looks like she has gotten an official offer from miles college. we close the article with. it is a historically black college. i never doubted that she would find a way to go to college. the girl is very determined. that is good news. host: rank you for joining us. -- thank you for joining us. that wraps up "washington journal." c-span2, c-span3, book tv and american history tv. rg as well.to ahtv.o thank you for being with us. enjoy your day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> coming up later today, remarks by kevyn orr, the emergency manager for detroit. asis overseeing the finances they emerge from bankruptcy. he announced it tension agreement with a number of detroit employees. live coverage of his remarks scheduled to begin at 1:00 p.m. eastern. this past tuesday, the supreme court heard arguments in a case andlving the aereo company whether it in french on rights of networks by offering programs

without paying copyright fees. you can hear that argument and comments from the attorneys tonight at 8:00 eastern. at 2:15 eastern, whistleblowers talk about the challenges they face in exposing wrongdoing. here's a portion of the program. snowden looked at these look at chelsea manning, assange, realize he had to be out of the country if he was going to put out this amount of information and to be able to tell what he had done and why he had done and to comment as he has been doing. speak -- i was out on bond throughout my trial and i was able to speak to demonstrations, lectures, to do this and that. there is not a chance in the world that snowden would have been able to do that. he knew, from looking at chelsea

manning, he would be an -- in an isolation cell for the rest of his life. no journalists, to this day, noe has smoking -- journalist has spoken to chelsea manning. not in four years. no interviews, no nothing. they will not. you are not allowed to speak to them in prison now. snowden had to be out of the country. he learned from that. he learned that you need to put out a lot of documents. all the more reason he had to be out. one reason we have seen earlier, what makes a whistleblower -- it turns out -- it is pretty hard to do it turns out. people knew the secrets, knew the truth, and many of those, perhaps most of them knew that these involved life or death matters on which major lies were

being told. where the truth could make a difference, and yet, they did not speak out. we have to change the culture of secrecy. change the benefit of the doubt that is given wrongly to politicians and to the president in terms of what the public should know and should not know. thinking that clapper or keith alexander, or the president should be the last word on what the public should know about what they are doing in our name represents a culpable ignorance at this point. any ofhave lived through these things, these people do not deserve the benefit of the doubt at this point. ,ehind the veil of secrecy extremely bad, disastrous policymaking goes on. it has no accountability.

thee have learned from pentagon papers, documentation, as we have learned from snowden. papers, whichiraq , theill do not have decision-making is actually very bad. stupid,t only criminal, it is also stupid and ignorant to a large extent. it is not subjected to a larger debate, even within the government. let alone within the public. the reason that the constitution , that tom has been talking about, is not indeed obsolete. it was a good idea then and it is still a good idea. it has to be defended. ,efended against people starting with those copresidents and their minions, and many people in the press, after 9/11, we have a new kind of threat for which the constitution, 200

years old, was not suited. we need a different form of government in which it is true that if the president does it, it is not illegal. we have no choice but to leave it up to him to decide what to tell us. >> you can see the entire program, which also includes thomas drake. it also includes a former ethics official who now advises edward snowden. easterntomorrow at 2:15 on c-span. president obama is in south korea today. he had been in japan since tuesday. writinghington post" about his meeting. north korea is already the most isolated country in the world, by far. its people suffer terribly because of the decisions leaders have made. we are not going to find a magic

bullet that solves this problem overnight. will talk with leaders in the philippines and malaysia. he will be the first president to visit that nation since lyndon johnson in 1966. he will return to washington on tuesday. thank you, mr. speaker. >> the death of trayvon martin is an american tragedy. often, violent acts resulted ,n the murder of trayvon martin they are repeated in the streets of our nation. allplaud the young people across the land who are making a

about hoodies and the natihoodlums in this on. racial profiling has to stop, mr. speaker. just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlum. -- bible teaches us >> the member will -- >> we will show the man what is good, what does and does not require you, love mercy and to

walk humbly with your god. testament, it teaches us these words -- the spirit of the lord is upon me because he me --ointed >> the gentleman will suspend. >> i urge all to hear these words, to heed these lessons, may god [indiscernible] >> the member is no longer recognized. the chair will last be sergeant at arms to enforce the prohibition on the core -- on decor. clause five of rule 17 prohibits the rule of -- the wearing of hats when the house is in

session. members need to remove their hoods or leave the floor. >> find more highlights in our facebook page. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. ruthrsonal stories from bader ginsburg and colleagues and friends from canada and israel. they share what it took to rise above the odds to reach the tops of their fields.

>> good afternoon, everyone and welcome to the national museum of women in the arts where women, the arts, and leadership come together every day. and we are so glad to have you here for this evening with our three justices. we are very pleased to be partnering once again with the embassy of france and especially i want to give a thanks to madame sofie for being a wonderful partner with us. [applause] my remarks tonight are logistics. we will have this wonderful conversation this evening and that will end with q&a. at 6:00 we will go to the third floor for a reception and then dinner will be an hour later, i promise, at 7:00 p.m. town in the great hall. i would like to introduce madame dalatra to make her remarks.

thank you very much. >> rest reassured we will be switching to english. this is a very personal event and i really want to thank you all for being here tonight. many of you have come from outside of washington, from chicago and new york and canada and really it is very special. you are here because of the three extraordinary women. each of whom i have had the privilege of getting to know. justice abella from the supreme court of canada, the justice from the supreme court of israel and justice ginsberg from the supreme court united states. before we introduce each of the justices and begin an historic

and extraordinary conversation i want to say about how this event came to being and why we wanted to do it. justice and her husband erving were friends when we were posted in canada a few years ago. i was, as you will all be tonight, moved by her personal journey and undying faith in humanity. i also learned that she and justice ginsberg were girlfriends. when we moved to washington it seemed natural to arrange a conversation between these two extraordinary women. that opportunity arose when i had the privilege of attending a small private dinner at the former mayor of montclair's home. she had justice ginsberg with her and i said ask her if she would be interested in conversation and she immediately agreed and she said well, why don't we invite doris my friend?

and so it then became this threesome with chief justice dorek. it would not have been possible had justice ginsberg not reached out. this evening is the result of many extraordinary women who pulled resources together. mary, which we just talked about, the three justices, of course. mrs. willhelmina. judy woodruff an icon in journalism. mrs. bennett, a force of nature in washington. my friend connie millstein. and many, many others. this evening's conversation is truly historic and for the first time we gather three women from

three supreme courts who are girlfriends and from three countries. they are each a living monument. at a time when so many people are asking where are the women, this evening is a response. they are here. they are there. they are everywhere. we just have to look. we have to ask. we have to listen and we have to act. and france, my country, is taking action. each of us in this room has the power to identify leaders and become a leader ourselves. what has astounded me with the three justices from very different backgrounds growing up in different countries, each took very similar paths. canada, united states the israel, each of these women were firsts in their countries. the issues of womens rights is a conversation worldwide across all cultures.

