GOOD AFTERNOON. AND WELCOME TO THE 158TH
LANDON LECTURE ON PUBLIC AFFAIRS.
MY NAME IS APRIL MASON
AND I HAVE THE DISTINCT PLEASURE
TO SERVE AS THE PROVOST AND SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT HERE AT KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
AND I TRULY DELIGHTED
TO BE HERE WITH YOU TODAY.
THE LANDON LECTURES WERE BEGUN IN 1966
BY THE LATE GOVERNOR ALF LANDON
AND THE LATE K-STATE PRESIDENT JAMES MCCAIN.
THE GOAL OF THE LANDON LECTURES
IS TO BRING THE MOST PROMINENT
PUBLIC FIGURES TO KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES OF THE DAY.
WE ARE VERY PLEASED TODAY TO
WELCOME ASSOCIATE SUPREME COURT
JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR
AS THE LANDON LECTURE SPEAKER.
THE JUSTICE JOINS 158 PREVIOUS LANDON SPEAKERS
IN BRINGING THEIR THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS
ON IMPORTANT PUBLIC ISSUES.
NOW BEFORE I INTRODUCE OUR JUSTICE
I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE DISTINGUISHED GUESTS
THAT ARE HERE IN OUR AUDIENCE THIS AFTERNOON.
WOULD EACH OF OUR GUESTS
STAND WHEN I SAY THEIR NAME
AND REMAIN STANDING UNTIL I'VE INTRODUCED ALL
AND MAY I ASK THE AUDIENCE
TO HOLD THEIR APPLAUSE
UNTIL ALL HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED.
FROM OUR KANSAS STATE BOARD OF REGENTS
REGENT JANIE PERKINS
REGENT DAN LYKINS, REGENT MILDRED EDWARDS,
AND REGENT CHRISTINE DOWNEY-SCHMIDT.
THE CHAIRS OF THE LANDON LECTURE COMMITTEES:
MR. EDWARD SEATON
CHAIR OF THE LANDON PATRONS
AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF AND PUBLISHER OF THE MANHATTAN MERCURY.
AND DR. JACKIE HARTMAN
CHAIR OF THE LANDON LECTURE SERIES
AND DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS FOR KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY.
FROM OUR UNIVERSITY LEADERSHIP:
DR. BETSY COGLE
PRESIDENT OF THE FACULTY SENATE
AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY
ANTHROPOLOGY AND SOCIAL WORK.
MISS BECKI BOHNENBLUST
PRESIDENT OF THE CLASSIFIED SENATE.
WOULD YOU RECOGNIZE THESE LEADERS WITH ME.
(APPLAUSE)
ESPECIALLY THANKS TO OUR REGENTS'
MEMBERS FOR BEING WITH US THIS AFTERNOON.
I'D LIKE TO WELCOME YOU
HERE TO THE KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY UNION FORUM HALL.
AND I ALSO WELCOME
THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE JOINING US
FROM THE LITTLE THEATER,
THE TOWN HALL, AS WELL AS MANY FRIENDS OF
K-STATE UNIVERSITY WHO ARE WATCHING BY STREAMING VIDEO.
TODAY'S EVENT WILL BE DIFFERENT
FROM PREVIOUS LANDON LECTURE FORMATS.
WE USE A FORUM FORMAT TODAY WHERE
QUESTIONS WILL BE ASKED AND ANSWERED.
STUDENTS, FACULTY, STAFF, AND
FRIENDS OF KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
WERE ASKED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONS
THAT WOULD BE POSED DURING THE FORUM THIS AFTERNOON.
WE'RE HONORED TO HAVE QUESTIONERS
AND I'M ASKING THEM TO COME TO THE STAGE AS I INTRODUCE THEM
DANNY UNRUH, KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
STUDENT BODY PRESIDENT AND SENIOR IN POLITICAL SCIENCE.
WE ALSO HAVE TWO DISTINGUISHED JUDGES TO
SERVE AS QUESTIONERS.
JUDGE DEANELL TACHA,
A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
WE WELCOME JUDGE TACHA
AND JUDGE JOHN LUNGSTRUM,
A U.S. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
PLEASE HELP ME WELCOME THESE INDIVIDUALS.
(APPLAUSE)
NOW IT IS TRULY MY PLEASURE
TO INTRODUCE OUR HONORED GUEST.
AND AS I WAS WALKING OUT HERE SHE SAID
WOULD YOU PLEASE TELL THEM
WHY WE'RE RUNNING A LITTLE LATE.
IF YOU HAVE TURNED THE RADIO ON OR LISTENED
TO ANY NEWS REPORT, YOU KNOW THAT THE EASTERN SEABOARD
IS PRETTY MUCH BLANKETED IN SNOW.
IF YOU HAVE JUST JOINED US FROM OUR MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR CELEBRATION EVENT
OUR SPEAKER WAS UNABLE TO GET HERE
BUT OUR JUSTICE DID GET HERE.
SHE JUST GOT HERE.
AND IF THE VERY QUICK INTRODUCTION
WE WERE ABLE TO HAVE
BACKSTAGE IS ANY INDICATION.
SHE HAD QUITE A TRIP. SHE HAD NO ELECTRICITY THIS MORNING
SHE DID HAVE HOT WATER, SHE IS CLEAN AND FRESHLY SHOWERED.
BUT I AM CHALLENGED TO
THINK ABOUT PUTTING ON MAKEUP
WITHOUT ANY ELECTRICITY TO HELP
BUT LET ME VERY SERIOUSLY TELL YOU ABOUT
OUR HONORED GUEST.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
SELECTED JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR
TO THE SUPREME COURT IN MAY, 2009.
SHE WAS SWORN IN AUGUST 9, 2009.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR EARNED
A BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN 1976.
FROM PRINCETON UNIVERSITY,
GRADUATING SUMMA CUM LAUDE,
AND RECEIVING THE UNIVERSITY'S
HIGHEST ACADEMIC HONOR.
IN 1979, SHE EARNED HER LAW
DEGREE FROM YALE LAW SCHOOL
WHERE SHE SERVED AS AN EDITOR
IN THE YALE LAW JOURNAL.
SHE SERVED AS ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTOURNEY
IN THE NEY YORK DISTRICT ATTOURNEY'S OFFICE
FROM 1979 TO 1985.
SHE THEN LITIGATED INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL MATTERS IN NEW YORK CITY
AT PAVIA AND HARCOURT
SHE SERVED THERE AS AN ASSOCIATE AND THEN PARTNER FROM 1984 UNTIL 1992.
IN 1991 PRESIDENT GEORGE H. W. BUSH NOMINATED
HER TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
AND SHE SERVED IN THAT
ROLE FROM 1992 UNTIL 1998.
SHE SERVED AS A JUDGE ON
THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT FROM 1998 TO 2009
PLEASE HELP ME TO EXTEND A WARM
KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY WELCOME
TO THE HONORABLE SONIA SOTOMAYOR
JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
(APPLAUSE)
YOU KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN 18 YEARS SINCE
I'VE BEEN ON THIS SIDE OF THE BENCH.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR REFERS
TO HOW WE SIT IN SENIORITY
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AND NOW IN HER COURT
SO SHE'S ON EXACTLY THE RIGHT SIDE TODAY
I WOULD SAY
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR WE WANT
TO WELCOME YOU TO KANSAS
AND THANK YOU FOR THAT WARM K-STATE WELCOME
EVEN FOR SOME OF US THAT ARE A BIT FOREIGN BUT NOT THAT MUCH
WE'RE SO THRILLED YOU'RE WITH US
AND IT WAS GRATIFYING FOR JUDGE LUNGSTRUM
AND DANNY AND ME
TO RECEIVE THE PROPOSED QUESTIONS THAT
SO MANY STUDENTS AND FACULTY AND STAFF PEOPLE
WERE ABLE TO SUBMIT, SO WE'VE SORT OF TRIED TO
CALL THOSE DOWN A BIT
BUT I THINK AS YOU GET TO
KNOW JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR
YOU'LL SEE THAT HER WARM
AND OUTGOING PERSONALITY.
WE MAY NOT EVEN GET THROUGH ALL THE QUESTIONS
WE EVEN PLANNED TO GET THROUGH
BUT LET ME START JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR AND SAY
YOU KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT IN THE PUBLIC
WHO HEAR ABOUT THE DECISIONS OF THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT, BUT I SUSPECT FEW
KNOW WHAT YOUR DAY IS LIKE.
WOULD YOU JUST DESCRIBE
FOR THE US THE TYPICAL DAY
FOR YOU AND WHAT DO YOU DO AS A JUSTICE
OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT?
