Skip to main content

tv   Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Addresses Georgetown Law Students  CSPAN  September 24, 2017 4:42pm-6:01pm EDT

4:42 pm
by theinterviewed foreign policy interrupted co-founder. >> there is that question of our we exceptional, why have i never thought that this was a form of propaganda. why have i not thought to question where this concept was coming from and what was the job it was doing for individual americans. one thing i realized was that this took a long time to realize , was the very language we use when we talked about foreign countries has been determined for us a very long time ago, atause we tended to look muslim countries, especially countries in the east as were they catching up with us or were they behind us. that prevents is you from being able to see the country on its own terms. tonight atfterwords" book tv.-span two's
4:43 pm
>> supreme court justice spoke to first year law students wednesday on the challenge facing women who enter the legal field. she also gave a brief overview of the upcoming court term. this is an hour and 10 minutes.
4:44 pm
william: justice ginsburg, it is a privilege to welcome you here today. a few years ago, we began inviting people to offer reflections to our entering class. this has been an extraordinary opportunity for our students, as you embark on your legal education, to listen to and learn from someone whose career has shaped the law. and by attending georgetown law, you have chosen to learn the law in a place where laws are made. and this is evident in the speakers who have welcomed our first year students. people have heard from justice sotomayor, justice stevens, and the late justice scalia. and we have been so fortunate the last two years, this is the second year in a row, to be joined by the legendary justice ruth bader ginsburg.
4:45 pm
[applause] william: i know a long introduction of justice ginsburg is not necessary for georgetown students. as you progress in your studies you will eat and discuss her many powerful decisions as well as her pointed and influential dissents. and you will also learn that she occupies a rare place in legal history. like justice thurgood marshall, justice ginsburg would be a historic figure, in her case, as an advocate for gender equality, even if she had never been a judge or a justice. and as i'm sure you all know, the judge,
4:46 pm
the justice, is also a cultural icon. how many of us can say that we have inspired a one-act opera, two coloring books [laughter] and the phenomenon known as .he notorious rbg we recently received a portrait of justice ginsburg, which we now very proudly display as you come into the auditorium. her late husband, marty ginsburg, was a beloved professor, past professor and scholar at georgetown law for many years, and we have a professorship named in his honor. justice ginsburg's authorized biographers, and the co-authors with her, of a recent book "my
4:47 pm
own words, " are members of our faculty. the justice is a longtime supporter of our women's law and public policy program. i'm deeply grateful to you for your commitment to our students and alumni. thank you, justice ginsburg. [applause] william: a couple of logistical announcements before we begin. after the justice's remarks, we will go to the reception in the sport and fitness aetrium. that is one. that is where you go to next. two, silence your cell phone. i did mine on the way in. and in terms of the format, the justice will talk for a little bit, about the past term. then, after
4:48 pm
that, i will ask some questions. and we received a lot of questions from the audience, so i will, time allowed, ask as many of them as i can. when you asked her questions, i would ask that you stand up so we can recognize you. now members of our 2017 entering class, please join me in welcoming, justice ruth bader ginsburg. [applause] justice ginsberg: i feel so welcome. and you are mostly first-year students, is that right? a very exciting time. i remember how i felt, my first year of law school. it was a new kind of learning. in college, i
4:49 pm
was mostly, passively taking notes. but your law school classes, i hope, are engaging you so you are thinking all the time. i thought we could begin by my giving you a resume of what last term was like at the supreme court, and say a few things about the term that will start on the first monday in october. the largest headline news last term was the appointment of a new justice, justice gorsuch, to replace justice scalia. for 14 months we were only eight on the bench. neil gorsuch became the 113th justice, in time to join us for our last sitting in april. he
4:50 pm
had only one week, between his confirmation of the start of the sitting, but he managed to prepare well for 13 cases. he also cast himself as a potential rival to justice sotomayor, as the justice who asks the most questions at oral arguments. [laughter] the principal, in-house beneficiary of justice gorsuch's appointment, is justice kagan, who is no longer our junior justice, meaning she escapes opening the conference room door when a messenger knocks, answering the rare ring of the telephone, and most daunting, conveying to the entourage of the clerk's office, the legal office, and the reporter's office, the dispositions the justices made at the conference. justice kagan also relinquished to justice gorsuch, membership
4:51 pm
to the court's cafeteria committee. in that assignments, justice kagan suffered grumbling with good humor. her single achievement? the installation of a frozen yogurt machine. [laughter] justice ginsberg: a new statistic was reported the last term, adding to the last meter and count of questions asked by each of the justices. it was the average number of words from the per argument. justice breyer won hands down, with 814 words. justice kagan took second with 646. justice sotomayor, third, with 550. and i trailed, with only 284. running neck and
4:52 pm
neck as the fastest justice in getting out opinions, rapid ruth and swift sonja. [laughter] justice ginsberg: twice during the term, justice breyer's cell phone rang during the midst of arguments. just like spectators, the justices are expected to leave their phones and other electronic devices behind. after the second occasion, the chief justice had a replica of a metal detector placed in the corridor, for justice breyer to pass through before ascending to the bench. [laughter] justice ginsberg: for me, the most unforgettable argument of the term is a case you probably never heard of, maslenjack against the united states. this was the question presented.
