>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this seeng with two supreme court justices in conversation at the new york bar association. we talk to ruth bader ginsburg and sonia sotomayor. >> i thought of myself in those days as a teacher. my parents thought the teaching would be a good occupation for me because women were welcomed there and they weren't welcome as doctors, lawyers, engineers. i realized that i was facing an audience that didn't know what i was talking about. they understood race discrimination, that was oddious, but most men at that time thought that yes, the law was-- law was riddled with

gender-based distinctions but they all operated benignly in women's favor. like a woman didn't have to serve on a swrir if she didn't want to. so that was a benefit. >> the eavesdropping reflected curiosity. and i think that that is what drove me as a lawyer. i mean i always tell people, and it's not a per fk analogyk but you know lawyers are like being a voier into other people's lives. you participate a little more than voyers do, thankfully. but you get to, in every case you get to learn about how people or an industry or a government entity interacts in the world, what they do and what's important to them. and to be able to enjoy that process, i think you have to have curiosity. and so listening to others in their conversations was a way of teaching myself things that i

would not have otherwise learned so easily. >> rose: ginsburg and sotomayor for the hour next. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: tonight a rare conversation with two supreme court justices, ruth bader ginsburg and sonia sotomayor. as you know the supreme court kicked off its term this month with only eight justices following the death of antonin disalia-- scalia, tonight we hear all about the court and the

love of law from two justices. let me just begin and take note of the fact that they both have written books, sotomayor's book was called "my beloved world. ing. justice ginsburg is called my own word swi a combination of essays she has written. and i want to start with this, did looking back on your life, justice ginsburg and thinking that even though it was incorporated in speeches, what was that like for you to put your own life in focus, and how was that? >> my own words, as you said, is a collection of speeches, bench announcements, tributes to colleagues. it's not-- . >> rose: a biography. >> it's not a biography of me, to the extent that my life is told, it's in the introa ducted-- introa ductory pass ages that nie official

biographers wrote. that biography will come out sometime in the distant future. (laughter). >> rose: but your book, my beloved world, you said i am my mother. what did you mean? >> as i tell her, good and bad. i am my mother's-- she aspired to be more than her cirque. she wanted to go desperately go to college. and she lived in the poorest circumstances in her home community. and she would watch the college girls walk by her house, going to the post office cuz that was the center of the town's social life at the time. and all she drement about was

some day going to college, and getting my brother and i to college was her living her dream. now she wanted me to be a journalist. i don't think she would was ever convinced that there was much value in law. perhaps when i got on the supreme court she might have changed her mind. but i lived that dream for her. and i have lived all of her dreams because she set the example for me, of strifing always to do better. to trying to be the best person that i humanly could be. because that's what my mother, how my mother lived her life. so i try to emulate all of hoss things in my mother that are the best. and then when i do the things that are bad, i remind her that that is the problem with being a little duck, you copy everything. >> rose: you once said that

watching listening in on conversations was an important aspect of growing up for you. >> sure, who doesn't like to eaves drop. but i think that the eavesdropping reflected curiosity. and i think that that is what drove me as a lawyer. i mean i always tell people, and it's not the perfect analogy, but being a lauer is like being a voyures in somebody else's life, you participate a little moit thar voyers do, thankfully, but in every case you get to learn how people or an industry or a government entity interacts in the world. what they do and what's important to them. and so be able to enjoy that process, i think you have to have curiosity. and so listening to others and their conversations was a way of

teaching myself things that i would not have exercise learned so easily. >> rose: justice ginsburg, when did you fall in love with the law? >> people sometimes ask me did you always want to be a judge. or more, a supreme court justice. and when i think of what life was like in this city in the 40see, no girl, it would not be her wildest dreams to be a judge because there simply weren't any. franklin del a no roosevelt appointed the first woman to a federal appellate court

and then johnson appointed shirley halfstetler. she became the first ever secretary of education. and then there were none again. so i didn't think about being a judge until jimmy carter became president of the united states. and he looked around at the federal bench and he said you know, they all look like me. but that's not how the great united states looks. he was determined to appoint members of minority groups and women in numbers, not as one at a time curiosities. he appointed over 25 women to the federal district court, the trial bench, and 11 to courteds of appeals. and i was one of those lucky 11.

