How for some information is handled, collect it, and done for marketing purposes. It is at 2 30 p. M. Eastern also on cspan. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke about the Supreme Court through a conversation with a former u. S. Solicitor theodore olson. He breezily argued before the court he recently argued before the court in two cases. This is a 45 minute event. [applause] good morning. [inaudible] [laughter] [inaudible] audio. Someone will also have to control the microphone. [laughter] it is a great privilege for me to have the opportunity to ask questions of Justice Ginsberg instead of the other way around. [laughter] i want to thank all of you out there who planted questions with me in the hopes that i would ask those questions, but i probably will not ask any of those questions. [laughter] lets start with the Supreme Court of the u. S. You and your court handled the most difficult and most controversial questions of our day and of our society involving life, death, voting, property, race, freedom, and Campaign Contributions all of those things. What is so special about this Court Despite the fact that you decided controversial questions . The Supreme Court of the u. S. Is the most respected institution in our government and has been for a long time. Tell us about why that is . I would add that it is probably the most suspected high court in the world. One reason is that we have been involved in passing on laws and executive actions of constitutionality. In other countries in the world, parliamentary supremacy it wasnt until world war ii that courts abroad began to engage in judicial review for constitutionality. Just to take a few notable cases, when president truman decided that the country was at war in korea i could not risk a strike at a steel plant, he took over the steel mills. That was challenged. The courthouse, mr. President , you do not have that authority alone. You need congress to be with you. What did truman do . That is remarkable to many courts in the world. We have an Excellent Police staff at the court. We have no guns. We do not have our own purse. When the Supreme Court makes a decision like that, probably the most are medical and was nixon. Most dramatic one was nixon. The court said, turn over the tapes. And he did and he resigned from office. Part of it is the court has been at this for a very long time. It is accepted. The court made its decision. I dissented, as you know. I do know that. [laughter] the country accepted it. No one was rioting in the street. The election was settled. All of the members had one thing in common we wanted to keep it that way. We wanted to make sure when we left the court, it would be in a secure position as it was in when we became a member. That leads me to a question you do decide very controversial cases. Sometimes the dissenting opinions clash with the majority opinions with quite a high level of intensity. Yet the court comes back together every year in october after the final decisions are rendered in june. You all seem to get along personally with one another, notwithstanding the difficult and intense decisions that are made. Is that true . What are your relationships . It is the most collegiate place i have ever worked. Part of it is that we know we have to Work Together to keep the court in the position that it holds. To take an example, that was a marathon. We have the argument on monday. Decision on tuesday. Very soon after, we had our regular january sitting. We all came together. It was almost as though nothing had happened. It was the same. We were going on to the new sitting. There was a book written about the court called nine scorpions in a bottle. [laughter] i know that does not reflect the relationships that exist today. Some people felt that in past years, the justices on the court developed animosity towards one another. If that is true, what do you attribute the relationships that you have now . Different periods of the court were collegial. Perhaps most striking example of an on Collegial Court unCollegial Court was when president a president appointed to the court. Wilson had appointed one before. That person did not like jews. So much so that he would leave the room. Every time there is any justice, we would take a photograph. There is no photograph because that justice refused to stand next to another justice. There were animosities in the court. From time to time. In the current court, it is most collegial. It is wellknown that you and Justice Scalia are very good friends and have a wonderful relationship with one another, notwithstanding the fact that his judicial philosophy inured judicial philosophy cannot be can be quite distant and you have dissented from his opinions and vice versa. Is that true about your relationship with Justice Scalia . What causes that to be true . I met Justice Scalia for the first time when he was on the faculty of the university of chicago. I was teaching at columbia. He gave a talk that was about a famous case at the d. C. Cursus circuits. He was severely critical about that. I disagree with the most everything he said, but he said it in such a captivating way. [laughter] even now, you have been a consumer of our products [laughter] it is attention grabbing. Mine is moderate and restrained in comparison. [laughter] i find it attention grabbing when you ask me a question in the court. It gets my attention. [laughter] both you and Justice Scalia are opera buffs. You go to the opera together. Now i read in the paper that someone has written an opera about Justice Ginsburg and Justice Scalia. Did you know that . Is this true . [laughter] everything in the court is done by seniority. Even though im older by Justice Scalia, he was appointed before i was. Popper is called scalia ginsburg. The opera is called