4:53 pm
could a naturalized citizen be stripped of her citizenship if she committed an offense and failed to report it on her citizenship application? the chief justice was visibly shaken. some time ago, he confessed, of course, outside the statute of limitations, he drove 60 miles an hour in a 55. so, would such a confession prompt cancellation of naturalization? justice kagan said, i can't recall how many times i have lied about my weight. the council comfortingly responded, unless you did so under oath. the court reached 62
4:54 pm
decisions last term and only nine of those 62 decisions were 5-4. in comparison to that sharp agreement rate, we disagreed in only 15%, we sharply disagreed in only 15% of the cases. we were unanimous in the bottom line judgment in at least 31 cases, half of the decisions rendered in argued cases. and in 21 of the 31 unanimous judgments, we were unanimous in the opinion, as well. so, agreement, you can see is substantially higher than sharp disagreement on the court. we decided several high profile
4:55 pm
cases, and i will describe some of them. two cases came to us from the second circuit. sessions versus morales-santana and ziglar against abassi. both were among the most closely watched. morales-santana concerned a birthright statute, treating unwed u.s. citizen mothers more favorably than unwed u.s. citizen fathers. a child born abroad to an unwed, u.s. citizen mother, would acquire citizenship at birth if her mother had previously resided in the united states for a continuous period of one year. unwed u.s. citizen fathers were subjected to a more demanding
4:56 pm
residency requirement. morales-santana was a dominican father. morales-santana did not meet the statutory requirements for u.s. citizenship at birth. specification for different requirements for unwed citizen mothers and fathers, the second circuit held was incompatible with the equal protection principle. six of the eight participating justices joined in affirming that equal protection holding. addressing the toughest question in the case, however, the court concluded that striking down rather than extending the favorable treatment for unwed mothers, was the remedy congress would have preferred, had it known of the constitutional infirmity of the gender-based
4:57 pm
differential it enacted. that was so, we explained, because the longer residency period applied to married parents, as well as to unwed fathers. congress, we thought, would not have wanted the exception for unwed mothers to swallow the main rule. the abassi litigation stemmed from the government response in new york city to the september 11 tragedy. plaintiffs sued justice department officials and wardens of the metropolitan detention center in brooklyn, new york, where plaintiffs were confined for periods running from three-month eight months.
4:58 pm
those arrested had overstayed their visas, but were not accused of any criminal law infractions. they alleged discrimination, based on the perception that they were muslim, and they alleged gross mistreatment. many of their allegations were confirmed by an inspector general report. the report corroborated that the plaintiffs were held in cramped cells for over 23 hours a day, kept awake day and night by bright lights and loud sounds, denied access to basic hygiene items, toilet paper, soap, towel, toothpaste, and eating utensils. denied for extended periods, telephone calls to family and lawyers, allowed no
4:59 pm
the court took up the case with only six sitting justices. justice is a sotomayor and kagan were recused. testis sotomayor, because she had been on the second circuit during the early portions of the case. and justice kagan, because she was our solicitor general, when the case was pending. and justice gorsuch had not yet joined the court when we heard the arguments. four of the justices voted to reverse, and principle, and pivotal to the court's decision was a 1971 presidentcedent, bivens against six unnamed agents of the bureau of narcotics, a case i'm sure you will become familiar with during your time here.
5:00 pm
the court held that plaintiff could state a stain for relief directly under the constitution. it was the fourth amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures, even when there was no statute granting the right to sue. the court held bivens did not reach claims like those asserted in abossi, given the compelling interest in national security. justice breyer dissented, in an opinion i joined. he took the unusual step of summarizing his dissent from the bench, and that meant that he thought the court's decision was not just wrong, but egregiously so.
