Transcripts For CSPAN Justices Abella Beinisch Ginsburg 20240712

Husband irvings are here i was by her personal journey and undying faith in humanity. I also learned she and Justice Ginsburg when we moved to washington, it seems natural to organize the conversation between these two extraordinary women. Iat opportunity arose when had the privilege of attending a small private dinner. She had Justice Ginsburg with and i asked her if this if this group would be interested in a conversation. It became this threesome. It would not have been possible had Justice Ginsburg not reached out to doris. This evening is the result of the support of many extraordinary women who pull their resources together. , the three justices, of course, misses wilhelmina holiday. She has the only Museum Dedicated to a woman in the arts in the world. Judy woodruff, icon in journalism. Misses bennett, a force of nature in washington. My friend connie milstein. And many, many others. This evening, this conversation is truly historic and we have gathered three women from three s from threet countries. They are each a living monument. At a time when so many people are asking where are the women they are here, they are there, they are everywhere. We have to look, we have to ask, we have to listen, and we have to act. Francis taking action. Each of us in this room has the power to identify leaders and become a leader ourselves. What astounded me with these three justices from very different backgrounds, each took similar paths. Canada, the United States, and israel, each of these women were the first in their countries. It says a lot about the cycles of history. We are witnessing another important cycle as the issues of womens rights is a conversation worldwide across all cultures. We are looking to identify those leading the path for change and we have an opportunity to give three of them even more visibility. When you think about it, these women have an impact on the future of their countries for generations to come. Elected officials decisions can be altered by the court and the Supreme Court defined some of those issues today which will impact future generations. At culturals look changes in our society around the world, these leaders will be at the forefront. Historians will read their decisions and this one will stand out. We hope you enjoy this evening. Toase allow Judy Woodruff begin this historic conversation. Thank you. [applause] judy thank you for being the inspiration behind this evening. What a treasure it is to bring these three extraordinary women together. It is not only my great privilege, it is an extra an area honor extraordinary honor and a great pleasure to be here. I want to thank susan sterling for introducing us. I want to thank wilhelmina holiday, whose idea it was to have this museum and the Perfect Place to have this conversation in the city of washington and at this moment. Lets get started. Are three pathbreaking women. You have to read their whole biographies in the program. I want to remind everybody a little bit about who they are and where they came from truly. I will lead off the conversation and we will leave sometime at the end for questions from you and the audience. Keep that in mind. First, from your left, the honorable Justice Rosalie silverman abella of the Supreme Court of canada. She is one of nine justices. 29 years old when she was first appointed as a judge of the ontario family court, making her the youngest and the first pregnant judge in canadian history. Earlier, she practiced civil and criminal law. She moved to the Ontario Court of appeal, before being named to the Supreme Court. She has been actively engaged in employment equity, Labor Relations law, access to Legal Services to those with disabilities. One ofconsidered canadas foremost experts in human rights law. On a personal note, the justice was born in displaced persons camp in germany soon after the end of world war ii. Her family came to canada as refugees four years later. From the royale conservatory of music in classical piano. [applause] next, the honorable doris danish, the president of the Supreme Court of israel. She served in that capacity for six years, the first woman to do so. Forwas recognized among focus on protecting human rights and civil rights, the rights of women and children, the socially vulnerable, immigrant workers. Her service as president followed 10 years as a justice of that court. She served as a district attorney. State attorney of thatl, the first woman in country. Someone we know very well, the honorable Ruth Bader Ginsburg, associate dust just justice of United States. Serving in her 21st year was only the second woman appointed to the u. S. Supreme court when she was named in 1993 by president clinton. She spent 13 years serving as a federal Appeals Court judge for the district of columbia. That followed a distinguished legal teaching career at Rutgers University where she cofounded the first law journal in this country to focus exclusively on womens rights and columbia university. Landmark cases before the Supreme Court on gender discrimination. She was described by the new yorker magazine as the Supreme Court most accomplished litigator. She was born in brooklyn new york. Graduated in 1959, at the top of her class. She did not receive a single job offer. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I want to Start Talking with you about how you grew up. That shaped you. Brooklyn, going up, tell us what it was like. I grew up withg world war ii the overwhelming presence. Remembersad time and i ddayhilaration first on we were all doing something to contribute to the war effort. We saved from our allowance bonds buy stamps, or war bonds. The end of world war ii was a hopeful time in our country. City andwas new york iu spent your formative years heartthe heart in the of that city. Justice ginsburg in the adirondacks in the summer. [applause] [laughter] judy that is a good thing. Up, yourbout growing family. Justice beinisch i was born in tel aviv. 1933. Ents came in it was palestine, not the state of israel. They were kind of pioneers, active for the movement for jewish people coming. Background, my mother was a. Indergarten teacher thought tonce she educate young children. She was very active. My father was working in public service. It was not an easy time. N i was born, thought it would be a burden on their children. Futureforesaw what the would be for them. I was always interested in education. Chance that i came to love it so much. Hebrew, i was six years old when the state was established. Judy do you remember that . Yes. Ce beinisch it was excitement. We all accompanied the developments of the state. Background. Judy you really grew up with israel. War brought the three of you together. Different times, different places, and it affected all of you. You were born in germany. What is a displaced persons camp . Parents werea my polish. My mothers family were Business People in australia. Operating re and they got married september 3, 1939. Spent fourchild and years at a concentration camp. The child was killed. It is quite a remarkable story. When my mother came wrote theland, she rails to prague. There was a typhoid epidemic. Shes not in with the garbage she snuck in with the garbage detail. Nobody was allowed in. She said she found him in the back of the camp, very frail, listening to the radio. The ended up in germany. Stunned by the decision to have more children after Something Like that. I was born very soon after that. Speak german. Us my Mother Tongue is german. They wanted us to feel like we belong. Hate, theret any was just the desire to overcome and make us feel normal. They spoke polish to each other. My grandmother lived with us and she spoke yetish. Yiddish. Letters fromese american judges and lawyers, wonderful letters, recommending him for when he was able to come into canada. Why did you choose canada . Justice abella he had a relative here. One of my earliest memories in canada, my mother learned english and switch to english in the home. And i remember my father coming i have done my eight years of training. What do i have to do to practice law . And they said you cant. You have to be a citizen. Had my sister, he had my mother to look after. He became an insurance agent. I never heard him complain. Be aey will not let him lawyer, i will be a lawyer. I know women who were lawyers. All i knew was he wanted to be it so i was going to be at. It was not until i was 13 when i read a lot of books on weekends because nobody ever asked me out. That is ok. Judy we dont believe this. It was good but i decided to be a lawyer. I did not know any women who were lawyers. When i got pregnant in 1973, i did not know any mothers who were lawyers. I was tenacious in my desire to replace what he could not be. The most important thing about my childhood, as an immigrant, you have zero expectations of entitlement. It is all about opportunity. It is all about working really , working really hard in school so you are a top student in school. I played piano because it was important to my parents. They wanted it and i was all about making sure that i lived in accordance with their values. We did not grow up in a jewish neighborhood. Of all the kids i knew growing up, it was the happiest home. They never complained. They were never bitter. I never had a sense of demons in the house. I did not know until i was much older that it was not typical. They made me think i could do anything. They also said, you will get married and have children. You can be a lawyer, but you are going to get married. Was a merger of aspirations. Judy Justice Ginsberg, i dont think you mentioned your occupation of your parents. What sort of influence did they have and other family members have on your ultimate interest in the law . My mother was an avid reader. She never dreamed, i never dreamed that it would be possible to be a lawyer. I was going to be a High School History teacher. People asked me did you always want to be a judge . I said when i got out of law school the object was to get a job. Any job in the law. These were pretitle seven days so employers were up front that they didnt want any women. The law school my class in law school had about 500 students, nine of them were women. So you can imagine what a tremendous opportunity i had when the Womens Movement came alive again at the end of the 1960s and there i was a law teacher and able to contribute whatever talent i had to nudge this movement a little further. What do you think pulled you in the direction of the law and toward the idea of wanting to have something to do with justice . In large part it was a professor that i had at cornell university. His name was robert e. Cushman. I attended from 1950 to 1954. A bad time for our country. It was the heyday of senator Joseph Mccarthy who saw a communist in every corner. And my professor wanted me to understand that our country was straying from its most basic values, that there were lawyers representing people, many of them in the entertainment industry, who were reminding our house on American Activities Committee and Senate Security committee that our constitution has a first amendment, freedom of expression, and a fifth amendment, protecting people from selfincrimination. So it was the idea that a lawyer was a profession and it was a field in which you could make things a little better. Now, i have to say also that my family was not too keen on the idea of my going to law school mainly because they were interested in my being able to support myself. But then when marty and i married, it was okay to be a lawyer because if it didnt work out i had a man to support me. [laughter] judy so the heat was they were relaxed about it after that . Im curious about how you all have spoken a little bit about, you no, the direction of the law but it wasnt just the law. You all have been