I READ A LOT. I READ CERT PETITIONS,
BENCH MEMOS -- CERT PETITIONS FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT LAWYERS
IN THE AUDIENCE ARE REQUESTS BY PARTIES
FOR US TO HEAR A CASE, AND THEY SUBMIT BRIEFS
EXPLAINING TO US WHY WE SHOULD. OUR CLERKS--
PART OF A POOL -- PREPARE A BENCH MEMO ANALYZING
THE CLAIM, TELLING US WHAT
THE STATE OF THE LAW IS
AND WE THEN AT A CONFERENCE THAT
WE HOLD ONCE A WEEK
ON FRIDAY REVIEW THE CERT
PETITIONS THAT HAVE COME IN
AND DECIDE WHICH OF THOSE CASES
WE'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY
HEAR FOR ORAL ARGUMENT. WE HAVE ABOUT 5,000 TO 5,500 PETITIONS A YEAR
AND EVERY ONE OF THEM
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A
HANDFUL THAT GET DISMISSED
FOR PROCEDURAL REASONS, EVERY ONE OF THOSE
IS CONSIDERED BY ALL NINE JUSTICES
AND VOTED UPON.
THAT IS ACTUALLY A GOOD PART OF MY WORK
EVERY WEEK. I SPEND A GOOD PORTION OF EVERY WEEKEND
REVIEWING CERT PETITIONS.
THE REST OF THE TIME I'M READING
PARTIES' BRIEFS, I'M READING AMICI BRIEFS,
I'M READING THE OPINIONS
AND MEMOS OF MY COLLEGUES,
I'M FIRING OFF RESPONSES TO THEM.
IF YOU THINK THAT MAKING DECISIONS AMONG NINE
PEOPLE IS EASY, REMEMBER WHAT YOU GO THROUGH
AT HOME WHEN YOU WANT TO DECIDE WHAT MOVIE
TO GO TO. SO MAKE THE ISSUES A BIT MORE
COMPLICATED AND YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT
EVERY TIME AN OPINION IS DRAFTED
THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF BACK AND FORTH
AMONG THE JUSTICES ABOUT EVEN SMALL WORDS.
AND A LOT OF BIG THOUGHTS, BUT EVERYTHING
IS REVIEWED VERY, VERY
CAREFULLY BEFORE IT'S ISSUED.
AND THEN I DRAFT AND EDIT OPINIONS
WHETHER THEY ARE MAJORITY OPINIONS,
CONCURRING OPINIONS, OR DISSENTS, EACH ONE IS
A MAJOR UNDERTAKING. AND SO THE DAYS
ARE MIXED WITH LOTS OF DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES
VIS-A-VIS THE WORK.
THAT'S THE CORE OF OUR WORK.
AND THEN THERE'S A PART OF MY WORK
THAT I DIDN'T APPRECIATE
AS FULLY AS I THOUGHT
WHEN I TOOK THE JOB, AND THAT'S THE
EDUCATION PART OF OUR WORK.
I ALWAYS KNEW BOTH AS A DISTRICT AND
A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
AND UNDERTOOK IN BOTH ROLES TO INTERACT
WITH THE PUBLIC BECAUSE I'M A VERY
VERY FIRM BELIEVER THAT LAWYERS AND JUDGES
HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO EDUCATE
ABOUT BOTH WHAT WE DO, ABOUT THE LAW, AND
ABOUT OUR DEMOCRACY GENERALLY.
AND SO I'VE ALWAYS SPENT TIME WITH
STUDENT GROUPS. WELL THAT'S CONTINUED,
BUT IMAGINE THAT WHEN I WAS
A JUDGE IN NEW YORK
THE GROUPS I SAW WERE ALL JUST
NEW YORK GROUPS. AND
I THOUGHT, OK NOW I'M GOING
TO SEE GROUPS FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
SO HOW FAR CAN THEY COME FROM?
WELL, THEY COME FROM EVERYWHERE,
BUT THEY ALSO
COME FROM AROUND THE WORLD. ALMOST ON
A DAILY BASIS, ALTHOUGH I TRY ONE DAY A WEEK
NOT TO MEET WITH GROUPS SO THAT I CAN
ACTUALLY CONCENTRATE--
THAT'S MY DAY FOR OPINION-WRITING,
AND I DON'T LIKE
BEING INTERRUPTED--
BUT GENERALLY FOUR TIMES A WEEK I'M MEETING
WITH GROUPS, WHETHER THEY'RE LAWYER GROUPS,
STUDENT GROUPS, I'VE MET WITH SECOND GRADERS.
I'VE MET WITH CHILDREN
FROM SPECIAL NEEDS CLASSES
I'VE MET WITH SENIOR CITIZENS, I'VE MET WITH VETERANS' GROUPS,
I'VE MET WITH -- YOU NAME
A GROUP AND THEY COME VISIT OUR COURT.
AND TO THE EXTENT THAT I CAN,
I VISIT WITH AS MANY GROUPS AS I CAN
BUT IT COULD BECOME A FULL-TIME JOB.
SO YOU DO TRY TO LIMIT A LITTLE BIT OF THAT.
BUT WE ALSO HAVE OFFICIAL VISITORS
FROM AROUND THE WORLD. I'VE MET WITH PRESIDENTS
OF COUNTRIES WHO HAVE COME
TO VISIT AND JUST TALK.
WE'VE MET WITH THE U.N. SECRETARY,
WE'VE MET WITH SUPREME COURT
JUDGES AND JUSTICES
FROM AROUND THE WORLD.
SO THE EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT OF THE WORK
IS VERY, VERY SIGNIFICANT.
THAT'S THE DAY OF A JUSTICE.
AND AS MY MOTHER SAID ON MY FIRST DAY BACK
VISITING HER AFTER MY APPOINTMENT,
"FOR SOME REASON I THOUGHT YOU'D BE READING
LESS -- YOU'RE READING MORE!"
SORT OF A DAY IN THE LIFE OF A JUDGE:
READ, READ, AND READ.
READ, EXACTLY.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, ON BEHALF OF
THE 23,000 PLUS STUDENTS
OF KANSAS STATE, WELCOME TO CAMPUS,
WE'RE VERY GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE.
AS A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT
ARE GOING TO BE ENTERING
THE WORKFORCE AND STARTING CAREERS,
I'D LIKE TO ASK
WHAT WAS THE MOST DEFINING MOMENT THAT
DIRECTED YOUR CAREER, IN YOUR OPINION?
DANNY I CAN'T TELL YOU
THAT THERE WAS ONE SECOND,
ONE MOMENT, ONE EVENT THAT ACTUALLY SAID THIS IS
GOING TO DEFINE MY CAREER.
BUT IT WAS A SEQUENCE
OF EVENTS AND EACH OF THEM
SORT OF CUMULATING IN THE MOMENT
I STOOD BEFORE THE PRESIDENT WHEN HE NOMINATED ME AS HIS
CANDIDATE FOR THE SUPREME COURT.
I'VE OFTEN BEEN ASKED DID I REALLY BELIEVE
IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. AND MY ANSWER
OFTEN IS YOU MAY HAVE DREAMS OF THINGS
BUT YOU DON'T REALLY BELIEVE THEY'RE
GOING TO HAPPEN, DO YOU?
HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN ACE PITCHERS
ON A MAJOR LEAGUE TEAM?
HOW MANY OF US HAVE DREAMT OF BEING PRESIDENT
AT SOME POINT IN YOUR LIFE?
HOW MANY HAVE SEEN THEMSELVES UP ON
A BIG SCREEN?
AND YES, SOME PEOPLE DO ACHIEVE THOSE
ROLES, BUT I THINK MOST OF US, MYSELF IN PARTICULAR
I WANTED TO BE A LAWYER WHEN I WAS NINE
AND A HALF, TEN YEARS OLD
AND MY REASONS WERE VERY SIMPLE,
REALLY UNINFORMED, AND A LITTLE POLYANNIC.
BUT AS I DEVELOPED AND I GOT OLDER,
THOSE FEELINGS HAVE REALLY NEVER LEFT ME.
I LOVE THE LAW. I LOVE THE
PROFESSION OF LAWYERING AND
I ADORE BEING A JUDGE,
PARTICULARLY NOW BEING A JUSTICE. BUT THE
MOMENTS FOR ME WERE AT NINE AND A HALF
WHEN I REALIZED THAT AS A DIABETIC
THAT I COULDN'T BE NANCY DREW, A DETECTIVE.
I HAD TO FIGURE OUT WHAT I COULD
DO INSTEAD, AND I SAW PERRY MASON ONE NIGHT.
AND FOR THE YOUNGSTERS IN THE ROOM,
WHICH IS PROBABLY EVERYBODY
UNDER THE AGE OF THIRTY IN THIS ROOM,
PERRY MASON WAS ONE OF THE FIRST,
IF NOT THE FIRST, TELEVISION
SHOWS ABOUT LAWYERING.
AND PERRY MASON TRIED CRIMINAL CASES.
AND THERE WAS A BIG DISCUSSION AT MY
CONFIRMATION HEARING, AND I TURNED OUT
TO BE RIGHT:
THERE WAS ONLY ONE CASE THAT LOST AT TRIAL
HE LOST AT TRIAL A COUPLE OF
OTHERS BUT HE WON ON APPEAL.
