[applause] >> good evening. it is my great pleasure to welcome justice ruth bader ginsburg. we are very proud to partner with the constitution center.

i want to introduce a bit of the history of the roberts lecture. the lecture is named for our supreme court justice pamela roberts and was established in 1956. originalng of the agreement about the lecture says, the lecture is to be delivered by a nationally beminent person who might expected to make a significant contribution in legal thought. i think we have met and exceeded and blown out of water -- the water that standard tonight with justice ginsburg. years on theher 25 supreme court as well as groundbreaking contributions to american prudence obama court and as her tremendous career as andgal scholar, litigator, lower court judge before she joined the court.

himself, was a graduate of penn law. he went on to a tremendous career. he served as justice on the supreme court from 1930 until 1945, he then left the supreme court to become a den -- dean of penn law. don't get any ideas. [laughter] we honor his memory and legacy and there is no greater way to honor it then by justice ruth bader ginsburg tonight. it is now my pleasure tonight to introduce pens president -- penn's president. background as a moral and political philosopher is reflected in her commitment at penn to increasing diversity.

recognitionnational for her achievements. leadership, the the leaderhas become in diversifying students. she is a member of the global and wasty leaders forum a founding member of the global colloquium of university presidents which advises the un's secretary-general on issues. at penn and throughout the country, she has been a champion of free and open debate and civil society and has built a welcoming and inclusive

welcoming university environment. we are proud to call her our president here at penn. amy. ted, and it is wonderful to welcome so many friends of the national constitution center, of the university of pennsylvania, of penn law, and of notorious are bj -- rbj. being a judicial rockstar is not an oxymoron. importantof the most services to our society that i for one can imagine. i know i speak for everybody here tonight when i say how absolutely thrilled we are to justicethe associate ruth bader ginsburg. i consider a personal privilege

to introduce someone i, above all admire and with whom i also feel a deep kinship. 10 years ago, we both appeared with my privilege, it was her service, to appear together in a documentary, a pbs documentary entitled "the jewish-american." i appeared once, she was the most powerful voice throughout this documentary. versionever forget the of her life story that she told very vividly in a riddle that comes in many versions. here is her version of the riddle. what is the difference between a bookkeeper in new york's garment district and a supreme court justice?

one generation. quintessentially american story. dreamy of the american that her life is dedicated to keeping alive. this is the story of a woman, who by great and determination, by brains encourage, by compassion and a fiery commitment to liberty and justice for all, rose from unadorned beginnings to become one of the most perfected and yes, most beloved justices of our time. this is the story of our very special guest, associate justice ruth bader ginsburg. over the course of the past 25 years, ruth bader ginsburg has won renown for her brilliance and steadfast service on the

supreme court of the u.s. and in her service to the u.s. constitution. the u.s. constitution that unites our nation, and some would say, defines our nation. named to the supreme court by 1993, ruthlinton in bader ginsburg has this thing was herself as a brilliant justice, a passionate advocate for justice and equality before the law, and an astute consensus builder within the court. she has lived the life of a pioneer. as a young woman, she left black brooklyn.atcus she left to attend college at cornell where she graduated at the top of her class, of course. she was among just nine women to enter harvard law school at a

time when the dean asked how can to dust -- justify taking a spot from a qualified man? far from dissuading her, such challenge is to basic equity galvanized a steely resolve. she went on to become the first tenured woman faculty member at columbia law school. this is not the first time associate justice ginsburg has graced philadelphia with her presence. in 2007, we had the privilege of the university of pennsylvania to bestow upon her our highest honor, and arbitrary degree, doctor of law. we did this in the ignition of the great contributions she has made to making our country ever , and true equitable to the highest ideals of the u.s. constitution. among a lifetime of pioneering justice,n pursuit of

ruth bader ginsburg became a founder of the american civil liberties union women's rights projects are doing six cases before the supreme court, winning five of them, and amazing batting average for anyone, a lifetime amazing record. the firsto-offered law school casebook on sex discrimination. justice ginsburg is wildly unjustly heralded as our ofions preeminent juress gender law and equity. relentless work and formidable public intellect, she has advanced of the legal status of women and the cause of justice for women and men, for girls and boys everywhere. we are simply thrilled to have her here with us this evening. much, associate

