>>Good afternoon distinguished
guests and colleagues. Thank you for joining the
law Library of Congress and the United States
Supreme Court today for the 2019 Supreme Court
Fellows Program annual lecture. My name is Jane Sánchez and
I have the honor of serving as the 25th law Librarian
of Congress. [applause] The Law Library
serves as the nation's custodian of nearly 3 million
items from all countries and legal systems of the world. Our foreign law specialists
are a diverse group of foreign-trained attorneys and
specialists with a diverse group of librarians as well. We do information and analysis of 270 countries
around the world. Our skilled Law Library
staff, both American-trained and Law Librarians also
provide research assistance and reference on U.S. ,
federal, and state legal issues. While our collection
and expertise reach across all points of the
globe, for today's event... we partnered with our
next door neighbor, who happens to be the
highest court in the country. While I don't want to overstate
our love and admiration for our colleagues
across street, it is probably not
mere coincidence that we hold today's
event on Valentine's Day. [laughter] Just saying. This afternoon, we're pleased
to be able to collaborate with the Supreme Court as
they celebrate their 46th year of the fellows program. It is well-known that our
featured speaker today has an affinity for baseball. If any of you have time to stay
after the event, I encourage you to head up to the specked
floor of this building to see our baseball
Americana exhibition. It features items from
the library's collections and as well as from the
national baseball Hall of Fame. And MLB. Please note that today's program is being
live streamed on the Library of Congress YouTube
channel, so all sounds, images and remarks will
be captured on video. Please take a moment to silence
your cell phones and refrain from taking photos
during the event. At this time, I'd like to
invite Jeffrey P. Minear, Executive Director of the
Supreme Court Fellows Program and counselor to the Chief
Justice of the United States. Thank you. [applause] SPEAKER: Thank you,
Jane, for your warm introduction and thanks to you and the
Law Library of Congress for your fellowship in sponsoring this
afternoon's event. It's wonderful to have
such a great turnout for a very special
gathering of the friends and alumni of the program. Let me say just a word about
the program in my capacity as its Executive Director. Each year, the Supreme Court
fellows commission made up of federal judges and
other legal leaders appointed by the Chief Justice selects
four talented professionals to spend a year within the
federal judiciary, participating in court administration,
while engaging in research and other enrichment activities. Today's event is a public
component of two days of activities in which we
celebrate our current Supreme Court fellows and
bring together 46 years of fellows program alumni. Over the course of
today and tomorrow, we will also select
next year's fellows from the superb finalists who
are with us this afternoon. I understand we have
many law students with us in the audience today,
as well as law clerks from several courts in the
federal and state systems. If you care about the
judiciary and are interested in how our federal courts work,
I hope you will take the time to learn about the
fellowship opportunity we offer and consider applying
in a future year. I invite you to visit our
website at fellows.supremecourt. gov. Applications for the 2021
class will be due in November. First, we have a great
feature this afternoon. We'll be joined by the 111th
justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the
honorable Sonia Sotomayor. Who has served on the
Supreme Court since 2009. Six years ago, Justice Sotomayor
published her best-selling autobiography My Beloved World. Last year she released
two more volumes. The Beloved World of Sonia
Sotomayor, Middle School Readers and Turn Pages for
elementary school readers. These books have been
inspiring people of all ages. We have two wonderful moderators
for today's conversation. Chief judge Robert A. Katzmann from the United States
Court of Appeals. He's also the chairman of the Supreme Court
Fellows Commission. Professor Eloise Pasachoff
is a distinguished scholar at Georgetown University
Law Center. She's an academic from
the Fellows Program. She served two two
highly regarded chairs that may sound familiar. Justice Sotomayor
and Judge Katzmann. Please give them a warm welcome. [applause] [cheering
and applause] SPEAKER: This room
is so beautiful. It's just a beautiful room. SPEAKER: I have the privilege
of asking the first question... [laughter] SPEAKER: Justice
Sotomayor, a few years ago... you wrote the best-selling,
my beloved world. Which is widely acclaimed,
available in paperback, required reading in school
districts across the country. In the past year, you
published two more books, this time for younger readers. One called Turning Pages and the
other called The Beloved World of Sonia Sotomayor. You managed to do this while
having a busy important day job. What motivated you
to write these books? SPEAKER: I should tell the