BUT THERE WAS ONLY ONE
CASE HE LOST. PERRY MASON
SPENT THE FIRST HALF OF THE SHOW
INVESTIGATING THE CRIME
AND THE SECOND HALF
WAS A COURTROOM SCENE.
AND AT NINE AND A HALF I LOOKED
AT WHAT HE WAS DOING, AND I SAID,
GEE, I COULD BE AN INVESTIGATOR AS A LAWYER,
JUST LIKE NANCY DREW,
SO THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO BE.
AND I THEN CONTINUED WATCHING
PERRY MASON AND IN ONE EPISODE,
AFTER PERRY HAD WON YET AGAIN,
HE MET UP WITH THE PROSECUTOR AT
A RESTAURANT AND SAID TO THE PROSECUTORY
THAT HE RECOGNIZED HOW MUCH WORK
THE PROSECUTOR HAD PUT INTO THE CASE
AND THAT ALTHOUGH HE, PERRY, WAS
VERY HAPPY THAT HIS CLIENT WAS
PROVEN INNOCENT, THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THAT
IT COULD BE DISAPPOINTING TO THE PROSECUTOR.
AND THE PROSECUTOR LOOKED AT HIM AND SAID,
PERRY YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND --
IT'S MY JOB TO DO JUSTICE, AND JUSTICE TO ME
MEANS THAT THOSE WHO ARE GUILTY
ARE CONVICTED AND THOSE WHO ARE
INNOCENT ARE SET FREE.
AND THAT HAS STAYED WITH ME MY
ENTIRE LIFE. I AM A JUSTICE
OF THE SUPREME COURT. SOME OF YOU
WHO ARE IN LAW SCHOOL ARE
GOING TO READ ABOUT HOW
SIMPLISTIC THAT IDEA IS, AND IT IS,
BUT IT STILL INSPIRES ME.
NOT LETTING INNOCENT PEOPLE GO FREE
OR CONVICTING PEOPLE -- I'M ACTUALLY NOT
DOING THAT ANY MORE,
I'M NOT A TRIAL JUDGE, I'M NOT A
PROSECUTOR ANYMORE, BUT
I AM ENFORCING THE RULE
OF LAW AND SO THAT SEQUENCE
OF EVENTS WAS REALLY WHAT SET
ME ON MY PATH.
AND THEN EACH MOMENT THAT
CAME AFTER IN WHICH I MADE
CAREER CHOICES, INCLUDING WHEN I
GRADUATED FROM LAW SCHOOL,
IT WASN'T A FOREGONE CONCLUSION
THAT I WAS GOING TO BE A
PROSECUTOR. I HAD A FORTUITOUS MEETING
WITH BOB MORGENTHAL, THE MOST
VENERABLE PROSECUTOR IN NEW YORK,
AND COMPLETELY BY ACCIDENT MET
HIM AT A CONFERENCE. WE STOOD
NEXT TO EACH OTHER, HAD A CONVERSATION,
AND HE SAID TO ME: COME INTERVIEW
WITH ME TOMORROW. I WAS
GOING TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT.
AND INSTEAD I WENT TO INTERVIEW
WITH HIM AND TO MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT,
HE OFFERED ME A JOB AND I WENT
A LITTLE BIT WITH MY INTUITION
AND TOOK THE JOB.
SO WHAT ARE THE LESSONS
FROM WHAT I'M TELLING YOU?
DON'T TYPECAST YOURSELF, AND DON'T
JUDGE THE CHOICES YOU'RE MAKING.
FOLLOW A PASSION, EVEN IF THAT
PASSION'S NOT THE NORM.
I HAVE MET ACCOUNTANTS WHO ACTUALLY
LOVE BOOKKEEPING. WHY?
I DON'T KNOW. BUT I KNOW THEY DO.
I HAVE MET STOCKBROKERS,
INVESTMENT BANKERS, JANITORS, TAXI DRIVERS,
PEOPLE IN ALL WALKS OF LIFE,
WHO ACTUALLY TAKE JOY FROM WHAT
THEY DO BECAUSE IT SUITS THEM.
AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE FRET
ABOUT IS THEY FRET ABOUT
DOING SOMETHING THAT'S "IMPORTANT",
I PUT THAT WORD IN QUOTES.
SOMETIMES THE THINGS YOU DO BECOME
PART OF HISTORY, AND I'VE BEEN FORTUNATE
ENOUGH TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW.
BUT THE REALITY IS THAT MOST OF US
SPEND OUR TIME DOING WORK
AND IT SHOULD BE WORK THAT YOU LIKE DOING.
AND SO YOU SHOULDN'T FOLLOW THE ADVICE
OF OTHERS ABOUT WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THEM,
YOU'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT
FEELS RIGHT FOR YOU AND DO THAT.
MY FEELING ABOUT THAT IS THAT
IN THE END IF YOU LIKE WHAT YOU'RE DOING,
YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT WELL AND YOU'RE
GOING TO GET NOTICED. THE TAXI
DRIVER WHO HAS A FLEET OF PASSENGERS
WHO TAKE CARE OF HIM OR HER
WHEN THEY'RE SICK,
IS GETTING AS MUCH SATISFACTION AS I AM
FROM THE WORK I'M DOING.
SO THAT REALLY IS WHAT I'VE TRIED
TO DO IN MY LIFE, IS TO FIGURE OUT
WHAT I LIKE, WHAT MAKES ME PASSIONATE.
YOU MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO,
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, THOSE IN THE CROWD WHO ARE
UNDER THIRTY AND I THINK, THERE IS A
SUBSTANTIAL GROUP IN THE CROWD WHO
ARE STUDENTS HERE AT KU -- K-STATE, PARDON.
LOOKING AT DAN LYKINS WITH HIS PURPLE JACKET,
HOW COULD I HAVE EVVER SAID THAT?
MY FACE IS REDDER THAN JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR'S --
WHO ARE STUDENTS HERE AT K-STATE AND
I'M SURE A NUMBER OF THEM ARE INTERESTED
IN THE POSSIBILITY OF PURSUING A LEGAL CAREER.
AND YET AT THE SAME TIME, THERE'S BEEN
MUCH WRITTEN AND TALKED ABOUT LATELY
CONCERNING CHANGES IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION,
ABOUT THE BURDENING DEBT LOAD THAT ONE
OFTEN ACQUIRES IN LAW SCHOOL AND JOB
PROSPECTS BECOMING DIMMER AND SO FORTH.
WHAT CAN YOU SAY TO THE STUDENTS HERE
TODAY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE LAW IS AN AREA
THAT THEY SHOULD CONSIDER GOING INTO IN THE
FACE OF ALL THESE OBSTACLES
THAT MAY BE PRESENT.
WELL FIRST OF ALL, I'M ONLY GOING
TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL
IF YOU ACTUALLY LIKE THE STUDY OF LAW.
DON'T DO IT BECAUSE IT'S A CAREER.
AS I EXPLAINED EARLIER, A CAREER
IS A CAREER, A PASSION IS A PASSION
AND YOU SHOULD TRY TO JOIN THE TWO.
BUT ASSUMING THAT THE PROCESS, THE METHOD
OF THINKING ABOUT ISSUES THAT IS PROVIDED
BY THE LAW APPEALS TO YOU,
THEN STOP WORRYING ABOUT MAKING MONEY.
WHEN I GRADUATED FROM LAW SCHOOL,
AT MY FIRST JOB I WAS MAKING MORE MONEY
THAN MY MOTHER HAD MADE HER ENTIRE LIFE.
NOW I GAVE UP JOBS THAT WOULD HAVE PAID
ME FOUR TIME MORE THAN THE JOB I
TOOK AND EVEN MY MOTHER WAS TELLING ME,
WHAT ARE YOU, NUTS? WHAT I SAID TO HER
WAS I THINK WE THINK ABOUT CAREERS AS
FINANCIAL, AND THEY HAVE TO BE ON SOME LEVEL--
YOU'VE GOT TO WORK, YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT
A FAMILY, YOU HAVE TO EDUCATE CHILDREN
-BUT WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY,
IN MY JUDGEMENT, THAT HAS OVER-BIG AMBITIONS
ABOUT WHAT SUCCESS MEANS.
MY FAMILY WAS A HAPPY ONE LIVING
ON VIRTUALLY NOTHING. AND I DONT'
RECOMMEND THAT TO PEOPLE--
I LIKE WHERE I AM NOW--BUT WHAT I'M
TRYING TO SAY IS EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT GOING
TO GET A JOB IN A BIG LAW FIRM,
THERE'S STILL MEDIUM AND SMALL LAW
FIRMS THAT NEED YOU. THERE ARE
GOVERNMENT JOBS, PUBLIC INTEREST JOBS,
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PAY AS MUCH BUT THERE'S ALL
SORTS OF WORK IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION
WHETHER IT'S AT LAW SCHOOLS, IN THINK-TANKS
IN A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT PLACES, INCLUDING NEWSPAPERS,
WHO WANT TRAINED LAWYERS TO WRITE
ARTICLES OR HELP CHECK ON FACTS.