5:01 pm
without a right to sue, he urged the constitutional safeguards against arbitrary detention and abusive treatment of detainees, would be toothless. abossi guided the court in a case decided soon after, hernandez versus mesa. the case concerned a border patrol agent on the texas side of the border who fatally shot of 15-year-old mexican national. the agent fired while the boy was playing in a culvert that separated the two countries. the boy's parents sued the officer, seeking monetary compensation. with all of the court's judges sitting, the fifth circuit held that because the boy was shot while he was on the mexican side of the border, the fourth amendment did not apply to the officer's use of deadly force. in an unsigned opinion, the court instructed the fifth
5:02 pm
circuit to consider, as an initial matter, and in light of the abossi decision, whether a claim could be mounted under bivens. again, justice breyer dissented, and again, i joined him. the culvert was a maintained area, justice breyer emphasized, the area was policed by both mexico and the united states. it should not have been material, in our view, where in the culvert that bullet fired by the federal officer struck the boy. a case coming to us from the federal circuit, mattel against tam, targeted a provision of the lanham act, our trademark act, a law that prohibited the patent and trademark office from registering a disparaging trademark.
5:03 pm
simon tam sought to trademark a name he chose for his band. his aim was to re-appropriate a term long used to disparage a minority group, and to render the term, instead of a slur, a badge of pride. the patent and trademark office refused to register the mark, on the sole ground that it disparaged people of asian descent. sitting with all of its judges, a fractured federal circuit held that the provision that bans disparaging marks, a viewpoint discriminatory measure incompatible with the first amendment.
5:04 pm
we affirmed that judgment. all of us agreed that the trademark is the trademark holder's speech, and not the government's speech. the underlying issue had received considerably more attention in the dispute over the nfl's washington redskins trademark. the patent and trademark office canceled protection for the redskin trademark in 2014, at the request of a group of native americans. the federal district court upheld the cancellation, ruling that redskins was disparaging to a substantial composite of native americans. the appeal to the fourth circuit was placed on hold, ending our dutch -- pending our decision in the slants case. but one of the problems these cases present is, what exactly does disparaging mean?
5:05 pm
beauty is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. to the trademark office examiner, slants was a racial insult. to the plaintiffs, it was an expression of pride in their heritage. i checked before coming here to find out what happened to the redskin case. in june, the fourth circuit asked the parties to inform the court, in light of the decision in the slants case, if oral argument was necessary. the lawyer for the redskins, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, and the government agreed that the slants case was controlling, and that there would be no need for oral argument.
5:06 pm
in another case, the issue was access to the internet by former sex offenders. a state law made it a felony for a registered sex offender to access a broad array of social networking websites. that the offender knew that the sites did not restrict membership to adults. packingham had served a sentence for taking indecent liberties with a 13-year-old. he served his time. several years later, he posted a facebook note celebrating his success in getting a traffic ticket dismissed. for that posting, he was charged with violating a north carolina law banning him from using facebook, or amazon.com.
5:07 pm
in defense of the statute, north carolina stressed, it's vital interest in protecting children from sexual predators. but the law was stunningly overbroad, the supreme court held, because it barred packingham from using all the sites that others use to engage in ordinary and protected speech. for example, obtaining online education, and finding gainful employment. applying the first amendment to the internet, the court recognized would be a trying task and no doubt the future would bring more opportunities to address the matter. in religion clauses figured
5:08 pm
another case. there was an application by the inrch to participate missouri's scrapped tile program to resurface a preschool playground at its facility. the state department of natural resources denied funding on the ground that trinity lutheran was a church. the department did so relying on an article of the missouri state constitution that read no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion. trinity lutheran challenged the department's ruling, urging that its exclusion from the grant
5:09 pm
program violated the free exercise and equal protection clauses by discriminating on the basis of religious status. disagreeing with the lower court, the supreme court held excluding the church from the grant program violated the federal constitution. generally available benefit the court reasoned could not be withheld on account of the beneficiary's religious identity. dissent, justice sotomayor explained in her view first amendment religion clauses demanded a stricter separation of church and state. two cases on our docket concern questions stemming from the court's 2015 decision in obergefell against hodges. obergefell held same-sex couples
5:10 pm
must be afforded the same rights to wed as heterosexual partners. in smith, we reversed the decision of the supreme court of arkansas concerning birth certificates. we held that state may not deny to marry same-sex couples the right afforded by state law to marry opposite sex couples to have the name of the birth mother's spouse entered as the second parent on the child's birthcouples the right afforded by state law to marry certificate. on the same day we so ruled, we granted review in a case arising under the colorado antidiscrimination act, a case that has gotten more attention, i think, than any other of our current docket. masterpiece capeshaw against colorado civil rights commission.