justice ginsburg, our notorious rbj. thank you. [applause] much, associate i also have a true pleasure of welcoming to the stage with justice ginsburg a champion of our constitution, a civic leader here in philadelphia and a dear friend, jeffrey rosen. [applause] a professor of law at george washington university, a noted commentator on legal affairs, and the author of six books. two thousand 13, jeffrey has served as the president and ceo of the national constitution center. has brought energy, excitement, and above all vision to the important work of the national constitution center. weis a true civic leader,

are grateful for his leadership of this truly unique institution. truth in advertising, this evenings roberts lecture will not be a lecture at all, but rather a candid conversation between two mines who are steeped in the history and values and challenges of american constitutional law. i know we are in for a fascinating evening. i know there has never been a more important time to have this conversation. please join me ladies and gentlemen and welcoming jeffrey rosen and the honorable ruth bader ginsburg. [applause]

pleasestice ginsburg: everyone be seated. justice ginsburg it is such an honor and pleasure to welcome you back. on last time i saw you was october 20 when you did me and my wife lauren the great honor of marrying us. thank you for that wonderful experience. [applause] then, as president gutman said, you have indeed been a judicial rockstar with standing ovation's and thrilled audiences -- ovations and thrilled

audiences. your travels even took you to sundance where you saw a documentary of yourself. how is your documentary? justice ginsburg: in my opinion, they have done a fantastic job. they did it. in my opinion, they have done a fantastic-- they did a series fs some will years ago called "the makers." it was about the women's movement in the 1970's. it was done so well, that i was persuaded to say yes to their proposal. tonight, and as amy said is in -- it is

unimportant time to have this conversation, is to take stock of the progress of gender equality from a tiny began to time on the supreme court, to this remarkable moment we are in now. because you have been asked about it every place you have gone over the past couple of weeks, i need to begun and i -- everyone is the supreme have eager for your thoughts, what are your thoughts on the metoo movement and its lasting on the women's movement. it was ginsburg: --ething i was asked earlier what i wanted to convey there was that sexual harassment of , but has gone on forever

it did not get headlines until a woman named catherine mckinnon wrote a book called "sexual harassment in the workplace." that was the thought of litigation under title vii. a few cases came to the supreme court and they all came out right. still, women were hesitant. i think one of the principal reasons was because they feared that they would not be believed. the number of women who have come forward as a result of movement hasmetoo been astonishing. just that itat not it ise to stay, but that as effective for the woman who

works as a maid in a hotel as it is for hollywood stars. [applause] rosen: many women are wondering, will this proof and lasting avance for women, -- prove lasting advance for women, or will this advance pass? justice ginsburg: i think it will have staying power because people, and not only women, men as well as women realize how wrong the behavior was and how is subordinated women. so we shall see. my prediction is that it is here to stay. rosen: why is it happening now?

you have told me and conversations over the years that activism by men and women causes political and cultural change. is there something about what millennials are doing that has caused the movement or something else? justice ginsburg: i think we can compare to the gay-rights when people stepped up and said this is who i am and i am proud of it. they came out in numbers instead disguising. that movement developed very rapidly. i think we are seeing the same thing with sexual harassment.

rosen: did you see this happening? justice ginsburg: no. and why it happened when it did, i heard people tell stories of harvey weinstein many years ago. then, they decided to do a big story on it. i think it was the press finally taking notice of something they knew long before that propelled into the place it now holds in the public arena. what is your advice to all women, young women and to all women about how to sustain the momentum of the movement and make its changes lasting? i think theburg: number of changes that we have burdened, iis has have heard from lawyers that

women have come forward with stories about things that and evenmany years ago though the statute of limitations is long past, these cases are being settled. whetherresting thing is it will be an end to this confidentiality pledge. broughto complained and were offered settlements in which they would agree that they what theyr disclose had complained about. see thosewe will not agreements anymore. rosen: what are the legal changes necessary to make these reforms permanent? justice ginsburg: we have the legal reforms, we have had them for a long time.