scalia ginsburg. [laughter] how can you write an opera about the two of you . I think there are a lot of people out there who would like to take a hand at that. Will it happen . This is a random page from the court. From the score. It does exist. An opera composed by a young man who advertises himself as a, composer, lyricist, and pianist, but he also has a law degree. In his constitutional law class, he was reading these opinions Justice Scalias opinions, my opinions, he decided this would make a great opera. [laughter] i will give you a sample. This is Justice Scalias opening aria. It is labeled rage aria. [laughter] the main refrain goes this way the justices are blind. How could they possibly office the constitution says, absolutely nothing about this. That is his opening. [laughter] my response aria is in the style of verdi. It goes you are fighting in vain for a solution to a problem that isnt so easy to solve. But the beautiful thing about our constitution is that like our society it can evolve. [laughter] [applause] im sure that everyone of us here are going to be wanting to stand in line to see the opera. [laughter] is it within a year . What is the plan . Is it a reading or a singing in february somewhere around baltimore. That will be the first time that the entire score will be played. Justice ginsberg, in 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed Justice Sandra day oconnor to the court. She was the first woman to serve on the United StatesSupreme Court. There have been 112 appointments to the Supreme Court. You were 108. Is that correct . When you replace Justice White . 107 or 108. You are the second woman up proved appointed to the Supreme Court. What did it mean to the court when it finally had a woman justice and when you came onto the court, two women justices . You can say what it is like now with three justices being female. When santa was asked that sandra was asked that question to have a second woman, she said, you think i am glad that Justice Ginsberg is on board, you can imagine the joy of john oconnor to be no longer the lone male spouse. [laughter] she was there all alone for 12 years. A sign that women were there to stay came when i was appointed. They did a renovation in our robing rooms. Up until then, there was a bathroom and it was labeled men. When xander was at conference, when leaders were at conference, she had to go to her office. Things were changing. For every year that we sat together, and there only one lawyer or another would calmly justice oconnor. They would hear a womans voice and they knew that there was a woman and although we do not speak alike and we do not look alike, but now with three of us, no one calls me Justice Sotomayor or justice kagan. It is an exhilarating change. After sandra left and i was all alone in my corner of the bench, and i did feel lonely, now we are all over. I sit toward the middle. Elena is on my left and sony on my right. Sonya on my right. Those two women are not shrinking violets. [laughter] they are very active in questioning. It is wonderful for the schoolchildren who parade in and out to see that women are there. Theyre are part of the courts operation. You mentioned the oral argument process. I think most people do not know that the court hears about 75 cases a year in each case, except in unusual situations, is a lot of one hour oral arguments. Each side gets half an hour. Some people think that lawyers get up and lecture or give a speech as a part of their oral argument. It is not like that at all. Can you describe what oral arguments are like . Yeah. Let me Say Something about the 75 cases that we hear and decide on. That 75 comes from a pile of over 8000 petitions for review. From those, we select a very small number. The reason we do that is we see our job is keeping the law of the United States more or less uniform, whether it is statutory it everybody agrees, there is no need for us to step in. But when three judges are of different minds, that is when we step in. The 75 we get down to that way. The oral argument time as you said is very precious. The justices have come to the bench after having done reading. I think most of my colleagues start as i do by reading the opinions. I do that before i turn to the lawyers speech. I will know if they are giving an honest account of what the decision is. And if they are not, Justice Ginsberg catches them. Nowadays, we have many friends. So many that it is not possible for the justices to read all of them. My law firm has instructions. Everything is color coded. There are three piles. One is skipped. That is the largest pile. [laughter] another is to skim or read pages. That is not in the partys briefs. Then theres a small pile that says read. Those are the really good ones. People are not just saying, me, too. When we come to the bench, where rare well armed and prepared for the hearing of it we are very well armed and prepared for hearing the case. We ask the most difficult ones on which the decision may turn, that the kids should have a chance advocate should have a chance to address what is on the decisionmakers mind. Some lawyers resent our interruptions. They would like us to keep quiet and they would like to present their prepared appeals. For me, in the days that our i was arguing cases, a cold bench was the worst possible because i had no idea what was in the minds of the judges. Sometimes a question is asked not so much to elicit a response from the lawyer, but to persuade a colleague. Sometimes a justice tries to a sustained lawyer who is on the ropes assist a lawyer who is on the ropes by asking a helpful question. Many lawyers miss that cue because they are so suspicious. [laughter] but when i come off of the bench, i have a pretty good idea where my colleagues are on that case. We are