CORPORATIONS WHO HIRE LAWYERS NOT JUST
IN THEIR LEGAL DEPARTMENT BUT AS ADVISORS
TO STRATEGIC THINKING. THERE ARE JOBS,
IT MAY BE A LITTLE HARDER TO GET SOME OF THEM,
BUT EVERYONE'S STRUGGLING FINDING WORK
RIGHT NOW. IN THE END, IF YOU LIKE
WHAT THE LAW IS YOU WILL FIND WORK AND
THE BENEFIT OF A LAW DEGREE IS YOU DON'T
EVEN HAVE TO BE A LAWYER.
LOOK AT HOW MANY PRESIDENTS, HOW MANY
SENATORS AND CONGRESS PEOPLE, GOVERNORS AND MAYORS,
POLITICIANS OF ALL KINDS HAVE LEGAL BACKGROUNDS.
LOOK AT HOW MANY BUSINESS PEOPLE,
WHO'VE NEVER PRACTICED A DAY OF LAW,
WENT TO LAW SCHOOL BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT WOULD
GIVE THEM SOME HELP IN ANALYTICAL THINKING.
I BELIEVE IT DOES. AND SO
I START WITH THE PROPOSITION THAT IF IT'S
SOMETHING YOU WANT TO DO, REMEMBER
THAT THERE'S AN AWFUL LOT OF VARIETY IN
THE CHOICES YOU CAN MAKE AND THAT THE ONLY
THING YOU HAVE TO DO IS BE WILLING
NOT TO THINK JUST ABOUT MONEY.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, I THINK OFTEN IN THE
RHETORIC AND PERHAPS ABROAD IN SOCIETY
THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT
DO JUDGES MAKE THE LAW OR DO THEY
INTERPRET THE LAW?
WHAT DO WE DO?
NO, NO. IN CIVIL LAW COUNTRIES --
WHICH ARE MOST OF EUROPE,
ALTHOUGH THE EUROPEANS ARE MOVING CLOSER
TO THE AMERICAN COMMON-LAW SYSTEM--
PEOPLE IN THE CIVIL LAW COUNTRIES THE
ONLY RIGHTS YOU HAVE ARE THE ONES
THAT ARE EXPLICITLY STATES IN A STATUTE.
BECAUSE OF -- AND I THINK IT STARTED
THE COMMON-LAW INTERPRETATION
NOT JUST FROM ENGLAND BUT AS THE
FRAMEWORK OF OUR CONSTITUTION, WE DON'T
APPROACH LAWS GENERALLY IN THE CIVIL MANNER.
WE SET FORTH GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES, GENERAL
STATEMENTS ABOUT WHAT CONGRESS WANTS
TO ACCOMPLISH, OR THE SOCIETY TO ACCOMPLISH
THE RIGHTS IT WANTS TO GIVE, AND IT GIVES
THE COURTS THE JOB OF ENSURING THAT THE BORDERS
OF WHATEVER CONGRESS HAS SAID IN THE LAW ARE UNDERSTOOD.
AND I TALK ABOUT BORDERS BECAUSE
CONGRESS GENERALLY PASSES A LAW THINKING
ABOUT ONE SITUATION, BUT GIVEN HUMAN NATURE
THE SITUATIONS ARE ENDLESS THAT A LAW
COULD APPLY TO. AND SO WE'RE BEING ASKED TO TAKE THOSE
THINGS CONGRESS COULDN'T HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT
BUT THAT FIT WITHIN THE POTENTIAL UMBRELLA
OF A LAW, AND TO FIND THE PARAMETERS OF THAT.
IT'S THE SORT OF THING LIKE
THE BASEBALL RULES. THE BASEBALL RULES
TELL YOU WHAT THE STRIKE ZONE IS, BUT THE
UMPIRE HAS TO USE JUDGEMENT ABOUT
WHERE THE BALL HIT IN THAT STRIKE ZONE.
AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE EVER
PLAYED UMPIRE, YOU KNOW A LOT OF THOSE
BALLS ARE RIGHT ON THE LINE,
SO DID IT TILT THAT WAY OR THIS WAY?
AND SO FOR THOSE WHO SEE AN OPINION
AND SAY, GEE WHAT ARE THOSE JUDGES
THINKING OF, WHAT THEY WERE THINKING
OF WAS WHAT'S MY BEST INTERPRETATION OF
WHAT THE LAW MEANS AND HOW IT APPLIES
TO THIS SITUATION. FOR SOME THEY CALL
IN SOME SITUATIONS MAKING LAW, BUT JUDGES
DON'T APPROACH THE PROCESS THAT WAY.
THEY TAKE THE ANALYTICAL TOOLS THEY'RE GIVEN,
THE INTERPRETIVE TOOLS THEY ARE TAUGHT,
AND THEY APPLY THEM TO THE SITUATION
AND TRY TO COME TO AN ANSWER UNDER THEIR
BEST VIEW USING TOOLS OF WHAT THE LAW SAYS.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S MAKING LAW,
BUT I DO THINK THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ASK
THAT QUESTION SOMETIMES DON'T APPRECIATE
THE COMPLEXITY OF WHAT JUDGING INVOLVES.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, YOU SPOKE EARLIER ABOUT
THE LARGE AMOUNT OF READING THAT YOU
DO PER WEEK. WHAT OTHER EFFORTS
DO YOU MAKE CONTINUALLY TO LEARN AS A PUBLIC
JUDICIAL OFFICIAL ABOUT CHANGING AFFAIRS
IN THE NATION? SO HOW DO YOU
KEEP THE PULSE ON WHAT'S GOING ON?
DANNY I SAW THIS QUESTION BEFORE AND
I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT IT.
I READ THE NEWSPAPER, I DO WATCH THE NEWS
OCCASIONALLY--I'M NOT A TV WATCHER--
BUT I DO FOLLOW THE NEWS.
I THINK EVERYBODY WHO WORKS ON THE INTERNET
GOES THROUGH IT CONSTANTLY, SO I DO TOO.
BUT THE WAY I HAVE VIRTUALLY MY ENTIRE LIFE
GETTING A PULSE OF WHAT GOES ON IS BY
JUST TALKING TO PEOPLE. I CAN'T TAKE --
I THINK I GOT THIS FROM MY MOTHER.
IF YOU PUT MY MOTHER ON A BENCH,
SHE'LL MAKE A FRIEND OF THE TREE.
HER DAUGHTER DIDN'T FALL THAT FAR
FROM THAT TREE. I SPEND ALL MY TIME,
WHEREVER I AM, TALKING TO WHOMEVER I MEET TO LEARN
A LITTLE ABOUT THEM. WHAT THEY DO, WHAT THEY FEEL
ABOUT WHAT THEY DO, WHAT'S TROUBLING THEM
IF THEY START TALKING TO ME ABOUT SOMETHING
THAT'S BOTHERING THEM--SOMETIMES THEY DO--
OR WHAT BRINGS THEM JOY.
FOR ME, THAT'S MY WAY OF STAYING IN TOUCH WITH THE WORLD.
I TRY TO GO TO AS MANY NEW PLACES, INCLUDING KANSAS,
AS I HUMANLY CAN, GIVEN THE LIMITS
PLACED UPON ME BY MY JOB. BUT I ALSO
TRY TO TALK TO PEOPLE WHO DO THINGS THAT I DON'T
KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT SO I CAN LEARN
A LITTLE SOMETHING NEW. SO THAT'S HOW I DO.
YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS
HERE THAT INVOLVE EVOLUTION AND
CHANGE AND THE WAY THINGS HAVE DEVELOPED.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK A NUMBER
OF PEOPLE ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LAW IS ITS
ABILITY TO KEEP UP WITH TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE.
OBVIOUSLY OUR CONSTITUTION COMES FROM AN ERA
THAT SO DIFFERENT FORM THE ONE WE'RE IN TODAY.
EVEN MUCH OF OUR STATUTORY LAW IS BY ITS VERY
NATURE OUTDATED IN TERMS OF THE SORT OF TECHNOLOGY
THAT WAS AROUND WHEN CERTAIN STATUTES WERE PASSED
AND SO FORTH. HOW DOES THE LAW KEEP UP
WITH THIS EVOLUTION IN TECHNOLOGY
AS WE GO FORWARD?
JOHN, I THINK THERE'S TWO COMPONENTS TO THIS
QUESTION. THE FIRST IS HOW DO JUDGES
STAY ON TOP OF TECHNOLOGAL AND
SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS? NOT SO EASY.
FOR ANY JUDGE WHOSE HANDLED A PATENT CASE,
A COMPUTER-RELATED CASE, ANY OF THE
COMPLEX TECHNOLOGICAL CASES, IT IS NOT EASY.
ON SOME LEVELS TO BE A JUDGE, HOWEVER,
YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CURIOSITY ABOUT EVERYTHING
BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE WONDERS OF BEING
A JUDGE: WE GET TO LEARN ABOUT EVERY OTHER PERSON'S LIFE.