title vii. it was argued early on that sexual harassment has nothing to do with gender discrimination. everyone knows boys will be boys, and that was that. there are state and federal laws. ,he laws are there and in place for people to step forward and use them. rosen: at sundance, you told story about an encounter at cornell long ago. tell us about that. justice ginsburg: i was in a chemistry class at cornell. i was not very adept in elaborate jewelry, so teaching assistant -- the laboratory, so

teaching assistant decided to help me out so much that he offered to give me a practice exam the day before the actual exam. when i went into the room and looked at the exam paper, i found that it was the practice exam. what thisediately instructor expected as a payoff. so, instead of being shy, i confronted him and said, how dare you do this. many, many of stories that every woman of my vintage knows. rosen: how do you do this. advise women to

say in similar situations, should they be similarly strong? justice ginsburg: yes. this is bad behavior. you should not engage in it and i will not submit to it. i think it is easier today because there are numbers to support the woman who says something. we no longer here as often as we did in the past, she is making it up. this is an important question. what is your advice to men in people aregime where trying to behave well and figure out? treat them like you would like the women in your family to be treated. when you see men behaving in

ways they should not, you should tell them. this is improper behavior. rosen: there is a debate, both among women and a monk men both there is a debate among women and among men about should be f behavior sanctionable, and one group is that it's wrong to lump together violent behavior like arvey weinstein with less dramatic forms of sexual conduct say all misconduct is wrong shoond be sanctioned. >> there are degrees of conduct, put any time a woman is

nto a position where she is subordinate, she she should not afraid. >> there are also calls from people of different from catherine and others of rather different perspectives for due process. process.ut due sexual es beyond harassment. right the accused has a to defend herself or himself. e certainly should not lose sight of that.

recognizing that these are that should be heard. of somes been criticism if ege codes of conduct we're not giving anyone ccused -- everyone deserves a fair hearing. >> are some of those criticisms of the college codes valid? i think they are? yes. hungryi think people are for your thoughts about how to alance the values of due process against the need for increased gender equality. the other. one or it's both. a system of justice gete people who are accused due process, so it's just field what we s

ave applied generally >> some women also fear backlash. they worry that women may have for mentorship at work because guys are afraid with them.ing is this valid or not? ask you -- as a man. do you think you will will of the e women because me, too movement? rosen: on the contrary, i have many men sensitized to the plight of women by hearing and it seems like thing in y the workplace. >> yes.

rosen: your entire veer as an justice has studied the interplay between political and the l movements law. you said just this afternoon, hat the courts are the least important part of social change. first comes political activism education and then legislation and then the courts. so looking forward 10 or 20 how does the momentum of he me, too, movement get reflected in legislation and in judicial decisions? i think the law is there. here are people now who will increasing numbers. have said before, rights who want ith people and then the court is a

institution. there was a fine federal judge once is it circuit, who said the courts don't make the conflagrations but they do their them out.t rosen: marcia greenberg in her this afternoon mentioned some of your dissenting opinions in sexual cases.ent is there any area for progress dissent?w and your kinds ent, there are two f dissents in the statutory case. the aim is to get the legislature to correct the error court has fallen. lily think this afternoon, ledbetter's case was a sterling example of that. ily was an area manager at a

goodyear tire plant. there in d working only woman doing that job. co-worker put in her mailbox some numbers, and she recognized what it was, the pay that all the area anagers were receiving, and recognized immediately that she was being paid less than any of the men. less than the person recognize

job.trained to do the she brought a discrimination and she nst goodyear, verdict. substantial it was a jury trial. when the case got to the supreme it on the dismissed late.ds that she sued too the law title 7 requires that days of ain within 180 incident.iminatory well, lily had let the system go two decades and didn't complain. course, if she had, first how could she? salary for ave the years, but assuming that she did

and she complained at the first paid tion that she was less, the defense is clear, the oh, it would have been, had nothing to do with lily being a woman. do the job as t well. then, when she's done the ob year after year and gets good performance ratings, that defense is no longer available she has a winnable case. court said she sued too late. it was a simple basis for saying she was on time. every paycheck that she received reflected the differential, so within 180 days of

paycheck. the reaction to lily's case -- ended the way, i issent by saying the ball is now in congress's court to error. the and in very made, order, the lily ledbetter air pay act was passed, overwhelmingly on both sides of aisle and it was the first legislation that obama took office.e you could write that case because congress can fix it. case, a constitutional congress can't fix it.