story of My Beloved World. The publication department
called me up one day and said, we really should do this event. I said, Michelle, it's hard
for me to break away and do that event, I just
can't say yes. I stopped her and said, I
have a distracting little job. [laughter] SPEAKER: She
actually quoted those words and put them up on her desk. Writing these books isn't
a distraction for me, writing these particular books
was an important mission for me. The middle school
book, The Beloved World of Sonia Sotomayor, was a
product of my cousin, Miriam, who is a bilingual education
middle school teacher in Stamford, Connecticut. She's been using my adult
book for lesson plans for her students for
a number of years. She kept insisting she
needed a middle grade book. Because the parents book, now
that I have two kids books... now I call My Beloved
World the parent book. [laughter] My parent book had
too many sophisticated concepts. She wanted a middle school book
that dealt more with the stories that children could
more-easily understand. They talked about a
younger reader book. I realized that would be a book
that was equally as important. For those who are adults, I ended up loving the young
reader book, Turning Pages. The illustrations
and I didn't do them. Lula dela Cray [phonetic]
did and they are beautiful. I had no idea how hard
illustrators worked until I worked with one. She did incredibly, extensive
research on every single theme. She was on the internet
constantly to make sure that every single
detail was accurate. She went through -- I have a
suitcase of old photographs, lots of people have gone through
that suitcase, including me... she not-only went through
it, but devoured it and found things I didn't know. So... one scene in turning
pages, she gave me a picture with me and these flowered
pants and I wrote back "I would never wear
flowered pants." [laughter] And she
sent me back a picture of a kid wearing flowered pants. And I said "I stand corrected. " But it was that -- she's
just done an extraordinary job. But... it was from the hope
that my story will serve as an inspiration for kids who
came from my kind of background. To know that what I have
achieved is possible for them too. And... that's the
purpose of my books. To tell those kids who come from
circumstances similar to my own that all dreams are
really possible. And... having a living example,
I think, is terribly important to people who live in situations in which their life can
often appear impossible or so desperate that no
good can come from it. And so... that's the purpose
of all three of my books. I hope to give hope. SPEAKER: So... there's another way in which
you've been touching children's lives recently, that's through
your work with civics education. SPEAKER: Ah. SPEAKER: So... you've been active in this
program called ICIVICS [phonetic] founded by
Sandra Day O'Connor. Could you talk to us about why
that's an important mission? What's necessary about it --
what are you doing with it? SPEAKER: I'll tell you how
I started getting involved with ICIVICS. There was an event
honoring O'Connor and Mont speakers was
the head of ICIVIS and she described the purpose
of ICIVICS and the games. I wondered if the games could
teach bilingual students. 10% of the United
States, could this be used to teach those civics. She said to me "I
love the games, but they're too sophisticated
for my students." For students just beginning to
master the English language -- they're not accessible yet. My next question was, do you think the games
could be tweaked two make them accessible? She said "let me think about it. " She said, I'm putting
you in touch with Louise, the one in charge of ICIVICS
and let's talk about your idea. An Advisory Committee
was put together of educators across the country. The games are being
translated into Spanish, but the exercise taught
us that there were things in the English versions that
were hindering slow-learners. So... one of the things we
found out or realized is... that some slow learners,
whether they're Spanish-speaking or any other language-speaking or just slow readers have a
problem with literal words. Throw the book at someone. They don't understand
the secondary meaning of something like that. So... now we created a glossary, not just for the
Spanish speakers, but for the English speakers
who have trouble with literalism and believe it or not, there's
quite a sizeable population of readers with that difficulty. So... now, there's an English
glossary and Spanish glossary. So... two of the games
have been translated, they're now working
on more of the games. But... it was my small
contribution to being as a result of calling
about this issue... to join the board after Justice
O'Connor was stepping away from public life. They wanted a part
of the Supreme Court to always be represented
in ICIVICS because she was its
founder and originator. It is surprising
how many people, who are well-educated don't
get 100% on the games. The kids love them. It teaches them about
civics, but... you're more fundamental part
of your question was why. We can't preserve our democracy
unless our citizens are informed about it. Ben Franklin was asked as he
was leaving the constitutional convention, what