we are looking to identify those leading the path for change and today we have an opportunity to give three of them even more visibility. when you think about it, these women have an impact on the future of their countries for generations to come. elected officials decisions can be altered by the courts, and it is the supreme courts that define some of those difficult issues today which will impact future generations. in the decades that follows as historians look at cultural changes in our societies around the world these leaders will be at the forefront. historians will read their decisions and interviews and biographies and this one will stand out. we hope you enjoy this evening. now may i please allow judy woodruff to begin this historic conversation. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you, for being the inspiration behind this evening. what a treasure it is to bring these three extraordinary women together. it is not only my great privilege, it is an extraordinary honor and a great pleasure to be here with you. i want to thank susan sterling for introducing us and wilhelmina holiday whose idea it was to have the museum and have the conversation in the perfect place in the city of washington and at this moment. let's get started. no more time wasting. these are, as you just heard from sophie, three path-breaking women. you have the full biographies in the program. i want to remind everybody about

who they are and where they came from truly. i'm going to lead off the conversation and then we will leave some time at the end for questions from you in the audience. so keep that in mind as we talk. first, from your left, the honorable justice rosalie silverman ibella. having been appointed in 2004. she was just 29 years old when first appointed as a judge. making her the youngest and first pregnant judge in canadian history. she had practiced civil and criminal law for several years and from the family court moved to the ontario court of appeal before being named to the supreme court. along the way she has been actively engaged in employment equity, labor relations law, access to legal services by those with disabilities. she is considered and for so many other reasons, and is considered one of canada's

foremost experts in human rights law. the justice was born in a displaced persons camp in germany soon after the end of world war ii. her family came to canada as refugees four years later. besides the distinguished legal credentials she has a degree from the royal conservatory of music in piano. justice abella. [applause] >> next the honorable dorit. she served in the capacity for six years, the first woman in that position. she was recognized, among many

other things, for her focus on protecting civil rights and human rights, women, and socially vulnerable immigrant workers and emphasized the importance of judicial review of activities of the executive branch of israel's government. her service as president of the supreme court followed 10 years as justice of that court. prior to this she served as a district attorney, director and deputy in the state attorney's office and as the state attorney of israel. the first woman in that position. she was born in tel aviv. justice dorit benish. [applause] >> and third, someone we know very well, the honorable ruth bader ginsberg, associate justice of the united states. justice ginsberg serving in her 21st year, only the second woman appointed to the u.s. supreme court when she was named in 1993 by president clinton. prior to her appointment she spent 13 years serving as a federal appeals court judge for the district of columbia.

that followed a distinguished teaching career at rutgers university where she cofounded the first law journal in this country to focus exclusively on women's rights and at columbia university. as general counsel of the american civil liberties union she argued landmark cases before the supreme court on gender discrimination. she was described in a profile by the new yorker magazine as the supreme court's most accomplished litigator. she was born in brooklyn, new york. and as a measure of how far women in the law have come when she graduated from law school in 1959 at the top of her class she did not receive a single job offer. justice ruth bader ginsberg. [applause] i want to start by talking where you grew up and how you

grew up. it is clear by talking to you and reading about what you have written and said in the past that that shaped you. start with you, justice ginsberg. brooklyn. growing up. tell us just a little bit about what it was like. >> i grew up with world war ii -- the overwhelming presence. it was both a sad time and then i remember the exhilaration in this country first on d day and then vj day. we were doing ting contribute to the war efforts so we were saving the wrappers from our gum, the tin foil to roll them into bags.

we had victory gardens in our school and we saved from our allowance money to buy stamps to buy war bonds so that the end of world war ii i think was a very hopeful time in our country. >> and so it was new york city and you spent your formative years in the heart of that city. not travel, not a lot of travel but right there in the heart of that busiest, most populous city in the country. >> yes. and in addirondacks in the summer. >> and that is a good thing. that is a good thing.

justice what about you, you said you were born in tel aviv. tell us a little about growing up, your family. >> i was born in tel aviv. it was my parents came in 1933 to israel which was then palestine. it wasn't the state of israel. they were kind of pioneers active for the movement for jewish people coming to israel. my mother was a kindergarten teacher which was i think the most famous in israel for many years for the important that she thought to education and to educate young children. she wrote in this field and she was very active. my father was working in public service. it wasn't an easy time, it was

time of war and everything. when i was born, it was world war ii. at that time the last post card that my family got from my grandparents and my aunt from poland was congratulations for the baby and then they were murdered there. they didn't want to come because they thought it will be a burden on their children to be there in palestine and, of course, no one foresaw what the terrible future for them. i was always interested in education as a child even, in public activity and it was just by chance that i came to law and came to love it so much. so i grew where we spoke hebrew, we were -- the first israelis,

i was 6 years old when the state was established. >> 6 years old. >> when, when the state was established. >> do you remember that? >> yes, it was such an excitement that even a 6-year-old child can remember. it was really excitement and the war was and we were during the war, of course. and you know, we all accompany the development of this state since my childhood. and maybe up to today. so that is the background in which i grew up. >> you really grew up with israel at the same time. >> yes, yes. >> now, you were born the war in many ways brought the three of you together, different times and different plays but affected all of you. >> defining for the three of us. >> you were born in germany as we mentioned. what is a displaced persons camp? >> my parents were polish.

my father was a lawyer who grad -- graduated in krakow and my mother's family were business people in the city of poland. they were there and operating under german agis. they got married september 3, 1939. and then, had a child and spent four years in concentration camp. the child was killed. they found each other -- it is quite a remarkable story when i listen to my parents tell it. my father ended up in a different place from my mother. when she came back to poland she found out where my father was and rode the rails to prague but

there was a typhoid epidemic. nobody was allowed in so she snuck in with the garbage detail. she found him in the back of the camp, frail listening to the radio, because they were announcing who had survived. they ended up in germany. i'm just stunned by the decision to have more children after something like that, but i was born july 1, 1946 so it was very soon after they got together. and they made us speak german. my mother tongue is german because they wanted us to feel like we belonged. so on some level that i didn't really understand i realized there wasn't any hate, there was just the desire to overcome and make us feel normal. they spoke polish to each other and my grandmother spoke yiddish. my father taught himself english and was hired as a lawyer for

displaced persons. i have wonderful letters from judges and lawyers qualifying him and recommending him for when he was able to come into canada which we were finally able to do in 1950. >> why did he choose canada? >> he had a relative here. canada had, as you know, not a great record of allowing in jewish refugees. >> shout out for your husband. >> right here. but more of him later. i remember my father -- one of my earliest memories in canada, they quickly learned english and switched to english in the home. and i remember my father coming back from having gone to the loss society of upper canada to say i am, i speak english, i'm a