change would have to come about either through and ourtional amendment constitution is powerfully hard to amend. out and it s it akes 3/4 of the states to ratify. i know from experience with the qual rights amendment how hard it is to amend the constitution -- notnext best thing is thing, the better thing, is for the court to correct the mistake it's made had a long tradition becoming the law of land. ne example, the free speech issents of justices holmes --

lot about those is the dreadful dread scott decision. were two dissenters who wrong.ized that was there was the first justice john who dissented d in the so-called civil rights then some 13 years -- ferguson. when we look ood see that there were thought the court and wrote therong judgment that was -- it starts a dissent and then in the become the ion

opinion of the court. rosen: which of your powerful hope to do you most majority? to ell, i would like seashell by county undone. hat was a case involving the of 1965.ghts act the law works is this. countyate or a city or a history of blocking african-americans from voting, change in voting legislation

be pre-cleared either by the civil rights of sion of the department justice or by a three judge the district of columbia. was, that position was 1965. later, some states that discriminated may not be anymore.nating has to come -- i thought they weren't as restrained as they should be they should have respected the overwhelming vote the e congress to renew

voting rights act. that's one decision. how about two or three mor more. >> let's see. of my dissents? absolutely. is the one of them call led, what did they abortion.al birth this was a medical procedure that is no one's first choice it may be the only option and when the court

a ban to recognize that just h a procedure that some women had so that's a ce, decision i would like to see overruled. two u go back in time s, the ns from the 1970 medicaidourt held that coverage was not available for or abortion therapeutic nontherapeutic. with the situation country where any woman

means, any woman who can fford to go to a neighboring state, will have access to abortion. the people who won't are poor travel, can't 't take off days from work. sorry situation. people ask me, oh, what would if roe v. wade were overruled? is for affluent women it won't make any difference. statesill be a number of hat simply won't return to the way it once was. t a time of roe v. wade decision there were four states, new york among them, that in the first ion

no questions asked. those states and others will not back to the way it was, so he situation that we have, i unfortunate, that the people who are disadvantaged people, most voiceless poor women. other decision and restrictive abortion decisions i overruled. to see rosen: the carhart dissent was a decisionou set out -- center bortion as to william's citizenship. ability to control her own destiny.

rosen: how should that right be more broadly and what are its implications if the to take it seriously. >> it would mean that women something access to that should be part of like any other condition. great hopes your s for men and women to take equal responsibility for childcare. i had that remarkable moment years agoerviewed you in the 1990s, and you pointed to son-in-law your

with your then infant grandson and said, that's my hope for the when men take equal responsibility for women with why is that so central for women's equality and are we we were 10 nonthan ago?0 years better.re doing a lot when i was in my last year of attending i was columbia law school, my daughter and four.n three here was only one nursery school in that entire area. -- they would take a 9-to 12 or 3 to 5. by the time my daughter was a at er herself and teaching

there were school, daycare dozen full day area.ities in that clerks have aw taken parental leave, male law clerks. more common than at this was.once court,y first year on the i was served by a law clerk who ad been with me on the d.c. circuit, and his application was attractive to me. why? because he wrote that he was at night at georgetown and the reason was, economist, had an bank.d job at the world that and one other thing.

he submitted as his writing first year of law exercise, and it of contract as llustrated in vogna's ring cycle. rosen: how is the theory -- >> i was going to say about that, i asked the chief, this is 1993 and 1994, if could have access to west law lexus at home. law he chief said no, the clerks were expected to stay long it was necessary on the premises. that, all ar, after of the law clerks had access to

law and lexus at home. vogner e'll save the vog question, this is from 1986. i say this because it's a golden ime and it's very important that the audience understands how far you think you've come from when you started off and go.e you have to this said in 1986, in piece, some thought on the debate between special versus treatment feminism, where i claim my principle affirmative action plan would have three legs. first it would promote equal educational opportunity, ffective job training for women. second, my plan would give men incentives to nd share more evenly with women the worries,ponsibilities, upsets, and sometimes tedium of

