LAW CLASS. SHE MET WITH OUR FACULTY AND FEDERAL JUDGES FROM THE AREA OVER LUNCH YESTERDAY. A GROUP OF OUR STUDENTS TO OCCUR ON A TOUR OF THE FACILITIES PRITCHETT MET WITH THE NUMBER OF STUDENT GROUPS INCLUDING THE WOMEN'S LEADERSHIP COALITION. EARLIER TODAY, SHE LED A SUPREME COURT CLINIC. THAT WAS FOLLOWED BY LUNCH FROM THE LEGAL CLINIC. i HOWARD JOINED SIDLEY IN 1949 AND BECAME A PARTNER IN 1956. HE IS ALSO A MEMBER OF NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES. HE HAS BEEN ON THE BOARD SINCE 1967 AND SERVED AS THE CHAIRMAN FROM 1986-1995. HE RECEIVED TWO DEGREES FROM NORTHWESTERN, HIS BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN 1945 AND THEN HIS J.D. DEGREE IN 1949. AFTER GRADUATING FROM LAW SCHOOL, HE TAUGHT A COURSE IN CRIMINAL LAW. BEFORE PERMANENTLY JOINING SIDDELEY AUSTIN, POWERED SERVED FROM 1950 UNTIL 1952. WE ARE VERY PLEASED TO HAVE HOWARD WITH US TODAY ALONG WITH SOME OF HIS COLLEAGUES. [APPLAUSE] WOULD LIKE TO THANK SUDLEY AUSTIN FOR BRINGING SOME OF OUR MOST PROMINENT JURISTS. JOHN ROBERTS, A JUSTICE REHNQUIST, JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS IS ONE OF OUR ALUMNI. JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA, JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR AND MORE. THE PROGRAM HAS BOUGHT MORE RENOWN JUDGES FROM AROUND THE WORLD. ONE WAS THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE FROM WELLS -- WALES, RICHARD GOLDSTONE THE FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE FROM SOUTH AFRICA AND JOHN NOONAN FROM THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS. BEFORE I TURN THE MICROPHONE OVER, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE AND THANK MEMBERS OF OUR SPEAKERS COMMITTEE WHO HELPED BRING JUSTICE GINSBURG TO US TODAY. BOB BENNETT HAS BEEN THE CHAIR. FINALLY, WE INVITE EVERYONE TO THE RECEPTION IN THE ATRIUM FOLLOWING THE ELECTORATE -- FOLLOWING THE LECTURE. MANY OF YOU BROUGHT CAMERAS BUT WE ASK THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE FLASH CAMERAS GOING OFF DURING THE TALKS. / . [APPLAUSE] >> IN ITS LONG AND STORIED HISTORY, NORTHWESTERN LAW SCHOOL HAS PLAYED HOST TO THE GIANTS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION.

FAMOUS JURIST, NATIONALLY KNOWN SCHOLARS, AS WELL AS INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL POLITICAL LEADERS. NONE OF THOSE VISITORS HAS CONTRIBUTED MORE TO THE GROWTH OF LAW OR LEGAL PROFESSION THAN OUR CURRENT VISITOR, JUST AS RUTH BADER GINSBURG. SINCE ASCENDING TO THE FEDERAL BENCH, SHE HAS SERVED AS AN ELOQUENT AND VIGOROUS DEFENDER OF THE LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN AND THE 14TH AMENDMENT. IN DOING SO, SHE HAS ALWAYS RECOGNIZED THE HUMILITY THAT FLOWS FROM THE JUDICIARY. A GRADUATE OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY AND COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL, JEWS NOMINATED TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT BY PRESIDENT CARTER IN 1980. SHE WAS NOMINATED TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT BY PRESIDENT CLINTON IN 1993. PRIOR TO ENTERING THE JUDICIAL BRANCH, SHE TAUGHT ON THE FACULTY OF RUTGERS AND THEN COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL. DURING HER ACADEMIC CAREER, SHE ESTABLISHED HERSELF AS AN IMPORTANT SCHOLAR, CONTRIBUTED EXTENSIVELY TO THE FIELDS OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, CONFLICT OF LAWS, AND COMPARATIVE LAW. WHILE SHE HAS SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS, IT IS IMPORTANT TO ALSO RECOGNIZE HER VALUABLE CONTRIBUTIONS AS A PIONEER IN THE FIELD OF WOMEN'S RIGHTS. WHEN SHE BECAME AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW AT RUTGERS IN 1963, JUSTICE GINSBURG BECAME ONLY THE 19TH WOMAN IN THE UNITED STATES TO BE APPOINTED A TENURED MEMBER OF A LAW FACULTY. IN 1972, SHE WAS APPOINTED COLUMBIA'S FIRST EVER TENURED WOMAN LAW PROFESSOR. WHEN SHE WAS APPOINTED THE 107TH JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, SHE BECAME ONLY THE SECOND FEMALE JUSTICE IN AMERICAN HISTORY. HER ACCOMPLISHMENTS ARE MANY AND WE ARE TRULY HONORED TO HAVE HER WITH US THIS WEEK AT NORTHWESTERN. I COULD NOT COMPLETE HIS INTRODUCTION WITHOUT MENTIONING MY COLLEAGUES AND FRIENDS, BOB BURNS AND STEVE CALABRESE. BOB BURNS IS KNOWN FOR HIS TEACHING AND SCHOLARSHIP. IN ADDITION TO WINNING NUMEROUS TEACHING AWARDS, HE HAS OFFERED TO IMPORTANT BOOKS ON THE THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF AMERICAN PROCEDURE. "A THEORY OF THE TRIAL" AND ANOTHER BOOK. STEVE CALABRESE'S CLERKED FOR JUSTICE CLEA'S -- JUST AS COSTLY APPARENT -- JUSTICE SCALIA. I'LL MAKE THIS UP. [LAUGHTER] SINCE JOINING THE NORTHWESTERN FACULTY IN 1990, HE HAS ESTABLISHED HIMSELF AS ONE OF THE LEADING SCHOLARS IN THE NATION ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF EXECUTIVE POWER. IT IS NOW MY GREAT PLEASURE AND HONOR TO INTRODUCE TO YOU, MY COLLEAGUES BOB BURNS AND STEVECALABRESE AND THE HON. RUTH BADER GINSBURG. [APPLAUSE] >> JUSTICE GINSBURG, I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY ASKING YOUR REFLECTIONS -- FOR YOUR REFLECTIONS OF ONE OF THE GREAT STORIES