I THINK OF MYSELF AS A VOYEUR,
AN UNWELCOMED INTRUDER ON PEOPLE'S LIVES.
UNWELCOMED BECAUSE IF YOU'RE IN COURT,
YOU'RE UNHAPPY ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED TO YOU.
AND I GET TO LISTEN AND WATCH WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING TO ME AND LEARNING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT MAY I HAVE
NO FAMILIARITY WITH AND THEN TRY TO HELP YOU
RESOLVE A PROBLEM INVOLVING THAT ISSUE.
SO I THINK JUDGES DO IT BY JUST IMMERSING
THEMSELVES IN THE ISSUES AND LEARNING
AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND,
WITH THE HELP OF THE PARTIES,
WHAT'S AT STAKE AND WHAT THE ISSUES MEAN.
BUT THEN THERE'S A SECOND COMPONENT,
WHICH IS THE LEARNING COMPONENT IN THE LAW,
AND THERE ARE TIMES THAT I WORRY ABOUT
TECHNOLOGY BECAUSE OF THE INFORMATION OVERLOAD.
IT IS, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM
JUST IN THE LAW, I THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM GENERALLY.
THERE'S SO MUCH INFORMATION AND HOW TO GO
THROUGH IT AND FIND THAT WHICH IS RELIABLE
IS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT. I'M LIKE MOST PEOPLE,
IF I'M COMING ACROSS SOMETHING NEW OR SOMETHING
THAT I WANT A QUICK STUDY ON, I GO TO
WIKIPEDIA. BUT YOU WANT TO KNOW SOMETHING?
I KNOW WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A LEARNED TREATISE,
AND YET THERE ARE SOME LAWYERS WHO HAVE CITED IT IN THEIR BRIEFS.
THAT'S SCARY. THAT'S NOT SCHOLARSHIP, ALL RIGHT?
AND THAT'S MY GREATEST CONCERN, NOT
JUST FOR THE LAW BUT FOR SOCIETY.
CAN I FOLLOW UP ON THAT JUST SLIGHTLY?
WHAT ABOUT THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL NETWORKING
ON THE LEGAL SIDE OF THINGS?
TWEETING OR FACEBOOK AND SO FORTH
AS THAT RELATES TO THE WAY IN WHICH JUDGES,
LAWYERS, AND SOCIETY INTERACT IN THAT CONTEXT?
I'M A DINOSAUR, I HAVEN'T DONE ANY OF THAT
AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF MY COLLEGUES
ON THE SUPREME COURT DO.
AND I'M PROBABLY AHEAD OF MOST OF THEM
IN MY USE OF--I CAN ONLY DRAFT ON THE
COMPUTER, I ACTUALLY KNOW HOW TO NAVIGATE
AND SURF THE WEB, I CAN ANSWER EMAILS,
WHICH SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES CAN'T. SO IT'S NOT
THAT I'M BEHIND THE TIMES GENERALLY,
BUT THE SOCIAL NETWORKING HAS NOT BEEN A PART
OF MY DEVELOPMENT EITHER AS A LAWYER OR AS
AS JUDGE. REMEMBER, IT WAS ONLY IN 1985
THAT I WENT TO MY LAW FIRM, AND MY LAW FIRM
WAS FURTHER AHEAD TECHNOLOGICALLY THAN THE DA'S
OFFICE WAS, WHERE WE WERE STILL WRITING
MOTIONS ON A TYPEWRITER, OKAY? AND I WENT
TO MY LAW FIRM AND THEY WERE STILL
USING CARDS TO PRINT LEGAL BRIEFS.
FOR THE STUDENTS HERE DON'T UNDERSTAND
THAT THE PC AND EVEN THE ABILITY TO SOCIAL NETWORK
IS NOT THAT OLD. IT'S A VERY RECENT
PHENOMENON, WE'RE STILL LEARNING ABOUT THE
IMPACT IT'S GOING TO HAVE ON EVERYTHING.
JUSTICE, WHEN I WENT TO LAW SCHOOL
CERTAINLY, AND EVEN WHEN YOU WENT TO LAW SCHOOL,
IT WOULD HAVE SEEMED VERY UNLIKELY
THAT EITHER OF US WOULD BE HERE IN
THE CAPACITY THAT WE ARE. MANY GAINS
HAVE BEEN MADE IN BRINGING DIVERSITY TO
ALL ASPECTS OF THE ECONOMY AND CERTAINLY
TO THE BENCH. THE STUDENTS HOWEVER ARE INTERESTED
IN YOUR VIEWPOINT ABOUT, TO THE EXTENT
THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE, ABOUT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
AND WHERE WE'VE COME AND WHERE WE MIGHT BE,
AND SORT OF WHAT EFFECT THAT'S
HAD ON SOCIETY AND ON THE COURTS IN SPECIFIC.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS IS A BUZZWORD
THAT BRISTLES WITH MANY PEOPLE. PEOPLE
WHO HAVE HEARD ME USE IT IN SOME
SPEECHES IN THAT PAST IN CONTEXT HAVE
UNDERSTOOD THAT I GIVE IT MY MEANING
AND NOT THE MEANING THAT CREATES THE
BAD REACTIONS IN SO MANY. IN SO MANY,
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION MEANS QUOTAS.
AND THE DEFINITION OF QUOTAS IS THAT YOU
TAKE UNQUALIFIED PEOPLE TO FILL A POSITION
AND YOU BYPASS QUALIFIED PEOPLE.
WHEN I WAS GROWING UP, IT WAS THE
BEGINNING OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, AND AT THE
TIME IT HAD VERY DIFFERENT CONNOTATION.
IT WAS A CONNOTATION IN THE SOCIETY
THAT THERE WERE SOCIAL STRUCTURES THAT
HAD BEEN BUILT AROUND PRECONCEIVED
NOTIONS THAT EXCLUDED WOMEN AND MINORITIES
FROM PARTICIPATING FULLY IN THE SOCIETY.
I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF THIS
AND THE LESSON I UNDERSTOOD FROM IT.
WHEN I WAS A DA, YOU STARTED OUT
IN THE LOWER MISDEMEANOR COURT HANDLING
PETTY CRIMES AND YOU EVENTUALLY
MOVED UP TO TRY FELONIES. BOB MORGAN AT
THE TIME DIDN'T MOVE EVERYBODY UP IN
A GIVEN YEAR, HE WOULD MOVE PEOPLE
UP IN WAVES. IN THE FIRST GROUP TO BE
SELECTED THERE WERE FIVE BUREAUS WITH
ROOKIE DA'S THAT WERE SELECTED TO MOVE UP
FIRST. FOUR WERE MEN AND ONE WAS A WOMAN, ME.
NOW WHEN I READ THAT, THE OFFICE WAS HALF WOMEN
AND I THOUGHT TO MYSELF, THIS IS
A LITTLE SKEWED AND WHY
IS THIS SKEWED? BECAUSE I HAD WATCHED
THE WOMEN, AND TO ME THEY SEEMED TO BE
PERFORMING AS WELL AS THE MEN,
AND I KEPT THINKING ABOUT IT AND I KNEW
THAT THE PEOPLE THAT I WORKED WITH
WEREN'T CONSCIOUSLY SEXIST.
SO WHAT WAS GOING ON? AND I REALIZED
AFTER AWHILE THAT WHAT IT IS IS THAT
IF ALL YOU HAVE IS MALE SUPERVISORS
WHO HAVE BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN PROSECUTING,
THAT THEIR IMAGE OF SUCCESS BY DEFINITION
IS GOING TO BE A MALE IMAGE.
THE PEOPLE THEY'RE GOING TO BE MOST IMPRESSED
BY ARE PEOPLE LIKE THEM, AND THEY
MIGHT HAVE A SLIGHTLY MORE DIFFICULT
TIME SEEING THAT THE QUIETER WOMAN
MIGHT BE JUST AS EFFECTIVE, BUT IN A DIFFERENT
WAY. AND IN FACT THAT WAS THE CASE
BECAUSE WOMEN WERE PROMOTED, SOME OF THEM
EVENTUALLY STARTED TRYING AS MANY HIGH-PROFILE
CASES AS MEN AND MANY OF THEM
BECAME SUPERVISORS OVER TIME.
SO WHAT DID THAT TEACH ME, OR
WHAT'S THE LESSON I TOOK FROM THAT?
IT'S THE LESSON THAT I TOOK FROM
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND THE ONE THAT I
UNDERSTOOD FROM AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AS I UNDERSTOOD
IT, WHICH WAS THAT IT WAS A CONSCIOUS
CHOICE BY SOCIETY TO UNDERSTAND THAT
THE NORMS OF SELECTION IT HAD SET UP
WERE INFLUENCED BY A SYSTEM THAT EXCLUDED OTHERS.