raising children from infancy to adulthood, and third, plan would make quality daycare available on.m infancy in far have we come goals?ing those a considerable distance. what i just described as one nursery school in an area to now, i mean, the changes i've een in my lifetime has been enormous. of course, we haven't reached nirvana, but the progress that fore made, makes me hopeful the future. -- he way, i said in that affirmative action plan, my action plan would be or men as teachers in

kindergarten and grade schools. that that would be they ful for children, if could see men in caring roles as they see women. rosen: there was a piece yesterday in "the new york kids who saw ow toys that defied gender stereotypes were more likely to should play rls with trucks and boys with dolls. important to break down stereotypes. ms. magazine had a record of and one of ildren, doll.as william has a the recording is called free to done by d me, it was marlo thomas. show: i grew up on that tv nd i think it's in my mind

right now. what is your message to the next generation of feminists? what are the goals that remain to be achieved? it's the unconscious -- it's a handle hard to get on. unconscious bias, well, my the ite illustration is symphony orchestra, when i was a wing up, you never saw oman in a symphony orchestra except perhaps the harpest. a well-known music critic for the "new york times," that he could tell the difference, blindfolded whether woman playing the piano man, or the violin. so someone a had the bright idea putting him to the test.

him, and what happened? he was all mixed up. pianist as a man he was was a woman, and to admit that bias was operating. so someone got the even brighter a curtain between auditioning o are and the judges. and that simple device almost overnight led to women showing symphony orchestras in numbers. now, i wish we could have a drop of ain in every field endeavor but one example of the

bias that still suit was a title 7 brought in the late 1970s, -- the plaintiffs were women gettingnot succeeded in middle management jobs at at&t. very, very well on all criteria, but they lunked disproportionately at the last stage, and what was stage?ast it was what was called a total test.n the total person test was an the tive interviewing for promotion. and why were women dropping out disproportionately. t was because of a certain

discomfort that the executive had in dealing with someone who different. if he's interviewing a man, well, he sort of knows this me and he's t like comfortable. a member's a woman, or he feels ity group, uncomfortable. is a stranger to him that shows up in how he rates the candidate. solution to unconscious bias is to bring men and women -- more women -- this is o'connor that justice often said. our age should get show, ere and make a good

and that will encourage other women that he more are out there doing things the all of us will be. mra [applause] such it's a time of anxiety, the political system is so polarized. and women are figuring out other. interact with each hat is your advice about how civil interactions are possible and do i want to share the advice that you gave to lauren that you've given to so many couples you have married. xplain what the police son is because it's profound and very wise. my f you're referring to mother-in-law's advice on my wedding day.

rosen: yes. >> i was married in my husband's ome, and just before the ceremony, my mother-in-law took e aside and said, i would like secret of a he happy marriage. it is. glad to know what she said dear, in every good marriage, it helps sometimes to deaf. a little [laughter] >> and that's advice i have not only in 56 years of day, in mybut to this current workplace. [laughter] >> it is a profound lesson in othersing in anger, and

lose their temper, not losing yours. well, emotionsg: , andanger, remorse jealousy are not productive. they will not accomplish , so you must keep them under control. in the days when i was a flaming feminist litigator, i never said , you sexist take. -- sexist pig. [laughter] justice ginsburg: i will tell you one such incident. i was arguing a case in trenton, new jersey before a three-judge federal district court.

one said, well, women are doing fine these days. opportunities are equal for them everywhere. honor, lifeyour training isn't available to women. he said, even in the military to have equal opportunity. and i answered him with flight training is not available. , oh,esponse to me was don't tell me that. women have been in the air forever. i know from experience with my own wife and daughter. so what is my comeback? don't have their feet planted firmly on the ground. you don't see that anymore, but in the 1970's when judges knew it was improper to make racist jokes, women were still fair

game. it must have been extraordinary the things you saw and heard back then, and yet you have always kept your cool. yes, because ig: wanted to win my case. [laughter] justice ginsburg: chief justice , my very last argument in the supreme court was in the fall of 1978. it was a case about putting women on juries. some people today are astonished when they are told it was not all that long ago when women were either not put on the jury in if- they could opt they wanted to, but they were

not called otherwise -- or they but any womanll was exempt. argument withhat the public defender from kansas city, missouri. i had 15 minutes, and i was about to sit down, confident that i had gotten out everything i wanted to convey. rehnquistustice , so, mrs. ginsburg, you won't settle for susan b anthony's face on the new dollar. then chief justice burger said something, and that was that.