5:11 pm
a baker, based on religious beliefs, refused to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples. he withheld cookies and ordinary cakes, but he would not create a cake celebrating their marriage. colorado sanctioned him for violating the state's anti-discrimination law and we will decide in the term about to begin whether the baker's claim to freedom of religion prevails over the state's application of anti-discrimination law. for the current term, we have so far granted review in 26 cases, garnering considerable interest is carpenter against united states. the store communication act permits the government to obtain without getting a warrant, cell-phone records that reveal a person's whereabouts over the
5:12 pm
course of several months. the petition in carpenter asked whether constitution requires a warrant to access such records. the sixth circuit answered no, it held a cell phone user voluntarily shares information , including her whereabouts, with her carrier. accordingly the court of appeals ruled no fourth amendment search occurs and no warrant is needed to gain the information. we also agreed to hear gill against whitford. wisconsin asked us to review the ruling of a three-judge federal district court in joining wisconsin's redistricting plan as impermissible partisan gerrymander. so far, the court has held race-based gerrymandering
5:13 pm
unconstitutional, but not found a manageable, reliable measure of fairness for determining whether a partisan gerrymander violates the constitution. in three consolidated cases, we will consider employment contracts reporting to relinquish in favor of binding individual arbitration the right to pursue class or collective litigation. such employer dictated contracts, employees urge , violates the national labor relations act, which protects workers' rights to act collectively for their mutual interests. additionally, the government supported the employees, but recently it switched sides and
5:14 pm
now relying on the federal arbitration act, supports the employer's position. the switch place general at odds with the position taken by the national labor relations board, petitioner in one of the three cases and formerly represented by the solicitor general. the acting solicitor general has given nlrb permission to brief and argue its own views, so we will have two arguments by government representatives on opposite sides of the issue and that will be a first for me in nearly 25 years i've served on the court. finally, on june 1, the government filed petition seeking review of the fourth circuit's decision halting the president's travel ban, that
5:15 pm
decision affirms an injunction against implementation of the executive order limiting travel to this country by persons from six predominantly muslim countries. the government also filed an application requesting a stay of the fourth circuit's injunction, pending the supreme court's review, as well as stay of another injunction of the same executive order coming from the district court in hawaii. after the ninth circuit upheld the district of hawaii's injunction, the government asked us to treat that stay application as a petition for review from the circuit's decision. the court granted both petitions, the one from the ninth circuit and the one from the fourth circuit, and consolidated the cases for argument in october.
5:16 pm
the court also stayed the injunction in part, foreign nationals with bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the united states continue to be sheltered by the fourth and ninth circuit's injunction. a relationship is bona fide if it is a close familial relationship, and that includes grandparents, or a documented tie to a u.s. institution, student admitted to a u.s. university, a worker who has accepted an offer of employment from a u.s. company, lecturer invited to address a u.s. audience. all those people would qualify. as to those individuals, the executive order may not be enforced, pending our decision in the case granted review.
5:17 pm
there is only one prediction that's entirely safe about the upcoming term and that is it will be momentous. and now i'm ready for my conversation with the dean. [applause]
5:18 pm
>> what a privilege to hear from justice ginsburg about last term and the upcoming term. thank you so much. [applause] actually -- i am delighted -- do,thing i would like to talk about some of your cases, as a litigator and on the court. since our first year students are here, one of the things that is true about this class, you make it a sense looking at the audience, most of our first year students are women. which we are very proud of. so, that was not the case when you were a law student. justice ginsburg: the contrast
5:19 pm
is gigantic. harvardating class at included over 500 students. nine of us were women. from my husband, who was when your head is -- one year ahead of me, his class had about 500 men and five women. we were strange, we were curiosities. to look at class like this is exhilarating. >> let me follow up with a question from one of our students. is lydia here? ok, in the balcony. she writes, how do you think the legal profession has changed in its attitude and treatment of women since you begin your
5:20 pm
career, and what is your advice for young women navigating the legal world today? justice ginsburg: how i think it has changed for women? >> in its attitude and treatment for women since you began. justice ginsburg: when i , there wasaw school no antidiscrimination laws. there was not even an equal pay act. there was no title vii, our principal antidiscrimination in employment law. employers were upfront about not wanting any lady lawyers. sign-up sheets for interviews for summer jobs or permanent associates on a graduation often said men only. i don't know how many times i ,eard from potential employers
5:21 pm