lawyer, i have done my eight years of training in europe and the americans have hired we, -- hired me. what do i have to do to practice law in ontario and they said you can't, you have to be a citizen. that would have taken five years and he had me and my sister and my mother to look after so he became an insurance well and did really well. i never heard him complain. but there was a moment when i think about it when my brain said fine, if they won't let him be a lawyer i'm going to be a lawyer. so i spent my life going to -- >> how old were you when -- >> 4. so i spent my life going to barmitzvahs and wedding when people said what are you going to be when you grow up i said a lawyer. i knew no women who were lawyers. all i knew was he couldn't be it and he wanted to be it and i would be it. it wasn't until i was 13, i read

a lot of big books on weekends because nobody ever asked me out but that is okay. and i read -- >> somehow we don't believe this. >> i thought it so hard to believe now when you -- [laughter] >> what can i tell you? so les miseraables was the book that made me see what justice was and injustice was. the childhood aspiration caught up with a theory of fairness and i thought okay it was good that i decided to be a lawyer. but i didn't know any women who were lawyers and when i got pregnant in 1973 with our first son i didn't know any mothers who were lawyers but i was tenacious in my desire to replace what he couldn't be. but the most important thing about my childhood as an immigrant you have zero expectation of entitlement.

it is all about opportunity. it is all about working really hard to pay back the country for letting you to be a member, working really hard in school so you are the top student in school. i played piano two hours every day because it was important to my parents. they wanted it and i was all about making sure that i lived in accordance with their values. and you know, it was of all -- we don't grow up in a jewish neighborhood. there were maybe two or three kids that were jewish of all of the kids i knew growing up, public school and high school. it was the happiest home. they never complained. they never were bitter. there was no sadness. i never had a sense of demons in the house and i didn't know until much older that that was not typical for the homes of survivors. they made me think i could do anything and i can't take any credit for it.

they also said you will get married and have children. i mean this is jewish, right? of course, you can be a lawyer but you are going to get married and have children. but in a way it was easier because there wasn't should i do this or should i do this. it was a merger of aspirations and -- >> you will get married and have children. >> and you will be a lawyer. >> justice ginsberg, i don't think you mentioned your occupation of your parents. what sort of influence did they have and other family members have on your ultimate interest in the law? >> my mother was an avid reader. she never dreamed, i never dreamed that it would be possible to be a lawyer. i was going to be a high school history teacher.

people asked me did you always want to be a judge? i said when i got out of law school the object was to get a job. any job in the law. these were pretitle seven days so employers were up front that they didn't want any women. the law school -- my class in law school had about 500 students, nine of them were women. so you can imagine what a tremendous opportunity i had when the women's movement came alive again at the end of the 1960's and there i was, a law teacher and able to contribute whatever talent i had to nudge this movement a little further. >> what do you think pulled you

in the direction of the law and toward the idea of wanting to have something to do with justice? >> in large part it was a professor that i had at cornell university. his name was robert e. cushman. i attended from 1950 to 1954. a bad time for our country. it was the heyday of senator joseph mccarthy who saw a communist in every corner. and my professor wanted me to understand that our country was straying from its most basic values, that there were lawyers representing people, many of them in the entertainment industry, who were reminding our house on american activities committee and senate security committee that our constitution has a first amendment, freedom of expression, and a fifth

amendment, protecting people from self-incrimination. so it was the idea that a lawyer was a profession and it was a field in which you could make things a little better. now, i have to say also that my family was not too keen on the idea of my going to law school mainly because they were interested in my being able to support myself. but then, when marty and i married, it was okay to be a lawyer because if it didn't work out i had a man to support me. [laughter] >> so the heat was -- they were relaxed about it after that? >> yes. >> i'm curious about how you all have spoken a little bit about,

you know, the direction of the law but it wasn't just the law. you all have been advocates in our own way. you have all as we mentioned human rights has been a passion for all of you. but along the way there was something that kept you going. it wasn't just as you are saying, it wasn't just seeing that laws get passed by legislative bodies or that lawyers get a case argued, it was about, as justice ginsberg just said, making things better. was there a point when you heard a voice, justice bainisch inside your head that said this is what i want? >> you know, looking backwards, to be sincere, i think how did i come to law. it wasn't my first -- my first dream was to be also a high school teacher for history. and i went to the university to study history and literature.

but really, i believed that you have to do something for your society. this was part of the education i got at home and i thought the best thing is to influence society through education to be with a young generation. i don't know how last minute decision was that i have to do a change from my routine thinking about education and i thought it was a revolution to go into law school. >> where did that idea come from? >> i don't know. because i wanted a change. and once i started i really fell in love with this profession, with law. you know, my surrounding everyone, i always tell the story that after i went, i started to law school i met my school master from high school. she was a very important personality in education. very influencial.

and she said dorit, what are you going to study? i was then just released from the military service. i said well, i decided on law. she was so disappointed. [laughter] >> at the end, she said you know, if you will be a judge in the juvenile courts this could be good. >> why was she disappointed initially? >> i think she didn't know anything. she had values about young people. what do they do? how can we contribute? only when i started law school i realize you can contribute much more than any other field. it took time.

she thought that lawyers have their business, and this is a sin. we were looking for something with value. little girls come to me many times and they say, what shall i do to be a judge, and i always wonder, i never thought of being a judge when i was your age. you just do good what you have to do. it comes if you do that. it's easier said than done, but they already start when they are eight years old, 10 years old,

12, to think what should they do? >> law is still a first degree in israel, isn't it? >> yes. >> you were rather young when you entered law school. >> we were not 18. more than two years, and only then i started law school. it's the second after you study your first degree. i started when i was 20 years old. at this time i really thought i would prefer literature and history. i love every minute of it.