in the cap going back to union station, i thought, why wasn't i quick enough to think of some perfect answer, which would have no, your honor, tokens won't do. [laughter] [applause] it was not sorg: long ago that most of the social york, inthis city, new only --on dc, where men were men only. so whenever i was asked to speak at those clubs i said i'm not going to speak at a place that wouldn't welcome me as a member. groups.y distinguished the american law institute, for example.

dinners at the sentry association. i wrote an explanation of why they should not be meeting their. most people agree with me. some people didn't because they switched to the harvard club, or the food was not comparable. [laughter] my first encounter was when my husband was working for a law firm in new york and they had a holiday party at a club that did not admit women. women associates, let it be

known that that was improper. they weren't listened to. so the next year, none of the women associates showed up at the holiday party. and the year after that, the holiday party was held at a place that welcomed women as well as men. thinkis extraordinary to of how different things were from a world where women couldn't go to holiday parties or joins club -- or join clubs then today. does it seem like extraordinary progress, or is it inadequate? what is your assessment of the progress we have made? justice ginsburg: the progress has been enormous, and that is what makes me hopeful for the future. the signs are all around us. in the elections in the fall of

2018, there will be more women running for office than ever before on every level, local, state, federal. when i was nominated for the job , i think the senate was conscious that there were no women on the judiciary forittee, so they added two my nomination, and they have all-malee back to an committee since then. is it a good thing that women are galvanized to run for office? what would you tell those who are hesitating in trying to decide whether or not to run? i think theburg:

women today have a lot more ofport than they once did groups campaigning for them. , centered a o'connor in 1981. there had never been a woman before. when i was appointed to the d.c. circuit by jimmy carter, jimmy who changed,man literally changed, the complexion of the u.s. judiciary. he looked around at the federal judiciary and said, they all

looked just like me. just like me. they are all white men. but that is not how the great united states looks. to be drawny judges from all of the people, not just some of them. so we made an effort to appoint minority group members and women , not one at a time, but in numbers. he appointed i think over 25 women to the federal trial court and federal district courts. he appointed 11 to courts of appeals, and i was one of the lucky 11. , did youeople ask always want to be a judge? graduatedd say when i from law school, there were no

women on the federal appellate bench. is one appointed in 1934 by president roosevelt, and she retired in 1959, and so then one wasre none until appointed by president johnson to the court of appeals for the ninth circuit. she was the first ever secretary of education, so then there were none again. and then jimmy carter became pattern that set a no president has departed from. president reagan, not to be outdone, was determined to appoint the first woman to the supreme court. he made a nationwide search and came up with a splendid

o'connor. sandra day justice,s a new someone or another would call me justice o'connor. [laughter] justice ginsburg: they knew there was a woman on the supreme court, so a woman's voice meant that i should be justice o'connor. nowadays there are three of us, 1/3 of the bench, and because my seniority i sit close to the middle. justice sotomayor is on one end, justice kagan on the other, and anyone who has watched arguments at the court knows that my are verylleagues

active in what goes on. when justice scalia was with us i think he and justice sotomayor had a contest of who could ask the most questions. [laughter] >> you were interested in that survey that found that the women justices were interrupted more. what is your considered judgment of that? justice ginsburg: i think my colleagues would notice that and perhaps be more careful. but we do interrupt each other as the former law clerks here know. one of the most amusing , there was anhat oral argument and justice o'connor, who often asked the , i thought she was done so i asked the

question, and she said just a minute, i'm not finished. i apologized to her at lunch. she said, don't give it another thought. the guys do it to each other all the time. [laughter] justice ginsburg: the next today in "usa today" the headline was "rude ruth interrupts sandra." i was asked to comment, so i said what sandra headset at lunch. the men interrupt each other regularly, and you haven't noticed that. that reporter, to his credit, watched through the next two sittings and said, you know, you're right. i just never noticed it when it was two men. then an academic whose specialty

