Interpretations of it that Congress Later had to reject and correct. The passage seems a bit wearied as if to say havent we been through all this before . But it also has the sound of a boxer jumping back into the ring for another round. Others who fought so long and hard might have grown frustrated for disappointments a fight equality entails. But as anyone who knows her can tell you, as the trainer whom we share as Justice Ginsburg told you often tells me justice indefatigible. Justice ginsburg would have been a giant of the law even if he would have never been a justice. The same is true of her although she has brilliantly extended those contributions as a judge. More than any other individual Ruth Bader Ginsburg is responsible for eliminating sex discrimination from american law. How has she done it . One of the constants of Justice Ginsburg style extending from the brief in 1971 to the advance decent in 2013 has been a keen attention to the realities of gender discrimination. Partly no doubt this comes from personal experience, the doors that shut on her when she graduated, the paid discrimination as rutgers. It also must come from her many years from listening to and fighting for other women who suffered from even greater discrimination. As a it will gator she used this owledge to rebut every dated rationalization to refute gender discrimination. And she relied on it to give the court a full understanding of the justices she was seeking to correct. As a justice too, she cons at that particular timely returns to the realities of discrimination to show how to correctly apply antidiscrimination principles. Another equally important feature of Justice Ginsburgs approach has been her sensitivity to the role of courts in our democracy. Now, that may seem paradoxical for a person who led a law reform movement. But it was and is a crucial part of her thinking. At her harvard conversation, she told me and im quoting her words, the courts are reactive institutions. They are not out in the vanguard of any social movement. Ile they can put their imprimteter on the side of change they cannot lead it. Her work as a justice has reflected her understanding of this delegate balance. As lawyer, she urged and sometimes shamed the court to catch up with the events occurring outside its doors. But she also recognized that change could not come all at once. She chose her clients, her cases and her targets with exquisite care to avoid pushing the court too far, too fast. And much the same way as a justice, she has often been a tempermental conservative who prefers the gradual common law approach to the sweeping rule or understand necessary holding. She has been critical of certain wade ost notably roe v. For having voted to expansively and too quickly. But she also recognizes that when the time is right, courts can play an Important Role in ratifying societys progress and a well placed decent can become an important spur to justice. And theres a third piece of the ginsburg style, one that has become especially impressive to me since i joined the court and that is simple mastery of legal craft. That appears in the appellant brief she wrote as a lawyer which are models of precision and power. And so too her opinions reflect this great apparently inborn gift. Each opinion is crist lean, exact and elegant. Every word is carefully chosen and perfectly apt. Every sentence well considered. Every argument organized coherent and to the point. Youre never afraid that a stray word or thought may cause some unforeseen bad consequence down the road. Of all the justices, Justice Ginsburg drafts her opinions the most quickly. Yet, when i read them im always struck how errorfree and polished they are. We have a practice of inviting others to comment on our opinions and ask for changes. I almost never have anything to say about Justice Ginsburg. They are ready to be published the moment they are circulated. Shes a judges judge. And every time i read one of her opinions, i feel as though i learn how to do my job a little better. Justice ginsburg has also taught me something more personal being a member of an institution like the Supreme Court isnt always easy. We disagree about a lot of things of great import, matters on which we all feel deeply. Its a commercial part of the job not to take those disagreements personally. Partly thats because theres always another case and if were to remain open to persuasion and also able to persuade others. We need to stay on good terms. But partly its because the court is an important institution, an institution that the country needs to work and its just not going to function well if its members arent able to cooperate. No one performs that difficulty better than Justice Ginsburg. She knows about what the law requires and what the law demands. But shes also a model of respect and collegiality with every member of the court. She mansion to be universally admired and beloved by me, by justice scalia, by everyone in between. [laughter] without sacrificing and iota of her principles or convictions. She told me once that her secret comes in part from something her motherinlaw told her back when she and marty were young. Whats the secret to a successful marriage she asked . Sometimes her motherinlaw says, it pays to be a little deaf. Sometimes it pays to be a little deaf around the court too. [laughter] and Justice Ginsburg knows just when to do that. Ive seen Justice Ginsburg maintain those values of collegiality even when its toughest. Our tradition at the court and its usually a lovely, lovely tradition. Is to have lunch together after the conferences in which we discuss and vote on cases. The rule at those lunches is no more court talk just friendly conversation about sports and movies and music and things like that. Now without giving any specifics, i can tell you that i once left a difficult conference, maybe the most difficult since i joined the court. And i found it almost impossible to imagine going to lunch with my colleagues. [laughter] we had just had