do we have doctor? A monarchy or a republic? His response was "a
republic, if you keep it." We can't keep it if we're being
educated about our Civic Life and our civic responsibilities. We have rights, because
they come with obligations and they obligate us to
preserve our democracy. And to make sure
it remain vibrant. My charge, personally, morally
as a justice, is to ensure that I don't just write
about the constitution, but that I teach about it
and try to enview everyone with a passion and love
as deep as the one I feel. We're working as a community
to empower and ensure that every member
is striving as hard as we are individually
to be active in it. I'm doing everything I can to further it even more
than she already did. SPEAKER: I can't
wait to have you back at your old courthouse --
in the Marshall Courthouse, we launched a circuit-wide
project, Justice for All courts
in the community. It's the nation's first
coordinated civic education program, involving every
court in our circuit. We have this wonderful learning
center where children can come in and meet with the judges. We have teachers institutes
where teachers come in and meet with judges and scholars
about social studies. We have curriculum
exchanges with the boards of education on how to teach. We go out to the
communities every day... Law Week, Constitution Week and
we've got a wonderful poster about you, so you
definitely have to come back. We're working on an
exhibit and her time. Sonia Sotomayor was
born in 1954. You'll be able to check
what she was doing in 1970. [laughter] SPEAKER: It's a way of bringing our young
people closer to the communities
and the courts. So... we can't wait to
have you back with us... SPEAKER: Make sure you
visit 500 Pearl Street. The learning center, I
served before it was opened. Pieces of it before it was open. SPEAKER: It said 40 Foley. SPEAKER: Oh... sorry. SPEAKER: One of the
things that's quite moving as an example -- SPEAKER: They're right next
door to each other. >> SPEAKER: For a young person,
how extraordinary is it to bring to life one of the great icons. You were a judge before
President Obama nominated you to the Supreme Court. . Then as a countertops
judge in New York. What are some of the differences
between your day-to-day work on those courts and your
current day-to-day work on the Supreme Court? I won't ask you which
job you like better... [laughter] SPEAKER:
But I'll answer that. I'll include an answer to that. [laughter] SPEAKER: I've
often described the difference between the three
courts as follows. District court life is
like controlled chaos. There's a fast-move ing
pace every single moment of every single day. There are countless different
motions running and... jumping through your door. There are hearings and
trials and procedures of all kinds occurring
in the courtroom. What you can expect is that
one day will never look like the preceding day and no
two days are ever identical. The amount of information
you absorb as a judge is an, in one given day, is so large
that at the end of my first year as a district court
judge, I told a friend that I finally understood
why the brain is a muscle. All the knowledge I
was stuffing into it, it's a good thing it was a
muscle and could stretch. It is not only varied in the matters the district
court judge is handling, and the issues that
you're dealing with, but it's also varied in your
human interactions with people. You're dealing with lawyers
and not just in cursory ways, the conference room
where a motion might be, but in the hearing, they'll
appear before you for a number of hours, if not days, and
certainly for days, if not weeks or months in an extended trial. You get to know, not just those
lawyers and their personalities, but their styles and what's
important to them as litigators, as they get to know what's
important to me, as a judge. It's very personal
enterprise and... you're hearing witnesses,
you're hearing from parties, you're dealing with jurors
and their own pica dillos and their own reactions. One of the most-fun
things to do was to present a litigator
before her case or a jury and watch how the
jury was reacting. I'd often take notes and
at the end of the trial, go back to the litigants
and say "when you did this, the jurors didn't like it. " And I'll tell you why I think
why or they really enjoyed that part of your presentation. Maybe you should think
of including more of that in what you're doing. What you're focused in
on as a trial judge, a district court judge is
the parties before you. And you're trying to
resolve their dispute. You're trying to understand why
this case is important to them, what about the issues is
motivating this dispute and... you're also trying to figure
out what's important to them in terms of settling
the case if you can. That's part of your
charge to try to avoid the litigation,
if you can. You'll have to understand
the why of doing that. Finding justice for those two
parties, when ours a Court of Appeals and Appellate Court, it's a different
kind of justice. You're trying and dealing
within the parameters set by the Supreme Court and
the precedence it's created and the precedence of your