no president, by the way, ever went back to the way it was. president reagan didn't want to be outdone so he made a nationwide search for the first woman-- . >> rose: sandra day o'connor. >> and it was a brilliant choice. >> rose: in fact, you have said that when she left the court, retired, and alito came on, it marked a change in the court. >> yes. >> rose: because she was gone. >> well, i have said more than once that when she left, whenever the court divided 5-4 and i was one of the four, i would have been one of the five if she remained with us. so there was that enormous difference. >> rose: but my question to, going back to both of you have been influenced by people, your mom, your husband marty your late husband, had a huge influence. >> yes.

>> rose: would you have-- you have said to me that you would not have played it to the supreme court without him. >> no question about it. people who observed at the time said well, ruth would have been on a list, maybe she would be 22 or 23. but it was marty who made her number one and that's-- . >> rose: how did he do that? >> he had a little book of people that he contacted. they were-- (laughter) mainly my academic colleagues, in those days i was teaching at-- well, this was before my first good job in d.c.. he got in touch with academic colleagues, lawyers who knew me from the work that i-- the lawyering work that i had done. and he had-- many letters sent

to the president. and i think the most important thing of all and this was almost out of the blue, my rabbi, my guy was senator moynihan. and how did that come about? well, it was a connection that marty was very pleased to have. but it didn't come through them, him. the president was on a plane with senator moynihan going to some democratic functions in the city. and said pat, please tell me, who would you pick for the supreme court. and senator moynihan said well, mr. president, i'm not a lawyer so you shouldn't be asking me that question. the president said i value your judgement, who would you pick. and senator moin tan said ruth

bader ginsburg. why? why? because dean gris world, the long time dean of harvard law school thinks she's very good. and this is the dean that said i could not have a harvard law degree because i didn't stay there for my third year. life is-- so many chance things occur and you don't know whether they're going to turn out to be good or bad. but this one was certainly good. there was a celebration at the court of the 50th anniversary of the building. so the building was completed in 1935, and this was 1985. dean gris world was then solicitier general. he was to take a speech about great advocates before the court. and by 1-9d 85, he realizes that he can't have a list that's all

men. so after he finishes with thur good marshal, the next person he mentions is ruth bader ginsburg. >> rose: yeah. >> when i went through my nomination process, i was told that every one should have had a marty ginsburg as a muse. he apparently came in to the session with folders, including all of ruth's speeches, her entire schedule for her entire life, and binders filled with tax information. >> well, that part, the press reported inaccurately because they said the reason that ginsburg had no problem with the taxes or the babysitters is because marty was a tax lawyer. but you know, in our home, our personal life, i did all the

taxes. (laughter). >> rose: yes, and guess without did all the cooking? >> oh yes, yes. when-- . >> rose: marty. >> all the president's men and they were only men, descended on my apartment to go through my papers, marty made a delicious lunch for everyone. (laughter). >> rose: it was at one point, he would do all the special occasions and you would do dinners for the kids during weekdays. and finally your daughter came to you and said maybe you should just give that up too. >> well, in fact, she-- my daughter who was an excellent cook herself, she learned from a master, i was the every day cook. so i had seven things that i

made. and when i got to number seven we went back to number one. and they all came out of the 60 minute chef, that meant no more than 60 minutes from when you lked in the door until it's on the table. marty would never allow me to cook for company. and he was the weekend cook. so my daughter jane, in her high school years realized that daddy's cooking was infinitely better than mommies. and that mommy should be phased out of the kitchen. the result of that is that my wonderful daughter comes once a month, she cooks for me, she fills the freezer with individual dinners. we do something nice together in the evenings. she feels responsible for getting me out of the kitchen, and doesn't think i should go back in it. >> the supreme court refrigerant certificate filled with some of the leftovers. >> yes. >> rose: what's the best