IN AMERICAN LEGAL WAR. LORE. A YOUNG DISTRICT COURT JUDGE INVITED OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES LATE IN HIS CAREER OUT TO LUNCH. THEY HAD HAD LUNCH AND HAD RETURNED TO THE CAPITAL WHERE THE SUPREME COURT WAS AT THE TIME. THE LEARNED AND IT TURNED TO OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES AND THE SAID," COULD BUY, DO JUSTICE." OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES BY AROUND -- SPUN AROUND AND TURNED ON HIM FIERCELY WITH EYEBROWS BRISTLING AND SAID," THAT IS NOT MY JOB. MY JOB IS TO PLAY THE GAME ACCORDING TO THE RULES." WHICH OF THE GREAT JUDGES HAD IT RIGHT? [LAUGHTER] DOES A DISTINCTIVE SENSE OF JUSTICE AFFECT HOW YOU PLAY THE GAME BY THE RULES? >> I THINK THE STORY IS PROBABLY APOCRYPHAL. [LAUGHTER] BECAUSE THE LEARNED HAND THAT I STUDIED PLAYED BY

THE RULES AND DO JUSTICE. -- AND DID JUSTICE. >> THE LEARNED HAND SAID HE DID IT DELIBERATELY TO BE PROVOCATIVE. HE KNEW WE WOULD GET THE REACTION FROM JUSTICE HOLMES. >> ONE OF

THE GREAT PRIVILEGES I HAD AS A LAW CLERK -- THIS WAS WAY BACK IN 1959-1961, WAS

TO RIDE IN THE BACK OF THE CAR WHILE MY JUDGE, JUDGE EDMUND PALMIERI, DROVE THE GREAT LEARNED HAND HOME. PART OF THE STORY WAS THAT I WOULD HAVE GIVEN ANYTHING TO CLERK FOR LEARNED HAND. THESE WERE PRE-TITLE SEVEN 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] I ASKED HIM WHY, WHEN HE IS SO UNINHIBITED IN THE CAR, WHICH DO NOT CONSIDER ME AS A LAW CLERK? HIS ANSWER WAS," YOUNG LADY, I AM LOOKING AT YOU." I WAS IN THE BACK. IT WAS AS THOUGH I WAS NOT THERE. [LAUGHTER] >> JUSTICE GINSBURG, AS A LITIGATOR FOR GENDER EQUALITY, YOU HAD TO PERSUADE THE SUPREME COURT TO RECONSIDER THE RATIONAL

BASIS TEST OF GOSSAGE PURSES AND CLEARLY. -- GOSSETT VS QUERY. -- CLEARY. WHAT TYPE OF WORK WHICH SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THESE DECISIONS? >> I SHOULD EXPLAIN TO THE AUDIENCE WHAT GOSSETT AGAINST CLEARY WAS THEN THEY COULD UNDERSTAND WHY

IT WAS NOT A DIFFICULT JOB URGING THE SUPREME COURT TO OVERRULE THAT CASE AND OTHERS OF THAT SIMILAR TIME PERIODTHE GOSSETTS OR A MOTHER AND DAUGHTER FOR THE MOTHER OWNED A TAVERN AND A DAUGHTER WAS A BARTENDER. THE STATE OF MICHIGAN PASSED A LAW THAT SAID A WOMAN COULD NOT SERVE AS A BARTENDER ON LESSER FATHER OR HUSBAND OWNS THE ESTABLISHMENT. THAT WAS BILLED AS A LAW PROTECTIVE OF WOMEN BECAUSE UNSAVORY THINGS GO ON AND TAVERNS -- CALL ON IN TAVERNS. BLOG DID NOT SAY THAT WOMEN COULD NOT SERVE AS WAITRESSES -- THE LAW DID NOT SAY THAT WOMEN COULD NOT SERVE AS WAITRESSES. THAT WOULD PUT THEM CLOSER TO THE MAN WHO MIGHT BE TIPSY [LAUGHTER] IT WAS NOT SO MUCH TO PROTECT WOMEN BUT TO PROTECT THE ALL MALE BARTENDERS UNION AGAINST COMPETITION BY WOMEN. THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE LAW ON THE NOTION THAT THIS WAS PROTECTING WOMEN. IT WAS PROTECTING THE MOTHER AND HER BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT AND A DAUGHTER. -- AND THE DOCTOR. BUT -- AND THE DAUGHTER. THE SUPREME COURT NEVER SOUGHT A GENDER CASE IT DID NOT LIKE UNTIL 1971. THEN THE SUPREME COURT BEGAN TO SEE THINGS IN A NEW LIGHT, JUST AS YOU THE U.S. PUBLIC DID ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. LAWS THAT WERE ONCE THOUGHT TO BE PROTECTING WOMEN CAME TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS LOSS -- AS LAWS THAT DID NOT PUT THEM ON A PEDESTAL BUT IN A CAGE. SHUT THEM OUT FROM OPPORTUNITIES. THE SUPREME COURT IS AN ENTIRELY REJECTED INSTITUTION. IT DOES NOT MAKE THE COST OF -- THE CONTROVERSY IS THE COMES BEFORE IT. THEIR RESPONSE WAS PUT BEFORE THEM. -- THEY RESPOND TO WHAT IS PUT BEFORE THEM. IN 1971, THEY MADE AN ABOUT-FACE AND IT WAS A LOT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO THAT INVOLVE THE ADMINISTRATION OF A DECEASED'S ESTATE. AS BETWEEN PERSONS EQUALLY ENTITLED TO A DECEASED ESTATE, MALES MUST BE PREFERRED TO FEMALES. THE COURT SAW THAT THAT WAS, IN THE LATTER PART OF THE 20TH CENTURY, NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD GOVERN U.S. SOCIETY. WITHOUT CHANGING ANY FORMULATION OF WHAT WAS THE STANDARD OF REVIEW, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY HELD THAT LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IN THE DECADE THAT FOLLOWED, IN THE 1970'S BUT, THE SUPREME COURT WAS GENERALLY KNOWN AS CONSERVATIVE, HEADED BY WARREN BURGER, STRUCK DOWN I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS THAT THEY DISCRIMINATED ARBITRARILY ON THE BASIS OF GENDER. >> JUSTICE ROBERTS FAMOUSLY SAID IN HIS CONFIRMATION HEARINGS THAT DECIDING CASES FOR AN APPELLATE JUDGE IS LIKE CALLING BALLS AND STRIKES.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU EVER ACTUALLY HAVE CALLED BALLS AND STRIKES. I COULD SEE YOU BEING DRAFTED FOR A CHILDREN'S LITTLE LEAGUE GAME BUT DOES THAT METAPHOR FAIRLY DESCRIBED YOUR EXPERIENCE IN DECIDING CASES ON UNITED STATES OF SUPREME COURT? >> PART OF THE EXPERIENCE. CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST EXPRESS THE SAME IDEA BUT

