I was told the story but we had a woman lawyer once and she was dreadful. [laughter] how many men lawyers did you have . That did not turn out well . [laughter] the change i have seen in my lifetime is exhilarating and the change in the federal judiciary is to the credit of president jimmy carter. Speaking of your female colleagues, after Justice Sandra day oconnor retired in 2006, your the only thing of justice on the Supreme Court until Justice Sonia sotomayor joined the court in 2009. Justice elena kagan followed, joining the court in 2010. You are now one of three women on the Supreme Court. Can you compare for us your experience as the only woman on the court with that of being one of two female justices and that of being one of three female justices . The National Association of women judges forecast what would come so they have a reception for the Justice Oconnor and me in the fall of 1993 and they gave us tshirts. [laughter] i am sandra, not rude and mine said i am route, not sandra. [laughter] every year i was on the court with sandra, invariably, one lawyer or another would call me Justice Oconnor. They heard a womans voice. [laughter] it did not matter that we did not sound at all alike. [laughter] when centerleft, it was lonely. It was really lonely. At least when she was there, she was a tall woman and then there was this rather small person until i was joined by Justice Sonia sotomayor and just as keychain. If you and Justice Elena kagan. If you watch a case in the court, you will see a very lively bench. My sisters of the court are not shrinking violets. [laughter] have very active they are very active participants in the arguments. I do think that Justice Sonia sotomayor is in competition with Justice Scalia to see who can ask the most questions. [laughter] [applause] with three, we look like we are there to stay. We are no longer curiosities. I would like to go back in time a bit to the 1970s when there was a strong effort to amend the constitution with the equal rights amendment, an effort that was unsuccessful. From your perspective as someone who engaged her entire life in gender equality whether you believe the failure of the equal rights amendment had a longterm impact on the cause of gender equality or whether, ultimately, the necessary tools have been found in the equal protection clause or other parts of the constitution . The second part of that, i am wondering how you feel as a pioneer in gender equality about the progress that has been made to date and what you believe may be the principal barriers remaining to progress in the future . Thats a multi part question. [laughter] lets start with the era it was not something new. The equal rights amendment was first framed by the National Womens party. It was the more progressive wing of the womens movement, the womens suffrage movement, women who were not content with the vote but wanted full equality and so they introduced the equal rights amendment in 1923 and it was introduced every year thereafter. It did not take steam until Martha Griffith from michigan took it on as our cause and when she did, she said there is nothing that this amendment seeks to accomplish that could not be done if the courts would interpret the equal protection clause the way they should interpreted it to include all people and not just some of them. Still, the era was a very important symbol and i hope it will one day become part of this constitution for a simple reason i am addressing a class of schoolchildren and i can point to the First Amendment and the protection of freedom of speech and of the press, there is no statement that men and women are citizens are people of equal status status before the law. There is no statement. I think that statement belongs in our constitution to say that this is a value as fundamental as the ones that are already enshrined. In the constitution. It may be just a simple but it is an important symbol. As far as what the courts have done, i got a book to sign from the Civil Rights Commission this was in the middle 1970s we were going through the United States code identifying all laws that differentiated on the basis of gender. Almost all of those laws are gone. There are a few in the immigration and nationality area but for the most part, in state and federal law books, the explicit genderbased discrimination is gone. What remains, i can perhaps best explained by remembering what was like to go to a Symphony Orchestra concert when i was young. I never saw a woman in the Symphony Orchestra. Some brilliant person thought of it early solution to the problem. They would drop a curtain between the audition is and the person who was being auditioned. With that, with the audition is not knowing whether it is a man or woman playing, suddenly, the appearance of women in Symphony Orchestras grew and grew. I was telling this story at a Music Festival not long ago when a young violinist said to me but you missed one thing, we all addition [inaudible] so the judges will not know if it is a woman coming onstage. What that reflects is an unconscious bias. People see a woman and they assume it was a music critic for the the New York Times that he vowed he could tell a difference between a womans planning and the mans point and they put into the test and he failed miserably. It is sad. It is an unconscious bias. There was a great case and 1970s brought by my colleague at columbia. It was against at t. It was about positions for women in middle management. The women found on the various tests up until the last one and the last one was a total person test. At meant there was an interviewer, a candidate