BY THAT I MEAN IF ALL THE PEOPLE YOU
HIRE ARE PEOPLE WHO GO TO PREP SCHOOL,
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY MINORITIES
IN YOUR SCHOOL. SO YOU HAVE TO SIT DOWN AND
SAY, WHAT IS IT ABOUT PREP SCHOOLS?
WHAT DO THEY TEACH AND HOW?
WHAT IS IT ABOUT STUDENTS WHO GO THERE
AND THE WAYS IN WHICH THEY SUCCEED?
AND TRANSLATE AND MOVE OUT OF THE SECURITY
OF PICKING PEOPLE FROM PREP SCHOOLS
AND SAY, I'M GOING TO TRY OTHER SCHOOLS
AND SEE IF THEY GIVE ME STUDENTS
OF THE SAME QUALITY.
I WENT TO ONE OF THOSE HIGH SCHOOLS,
I WENT TO A COLLEGE-PREP SCHOOL
IN THE BRONX, A CATHOLIC SCHOOL.
BUT VIRTUALLY NOBODY FROM MY SCHOOL HAD GONE
TO AN IVY LEAGUE SCHOOL.
THE FIRST WAS THE FRIEND WHO HELPED ME GET
INTO PRINCETON. I FOLLOWED HIM.
AND THE DOORS TO THE IVY LEAGUES LOOKING
AT MY HIGH SCHOOL AS A FEEDER SCHOOL OPENED.
BUT THAT WAS BECAUSE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION,
BECAUSE THE SCHOOL UNDERSTOOD THAT ITS
REGULAR PATTERNS HAD TO BE EXPANDED.
AND THAT TO ME IS WHAT THE REAL AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION, MAKING PEOPLE SENSITIVE TO WHY THEY'RE MAKING
CHOICES, TO BE THINKING MORE BROADLY
ABOUT THE CRITERIA AND HOW IT CAN BE
APPLIED IN DIFFERENT SETTINGS.
SO I THINK WE'VE MADE A HUGE AMOUNT OF
GAINS IN THAT AREA. BUT I DO THINK WE STILL HAVE
STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS IN THE SOCIETY THAT
HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE WE REACH
FULL EQUALITY. FOR ME THE MOST IMPORTANT
OF THOSE IS EDUCATION. WE CAN'T LIVE
IN A SOCIETY WHERE THE POOREST CHILDREN
ARE THE POOREST EDUCATED. WE JUST CAN'T.
THAT'S A STRUCTURAL ISSUE THAT HAS TO BE
ADDRESSED BY THE SOCIETY BECAUSE IN MY
OWN COMMUNITY, THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY AS YOU KNOW,
WE HAVE THE HIGHEST DROPOUT RATE
OF ANY OTHER GROUP THAN PERHAPS THE NATIVE AMERICANS.
A LOT OF THAT CAN BE TIED TO THE REASONS
WHY WE HAVEN'T REACHED AN EQUALITY COMPARABLE
TO OUR PRESENCE IN THE POPULATION.
WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH COLLEGE GRADUATES,
WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PROFESSIONALS COMPETING
FOR THOSE JOBS THAT ARE IMPORTANT IN THE
SOCIETY IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH.
SO WE'VE COME VERY, VERY FAR, BUT WE
STILL HAVE FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURAL ISSUES THAT WE
HAVE TO FIX BEFORE WE CAN REACH EQUALITY.-
JUSTICE, WHAT ARE THE THINGS YOU CONSIDER
WHEN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO
GRANT CERTIEORARI IN A CASE
APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT?
DANNY, EVERY QUESTION YOU ASK ME ABOUT
WHAT I CONSIDER, UNDERSTAND THAT I'M STILL
FIGURING IT OUT. LAST YEAR--
AND I TELL THIS STORY FREELY-- JUSTICE
STEVENS CIRCULATED WHAT I THOUGHT WAS
AN EXTRAORDINARY TOUR DE FORCE OPINION.
IT LEFT MY MOUTH OPEN AND I CALLED
HIM UP TO TELL HIM I WOULD JOIN BUT
REQUESTED SOME CHANGES TO THE OPINION,
AND SAID TO HIM --A LITTLE DESPERATE--
THAT I CAN'T DO THIS. AND HE SAID TO ME,
SONIA, I'VE BEEN ON THE COURT FOR
FORTY YEARS. WHAT DO YOU THINK LIKE
I WAS BORN A JUSTICE? HE SAID,
YOU'VE GOT ALL THE TOOLS, EACH YEAR
YOU'RE HERE YOU'LL GROW.
AND THAT GAVE ME SO MUCH COMFORT
AND SO I'M THINKING ABOUT ALL THESE ISSUES.
RIGHT NOW I HEW FAIRLY CLOSELY TO OUR RULE
ABOUT THE CASES ONE SHOULD TAKE FOR
CERTIORARI AND THAT SUPREME COURT RULE 10
WHICH BASICALLY HAS THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT
CRITERIA FOR TAKING CERT. THE FIRST
AND THE MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT THERE'S
A CIRCUIT SPLIT. I HAVE ACTUALLY APPRECIATED
WHY THAT IS. YOU NEED A CIRCUIT SPLIT,
YOU NEED TWO COURTS DISAGREEING WITH
EACH OTHER, OR MORE THAN TWO COURTS TO
DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER, TO MAKE SURE THAT
ALL OF THE BEST ARGUMENTS ON EITHER SIDE
HAVE BEEN AIRED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT GETS IT.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT WHEN THE
COURT TAKES A CASE IT TAKES A CASE
IN A PARTICULAR FACTUAL SETTING. AND THAT
SETTING WILL ONLY HIGHLIGHT CERTAIN CONSEQUENCES OF THE
COURT'S DECISION. IT'S ALWAYS HELPFUL
TO HAVE SEEN WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE
COURTS BELOW IN DIFFERENT FACTUAL SETTINGS SO YOU
FEEL SOME COMFORT THAT ALL THE ARGUMENTS
ON BOTH SIDES HAVE BEEN RAISED AND THAT
YOU'VE SEEN ENOUGH HOW THIS ISSUE AFFECTS
DIFFERENT FACTUAL SITUATIONS SO THAT AS
YOU'RE DECIDING WHAT THE LAW MEANS YOU
UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT YOU'RE
DOING FULLY. SO I HAVE UNDERSTOOD THE NEED FOR THAT.
THE SECOND CRITERIA IS THAT STATE
COURTS AND FEDERAL COURTS ARE DISAGREEING.
SURPRISINGLY THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN ALL
THAT OFTEN IN A PURE FORM.
STATE COURTS AND CIRCUIT COURTS SEEM TO DIVIDE
IN EQUAL NUMBERS AROUND ISSUES,
BUT THE FACT THAT AN ISSUE MAY AFFECT
STATE COURTS MORE THAN FEDERAL COURTS
CAN BE IN SOME CASES AN IMPORTANT
REASON TO TAKE A CASE WHERE THE
CIRCUITS ARE SPLIT AS OPPOSED TO
WHERE THE STATES ARE SPLIT
INSTEAD OF WHERE THE CIRCUIT IS SPLIT.
THERE IS A QUESTION ABOUT AN IMPORTANT
FEDERAL QUESTION THAT REQUIRES ANSWERING.
THAT'S WHERE THE COURT'S JUDGEMENT
IS PROBABLY THE MOST EXERCISED,
BECAUSE VIRTUALLY EVERY QUESTION THAT COMES
TO US IS IMPORTANT, SO WHAT'S IMPORTANT
ENOUGH TO COME TO US IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE IS REALLY THE NUB OF THE MATTER.
AND THAT'S WHERE I THINK THE GREATEST
LEARNING BY ME IS HAPPENING, BECAUSE THAT'S
NOT AS EASY TO DEFINE.
AND SO THOSE ARE THE GENERAL CRITERIAS.
ONE LESSON I'VE LEARNED-- THIS IS
PROBABLY LESS IMPORTANT TO THIS GROUP
HERE THAN TO A PURE LAWYER'S GROUP,
DANNY, IS NOT EVERY CASE PRESENTS A
QUESTION CLEANLY. AND BY THAT I MEAN
WHAT WE EUPHEMISTICALLY CALL
"VEHICLY PROBLEMS". THAT THERE ARE
CASES THAT PRESENT THE LEGAL ISSUE,
BUT BEFORE YOU CAN REACH
THAT LEGAL ISSUE THERE'S A LOT OF
PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS OR OTHER QUESTIONS
EMBEDDED IN THE CASE THAT MIGHT STOP
YOU FROM REACHING THE QUESTION THAT'S
IMPORTANT. AND SO A LOT OF
TIMES IT MAY BE A TERRIBLY IMPORTANT
CASE, BUT IT HAS A SERIOUS VEHICLE
PROBLEM BECAUSE WE'LL NEVER GET TO THE
ISSUE-- WE MIGHT NEVER GET TO THE ISSUE.
SO ALL OF THOSE FACTORS GO INTO US
DECIDING WHEN TO TAKE CERTIORARI.