a very serious disagreement about a very tough issue. And i wasnt so inclined to immediately switch that off and chat about the movies. I told Justice Ginsburg that i didnt think i would go. She was understanding but quite firm. You have to go she said. You have to act as though nothing has just happened. Her temperament, her maturity and judgment, her calmness and wisdom helped make the courts the institution it is. And of course, when the nore tores you r. B. G. Tells you to go to lunch, you go. Nor tores you r. B. G. Tells you to go to lunch, you go. And so i went. One last story. One this one coming from one of my clerks. A few months ago the court held a seminar of sorts for women in he law for the women law law clerks. They dealt with gender discrimination, issues that are still present but unimageably different than in justice insburg law of age when it was fanciful. Justice ginsburg surprised everyone by walking into the room by asking questions. As soon as she entered, one of my law clerks told me, all of these young women stood up and applauded. It was like seeing a legend walk in the door, my law clerk said. I know that im her colleague and not one of her army of 20something groupies. [laughter] but every day i feel much the same way when i see Justice Ginsburg walk down the halls, think im seeing an era. She has done a lot in the last 40 years to make america an equal and just society. Its an honor to sit on the same bench with her knowing how much shes contributed to my life and much more importantly to the lives of women around the world. Thank you, Justice Ginsburg. [applause] thank you, everyone. That was wonderful. So i i think, i hope we have time for just a few questions. And i believe that it will be permissible to pose questions to either of the two justices if thats ok with them. The crowd in the room and the technology lnology in the room is such that if you do have a question, im going to ask you to raise your hand, to stand up and to ask your question as loudly and clearly as possible if if necessary i will rephrase or rearticulate the question. And again, we have limited time. Its getting late. I think its still snowing but if anyone has a question, please raise your hand and well try to deal with it. Right there. Thank you. Justice ginsburg, i was i was wondering if you could explain something about your opinion in virginia partly through the opinion you discussed the differences between men and women and you say that theres something to be celebrated . And im wondering if you could talk about why you use a word like celebrate especially when there was so little to be celebrating . I would ask to repeat the question the question was in the virginia case, Justice Ginsburgs language identified reasons to celebrate the differences, am i right, between men and women and the question is why use the word celebrate when there was so many things in the fact pattern at issue not be celebrated. Its a tough one. Justice ginsburg . Well, dont you agree that it is something to celebrate that we have a world made up of both men and women . I celebrate that i have a daughter and a son. My life as my colleague mentioned was enormously enriched by picking the right life partner. So what i meant to say is that we are not alike. We dont look alike men and women. We look different. Well, the world couldnt go on if there werent both of us. [laughter] [applause] in the back . Can you hear me . I can be really loud. [laughter] im a second year law student atfordham. And i want to know if either of you have any advice . I dont think that needs to be repeated. I have enjoyed everything i have done in the law. But what has made me so satisfied with my career is what Justice Kagan spoke about. That i spend a lot of my time doing something outside myself, doing something that i hope makes life better for people who are not as fortunate. So you will have a skill that you can use to make a living but also to help make things a little better for other people, to repair tears in your communities. We should ask the once great dean he must have been telling students all the time. [laughter] well, it turns out that Justice Ginsburg could have been a great dean too because thats what i would have said. [laughter] very funny. For Justice Ginsburg. How do you feel about the educational institutions that still only admit women on the there toy that those institutions are nurturing and otherwise protecting women. N example might be such as barner college is still women only even though columbia accepts women as well . In the v. M. I. Case, one of the best friends of the fort brees was filed by the seven sister colleges. There was nothing the state of virginia offered to its women that could compare with v. M. I. So a state cant make an opportunity available only to omen or only to men. My daughter went to an allgirl 12thl from kindergarten to grade. I think that the school she went to was the best school in the city of new york. So v. M. I. Was not about singlesex schools. It was about a state providing an opportunity to to one sex only. By the way, there is one person in this room who knows about it. And that is ranela, my swedish friend. [laughter] o you remember the book . It was called dalabin and so that was the closest i could come to the translation of that. Well, thats good. Now i know the origin. And again i agree with everything with Justice Ginsburg with one exception because i went to the best singlesex school in new york city. It was at that time singlesex. So sorry, jane. In the red . [inaudible] way better. [laughter] we read your opinions and thats the way that you convey the messages that youve talked about. What can we do as individual attorneys, women attorneys to advance women in the law and in society generally. Weve got to be able to do something to even the playing field. Thats a good question. Think the question is what can individual women do generally speaking not as Supreme Court justices but to even the playing field, even still in the community as