Transcripts For CSPAN3 Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day OCon

Time to celebrate the legacy of the first woman appointed to the United States Supreme Court. This evening we have the privilege of welcoming the second and the third. Were extraordinarily grateful to justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor to join us to honor Sandra Day Oconnor. It turns out that Justice Ginsberg and Justice Oconnor share an unusual distinction and that is interesting nicknames. When Justice Oconnor was confirmed she earned the moniker fwoc for first woman on the Supreme Court. Justice ginsburg has been crowned the notorious rbg. Ill leave it to you to decide which one is catchier. They share a lifelong commitment to expanding opportunities for women. It makes sense when Justice Ginsburg joins Justice Oconnor on the bench in 1993, the two bonded over their historic role in transforming the Supreme Court. Both justices had to overcome discrimination and professional rejection, but Justice Oconnor once put a helpful spin on it if they had come of age when women could easily be lawyers, she told Justice Ginsburg, they would probably end up as retired partners at some law firm. But because that route was not open to us, Justice Oconnor explained, we had to find another way and we both ended up in the United States Supreme Court. One woman they inspired was a young attorney in manhattan. She had been working in the das office in 1981 when she heard president reagan had nominated Sandra Day Oconnor. Just two years earlier, she and her law School Classmates had wondered allowed if they would ever see a woman on the Supreme Court in their lifetimes. Little did Sonia Sotomayor imagine that 20 years later she would become the third woman on the court and make history in other own right as the first latina justice. These three women come from very different backgrounds. One grew up shooting jack rob bits on a ranch in arizona. One is descendents of jewish immigrants and the other visited her parents native puerto rico. They followed three separate paths to the American Dream but ended up in the same place as a accomplished lawyers, courageous trail blazers, inspiring role models and associate justices of the Supreme Court. Were deeply grateful to them for all that they have done and all they represent. Joining us justices ginsburg and sotomayor on stage this evening is Reagan Foundation trustee and former solicitor general ted olsen. Ted has argued more than 60 cases before the Supreme Court, so hes used to taking questions from justices ginsburg and sotomayor. But tonight the table it is are turned. Ted finally gets to ask the questions. And that may be why hes worked so hard to help organize this event. We are deeply grateful to his efforts for making todays conversation possible. So, now, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming the honorable associate justices of the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. Thank you, everyone. Please, be seated. Please, be seated. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Sit down. I know most of that was for the justices. We are so honored at the Reagan Institute to have this program today which those of you who have been here from the beginning know its been a marvelous, marvelous experience. We have had many of Justice Oconnors clerks here, some of her friends and colleagues talking about her legacy, what it meant when she was appointed to the Supreme Court, a bit about her Juris Prudence and its been an exciting, interesting conversation and we worried as i was hearing this, what can we add to that because were going to talk about some of the same things. The audience heard a lot about Justice Oconnor and her Juris Prudence and what she meant to the court and to america. But they didnt hear it from only perspective that the two of you can provide. Her colleagues in the history of the United States Supreme Court and so im going to ask some of the questions that the people here im sure are interested to learn about. Ill start with you, Justice Ginsburg. What was your reaction and what were your feelings when you first heard that Justice Oconnor was going to be nominated to be on the United States Supreme Court . I was driving home from the d. C. Circuit and turned on the news and the nomination of Sandra Day Oconnor was announced. I said, hallelujah. But i also thought, this is a sign that what jimmy carter began is going to be advanced forward. And what jimmy carter began, it was to change the complexion of the u. S. Judiciary. When he became president , it was only one woman on a federal court of appeals, he made her the first ever secretary of education. And then he went on shirley hefsted . Yes. Carter, even though he only had four years and no Supreme Court vacancy to fill, he did literally change the complexion of the federal courts by appointing women and members of minority groups in numbers. I think president reagan was saying, jimmy cardter was right and i am going to make the big stride forward appointing a woman to the u. S. Supreme court. So you saw this as a continuum of what president carter had started. It and it was a change in the opportunities for women to be a part of the judiciary anyway anywhere. Yes. People sometimes ask, did you always want to be a Supreme Court justice . I said, in the ancient days when Justice Oconnor and i graduated from law school, what we wanted was a job, any job. Well, we wont talk too much about