I BELIEVE I'M CORRECT IN SAYING THAT YOU
ARE THE FIRST JUSTICE IN A LONG TIME TO
HAVE SERVED AS A TRIAL COURT JUDGE
AS WELL AS A COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE.
DO YOU THINK THAT THAT HAS GIVEN YOU
ANY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE OR HOW HAS THAT,
IF AT ALL, CONTRIBUTED TO YOUR
PERSPECTIVE AS A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE?
I AM PROBABLY-- NOT EXCLUSIVELY, BUT OFTEN --
MORE INTERESTED IN CIRCUIT PROCEDURAL SPLITS
THAN MY COLLEAGUES MIGHT BE.
AGAIN, TO THE NON-LAWYERS IF I CAN
EXPLAIN THAT. I JUST SAID TO YOU THAT THERE
ARE SUBSTANTIVE, MEATY QUESTIONS THAT ARE
IMPORTANT THAT THE CIRCUIT SPLITS AROUND.
BUT DISTRICT COURT JUDGES AND CIRCUIT COURT
JUDGES' WORK IS GUIDED BY, CABINED BY, AND
CONTROLLED BY PROCEDURAL RULES WHICH PARTIES
HAVE TO FOLLOW BEFORE A COURT CAN GET TO THE
MERITS OF A QUESTION. JUST AS IN
ALL HUMAN ENDEAVORS THERE'S DIFFERENCE
IN OPINIONS, THERE ARE VAST DIFFERENCE OF
OPINIONS AMONG JUDGES BELOW ABOUT THE
PROCEDURAL RULES. THE CONSEQUENCE OF THAT IS
OFTEN TO CREATE MORE HEADACHES FOR DISTRICT
COURT JUDGES, MORE HEADACHES FOR
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES ON HOW TO REVIEW
THINGS, AND I THINK, OR I SEE MYSELF BEING
MUCH MORE SENSITIVE TO THAT THAN MOST
OF MY COLLEAGUES ON A DAILY BASIS.
AND I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE,
BUT I THINK IT'S A VOICE IN THE ROOM
WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER
TO TAKE CERTAIN CASES.
I HAVEN'T ACTUALLY DONE THE STUDY
MYSELF, BUT I THINK YOU MAY SEE CERTAIN
KINDS OF PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS THAT MORE
HAVE HEARD AND TO THE EXTENT THAT
MY PRESENCE MAY HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE
ON THE VOTE ON THOSE, I THINK IT DOES
HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE CONVERSATION.
MAY I SAY ON BEHALF OF ALL OF US
THAT HAVE TO WORK WITH THOSE
EVERY DAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT.
SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES WOULD SAY I
DON'T LIKE CLEAR SUBSTANTIVE RULES,
AND THAT MAY BE TRUE SOMETIMES
BECAUSE I ALSO LIKE GIVING THE COURTS
BELOW A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY ON SOME THINGS.
WELL WE THANK YOU FOR THAT. LET'S
TURN A LITTLE BIT TO YOUR PERSONAL REACTIONS
TO THE COURT. WHAT SURPRISED YOU
THE MOST AND SORT OF THE KIND OF UNSEEN
THINGS THAT WOULD SURPRISE A NEW
JUSTICE ABOUT THE COURT?
THE THING THAT HAS SURPRISED ME THE MOST
THAT I DID NOT ANTICIPATE WAS THE BURDEN
I WOULD FEEL IN MY DECISION MAKING
AS A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. I HAD JUST
REALLY NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
I'D BEEN A JUDGE FOR EIGHTEEN YEARS
AND WHEN I FIRST CAME TO THE DISTRICT COURT
ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES, WHO LATER BECAME
AND IS A VERY DEAR FRIEND, CAME TO SEE ME
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A JUDGE THAT HAD
LEFT THE COURT A LITTLE WHILE BEFORE,
AND HE SAID, YOU KNOW THIS JUDGE WAS
PARALYZED WITH DECISION MAKING. HE WASN'T SLEEPING.
HE WAS A GREAT LAWYER, BUT HE HAD TO LEAVE
THE BENCH BECAUSE HE JUST
COULD NOT TAKE THE BURDEN.
AND MY COLLEAGUE SAID TO ME, SONIA
WE'RE HUMAN BEINGS. THE BEST WE CAN DO
IS TO DO OUR BEST IN EVERY CASE.
TO PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE PARTIES,
TO HEAR THEM, AND TO GIVE THE BEST ANSWER
WE HAVE, OR CAN DO. BUT WE CAN'T
LIVE WITH REGRET. YOU HAVE TO MOVE ON
TO THE NEXT CASE AND HELP THE NEXT SET
OF PARTIES. JUST REMEMBER, THERE'S A COURT
OF APPEALS AND THE SUPREME COURT TO FIX
ANYTHING YOU DO WRONG.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THAT GAVE ME AN
ENORMOUS SENSE OF SECURITY MOVING FORWARD,
AND I ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF JUDGING, BUT I UNDERSTOOD WHAT HE MEANT
ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THAT MY RESPONSIBILITY
WAS TO DECIDE THE CASES AND LET THEM
GO TO THE NEXT COURT.
THERE'S NO NEXT COURT NOW. AND I HAD
NOT ANTICIPATED HOW THAT WOULD FEEL.
I ALWAYS PAID VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE
WORK I DID, BUT I FIND IT HEAVIER NOW
IN A WAY I HAD NOT THOUGHT ABOUT.
I HAD NOT CLERKED ON THE SUPREME COURT
WHEN I WAS YOUNG LAWYER SO I DIDN'T KNOW
WHAT THE BUILDING OR THE INSTITUTION WAS LIKE
EXCEPT ALL OF THOSE BOOKS ON THE SUPREME
COURT THAT I HAD READ THAT SOME OF YOU
MAY HAVE READ ABOUT. SOME OF THE
STORIES THEY TELL DON'T REALLY
SOUND VERY NICE.
AS I WAS GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS, ONE
OF MY FRIENDS PICKED UP, "THE NINE," WHICH
I HAD, AND SHE CALLED ME UP BECAUSE
SHE KNEW I HAD IT BY MY BEDSIDE, SHE HAS
VISITED ME FOR A PARTY. AND SHE SAID,
DON'T READ THE BOOK, YOU'LL NEVER TAKE THE JOB.
I FOLLOWED HER ADVICE. I WAS TOO BUSY
TO READ THE BOOK. BUT I HAVE BEEN SO PLEASANTLY
SURPRISED BY THE COLLEGIALITY AMONG
THE JUSTICES. THERE'S GENUINE AFFECTION
AMONG PEOPLE AND THERE'S GENUINE COMMITMENT
TO THE INSTITUTION, TO THE COURT, TO ITS
HISTORY, TO THE WORK WE DO. IT GETS
TRANSLATED INTO EVERYBODY IN OUR BUILDING
WHO HAS ANY JOB IN THE BUILDING, YOU CAN FEEL THEIR
REVERENCE FOR THE COURT. NOT NECESSARILY
FOR US AS INDIVIDUAL JUSTICES, BUT FOR
THE COURT AS AN INSTITUTION.
THAT REALLY IS A VERY SPECIAL FEELING
WHEN YOU GO TO WORK AND YOU SEE THAT
YOU'RE WORKING AMONG PEOPLE WHO REALLY REVERE
WHAT THEY'RE DOING ON EVERY LEVEL.
SO THOSE THINGS-- ONE NOT AS PLEASANT, THE OTHER MORE
PLEASANT-- HAVE BEEN MY BIGGEST SURPRISES.
LAST YEAR CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS CALLED
THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS "A POLITICAL
PEP-RALLY" AND RECENTLY SOME HAVE CALLED FOR
AND PARTICIPATED IN INTERMINGLED SEATING OF REPUBLICANS
AND DEMOCRATS INSTEAD OF THE TRADITIONAL PARTISAN
SEATING. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, WHAT
DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL?
I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE PROPOSAL,
I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE,
BUT I THINK I'LL MAKE MY POINT, OKAY?
ONE OF MY BEST FRIENDS IS THE DEFENSE
ATTORNEY WHO TRIED HER FIRST CRIMINIAL
CASE AGAINST ME AND MY SECOND CRIMINIAL TRIAL.
SHE WILL TELL YOU AND TELL HER--
WELL SHE TOLD HER CHILDREN FOR YEARS WHEN THEY ASKED WHO WON
THE CASE, WE WOULD BOTH RESPOND,
WE BOTH WON, WE BECAME FRIENDS,
UNTIL THEY GOT OLD ENOUGH TO ASK
WHO REALLY WON, BUT...
NOW, WE WERE BOTH YOUNG PROSECUTORS,
SHE WAS PASSIONATE ABOUT HER CLIENT,
I WAS PASSIONATE THAT HER CLIENT
SHOULD BE CONVICTED. THERE WASN'T
AN OUNCE OF WORK THAT EITHER OF
US FOREWENT ON BEHALF OF THE INTERESTS
THAT WE WERE REPRESENTING. WE FOUGHT
CIVILLY, BUT TOOTH-AND-NAIL
IN THE COURTROOM, AND WE WALKED OUT
AND ADMIRED EACH OTHER ENOUGH
TO BECOME FRIENDS.