experience for a supreme court justice? because you were on the court of. >> oh, an interesting question. >> rose: tell me. >> well, i'm biased. i think being on the district court was. and since almost all of my colleagues have only had court of appeals experience, with the exception of one elena kagan who was never a judge, and there have only been three supreme court justices in the history of the court with district court experience. but i find it is hard to understand how you can really appreciate the life of a case if you haven't really sat in a court room to see that case develop. and to understand the dynamics that create a record, that create the discussions that end up coming before the court on appellate review. in my judgement, if i were ever

privileged to be asked by a president what should he or she look for, i would probably see someone with district court experience. >> rose: because doing that, you get to see not only the case but you get to see the stories of the people without make up the stories that are in conflict. >> it helps to be a lawyer as some have said, without knows the story. >> rose: go ahead. >> who probably knows more about the case thant district judge. >> rose: oh! >> that might-- . >> rose: we have a debate going. >> i should say, i started out my life in the law as a clerk to a district judge. so i was a clerk in the southern district of new york for two years from, '59 to '61. >> but ruth, do you see

appellate practice as being the same as trial practice? even excepting your premise which is being a lawyer isn't critical but there is a difference between trial and appellate lawyer. >> there is an enormous difference and the important thing is the trial level is to build a record. >> and to know how difficult that can be. >> yes. >> rose: when you decide cases do you think about, i mean are you looking and saying we have to do what the law tells us. looking at precedent and looking at the constitution, but do you also say to yourself, what's going to be the impact on people, these decisions that we're making? >> well, i think those two are entirely harmonious, when the constitution says nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty or property, nor shall

any person, nor shall any person be denied the equal protections of the laws. the constitution tells us to think about the individual. and the rights that the individual has. so i don't think there's anything-- . >> rose: but it's not an abstract, it's a reality in terms of. >> well, it's inescapable for us to be aware of the impact of our discussion. in virtually every case, of any significant social impact, we are receiving amico briefs, friends of the court briefs from virtually every impacted segment of society. so we're-- we can't decide a big issue case without learing from all of the people who believe they'll be impacted positively or negatively, whatever our ruling might be. so that's an inescapable part of

our work. but i think ruth is talking more fundamentally which is obviously you can't rule, i don't think, without at least understanding what the consequences will be of your ruling. not just in terms of the law but since the law is responsive to human development, you have to know what is going to happen more broadly to be able to understand the choices you are making. >> now there are some cases when the law is clear and certain, like you have to be a certain age to run for office. but that's the kind of case that we get, the special thing about the supreme court is for the most part we don't take cases where everybody agrees. we wait for what we call splits.

and there is other judges disagrees about what the federal law is, whether a constitutional provision, what it manies in a particular context or a dense statute passed by congress. so the wonderful i believe input that we have, by the time the case gets to us, we have the benefit of what other good minds on benches, state and federal, have said about the issue. >> rose: the interesting thing too is, at the district court level, appellate court and appeals court, there is a higher place that it can go. but if you are on the supreme court, the buck stops here. this is it. and you then are making the decision that it is the final decision. >> not you. >> rose: the court is. >> the district judges, tony was talking about, they are the real power holders in the system.

because they sit alone in a court room. you can't get out. you are stuck with that judge from the day the complaint is filed till the final judgement. and you go up to the court of appeals, so sonia lost a little power when she went to the second circuit. >> i lost a lot of power. >> you were not the lady of the manor any more. you had to carry at least one other mind to prevail and the supreme court, the magic number is five. >> yes. >> so i have often said when i write for the court, it's never as if i were a queen. i have to take into account the views of my colleague and reflect those, in the opinion. >> rose: how much do you think your life as a litigator has

influenced your sense of-- as a supreme court justice? >> well, for one thing-- the historic role you have played. >> i am sensitive to what it is like to be on the receiving ends of questions. i had a fantastic fortune in that i was alive and a lawyer when the women's movement was revived in this country. what we were saying in the '70s, successfully winning case after case, exactly the same thing that women had said ever since abigail adams and even before, but society wasn't prepared to listen, in the '70s. society had already moved so the changes in the law, were

