i think that's where the problem is. we need more schools in the community. get the community involved. let them see the schools. let them see the kids. give them activities that are close at home. host: stacy we'll leave it there. guest: she makes several important points. large comprehensive schools often tend to present too many opportunities for the most at-risk kids to fall through the cracks because there is no one watching out for them and that's why some of your successful models, even when they're keeping the large building, they're breaking that building up into three or four separate schools so there is a community now that's developed. that's critically important. the second part is it's about equity. the fact is that we can't -- that all of us in what we try to demonstrate by the economic data showing how this effects all of our pocketbooks, not just those students, is there may be a high school 10 miles away that our child don't go to

or we never drive by, it directly affects us. it directly affects our community and our tax base in terms of whether or not the students are going to be taxpayers or tax consumers in the future. . so stacey shouldn't be having to send her child across school. we need to make sure every

school quality because we need every student to have a quality education. host: our last call from dwayne on our line for independents. he's in charleston, south carolina. >> good morning to you all. my question is this. 12 time to eliminate the agree garian-based education -- gregarian-based education system and condensing the hours of schooling during the day? in this particular area you have young children who start kindergarten age at 7:30 and they don't get out until almost 3:00. and that duration of time and the lack after tension span -- of attention span as those children grow up can be a debt meant. they're getting up -- -- up at a point where their brain may just get tired so if we eliminated the summer break and

just had a year-long system like other countries have, do you think in this country it's time to seriously look at that across the board? host: dwayne as two very important questions. one is on sleep. there are school districts that are now making the school day start later, recognizing students aren't functioning as well early in the morning. equally important is about the time. do we eliminate the 180-day schedule? a number of school districts are. we happen to be an industrial nation with one of the least amount of time, days in class. having said that it's not simply about seat time. it's about quality of learning. and so there are some students that will need more time, others that won't. but we need the flexibility. that flexibility, i hope, will come when the congress takes up. that's why it's so critical. several have complained about no child left behind. that's expired. congress needs to take up the next round of legislation called the elementary and

secondary education act to address many of the issues that dwayayne and others have raised3 >> tomorrow, they will discuss the political news of the week. trudy rubin of the philadelphia inquirer talks about general microscope's comments. -- john crystal -- general mcchrystal's comments. in a moment, america in the courts, ruth bader ginsberg

talks about the importance of oral argument. then there will be the weekly addresses from president obama and senator isaacson. after that, there will be a session on political scandals. >> this is c-span's america and the courts. next, judge ruth bader ginsburg. >> i would like to begin by asking about one of the great

stories. it goes something like this. a young district court judge had invited oliver wendell holmes out to lunch. they had had lunch and returned to the capital where the supreme court was at the time. then he turned to oliver wendell holmes and said, well, sir, goodbye. do justice. then oliver wendell holmes spun around on him fiercely and said, that is not my job. my job is to play the game according to the rules. which of the grid judges had it

right? [laughter] does a distinct sense of judgment affect how you play the games by the rules. >> i think the story are possibly are possible because the learned hand that i studied played by the rules and did justice. >> i think the learned hand said later that he did it deliberately to be provocative. he knew he would have that kind of reaction from holmes. >> one of the great privileges was to ride in the back of the car while my judge drove the great learned hand home. and part of the story was that i wouldn't give it anything to

-- but these were pretitle 7 days and learned hand did not want a woman as a law clerk. yet in the car he would say anything that came into his head. he said words i had never heard. [laughter] >> and i asked him, why when you are so uninhibited in this car, would you not consider me as a law clerk? and his answer was -- young lady, i am not looking at you. >> i was in the back and he -- it's as though i wasn't there. >> as pioneering it will gator for gender equality you had to

sper suede the supreme court to deliberate this. when is it appropriate to reconsider past decisions and what type of waive ought to be given to them and how the processes overrules some precedent. >> to explain to the audience what it was and then they would understand why it was not a difficult job urging that the supreme court overrule that case and others in the similar period. the gossett was a mother and daughter. the mother owned a tavern and the daughter was her bar tender. then the state of michigan passed a law that said, a woman cannot serve as a bartender

unless her father or husband own the establishment. that was built a law protective of women because unsavory things go on in taverns. what the law didn't say was that women couldn't serve as waitresses in these taverns when they would be closer to the men who might be a little tipsy. and there was some thought that the bartenders, you named it, it was not so much to protect women, but to protect the bartender's union against the competition of women. in any case, the supreme court upheld that law all in the nation that this was protecting the mother and her business