>> the first woman on the israeli supreme court, who was it? >> it was in the 1970's. i think women's career in law in israel was in a way easier than in the united states. >> why? >> because someone has paved the way. during the british mandate in israel and palestine, they had a mandate. women were not allowed to argue cases in court. they had to fight for that. they came to london. they learned women could argue

cases in court. someone paved the way. we didn't have many women in the profession, but we had some when i started to study. >> in the 1970's the first woman justice. it was a few years before. what about being a woman? >> you made a very important point. it was inconceivable when we were young and even when we started practicing law that we would ever be a judge. inconceivable. there were no women judges. one of the reasons that was an advantage, and especially if you are kind of an outsider. i know it's hard to talk about it if you are on the supreme court, but we know what it feels

like to be an outside insider. you do what you feel is the right you to do. >> what do you mean? >> if you know you are different. i was jewish, immigrant, female in a male profession that was largely -- grandfather was a supreme court judge. father was a supreme court judge. it can be a great advantage to understand you are different, that you are never going to be like anyone else, and that's good. enjoy the fact that you are different. don't try to homogenize. you do things not to the possibility of an ultimate objective, i.e., one day i want to be on the supreme court. and you measure all your choices. you take risks. you say, sure, i will run a

labor board. i will be judge at 29. nothing was against my ultimate objective because i was having a wonderful ride in the legal profession. i now give advice when i am asked to young people and say you don't know where you're going to end up. give yourself a chance. the great tin pan alley songwriter was asked, what comes first, the music or the words, and he said the phone call. i get that. the other advantage our generation had is we had the banality of the 50's with the un-american activity, but then you had the 1960's.

the women's movement, race, and in the 1970's the dialogue came. we were a generation in which change was all around us. that was a great advantage. to be a lawyer in an environment where it was all about legal change, where you have all these groups screaming for entry into the mainstream, that was a privileged time. we wanted a better world. >> what did that time feel like for you? you were teaching during a chunk of your career in the 1970's.

>> 1963 until i got my first good job in d.c. >> what did that feel like to you? you plunged right in. you were involved in civil rights issues from the beginning. >> exhilarating and exhausting. what touched me most was one of the people who came forward and said, i have experienced an injustice. i think our legal system can make it right. the first case in the supreme court was sally reed's case. she was a woman from boise, idaho. she had an adopted son.

she and her husband separated. she had custody of the boy. when the boy was a teenager the father said i want to have the child for part of the time. he needs to be prepared for a man's world. the family court judge said ok. sally was distraught. she had a reason to be. her son was terribly depressed and took out one of his father's many guns and killed himself. sally wanted to be the administrator of his estate. it was for sentimental reasons.

idaho had a law that settled the matter. it is between persons equally entitled to administer an estate, the male must be deferred to males. sally thought that was wrong, and she took that case through three levels of idaho courts. when idaho supreme court ruled against her, a brilliant lawyer said that is the case that is going to change the court. they will hold the gender classification is inadmissible. they said once the women's

movement was conspicuous, more and more people thought i don't have to put up with this. it should be changed. >> what touched you about that? she literally she came to you? >> a lawyer from the aclu read the report of the supreme court decision, called the local lawyer in boise, idaho and said the aclu would like to assist. the aclu has a mixed history early on that opposed the equal rights amendment because it was

afraid the protective legislation that women were threatened by the equal right women, but after sally reed's case, they decided to start a women's rights project, so from 1972 until 1980, i spent most of my time -- >> did you -- i know you have written and spoken about this. how much did being a woman affect what you were able to do and you were arguing cases before the court? >> the women of my generation had to overcome certain obstacles. it was not ok to make indulgent jokes on race or religion, but women were fair game. i will give you one example.

i was arguing before a federal court in new jersey, and they said, i understand women have made great progress. they even have opportunity in the military, and i said women are not allowed to have flight training. the judge responded, don't tell me that. women have been in the air always. i know that from experience with my own wife and daughter. one thing you don't say is you sexist pig. you want to win the case. if you got angry that would be self-defeating.

the best thing was to have a sense of humor, to say, i have met many women who don't have their feet on the ground and then race into the next line. the last argument i had with the -- was in 1978. it was about putting women on juries in missouri. missouri had an opt out system where women were not required to serve and the summons that went out -- if you were a woman you need not serve. if you don't want to serve, check off here. how many people would volunteer? i had an argument with the public defender of kansas city. i thought i had gotten out the point i wanted to

make. then the justice said, you won't settle. this is the same man that wrote a wonderful opinion of the family medical leave act. as long as you live you can learn. [laughter] >> justice, i described some of the work you did before you were appointed to the supreme court. how much did being a woman affect the deputy state attorney and state attorney? >> i don't know how much it affected.

i think the story we just heard, what is so impressive is it is a vehicle to promote human rights and women's rights. we don't really have the equality we are struggling to achieve. what was difficult as a woman, was when i was in the ministry of justice, i needed many times to confront the politicians. i thought they don't respect

enough the right of minorities, so i had many fights inside the system, inside the administration. i think you don't have to take it too seriously what you say. you have to fight when you want to achieve it. it's rather easy. some people said i couldn't get jobs when i had to. i don't know. maybe because i was a woman. maybe because i was a troublemaker. we can never know what was the real reason. i think women always have to be much better to achieve. we are not accepted for many jobs, many things.

you have to do much more to prove you can do what every man can do and more than that, it wasn't easy. >> you know justice o'connor's story? she graduated from the top of her class in stanford. no one would hire her. she said, i will work for he. -- for free. after four months, if you think i am worth that you can put knee -- puit me on the payroll. >> that was how she got her foot in the door. your point is for women at the level you were serving, you were

fighting a lot of behind the scenes. it wasn't in the public arena. >> this was behind the scenes. it was sometimes the decisions that were taken. it wasn't easy at all. i thought if you believe you are right, don't give up. try again and again not to give up. i think i never gave up. >> what made you stick it out? where did that come from? >> i thought we have to do justice. this is part of it. i thought the government should respect the law and respect for the both of the law. sometimes it's not so excepted. you have to fight for that. this was my experience. >> what's your experience? >> i never knew whether it was

sexism or anti-semitism. it's hard to tell the reason there were exclusions. we knew there were. you just did what you did knowing you were in early days of the women's movement. in those days we all gave speeches on women and the law to talk about -- here is how the law treats women. in law school, i didn't know any of that. school is a meritocracy. if you work really hard you do well in school. you think life is going to be like that. then reality hits. it was from my women clients that i realized how the law treated women. it opened my eyes. >> what is an example? >> who gets custody, who gets

divorced, matrimonial property laws. it used to be when the couple got married the husband and wife became one person. there were many examples of how the law had to catch up with the emerging reality. now we give lectures and seminars on women in the law. now the panels are, do you lie down, do you stand up? having achieved the numbers -- when we went to law school there were five women out of 150. now it is 50% and the conversation is different. the question you ask is an interesting one. i had to think about it when you said, what do you feel as a woman?

they'll would ask judges this. does being a woman make a difference. i think being jewish, having experienced what we experience as used -- as jews and when it gives you an insight into the importance of understanding that you as a judge have to be open to reality in front of you and be ready to really listen, because their story may not be your story. the difference between a judge having an agenda and a judge truly listening, i remember all the conversations in the 80's and the 90's. all of those things meant to dismissively rebut arguments about why he quality was important for women.

i remember thinking, you can't judge it from a majority perspective. you have to look at how the law looks to the people who want access to it who don't have the views of the majority. that's how i learned to understand what judging was all about, that you listen to two sides. one side is always mad at you. you have to be ready to be unpopular. when you are a judge, you are an institution that has the responsibility and independence to take a stand that is unpopular, so when people say it's an agenda or activism or reverse discrimination, i think what they are saying is, i don't like the results, so they throw a label around the decision-maker to say, what do you expect? she's a woman.

whatever identity they attribute to the decision. i think the best judges are people who understand what it feels like not to have the same privileged world we all experience. >> you use the word outsider. you know what it's like to be an outsider who is empathetic to others. i think we would like to clarify one thing. you used the word agenda twice. agendas don't make agendas. we are receiving always. we don't make the controversies that come before us. but we do our best when they are on our plate to decide them. we are not like the political branches that do have an agenda.