sometimes talking to each other and talking through the council not to the council. Have you found that certain styles of advocacy by the lawyers working better in the courts . Justice scalia was here before this group a few months ago and talked about advocacy is written about that. You must have your own views about what works and what doesnt work. Could you say a word or two about that . I think they will prepared opening sentence is a good idea. You can get that out. Sometimes. [laughter] and then to ride with the wave and go where the court is taking you. Dont try desperately to get back to what you planned. I always have about 45 points. If im responding to a question, i would immediately pick up on the plan wanted to get across without leaving a pause that would invite another another question. This raises a question that many do not know. You are an advocate yourself before the Supreme Court. You represented cases and handled pieces involving the rights of women. And then. And men. And men. John roberts argued cases before he was appointed to the Supreme Court. Does it make a difference that you were yourself an advocate and you know what it is like out there . Or most of your colleagues have not argued . Justice kagan was the solicitor general. She argued a number of cases that one year. Doesnt it make a difference to have been an advocate . To me, it does. In this respect. I try to keep my questions tight. And not to ask a question as a professor with a question that goes on and on. I try to abbreviate the questions. Not cut into the lawyers time excessively. You appreciate what it is like to be in a room and to listen to speeches in the form of questions you avoid that yourself . Some of your colleagues have a little bit more of a broader latitude forward that. Yes. I have occasionally commented on that. We appreciate how precious that halfhour is. We try to be more disciplined. Observe a preceding in the u. S. Supreme court and then do what i am going to do in february and decide. There the justices sit in magnificent maroon, velvet ropes. They asked no questions at all. They sit through the entire argument. I think it would be hard for me to stay awake if i operated on that type of court. [laughter] could you comment on the confirmation process and then we will have some questions from the audience . When you were confirmed 20 years ago, the vote was 973. I did not look up who were the three senators who voted against you. But i bet you could name them. But the process has become very contentious. John roberts had 23 plus votes against him and more than 40 votes against justice alito. And you talk about what the process has become compared to what it was like when you were confirmed . Another justice and i were confirmed. There was a failed nomination. Justice thomas had a turbulent nomination. There is public reputation that had declined. There was a deliberate effort. There had been no women on the committee. They enlarge the committee by two. Two were added into the committee. I was nominated in june. Any senator could have put a hold on me so that my hearing wouldnt come up until the new term is underway. There were three negative votes, but none of the three try to stop the confirmation process from acquiring speedily. My biggest supporter on the Judiciary Committee was not Vice President joe biden. He was the chair of the committee. It was hatch. Not one senator asked me any questions. About that affiliation. My hope is that we would get back to the way it was. We spoke about justice alito. Justice kagan and Justice Sotomayor had many negative votes. A great man that i knew and loved said the symbol of the u. S. Is not the bald eagle. It is the pendulum. I think the pendulum has gone too far in one direction in the handling of judicial nominations and it should go back to the middle. I think we would all hope that. Lets get a hand to Justice Ginsberg. [applause] we have time for questions. There are two microphones. Go to one of the microphones and identify who you are. No questions from the media. And no questions on cases that are pending decisions or about to be heard. Thank you. My name is gary. Thank you to both of you for your historic leadership in protecting the rights of gay americans to marry. It was a terrific change that is necessary. [applause] thank you, Justice Ginsberg, for sharing your thoughts with us today. As an american that is part of the Business Community that is in trouble, there are lots of laws and ambiguous loss. We have example of how at t tried to buy a company they thought they could buy, but with great lawyers and yet they were stop by the government because at t business communities think they are following the laws, but they are either ambiguous or unclear. If you had a message to legislators in which you wish they could do something and you had a magic button you could press, what would you Like Congress to do differently than what they are doing today . To the first part of your question, there are many laws that are ambiguous, dense, can be read in more than one way, sometimes in more than three or four ways. In that respect, our congress does not stand up so well. There seems to be a lack of discipline. We need an Expert Committee go over the provisions and try to detect ambiguities. Sometimes ambiguities are deliberate because the question was a political hot potato. The members of congress are for to punt it to the court. To say what the law meant. I think people in the Business World who care, they let their representatives know if youre having a hard time because the laws are unclear. Justice ginsberg, my name is josh. My question for you, after same sex marriage, where do you see the future of equal protection down the road . Thank you for asking that question. The equal protection cla