HE -- HIS FAVORITE SPORT WAS BASKETBALL. HE USED BASKETBALL IS A METAPHOR. HE SAID THAT IF YOU ARE AN APPELLATE JUDGE, SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO CALL A FOUL AGAINST THE HOME TEAM. HE SAID YOU'LL BE ROUNDLY BOOED BUT YOU HAVE TO CALL IT AS YOU SEE IT AND NOT AS THE HOME CROWD, WHETHER THAT IS THE PRESIDENT OR THE CONGRESS OR THE SOCIAL GROUP IN WHICH YOU FIT. YOU HAVE TO CALL IT AS YOU SEE IT. THAT IS CERTAINLY TRUE. BUT THERE ARE MANY CASES THAT WE GET, AS YOU WELL KNOW, WHERE THE LAW IS NOT CLEAR IN CERTAIN FOR IT WE HAVE. WE HAVE GENERAL PROCESS OLD LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS. IT IS NOT LIKE A COMPUTER WHERE YOU CAN PLUG IN FACTS OF THE CASE AND GET OUT AN ANSWER. THESE ISSUES REQUIRE JUDGMENT AND THE JUDGMENT CAN CHANGE. MY FAVORITE CLAUSE IS THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. NOR SHALL ANY STATE PREVENT PROTECTION OF LAW SPREAD THAT BECAME PART OF THE CONSTITUTION IN 1968. -- IN 1868. -- WOMEN WORK BARRY FOR FROM THE BOAT. -- WOMEN WERE FAR AWAY FROM THE VOTE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION, SAYS "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION. (music)" WHO WERE WE IN THE BEGINNING? WHITE PROPERTY ONLY MAN. WHO ARE WE TODAY? THE UNITED STATES AND ALL ITS DIVERSITY. THE GENIUS OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT WAS WRITTEN TOWARD THE END OF THE 18TH-CENTURY AND HAS GOVERNED US FOR WELL OVER 200 YEARS IS THAT IT IS EVER BECOMING MORE PERFECT AND WE THE PEOPLE IS EVER BECOMING MORE INCLUSIVE. >> WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE ADOPTION OF THE 19TH AMENDMENT IN 1920 DID NOT LEAD MORE RAPIDLY TO A CHANGE WITH RESPECT TO

CIVIL-RIGHTS? ONE OF THE THEORIES ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE IS THAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO GRANT EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS AND FOR BED SYSTEMS OF CLASS OR iUcCASTE. IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN APPARENT RIGHT AWAY THAT GENDER DISCRIMINATION WAS A FORM OF CASTE, BUT SURELY AFTER ADOPTION OF THE 19TH AMENDMENT, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLEARED. I GUESS THE SUPREME COURT AND ACTIONS AGAINST CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL SUGGESTED THAT -- DOES THE ADOPTION OF THE 19TH AMENDMENT PARTICULARLY SUGGEST THE GENDER DISCRIMINATION IS ADDRESSABLE PRETTY EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, PERHAPS MORE THAN OTHER FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION? >> IT WAS A GOOD ARGUMENT. IT TRIED AND FAILED [LAUGHTER]

THE ARGUMENT WAS, NOW WOMEN HAVE BECOME PART OF THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY. THEY ARE VOTERS AND THEY SHOULD HAVE EQUAL STATURE BEFORE THE WALL. THE FIRST TRIAL OF THE RIGHT IDEA CONCERN PUTTING WOMEN ON JURIES. THE COURT'S CENTER WAS THAT THE 19TH AMENDMENT GAVE WOMEN THE VOTE BUT ONLY THAT. IT DID NOT MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGE. ONE WOULD THINK THAT ONE OF THE BASIC RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF CITIZENSHIP IS THAT YOU TAKE PART IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. THERE WAS SOME HISTORY IN THE WOMEN'S MOVEMENT THAT MADE THAT DISTINCTION NOT ENTIRELY IMPLAUSIBLE. THERE WAS A SPLIT IN THE SUFFRAGE MOVEMENT. THE WOMEN WHO WANT TO ARGUE FOR THE VOTE AND NOTHING ELSE AND THERE WERE THE MORE RADICAL WING IN THE SUFFRAGE MOVEMENT THAT WAS THE NATIONAL WOMEN'S PARTY THAT ARGUED THAT THEY WANTED MORE. THEY WANTED AN EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT. THEY SAID THE 19 THE MINISTER -- THE 19TH AMENDMENT GIVES US A VOTE. AND WE NEED TO GIVE US TRULY EQUAL STATUS AS CITIZENS. IN NATIONAL WOMEN'S PARTY INTRODUCED THAT AMENDMENT IN 1923. THEY INTRODUCED IT EVERY YEAR AFTER THAT. ULTIMATELY, AS YOU KNOW, IN OUR OWN TIME, IT WAS NOT RATIFIED AND CAME CLOSE. >> WHAT LESSONS SHOULD BE DROPPED FROM THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT, IN PARTICULAR FROM TEACHING COMPARATIVE LAW.

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS ORDER TO AMEND IN ANY OTHER CONSTITUTION. IT IS SUGGESTED OF THE FACT THAT ARTICLE 5 CREATES TOO HIGH A HURDLE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. >> MARTHA GRIFFITHS WAS A PROPONENT OF THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT. SHE SAID THERE WAS NEVER A TIME WHEN SENSIBLE INTERPRETATION WOULD NOT GIVE US EVERYTHING

THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR. I AM STILL A PARTISAN OF THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT, NOT BECAUSE IT WOULD CHANGE THE CURRENT JURISPRUDENCE OF THE COURT, BUT IF YOU PICK UP AND A CONSTITUTION WRITTEN SINCE 1970, ANY PLACE IN THE WORLD, YOU WILL FIND THE EQUIVALENT OF AN EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT. MY CONSTITUTION DOES NOT HAVE SUCH A PROVISION SO I WOULD LIKE FOR MY GRANDDAUGHTERS, I VISITED THEM THIS MORNING, IT WAS AT THEIR SCHOOL IN CHICAGO, I WOULD LIKE THEM TO BE ABLE TO SEE THAT THAT IS A FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE OF OUR SYSTEM, THAT MEN AND WOMEN ARE CITIZENS OF EQUAL STATURE. I THINK IT WOULD BE NICE IF THEY COULD SEE THAT IN OUR FUNDAMENTAL INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT AND NOT JUST AS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. >> WE AND ILLINOIS HAVE LOTS TO APOLOGIZE FOR PER THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT PROBABLY DIED ITS DEATH IN OUR LEGISLATURE HERE.