>> it attributed to us. remember the 80's and the 90's, the discourse was extremely critical of judges who were progressive. it was critical because they said they had an agenda, which is the worst thing you can say about a judge, because what it suggests is that the decision-maker has an intellectual basket that will accept evidence and information and keep the shape of the basket, and judges are supposed to allow the basket to change. when somebody said you have an agenda, it's a way of dismissing results and saying what do you expect, but it is absolutely a contradiction to what judges actually do. we listen, but that doesn't mean we have an agenda other than trying to get it right every time. >> there is another restraint on you.

you don't sit alone. >> i tell people i am 800. -- 8 husbands. i say, imagine making every single major decision every day with eight husbands. >> i don't know about you, but deciding to go to a movie is hard enough, but eight, and they didn't choose you and you didn't choose them? it's really extraordinary. eight forced marriages. but i have never heard it but that way. >> and the three of us have in common that it allows us to file dissenting opinions. >> i don't want the afternoon to and without -- i don't know where we are because i don't have a watch and i am having such a good time.

i think that three of us have another thing in common, speaking of eight husbands. we have been very lucky because having a partner at home who is utterly supportive and encouraging and therefore you -- there for you and lets you be really exuberant when you feel like it, cries with you, feels the joy when the children are doing well, that is so crucial to the soothing soul that people in difficult jobs have. i'm not saying it's difficult, but it's stressful, and that makes all the difference. >> let's pay tribute. >> you want to stand up while you are having tribute paid? [applause] >> and marty.

>> we all agree. you've made it. you really made it. >> i want you to weigh in on this conversation we have been hearing. >> about the husband. >> about the husband i must say. it's much more difficult for me to decide then to decide what to do in court. those are the most difficult. courts do not have an agenda. we all agree. people do not understand it, because they think different.

they should have an agenda. we come from a different point of view. this is the branch of government. we don't have an agenda. we can choose the cases. they started -- especially in our court -- we opened the door of the court. we don't decide. we can dismiss the case and say there is no legal cause, but when it comes and we express our opinions, some people may say, of course, it's their agenda. they care about women. they care about arabs because they are a minority.

this is not a truth. we are independent. this is the right value. one government comes, and one government does. those are the values that exist in this society. >> how hard is that to do justice in such a polarized environment especially like the one we have in this country. >> one of the things that makes it possible is that all of us sit in high courts with higher statutory questions. we have many more questions

involving statutes congress passes, and i wish the press more often would notice the cases in which we have unusual lineups, where you can't predict who is going to be on what side. we are also in systems where judicial independence is pride. i have a job i can keep as long as i am able to do it. full steam. >> you retired. >> a political point, and then i will take questions.

>> this is supply-side rhetoric. we all got the language throwing around here when people try to delegitimize the integrity of supreme court's. i think it's really important to deconstruct what the criticisms were. judicial activism was not an expression i ever heard about a decision that restricted rights. i only ever heard it when a court expanded rights. reverse discrimination i understood as a remedy to reverse discrimination. the merit system. you would have to look in the meurer and say we had one until 2000, so merit system is a suggestion that affirmative

action contradicts it made no sense to me at all. we were trying to get people into the system who had been excluded. we say that because the rhetoric around rights is the most controversial of all. governments are elected by majority, and they are responsible. if you want to be reelected you are attentive to what the majority says. we are committed to being controversial. people debate our decisions, and they should. we are there with 75 to life so we can make calls that we think are the right calls. when you think about what this public opinion means, which

newspaper, so the notion there is such a magical thing that will vindicate or censure what you want to do, you don't have that constituency. your constituency is time. >> i think in my country it's a special situation. it's not accepted easily that we have to decide sometimes the need to protect rights is more important. we need security. we care about security, but we try to balance. this is not popular. sometimes this is what is

criticized. to the public interest. this is tough sometimes. >> you really don't feel you need courage for this? it necessary for the judge to decide if it is the right thing. >> i think you need courage, and you have it. do you want to comment?

>> we have those cases. i don't think there's any country in the world that has them in a more tense atmosphere than israel. i was drawn to what your colleague said, if we are so overwhelmed by security that we surrender our abilities than our enemy has won because we have become just like them, so the idea that court can't be swept up by the need for security. it has to maintain basic values of the system. >> because israel has done it the way they have, every western democracy and the world follows their jurisprudence because they have been able to transcend daily stress and find jurisprudence of right anyway. it has made them a world leader

in that area. >> this is the guarantee for democracy. we have the values of democracy to keep. >> a question from the audience. right here. >> it's adrian. >> hi. >> i think you are right. >> my mother was the first woman judge in delaware. rosalie came many years ago to speak in delaware. i'm honored to see you today. my mother was appointed by the governor. in delaware we do not elect judges. in many areas where it was an appointment, and the olden days

it followed the male line. over time appointment of judges has given the appointing party more than an opportunity to bring diversity. we have many places in the united states where judges are elected. that's where you may see an agenda. my question really is, i know in the united states we have places where judges are elected. in canada and israel, are there some judges and court systems where there is an election? >> are you kidding? i remember in judgment at nuremberg there is a scene where marlena dietrich is walking with spencer tracy. i love movies. oscar night for me is a religious night.

she said, this is your country? i remember it was so odd the notion that you are directly responsive to the public for the decisions where you have to choose a side that may not be the one giving you the money. who do you go to for fund raising? i'm not saying there are very good judges who are elected. i'm talking about the theory of an election where you are directly responsible to the majority for decision-making. if you are doing sentencing, if you are doing constitutional rights, you are having to decide a minority versus a majority interest, and if you really like hearing a judge and you want to go back for another seven years, you are going to work very hard at not annoying the people you

are going to go back to for money and reelections. i know sandra day o'connor is working really hard on this. the notion of populism is so deep in this country that one vote -- democracy is not just about elections. democracy is about institutions that work and check and balance off of each other. some are elected, and some are not. the judiciary scrutinizes the elected officials. so you have to be independent. you have got a different mandate. people always say, who are these people anyway? they are not elected. they are not supposed to be elected. they are performing a different function. >> it's the most frequent question i am asked when i go abroad. how can you have an impartial

judiciary when you elect your judges? we know how it originated. there was great distrust of the kings justices. people wanted to have a say in who would be their judges. it isn't something i can explain when i am asked that question. i can say i am glad to be part of the system. >> i am a guest in the united states, so i'm not allowed to say what i want about the system. [laughter] it's really against the principles of independence of the judiciary, but i understand the historical background. sometimes when you have a tradition based on historical background it's very difficult.