was language wrote an op-ed piece in "the washington post" to explain how this happened, how i interrupted sandra, and she said justice ginsburg is a jew who grew up in new york city , and those people talk fast. justice o'connor is a girl of the golden west, laid-back, speaks slowly. people who knew the two of us recognized immediately that sandra got out two words to my every one. it is a wonderful example of the stereotype. >> you have a very different style on the bench and in conversation. on the bench you are right in there, but in conversation all your friends know it is in the pauses we have to wait because

you are about to say something very special. [laughter]sburg: [laughter] my law clerksrg: know that, too. [laughter] justice ginsburg: i try to think before i speak. [laughter] it is something that my husband learned as a law teacher. he was concerned that the men were volunteering much more often than the women, and one of gave him advice. don't ever call on the first hand that is raised. that will invariably be a man.

weight 5, 6 seconds and you will see women's hands go up because women were thinking before they spoke. [laughter] >> we are out of time, but i am reluctant to let you go because i feel like we have so much to learn from you. -- i haveask you learned so much from you. -- as yougood for men said recently, there should be nine women on the supreme court

-- justice ginsburg: no, i didn't say there should be. the question was when where they'll -- when will there be enough. i said there will be enough when there's nine. [laughter] [applause] for most ofburg: they were, until justice o'connor, all men. and no one thought anything was unusual about that. >> but you weren't joking. and it would be good for men and women here. justice ginsburg: we've had state supreme court's with all women. i think minnesota did for a while. we had many states that had a majority women. our neighbor to the north,

canada, has a woman as their chief justice, and four women. so we are catching up. >> and why is a good? is it because, as you say so powerfully come at generalizations about the way -- so powerfully, jenna relations -- so powerfully, generalizations about the way men and women are have guided you? justice ginsburg: there's an experience that women have that brings something to the table. body is muchlegial better off to have diverse people of different backgrounds and experience. discussionse our more informed. in one case where it was evident

was a 13-year-old girl who was the wrongof having kind of pills in school, and she was taken to the girls restroom and strip-searched. the pills she had in her purse, i think there was one ad bill one advil andn -- one aspirin. after she was strip-searched and no contraband found, she was put in a chair in front of the prince was office -- the principal's office and her mother was called to take her home. say,'sher was

beside herself that her daughter had been humiliated in that way, under ourught a suit antidiscrimination laws of 1983. at the oral argument, it took a light tone. theof my colleagues said boys undress in front of each other in the locker room and there is nothing embarrassing about that. that aonse was 13-year-old girl is not like a 13-year-old boy in that regard. stage in hercult , and there was simply

no more jokes. i guess my colleagues were wives andf their daughters. insight i have because i have grown up female. it is not that women decide cases differently than men. they don't. there's a woman that was on the supreme court of minnesota who said at the end of the day, a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same , wement, but nevertheless bring something to the table that was absent when the judiciary was all-male.

>> can men become more enlightened? well, i thinkrg: you can answer that for yourself. [laughter] >> you are wiser than my -- than i am. it is a very important question. justice ginsburg: you can see what happened in the 1970's. up until then the supreme court ver saw a gender-based classification that it didn't think was right or didn't think constitutional. one of the cases in my earlier days, a woman owned a tavern and her daughter was the bartender. the state of michigan passed a law that said women could not tend bar unless they were or the daughter of a

male tavern owner. that meant that these two women would be put out of business. the supreme court made light of out with, starting ife,ing about chaucer's w and instead of saying yes, women are perfectly capable of tending bar, said, well, women need to be protected. unpleasant.etimes things go on. to their great credit, the michigan alcoholic beverages , when the supreme court said the law was ok, decided they were not going to enforce the law.

so they were able to keep their tavern. in fact, when i went to law describedat case was in an abbreviated paragraph as one example of the supreme court letting go of its stranglehold on social and economic legislation. was it ision for this for health and safety to protect from the rowdy drunks. the supreme court justices never thought that the ban didn't apply to the barmaids, the women who took the drinks to the table and were much more in danger of the rowdy drunks then the woman standing behind the bar.