own circuit and looking for uniformity in that part
of your world in the circuit. You're trying to find justice
under the law, as it exists at that moment in that
place, your circuit. So... it's justice for
the law in that place. When you're on the
Supreme Court, and their life is more
contemplative, you are dealing with lots of cases,
certainly not as many as on the district court. Only about, I think,
it's ten, the maximum, 15% of all district
court cases ever end up on appeal, generally. And so... you're dealing with a
volume that is, by definition, much smaller than on
the district court. Most of the cases, not all... they all have one or more
twist in them, but... they're more clearly controlled
by precedent than not. You do get, maybe... in that 10%, 10% of the cases that might ultimately be
reviewed by the Supreme Court. So... it's a smaller
fraction of your overall work. And... I don't want to say the
circuit court can become more routinized, but it does have
a pace where there are things that are much more controlled,
clearly by prior law, prior precedence and so... what you're trying to do is to
ensure that you get to your work in an efficient way, so... the parties are not
kept waiting forever. The same task the district
court is trying to do, but you're trying to be
clear for those parties within your jurisdiction. Supreme Court, well... we take now, on average,
60 to 70 cases a term. It's been closer to 60, Mark,
the last couple years, okay? The last couple terms. There's less volume, but... every case, the Supreme Court
takes is a Supreme Court case. And what that means is... that it's an unsettled
area of law. It's an area in which
reasonable jurors across the country
have disagreed. Because... we rarely have ever taken a case
unless there's a split among the courts below. There are 13 circuit
courts across the country and those courts don't all
agree on issues of law. And it is those cases that the
Supreme Court exists to correct. Those cases in which
those reasonable judges of both genders are
agreeing or disagreeing. They're harder cases. We tend to have much
more reading than even the courts below. The number of Amica briefs can
number into the multiples of 10. And... the briefing
may be the same size on the Court of Appeals, but... the research, in terms of not
just what the case readings, themselves, but even for me,
reading articles and journals about areas of law in those
areas that I know less about, or am less comfortable
with, is much more extensive on the Supreme Court than
it was on the lower courts. But... what are we
doing justice for? We're doing justice for
the law as it should be. Because... we're not just looking
at the case before us. There are some who would argue
that's what the Supreme Court should be doing. But... every time we announce
a principle of law, we are, or of interpretation of law, we are deciding not
just that case... but the cases that
come after it. So... it's not uncommon
in the Supreme Court for a Supreme Court
Justice to ask a litigant if we follow your rules, isn't the natural outcome
this other extreme? So... I'll give you an example
that occurred on the Court of Appeals, but it happens
regularly on the circuit court. I had a case involving the first
amendment, where a judge had , issues a gag order, stopk
the press from reporting on information that had
been disclosed in court. And the appeal came to us, by
the litigant, by the newspaper, who claimed that
was an abridgement of the first amendment. Because... anything said publically
in court... was subject to public
dissemination. One of the questions
that I asked was... what happens in the
following scenario? There is a bomber on
trial, a terrorist, and he takes the stand. And in the middle of his
testimony, he says... these infadels have
to be destroyed. Another bomb will go
off in five minutes. This is prove that God
is not here to save you. The prosecutor jumps up
and says, your Honor, please bar the press
from leaving the room and disseminating this story. We need to call the FBI
to get them there in time to save people and
try to find that bomb. What does the judge do? The lawyer says he
denies the request that came out in open court. I looked at him and I say... and you're unwilling to
save all of those people when those five minutes
could be saved? And his response was... judge... I didn't tell
you that in the order of his courtroom he couldn't
lock the door for five minutes. Not a perfect answer,
but an answer. That's what we do
with all of our cases. We take the principles that
we announce and try to figure out where they will lead us. Where they're going to lead the
society and the lower courts. And if it's a place
that doesn't seem to fit within the constitutional
theory, as we understand it, then we have to look at
the premise and figure out if we need to
change an outcome. And so... for us, it is justice
for the law as it should be. And those are, very much,
the stark differences between the three courts. An answer to your
unspoken question... [laughter] SPEAKER: I didn't ask
who your favorite colleague was. [laughter] SPEAKER:
That, I won't answer. I have announced that if I
ever, if, underscore that word, undertake senior status... that I would go back to