this is why it won't be easy to change, but it's against all the principles we believe in. >> question? >> yes. >> i am greta van susteren. my question is for the visiting judges. i am curious when you look at our trial system if there is anything you could tinker with. when i see the british system and the defendant in the back i think he looks guilty. i like the way we put him in the court. is there something about your system that you think might be a little bit better that we should perhaps tinker with? to both of our judges? >> i just said what i think about our system. [laughter]

being serious, i think nowadays the privilege -- we have a wealth of communication, and we learn from other systems and we referred to the canadian system. we have a lot in common, and we learn from each other. it's not only a matter of majority. it's the values. >> is there any procedural difference that might be a little bit different and something to look at? maybe that is sort of odd and we might do this that are? >> we don't have a jury system. we are different because we have a different background. you carry your history, but we

can learn from each other, and we try to do that all the time. >> in canada, juries are used for what? >> most references have civil juries, but we have big criminal cases. >> i think that is a good question, and here is why. the one thing all of our countries has in common is we have a real problem in court. that is the access to justice problem. we were talking about change before. one of the expressions i find least comfortable is they think it is a valid rebuttal when they say we have always done it this way. there is a light old joke about lawyers. how many lawyers does it take to change a lightbulb? change? here is my story about what frustrates me about the way we resolve adjudication everywhere. in 1906 the dean of harvard law school wrote an article based on

the speech he gave to the american bar association called civil -- public dissatisfaction with the civil justice system, and in the article he talked about how slow the system was, how expensive it was, how it was becoming a trade instead of a profession, how it was too adversarial, and i thought about that. i thought, people probably went to his lecture with the horse and buggy. doctors were still using leeches. i don't know how we listened to music. maybe that thing that goes around and around. look at every profession today and compare it to 1906. doctors have experienced in order to find better ways to save lives.

what engineers do is totally different. we didn't have planes then? if you took a lawyer from 1906 and gave him training, he would feel perfectly at home in our court room. i don't get that. they say trust us, it's justice. here are doctors, experimenting with life, and we won't experiment with justice? i think we need a fundamental shift instead of tinkering around the edges. let's look at what the system would look like if we were starting it today. how would we resolve civil disputes? criminal cases are different? anyway, i have views. an agenda. >> greta, see what you stirred up. a question in the very back. >> i would like to address this to the justice. you have a very complicated court system in israel, particularly in family law.

i am really interested in how you deal with religious and cultural aspects of law when you are dealing with secular jews and ultra-orthodox jews and arabs in the same court system. >> it's true we have a complicated system. again, we only have religious marriage and divorce, not only for jews. for arabs and muslims and christians. we have only their religious tribunals. we try to do more and more to achieve. i would daresay i may have an agenda, to achieve civil rights,

-- civil marriage. but our court, our supreme court can and does review the decision, not from the substance of religious law, but through procedure. it's not perfect, but we can review these decisions and more and more to apply our civil principles in religious courts. it's not easy. they do not accept that kind of tension. i think if we are talking about women's rights, equality for women, they still suffer because we have this system of religious marriage, and this is a very difficult issue that should be changed. >> you are not just speaking of israel, or are you?

>> to clarify what the question is, family law has given over to religious authorities. under jewish law as i understand it, a woman cannot get a divorce. you can only receive a divorce. tell me if this is true. there is supposed to be a man who said, let's see what the courts are doing. they say if i don't give her the divorce she wants, they are going to put me in jail. and there was a man for years and years in jail because he refused to give his life.

-- his wife the divorce she wanted. that's how the civil court tried to adjust this one-way direction of religious law. >> we have sacred family law for every purpose. custody and other things, but divorce is in the hands of the court. all other courts -- this is a very serious problem. the court may send a man who refuses to give a divorce to prison. we had cases. this was a very famous case where he was ready to die in prison. not to get a divorce. it happened. there is public work trying to change the law. >> may be one more. this gentleman right here. >> i would like to ask the justice of question.

during the process of negotiation leading to a hopeful palestinian and israeli peace, new conversation has arisen on the side of israel as to the recognition of israel as a jewish state. what would be the constitutional implications of this new conversation in terms of the rights of minorities in israel? >> i don't want to go into the question of political conversations or trying to reach an agreement, but israel, according to the basic laws we

have -- this is our inc. -- our constitution -- it's a jewish democratic state. jewish and democratic. we have the basic colors of the israeli law. constitution, legislation. what does it mean? we have a minority of arabs. according to the declaration of independence, they have the right to quality. the question, what does this mean to be a jewish state. i don't need palestinians to recognize because i believe we are a jewish state. this is our law. we have not always agreed what does this mean. it means first of all a home for all the jews. this is the idea. this is the home of the jewish people.

we have religious parties who think it should be a religious state. this is not what we mean when we are talking about a jewish state. we have jewish values. we believe there is no contradiction to be a jewish state. like every other state, yes, it is a democratic state and has to reflect the rights of the minority. i see no contradiction. the political matter is completely different. i think what he means is to recognize this is a home to the jewish people. >> one last question. [laughter] you both have your hands up. >> i am going to try to sneak in.

i think what is understood to be the liberal side of the spectrum. is that a coincidence or something more? you talked about what it is like to have eight husbands on the court. i am curious about what it's like when those are wives and what is the impact to have more than one woman on the court at a time. >> she got two questions. >> a follow-up. [laughter] >> what about the question of women on the left side of the court? >> the breakthrough in the united states supreme court was the appointment of justice sandra day o'connor.

born and bred a republican. and the arizona senate, but we voted in every case that involved women's opportunities. i didn't hear the first question, but i would like to say how great it is. there are now three women on the supreme court. it makes a difference in the picture that has been made. i sit close to the middle. justice kagan is on my left. justice sotomayor or on my right. the children in school, and watch what is going on in the court, and they see the women are not there just to look good.

my colleagues are likely participants. -- lively participants. anyone who has been to the court knows that. last year several journalists counted the number of questions each justice asked, and they decided justice sotomayor or won the prize even more than justice scalia. the women are not shrinking violets. it was very lonely being the only woman. maybe it was better for sandra who was a more imposing presence. >> i don't think there is anyone questioning how imposing you are. you can take both questions. >> if i am asked if it's a

coincidence, this is for social logical research. i think you are right that women are more on the liberal side. not only when we are talking about gender and women's rights, but somehow it's true that most of the women justices are on the liberal side. if you can label it. you have to be very careful labeling judges. there is something in it. there was a time when we were five women in the court. we sat sometimes in groups of three.