for promotion, and women filled disproportionately. Why . It was not that the interviewer intended to discriminate. It was just he felt uncomfortable with someone who looked like he felt more comfortable with someone who looks like himself. The woman was different. It is getting past the unconscious bias that exists, still exists, that is a high hurdle to overcome. It has been mentioned that it is a balance to have a family life in which you thrive and work life. I was blessed to be married for 56 years to a man who was my partner and everything. He had the idea when my daughter was born that a childs personality is formed in her first year of life. He was the primary feeder of jane and he learned that that was not necessarily so but, in any event, all my life, he has been my biggest booster. I am happy to see that in my childrens life. Their marriages are that way as well they are two parents, two people who have work lives that they thrive in. I was told once i did not belong in Navy Flight Training but i got in the program and spent 10 years on active duty and assault Great Strides made in the attitude of military women in the cockpit of aircraft but there is room for improvement. Is there a similar experience in law . I would like to tell you a story so you will know how far we have come. We have not gotten all the way but one of my favorite clients was a captain in the air force. I had hoped that her case could be the first of reproductive freedom case to reach the Supreme Court. This was her story she was serving in vietnam when she became pregnant. This is 1970. She was told by the commander of the base, you have a choice you can get an abortion on base which many military bases offered to women in service or dependents of men and service at that time or you can leave the service. Susan said i cannot have an abortion, i am a Roman Catholic i would accumulate might leave time for this birth. I made arrangements to have the child adopted at birth. Pregnancy was a moral and administrative grounds for discharge and that was that. Susan was sent back to the west coast where she was represented by the aclu of the state of washington brilliantly. Theyve managed to stay her discharge month by month. Lost in the district court. She lost in the ninth circuit but with an excellent dissent. [laughter] the Supreme Court to occur case and of the then solicitor general who had been the dean of the First Law School i attended saw real damage potential for the government in her case. He convened the military brass and said that rule about pregnancy being an automatic grounds for discharge is not right for our time. You should immediately way of her discharge and change the regulation. For the future. And thats what happened. Law students know what that meant for our case. The government had given susan everything she was asking for. So the government immediately moved to have the case her case dismissed as moot. I called capt. Struck and astor issues missing anything. She said i am not any pay or allowances. I would not have chosen to be assigned to my air force base but, i cannot say they were punishing me for that. She said there is one thing. All my life, i have dreamed of becoming a pilot but the air force does not give Flight Training to women. This was in 1972. We had this conversation and we left because we knew then that it was an impossible dream. , that the air force would give Flight Training to women. Now, it would be unthinkable for them to reserve Flight Training for men only. We have come a long, long way. Regarding the courts deliberation process, as the presence of three women on the Supreme Court now altered the to stay her discharge month by month. Lost in the district court. She lost inway the members of tt think about and discuss the cases that come before them and perhaps in how they decide them . I should start with a quote from the minnesota Supreme Court justice, dean coyne. Justice oconnor and i have often retold this story at the end of the day, a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same judgment. I have to follow that up by saying that we each bring to the table our own Life Experience including the three of us having grown up female. We can help our colleagues understand some things that they might not understand things so well had we not been there. There is one case in particular a few years ago about a 13year old girl who was suspected of having what turned out to be an advil ibuprofen. Was suspected of having pills and they took her to the girls bathroom and strip searched her. And her mother was incensed to find out what had happened to her daughter. She brought a case in 1983 against the school officials. Some of my colleagues made light of it. He said i remember being a 13 yearold boy and we did not think anything of changing our clothes. I said in the courtroom that there is a difference between a 13yearold girl and a 13year old boy and the embarrassment that karlfeldt. Suddenly that that curl felt. That girl felt. They understood this was a terrible thing to do to the young girl and of course, she won the case. [laughter] last year, the nation was riveted to by the courts argument and decision in the National Federation of independent Business Case which up held the individual mandate of president obamas Health Care Reform legislation. For those of us who are observers of the court, apart from the case, what lessons might we learn from the experience of that case . I hope it is a case that will be taught in law school. I fully expect that my dissent saying that this legislation fit within the Commerce Clause easily that that