advocates in your own way. You have all as we mentioned human rights has been a passion for all of you. But along the way, there was something that kept you going. It wasnt just as you are saying, it wasnt just seeing that laws get passed by legislative bodies or that lawyers get a case argued, it was about as Justice Ginsberg just said, making things better. Was there a point when you heard a voice, justice bainisch inside your head that said this is what i want . You know, looking backwards, to be sincere, i think how did i come to law. It wasnt my first my first dream was to be also a High School Teacher for history. And i went to the university to study history and literature. But really i believed that you have to do something for your society. This was part of the education i got at home and i thought the best thing is to influence society through education to be with a young againation. And generation. I dont know how last minute decision was that i have to do a change from my routine thinking about education and i thought it as revolution to go into law school. Judy where did that idea come from . Justice beinisch i dont know. Because i wanted a change. And once i started i really fell in love with this profession, with law. You know, my surrounding everyone, i always tell the story that after i went, i started to law school i met my School Master from high school. She was a very important personality in education. Very influencial. And she said dorit, what are you going to study . I was then just released from the military service. I said well, i decided on law. She was so disappointed. [laughter] at the end, she said you know, if you will be a judge in the juvenile courts this could be good. Why was she disappointed initially . How can we contribute. Can contribute to society. This is the truth. Much more than in any other field. She thought lawyers have their business. Sin. Ess is a we were looking for something t would be for the value what shall i do to be adjudged . Judge . E a i never thought about being a judge when i was your age. It is not easy. Easier said than done. This is today. They always start when they are 8, 10, 12 years old. Judy or even four. [laughter] Justice Ginsburg law is still a firstdegree in israel. Young when you entered law school. Two years insch the military service, and only then did i start law school. Started at 20 years old. Judy when you were 20 . Got caughtnisch i by law and i loved every minute of it. This was in the 1970s. The womens career in law in israel was easier than the United States. Way. Ne else paves the during the british mandate in women were not allowed to argue cases. They had to fight for that. They came to the council in london. It was british before the state was founded. Someone paved the way. We did not have many women in the profession but we already had some when i started. Judy in the 1970s. A few years before justice oconnor. What about being a woman . Us,ice abella for all of it was inconceivable when we were young and inconceivable when we started practicing law that we would ever be adjudged. Inconceivable. There were no women judges. Maybe two or three in the whole country. One of the reasons that was an advantage, and especially if you are kind of an outsider, hard to talk about outsiderinsider when you are on the Supreme Court, but we all understand. You do what you feel is the right thing to do. Judy what do you mean outsider . Justice abella if you know you are different, if you are not like the rest of the culture you are traditionally in. I was jewish, immigrant, female in a male profession that was largely grandfather was a Supreme Court judge and father was a Supreme Court judge. I say that only because it can be a great advantage to understand you are different, that you are never going to be like everybody else. Enjoy the fact that you are different. Dont try to homogenize. If you are comfortable in your skin, it means you do things not toward the possibility of an against whichtive you measure all of your opportunities and choices. You take risks. Be a judge, i will at 29. I will run a Law Reform Commission when nobody else wants to do it. My ultimateagainst objective because i was having a wonderful ride in the legal profession. , dont say,m asked this is where i want to end up. You have no idea where you are going to end up. Give yourself a chance. What comes first, the music or the words . The other advantage our generation has, we had the but thenof the 1950s you have the 1960s, which were an awakening of social institution and arrangements that had been in existence for 100 years, the Womens Movement. In the 1970s, all of the dialogue. We added aboriginal issues, sexual orientation. We were a generation in which changes all around us. That was a great advantage because to be a lawyer in an environment where it was legal change, social change, justice change, you had all of these troops screaming for entry into the groups screaming for entry into the mainstream, that was a privileged time to be a lawyer. We all cared about the ultimate goal we wanted a better world. Judy Justice Ginsburg, what did that time feel like for you . You are teaching you are teaching. Istice ginsburg 1963 until got my first good job in d. C. Judy what did that period feel like to you . You were involved in womens rights issues and civil rights cases from the beginning. Justice ginsburg how did it feel to meet . Exhilarating and exhausting. Me most were the people who came forward and said , i have experienced and injustice and i think our legal system can make it right. The first gender discrimination case i briefed in the supreme case, as sally reeves woman from boise, idaho. Son. Ad an adopted. He and her husband separated she had legal custody of the boy. When the boy was a teenager, the father set, i would like to have my child at least part of the time. He needs to be prepared for a mans world. The Family Court Judge said, ok. Sally