we had a panel of three women justices in the court. in the beginning you could see they were suspicious. what are these three women doing here? it doesn't matter anymore. having women in the court is not an issue anymore. i believe we will have a vacancy and there will only be three more women to the court. >> i actually never thought about why or whether women are more liberal. it's true in canada we deny women -- we have nine women on the supreme court. i would say all of them are progressive. i think the supreme court in canada is generally progressive anyway. let me tell you how great it is to have a lot of women colleagues. when i joined the court in 2004,

i was appointed with another colleague from the interior court. we became for women on the court. in not only normalizes the perception of the public that your supreme adjudicators can be of either gender. it's great inside the court because there is a collegial spirit when you have got people who have gone through the same experiences. it always put my colleagues back when a couple of women are arguing and it goes something like this. i don't think the charter was meant to deal with this issue. don't forget the decision we decided in 1903. i like that necklace a lot. that we -- [laughter] in the middle of the most sophisticated debate, we will

notice a piece of jewelry. the first few times of that i remember them going, are you allowed to do that? am i allowed to notice your socks? it is a much more collegial and i would say less pretentious -- it's not one ought to behave this way because one is a supreme court judge. it's just nine people, many of whom happen to be women, and it's a privilege. it was really smart people who are men and women. >> so many smart questions, but our time let's just say thank you to these amazing women. \[applause] [laughter] [applause]

>> thank you. >> the supreme court heard a case this week that will decide the fate of a technology company that streams local broadcast television to customers' computers, phone and tablets. the supreme court is looking at whether aerial is violating copyright law and must play licensing fees to broadcasters. we will have that oral argument tomorrow 8:00 eastern on c-span. orr we will have live --erage of that around 115

1:15 p.m.. >> that gene produces an allergy. you may have an allergy from eating corn that is genetically engineered an unlabeled. the process of genetic engineering created a switch on of that dormant gene and the change to 43 other genes as well as changing the shape of proteins. increase invenfold known allergens. this wasn't intended, it was a background side effect of the process of genetic engineering. the process that is used to create the soy and corn that we eat. organizations have no problem with gmo's.

if that isn't enough for you, here are a bunch of other organizations. these are not organizations with some scientific sounding name. these are real medical and protective organizations. , in australia, all over the world. we pay attention to the epa when it comes to global warming. they say it would not pose unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. i could come up with dozens of these. c-span,weekend on genetically modified food. and this weekend on book tv, the los angeles times festival of books. authors and panels on the realities of war, feminism, world politics and events. american history tv, georgetown university professors on title

ix, discrimination against women in sports and the education amendments of 1972, saturday at 8:00 p.m. and midnight on c-span three. homeland security jeh johnson has put charles edwards on administered of leave, this is according to the washington post. the post writing that a hadressional investigation tailored up old -- reports. he had directed altering and delaying critical investigative reports and audits at the request of top political appointees in the department. again, that from the washington post. last month a panel of supreme court reporters and scholars discussed transparency in the nation's highest court. changes,hed on policy

vocus and on the court's website , and cameras in the court. the event was held in new york universities washington campus. >> i want to welcome you all this morning. thank you for coming. my name is tony morrow and i am on the steering committee of the reporters committee for freedom of the press, which is co-sponsoring this. and i want to thank n.y.u. also for sponsoring this event. i have also covered the supreme court for 34 years and have been immersed in these issues for pretty much all of that time. this is the second discussion we have had on the subject of transparency at the supreme court. the last one was a few months ago. the theme then and now really is that transparency in the case of the supreme court is about way more than just allowing cameras in the court.

of course, that is very much on our wish list. we will see these other issues related to transparency develop even more this morning than over the last event. we have a terrific panel to discuss these issues, led by dahlia, it's my great pleasure to introduce her. she's also on the steering committee of the reporters committee for freedom of the press. another panelist sonny west used to be an intern at this reporters committee. dahlia covers the courts since before the turn of the century. when she arrived on the beat and ever since she's been a breath of fresh air bringing tremendous insight as well as a touch of humor to covering the supreme court beat. when she writes about a supreme court argument, you almost don't need cameras.

emphasis on almost because her writing is so vivid. before i turn it over to dahlia, i want to mention if you would like to give the supreme court a piece of your mind on these issues there's the scotus booth of truth upstairs where you can tape a brief video with your views on these issues. i will turn it over to dahlia. >> thank you, tony. i want to redouble tony's thanks to the various sponsors and to n.y.u. for this absolutely gorgeous venue. and you all probably know that last fall for the first time in history some advocacy groups knocked a camera into oral argument for the first time ever we got to see live video of oral argument, which actually looked more like a sighting of the loch ness monster.

it was awfully blurry and confused. but america went kind of crazy and people were interested in it, reminded -- especially those of us who go back and forth to the court and get to be in those arguments, the extent of which the branch that is meant to be the most transparent and open and everything that you need to know about the courts working is contained in the four corners of the opinion is actually completely unknown and unknowable to 99.9% of the american public who were glimpsing for the first time blurry judicial shoulders and getting very excited about it. so we're here to talk about transparency. not just cameras but all of the aspects of transparency. but i want to 0 just open by saying that transparency means not just that we can't see the workings of oral argument. but it means we also can't hear the workings of oral argument until the court releases audio on fridays.

we can't readily access their website when we on the day the health care cases came down tried to access their website, it crashed. the best source of getting information about the court is not, in fact, the court's website. it's other websites. we don't know the justices' speaking schedules. we don't get copies of their speeches. it's very difficult to get their financial disclosures. don't get me started on their papers. so this branch that's supposed to be open and one of three coequal transparent branches of government is awfully hard to get into. and so that's what we're here to do today. and we thought in lieu of me reeling off introductions of panelists who are amazing each in their own right, i'm going to ask each of them to just introduce themselves to you and tell you for half a minute who they are, why they have skin in this game. then i want them to answer a question that is completely open ended because that's the kind of

hipsters we are. and the question is going to be, what does transparency at the supreme court mean to you? we will start right here with willie and go down the line. just ten seconds on who you are and why this is an issue that's important. and if you would sort of develop an idea about what transparency means to you. >> sure, thank you, dahlia, very much. it's a real pleasure to be here. i'm a partner at the partner goodwin proctor here in d.c. why am i here? i'm here because i'm a lawyer who briefs and argues cases before the supreme court. i used to work for the justice department and now i'm in private practice. much of work -- my work is before the supreme court as well. what does transparency mean to me? as lawyer and advocate, it's not about the cameras, it's not about the papers, it's not about the speeches and certainly not about financial disclosures. it's about the decision of cases, which after all is the

justices' a number one job, to decide cases. when they decide cases, what do they decide and what do they decide them based on? those are kind of transparency things that get me up in the morning. because the courts will often say we're a transparent branch because everything is public. the briefs are public. they're on a website, not the court's website. the oral argument is public. it's transcribed easily, peruseable on the court's website and so on. does the court limit itself to what's in the briefs or not? and i think one striking example of that is through buried in justice kennedy's juvenile life without parole opinion from a couple years ago where he was developing some statistics about how many young offenders were incarcerated for interment life without parole.