establishment and the daughter out of her job. well, the supreme court never saw gender base classification it didn't like until 1971. and then the supreme court began to see finland was in a green light all over the country. laws that will protect women, cainl to be understood as law that far from putting women on a pedestrian stl jus us the brennan put it -- too often put them in a case. shut them off for an opportunity. the supreme court was an entirely reactive institution. didn't make the exfssi that

came before. but they will spend so what's being put before them. and the simple case that the court faced in 1971ings, was it was a law of the state of idaho. 1971 was it was a law of yith equally entitled to administer a. it's not something that would you think of the u.s. society. so with that changing a poor relationship that we have sandied and reviews. the store unrecognizeably held

-- in the 197's a cream court that with knowned by ron. he would grab all the state laws that they discriminated all by that. >> i don't know if you ever actually call balled some strikes. i can see you being drafted in it. does that metaphor decide you work harder? >> it's harder. apply jeff jevchuss tin --

basketball was his favorite sport. he said, if you're an appellate judge simeds you have to call foul against the home team. >> she said you will be a roundy dude, but you have to call it as you see it. and not as the home ground. whether is president or the con fliss or the that is certainly true. but there are many cases that we get as you all know, the law is not clear and certain. where we ve a greatly general

feign like the equal protection of the laws. and this computer that you luggage in the facts of the case and you get out an answer that you --@@@@g@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @r how can you use the potential clause 1 there are arbitrary distinctions between men and women.

look at the preamble to our constitution that says, we the people of the united states, and ordered to form a more perfect union. who are "we the people" in the beginning? white property men. all of its diversity. iity the genius of this problem and his governs are well over 200 years in that it is ever becoming more perfect. and we the people have decided to be more incruisive. >> i was going to ask you why the eepings adoms in 1928 to a change. one of my fee rees about the organize snigse of evil

prektslaws was that it was designed to grant equal civil rights or system of task or something of tasks. it might not have been the quix -- but surely after the ninth amendment it should have been clear. and just spoke to the freemcoumplet suggested that perhaps it should be -- does adongs of the 19th evidence attendant day the judge. >> it was a big argument for you. and you tried and it failed. [laughter] >> and it failed. >> there always was, i become commit cal of d unity. they breakfast.

they should have equal statute. the answer was the 19th moment gave the women the moan by the only that, it doesn't make any other change. one would think that one of the basic rights as options of sit senship was so impressive that made, nots employ there was a split in the suffrage movement. the one of the vote, the past for the vote, and nothing else. the more radical wing of the suffrage movement, the national women's party, they argued, no,

we want more. we want an equal rights amendment. they said, the 19th amendment gives us the vote. we need the full rights amendment to give us truly equal status. so the national women's party introduced that amendment in 1923. they introduced it every year after that. often, it was not gratifying. it came very close. >> in teaching comparative law, i have noticed that the u.s. constitution is harder to a m amend. is the equal rights amendment suggested that article 5 creates too high a hurdle for constitutional amendments?

>> the principal proponent for the call rights amendment said that there was never a time when sensible interpretation as the equal protection clause would not give us everything that we are asking for through an equal rights amendment. i am still a partisan of the equal rights amendment, not because it would change the current use of the court. if you pick up any constitution written since 1970, any place in the world, you will see an equal rights of men entered my constitution does not have such a provision -- equal rights amendment. my constitution does not have such a provision. men and women are citizens of equal stature.

i think it would be nice if they could see that in a fundamental instrument of government and not just as a reasonable interpretation of the equal protection law. >> and illinois, we have much to apologize for. it all rights amendment probably died in our legislature here. i have been told by a number of trial judges that the hardest kind of case is a case where the two parties basically testify to incompatible and contradictory things. one must be lying and the other is not. the judges said that those are the most difficult akind to result. are there kinds of cases that you find hard to decide?

