. >> rose: welcome to the program, as 2016 comes to a close we bring you some of our favorite programs for the year. tonight for the hour my conversation with two supreme court justices. ruth bader ginsburg and sonia sotomayor. >> i thought of myself in those days as a teacher. my parents thought that teaching would be a good occupation for me because women were welcomed there and they weren't welcome as doctors, lauers. i realized that i was facing an audience that didn't know what i was talking about. as they understood race discrimination, that was obvious, but most men at that time thought that yes, the law

was required eled with gender-based distinctions but they all operated benignly in women's favor. like a woman didn't have to serve on a jury if she didn't want to. so that was a benefit. >> the eavesdropping reflected curiosity. and i think that that is what drew me as a lawyer. i mean i always tell people, and it's not the perfect analogy. but being a lawyer is like being a voier in other people's lives. you participate more than voiers 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 is 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 may self things that i would not have otherwise thought so easily. >> rose: an encore conversation of two supreme court justices when we continue. funding for charlie rose is provided by the following kl: >> 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 burg and sonia sotomayor. as you know the sprem court kicked off it's term this month with only eight justices following the death of supreme court antonin scalia.

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

ages that my official biographers wrote. that biography will come out sometime in the distant future. (laughter) 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 sirks. she wanted to 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 social life at the time.

and all she drement about is some day going to college and getting my brother and i into college was her living her dream. now she wanted me to be a journalist. i don't think she was ever convinced that there was much value in law. perhaps when i got out of 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 is what my mother, how my mother lived her life. so i try to emulate all of those 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-- you copy everything, you know. >> rose: you once said that watching childs listen in on adult conversation was an important aspect of growing up for you. >> sure who doesn't like to eaves drop. but i think that the eavesdropping reflecting curiosity. and i think that that is what drove me as a lawyer. i always tell people, and it's not the perfect analogy but being a lawyer is being like a voyer into other people's lives. you participate a little more than voyures 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 enji that process, i think you have to have curiosity. and so listening to others and

their conversations was a way of teaching myself things this i would not have otherwise thought so easily. >> rose: justice ginsburg, when did you fall in love with the law? was that-- . >> people sometimes ask me did you always want to be a judge, or more exorbitantly 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 dream to be a judge because there simply weren't any. and when franklin del ano roosevelt a poanted the first woman to a federal appellate court in 1934. she stepped down the year i

graduated from huh school in 1959 and then there were none. and then john ston appointed shirley halfstet letter. 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. if you looked around at the federal bunch and you 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 pointed over 25 women to the federal district court, the trial bench, and 11 to courts of

appeals. and is with 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 charge 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 five-four and i was one of the four, i would have been one. five if she remained with us. so there was that enormous difference. >> rose: but pie question to going back it both of you have been influenced by people, your mom, your husband marty, your

late husband had a huge influence. >> yes. >> rose: what you have-- you have said to me that you would not have made it to the supreme court without him. >> people who observed at the time said when her name would have been on the list, maybe she would have been 22 or 23 but it was marty who made her number one. >> rose: how did he do that? >> he had a little book of people that he contacted. (laughter) mainly my academic colleagues. in those days i was teaching at-- well, this was before my first good job, he got in touch with academic colleagues, lawyers who knew me. the work that i-- the lawyering work that i ad 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 guide 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 to him-- the president was on a plane with senator moynihan going to some democratic function in the city. and so tsh tsh would be good for the supreme court and senator moynihan said 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 moynihan said ruth bader ginsburg. why? why, because gene griswald 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 with them a third year. life is so many things occur and you don't know whether they are 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 wald was then solicitier general. he was to make a speech about great advocates before the court. and by 1985, he realizes that he

can't have a list that is all men. so thurgood marshal, the next person he mentions is ruth bader ginsburg. >> when i went through my nomination process, i was told that every one should have had a marty ginsburg. he apparently came into the presentation session with folder-- the preparation 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 the reason that begins wurg-- ginsburg had no problem was the taxes or the babysitters, is because marty was a tax lawyer.

but you know, in our home, our personal lives, i did all the taxes. (laughter). >> rose: yes! and guess who did all the cooking? >> oh yes, yes. when all-- . >> 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. >> rose: i mean 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, 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 dpot 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 walked in the door until it is on the table. marty,-- he was the weekend cook so my daughter jane, long in her high scal years realized that dad was cooking was more infinitely better than mommy 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. and we do something nice together in the evening. she feels responsible for getting me out of the kitchen and doesn't think i should go back. >> the supreme court refrigerant certificate filled with some of the leftovers.