you see in that opinion very unusual citations including letter to supreme court library from federal bureau of prisons. letter to supreme court library from i think district of columbia, department of corrections. basically the justices had asked other parts of the federal and municipal d.c. government to do research for them and provide that information, secretly, not copied to the parties and i'm not revealing inside information because i don't have any but the solicitor general did not participate in that case. it may have been a surprise the attorney general, slit iter general the bureau of prisons report that the bureau of prisons was opining or providing factions on this fairly complicated and nuanced issue. i think it was a surprise as well. so when you're standing in the

court, you speak your piece, sit down and chief justice says the case is submitted. the briefing is all done. oral argument is all done. then researching begins so the transparency concern i have is justices of on view that as the beginning and not the end of the fact at law and science gathering process. justice breyer i think is also fond of citing social science and other secondary literature in his opinion. in most cases none of which is cited by the parties, his own research. that's how he decides cases. he finds it useful. how do you respond to citations and convince hem not to rely on them because you have not seen them until they appear in his opinion? >> hi, i'm clay johnson. i'm the c.e.o. of a company called department of better technology. i'm a former presidential innovation fellow.

used to be director of sunlight lab at the sunlight foundation and before that founder of blue state digital. we made barackobama.com in 2008 and a bunch of other things. i guess i'm here to present the technical aspect as you can tell by my lack of tie. what does transparency mean to me in terms of the supreme court. i think it means three things in desending order of primplete first thing is means to me is education. there are no other fields in the world i can think of where the players at the top of their game are obfuscated from public view. imagine if you will, we took every beautiful skyscraper and wrapped it in a cardboard box before you could see it, or the scores to the super bowl were the only thing you saw from the big game. and this has an adverse effect i think on people who aspire to

these jobs or to aspire in the legal profession not to be able to watch people who are at the top of their game deliberate before the court and argue before the court. i think that that's a remarkable law. the second thing is history. transparency means history to me. we're doing a great disservice to the dignity of the court to make bush v gore or citizens united are captured in low resolution audio files and that's it. and moreover, because of various technical things, oftentimes webpages are cited and arguments all of the time but someone did a study more recently that said, about 30% or so of all of the links cited in these arguments are now gone. so we're not taking that sort of technical step of archiving the context of these decisions at all and as we further rely on technology, especially the web in order to do that, this level

of context being removed seems to be a great disservice to our children and to the people that are going to come after us. and finally, it's about accountability. i don't find that argument to be the biggest and most important one. although it is important. i just find that my work both inside and outside of the federal government, you know, going to someone, anyone and saying hey, i would like to place a camera behind you so i can watch and scrutinize everything that you do in realtime tends to be a tough sell. so i tend to lead with more substantial arguments like, this does not reflect on the dignity of your job. so i think those are the three things that matter the most to me around transparency. and why i care about this issue. >> good morning. i want to thank gabe for inviting me and tony and dahlia for hosting it.

i'm excited to be here. my skin in this game is pretty serious. i teach constitutional law at georgia state in atlanta. it's ironic to me that the supreme court might be the least transparent court in the united states because at best i am with judge pozner that it is a political court. i in fact don't think it's a court at all. to the except there are transparency issues to begin with judges i don't think the supreme court really counts as a court. i will give you a great example of that. every year thousands and thousands and thousands of people send surpetitions to the supreme court. lawyers spend hundreds of hours working, fee are paid, parties are incredibly vested in this. maybe the most important decision the justices make is which cases to hear because if they don't hear a case, then whatever happened at the appellate level is the final say and we're done. and we don't even know which justices voted to grant cert in a particular case.

this is an incredibly important public vote on a matter of public concern and there's simply no reason why we shouldn't know this. and it's relevant, truthful information about a public body. now, they may argue that too much would be read into who decides to grant cert and all of that. but the bottom line is, i was litigating supreme court cases in the 1980's with some of the leading litigators at the time, and at the trial court level, we had a short state case and the entire effort was to make the record such that justice o'connor would be pleased. and this was five years before o'connor would even see the case. so much speculation going on anyway. if we know that four moderates vote to grant cert in an abortion case, we have some idea where justice kennedy might stand or at least where they think justice kennedy may stand. that might be wrong. it may be right. but who votes should be a matter of public record. which leads me to my overall point.

with the president, with the congress, with state lectures, there is a presumption of transparency and then there has to be a good reason for secrecy. if there's a good reason for secrecy, to print that and presumption can be overcome. when it comes to the supreme court of the united states, there is a huge presumption of secrecy and only if that's overcome do we get transparency. and that to me doesn't make any sense at all. i have now run this by a lot of supreme court litigators and law professor and no one has yet given me a good reason why we can't find out who voted to grant cert in a particular case. if we don't have a good reason for it, the public should know relevant, truthful information. >> i'm bruce brown. i'm executive director of reporters committee. for freedom of the press. and i'm here because the committee was underrepresented as a -- [laughter] i thought we had to balance the panel out. for the reporters committee, which represents the interests of journalists and covering institutions like the supreme

court, obviously, we care deeply about the immediate access to see and hear what goes on in the building. and we care about it not just for us but, of course, public at large. there's a groit moment described in the book, fourth estate in the constitution, about the oral argument in richmond newspapers which came along at the time when the press had been losing access cases when it had been arguing for some kind of special privilege that it had. laurence tribe, who argued the case for the newspaper petitioners is after just another example of the press coming in and asking for some kind of special protection for its own interest. and tribe responds and says no, the access we're seeking is the access that belongs -- excuse me, to the general public. and that was the core for the access law, that was the moment that tipped the scales and the

court in richmond newspapers then grant this historic decision recognizing the right of access. again, not just for the press but for the general public. but for the general public. and when we at the reporters committee think about access, we're thinking not just in the short term. can we get reporters into the court to cover the hum of what happens in a particular news cycle building, but also the long term? dahlia mentioned papers and supreme court papers. and one issue we're also very interested in is trying to really force the court away from this ad hoc system of each justice deciding on his or her own when and how and under what circumstances to make papers available and to move instead to something more regularized like what you have in the presidential system now, which was put in place by legislation in 1de