>> there are many difficult, challenging cases. as a famous man once said, it ain't over until it it is over. [laughter] the clinic students that i met with this morning, last term, there were four cases at the conference. the majority at the conference ended up being the minority because the business of thinking, rethinking, attempting to persuade one's colleagues, in those cases, the person who was assigned to right the majority opinion ended up writing they descend.

i was called to write the descent on mine seen it -- by my senior colleagues. my descent became the opinion of the court for six justices and only three on the other side. >> to what do you attribute that? [laughter] >> i am hoping for a repeat. [laughter] on the business of of, one of the interesting things -- on the business of oath, i went off to sweden as a student. but they did not understand about our system was why do you have parties that testify take

an oath? your requiring them to live. -- you are requiring them to lie. >> [unintelligible] >> you commented before on what role different forces of law can play in constitutional interpretation. i wondered if you could say little bit of bad. i wonder to what extent is it a program for the court [unintelligible] >> the question of referring to bahrain compared a lot to read --t to barring comparative

law to international law is largely misinterpreted. we are not bound by the law of any other nation. however, nowadays, we have partners in the business of judicial review. it was. after world war ii that other countries got into the business -- it was not until after world war ii that other countries get into the business of doing the same. many nations came to perceive that popularly elected legislatures could not only be trusted to remain faithful to society's core values. so they said the constitutional courts to counter tyrannical

governments. in the early days of those other courts, including canada -- canada did not have judicial review until 1982 when they got a fundamental charter and right. they all looked to us because there was no other player. more and more, they are looking to each other. one question i get when i go abroad is that we referred to decisions of the united states supreme court. we never referred to decisions of other courts. justice kennedy was criticized in texas's consensual sodomy

case. it was a 1981 decision. was their decision saying that criminalizing consensual acts that do not hurt anyone is in violation of the european convention of human rights. just referring to that, it was totally clear that he was not using any kind of binding authority, it was like referring to one of the professors law review articles. [laughter] [applause] >> well. [laughter] . >> justice, in the crawfordrdford line of education, those fraces have javier monica.

you are joined with discuss tisssclee yeah. and he has based his receive nurebnaste nair person, the manning of a club. in the original constitution touch. and -- and he is arguing in those cases that he is bound to be faithful to that original penful. it is much criticized by lawyers throughout the quntri. have you joinings with justice cla lie yeah for both reasons. his understanding of the confrontation clause does reflect the original standing or meaning of that close. they're talking about needs that the department has the righting to be confronted with

the it. there's not too much room for confrontation between these two wors. so yes, i enjoy the show. enjoy justice khali yeah's manning? -- sclee yeah's -- sclaly yeah. you know that came out of the proceedings. think hi -- it's a fundamental right in our criminal, justice system. the colleagues have situated very elaborate theories of judicial philosophy or

constitution interpretation. and in contrast chief justice roberts and alito have indicated that it is perhaps difficult to constructionu#@@@@b produce is something about the judicial philosophy that you rely on in addressing cases -- could you say something about the judicial philosophy that you rely on in addressing cases? >> they talk about rather different things. i suppose, if i had to pick either, well, i think i am and the originalist -- i am an or

originalist in this sense. it is the oldest constitution still in force in the world. it was written at the end of the 18th century, but i think the expectation was that it would govern us through the ages, through changes in time. that is why i do not treat to the grand clauses in the constitution, th as frozen in t. i think they were meant to govern society as they evolve. justice scalia would say that the fourth amendment would have to apply to new circumstances. that gives the people the right to be secure in their houses

against unreasonable search and seizure. at the end of the 18th century, that meant to keep soldiers from barging into your house. but what about having a helicopter hovering over your roof? it never touches your house. but they're able to proceed and that may lead you to be suspects for growing marijuana. is that a violation of the fourth amendment, even though your home is never touched? justice scalia wrote a fine opinion. he said yes, it does violate the fourth amendment for the police to engage in that kind of search. >> could you say a few things about arguments from the court.

do you remember some oral arguments that wer from the bench. ? you have any advice for the appellate candidates that are here today? >> appellate advocacy -- and our country, it is quite different from the way that it is in most countries. in france, for example, there will give an elegant pleading that will let be interrupted or you can go to their european court of justice in luxembourg and you will see that the lawyer is not interrupted. he gives his speech. in our system, all advocacy is

more of a conversation. it is a conversation between the lawyer and members of the court. by far, the most important part of the appellate process is the written part. i begin preparing for an argument always by reading what the judges have done in this case. i may look at some of the leading president. -- leading precedent. then i may look at the lawyer's brief. then the oral argument itself is pleading. lawyers would do best if they do not have a pained expression on their face. [laughter]

that they will welcome questions and see it as an opportunity, that the judge may not understand as well without their aid. it is a conversation. anyone who comes in with a prepared script is like to be sorely disappointed. you can probably get a good first sentence. [laughter] but not after that. >> have you ever changed your mind? has an oral argument ever changed your mind? >> yes, but wrare,. . we do not come to the bench with an empty mind. we should not be closed minded either. you have a pretty clear idea of how you think the case should be decided. sometimes, more often than turning around 180 degrees, you will see a procedural impediments saying that you