that's where we were not so long ago. when a woman from hillsborough had a bitterda dispute with her philandering, and washusband humiliated to the breaking son's she took her young baseball bat in the corner of the room and with all her might, hit her husband on the head. end of the altercation, beginning of the murder prosecution. there were no women on her jury. her thought was that if women , not necessarily what

should be acquitted, but she might be convicted of the lesser crime of manslaughter, not murder. murder was convicted of by an all-male jury. the argument in the supreme court was she doesn't have the opportunity for a jury drawn from a cross-section of the population because half the population is left out. in 1961eme court said that law is simply reflecting women's place at the center of home and family life. in the next decade, in three cases in a row, the court made it clear that women had to be called just as the men.

obligationuty is an have, as well as rights. if you exempt women, you are saying they are expendable. we don't need them to be part of the administration of the justice system. the changes i have seen in my long life have been just enormous. of the humannt stories behind these changes so vividly brings it to life. at a constitution center event two years ago you suggested that we create a series on these human stories. we did that with c-span for the wonderful "landmark cases"

series, and we are launching the second season here next monday. justice ginsburg: what cases did you use? >> for the second season we are doing everything from the privacy case to the civil rights cases. i think and hope we are doing vmi, your great gender discrimination case. you are right, telling these human stories helps us understand how the law have changed. justice ginsburg: the supreme court historical society puts on reenactments. we have done brad well v. 1970's,, a case in the qualified to be admitted to the bar but turned down because she was a woman. in that case, the state of illinois was so sure that they would win they didn't even show

up to argue. [laughter] they did asburg: reenactment of one of brandeis' cases. >> you had the most riveting talk at the new york historical mohler and bradwel l, and i invite the audience to check it out. i have been selfish in keeping you this long, but i am so reluctant to part, and we need to do that now. i will end with a very obvious but important question. that youthis afternoon are optimistic about the future because you had hoped for the millennials. justice ginsburg: yes. >> which was wonderful to hear. a to know, and i know the what is your too,

advice to those millennials about how they can best advance the cause of justice? justice ginsburg: not alone, but in alliance with like-minded people. i was impressed and heartened by the women's march in d.c., which has now been repeated in many .laces all over the country young people should appreciate the values on which our nation is based and how precious they , and if they don't become part of the crowd that seeks to , if the spirit of liberty dies in the hearts of

there is no court capable of restoring it. but i can see the spirit of my ,randchildren and their friends and i have faith in this generation just coming into adulthood. >> justice ginsburg, for all you have done to advance the cause , and toty and equality defend the constitution of the united states, thank you so much. [applause] justice ginsburg: thank you. thank you.

[applause] justice ginsburg: ok, thank you very, very much. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018]

announcer: tonight, remarks from senate minority leader chuck schumer on immigration issues, the 2019 budget, and senate leadership. he spoke at the university of louisville. you can watch senator schumer's comments tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. on "ther: tonight communicators," from the consumer electronics show in las vegas, technology industry leaders discuss their latest developments in artificial intelligence. can have artificial intelligence in something as simple as your music playlist. those are using technologies that have machine learning to help figure out what movies you

love to watch and what music you like to us into. it can be -- like to listen to. mailn be in your in filtering out spam, a computer algorithm using technologies like deep learning within ai to do that. on the other end you can have artificial intelligence powering self driving cars. autonomous driving uses vision and machine learning to help a car navigate through streets. justice ginsburg: watch "the commute -- announcer: watch "the 8:00nicators" tonight at c-span2.ern live on announcer: c-span's "washington journal," live with news and policy issues that impact you.

we are live in little rock, arkansas for the next stop on the c-span bus 50 capitals tour with arkansas governor asa hutchinson on key public policy issues facing his state. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal," lied at 7:00 a.m. eastern sunday. join the discussion. announcer: tomorrow, testimony from cia director mike pompeo on current global terror threats. he will be joined by national intelligence director dan coats and national security agency director mike rogers. they will be speaking before the senate intelligence committee live tuesday at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. also tomorrow, mick mulvaney, director of the office of management and budget, will discuss president trump's 2019

budget request before the senate budget committee. announcer: next, today's white house briefing with press secretary sarah sanders. she answered several's best several questions on the president's response to special abused allegations against rob porter. this is 20 minutes. press sec. sanders: good afternoon. good to be that with you guys. always, a busy day here at the white house, so i am going to jump in to a couple of highlights and then take your questions. this morning the president unveiled an outline for