we had a woman once at this shop and she was dreadful. manybvious response, how men have you had who did not turn out the way you anticipated? [laughter] the heartnsburg: thing was to get the first job appeared once you did, you performed at least as well as the men, even better. the second was not as difficult as the first one was. this was not just private law firms. judges, i would've given anything to us shake the judges handle the second circuit. the judge i served lived around the corner from the judge. when i finished early enough, i would write uptown with them,
5:22 pm
and sit in the back of the car. would say man anything that came into his head. he would use curse words my mother never taught me. him, and don't seem to be inhibiting you by my presence in this car. why would you consider me as a law clerk? he said, young lady, i am not looking at you. i was in the backseat. so i was in there. but that was the attitude prevailing at the time. isould say the difference that all of the closed doors are now open. there is nothing a woman can't do in the law. among the crazy things that prevailed when i started out, the u.s. attorney's office would
5:23 pm
not accept women in the criminal division, only civil division. ,hen i asked why, i was told there are some tough criminal types and we can't risk having a woman be a prosecutor. i said, have you seen who works at legal aid with no pay or very little pay? people who are representing those tough criminal types have a much closer relationship than the prosecutor does, and many of them are women. those irrational distinctions. the antidiscrimination laws made a difference. teacher,as a lot teaching it -- a law teacher
5:24 pm
teaching at columbia, there was a lawsuit brought against a dozen top law firms for discriminating against women applications for employment. nyu --en at lumia and columbia and nyu had a collaboration with some of their favorite male students. they asked them, when you ,nterview someone for a job level with me, what do you really think about women lawyers? and that is the basis on which they got the 12 defendants. [laughter] the case wasurg: assigned, and immediately the defendants moved to have the judge recuse yourself. why? she was a woman, so she couldn't
5:25 pm
possibly judge the case. -- so they said, possibly be qualified? nobody would be qualified. all the overt barriers, the closed doors, those are gone. .hat remains is harder to get that is aexample of title vii case brought in the at&t for's against disproportionately dropping out women applicants for management
5:26 pm
jobs. the women did as well as the men, at least as well as the men at all of the standards. but they flunked disproportionately at the very last step. totalry last step was a person test. it was an interviewer interviewing the prospect for promotion. theurned out that all of interviewers were wightman -- and when they faced someone who was like them, there was a certain familiarity, a comfort, i know what this person is like. but if the person sitting across the table is of another race or
5:27 pm
is a woman, there is discomfort on the part of the interview appeared this person is not -- interviewer. this person is not like me. i don't know how to relate to her. it wasn't a case of i don't want any women to be promoted. it wasn't deliberate discrimination, but it was the unconscious bias. people questioned whether that exists. think of the symphony orchestra. , theygrowing up years never had a woman. critics, they swore they could tell the difference between a woman playing and a man. a new york times critic was very definite about that.
5:28 pm
suggested, let's put him to the test, let's blindfold him and see if you can tell the difference. he was all mixed up. [laughter] justice ginsburg: another person came up with a bright idea. given what happened with the critic, why don't we drop curtain between the people who are trying for jobs and the people conducting the audition? see.way, they won't the unconscious bias will be eliminated. i told this story at a music festival some years ago. a young violinist came up to me to tell me i had left out something. what did i leave out? you left out that we auditioned shoeless, so they won't hear a
5:29 pm
woman's heels on the stage. with that simple change, a drop curtain, almost overnight there was a change in the composition of symphony orchestras. now if you go to a concert, you , not just as harp players. if we could replicate the drop curtain in every sphere of endeavor it would be wonderful. since we can't, we have to try other ways to overcome the unconscious bias that still exists. the changes -- sony of the changes in advancement of a quality are a result of your work. how did you decide you wanted to litigate cases that would focus
5:30 pm
on justice ginsburg: how did i become a flaming feminist litigator? [applause] >> that's a fair way to put the question. was theginsburg: i beneficiary of it be changed in the times. the professor called of the climate of the era. i can illustrate that by comparing my daughter when she entered kindergarten. my daughter was born in 1985. -- 1955. there were few working moms in the class. my daughter is a law professor and the next working copyright. -- an expert in copyright. he said a schoolmate's parent
5:31 pm
felt sorry for her because her mother worked. she was often invited for afterschool and weekends. my son was born 10 years later in 1965. it was no longer unusual to have two earning families. in fact it had become the prevailing pattern. so, once people's lives have changed, it was time for the law to catch up to the changes. it became possible to win cases you could not win even 10 years earlier. cases, one isrite the state of michigan has to love it said a woman cannot serve as a bartender unless her father or husband is the owner of the establishment. put ahat immediately
5:32 pm
woman and her daughter out of work. during world war ii when so many men were off defending our country, women began to take jobs they had not taken before. one of them limited rather well it was bartending. the bartenders union did not like that. when the boys came back home and wanted to get the women out, so michigan passed this law. , a barrier that put these women out of business. the supreme court said that was ok. because places where liquor by the drink is sold can be dangerous.