>> yes. >> rose: what is the best experience for a supreme court justice? because you were on the court of. >> oh, what 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 elana 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 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 bore 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 say someone with district court experience. >> rose: because it-- doing that you get to see not only the case but you get to see the stories of the people who make up the stories that are in conflict. >> it helps to be a lawyer as sonia said who knows the stories. who probably knows more than the district judge. >> 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 the clerk in the southern district of new york for two years, from 59-61.

>> but ruth, do you see a private practice as being the same as trial practice? excepting your premise which is being a lawyer is critical. but there is a dirves between trial and appellate lawyers. >> there is an enormous difference. 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 yourselves, what is going to be the impact on people, these decisions that we're making. >> i think there is two entirely harmonious when the constitution

nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty or property, nor shall any person be denied the equal protections of the laws. the constitution tells us to think about the individual. and the device that the individual has. so i don't think there is anything-- . >> rose: but it's not an abstract. it's a reality in terms of. >> well, it is inescapable for us to be aware of the impact of our decision. in virtually every case of any significant social impact, we are receiving amicacu rai briefs, friends of the court briefs from virtually every impacted segment of society. so we can't decide a big issue case without hearing from all of the people who believe they will be impacted positively or

negatively, whatever it really might be. so that is 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's going to happen more broadly to be able to understand the choices you're making. >> they're awesome cases where the law is clear and certain. it has to be a certain age to run for office. but the special thing about the preem court is for the most part we don't take cases where everybody agrees.

we wait for what we call a split, and other judges disagrees about what the federal law is, whether constitutional provision, what it means in a particular context, or a statute passed by congress. so the wonderful input that we have, by the time a case gets to us we have the benefit of what other good minds on benches, state and federal have said. >> rose: there is a higher place that it can go, but if are you on the supreme court the buck stops here. this is it. and you then are making the decision that is the final decision. >> not you. >> rose: the court is.

>> the district judge is talking about-- they are the real power holders in the system because they sit alone in a court room. the day the complaint exis filed to the final judgement. and you go up to the court of appeals, he went to the second circuit because then-- are you not the lady of the manor any more. you had to carry at least one other mind to prevail. and then the supreme court, the magic number is five. >> rose: yes. >> so i have often said when i write for the court, it's never as if i were queen. i have to take into account the views of my colleagues 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-- . >> rose: the historic role you play. >> i'm sensitive to what it's like to be on the receiving end of questions. i have 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 have 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 changes that had already occurred in people's lives. so to be able to advocate for that course, to see results that could not have been achieved even in the '60s was a fantastic opportunity, totally exhilarating, also exhausting. >> rose: but if that argument that you made, those briefs that you wrote and those decisions that you had influenced, the 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 to understand race discrimination, that was oddious but most men at that time thought that yes, the law was riddled with gender-based dises tinkses but they all operated benignly in women's favor. like a woman didn't have to serve on a jury if she didn't want to. so that was a benefit. to get them to see that says something about a woman as citizen. because a citizen has rights and obligationsment obligations as well as rights. men know they are part of-- a central part of the citizenry

because they can't-- but women are expendable. we really don't need them. to get across that message that this pedestal that many men thought women were on, and they were spared the necessity to earn a living, that was a myth because it was never true for poor women. to get them to see 245 what they regarded as favors in the wonderful ex,, expression that justin brennan used, the pedestal much more often than not turned out to be a cage that confined women and limited what they could do. so to get the court to understand that there really was gender-based dises krim nation, that was a challenging-- a

challengeing job. >> i was just going to say, i have the sense of ground breaking as your work as a litigator was, i think notorious-- notorious rbg go live on a lot longer. (applause). >> rose: and what do you think of that? >> what? i think it's absolutely amazing. that at 83 year old woman should be-- . >> rose: notorious. >> but have i said, i understand where it comes from. you know the famous rapper notorious big. >> rose: yes. >> well, he and i were both born in brooklyn. so we have that in common. and more than that, i think that the nyu student who dreamed up

the notorious rbg, it started with my dissenting opinion in shelby county case. the decision that took the heart out of the 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 shellby county kaition and that was the beginning of the-- the beginning of notorious rbg. >> rose: the role model for many people for many things. how do you see that? and you have spoken before about you know, supreme court might be very, very beneficial to have, to see how a latino woman see

this world. >> earlier we were in conversation with your editor, your book editor. >> rose: yes. >> and we were talking about when i embarked on writing my book, i asked my editor what makes a great memoir? and my editor had said the identical thing, honesty. and that readers can reed and feel when truth is being spoken or when it's sort of a put on that is 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 get people-- give people hope about being able to achieve the things they want to achieve, even though they might perceive it 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 lives

similar to the one i have, can also hope. >> rose: and feel that they are part of the fabric of american life. >> i have. they can be too. >> rose: yeah. (applause) >> there was a line in-- introduction into 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 jution tis-- justicement 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 pornlt generation. >> rose: i once asked you

because are you often called the thur good marshal of the women's movement. and you have said to me that is a comparison you reject because? >> thur good marshal 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-- and will you get that sense of what those lawyers were up against. in fact, they didn't know whether they would live to see another day. that was something i never, never encountered. my life was never in danger. and that was it.

