now, for most of you, you're doing it through television and the internet, but there's still something very special and magical about using words in books to paint pictures in your head. that's where i think creative talent comes from. so it was real important when i was writing my book to paint pictures of my world with words.

and that's what i tried to do. i hope i've succeeded. i think i have. what i understood in that 5th grade class was -- i do have a competitive nature. i say in the book that mostly grade class was -- i do have a it's competition with myself, but i had a 5th grade teacher who did something a lot of teachers don't do now, which is she would give you a gold star every time you did well on an assignment. and i wanted to collect those and i wanted to collect those gold stars. but i didn't know how to study. so i was trying to figure it out, and i couldn't because if i had known how to do it, i would have done it. ok? [laughter] what i realized -- in part it came intuitively, but i understood that there was

something i was doing wrong or not doing right, as the case may be. and that there were other kids who knew how to do it. so i went to my friend, donna -- she's still a friend now -- and said to her, "how do you study?" i think she was a little shocked and looked at me and said, "you don't know how to study?" and i said, "no. how do you do it?" she explained her method. i went home and tried it. and after that i did pretty well in school. and obviously over time i figured out my own shortcuts, my own ways to do things. i'm often asked what's the greatest obstacle in your life. what's the greatest obstacle to success? i tell them it's the fear of being embarrassed, of not asking for help when you don't know something.

how many lawyers -- i'm sure you saw it in the year that you were with me on the supreme court and i know i've seen it in my 20-plus years as a judge in my different courts. you ask them a question, they don't know the answer. and instead of saying i don't know the answer, they blunderbust and try to make something up. and then they're skewered by the judges. ok? it's not much fun. but they seem to fear more the saying i don't know, the embarrassment of that, than the embarrassment of failure in finding the right answer. and i think for me, i understood very, very early on that asking for help is the most important thing to do. that's what finding mentors is about.

for me, who should be your mentor? someone who can do something you can't do. and someone who can do something you can't do and knows how to do it well so that you can learn from them, so you can take from them their experience, their knowledge, and try to adopt it to fill in a hole that you may have in your learning. that's how i define a mentor. and everybody -- one person doesn't have to do everything for you. a lot of people think that a mentor has to be the only person you go to to ask questions. i think you look around in every part of your life and you try to figure out who is doing that thing that i would like to do better, knows how to do it, and what can i learn from them. now, obviously when you pick a mentor, please pick somebody that you respect and like. it should be someone whose

values, whose sense of integrity, whose sense of interacting with people are things that you think are worthwhile to emulate. if you do that, you're likely to be picking a person, a, who has a heart and, b, who will take the time to teach you. if you find somebody that you can't make a mentor of through your efforts, then they may not be worth it. look more broadly as to why not. because i do think that people who have those qualities i spoke about -- integrity, a sense of fairness, a sense of caring -- they're people who if you work with them will give back to you. >> those values fit perfectly with another theme i wanted to ask you about which is the importance of public service. there's many moments in the book, in your life, that you've

had the opportunity either to seek out some important kind of public service or that somebody has asked you to participate in public service. so i wanted to just ask you to reflect a little bit about why and how you sought those opportunities out and maybe what they taught you about yourself and the world. >> there's nothing more boring to me than living in my own head all the time. seriously. if you spend your life in the i, i need, i want, i think, i feel, that becomes pretty boring and very limiting because your sense of self is only fed by you and that's limited by you. and by that i mean you can only give so much to yourself because you need to feed yourself in

positive ways to be able to create and give back in more meaningful ways. so i understood that from public service mostly when i got to college where i began to do a little bit of it and realized that each experience gave me so much more in return, than i gave it, because it taught me about people, about their needs, about the structure of society. some of its weaknesses in

helping people. in one of the first community projects i got involved in in college, it came as a result of reading in the local newspaper that a gentleman had been coming from puerto rico and the plane had been diverted from a new york airport to newark. while at newark, when it landed, he became a little bit upset because he didn't understand what was happening around him. today we think of the u.s. as being filled with bilingual people, but remember, we're talking about the 1970's where there was a sizeable hispanic population but it was not as sizeable as it is today. and bilingualism wasn't as welcome the back then as now. anyway in his agitation he became a little bit unruly and the police stepped in and took him to trenton psychiatric hospital.

it took weeks for someone who understood spanish to interview him and to determine that he wasn't crazy but that -- what had happened and reach out to his family before he was released. that story shook me. the idea this a group of patients in a hospital had no one to talk to in their own language really bothered me. so i went to the latino community on princeton's campus and i asked them whether they would join me in volunteering there once a week. we would take turns. and just go to talk to the people there. we had holiday parties. we had get-togethers. we played games with them, for those who could participate, obviously. and we just provided companionship.

it wasn't as if we were treating them. we didn't have any capacity to do that. but that experience actually made me feel better about not myself but better about understanding the world and trying to change it a step at a time. a lot of people think that the only change you can do that's meaningful is change that i do in the position i hold. it's pretty impressive sometimes when i get to write a really great opinion or when i'm in the majority in a really great opinion. [laughter] when i'm in the descent, it's a little disappointing but even then i've been a voice in the conversation. those big things impress a lot of people, but they're not the things that matter to most people. it's those little things. it's the human companionship. it's the trying to make the community you live in a little bit better, a little bit happier.

so that's what i think public service is. it's the kind of public service that says to people, you don't have to be a politician. you can work in almost any endeavor you want and make a difference in people's lives by just giving some time and some effort to that enterprise. judge katzmann mentioned dean treanor earlier. you know that dean treanor here and as he did in his prior deanship, has always believed that the law should have some practical effect and that students who are in law school should be working in that area so that it's not always theoretical. you can remain theoretical. and boy, do i do that a lot. ok?

that's what a lot of my job is about. but the other part of it is being a human being and giving in those small circles around you. >> i'm going to follow up on that -- >> so hence my first day of meeting the people in the cafeteria. >> right. right. right. right. so i'm going to ask you now a little bit about your day job but also in sort of the context of the previous two judicial day jobs you held. i think when president obama nominated you, i think he said -- well, you had 17, i think, years of judicial service, which i think he said was more than any other justice had had in the past 100 years. that's a lot of experience. so you are sort of uniquely qualified to talk a little bit about the differences in the kinds of work you've done at each of those levels. maybe for the students here you could just talk a little bit

about your role as a district court judge, role as a circuit court judge, and how those things contrast or compare with your current job. and maybe if there's anything you miss about your work on the other two courts that would be interesting to hear also. joern new york. we know you miss new york. >> horribly. the supreme court would be perfect if i could cut it out and put it in lower manhattan. [laughter] some people are clapping. i actually miss all of my two prior jobs because each was very different and important in meaningful ways. quoting a colleague, rina rodgey who once said work a district court is controlled chaos but chaos nevertheless. ok?

the pace of a district court judge is like -- judge's life is non-stop. you are running from, every day, 200 and whatever days a year you work if not more, from one judicial activity to another. you're having hearings, but you're having multitude of different kinds of hearings, whether they're suppression hearings, discovery hearings, plea hearings. i could keep naming them. there's a wide variety of types of interactions that you're having with lawyers and different kinds of legal situations that you're dealing with. this is on top of sitting in on trials where a wide variety of procedures take place that are each different in and of themselves -- picking the jury, working with lawyers on opening statements, the presentation of evidence, the preparation of charges afterwards so that can you tell the jury what it's supposed to do, and then supervising the jury's deliberations.