5:33 pm
they made very light of it. in 1961 when the court decided the case against florida, it was a woman who today we would call battered. her philandering husband had humiliated her to the breaking point. she spied her young son's baseball bat in the corner of a room. brought it down over her husband's had with all her might. he fell, hit his head against a hard floor. end of their altercation, beginning of her murder prosecution. she was from hillsboro county, florida. they did not put women on the jury rolls. she argued that denies me the
5:34 pm
opportunity to be judged by it jury of my peers. of course it would include women. the supreme court and another clip opinion said -- glib opinion said women have nothing to complain about. plato that the survey don't want to. give a want to serve, they can go to the clerk's office and volunteer. the exemption is perfectly reasonable because, after all, women are the center of home and family life. how she must've felt when she received the news about that decision. what about me? her idea was it by hand women on the jerry, might not -- jury, they might not have acquitted me
5:35 pm
that they would have convicted me on the lesser crime of manslaughter. not murder, for which she was convicted. that was up until 1961. when the turning point came in the supreme court's decision in the, it was brought by aclu. they brought the brief for the challenge for sally reed. would place the name of two and --dorothy kenyon woman who it faced the same thing we were saying in the 19 70's, they said it in the 1940's when the society was not yet ready to listen. dorothy's mission was to put women on every -- women on
5:36 pm
uries in every state of the union. so far ahead in seeking racial justice and gender equality. one of the things that propels they wroterticle and the"jane crow law." she pointed to all the losses and woman can't do this and they can do that. i think jane crow was an apt name for that. we put both names on the brief although by then they were quite senior and did not participate in writing the brief. we knew we were standing on their shoulders. they kept the idea alive.
5:37 pm
when society was not yet ready to listen. writing -- riding a wave. i was fantastically lucky. in the 1970's, the women's movement was coming alive all over the world. it was not just a u.s. phenomenon. the u.n. declared 1975 international women's year. mene were women and change in change, what had been the separate spheres stance of the law. man was the breadwinner and the woman was the caretaker of the children in the home. if either stepped out of his or her proper role, they would be disadvantaged. a number of cases brought in the 70's involved male plaintiffs.
5:38 pm
weidenfeld had a tragic event in his life. he was married to a high school math teacher. she had a very healthy pregnancy. went to have the baby. youdoctor came out and said have a healthy baby boy but your wife died of an embolism. he would not work full-time until his child was in old-time. -- full-time. part-time earnings for social security benefits, they could just about make it. sociald they were security benefits when a young child is left with one surviving parent.
5:39 pm
we went to the social security office and asked for child in care benefits and were told, were sorry. these her mother's benefits. they are not available for fathers. that was typical of the way the law worked. the discrimination starts as the woman is the wage earner. she is considered a pin money earner. although she pays the same social security taxes as the man paid, her family does not get -- same protection from there was discrimination against the male as a parent. wasn't felt would have no choice -- weidenfeld would work no choice but to work full-time. chief, justice rehnquist, said this is arbitrary from the
5:40 pm
point of view of the baby. why should the baby have a chance to be cared for by a parent only if the parent is female and not if the parent is male? really on her own in the 1970's. that havedistinctions been taken for granted and excepted were no longer possible. the u.s. civil rights commission did a study of all the provisions in the u.s. code that differentiated on the base of gender. most of those were gone by the end of the 1970's. interestede of you in being litigators for change, it is a brilliant model that you came up with. when you were arguing before eight male supreme court, to find cases in which male artist -- males are discriminated against. justice ginsburg: it was not
5:41 pm
hard to find because all those cases seemed to me to start with discrimination against the woman. man if disadvantaged as a parent because the woman is not considered a true member of the labor force. anyway, it was great to have the opportunity to be part of that change. which would not have been possible. >> what is extraordinary is that you and justice thurgood are the ones who would been historic figures because of what you did before the court. what you did in terms of fighting for women's equality and for equality was really
5:42 pm
transformative. justice ginsburg: i followed his in a number ofse cases thurgood marshall of the four courts and said, separate but equal is not before the court today. these facilities are vastly funny. -- unequal. when he had won several cases, he said it is time to tell the court forced separation of the races, separation forced by the law can never be equal. he had the building blocks on the way. takeis all we tried to do, cases that were clear winners and say to the court all caps occasions by gender should be reviewed with suspicion. there should be a heightened standard of review. marshall'sd thurgood
5:43 pm
strategy, but i always feel uneasy when people make a comparison. marshallhing thurgood in the day he was appearing in southern courts would wake up in the morning and not know whether he would be alive at the end of that day. my life was never at risk. >> i think we are all in your debt. it was so profoundly transformative. katy o'neill has a question. her question is, justice ginsburg, what you think is the most pressing issue for women today? what will the next big victory for women's rights look like? justice ginsburg: the challenges at think, harder to get
5:44 pm
thing to ridding rid of over classifications. i just explained the unconscious bias phenomenon. of then there's the question having family life. work life. having the balance between these two. people that hear people say a woman has to forgo marriage and children. my very puzzled thinking of dear colleague sandra day , who has three very adult boys. i had two children.