I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY A NUMBER OF TRIAL JUDGES THAT THE HARDEST KIND OF CASE THEY FACE IS A CASE WHERE THE TWO PARTIES TESTIFIED TO INCOMPATIBLE AND CONTRADICTORY THINGS, ONE OF THEM MUST BE LYING AND THE OTHER ISN'T. A TRIAL JUDGE TELLS ME THAT THOSE KINDS OF CASES ARE HARDEST TO RESOLVE. IS THERE AN ANALOGOUS SORT OF CASE THAT THE SUPREME COURT LEVEL, A CASE THAT YOU FIND HARD TO DECIDE WHERE YOUR REMAIN UNDECIDED, PERHAPS EVEN AFTER A DECISION IS MADE? >> THERE ARE MANY DIFFICULT CHALLENGING CASES. AS A

FEMINIST MAN ONCE SAID, "IT AND OVER UNTIL IT'S OVER." [LAUGHTER] I TOLD THE CLINIC STUDENTS THAT I MET WITH THIS MORNING THAT LAST TERM, THERE WERE FOUR CASES WHERE THE LINE ABOUT THE CONFERENCE, THE MAJORITY AT THE CONFERENCE, ENDED UP BEING THE MINORITY BECAUSE THE BUSINESS OF THINKING AND RETHINKING AND ATTEMPTING TO PERSUADE ONE'S COLLEAGUES, IN THOSE CASES, THAT A PERSON WHO WAS ASSIGNED TO WRITE THE MAJORITY OPINION ENDED UP WRITING THE DISSENT. I HAD ONE REALLY HEADY EXPERIENCE. I CANNOT REVEAL WHICH CASE. I WAS ASSIGNED TO WRITE THE DISSENT BY MY SENIOR COLLEGE. THERE WERE ONLY TWO OF US IN DISSENT. THAT DECISION CAME OUT AND MY DESCENT GAME -- BECAME THE OPINION OF THE COURT FOR SIX JUSTICES AND ONLY THREE ON THE OTHER SIDE. >> TO WHAT TO YOU ATTRIBUTE THAT? [LAUGHTER]

I'M HOPING FOR A REPEAT BUT IT HAS NOT HAPPENED. [LAUGHTER] ON THE BUSINESS OF OATH, ONE INTERESTING THING ABOUT A COMPARISON SYSTEM -- AS A YOUNG LAWYER, I WOULD LOVE TO SWEDEN TO STUDY THEIR PROCEDURES SYSTEM. WHAT THEY COULD NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT OUR SYSTEM WAS WHY WE HAVE PARTIES THAT TESTIFY AND HAVE THEM TAKE THE OATH. THEY THOUGHT THAT WAS REQUIRING THEM TO LIVE. IN THEIR SYSTEM, THE PARTIES DO NOT TAKE AN OATH. WITNESSES DO BUT THE PARTIES TO NOT. >> I THINK IT WAS LATE IN THE 19TH CENTURY WHEN CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS WERE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH, THOSE IN ENGLAND OR THE UNITED STATES FOR SIMILAR REASONS. >>

YOU HAVE COMMENTED BEFORE ABOUT WHAT ROLE FOREIGN SOURCES OF LAW COULD POTENTIALLY PLAY IN CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION.

I'M WONDERING TO WHAT EXTENT IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE COURT TO TAKE NOTE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING IN ALL THE OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS THAT HAVE SPRUNG UP AROUND THE WORLD SINCE WORLD WAR TWO? >> THE QUESTION OF REFERRING TO FOREIGN COMPARATIVE LAW OR INTERNATIONAL LAW, IT IS

VASTLY MISUNDERSTOOD BY A NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF OUR CONGRESS. FIRST OF ALL, THE ONLY LAW THAT BINDS US IS U.S. LAW, OF COURSE. WE ARE NOT BOUND BY THE LAW OF ANY OTHER NATION. HOWEVER, NOWADAYS, WE HAVE PARTNERS IN THE BUSINESS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW. IT WAS NOT UNTIL AFTER WORLD WAR TWO THAT OTHER COUNTRIES GOT INTO THE BUSINESS OF REVIEWING ORDINARY LAWS FOR COMPATIBILITY WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT. IT HAPPENED AFTER WORLD WAR TWO BECAUSE MANY NATIONS CAME TO PERCEIVE POPULAR LEGISLATURES COULD NOT ALWAYS BE TRUSTED TO REMAIN FAITHFUL TO THE CORE VALUES OF THE SOCIETY. THEY SET UP CONSTITUTIONAL COURT'S AS ONE POSSIBLE CHECK. AGAINST RETURN TO TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT. IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THOSE COURTS, INCLUDING CANADA, THEY DID NOT HAVE TRADITIONAL REVIEW FOR CONSTITUTIONALITY UNTIL 1982. THEY ALL LOOKED TO US BECAUSE THERE WAS NO OTHER PLAYER. MORE AND MORE NOW, THEY ARE LOOKING TO EACH OTHER. ONE QUESTION I GET WHEN I GO ABROAD IS "WE REFER TO THE DECISIONS OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. YOU NEVER DEFER TO THE DECISIONS OF OUR COURT. DON'T YOU THINK WE HAVE ANYTHING TO CONTRIBUTE." ?" IT IS HARD FOR ME TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. [LAUGHTER] JUSTICE KENNEDY WAS CRITICIZED IN A CONSENSUAL SODOMY CASE BECAUSE HE REFERRED TO A DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN 1981. IT WAS THEIR DECISION SAYING THAT CRIMINALIZING CONSENSUAL ACTS DON'T HURT ANYBODY. THAT IS A VIOLATION OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. FOR REFERRING TO THAT, IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT HE WAS NOT USING IT IN A BINDING AUTHORITY. IT WAS KIND OF LIKE CITING A A LAW REVIEW ARTICLE. [LAUGHTER] [APPLAUSE] >> IN THE CRAWFORD LINE OF CASES IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, THOSE CASES HAVE REALLY REVOLUTIONIZED THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE MEETING OF THE CONFRONTATION

CLAUSE OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS IN THOSE CASES, YOU HAVE JOINED WITH JUSTICE SCALIA AND HE HAS BASED HIS NOTION OF THE MEANING OF THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE ON THE ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE MEANING OF THE CLAUSE IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION. HE HAS ARGUED IN THOSE CASES THAT HE IS BOUND TO BE FAITHFUL TO THAT ORIGINAL MEANING, REGARDLESS OF THE POLICY CONSEQUENCES OF DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE. IT IS CRITICIZED BY PROSECUTORS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. HAVE YOU JOIN WITH JUSTICE SCALIA FOR THOSE REASONS? DO YOU THINK IS UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE REFLECTS THE ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THAT CLAUSE? >> THE CLAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REEDS THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE

CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM. THAT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR. THERE'S NOT TOO MUCH ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM YES, I HAVE JOINED JUSTICE SCALIA'S OPINIONS, INTERPRETING THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE TO MEAN THAT SOMEONE WHO IS ON TRIAL SHOULD BE CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM. THIS CANNOT OF THE STAR CHAMBER PROCEEDINGS. I THINK IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IN OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. >> SEVERAL OF YOUR COLLEAGUES, PARTICULARLY JUSTICE SCALIA AND TO SOME DEGREE JUSTICE THOMAS, HAVE

ARTICULATED VERY ELABORATE THEORIES OF JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY OR CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION. IN CONTRAST, CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND ALITO HAVE SAID IT'S DIFFICULT TO CONSTRUCT AN OVERALL APPROACH TO JUDGING AND CASES NEED TO BE DECIDED ONE CASE AT A TIME. I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY THAT YOU RELY ON IN APPROACHING CASES AND WHETHER THERE ARE OVERARCHING THEMES. >> THEY TALK ABOUT RATHER DIFFERENT THINGS. I SUPPOSE IF I HAD TO PICK EITHER

OF THE JUSTICES, I THINK I AM AN ORIGINAL LIST IN THE SENSE -- I THINK THE CONSTITUTION -- 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 THE GRAND CLAUSES IN THE CONSTITUTION, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, OR THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, AS FROZEN IN TIME. I THINK THERE WERE MENTIONED TO GOVERN SOCIETY AS IT EVOLVES. D. SOME WOULD SAY THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT HAS TO APPLY TO NEW CIRCUMSTANCES. IT GIVES THE PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN THEIR HOUSES AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE. AT THE END OF THE 18TH CENTURY, IT MEANT POLICE OR SOLDIERS FORCING THEIR WAY INTO YOUR HOUSE. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS A HELICOPTER HOVERING OVER YOUR ROOF, NEVER TOUCHES YOUR HOUSE, BUT IT IS ABLE TO MEASURE THE HEAT AND THAT MAY LEAD YOU TO BE SUSPECT FOR GROWING MARIJUANA. IS THAT A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT? EVEN THOUGH YOUR HOME WAS NEVER TOUCHED. JUSTICE SCALIA WROTE A FINE OPINION WHICH ADJOINS ST., YES, IT DOES VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT FOR THE POLICE TO ENGAGE IN A KIND OF SEARCH. >> COULD YOU SAY A FEW THINGS ABOUT ORAL ARGUMENT FROM THE COURT. ? TO REMEMBER ANY OF WHICH

WERE MEMORABLE IN YOUR TIME ON THE BENCH? WOULD YOU HAVE ADVICE THAT YOU CAN GIVE TO ASPIRING APPELLATE ADVOCATE, MANY OF WHOM ARE HERE TODAY? >> I WOULD SAY THAT APPELLATE ADVOCACY, IN OUR COUNTRY, IT IS QUITE

A DIFFERENCE FROM THE WAY IT IS IN MOST COUNTRIES. IN FRANCE, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY WILL GIVE AN ELEGANT PLEADING WHICH WILL NOT BE INTERRUPTED OR YOU CAN GO TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE IN LUXEMBOURG AND OBSERVE PROCEEDINGS THERE AND YOU WILL SEE THE LAWYER IS NOT INTERRUPTED. HE GIVES A SPEECH. IN OUR SYSTEM, ALL ADVOCACY IS MORE OF A CONVERSATION. IT IS A CONVERSATION BETWEEN A 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 LOOKING AT OTHER JUDGES WHO HAVE DEALT WITH THIS CASE AND HAD SAID AND THEN I MAY LOOK AT SOME OF THE LEADING PRECEDENT AND THE LAST AND I WILL LOOK AT IS THE LAWYERS BRIEFS. WE ARE INFORMED BY ALL THAT READING WHEN WE COME TO THE BENCH. THE ORAL ARGUMENT ITSELF IS PLEADING. LAWYERS WILL DO BEST IF THEY DO NOT HAVE A PAINED EXPRESSION ON THEIR FACE WHEN A JUSTICE ASKS A QUESTION. [LAUGHTER] THEY WILL WELCOME QUESTIONS AND SEE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO CLARIFY A POINT THAT THE JUDGE MIGHT NOT UNDERSTAND AS WELL WITHOUT THEIR AID. IT IS A CONVERSATION. ANYONE WHO COMES IN WITH A PREPARED SCRIPT IS GOING TO BE SLOW --=n SLOWLY DISAPPOINTED. YOU CAN PROBABLY GET OUT A GOOD FOR SENTENCE BUT NOT MUCH AFTER [LAUGHTER] THAT]>> HAS AN ORAL ARGUMENT EVER CHANGED YOUR MIND? QUEST YES BUT RARELY. >> WE DON'T COME ON THE BENCH WITH AN EMPTY MY. SHOULD NOT BE CLOSED MY EITHER BUT ONCE YOU HAVE DONE ALL THE READING, YOU HAVE

A CLEAR IDEA ABOUT THE WAY YOU THINK THE CASE SHOULD BE DECIDED. SOMETIMES, YOU WILL SEE A PROCEDURAL IMPEDIMENTS THAT SAYS YOU CANNOT REACH THE QUESTION ON THE MERITS BECAUSE THERE IS A THRESHOLD PROBLEM. THIS MIGHT NOT BE THE RIGHT CASE TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. YOU MAY DECIDE THE CASE ON A DIFFERENT GROUND THAN THE ONE YOU THOUGHT THE CASE WOULD TURN ON. SOMETIMES, IF YOU OBSERVE AN ARGUMENT AT THE COURT, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE JUSTICES ARE NOT ONLY TALKING TO THE LAWYER BUT TO EACH OTHER. SOMETIMES, JUSTICE SCALIA WILL THINK THE LAWYER DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION WELL ENOUGH SO HE WILL COMPLETE THE ANSWER OR -- [LAUGHTER] AND I DO THE SAME THING. >> WHAT WERE THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES THAT YOU NOTICED UPON BEING SO -- APPOINTED TO THE SUPREME COURT FROM THE D.C. CIRCUIT? IT IS

DIFFERENT TO BE ONE OF NINE JUSTICES THAT SET -- WHEN THE USUAL SEVEN PANELS OF THREE. >> ONE DIFFERENCE AND IT IS REALLY WONDERFUL TO BE ON THE SUPREME COURT WITH RESPECT TO THIS -- YOU GO TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FROM THE TRIAL COURT,