catching up to the judges that had already occurred in people's lives. so to be able to advocate for that cause, to see results that could not have been achieved even in the '60s was a fantastic opportunity, totally exhilarating, also exhausting. >> rose: but if those, that argument that you made, those briefs that you wrote, and those decisions that you had influenced, the ploweddest-- proudest achievement of your life? >> yes. i would say, yes. and i thought of myself in those days as a teacher. my parents thought the teaching would be a good occupation for me because women were welcomed there and they weren't welcome as doctors, lawyers, engineers.

i realized that i was facing an audience that didn't know what i was talking about. and as they understood race discrimination. but most men at that time thought that yes, the law was riddled in women's favor. a women didn't serve on a jury if she didn't want to. that was a benefit. to get them to see, that says something about a woman as citizen, because a citizen has rights and obligations. obligations as well as rights. men know they applaud a central part of the citizenry. because they can't escape to the duties. but women, they are expendable.

they really don't need them. to get across that message that this pedestal that many men thought women were on, they were spared the necessity to earn a living, that was a pit because it was never true, for poor women, to get them to see that what they regarded as favors in the in the wonderful expression that justice brennan used, the pedestal much more often than not turned out to be a cage, cuz it confined women, and limited what they could do. so to get the court to understand that there really was gender based discrimination, that was a challengeing job.

>> i was just going to say, as ground breaking as your work as a litigator was i think notorious big will live on a lot longer. >> rose: and what do you think of that. >> i think it is amazing that an 83 year old woman should be notorious. >> but i have said i understand where it comes from, you know the famous rapper, not orious big, well, he and i were both born an bread in brooklyn, so we have that in common. but more than that, i think that the nyu student who dreamed up the notorious rbg started with

my decision in shelby county gave, the decision that took the heart out of voting rights act of 1965. she was angry and then she thought well that's not a very product i've motion. i want to do something positive, so she took my dissent in the shelby county case and that was the beginning of not orious rbg. >> your role model for many people were many things. how do you see that? >> and you have spoken before about the supreme court might be very, very beneficial to have, to see-- earlier, we were in

conversation with your editor, your book editor. and we were talking about when i embarked on writing my book. i asked my editor, what makes a great memoir? and my editor and yours as well, have said the identical thing, honesty. and that readers can read and feel when truth is being spoken. or when it's sort of a put-on, that's not to be believed or accepted. to the extent that i continue to try to live my life as a normal person, and within an honesty that i define as valuable, trying to be both human and a

justice, not that you are not, then i think i give people hope about being able to achieve the things they want to achieve, even though they might perceive in themselves limitations that this society is otherwise imposing on them. and so-- . >> rose: you too can dream your dreams. >> yes. and you don't have to let the limitations that others might impose on you, or even the ones that you feel yourself, disable you from both trying and potentially achieving. and so that's what i perceive my role to be. to continue being as much sonia as i can be. so those others who live and live life similar to the one i have, can also hope. >> rose: and feel that they are part of the fan rick of

american-- fabric of american life. >> i know, they can be too. >> rose: yeah. (applause) within there was a line i used in the introduction to the book about the five jewish justices. and the question was what is the difference between a book keeper in the garment district and a supreme court justice. and my answer was one generation. the difference between the opportunities open to my mother and those open to me. >> rose: one generation. >> one generation. it was an important generation. >> rose: i once asked you because are you often called the thur good marshall of the

women's movement. and you have said to me that's a comparison you reject because? >> when thurgood marshall went into a town in the south. >> rose: to argue a case. >> in the morning, he didn't know whether he would be alive at the end of the day. i recommend to everybody, a book called devil in the the grove and will you get that sense of what those lawyers were up against. they in fact didn't know whether there they would live to see another day. that was something i never, never encountered. my life was never in danger. and that was an enormous difference. as far as technique, well, yes, i copied thurgood marshall's

technique. he was a great lawyer. and he lead the court step by step to get brown v board. he argued cases, when he told the course, separate but equal is not before the court today. these facilities are vastly unequal. take the separate law school, university of texas had set up, when they knew they had to find, they had to have some legal training for african-americans, so they set up this vastly inferior law school. when he had his building blocks in place, then he made the big pitch. and so the women's right pros ject which i cofounded, that's what we tried to do, to get there. not in one giant step but so that by the time the big step came it would be inevitable because all the building blocks had led up to it.