was distraught. He had reason to be her son was depressed. He took out one of his fathers guns and killed himself. Sally wanted to be the administration of his estate. Not because there was money involved, for sentimental reasons. She took that case through three levels of the idaho courts. When the idaho Supreme Court ruled against her. Aclu read about the case, he said that is the case that will change the court. Once the Womens Movement was conspicuous, more and more people like sally reeves thought, i dont have to put up with this. It should be changed. What touched you about that. Justice ginsburg the lawyer from the aclu called a local blogger from idaho called a local law your from idaho. Sallys. Was the aclu has a mixed history when it comes to the equal rights amendment. Case, the aclu decided to start the womens rights project. You how much did you did being a woman affect what you are able to do when you were arguing cases before the court. Justice ginsburg women of my generation in the law had to overcome certain obstacles. By then it was not ok to make indulgent jokes on race or religion, but women were fair game. I will give you one example. I was arguing before a federal court in new jersey, and they said, i understand women have made great progress. They even have equal opportunity in the military, and i said women are not allowed to have flight training. The judge responded, dont tell me that. Women have been in the air always. I know that from experience with my own wife and daughter. One thing you dont say, you sexist pig. You want to win the case. If you got angry that would be selfdefeating. The best thing is to say, i have met many men who dont have their feet on the ground and then race into the next line. The last argument i had in the court was in 1978. It was about putting women on juries in missouri. Missouri had an opt out system where women were not required to serve and the summons that went out from kansas city had in big letters, if you were a woman you need not serve. If you dont want to serve, check off here. How many people would volunteer . I had an argument with the public defender of kansas city. I thought i had gotten out the point i wanted to make. Then the justice said, you wont settle. Susan b. Anthonys face on the new dollar. Many years later he wrote a wonderful opinion of the family medical leave act. As long as you live you can learn. [laughter] judy justice, i described some of the work you did before you were appointed to the Supreme Court. How much did being a woman affect the deputy state attorney and state attorney . I dont know how much it affected. I think the story we just heard, what is so impressive is it is a vehicle to promote human rights and womens rights. Until today, we dont really have the equality we are struggling to achieve. What was difficult as a woman, was when i was in the ministry of justice, i needed many times to confront the politicians. The prime minister, who i refused sometimes to represent in court. I thought they dont respect enough the right of minorities, so i had many fights inside the system, inside the administration. I think they used if its a woman, and i was young then, you dont have to take it too seriously what you say. You have to fight when you want to achieve it. Some people said i couldnt get jobs when i had to. I dont know. Maybe because i was a woman. We can never know what was the real reason. I think women always have to be much better to achieve. We are not accepted for many jobs, many things. You have to do much more to prove you can do what a man can do and more than that, it wasnt easy. You know justice oconnors story . She graduated from the top of her class in stanford. No one would hire her. She said, i will work for free. After four months if you think i am worth that you can put me on the payroll. Judy that was how she got her foot in the door . Your point is for women at the level you were serving, you were fighting a lot of behind the scenes. It wasnt in the public arena. This was behind the scenes. It was sometimes in court, sometimes the decisions that were taken. It wasnt easy at all. I thought if you believe you are right, dont give up. Try again and again not to give up. I think i never gave up. What made you stick it out . Where did that come from . Justice beinisch i thought we have to do justice. This is part of it. I thought to respect the law and respect for the law. Sometimes its not so accepted. You have to fight for that. This was my experience. Judy whats your experience . Justice abella i never knew whether it was sexism or antisemitism. Its hard to tell the reason there were exclusions. We knew there were. You just did what you did knowing you were in early days of the Womens Movement. In those days we all gave speeches on women and the law to talk about here is how the law treats women. In law school i didnt know any of that. School is a meritocracy. If you work really hard you do well in school. You think life is going to be like that. Then reality hit. It was from my women clients that i realized how the law treated women. It opened my eyes. Judy what is an example . Justice abella who gets custody, who gets divorced, matrimonial property laws . It used to be when the couple got married the husband and wife became one person. There were many examples of how the law had to catch up with the emerging reality. Now we give lectures and seminars on women in the law. Now the panels are, do you lie down, do you stand up . Having achieved the numbers when we went to law school there were five women out of 150. Now it is 50 and the conversation is different. The question you ask is an interesting one. I had to think about it when you said, what do you feel as a woman . Theyll always ask judges this. Does being a woman make a difference. I think being jewish, having experienced what we experience as jews and women gives you an insight into the importance of understanding