5:45 pm
my chief of the d.c. circuit had five children. the one thing is essential to satisfying family partner work life, is a who think your work is as important as his. fortunate toery have a partner like that. justice ginsburg: yes. i've said many times marty ginsburg, was a teacher at , he was the first boy i ever dated that cared that i had a brain. >> we miss him. he was remarkable. justice ginsburg: yes, he had many talents. he was a great chef.
5:46 pm
[laughter] justice ginsburg: one of the most popular books in the supreme court's gift shop is called "supreme chef." chef.is the supreme [laughter] justice ginsburg: the supreme court spouses meet for lunch in exchange catering -- they rotate catering responsibilities. marty was always the number one pick. alito decided pay a tribute to him with a cookbook. he would have loved to have a cookbook with his name on it. recipes on a150 disk. she picked 30 out of them. i showed the selection to my daughter and she said, mother, daddy would not have taken
5:47 pm
those. --picked those. i said he picked them. all the recipes were picked by my daughter. says,is one injury that jane's caesar salad. she put in one of her own recipes. [laughter] >> we are almost out of time. mentioning marty's book brings to mind, and this is where we will end, a book that will soon be a hot seller in the gift shop. a look on your work out routine. [laughter] >> authored by your personal trainer. us each at aid naturalization ceremony. brian called everyone to order. i knew he was your trainer. i said, what is the justice's
5:48 pm
routine? first he wanted to see me do it playing. -- plank. this is the picture. [laughter] [applause] begin at what they give away the secret in advance of the book. could you describe your routine? [laughter] justice ginsburg: i should describe how it started. brian is in my personal trainer since 1999. it was the year of my bout with colorectal cancer. a nine-hour surgery. nine months of chemotherapy. six weeks of daily radiation. when we came to the end of that stressful time, my husband said you look like a concentration camp survivor. you have got to do something to build yourself up.
5:49 pm
i asked around and the district judge told me about brian who works at the clerk's office. in the d.c. district court. she said he was training her and she thought he would be right for me. that's a long time that we had been together. takes me slowly up to the level i can reach. i can be exhausted at the end of the day. ,hen i spend an hour with brian i feel fresh. i understand dvd 20 push-ups, i feel -- that you can do 20 push-ups and don't use your knees? justice ginsburg: no. [laughter] justice ginsburg: we started standing up pushing against the door.
5:50 pm
then we do the knee thing. for many years we have been doing regular push-ups. [laughter] >> one final question. could you tell students about parasailing? justice ginsburg: about? >> parasailing. justice ginsburg: i don't do it anymore. [laughter] i was teaching in a summer program. the hotel was overlooking the beach. sales -- these paris ils in splendid colors and i thought that would be a fun thing to do. my husband thought i was crazy. we were on the beach. schooln of hofstra law was walking across the beach. dean, how would you like to parasail with me? he said why not?
5:51 pm
his wife was aghast. the two of us were up in the clouds together. it was a wonderful experience. at first when they pull this up i thought, of my goodness, i am going to fall off. of the air i realize we were very secure. there was a good harness. it was quite wonderful. [laughter] >> i believe the dean's wife said something about -- justice ginsburg: if there is anything that happened be sure he is the 1 -- she is the one that is saved. [laughter] [applause] >> she was very wise.