being a district court judge. It's a lot of fun. [laughter] SPEAKER: I'm going
to follow-up on the fun part in that last sentence and ask... what do you do for fun with
a busy, important day job. How do you relax and
unwind after all this? SPEAKER: First of all... I love exercise -- I do do some
exercise, when I'm not injured. Some injuries are
self-reflected. Falling isn't a smart thing
to do -- I love exercise. I do like reading
fiction as opposed to serious books when I can. That seems to be getting
relegated to my summers than to the term year. I've been doing my book
tour and got to read a lot of children's books lately. And... that's been a lot of fun. And... I also like
playing poker. [laughter] SPEAKER: And I play
poker with people I really like. SPEAKER: Before we open it up
for Q&A; from the audience, do you have in mind a next book? SPEAKER: It's coming
out in September. It's a second children's book. When the publisher was very
interest did in doing the story of my life, Turning Pages is
that, for young readers, but... I conditioned it on
doing the children's book that I wanted to do forever. And it's a book about children
who face life challenges. And it was born from an
incident that occurred to me, that happened to
me, not occurred -- happened to me when
I was younger. I was in a restaurant and I, at a time when I was hiding my
diabetes from the world and went into a bathroom and
was taking my shot. Someone happened to walk
in while hi was doing it. I sort of finished what I
was doing the left the room. As I was leaving the restaurant
and walking by the table of the woman who had
come in, she was leaning over into her companion
as I walked by and said "she's a drug addict" in a stage whisper
and I was outraged. I walk back to her and
said "I'm a diabetic and that shot I took is
my insulin and what I use to stay alive, you should not be
judgmental and judging people. If you don't know
something, ask, don't assume" and I walked away. And as I've been living my life
and I have many, many friends with children with
chronic conditions, and some with conditions,
obviously... they can't help, like
Tourette's Syndrome. In the store, recently, someone
looked at my friend and said... can't you control your child? Because her child had twisted
in an unusual way and banged into her by mistake
and my friend was just so hurt for her daughter. And that incident... and mine, made me
realize that I wanted to write a children's book about
kids, and there are so many of us, with conditions
that challenge their life and I wanted to explain that the
richness of those conditions, richness in the sense of the
positive things that they bring to our life as a community. And so... my next
book is Just Ask. Hence where the title
came from, right? Be different, be brave, be you. That's the title of the book. It describes children with
all kinds of conditions. Diabetes, obviously. I start out with me. But... children in wheelchairs,
children who are blind, children who are deaf, children
with Tourette's Syndrome, children who have
attention deficit, children with Down Syndrome,
children of all kinds with life challenges and I
describe the frustrations of those challenges, the
difficulties, but also, the things that they
help us with. How they make us stronger and more-important contributing
members to our community. It's set in a garden and I show
how every garden has different things in it, just
like the world does. And we're a richer
garden and a richer world, because of children
who are different. And so... that's my book. It comes out in September. SPEAKER: We can't wait
for that book to come out. SPEAKER: I told the doctor he
has to put it in his office. SPEAKER: We'll now have
Q&A; from the audience. SPEAKER: All right... I'm coming down to say
hello to everybody. Are you going to be brave
enough to get up and tell me who asked the question? SPEAKER: Yes... as Jeff Minear, our
leader, pointed out, this is it a gathering of the Supreme Court
Fellows Commission. We're going to hear questions from Supreme Court
fellows, alumni. The first question
is from Sara Wilson. SPEAKER: Sara, where are you? She knows me very well. She probably knows me
better than I know myself. It's great to see you -- she was
an instrumental part of my being on the Supreme Court because
she was the person who led me through my district
court nomination. So... I'm internally
grateful to her. [applause] SPEAKER: Thank you
for those wonderful remarks. What advice would you give a new
judge, either a new trial judge or a new intermediate
appellate judge, given that you have
served on all levels of the federal judiciary? SPEAKER: Ah... that's a -- I'm going to walk up
-- I need somebody to guide me. You come down -- SPEAKER:
I don't need that -- SPEAKER: Thank you, sir. SPEAKER: Um... it's advice that
you're obviously going to find difficult to understand. To be a judge, you
have to be decisive. You have to come
to a conclusion. Both because you can't angst
forever about one case. Otherwise... everybody who appears
before you will suffer. That kind of delay will cause
justice, justice delays, justice denied [indiscernible],