>> do you think we have reached that space, ruth? >> no. but considering where we were, considering then in 1961, the liberal warring court told wendel and hoyt, a woman we would today call battered, who had been humiliated to the breaking point by her fill anderring, abusive husband, she one day couldn't bear it any more. she tag saw her son's baseball bat, picked it up with her her might, hit her husband over the head. that was the ends of the humiliation and the beginning of the murder prosecution. and florida didn't put women on juries those days. those days, not all that long ago, 1961. the supreme court said we don't understand what this complairnlt is about now any woman who wants

to serve, can go to the clerk's office and sign up. but if she doesn't sign up, she's not going to be called. the thinking was if there were women on my jury, perhaps they wouldn't acquit me, but there is a good chance they would have convicted me of the lesser offense of manslaughter, and not murder. well, she was convicted of murder by an all-male jury. and the warring court thought that was okay. as late as 1961. >> rose: '61. >> so the tsh tsh did come until the burger court, a courted that had a reputation of being conservative. and yet that court shut down one federal law after another, one state law after another, on the ground that they discriminateed

arbitrarily on the basis of gender. >> rose: so what does that say about the way the court works? you know, and time. >> well, there's a great-- there was a great constitutional law professor who said the courts should never be influenced by the weather of the day. but inevitably it will be influenced by the climate of the era. and that's what the court of the '70s was influenced by. >> rose: and is that what the court of the 21st century has been with respect to marriage, equality, and same-sex marriage, influenced by what was happening in the larger community? the climate. >> i am wondering whether i should answer it or-- .

>> why are you wondering. >> she gets more cover than i do >> rose: that is an interesting expression in itself. she gets more cover than i do. meaning-- she's given more what? >> latitude? >> well, i think so. and rightfully so. she's earned it. no, no, no. she has fully earned it. >> it's only because i'm old enough to be her mother. (laughter) i will say something about what happened. when i was growing up people who were not heterosexual were in the closet. they did not reveal who they

were. i remember the first time, it was in this very space, a program, about the problems the gay and lesbian people encountered, things like renting a house or finding a dentist. and i was on the post admission legal education committee and one member of the committee or another would sponsor every program. an no one volunteered to sponsor a program that the gay activists alliance asked to have at the city bar, just to explain the problems they encountered. so i volunteered and i was the only woman on the committee and i men started giggling. what's so funny. well, ruth, do you think they will feel comfortable dealing with a woman? >> and i said well, what makes you think that the gay activist alliance is composed only of

men? and the truth was that they sent their vice president who happened to be a woman as one of the people to speak. what happened, i think, was people came out of the closet. people stood up and said this is who i am, and i'm proud of it. and we looked around, and who were they, our next door neighbor, our child's best friend, maybe even our child. when that happened, there was no longer the same we, they difference. they were part of we. these were people we loved, that we worked with, that was something i think that gave impotence to the gay rights movement, that was much harder with racial discrimination. because people tended to live in

neighborhoods that you were either all white or all african-american. there really was a we they sense about that, which ones people stood up and said this is who i am, that made an enormous difference. >> if you count the decades from plesy versus ferguson accepting segregation as compatible with the 14th amendment, to brown versus board of education, it was over 50 years. and it took us that long to live this societial expectations of what equality, true equality had to mean. i think ruth is pointing to the fact that we have a society that begins to think about notions

differently with experience. and that experience is, and those experiences teach both the society and yes, justices. >> rose: is there a special bond between the three justices that are women on this court? >> i would say there is a special pride that i have in my newest colleagues. because you know the old nursery rhyme what are little girls made of, sugar and spice and everything nice. that is what little girls are made of, little boys, nails and snails and puppy dog tails. well, all of you, that visit the supreme court know that my newest colleagues are not shrinking violets. >> rose: yes. >> they take a very active part