and yes, i copied thur good marshal's technique. he is a tbreat lawyer and he lead the court step by step to get to brown v board. he argued cases, when he told the courts 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, and 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. what he had was building blocks in place, then he made the big pitch. and so the aclu women's right-- process which i cofounded, that is 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. >> do you think you have reached. >> no, but considering where we were, considering that in 1961 the liberal warren court told gwendolyn haute, a women we would today called 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 spied her son's baseball bat, picked it up with her her might, hit her husband over the end, that was the end of the humiliation and the beginning of the murder prosecution. a florida didn't put women on juries those days, in the that long ago, 1961.

and the supreme court said we don't understand what the complaint 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. gwendolyn haute's thinking was if there were women on my jury, perhaps they wouldn't acquit me, there was a good chance they would have convicted me of a lesser offense of manslaughter and not murder. she was convicted of murder by an all-male jury. and the warren court thought that was okay. and as late as 1961. >> rose: '61. >> '61. so the change didn't come until the beggarrer court, a court that had a reputation for being-- and yet that court struck down one federal law after another, one state law after another, on the grounds

that they disnim-- discriminated arbitrarily on the basis of gender. >> rose: and so what does that say about the way the court works? you know, and time. >> there is a great-- there was a great constitutional law professor who said the court should never be influenced by the weather of the day. and 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 21s century has been with respect to marriage equality and same-sex marriage, influence-- infliens-- influence d by what was happening in the larger community?

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

i remember the first time, in this very space there was a program about the problems the gay and lesbian people encountered, things lib renting a house or finding a dentist. and i was on the post admission -- education committee and one committee or another would sponsor every program. no one volunteered to sponsor a program that the gay advocates alliance asked to have at the city board just to explain the problems they encountered. so i volunteered. and i was the only woman on the committee. and the men sort of giggled. 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 it 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 work with. that was something i think that gives impe-- impotence to the gay rights movement that was

much hard we are racial discrimination. because people tebded to live in neighborhoods that they were either all white or all african-american. there really was a we/they. which ones people stood up and said this is who i am, that made an enormous difference. >> if you count the decade from-- 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 with 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. >> is there a special bond between the three justices that are women on this court? >> i say there is a special pride that i have in my newest colleagues. because you know what our little girls made of, sugar and spice and everything nice, that is what 4reu8 girls are made of. little boys, nails and snails and puppy dog tails. well, all of you who have visited the supreme court know that my newest colleague is not a shrinking violet. >> yes.

>> they take a very active part in the kol quee that goes on at oral arguments. >> if i may take the liberty of relaying a story. >> rose: all right. >> the day our newest colleague el anna kagan was corn in, the president as is customary was there, 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. and ruth paused and looked at him and said i am very happy. but i will be happier when there is five. praws plaws within well, the answer to that gives the the

question, when will there be enough, when there are nine, of course. >> rose: there are only eight now. tell us what you. >> eight is-- it's not a good number for a court rdz and you hope that this, after the election that there will be a consideration by the senate, before the new president takes office. >> i think we hope 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-- they were important cases. and it means that uncertainty will continue on those issues until there are nine. >> rose: you had said to me,

you missed justice scalia. >> yeah. >> just ties breyer was on with me at another forum last week. and he said i missed the spirit of justice scalia and the debates with justice scalia. i assume you feel the 15eu78 way. >> he made us laugh. >> rose: that's what it was. >> and he made us think. he challenged us to think. and those are things for interesting conversation and for lively discussion. >> rose: you once said to me you both loved opera. but you say 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 12th. >> rose: november 12th. >> it is a speaking part. >> rose: oh, a speaking part. >> it is an opera. scalia ginsburg t is a-- op ra, of course but the composer who wrote scaltia ginsburg tried to say in a nutshell what is the difference between the two of us. so it opens with scalia's rage aria, the music, a rage aria typical of handel and the rage aria is, the justices are blind. how can they possibly-- the constitution says absolutely nothing about this. and i say that he is searching for bright line solutions to problems that don't have easy