is very important to understand and respect. On the other hand... you have to be willing to
admit when you make mistakes. And many of us forget that
when you become a judge. There's a temptation
to say "well, that's the way I ruled,
I had to be right." Or I can't look indecisive
to others, so... I can't change my mind. I think that's an error. I think that you
have to use judgment. You have to work
efficiently at thinking about all the possibilities
and coming to a decision. But... every once in
awhile, you should pause and rethink something, to
ensure you got it right. One of the justices I
most-admired, John Paul Stevens, one of the speeches, last
speeches that I heard him give, just after he left the bench
was at Fordham Law School in which he described
the three areas of law where his views had
changed over time. Where he had become educated by
learning that he had been wrong. And... I hope that I
can follow his example. I have, in small ways, and so... especially in trials,
not all the time, because you can't do
it all the time, but... occasionally, I'd be in
the middle of a trial and someone would raise an
objection, I'd say denied and I go home that night or
go back to my office and say to my law clerks
"I'm uncomfortable with that decision, please help
me find some research on it" and I read it and go
back the next morning and say "I made a mistake,
let's start again, start over." There've been moments
on the Court of Appeals where I wrote an opinion
and after writing it, said "I'm wrong" and
wrote a second opinion and went the other way. I've sent both to the panel. And I said... I wrote myself out of this. [laughter] SPEAKER: In one
case, the panel went with me. In another case, they
went the other way. And... ultimately,
I was proven right, but that's beside the point. [laughter] SPEAKER: But... if I give any advice
to a new judge... is... keep an open mind. I think that ability to say "I can make mistakes" let's you
listen in a way that opens you up to accepting that
you're a human being and that your initial thoughts
on something don't have to be your final thoughts. And so... for me, that's, that
has been an important lesson. SPEAKER: Our second question
comes from Derrick Webb. A 2014/15 Supreme Court Fellow. SPEAKER: Hello, how are you? SPEAKER: Good to see you. I've heard recently that you've
been working with your neighbor on the bench, Justice Gorsuch
on civic education programming. SPEAKER: We have,
we've had so much fun. But... I can't talk him
into coming off the stage. SPEAKER: All right... SPEAKER: I keep telling him
over time he'll get used to it. SPEAKER: You might
prevail on that. The question I had -- why did
the two of you decide to get into this program
on civic education, in a moment when citizens and lawyers are having difficult
times talking with each other across political differences
and legal differences, what connection do you see
between your program work on civic education and the other
virtue of sort of, civility? SPEAKER: I think that the
Supreme Court is a prime example for the nation. Of how you can agree,
disagree agreeably. And... that's a hard
thing to do. To listen to people who
are fundamentally different than you are. And... to really go head-to-head
with them on an issue and... if you've seen some
of our writing, you know that in writing,
we go head-to-head. We're not always so
civil in writing... we're trying to fix that up... but we're not always
as civil as I'd like... including me. That's always because
you're passionate. It's very hard to disagree
with somebody and... they write something that
you think is terribly wrong and you not want to take them
and shake them and say... why can't you see this? What's wrong with you? [laughter] SPEAKER:
That's the gut instinct. The hard part is to
fight that gut and say... okay... you disagree with me,
I will try to understand why. I will explain in my
opinion why you're wrong. And... if you still
don't agree... I'm going to leave it to
history to figure it out. But... I don't have to
dislike you because of it. I think that we forget that
people who differ from us, even though what we sometimes
think are fundamental issues, and... you know, I had a friend
who once said to me... "my son can't marry a
republican" [laughter] SPEAKER: And I looked at her and said... you can't really mean that. That's ridiculous. And she said "no, no, there's a
fundamental difference in values between the two parties. " And I said "there's no
fundamental difference in values between people. " We all have some basic values
that cut across cultures, gender, parties,
religions, everything. We are all committed to family. We all believe in the importance
of family and being supportive, in loving those people
who are a part of us. We all believe in friendship. And being supportive
in those friendships. We all believe in our country,
we all want us to succeed. Those are the fundamental
values that we have to look to. Now... the expressions of
it, we can fight about, we can talk about, but you have
to look at the good in people. You cannot look at what
you're painting as bad, as defining them
as human beings. And so... if you start from