that you as a judge have to be open to reality in front of you and be ready to really listen, because their story may not be your story. The difference between a judge having an agenda and a judge truly listening, i remember all the conversations in the 80s and the 90s. All of those things meant to dismissively rebut arguments about why equality was important for women. I remember thinking, you cant judge it from a majority perspective. You have to look at how the law looks to the people who want access to it who dont have the views of the majority. Thats how i learned to understand what judging was all about, that you listen to two sides. One side is always mad at you. You have to be ready to be unpopular. When you are a judge, you are an institution that has the responsibility and independence to take a stand that is unpopular, so when people say its an agenda or activism or reverse discrimination, i think what they are saying is, i dont like the results, so they throw a label around the decisionmaker to say, what do you expect . Shes a woman. Whatever identity they attribute to the decision. I think the best judges are people who understand what it feels like not to have the same privileged world we all experience. Justice ginsburg you use the word outsider. You know what its like to be an outsider who is empathetic to others. I think we would like to clarify one thing. You used the word agenda twice. Agendas dont make agendas. We are receiving always. We dont make the controversies that come before us. But we do our best when they are on our plate to decide them. We are not like the political branches that do have an agenda. Justice abella it attributed to us. Remember the 80s and the 90s, the discourse was extremely critical of judges who were progressive. It was critical because they said they had an agenda, which is the worst thing you can say about a judge, because what it suggests is that the decisionmaker has an intellectual basket that will accept evidence and information and keep the shape of the basket, and judges are supposed to allow the basket to change. When somebody said you have an agenda, its a way of dismissing results and saying what do you expect, but it is absolutely a contradiction to what judges actually do. We listen, but that doesnt mean we have an agenda other than trying to get it right every time. There is another restraint on you. You dont sit alone. I tell people i am 800. I have 8 husbands. [laughter] i say, imagine making every single major decision every day with eight husbands. I dont know about you, but deciding to go to a movie is hard enough, but eight, and they didnt choose you and you didnt choose them . Its really extraordinary. Eight forced marriages. Judy i have never heard it but that way. Justice ginsburg and the three of us have in common that it allows us to file dissenting opinions. Judy i dont want the afternoon to end without i dont know where we are because i dont have a watch and i am having such a good time. I think that three of us have another thing in common, speaking of eight husbands. We have been very lucky because having a partner at home who is utterly supportive and encouraging and therefore you there for you and lets you be really exuberant when you feel like it, cries with you, feels the joy when the children are doing well, that is so crucial to the soothing soul that people in difficult jobs have. Im not saying its difficult, but its stressful, and that makes all the difference. Lets pay tribute. You want to stand up while you are having tribute paid . [applause] and marty. We all agree. Youve made it. You really made it. I want you to weigh in on this conversation we have been hearing. About the husband. About the husband i must say. Its much more difficult for me to decide then to decide what to do in court. Those are the most difficult. Courts do not have an agenda. We all agree. People do not understand it, because they think different. They should have an agenda. We come from a different point of view. This is the branch of government. We dont have an agenda. We can choose the cases. They started especially in our court we opened the door of the court. We dont decide. We can dismiss the case and say there is no legal cause, but when it comes and we express our opinions, some people may say, of course, its their agenda. They care about women. They care about arabs because they are a minority. This is not a truth. We are independent. This is the right value. One government comes, and one government does. Those are the values that exist in this society. How hard is that to do justice in such a polarized environment especially like the one we have in this country. One of the things that makes it possible is that all of us sit in high courts with higher statutory questions. We have many more questions involving statutes congress passes, and i wish the press more often would notice the cases in which we have unusual lineups, where you cant predict who is going to be on what side. We are also in systems where Judicial Independence is pride. I have a job i can keep as long as i am able to do it full steam. A political point, and then i will take questions. This is supplyside rhetoric. We all got the language throwing around here when people try to delegitimize the integrity of Supreme Courts. I think its really important to deconstruct what the criticisms were. Judicial activism was not an expression i ever heard about a decision that restricted rights. I only ever heard it when a court expanded rights. Reverse discrimination i understood as a remedy to reverse discrimination. The merit system. You would have to look in the meurer and say we had one until 2000, so merit system is a suggestion that affirmative action contradicts it made no sense to me at all. We were trying to get people into the system who had been excluded. We say that because the rhetoric around rights is the most controversial of all. Governments are elected