in the colloqu oy that goes on at oral arguments. >> rose: yeah. >> if i may take the liberty of relaying a story. >> rose: all right. >> the day our newest colleague, elana kagan was sworn in, the president as is customary was there, and came in to greet all of the justices. and he got to justice ginsburg and said something like, justice ginsburg, are you happy with the two sisters i brought you. (laughter) and ruth paused, and looked at him and said i'm very happy. but i will be happier when there is five. (applause) >> well, the answer to that gives you the question, when will there be enough, when will

there are nine, of course. >> rose: there are only eight now. tell us what you. >> eight is not a good number for a collegiate court. >> rose: and you hope that this, after the election and that there will be a consideration by the senate, before the new president takes office? >> i think we hope there will be. >> as quickly as possible. >> rose: because? >> we function as nine. >> i thought, we did remarkably well last term when there were only three decisions, three cases that couldn't be decided because there was an even division, but they were important cases. and it means that uncertainty will continue in the country on those issues. until there are nine. >> rose: you have said to me, you missed justice scalia.

>> yes. >> rose: justice breyer was on with me at nor forum last week. he said i miss the spirit of justice scalia and the debates with justice scalia. i assume you feel the same way. >> he made us laugh. >> rose: that's what it was. >> and he made us think. he challenged us to think. and those are ingredients for interesting conversations and for lively discussion. >> rose: you once said to me, you both loved opera. but you said he could sing better than you. >> i can't sing at all. >> rose: but they are writing lines for you in the opera that you will perform in when? when is it coming up. >> november 129. >> rose: november 129. >> it's a speaking part. >> rose: oh, a speaking part.

(laughter) >> there is an opera, scalia ginsburg that is-- it's a comic opera, of course. (laughter) but the composer who wrote scalia ginsburg tried to say in a nutshell what's the difference between the two of us. so it opens with scalia's rage aria, the musicians know a rage aria typical of handel and the rage aria is this, the justices are blind. how can they possibly-- it, the constitution says absolutely nothing about this. and i-- said that he is searching for bright line solutions to problems that don't have easy answers. but the tbreat thing about our constitution is that like our

society, it can evolve. so that sets up the-- and then we have a wonderful du et at the end that says we are different w reone. different in the way we approach the interpretation of the text but one in our reference for-- reverence for the constitution and court. >> one thing jus ka scalia i think said was it probably wasn't the best idea that how many supreme court justices came from either harvard or yale, that that was not necessarily a good idea for the supreme court. do you agree with that? >> and most of them had judicial experience at the court of appeals level. >> i actually thought he didn't think that. >> but didn't he say something like that. i think he did say something, but i may be wrong. >> no, no, no, think shall-- . >> rose: regardless of whether he said it or not--

(laughter) >> i will give you that. >> rose: okay. >> well, since i'm from yale. >> rose: yes. >> and ruth's spent part of her time at harvard. >> columbia hadn't had a lot of great justices. >> rose: and you spentd two years there and got your degree at columbia, and a story you and i had talked about. when you switched from harvard after two years to columbia for your third year, harvard would not give you a degree. you had to. >> he said i had to stay for the third year. >> rose: you got the third year at columbia because your husband was moving to new york, correct? >> yes. >> rose: right. but go ahead. >> i didn't want to be a single mom. there were two things, really. marty had been diagnosed with a very serious cancer. we didn't know how long he was going to live. and so we didn't want to be apart that year. and i didn't want to be a single mom to my then three year old

daughter. >> rose: right. >> so i asked the dean if i could successfully complete my legal education at columbia, will i get a harvard degree, absolutely not. you have to spend the third year here. hi the perfect rebuttal argument. because a classmate of mine at cornell had taken her first year of law school at penn. she transferred into our second year class. i said to the dean, mrs.-- will have year two and three and are you going to give her a degree. you say the first year is by far the most important. i have year one and two,-- so i was-- . >> rose: to come back to the point, but what is lovely about this story-- what is lovely about this story is that they then wanted to give you a degree to the law school. >> that's when my now colleague,