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT, AS A MATTER OF RIGHT THE PARTIES PRESENT THEIR ISSUES. THE D.C. CIRCUIT HAD MANY ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASES AND THE PARTIES COULD RAISE 17 ISSUES. IN THE SUPREME COURT, WE HAVE THE LUXURY NOT ONLY OF DECIDING WHICH CASES WE WILL YEAR BUT WHAT ISSUES. WE WILL TAKE A CASE THAT MAY HAVE HAD 17 ISSUES IN THE D.C. CIRCUIT AND PARED DOWN TO THE ONE QUESTION THAT WE THINK MAY SET AN IMPORTANT PRECEDENT TO GUIDE THE LOWER COURTS. THAT IS ONE BIG DIFFERENCE. WE CHOOSE THE CASES, NOT ONLY THE CASES BUT THE ISSUES THAT WE WILL HEAR. ONE HAS TO BE A BIT MORE RESTRAINED WHEN YOU HAVE A COLLEGE THAN WHEN YOU HAVE ONLY TWO. ANOTHER RESTRAINT IS THAT THE SUPREME COURT ALLOWS A HALF-HOUR ASIDE, NO MORE, NO LESS MOST COURTS OF APPEAL THEY ALLOW A LESS THAN HALF HOUR, MAYBE 15 OR 20 MINUTES. IF THE BENCH BECOMES INTERESTED IN AN ISSUE, THE ARGUMENT CAN GO ON AND ON, MAYBE BEST A HALF AN HOUR. THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN IN THE SUPREME COURT. AN HALF AN HOUR MEANS A HALF AN HOUR. THE CURRENT CHIEF IS MORE RELAXED AND CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST WAS. HE WILL LEAD AN ADVOCATE FINISH A SENTENCE BUT -- [LAUGHTER] NOT MUCH MORE THAN THAT. >> SEVERAL JUSTICES IN THE RECENT PAST HAVE HAD SOME MARKED IN ALEUTIANS IN THEIR JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY.

I AM WONDERING WHETHER YOU HAVE DISCERNED ANY SHIFT IN YOUR APPROACH TO CASES OVER THE YEARS? YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE COURT AND TO SPEAK GENERALLY ABOUT THE EXPERIENCES IN JUDGING THAT MIGHT LEAD A JUDGE TO CHANGE THE WAY IN WHICH HE OR SHE ABUSE CASES WERE DECIDES CASES. >> HAVING BEEN A LOT TEACHER FOR 17 YEARS AND TEACHING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AND THEN 13 YEARS ON THE D.C. CIRCUIT, I

CANNOT SAY THAT MY APPROACH TO CASES HAS CHANGED. THE ONE COLLEAGUE A OVERLAPPED WITH, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, IS THE MOST GRAPHIC EXAMPLE OF A JUSTICE WHO DID CHANGE. HE DOES NOT THINK HE DID. [LAUGHTER] HE BELIEVES THAT THE COURT CHANGED AND HE SAY -- STAYED IN THE SAME PLACE. IF YOU LOOK AT HIS EARLIER DECISIONS, LIKE THE ONE ABOUT THE MAN WHO WAS TOO POOR TO FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY, HE SAID TOO BAD, YOU CAN STOP SMOKING AND HE WOULD COME UP WITH THE $50 FILING FEE. THIS IS THE SAME MAN THAT BROKE THE POOR JOSHUA CASE. -- WROTE THE POOR JOSHUA CASE. I THINK THE CHANGE AND THERE IS A WONDERFUL BOOK CALLED " BECOMING JUSTICE BLACKMUN." AND THE STORY IS TOLD OF THIS MAN'S ODYSSEY. MOST TRAGICALLY, IS VERY CLOSE FRIENDSHIP WITH CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER FELL APART. Z> IN WRITING AN OPINION WITH CONFLICTING PRIORITIES ON THE ONE HAND TO STEADY GENERAL RULE WILL GUIDE FUTURE DECISIONS AND MAKE IT CLEAR THAT

YOUR OPINION IS SITUATED WITHIN THE RULE BLOCK AND ON THE OTHER HAND, THE OBLIGATION TO DECIDE NO MORE THAN THE CASE OR CONTROVERSY BEFORE YOU. HOW DOES ONE BALANCE THE OBLIGATION TO STATE A GENERAL RULE WITH THE OBLIGATION NOT TO SAY MORE THAN YOU NEED TO SAID? WHAT YOU THINK THE COURT SHOULD DO IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE IT DOES STAY ON ONE CASE AT A TIME? >> WHEN AN AREA IS NEW TO THE COURT, THAT COULD BE MINIMALISM. I DON'T CALL IT THAT.

WE CANNOT ALWAYS SEE AROUND CORNERS. IT IS BETTER THAT THE FIRST ON AN ISSUE COMES BEFORE THE COURT TO BE VERY CAREFUL. EVEN AT A LOT OF CASES I TARGETED THE 1970'S, WHEN PEOPLE TOLD ME THAT JUSTICE BRENNAN HAD DECLARED SEX AS SUSPECT CLASSIFICATION, IT WAS MUCH TOO EARLY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS ARGUING BUT MY THOUGHT WAS THAT THERE WOULD BE MAYBE A UP TO EIGHT CASES AND WHEN THE COURTS SO THAT NONE OF THESE CLASSIFICATIONS MADE ANY SENSE, THEN IT COULD COME OUT WITH THAT GENERAL RULING. GO-SLOW IS THE RIGHT APPROACH FOR JUDGES. YOU CANNOT KNOW FROM THE FIRST CASE WHAT ELSE IS OUT THERE. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS MIGHT LEAD YOU TO DO. >> WE ARE AT THE POINT WHERE WE ARE READY TO TAKE QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE. THERE ARE MICROPHONES AND INTO THE TWO AISLES.

IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO ASK JUSTICE GINSBURG A QUESTION, PLEASE COME FORWARD TO ONE OF THE MICROPHONES. >> THE FIRST ONE IS ALWAYS THE HARDEST. [LAUGHTER] >> HERE WE GO. [LAUGHTER] >>

WE WILL START OVER HERE. >> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. IF THE PRESIDENT IS THE ONLY OFFICIAL

ELECTED BY THE ENTIRE

NATION, WHY ISN'T THERE A PRESUMPTION THAT EVERYTHING THE EXECUTIVE DOES IS CONSTITUTIONAL? [LAUGHTER] >> BECAUSE WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION THAT PUTS CHECKS ON GOVERNMENT. IT SAYS NO PERSON IS ABOVE