the job opportunities, at least at the beginning. Justice sotomayor, where were you and how did you learn about this nomination, this appointment . And what was your reaction . At the time, i was an assistant District Attorney in new york county. And i was working hard but as all of you know, ruth works harder than most of us. So, i got to see it on news that night. And, to me, i had just graduated from law school a year and a half before, maybe two two a year before, a year before. And at the time there were obviously no women on the Supreme Court. There were hardly any women in the federal judiciary. There were, i think, maybe one or two women on the Supreme Courts of other states. And the idea people, law firms were touting they were progressive when they had one woman partner among a hundred. So, what ruth had started, i still had not seen the progress being made in any significant numbers just yet. But the appointment of sandra gave me hope. It opened the door to me thinking that the progress would move faster than i had imagined. Didnt move quite as fast as i had hoped. And still some steps to be taken. But it was a door opener. It was an opportunity for women to begin to see the possibility of exploring all aspects of our profession. You see, the advantage of diversity, whether its gender or race or ethnicity, or even professional work, whatever the diversity represents, it gives people who dont otherwise think theres opportunity. It aspires them to believe there might be. So, i think seeing a woman on the court inspired not just me but so many other young women who are starting their careers. Do you think, justice sotomayor, that Justice Oconnor has very special qualities in terms of her character, her background, her upbringing, her, well, ill tell you what i thought when i heard, that made her be a first or, the only thing that scared me was she was a woman who had done it all. She was married. She raised children. She had served in the legislature. She had served in the court system. And i taught to myself, oh, my god, if thats the standard, im going to be held to, im not going to accomplish anything. Ruth pretty much did something similar in her work. Yes, i do think it takes those extraordinary women who broke those initial barriers, had a fortitude about them, a resilience, a persistence that was absolutely necessary to be able to do what they did. Now, as you know, Justice Kagan and i had not married. We dont have children. Weve had successful careers. And i dont think you have to be unmarried and have children to have successful careers. But i do think it helped back then that she represented everything that people expected and more. Justice ginsburg, what qualities did you see and experience with Justice Oconnor that helped craft her for the position, as evan thomas says in his book, first . And you were second. And you were third. It has got to be carry special burdens and a sense of obligation to the people that are out there watching and seeing you as an example, as a role model. What qualities did she bring to that role . Sandra was responsible more than any probably any justice in history for the collegiality of the Supreme Court. That was very important to her. When she revived the tradition of having lunch together and urged her colleagues to attend, she was also a good listener and she had patience and i never saw her snap back in anger. Sandra was a person who woefr came her way in life, and some things that were not not at all fortunate, she copied with. Like her breast cancer. I dont know how many women were inspired to carry on to have courage to do what she did. And then when john oconnor became ill, how she dealt with that. Just whatever life brought her way, she just did it. That was her attitude. Part of her background was being raised, in part, on a big several hundred a couple hundred thousand acre cattle ranch in arizona. Part of the growing up was no electricity, no running water. She went to school on the west coast in stanford. The two of you are from decidedly different environment, new york city, brooklyn, so forth. And were educated on the east. Does that make any difference or would it have made any difference . Because it makes a difference, everyone brings his or her Life Experience to bear. But i think sandras attitude since her childhood was, she can do it. And when she went out for it the roadups, she rode with the cowboys and one of them said she wasnt the rough and rugged type but she worked with us well in the canyons. She held her own, and thats what she did at every stage of her career. She held her own. Both of you broke many barriers and in many respects each of you were firsts in many parts of your career, including on the Supreme Court in many different ways. Justice sotomayor, describe that. Do you feel special obligations to women or to the Legal Profession or the judiciary because you are breaking every day these barriers . I dont think i feel a special obligation to a particular group of people. I do feel as a justice, whether im a woman or not, an obligation to uphold the values of the court. And i think that thats what sandra felt. A deep commitment to the institution. And that goes along with ruths description of her emphasis on the collegiality of the court. I tell a story that the justices were at a meeting. I dont remember if it was lunch or conference. We got distracted in conversation about a book that described many a time in the Supreme Court history when the