TO THIS DAY I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW
MANY CALLS I GET FROM HER SAYING,
WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU JUDGES?
SHE'S STILL A CRIMINIAL DEFENSE
LAWYER, OKAY? I'LL LOOK AT HER AND
WE'LL GET INTO A HUGE FIGHT
I LEARNED IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW
THAT HAVING COMMITMENT AND PASSION
AND MORALS AND INTEGRITY AND VIEWS
AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE IMPORTANT
TO EVERY HUMAN BEING. THAT WHAT HELPED
ME DO MY JOB BETTER WAS THAT I
UNDERSTOOD THAT PEOPLE WHO OPPOSED
WHAT I WAS DOING POSSESSED THOSE SAME
QUALITIES. AND I LEARNED THAT I LEARNED
TO LISTEN TO THEM AND RESPECT THAT
THEY WERE COMING FROM THE SAME PLACE THAT
I WAS BUT WE WERE COMING TO DIFFERENT
CONCLUSIONS, THAT I COULD DO MY JOB BETTER.
SO EVERY CASE I WOULD PUT MYSELF
IN THE SHOES OF THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY
AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY WERE
THINKING SO I COULD ANTICIPATE MY
TRIAL STRATEGY. BUT I COULD ONLY DO
THAT IF I REALLY RESPECTED WHAT THEIR
ROLES WERE. I THINK THAT THERE
IS NOT A CONFLICT IN DISAGREEING
AGREEABLY. I THINK PEOPLE CAN DO IT.
I THINK IT HELPS US REACH BETTER
SOLUTIONS THAT WAY. EVEN WHEN ONE
PARTY'S VIEWS DON'T WIN OUT AND
THE OTHER'S DO, IT'S A DIALOGUE WITH
VALUE, IT ENHANCES THE DISCUSSION.
AND SO, I WAS THERE AT THE STATE
OF THE UNION LAST YEAR, I WAS THERE THIS YEAR.
PERSONALLY, I LOVED SEEING JOHN MCCAIN
AND KERRY SITTING NEXT TO EACH OTHER.
I DID. AND I SAW PEOPLE WHO
I SAW ON DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE
AISLE DURING MY HEARING SITTING NEXT
TO EACH OTHER. AND IT WAS MUCH
MORE PLEASANT FOR ME. OTHER PEOPLE MAY
HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS, BUT I--
FOR THE REASONS I SAID I LIKE
AGREEABLE DISAGREEMENT.
DO WE HAVE TIME FOR ANOTHER ONE?
WE'RE NOT QUITE SURE WHEN THEY'RE GOING
TO PULL THE PLUG ON US.
(LAUGHTER) GIVE YOU ONE MORE.
I TOLD JACKIE I'D RUN OVER,
BUT I DON'T WANT TO BORE PEOPLE.
WE'RE AT THEIR DISPOSAL HERE.
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WAS
PROPOSED HERE I THINK IS VERY
INTERESTING, AND YOU'VE TOUCHED ON
A BIT OF THIS, BUT AS YOU SEE THE
INTERACTION BETWEEN
SOCIAL ISSUES THAT FACE OUR COUNTRY
GOING FORWARD AND THE ROLE OF THE UNIVERSITY
IN DEALING WITH THOSE, HOW DO
YOU SEE THAT ROLE AS FAR AS ADDRESSING
THE MOST IMPORTANT SOCIAL PROBLEMS THAT
YOU THINK OUR COUNTRY FACES?
I THINK THAT THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES
IS TO TAKE STUDENTS OUT OF THEIR
COMFORT ZONES AND INTRODUCE THEM TO NEW
EXPERIENCES AND NEW IDEAS. DIFFERENT
FROM THE ONES THEY CAME WITH, CHALLENGING
TO THE ONES THEY HOLD, AND TEACHING THEM
IN AREAS THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.
I'M A FIRM BELIEVER-- AND IT'S ADVICE
I GAVE MY NIECE AND I WILL GIVE MY
NEPHEWS WHEN THEY'RE READY--THEN MY
GOD-CHILDREN --TO GO TO COLLEGE, TO EVERY
ONE OF THEM I SAY: BECOME A
RENAISSANCE PERSON IN COLLEGE.
DON'T JUST TAKE COURSES IN ONE AREA
TAKE COURSES IN EVERYTHING THEY OFFER.
YOU WANT TO GROW UP TO BE AN
INFORMED CITIZEN, SO EVEN IF YOU'RE GOING
TO BE A GRAPHIC ARTIST, AT LEAST
UNDERSTAND ECONOMIC THEORY.
EVEN IF YOU WANT TO BE A DOCTOR,
TAKE A LAW COURSE IT'S NOT GOING TO
HURT YOU, IT MIGHT EVEN HELP YOU
IF YOU HAVE A MALPRACTICE SUIT
AGAINST YOU. I'M JESTING ABOUT THAT,
BUT I DO THINK THAT THE ROLE OF
INSTITUTIONS IS TO FIND WAYS TO
TAKE STUDENTS OUT OF THEIR COMFORT
ZONES AND EXPOSE THEM TO MORE. (APPLAUSE)
I KNOW THE PROVOST IS GOING TO WRAP US
UP HERE, BUT I'D LIKE TO SAY A WORD
TO ALL OF YOU GATHERED AND TO THE JUSTICE.
WE ARE SO GRATEFUL THAT YOU CAME
DURING AMONG THE BUSIEST TIMES IN THE TERM
TO BE WITH US AND I WOULD BE REMISS IF I
DID NOT SAY THAT SHE IS HERE ALSO
ON BEHALF OF A COMMEMORATION YOU SHOULD
ALL KNOW ABOUT, WHICH IS IT IS THE 150TH
ANNIVERSARY OF THE FEDERAL COURTS IN KANSAS.
IT IS NO SURPRISE AND NO ACCIDENT
THAT WE WILL CELEBRATE 150 YEARS OF STATEHOOD
AND 150 YEARS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS
THIS WEEKEND, BECAUSE KANSAS WAS THE
FRONTIER OF THE RULE OF LAW AT THAT
TIME. AND YOU MAY NOT KNOW THIS: THERE
WERE MORE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS
IN KANSAS DURING A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME
THAN THERE WERE ANYWHERE ELSE BACK IN
THOSE DAYS, BECAUSE OF THE FORTS
THAT WERE OUT HERE ON THIS FRONTIER.
SO AS YOU THANK THE JUSTICE FOR HER APPEARANCE
AND HER PARTICIPATION IN AN EXPREMELY
IMPORTANT WEEKEND FOR THE STATE OF
KANSAS, I HOPE YOU'LL ALSO REFLECT ON YOUR
PART IN CARRYING THAT LEGACY FORWARD
OF THE RULE OF LAW ON THIS FRONTIER.
THANK YOU TO K-STATE. (APPLAUSE)
JUDGE TACHA, THANK YOU FOR REMINDING US
OF A PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT ANNIVERSARY FOR OUR
STATE. I THINK WE DO NEED GIVE JUDGE
LUNGSTRUM A LITTLE BYE ON HIS QUICK GAFFE.
PLEASE NOTE THAT BOTH OF OUR GUESTS, WHO
ARE KU GRADUATES, ARE APPROPRIATELY, DRESSED TODAY.
THEY SAID THEY CAME NEUTRAL, AND IN
FACT JUDGE LUNGSTRUPM INDICATED THAT HE WAS WEARING
GREEN IN COMMEMORATION OF THE KONZA, SO
I WANTED TO BE SURE TO TELL YOU THAT. (APPLAUSE)
AND I ESPECIALLY CHOSE MY NATIVE
AMERICAN JEWELRY FOR THIS OCCASION.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, I THINK THAT YOUR LAST
COMMENTS OF RESPONDING THAT BRINGING OUR STUDENTS
TO PLACES THEY DON'T KNOW AND HAVING
THEM LEARN NEW THINGS AND COME OUT OF
THEIR COMFORT ZONE IS SOMETHING THAT I PARTICULARLY
RESONATE WITH AND I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING
THAT KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TAKES VERY,
VERY SERIOUSLY AND YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET A NUMBER OF OUR
STUDENTS AND I HOPE THAT THEY WILL ASK
YOU QUESTIONS AND LEARN FROM YOU.
ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY, I WANT
TO THANK YOU SO SINCERELY FOR MAKING TIME
IN YOUR SCHEDULE TO COME HERE AND HELP
ALL OF US KNOW MUCH MORE ABOUT SOMETHING
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT IN OUR COUNTRY,
THAT BEING THE SUPREME COURT.
WE'RE DELIGHTED TO ADD YOU TO THE LIST
OF MANY HONORED LANDON SPEAKERS.
WOULD YOU NOW JOIN ME IN THANKING JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR.
(APPLAUSE)