BLOCK, NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT -- IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT IS SOMETHING ABOUT OUR SYSTEM THAT IS THE WONDER AND THEN THE OF JUDGES EVERYWHERE ELSE. BEFORE WE CAME TO ME WITH ALL OF YOU, SOMEONE WAS TALKING ABOUT A PROCEDURE CASE. JUDGES A BROAD REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW A COURT COULD ORDER A PRESIDENT'S, EVEN THOUGH THE CASE WAS AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, TO GIVE THE STEEL MILLS BACK TO THEIR OWNERS OR HOW NOT EVEN THE SUPREME COURT BUT THEY -- BUT A JUDGE LIKE JUDGE SIRICA COULD TELL PRESIDENT NIXON TO HAND OVER THE TAPES FROM THE OVAL OFFICE. HOW COULD A COURT ORDER THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE AROUND? IT IS BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE -- BASIC PREMISE THAT THIS CONSTITUTION IS GUIDING US ALL. SOMEONE HAS TO HAVE THE LAST WORD. IT IS THE COURT AND NO PERSON IS HIGHER THAN THE LAW. >> IN RESPONSE, I WANT TO PROBE FOR THE IDEA OF THE COURT GOING SLOW ON QUESTIONS WHERE THE LAW IS DEVELOPING. THE COURT WAS

QUITE CAUTIOUS AFTER BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION IN IMPLEMENTING THAT DECISION THEY WERE CAREFUL ON A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS TO AVOID DECIDING VERY CONTROVERSIAL QUESTION OF INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. A COUPLE OF CASES WERE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION. THE COURT WAS AFRAID OF THE REACTION, IF THE COURT TOOK -- WAS TO TAKE THAT ISSUE CAN YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT THE COURT WAS UP AGAINST IN THE CASES? >> THE BRUNT OF AND FORCING BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION WAS BORNE BY THE DISTRICT JUDGES.

THEY HAD TO SAID THAT THIS IS LAW AND SOME OF THEM WOULD TAKE SAM JOHNSON FROM ALABAMA WHOSE MOTHER'S HOUSE WAS BOMBED. THERE WAS NOBODY KILLED. THINK OF SKELLY WRIOGHGHT AND THE OSTRACISM HE SUFFERED ENORMOUS BECAUSE HE WAS IN FORCING BILL WALSH. -- HE WAS ENFORCING THE LAW. I DO NOT THINK THAT PRESIDENT EISENHOWER WAS THE GREATEST FAN OF BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION AND YET WHEN THE GOVERNOR STOOD IN FRONT OF THE CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL IN LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, AND WOULD NOT ALLOW A BLACK CHILD TO ENTER THAT SCHOOL, EISENHOWER CALLED OUT THE TROOPS AND THE CHILDREN WALKED THROUGH -- THE AFRICAN AMERICAN CHILDREN WALK THROUGH THAT DOOR. I AM GETTING LOST. [LAUGHTER] THE CASE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE ISSUE, WHY DID THE COURT WAIT THAT LONG TO DECIDE? BEFORE THAT CASE THERE WAS THE MARCH ON WASHINGTON, THERE WAS MARTIN LUTHER KING, AND THE COURT RECOGNIZED THAT SOCIETY WAS READY FOR THAT. THE STORY OF THE CASE IS RICHARD AND MARY LOVING. THEY GROW AND A PART OF VIRGINIA WHERE THERE WAS NO RACIAL PREJUDICE. THEY FELL IN LOVE. THEY COULD NOT GET MARRIED IN THEIR STATE. THEY WENT INTO WASHINGTON, D.C. AND GOT MARRIED AND CAME BACK TO VIRGINIA AND PUT THEIR MARRIAGE LICENSE ON THE WALL OF THEIR BEDROOM. ON AN ANONYMOUS TIP, THE SHERIFF AND HIS HENCHMEN CAME IN AND SHINED A FLASHLIGHT IN THEIR EYES AT 2:00 IN THE MORNING AND ASK A MAN WHO THE WOMAN WAS YOU SLEEPING WITH. HE SAID IT WAS HIS WIFE. HE POINTED TO THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE AND THE SHERIFF SAID IT DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING THERE. HE TOLD THEM OFF TO JAIL. THEY WERE FRIGHTENED AND ON COUNCIL AND THE JUDGE SAID ONE YEAR AND GO -- ONE YEAR IN JAIL BUT SAID HE WOULD SUSPEND THE SENTENCE IF THEY GOT OUT OF THE STATE AND WOULD NOT COME BACK FOR 25 YEARS. SO, THEY MADE THEIR HOME IN WASHINGTON, D.C. UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT CAME ALIVE AND THEN MELDED LOVING WROTE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ROBERT KENNEDY, AND SAID THIS IS HER STORY. KENNEDY WROTE BACK AND ASK HIM TO CONTACT THE VIRGINIA AFFILIATE OF THE ACLU WHICH THEY DID AND THAT IS OUT LOVING V VIRGINIA BEGAN. THERE ARE PEOPLE LIKE THEM WHO HAVE FAITH IN OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND USE THE COURTS TO WRITE SOMETHING TERRIBLY WRONG THAT HAPPENED. LOVING V VIRGINIA IS A TERRIBLY IMPORTANT CASE AND OLSTEN WILL APPRECIATE HOW NOT SO LONG AGO, 1967, AND TODAY WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO IS HIMSELF THE CHILD OF AN INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. >> ALSO NOT SO LONG AGO, WOMEN DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS THEY HAVE TODAY. YOUR ONE OF THE PIONEERING LAWYERS FOR THAT FIGHT. FIRST, THANK YOU.

THE SECOND THING I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT IS YOUR CHOICE AS A STRATEGIST, AS A LEGAL STRATEGIST WHEN YOU WERE TAKING THESE KIND OF CASES TO THE COURT, IT SEEMED LIKE PRINT POINT IS YOU WERE REPRESENTING OR MAN. -- PLAINTIFFS YOU ARE REPRESENTING WERE MEN. WAS THERE A DELIBERATE DECISION ON RE YOUR PART TO DO THAT? IS THAT A STRATEGY THAT YOU THINK MIGHT HAVE HAD THE U(JjUTaUQ'CES? >> I WISH I COULD SAY I HAD A STRATEGY. I REALLY DIDN'T. [LAUGHTER] THERE WAS THE CASE OF