by majority, and they are responsible. If you want to be reelected you are attentive to what the majority says. We are committed to being controversial. People debate our decisions, and they should. We are there with 75 to life so we can make calls that we think are the right calls. When you think about what this Public Opinion means, which newspaper, so the notion there is such a magical thing that will vindicate or censure what you want to do, you dont have that constituency. Your constituency is time. We dont have to give popular decisions. I think in my country its a special situation. Our security matters. It is not popular or excepted easily that we have to decide sometimes the need to protect rights is more important. Then the Public Interest that the government which show. We need security. We care about security, but we try to balance. In a very difficult situation. This is not popular. Sometimes this is what is criticized. We dont have to be accountable to the public but only to to the law, to the constitution. And to the Public Interest. The way we describe the Public Interest. This is tough tough sometimes. You really feel you need courage for this. It necessary for the judge to decide what he thinks is the right thing. I would think many people say you need courage, and you three have it. Justice ginsburg do you want to security . On we have those cases. I dont think theres any country in the world that has them in a more tense atmosphere than israel. I was drawn to what you are colleagues said. If we are so overwhelmed by security needs that we surrender our liberties than our enemy has won because we have become just like them. So the idea that the court can is bypt up as the public the need for security. It has to maintain basic values of the system. Because israel has done it the way they have, every western democracy in the world follows their jurisprudence because they have been able to transcend the daily stress and find a jurisprudence of rights anyway. It has made them a world leader in that area. This is what keeps democracy. This is the guarantee for democracy. We have different we have the values of democracy to keep. This is the role of the court in a democracy. A question from the audience. Right here. Yes . Its adrian. Hi. I think you are right. I appreciate it. My mother was the first woman judge in delaware. Family court. Rosalie came many years ago to speak in delaware. She was so proud of you. I am honored to see you again today. My mother was appointed by the governor. This was state court. We do not elect judges. In many areas where it was an appointment, and the olden days it followed the male line. Over time, appointment of judges has given the appointing party more of an opportunity to bring diversity. We have many places in the United States where judges are elected. Thats where you may see an agenda. Or will a judge be reelected if he or she rules against something . Is i know ineally , the united eight we have places where judges are elected. A factual question. In canada and israel, are there some judges and Court Systems where there is an election . Are you kidding . If you think about it, i remember in judgment at nuremberg there is a scene where Marlena Dietrich is walking with spencer tracy. I love movies. The oscar night for me is a religious night. She said, you elect judges in your country . I remember it was so odd the notion that you are directly responsive to the public for the decisions where you have to choose a side that may not be the one giving you the money. Who do you go to for fund raising . Im going out on a limb here. Im not saying there are very good judges who are elected. Im talking about the theory of an election where you are directly responsible to the majority for decisionmaking. If you are doing sentencing, if you are doing Constitutional Rights and having to decide a minority versus the majority interest, and if you really like being a judge and you want to go back for another seven years you , are going to work very hard at not annoying the people you are going to go back to for money and reelections. I know Sandra Day Oconnor is working really hard on this. The merit selection. The notion of populism is so deep in this country that one sorry, six. Democracy is not just about elections. Democracy is about institutions that work and check and balance off of each other. Some are elected, and some are not. The judiciary scrutinizes the that is in the constitution. The judiciary scrutinizes the elected officials. So you have to be independent. You have got a different mandate. People always say, who are these people anyway . They are not elected. They are not supposed to be elected. They are performing a different function. Its the most frequent question i am asked when i go abroad. How can you have an impartial judiciary when you elect your judges . We know how it originated. There was great distrust of the kings justices. People wanted to have a say in who would be their judges. It isnt something i can explain when i am asked that question. I can answer only i am glad to be part of a federal system for all of us have been appointed. I am a guest in the United States, so im not allowed to say what i want about the system. [applause] [laughter] i dont care. Its really against the principles of independence of the judiciary, but i understand the historical background. Sometimes when you have a tradition based on historical background its very difficult two uproot it. Uproot it. This is why it wont be easy to change, but its against all the principles we believe in. Question . Yes. Somebody is already standing. I am greta van susteren. My question is for the visiting justices. I am curious when you look at our Trial Court System if there is anything you could tinker with . When i see the british system and the defendant in the back i think he looks guilty. I like the way we put him in the well of the court. Is there something