there, it becomes easier to disagree agreeably. And... Justice Gorsuch and I
have found ways to do that. We have disagreed, all
right, on a lot of things... but we agreed on a
couple things and one of the things we're most
committed to is civic education, both of us and it didn't matter
to me that he wasn't say, voting with me more often. Hopefully over time
I'll convince him. [laughter] But in the interim,
it's fun to work with him. It is fun... I mean, people are reporting
that we're constantly laughing on the bench together. We can poke fun at each
other and it is poking fun. It's not criticism,
it's not anger. It's just enjoyment. Of each other as people. He's a lovely person. And... to the extent that both of us fundamentally love this
country and love children as much, we're doing something
that we both think is important. I hope most of the world
would figure out how to find that common ground. And work in that common
ground more often. But... we tend to be
going to the uncommon, rather than the common ground. SPEAKER: We have time
for one last question. SPEAKER: We have time
for one last question. Debra? 2015/16 Supreme
Court Fellow. SPEAKER: Hello, Debra. I didn't pick these guys, okay? [laughter] SPEAKER: But I happen
to know and like them all. SPEAKER: You spoke earlier about
what you hope children will take from the books that you've been
writing over the past few years. I'm wondering what you've
learned about yourself through the process of
writing these books? SPEAKER: I've learned so much. But... about myself... well... I've learned a lot
about -- you know, if you -- I went to an event in Chicago
and there was a reporter who came up to me at
the event and said... "how many years of
psychotherapy have you been in?" [laughter] SPEAKER:
And I looked at her and said "what are
you talking about?" She said "nobody could
write this kind of book without having gone
through therapy." And my answer was "this
book has been my therapy." You know... the reason I wrote the
book was my first year on the Supreme Court, it was such a shocking,
jarring experience. I went from a modest
stage in New York... it wasn't so modest a job,
but it was abruptly a job from the Circuit Court
of Appeals and was on a limited stage there. To a world stage. I was catapulted and yanked
out of a semi private life into this world stage. And... everything was
happening so fast. The hearings were
[indiscernible], all of a sudden, I'm
at the Supreme Court, nominated at the end of May,
I'm at the Supreme Court in the beginning of April. (? ) The first case on my
desk is Citizens United, all right in one of the
biggest cases, probably one of the most-important
cases in modern times. And... I'm being fitted by
presidents, vice presidents, senators, representatives,
people from around the globe, famous people, not
so famous people... but... you know, I had dinner with Jennifer Lopez
and Marc Anthony. [laughter] SPEAKER: How are you? And... I became afraid... you know... I gotta get around. I became afraid... yes... that in this process... I would lose me. You've heard the old adage
"absolute power corrupts, absolutely" and I realized
that being in this kind of position can both
isolate you and... absorb you. So... you became self absorbed. And... I needed a
way to avoid that. So... what did I do? I absorbed myself in myself,
by taking that first summer and escaping from
being a justice. To looking at my life
and trying to figure out and remember how
I got where I got. And... that's what
My Beloved World is, is that personal journey for me. Of remembering the people,
the life situations, and the circumstances
that created who I am. And... it's that, that I
want to keep a part of me. How much I valued and
value, all of those people who have made little pieces
of me is so deeply ingrained in my psyche and
so important to me. And I wanted to make them
real for other people... but I also wanted you to
find, within yourselves that which created you. And to learn how to appreciate
it even with all its warts. I never thought, and it's hard
to explain, there are incidents in my book that I describe,
that I never thought that I could forgive others for. And I think I speak
with pride when I say, the book helped me find
those moments of forgiveness. And so... that was surprising. Because we all hold hurts
and moments of anger that are so deep within us that we
never think we can let them go. And... writing the book
has helped me do that. So... yes... that's what it's taught me. Which is... there is nothing we
can't figure out. Especially if we figure out
what we've learned from it. And so... it's been a joy
for me to write these books. Just Ask book will be slightly
different venue for me, but even there -- I'm
sharing and letting go of some of the anger that I had
about being different. Because... I think every child who is
different in some way... or perceives themselves to be, holds some hurts
and anger about it. And so... I've learned for
myself, how to let some of that go and I hope it
will help them do the same. [applause] SPEAKER: Thank you. So much. SPEAKER:
Justice Sotomayor, on behalf of Eloise Pasachoff, we know that you'll always be
brave, be bold, and be you. SPEAKER: Thank you. [applause]
