Transcripts For CSPAN3 Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day OCon

On your to join us to honor Sandra Day Oconnor. It turns out that Justice Ginsburg and Justice Oconnor sharon distinction that is interesting nicknames. When Justice Oconnor was confirmed she owned the moniker f w. Oh tsv for first women on the Supreme Court. Justice ginsburg meanwhile has been crowned the notorious rbg. Ill leave it to you to decide which one is catcher. The justices also share a lifelong commitment to expanding opportunities for women. So it makes sense that when Justice Ginsburg joins us Justice Oconnor on the bench in 1993 the two bonded over their historic role and current 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 have ended up has retired partners of some law firm. But because that round 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 women they inspired women look young attorney in manhattan. She had been working in the das office in 1981, when she heard that president reagan had nodded nominated Sandra Day Oconnor. Just two years earlier, she and her law School Classmates had wondered aloud whether they would ever see a woman on the supreme in their lifetime. Little did Sonia Sotomayor that 28 years later supreme she would become the third woman on the court and make history in her own right as the her first latino justice. These three women come from very different backgrounds, one grew up shooting jackrabbit on her ranch in arizona. One is the descendant of jewish immigrants who was raised in brooklyn. And one spent her childhood summers visiting her parents, in native puerto rico. We followed three separate paths to the american dream, but ended up in the same place as accomplished lawyers, courageous trail blazers, inspiring role models and associate justices of the Supreme Court. We are deeply grateful to them for all that they have done and all that they represent. Joining justices ginsburg is Reagan Foundation trustee and former solicitor general, ted ulcer. Ted has argued more than 60 cases before the Supreme Court. Hes used to taking questions from justices ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, but tonight, the tables are turned. Ted finally gets to ask the questions. That is probably why he has worked so hard to organize this event. We are deeply grateful to his efforts for making todays conversation possible. Please join me in welcoming the honorable associate justices of the Supreme Court, ruth gator Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. applause they thank you. Everyone, please please applause i think they should 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 for those of you who have been your from the beginning know that it has been a marvelous experience. We have had many of Justice Oconnors clerks here and some of her friends and colleagues talking about her legacy. What it meant when she was appointed to the Supreme Court. About her jurisprudence. It has been an exciting, interesting conversation, and i worried as i was hearing this, what can we add to that because we are going to talk about some of the same things that they heards some of the audience heard a lot about Justice Oconnor and ginsburg and what they did for the court of america. But they didnt hear it from the only perspective that the two of you can provide. Her colleagues and 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 anxious to learn about. I will 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. I turned on the news. The nomination of Sandra Day Oconnor was announced. I said hallelujah. laughter i also thought, this is a sign that with jimmy carter began is going to be advanced forward. And with jimmy carter began 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. Then he went on surely have stayed . Yes. And 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 will talk to much about the job opportunities, at least not at the beginning. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, where were you and how did you learn about this nomination, disappointment . 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 the news that night. And to me, i had just graduated from law school hug a year and a half before, maybe two years before washington. And at the time, there were obviously no women on the Supreme Court. There were hardly any women in the federal judiciary. There were maybe one or two women on the Supreme Courts of other states. People, law firms were touting they were progressive when they had one woman partner among 100. So what ruth had started, i still had not seen the progress being made in any significant numbers just yet. Yeah but the appointment that sandra gave me hope. Yeah it opened the door to me thinking that the progress would move faster than i had imagined. It didnt move quite as fast as i had hoped. Still some steps to be taken. But it was a door open. 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 there is 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 Sonia Sotomayor, that Justice Oconnor has very special qualities in terms of her background, her upbringing, her qualities . Well, ill tell you what. The only thing that scared me was she was a woman who had done it all big. She was married. She raised children. She had served in the legislature. She had served in the court system. I thought to myself, oh, my god, if that is 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 are not married. We dont have children. Weve had successful careers. I dont think you have to be unmarried and have children to have successful careers. 