about your system that you think might be a little bit better that we should perhaps tinker with . To both the visiting justices . I just said what i think about our system. Being serious, i think nowadays the privilege of we have a wealth of communication, and we learn from other systems and we refer to american decisions, canadian decisions. We have a lot in common, and we learn from each other. I think it is so important because we all, in different ways, represent the same principle and values of democracy. It is not only a matter of majority. It is the values of democracy. Is there any procedural difference that might be a little bit different and something are asked to look at . Maybe that is sort of odd and we think this is a little better. The culture, the background. We dont have a jury system. We are not a federal system. We are different because we have a different background. You carry your history, but we can learn from each other, and we try to do that all the time. In canada, juries are used for what . Most offenses have abolished civil juries, but we still have them in criminal cases. I think that is a good question, and here is why. The one thing all of our countries has in common is we got a real problem in court. Period. That is the access to justice problem. We were talking about change before. One of the expressions i find least comfortable is they think it is a valid rebuttal when they say we have always done it this way. There was a lightbulb joke about lawyers. How many lawyers does it take to change a lightbulb . Change . [laughter] here is my story about what frustrates me about the way we resolve disputes and adjudication everywhere. In 1906, the dean of Harvard Law School wrote an article based on the speech he gave to the American Bar Association called civil dissatisfaction public dissatisfaction with the Civil Justice system, and in the article he talked about how slow the system was, how expensive it was, how it was becoming a trade instead of a profession, how it was too adversarial in i thought about 1906. That. I thought, ok, 1906. People probably went to his lecture with the horse and buggy. Doctors were still using leeches. I dont know how we listened to music. Maybe that thing that goes round and round. Look at every profession today and compare it to what it was in 1906. Doctors have experimented with life in order to find better ways to save lives. What engineers do is totally different. We did not have planes then. If you took a lawyer from 1906 and gave him a couple of training, he would feel hours perfectly at home in our court room. I dont get that. Professions. Here are doctors, experimenting with life, and we wont experiment with justice . I think we need a fundamental shift. Instead of tinkering around the edges, all are good. Lets look at what the system would look like if we were starting it today. How would we resolve civil disputes . Criminal cases are different. Anyway, i have views. [laughter] an agenda. Greta, see what you stirred up. A question in the very back. I would like to address this to the justice. You have a very complicated court system in israel, particularly in family law. I am really interested in how you deal with religious and cultural aspects of law when you are dealing with secular jews and ultraorthodox jews and arabs in the same court system. Its true we have a complicated system. Because, again, we only have religious marriage and divorce, not only for jews. For arabs and muslims and christians. We have only their religious tribunals. But i really think we try to , do more and more to achieve. I would daresay i may have an agenda, to achieve civil rights, institutional civil marriage. But our court, our Supreme Court can and does review the decision, not from the substance of religious law, but through procedure. It is not perfect but we can review those decisions and more and more to try to apply our civil principles and only religious tribunals. They dont always except this kind of tension. If we are talking about womens women, theyity for still suffer because we have this system of religious marriage in this is a difficult issue that should be changed. You are not just speaking of israel, or are you . You are thinking about the country. To clarify what the question has in mind. Family law has given over to religious authorities. Under jewish law, as i understand it, a woman cannot get a divorce. You can only receive a divorce. You tell me if this is true. Or a manposed to be, who said, ok, lets see what the courts are doing. I will not give her the divorce she wants, they will put me in jail. And there was a man for years and years in jail because he refused to give his wife a divorce. Thats how the civil court tried to adjust this oneway direction of religious law. We have sacred family law for everything for every purpose. , custody and other things, but divorce is in the hands of the rabbinical court. And other religious courts. This is a very serious problem. The court may send a man who refuses to give a divorce to prison. We had cases. Sometimes it is an obsession. This was a very famous case where he was ready to die in prison. Not to give a divorce. It happened. For many years. Those are rare cases and now there is public work trying to change the law. May be one more. This gentleman right here. [indiscernible] microphone. I would like to ask the justice of question. During the long process of negotiation leading to a hopeful palestinianisraeli peace, new conversation has arisen on the side of israel as to the recognition of israel as a jewish state. What would be the constitutional implications of this new conversation in terms of the rights of minorities in israel . I dont want to go into the question of political conversations or trying to reach an agreement, but israel, according to the basic laws we have and to the declaration of independence is from this is the law. This is our constitution. It is called