cannot reach to the question on the merits of the problem. so you may decide the case on a different ground than the when you thought the case would turn on as a result of oral arguments. sometimes, if you observe, you will find that the justices are not only talking to the lawyer, but talking to each other. sometimes justice scalia will thing that the lawyer had not answered my question well enough. he may complete the answer -- [laughter] and i do the same with him. >> what were the major

differences that you noticed upon being appointed to the supreme court? it is obviously very different to be one of the nine justices. what can you say about those differences? >> one difference, and it is really wonderful to be on the supreme court -- you go to the court of appeals from a trial court as a matter of right. and the parties present their issues. the d.c. circuit had made the administrative law cases and the parties could raise 17 issues. in the supreme court, we have the luxury of not only deciding what cases we will hear, but let issue. we will -- but what issue. we may take a case that have issues in the d.c. circuit and pared down to the one question

that we think may set an important precedent to guide the courts. that is one big difference. we choose the cases and the issues that we will hear. one has to be a bit more restrained when you have eight colleagues then when you have only two. another restraint is that the supreme court allows a half-hour aside. in most courts of appeals, they do not have that. but in the supreme court, if there's an issue, it can go on and on -- in the circuit court, if there is an issue, it could go on and on trade that does not

happen in the supreme court. -- on and on. that does not happen in the supreme court. [laughter] >> i'm wondering whether you have discerned any shift in your approach to cases over the years you've been on the cour and to speak generally that might lead a judge the way she views cases. >> having been a law teacher for 17 years and teaching constitutional law and then 13 years on the c.d. circuit, i

can't say that my approach to cases has changed. one colleague, i think justice blackman is the most graphic example of a justice who did change. he doesn't think he did. he believes that the court changed. and he stayed in the same place. but if you look at his early decisions like the one about the man who was too poor to file bankruptcy. and he said, well, too bad, you can stop smoking. how much you'll save by not buying cigarettings. amped he'd come up with $15,000 and this is the same man that wrote, what was the name of the poor joshua case? [laughter]

>> so i think he did change and did some wonderful books. it's by linda greenhouse. she tells the story of this man's wonderful odyssey. and most tragically is how his very close friendship with chief justice burger just fell apart. the distance between them widened. they were known as the minnesota twins when justice blackman came on the court. >> justice, in writing an opinion will, arguably conflicting priorities on the one hand to state a general will, making clear that your opinion is situated within the rule of law. and on the other hand, the obligation to decide for the case. before you.

how does one balance the obligation to state a general rule with the onablyization not the -- to say more than you need to say. and what do you think the court has to decide to stay or not stay? >> when an area is new tow the court. my colleague calls it minimalism. i don't call it that. we can't see all we see around corners. and it's better, i think the first time an issue comes before the court to be very careful. and even in the line of cases that i argued in the 1970's. when people told me that justice fren nan, had for a particularity.

it was much too early. my thought was that there would be 6 $15,, $7,000. then it could come without that general rule there. so i think go slow is the right approach for judges. but you can't know from the first case what else is out there, what different fact configurations might lead you to do this. >> i think we're at the point where we're ready to take questions from the audience. and there are microphones in each of the two aisles. if anybody would like to ask justice ginsburg a question.

could you please come forward to one of the mie mike -- mike crow phones. -- micro phones. >> the first one is always the hardest. [laughter] here we go. ok. [laughter] >> we'll start over again. please go ahead. >> thank you for being here. my question is if the president is the only official elected by the entire nation why isn't the the entire nation why isn't the presumption that everything >> because we have a constitution that puts checks on government. no person is above the law, not even the president.

it is something about our system, the wonder and envy and judges everyplace else. before we can to meet with all of you, somebody was talking about the procedure case. judges abroad to not understand how we court can order or, ostensibly, the president can order to give the steel mills back to their owners or, not even the supreme court, but a trial court judge could tell president nixon to handover the tapes from the oval office. how could a court order the chief executive around? well, it is because the basic premise is that this

constitution is getting a small. someone has to have the last word. -- is guiding us all. someone has to have the last word. and no person is higher than the law. >> all right. just in response to what you -- i want to probe a little further the qui of the court. going to slow, since where the law is developing. so i diss missed one case for a couple of cases for wanting of a substantial federal question. i think the court was afraid of the reaction if the court takes that issue on. can you say something about the