it still needs to be done . Correct . Well, you find the place the audience that needs a little education, you give it to them. Nd that was i am a little worried that the gains that slowed and ade have backslide. Ven be a i wonder why todays women arent as fired up as the women in my generation were about ssuring that women have an equal chance to as pyre, to ollow their dream. Although the women who have made you into a hiphop icon. [laughter] no, i think yeah, sometimes maybe younger women dont dont appreciate how hard how hard the struggle has been, right . And maybe dont always appreciate it as much because of the you know, i think its a great question. I think different people find themselves in different positions and different roles and theres no one right answer for any for everybody. So its great that youre asking the question. Id like to ask you a question. You watch the super bowl [laughter] w did [applause] she did better than peyton manning. [laughter] [applause] freezing out en on that field. It started in the 50s. [laughter] and what you have been trying to do is get the court reflect what the current sentiment of the country. I dont think the current sentiment of the country is journalism. So what do we do about that . You seize the opportunity to correct people who have the rong idea. Ive done that in an opinion or two. [laughter] i think maybe two more questions. Blue. Thank you, justice, this is really, really fantastic. I wonder if either of you would speak on the Supreme Courts sort of unwillingness to allow cameras in the courtroom during arguments. Well, i dont know why elenas view is on that question. Heres one aspect that perhaps the public doesnt notice as much. What we do in the main is not seen in the courtroom. Before we come on the bench to hear a case, we have read the opinions that the other judges, the other judges who past on the same question. We read the partys briefs. Briefs. The precedent in point. F theres a good article ecome bomb to the tee with the arlingtons. What youll see are two people having a conversation with the justices. And may come away that the best debater would win that question. It would be a false impression to think that the oral argument is what is decisive in most cases. Its not like a trial where you see its all happening there, witnesses testifying. The hard, hard work is done back in our chambers. I think its a really hard issue. Shes taken offsides in this position. Obviously there are reasons to have cameras, tarns parent si is an important thing in government institution. And for the most part i think the court would look pretty good. I think its actually, you know, nine people who come prepared every single day, important cases, less important cases who are thoughtful and smart and really trying to get the questions right, all nine of us. And so i think when people come to the court, its actually kind of kind of impressive actually. When i was solis itor general, i would come in the quourt the cases that i argued and whenever someone in would co anymore and watch how they worked. I remember thinking if every america would see this. Because i think it would be good for people to see that. But i do agree request Justice Ginsburg there are opportunities for people to misunderstand the nature of what we do. And to take snippets of conversation in an argument taken out of context to think thats what won or lost the case. And that would be a very unfortunate thing. I dont know its a good example of what you see depending a little bit of where you sit when i think as i rved on the court, ive come to see more than i once did the reasons why maybe cameras would not be such a good idea. That they would actually in addition to what Justice Ginsburg said that it might actually change the proceedings themselves, i think people naturally ham a little bit when cameras are on them or speak in sound bites a little bit more than they otherwise might. So i think that something i think were going to have to become more transparent. But im not necessarily sure at putting a camera in for every argument is the way to do it right now. One more question. [laughter] thank you so much for being here. This is exciting. [inaudible] at home tests for sufficient context corporations can spread their business around in a way to effectively inoculate them against can you speak a little bit about projected way or ffects one another corporate accountability . Im not going to try to epeat that question. The ere was a case about ad days of the dirty war where atrocities had been committed by the government and the charge brought by argentineans was that the affiliates in argentina collaborated with the government the ll or injure some of employees. Do you think that that was the suit that belonged in the United States . Argentina is where it all happened. Of them were available is it appropriate . Do you think it would be appropriate for the United States to be the operator to be the forum in which that case is heard . [inaudible] in light of what it said. But doing business and the Agency Theory that was completed, that yes, that general jurisdiction could have stood. Well, then it would be the court for the world because every Life Corporation could be sued in the United States in that theory. And that would make us look a rather arrogant to our nations, to other nations in the World Community who has the kind of attitude towards jurisdiction and im i first began to think about these questions when i was studying civil procedure of sweden. [laughter] where the notion was you dont bring a suit where you happen to grab the person who committed the wrong. But it depends on where it happened. Where the events insuit occurred. Its a logical place for the constitute be brought. We were asked before about giving advice and my last piece of advice is dont mess around with Justice Ginsburg when it omes to personal jurisdiction. [applause] thank you all for coming. And at home, thank you. Thank you. [captioning performed by national capti