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 . You were second. You were third. It has got to 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 rule . Qvar 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 whatever came her way in life big, and some things that were not at all unfortunate, she coped with. Doug like her breast cancer. I dont know how many women were inspired to carry on, to have courage to do which 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 her growing up was no electricity, no running water. She went to school on the west coast of stanford. The two of you are from decidedly different environments. New york city, brooklyn, so forth. Were educated on the east. Does that make any difference or would that have made any difference . Of course that 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. When she went out for the round ups, 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 first in many parts of your career, including on the Supreme Court in many different ways. Justice sotomayor, described that. Do you feel special obligations to women or to the Legal Profession or the judiciary because you were breaking everyday these barriers . I dont think that 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. I think that that is 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 a mantra conference. We got distracted in a conversation about a book that described a time in the Supreme Court history when the justices were openly hostile to each other. And someone asked, which 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. laughter and Justice Ginsburg was right about that. I do remember, ruth, the first time i met sandra at the court, the first morning after mind accession that i was there. She came to visit me. I was humbled and i said to her, i was going to try to come see you and she said no, you are a new justice welcomed in. But, one of the things she spoke to me about was my obligation to attend hug the lunches that the judge the judges had. She told me she had told the chief that it was his obligation to continue the tradition. So it continued even after her taking senior status and leaving the court. That emphasis on the institution. Maintaining not just its collegiality, 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 justice kavanaugh. The atmosphere from time to time must be very tense especially at the end of the term when the very controversial dishes decisions are rendered. There are sometimes very strong opinions, and strong the sense. 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. Ted this is an episode in which we played a major role. laughs it was not the end of the term. But the most tense moment ive experienced in my 26 years on the court. Was the decision in bush v. Go. It was a marathon as their Court Granted review on a saturday, brief on a sunday. Decisions out on tuesday. When it was over i sent my clerks to watch with the news castors were saying about it. To Justice Kennedys chambers, because he wrote the principal opinion for the court. Just a 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 . It was tense that case. And im not asking anything that happened that we shouldnt be talking about. We do know that 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 it as not jabbing back, not responding to a Harsh Criticism in a separate opinion. Is that part of what youre talking about . She responded to ideas, but never to individuals. You would never see in an oconnor opinion, as youve seen some opinions of the court, one justice saying about another justices opinion. This opinion is not to be taken seriously. In fact, that was set of justices oconnor opinion. She never snapped back, to speak of the same strident voice she did answer arguments that were made. But she was never critical of a colleague. You would never see in her opinions this opinion is profoundly misguided. And in that, i try to follow her lead. Is it hard Justice Sotomayor to resist . laughs one day. Because i read these opinions and some of them are pretty pointed. One day justice cleo looked at me and said, i really love love you sonia, your bulldog like i am. Were both new york city street fighters. He was right laughs . I have been helped and 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, suggest that some things have crossed the line. Others, have received, and i wont mention what it was about who it was, but an apology from a colleague for something that was said. In a heated argument. And that i know was likely prompted by someone else saying, what did you do . Or do you really mean that . And so, its to remain illegal, 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. I was going to ask about the oral arguments, sometimes the oral arguments the justices are asking of the advocate questions, but theyre really talking to one another. Is that true . You know that feeling that youre being talked through and not to. laughs . Ive never understood why lawyers dont let us do that more often. Chief does just roberts have talked about this a little bit about the context of the oral argument. Ive heard either him or someone say we are we dont talk to one another too much about the cases before our 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 that we consider a case together, would have been at the petition for review stage. The discussion is pleading, but it needs to be together. Noticing the this case that has been granted review. Then, theres not much discussion before the argument. Frankly there isnt time because as it turns on, youre hearing up for the city. Your writing opinions for the sitting just passed. You may not have finished the reply belief in the case being honored the next day, till the night before. Thats why there isnt much in the way of discussion, before the oral argument. But we are constantly trying to persuade each other. Every time im writing a descent for four people i am hoping that i will pick up one more vote. And mostly, that hope is disappointed. laughs . I remember vividly one term, when my senior colleague assigned a set of descent to me, so the court divided 72. In the fullness of time, the judgment came out six to three. But the two had swelled to six. And the seven had shrunk to three. It cant happen. Its not over till its over. laughs . I think that was your gibber who said that. I didnt know ruth was familiar with him. laughs . She always pleasantly surprises me. Justice oconnor was often the one to ask the first question on the court. It