equities, what the court was up against in those cases? it was the bruent of enforcing down the board was born by the district judges. -- who had to say that this is the law. some of them would take sam johnson from alabama who suffered mightly who's mother's house was bombed. thanks goodness that there was nobody killed. and think of skelly wright who was my judge. the ostra syses. he suffered because he was enforcing the law. but the president following the law. i don't think that eisenhower

was the fan of roe vs. wade. he said i will never allow a black child to enter this school. i have now told the truth. and the children walked through the -- the african-american walked through that door. don't get me lost. people ask me what was the most important case. i think one of the students did today. i said not really brown because we had a part time in america until the loving decision. and why did the court wait that long? before living there was the

marsha in washington, there was martin loser luther king. and -- martin -- luther king. the story of the loving couple, richard and mary loving, they grew up in a part of virginia where there was prejudice. they fell in love. they couldn't get married in their state. they went off to d.c., got married. put their marriage listens on the wall of their bedroom. on an anonymous tip, sheriff and his henchman said to richard loving, who is that woman you're sleeping with? and richard said, she's my wife. he pointed to the marriage ser

tiff calt. haul them off to jail. they >> uncounciled, frithen't and the judge said a year in jail but i'll suspect -- suspend it if you never come back for 25 years. the self-rights move vie came a4r50eu6. and mildred wrote to the then attorney general who was robert kennedy. he said thises my story. kennedy wrote back and said, why don't you contact the afit yacht of the aclu. and they did. but it says something about our system that there are people like the lovings, every day

people who had faith in our judicial system. and use the court to write something terribly wrong with them that has happened to them. loving virginia is a very important case, i hope they will appreciate that not so long oon ago, 1967, and today we have a president who is himself the child of an interracial marriage. >> also not so long ago, women didn't have the rights that they had today. you were one of the pioneering lawyers for that fight. so first thank you. the second thing i wanted to ask you about is your choice as a strategist, as a legal

strategist. it seems like often enough to be a pattern playing this -- that you were representing were met. and i'm wondering was there a deliberate decision on your part to do that in hindsight. i would i could say i had a bad childhood. i really didn't. salary reed, she thought she faces -- faced the next one. steven's case was perfect. he was one of the one self-called, and men right's

advocacy. steven and his wife was defendable. he had a very healthy pregnancy. she went to the hospital. she had an embolism. and died. a child born healthy and steven was told that he had a healthy baby boy but that his wife had died. he tried to get social security benefits so that he could benefits and work on. but he was teeled that there are more benefits.

he wrote a letter to the editor in his local piper edison new jersey papings. i'm sick and tired about you talking about that. the tag line was "brilliance i didn't know about." there was a teacher, in the space department. she wrote this letter, she called me and said, didn't you miss something wrong with it. well, suggest to mr. white that he calls, the new jersey affiliate. now who was the subject of discrimination? the male wage earner gets for his familiarly certain ben fits. the female would -- wage earner

onal gets phone for herself. not for her family. she's considered the secondary winner. and that's the way the world was divided. they were the one who is were the childcare takers. women so in steven's case, we said, this little disrim nation is wading for everyone. the man will move on to be a very good one. but he will not have that opportunity if the parent is male rather than male.

the woman is not a wage earner that really counts. >> ginsburger what advice would you give to justice sotomayor in. >> soto mow ro does this every ving. she was a partner in a commercial business. she didn't know a whole lot of -- [laughter] >> she's very well. sle did call me as he -- something -- just a couple of days before she said, i so like the robe that you robe yes. please tell me -- [laughter] [laughter] [cheers and applause]

>> i am doing research on their right to travel. i am interested in your thoughts, the dissent's decision in this welfare case, the range of decision. some of them invoke the in grits and regrets clause and include the amenity in the clause. i am curious and your thoughts about their right to travel across american do is prudence. >> i'm a punt that to one of my colleagues in this conversation. -- i might point that to one of my colleagues in this conversation.

the question is, what benefits do you get when you are a newcomer to the states? i have to be very careful in answering a question like that because we have had those questions before and they will come again. i do not want to preview to you how i might decide. [laughter] >> thank you. >> i wondered if you have any concluding words of advice that you might want to give to the audience. >> i want to say to the students that i have had such tremendous satisfaction. [laughter]

>> what is going on there and? dennis -- -- did i miss -- how did i become a lawyer? i was a student in cornell had a not a very good time for our country. it was the heyday of senator joe mccarthy. i was a research assistant and he wanted me to see that our country was straying from its basic values by politicians who were seeing, every closet, but that there were -- that they were seeing commies in every closet, but that there were lawyers who were arguing