a Jewish Democratic state. Jewish and democratic. Two values as basic pillars of the israeli law. Constitution, legislation. They are all around. What does it mean . We have a minority of arabs. Even to the first document the declaration of , independence, they have the right to equality. The question, what does this mean to be a jewish state . I personally dont need palestinians to be recognized because i believe we are a jewish state. This is our law. We have not always agreed what does it mean, a jewish state . It means first of all a home for all the jews. This is the idea. This is the home of the jewish people. Their homeland. Partieshave religious who think it should be a state a religious state. This is not what we mean when we are talking about a jewish state. We have Jewish Values and i believe and we believe in the court there is no contradiction to being a jewish state. Like every other state, it has a national state, yes, and it has to respect the rights of the minority. I see no contradiction. The political matter is completely different. This is a different basis for that. I think what he means is to recognize it is a home to the jewish people. One last question. You both have your hands up. She is standing. Thank you. I have been waiting. I am going to try to sneak in. You are all three women, all three justices on the liberal side of what is understood to be the liberal side of the spectrum. Is that a coincidence or something more . Second question. You talked about what it is like to have eight husbands on the court. I am curious about what its like one some of those husbands are wives and what is the impact to have more than one woman on the court at a time. You want to take the first . Just like a reporter, she got two questions. [laughter] a followup. [laughter] what about the question of women on the left side of the court . The breakthrough on the United States Supreme Court was the appointment of justice Sandra Day Oconnor. Born and bred a republican. The arizona senate, but we voted remarkably alike in every case that involved womens opportunities. I didnt hear the first question, but the second question i would like to say how , great it is that there are now three women instead of one or two on the Supreme Court. It makes a difference in the picture that is conveyed. Middle. Ose to the Justice Kagan is on my left, Justice Sotomayor on my right. The children in school, and watch what is going on in the court, and they see the women are not there just to look good. My colleagues are likely lively participants in oral argument. Anyone who has been to the court knows that. Last year some of the journalist counted number of questions each justice asked and they decided Justice Sotomayor won the prize even more than justice scalia. ,[laughter] the women are not shrinking violets. Not by any means. It was very lonely being the only woman. Maybe it was better for sandra because she was more of an imposing presence. I dont think there is anyone questioning how imposing you are. [laughter] you can take both questions. If i am asked if its a coincidence that women are more liberal this is for social psychological research. I think you are right that women are more on the liberal side. Not only when we are talking about gender and womens rights, but somehow, and i dont know why its true that most of the , women justices are on the liberal side. You have toabel it , be very careful with labeling judges. If this is a liberal or conservative. There is something in it. There was a time when we were five women in the court. Out of 12 justices. We sit sometimes in groups of three. We sititutional matters with nine or 11 justices. It happened we had a panel of three women justices in the court. In the beginning when people went in you can see they were suspicious. What are these three women doing here . It doesnt matter anymore. Having women in the court is not an issue anymore. I believe that now we will have a vacancy and there will only be three. I believe they will women to the point court. Because they should be there. I actually never thought about why or whether women are more liberal. Its true in canada we deny weve had nine women on the Supreme Court. I would say all of them are progressive. But i think the Supreme Court in canada is generally progressive anyway. Let me tell you how great it is to have a lot of women colleagues. When i joined the court in 2004, i was appointed with another colleague from the interior court of appeal. We became four women on the court. It not only normalizes the perception of the public that ultimate the supreme adjudicators can be of either gender. Its great inside the court because there is a collegial spirit when you have got people who have gone through the same experiences. But it always put my colleagues aback when a couple of women are arguing and it goes Something Like this. I dont think section 11 of the charter was meant to deal with this issue. Dont forget the decision we decided in 1903. I like that necklace a lot. That we [laughter] in the middle of the most erudite, judicial debate, we will notice a piece of jewelry. The first few times of that i remember them going, are you allowed to do that . Am i allowed to notice your socks . It is a much more collegial and i would say less pretentious. Its not one ought to behave this way because one is a Supreme Court judge. Its just nine people, many of whom happen to be women, and its a privilege. To sit with really smart people who are both men and women. So many smart questions, but our time is up. Lets just say thank you to these amazing women. [applause] thank you. [applause] [crowd talking] on friday, Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the first woman to ever lie in state at the u. S. Capitol. Several top officials paid their respects, including House Speaker nancy pelosi, House Majority whip steve scalise, senator, harris, and joe biden. A harris, andmal joe biden