answersment but the great thing about our constitution is that like our society, it can evolve. so that sets up the-- and then we have a wonderful duet at the end. it says we are different, we are one, different in the way we approach the interpretation of the-- but one in our reference for the constitution and the court. >> rose: one thing justice scalia i think said was that you know, 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 gooded where 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-- . >> rose: didn't he say something like that, i may be

wrong. >> no, no, no, i think-- . >> rose: regardless of whether he said it or not-- (laughter) >> i will give that you. >> rose: okay. >> well, since i'm from yale and ruth's spent part of her time at harvard. >> >> rose: you spent two years a the colombia and got your degree at colombia in a story you and i have talked about am when you switch switched from harvard after two years to colombia for your third year, harvard would not give you a degree. you had to. >> they said i had to stay for the third year. >> rose: and you got the third year at colombia because your husband was moving to new york, correct? >> yes. >> rose: right. >> 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. so i asked the dean if i successfully complete my leave of education at kol-- colombia, will i get a harvard degree, actually not. you have to spend your third year here. i had the purpose of-- a classmate of mine at corknell had taken her first year of law school at penn. she transferred into our seconded year class. i said to the dean, mrs.-- will have year two and three an 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, a fourth year at pace. >> 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. >> oh, that's when my male colleague 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 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: and proudly there is a picture in your chambers of you receiving that in your crimson. and one of your heroes singing to you. >> being serenaded by practices i hado domingo. can you imagine that. >> rose: she labeled the photograph woman in ecstasy. >> rose: back to the yale thing. >> i said just recently there is no way that the supreme court could ever be reflective of the society in terms of experiences. in part because we are a poanted

for life. and that means that a change fundamental changes in the court take a very, very long time to occur. and so we're never going to be completely on in even even keel with the sort of experiences with a society. we're going to be 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 are gender. 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 to the law. for example, we have no criminal defense lawyers on our courts. we have one civil rights lawyer, ruth right now. >> right. >> rose: there are so many other incredibly important civil rights issues out there continuing to be the civil rights movement for ethnic minorities but also for handi capped people. we have very few practitioners with small and medium sized practice experience. and we have very few people from gee graph kal differences in the united states. and as you noted, very little in terms of religious differences and even less in terms of educational experiences. that is a lot of areas where we don't reflect the general soatd. i think it does harm to our

judging, not necessarily. but it certainly i think does harm to the court's reflection of attempting to be broader in its outreach to people. and so it is 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're a little weidner what we represent. >> there is a counter consideration, by the way. there was one sate of the union that was vastly overrepresented in the supreme court and it wasn't harvard, yale or columbia. ta was stanford and it was arizona. we had dheef justice.

>> rose: rehnquist. >> and sandra day o'connor both from a state with a relatively small population, both stanford law school. >> rose: an classmates weren't they pretty close. >> yeah t was finally confirmed that they did date one time. (laughter). >> rose: it is great to have two new yorkers back home. (applause) >> for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us online at pbs.org and charlie rose.com. #r captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

. >> rose: on the next charlie rose a continuation of our conversation about politics, about america, and about books and movies that may interest you. >> i was in a groove playing at home. i took the time off and tie

trying to come back after, that i just didn't quite have the same feel. and i thought it would pick up right away. i was ready to compete. i was ready to go. and man, it's tough knowing that i see a shot and i can kind of feel it. but it's not quite there yet. if it's not quite there yet, hey, do you wait over a year to get back to this point. let's be smart about it. and not rush it. and that from my brain saying that, to me, but my heart is saying tiger, let's play. let's go. >> have you come back before, looking back it was too early. >> have i done it so many times. so many times. either through surgeries or through injuries. i have played through them. i have come back early. i have damaged the body to compete, at a high level, so many times. and sth time i took a lot of time off to get it right. and there's no sense in hurrying

or getting it, injury any more, or shape and shots getting the feel for it i didn't want to do it right at the same time v it all come together. and safeway i thought i was ready for it and i wasn't. and i said okay, just take a step back. you waited this long. there is no sense in the urgency of getting back out there and doing it again. make sure your stuff is ready. when your stuff is ready, let's go. funding for charlie rose is.ed by-- provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. >> you're watching pbs.

larriva: it's like holy mother of comfort food.ion. woman: throw it down. it's noodle crack. patel: you have to be ready for the heart attack on a platter. crowell: okay, i'm the bacon guy. man: oh, i just did a jig every time i dipped into it. man #2: it just completely blew my mind. woman: it felt like i had a mouthful of raw vegetables and dry dough. sbrocco: oh, please. i want the dessert first! [ laughs ] i told him he had to wait.