justices were openly hostile to each other. And someone asked, what changed that . And some of my colleagues were suggesting the names of one or more chief judges. And all of a sudden a quiet voice in the room said, when women came on the court. And Justice Ginsburg was right about that. Do i remember, ruth, the first time i met sandra at the court, the first morning after my induction that i was there, the court that emphasis on the institution but the sense of its importance in our society. I was going to follow up on that about the collegiality because it can be very tense, i suppose. I dont know. None of us really know except for justice kavanaugh, but at the the atmosphere must from time to time be tense especially at the end of the term when some the very controversial decisions are rendered and there are some sometimes very strong opinions and strong dissents. Is that collegiality carry through even when there is a lot of tension in the decisions and sometimes in the language of the decisions . Justice ginsburg . Sure. This is an episode in which you played a major role. It was not the end of the term. But i suppose the most tense moment ive experienced in my 26 years on the court was the decision in bush v. Gore. It was a marathon. The Court Granted review on a saturday, briefs followed on sunday, oral argument on monday, decisions out on tuesday. When it was over, i sent my clerks to watch what the newscasters were saying about it to Justice Kennedys chambers, because he wrote the principle opinion for the court. Justice scalia called me that evening to say, what are you doing . Still in your chambers . You should go home and take a hot bath. This was the night of the decision, the 12th . Yes. Well, it was tense, that case. Im not asking anything that happened in, you know, that we shouldnt be talking about, but we do know there was a lot of difficult feelings about whether the court should have taken the case or how the court was going to decide the case. Justice oconnor has famously characterized as not jabbing back. Not responding to a Harsh Criticism and a separate opinion or concurring opinion is that part of what youre talking about . She responded to ideas to but never to individuals. You would never see in an oconnor opinion, as youve seen in some opinions of the court, one justice saying about another justices opinion, this opinion is not to be taken seriously. In fact, that was said of Justice Oconnors opinion. She never snapped back to speak in the same stride yentident voice. She was never critical of a colleague. You would never see in her opinions, this opinion is profoundly misguided. And in that, i tried to follow her lead. Is it hard, justice sotomayor, to resist . Because i read these opinions. And some of them, one day, some of them are pretty pointed. One day Justice Scalia looked at me and said, i really love you, sonia, youre a bull dog like i am. Were both new york city street fighters. He was right. I have been helps in restraining myself with the intervention of colleagues, which is one of the things that you asked about how do we maintain that collegiality. Other colleagues will step in, have conversations with you and suggest that some things have crossed the line. Others i have received, and i wont mention what it was about, an apology for a colleague in something that was said in heat argument argument. And that i know was likely prompted by someone else say, hmm, what did you do . Or did you really mean that . And so its to remain collegial, to understand your obligation to work with each other, assuming each others good faith. It gets challenged when you disagree, but thats the time when you need to come to your senses and the group needs to continue insisting upon the nature of our family. So, i was going to ask about the oral argument. Sometimes the oral arguments the justices are asking the advocate questions but theyre really talking to one another. Is that true . You know that feeling youre being talked through and not to. And ive never understood, ruth, why lawyers dont let us do that more often or dont like it. Well, chief Justice Roberts has talked about this a little bit, the context of the oral argument. And ive heard either him or someone say, we dont talk to one another too much about the cases before oral argument. This is the first time correct me if im wrong, this is the first time weve talked to one another and were doing it through the medium of the poor guy or woman standing six feet away. Is that true . The first time weve considered a case together would have been at the petition for review stage. I mean, they the discussion is fleeting, but at least we would have been together and noticing this case that has been granted review. Then theres not much discussion before the argument. Frankly, there isnt time because as the term goes on, youre gearing up for the sitting, youre writing opinions for the sitting just passed. You may not have finished the reply brief in the case thats being argued the next day until the night before. So, thats why there isnt much in the way of discussion before the oral argument. But were constantly trying to persuade each other. Every time im writing a dissent for four people, im hoping i will pick up one more vote. And mostly that hope is disappointed, but i remember vividly one term when my senior colleague assigned a dissent to me. Just for himself and me. So, the court divided 72. In the fullness of time, the judgment came out 63, but the two h