5:52 pm
we are delighted. this was such a privilege to hear from you. justice ginsburg, you are in every way and inspiration. your work is a champion of justice. your work on the court is really something that could not be more inspiring than it is for our students. this is a small token of our things. again, thank you very much. i would like a big round of applause. [applause] >> again, thank you so much.
5:53 pm
[applause] [crowd noise] returning to washington a short time ago, the president spoke to reporters in moorestown, new jersey on a subjects, including football players protesting during the national anthem. >> [indiscernible] i think it'smp: very disrespectful to our flag in our country. i certainly think the owners should do something about it. there was great solidarity. i watched a little bit. i was not watching the games today. i watched a little bit and i will say there was tremendous
5:54 pm
solidarity for our flag and for our country. friendr: your said he is disappointed. president trump: he has to take his ideas and go with what he wants. i think it is very disrespectful to our country. i think it is very disrespectful to our flag. i like bob very much. he gave me a super bowl ring a month ago. he is a good friend of mine. i want him to do what he wants to do, but we have a great country. we have great people representing our country. especially our soldiers, are first responders. they should be treated with respect. and you get on your knee don't respect the american flag or the anthem, that is not being treated with respect. there is nothing to do with race. i never said anything about race. this has nothing to do with race or anything else. this has to do with respect for our country and respect for our flag.
5:55 pm
>> did the big six finalize a tax plan? president trump: is finalized. i think it will be terrific. i think you will go through and it will be the largest tax cut in the history of our country. >> did congressman rohrabacher discussed julian assange? president trump: i never heard that mentioned. >> will the corporate rate be 20%? president trump: i hope it will be 15%. we will see what happens. i hope it will be 15%. it will be substantially lower so we bring jobs back to our country. >> for the individual rate the 35%? president trump: we expect 10% or 12%. this is a plan for the middle class and the companies so they can bring back jobs. >> [indiscernible] president trump: we are looking at health care. i have been watching for seven years as republicans have been saying repeal and replace.
5:56 pm
then you have john mccain voting no for whenever -- whatever reason. even the governor of arizona is totally in favor of it. is great for maine and alaska. every state you are talking about, it happens to be particularly good for. i don't know what they are doing. eventually we will win whether it is now or later. >> can you work with democrats on -- president trump: we will see what happens. republicans have been saying for seven years repeal and replace. in arizona it is up 116%. in maine, when you look at what is going on, they have a tremendous amount of money with the grants. with the bloc grants. you look at alaska, one of the biggest beneficiaries. these of the people against it. eventually we will win. my primary focus on the beginning has been taxes. i believe we will be successful
5:57 pm
in the largest tax cut in our country's history. thank you all very much. i will see you later. the travel ban -- the tougher, the better. iranat about the. deal? -- deal? >> the senate finance committee holds a. monday on the latest republican plan to repeal the affordable care act. the two lead sponsors of the bill, senate is lindsey graham and bill cassidy are scheduled to testify. will have live coverage monday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. eastern.
5:58 pm
on when is early believe trump was -- had just announced. they were worried that he was going to be bad for them in terms of voters. i thought, really? you are worried now considering how far back they had an a nti-woman platform with reproductive rights, equal pay. washingtonon q&a, post pulitzer prize winning editorial cartoonist and tell this -- ann tellnis. >> i don't member who did the interview. he said something like he never does any washington dinners without his wife. i thought, ok. this was a gift. really? you don't have any problem voting about a woman's personal reproductive choices, probably the most personal and intimate
5:59 pm
thing a woman can deal with. dinner will not go to with a woman fully clothed at the same table? >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on q&a. afterwards, new york times magazine conservator suzy hansen on her travels abroad in her book, "an american abroad in a post-american world." she is interviewed by the foreign policy co-founder. >> there was a question of are we exceptional, but also the question of why had i never thought this was a form of propaganda? why had i not thought the question where was this concept coming from? what was the job it was doing for individual americans? one thing i was realizing is this took a long time to realize is that the very language we use we talk about foreign countries
6:00 pm
has been kind of determined for us a very long time ago. on especiallyook muslim countries and countries in the east as were they catching up with us or behind us? what that does is it prevents you from being able to see the country on its own. >> watch afterwards tonight on c-span2's book tv. >> our guest on newsmakers is strobe talbott. he recently announced he is stepping aside as president of the brookings institution that he left for 15 years. for more than 40 years has been a leading voice in foreign policy with emphasis on russia. as a journalist, a diplomat and as part of the academy. we look forward in having you here this week. the president just made his first trip to the u.n., thank you so much are being our guest. let me introduce the two reporters asking questions to susan glasser is with a best

8 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on