he len-- elana kagan, when she became dean, every year she said ruth, we would like you to have a harvard law school degree. >> rose: and. >> and so my dear husband said hold out for an honorary degree. >> rose: and they gave it to you. >> in 2011, sadly one year after he died. >> rose: yeah. and proudly there is a picture in your chambers of you receiving that in your krimson. and one of your heroes singing to you. >> being serenaded by practices i hado domingo, you can imagine that. >> rose: and she labeled the photograph, woman will in ecstasy 6789 but back to the. >> i said just recently there is no way that the supreme court can ever be reflective of the society in terms of experiences. in part because we're appointed for life. and that means that a change,

fundamental changes 234 the court take a very, very long time to occur. and so we're never going to be completely on in even keel with the sort of experiences of the society. we're going to off keel a little bit. but i do worry a little bit, a lot actually, not a little bit. not about diversity in its general sense, of ethnicity or gendzer but i do worry about it in terms of the lack of professional and life experience diversity that our court has. and i say that despite being a little bit different than my colleagues, and some of my experiences and certainly in my life both justice thomas and i came from backgrounds some what dissimilar from our colleagues. but none of us really have the breathed of important

experiences important experiences to the law, for example we have no criminal defense lawyers on our court. we have one civil rights lawyer, ruth right now. >> right. >> there are so many other incredibly important 1eu68 rights issues out there continuing to be the civil rights movement for ethnic minorities but also for handi capped people, we have very view prak tisher ins with small and medium size practice experience very few people from gee graph kal differences in the united states. and as you notice, very little in terms of religious differences and even less in flerms of educational experience this' a lot of areas where we don't reflect the general society, do i think it does harm to our judging? not necessarily. but it certainly i think does

harm to the courts reflection of attempting to be broader in its outreach to people. and so it's like everything else. if we are being asked to judge so much of what goes on in our society, i think what the court does will be received better if we are a little wider in what we represent. >> there say counter consideration, by the way. there was one sate of the union that was vastly overrepresented by the supreme court and one law school and it wasn't harvard, yale or columbia it was stand ford and it was arizona. we had our chief justice. >> and sandra day o'connor, both

with a relatively small 307lation, both sanford law. >> and weren't they pretty close. >> it was finally confirmed that they did date. >> it is great to have two new yorkers back home. (applause). >> rose: for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us online at pbs.org and charlie rose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

on the next charlie rose a consideration of steven more began, matt smithed, clara foy and john lithgow about a new series about queen elizabeth 2 on netflix. called the crown. weapon's gots

history, loyalty, death, matureation, we've got. >> do you know how close i feel, i feel imam skating all the time to complete par oddsy and cat as fee. when are you dealing with people like, this the tone, the minute you veer too much to the right, it becomes a hatcheted job, to much to the left it becomes a photo shop. such resistance that these people are three dimensional human beings, and it feels almost like treachery, free son to be writing about them as human beings. >> i think so. >> for example n a marriage, the idea that there would be-- the idea that there would be mat ri

monday yal scwawb els, because you have to be careful when you write that because you don't want it to appear, you don't want to look too much. the minute the show bucks pur yent t becomes ugly, the minute it becomes sensational, it becomes ugly. so although i do have fantastic ingredients, have i to be really careful, very, very careful. funding for charl krea rose is p >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

♪ this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. there's no place like home. but are there enough of them? why builders are having a hard time keeping pace with the strong demand. playing defense. why the defense sector may be a good place for your money now. big blues, big gamble. ken watson, famous for his win on jeopardy in the hot field of artificial intelligence. those stories and more tonight on "nightly business report" for wednesday, october 26th. good evening, everyone. and welcome. we begin with america's housing market. what the economist magazine calls the world's largest asset class. and today we learn that more americans than expected bought new homes last month. a sign that demand is strong,