SALLY REED. SHE WAS A WOMAN WHO THOUGHT SHE FACED AN UNJUST LAW AND SHE BROUGHT TO THE IDAHO COURTS. SHARON FRONTIERO WAS THE NEXT ONE. STEPHEN WISE AND FELL AT A PERFECT CASE. -- WESINEFELD WAS A MEN'S RIGHTS ADVOCATES. HIS WIFE WAS THE PRINCIPAL ARE IN THEIR FAMILY. SHE WAS A HIGH-SCHOOL MATH TEACHER. SHE HAD A VERY HEALTHY PREGNANCY. SHE WAS IN THE CLASSROOM UNTIL THE NINTH MONTH. SHE WENT TO THE HOSPITAL. SHE HAD AN EMBOLISM AND DIED. THE CHILD WAS BORN HEALTHY AND STEPHEN WAS TOLD THAT HE HAD A HEALTHY BABY BOY BUT THAT HIS WIFE HAD DIED. HE TRIED TO GET WHAT WERE CALLED CHILD IN CARE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS SO THAT HE COULD TAKE CARE OF HIS BABY AND WORK ONLY PART-TIME AND THE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS WOULD SUPPLEMENT HIS PART-TIME WORK. HE WAS TOLD THAT THESE ARE MOTHER BENEFITS, WIDOW BENEFITS, NOT WORDS. -- NOT WORDS. -- NOT WIDOWERS. HE WROTE A LETTER TO LOCAL NEWSPAPER SAYING HE WAS SICK OF WOMEN'S LIB. THE TAGLINE OF HIS LETTER WAS " DOES GLORIA STEINEM KNOW ABOUT THIS? " [LAUGHTER] THERE WAS A SPANISH TEACHER THAT LIVE THERE AND YOU READ THIS LETTER AND SHE CALLED ME AND ASKED IF THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS. I SUGGESTED THAT HE CALLED THE NEW JERSEY AFFILIATES OF THE ACLU. THAT WAS THE WEIDENFELD CASE. WHO WAS THE SUBJECT OF DISCRIMINATION? THE MALE WAGE EARNER GETS FOR HIS FAMILY CERTAIN BENEFITS. THE FEMALE WAGE EARNER GETS BENEFITS ONLY FOR HERSELF, NOT FOR HER FAMILY. SHE IS CONSIDERED A SECONDARY AND HE IS THE PRIMARY BREADWINNER AND THAT IS THE WAY THE WORLD WAS DIVIDED. THERE WERE THE BREADWINNERS WHO WERE MALE. THEY WERE THE ONES WHO WERE THE CHILD CARETAKERS. THEY WERE WOMEN. IN THE WE SAID THIS LAW DOES -- DISCRIMINATES AGAINST EVERYONE. THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PERSONAL CARE OF THAT PARENT, IF THE PARENT IS MAIL RATHER THAN FEMALE. IN ALL OF THESE CASES, WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS A WOMAN OR A MAN, THE CORE DISCRIMINATION WAS THE LAW'S VIEW OF THE WOMAN AS NOT A WAGE EARNER WHO REALLY COUNTS. >> I WAS CURIOUS WHAT ADVICE YOU WOULD GIVE JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR? [LAUGHTER] >>

SHE HAS DONE JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING ONE CAN DO WITH THE LAW. SHE WAS A PROSECUTOR AND A PARTNER IN A COMMERCIAL LAW FIRM. SHE WAS A TRIAL JUDGE

AND WAS ON THE DISTRICT COURT. SHE WAS ON THE COURT OF APPEALS. SHE DOESN'T NEED ALL LOT OF ADVICE. [LAUGHTER] SHE DID CALL ME AND ASK ME ABOUT SOMETHING A COUPLE OF DAYS BEFORE IT CAME HERE. SHE SAID '" I LIKE THE ROAD YOU WERE YESTERDAY -- [LAUGHTER] [APPLAUSE] -- THE ROLE BUT YOU WERE YESTERDAY. . >> I AM CURIOUS ABOUT YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL ACROSS AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE? >> I MIGHT POINT

THAT -- PUNT THAT TO ONE OF THE COLLEAGUES HERE. THERE IS A RIGHT TO TRAVEL. WE HAVE HAD A COMMON

MARKET IN THAT RESPECT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. YOU CAN GO FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER WITHOUT ANY PASSPORT. THE QUESTION IS WHAT BENEFITS DO YOU GET WHEN YOU ARE A NEWCOMER TO THE STATE? I HAD TO BE VERY CAREFUL IN ASKING A QUESTION -- ANSWERING A QUESTION LIKE THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD THE QUESTIONS BEFORE. THEY WILL COME UP AGAIN. I DO NOT WANT TO PREVIEW TO YOU HOW I MIGHT DECIDE. [LAUGHTER] >> AND JUSTICE, I THINK WE ARE OUT OF TIME. I WONDER IF YOU HAD ANY CONCLUDING WORDS OF ADVICE THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO GIVE TO THE AUDIENCE OR

ANY CONCLUDING WORDS. >> I WANT TO SAY TO THE STUDENTS THAT I HAVE HAD SUCH TREMENDOUS SATISFACTION. [LAUGHTER]

WHAT IS GOING ON THAT I MISSED? HOW DID I BECOME A LAWYER? I WAS A STUDENT AT CORNELL IN THE EARLY 1950'S, NOT A VERY GOOD TIME FOR OUR COUNTRY. IT WAS THE HEYDAY OF SENATOR JOE MCCARTHY. MY GOVERNMENT PROFESSOR, I WAS HIS RESEARCH ASSISTANT. HE WANTED ME TO SEE THAT OUR COUNTRY WAS RESTRAINED FROM ITS MOST BASIC VALUES BY SOME OF OUR POLITICIANS WHO WERE SEEING A COMMUNIST IN EVERY CLOSET. THEIR REAL LAWYERS WHO WERE DEFENDING THE RIGHTS OF THESE PEOPLE -- THERE WERE LAWYERS. HIS POINT WAS THAT IF YOU ARE A LAWYER, YOU ARE ABLE TO MAKE THINGS A LITTLE BETTER. THAT IDEA THAT YOU HAVE A LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW. YOU CAN MAKE A LIVING, BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE SATISFIED IF YOU ARE A SKILLED ARTISTS AND LIKE A PLUMBER, YOU GET YOUR DAY'S PAY FOR YOUR DAY'S WORK. YOU HAVE A SKILL THAT ENABLES YOU TO MAKE LIFE A LITTLE BETTER FOR SOMEONE ELSE, FOR YOUR COMMUNITY. MY TREMENDOUS SATISFACTION IS THAT I WAS ABLE TO USE MY SKILL AS A LAWYER TO MAKE THINGS A LITTLE BETTER FOR OTHER PEOPLE. I HOPE THAT THE LAW STUDENTS HERE WILL USE THEIR LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW IN THAT WAY. TO GIVE BACK TO THEIR COMMUNITIES AND TO MAKE LIFE LITTLE BETTER BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN THERE. [APPLAUSE] [APPLAUSE] [APPLAUSE] >> FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK OUR MODERATOR'S FOR ASKING QUESTIONS AND ENGAGING IN DISCUSSIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK

JUSTICE RUTH TRADER GINSBERG FOR SPENDING A FEW DAYS HERE WITH US. -- JUSTICE RUTH GINSBERG. YOU HAVE IN MIND OUR COMMUNITY AND PLEASE COME BACK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. -- YOU HAVE ENLIGHTENED OUR COMMUNITY. [APPLAUSE] >>