would someday become block of the land. I was astonished, frankly at the majority view about that case but i think it is a wonderful teaching tool for students and, as you know, bill law was upheld. The chief justice decided that it did not fit within the commerce power but the tax power was very broad. So what the law called a penalty was in fact attacks and it was upheld. On that basis. I think the Commerce Clause will turn out to be an aberration. You can compare it the way it was before 1937 when the court was commonly referred to as nine old men and they were striking down economic and social legislation from the states, from the administration. But then the Social Security act was passed and in 1937, the court upheld it. I thought that Social Security, 1937, health care, in 2012 they should go the same way. I said i fully expect that my view which was shared by three of my colleagues on the Commerce Clause was one that has staying power. So [laughter] looking ahead, do you feel you have any Unfinished Business in your career on or off the court . I will do this job as long as i am able to do it the way it needs to be done. [applause] apart from that, i will not read any books [laughter] there will be books written about me like it or not and i would prefer not to but [laughter] so, i already mentioned i would like to see in my lifetime i would like to see women get fired up about the equal rights amendment so we will have that in our constitution. I would like to see an end to what i call this unconscious discrimination. Being a judge it is a pretty good job to have think of my colleague Justice John Paul stevens who remained on the court until he was 90 and is still an avid golfer and tennis player and has recently written a book but not about himself but about the five chiefs he has known from the time he was a law clerk to the time he retired from the court. Next question [laughter] you have had an amazing career and are leaving your legacy in below. Looking back in your life, although there is still more to do, is there anything you would do differently . Its a question i dont ask myself. I will give you two pieces of advice i was given in that regard. When i was a brand new judge on the d. C. Circuit, one of my senior colleagues said, ruth, i have been at this business a long time and one thing i would like to impart to you. Do your best job in each case but when its over, when the opinion is out, do not look back. Do not worry about things that have passed, go on to the next case and give it your all. That corresponds to advise my mother gave me which she summed up in the phrase be a lady. By that she meant do not allow distracting and motions to overwhelm you. And there will get you nowhere. Jealousy is even worse. And remorse these are all the motions that sat pure energy and do nothing productive. I do not look back. I look forward to what is on my plate each day. You have dissented in some of the courts most controversial and farreaching decisions of the past couple of decades. I have in mind bush reverses course, the case that halted the balloting in the 2000 president ial election and Citizens United, the case that invalidated the ban on Corporate Campaign expenditures. In cases such as these, cases where belote takes a sudden turn in a different direction in a highprofile area, do you ever fear for the courts reputation as a result of these kinds of decisions . As a followup, how difficult is it to participate in the deliberations and the one vote away from a very different results . First, let me comment on bush v gore. It was oneofakind and the court has never site to that opinion crted opinion in any case and i hope it will forever remain that way. It happened, it is over, and thats it for bush v gore. [laughter] Citizens United is something else. That was a very wrong decision. But, as a great man once said, andaint over til its over the court will have a chance in the years ahead to correct its error. Think of the free speech to descend of holems and aggrandize in the 1920s. Bradneis now it is below of the land. When one is on the descent side, if it is Something Congress can fix, then you hope your descent will engage legislation. If it is a matter of constitutional interpretation, the only thing that can change it is the court will overrule its decision and you write the dissent looking toward a future court and a correction of the error in which your into which your colleagues have fallen. [laughter] do these cases ever cause worry about the courts reputation or do you feel that the courtroom reputation will remain intact . We all care very much about the institution. We want to leave it in as good shape as we found it. The Supreme Court, i think, is unique in the world. When i met with High Court Judges from other places, i sometimes ask sometimes we have a judgment and we say it and then the government does not follow it to. Think of some of the key decisions and the Supreme Court. Think of the seizure case when the court said that president truman cannot take over the steel mills. Give them back. Immediately, the president ordered the mils return to their owners or a more recent example very dramatic example president nixon is told, not by the Supreme Court but by a Federal District court judge, i need those tapes as evidence in criminal proceeding. Turn them over. The president did and he resigned from office the next day. We know that is a very precious thing that we have, that even bush v gore, however wrong i thought the decision was, there was no rioting in the street and people accepted that bush would be our president. [laughter] li