Transcription
[Music] [Music] e for [Music] [Music] [Music] for [Music] [Music] [Music] oh my God on [Music] [Music] [Music] for [Music] [Music] for [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] e [Music] [Music] [Music] e [Applause] e e [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Applause] [Music] [Music] he e [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] in [Music] [Music] [Music] for [Music] [Music] [Music] e [Applause] [Music] e for [Music] [Music] [Music] for [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] for e [Applause] oh [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] he [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] it [Music] e [Music] for [Music] [Music] for for [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] come e [Music] [Music] all [Music] [Music] [Music] for [Music] [Music] w every [Music] w [Music] oh [Music] [Music] [Music] for for [Music] know [Music] [Music] what you [Music] [Music] doing [Music] [Music] for [Music] e [Music] [Music] [Music] for [Music] for e e e
Good afternoon, hi everyone! Welcome. My name is AJ Demo, and I am the director of the Knight Foundation's Media and Democracy Program. For 75 years, the Knight Foundation has sought to strengthen American democracy through funding journalism across the country and arts and culture projects in communities, and the success of American cities where the Knight brothers once published newspapers. One of those cities is Miami, where the Knight brothers once owned the *Miami Herald*. Its rise as an American metropolis is nothing short of magic. Both our skyline and our collective story reflect the resilience, the ingenuity, the cultural vibrancy that define the generations before us. And today, you get the sense that Miami has just begun a new chapter, with new characters and new stories to be told. I believe that if our community's next chapter is better than the last, it will be because the people in this room write it. In this room are nonprofit and business leaders, public servants, artists, lawyers, academics, content creators, and students who make up Miami's next generation of civic leadership. As this next chapter unfolds, we not only have an opportunity, but we have an obligation to take responsibility for both our community and one another. So this is all to say that we are incredibly excited and honored to host someone whose own story of civic engagement serves as an inspiring example: Justice Sotomayor. On behalf of the Knight Foundation and the entire Miami community, thank you for visiting our home. I also want to thank iCivics and St. Thomas University for their partnership, and Miami Dade College for serving as our host. I would like to remind the audience that photos and videos are not permitted during the program. And now I would like to welcome the first woman president of Miami Dade College, Madeline P. Vega, to introduce our featured speakers. [Applause]
Good evening. What a special night it is indeed to be here as the first female president of Miami Dade College and the first Hispanic chancellor of the State of Florida, as I introduce the first female president of the Knight Foundation and the third Supreme Court Justice, but the first Hispanic. And it is indeed, as AJ says, special to be doing that in the Magic City, to be doing it here at Miami Dade College, where we serve 125,000 students—the most diverse institution in this country. 163 countries are represented in our student body, and on any given day, 43 languages are spoken throughout our college. But all of that is tied to one pursuit: the pursuit of the American dream through the power of education. So it is really an honor to be hosting this event this evening. And I have to tell you that I love the Justice because, you know, she said, “I want to see students,” and so we took a few minutes and she had an opportunity to hear the dreams and aspirations of students from Miami Dade College, the University of Miami, and Florida International University. So thank you for sharing that moment with the Justice. [Applause] If you're a student from any one of our institutions, please stand. [Applause] I want to let each of you know you inspire us, and we know that the world is okay and that the future is bright because of you. So thank you, and you may be seated. Tonight we have the privilege of hearing from two esteemed leaders who have broken barriers and paved the way for others to follow: Marivel S. Wadsworth, the president and CEO of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, as the first woman to lead the foundation, she continues to expand its vision and impact, ensuring that communities stay informed and engaged; joining Marivel is our guest of honor this evening, The Honorable U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a true pillar of justice for our nation. I would like to welcome them both to the stage. [Applause]
Thank you so much, Madeline, for that great introduction, and thank you, Justice, for this gift to our community—the amount of time that you're spending. You were at St. Thomas University earlier today; you're here now; tomorrow you're spending time with 500 Miami-Dade County Public School students. Tell us why you're here, how are you connected to Miami, and why was it so important for you to spend time with our young people?
Well, I have two connections to Miami. First, my friend from law school, Rudy Aragon, who was a lawyer who practiced in some of the biggest law firms in Miami, and we were classmates at Yale. In our third year, he announced that he was going to come practice in Miami. Now you have to understand, back then Miami was a little bit of a sleepy backwater. At Yale, Miami was not the city that you went to. And the rest of us who were close friends with him were thinking… and he kept insisting that it was one of the fastest-growing cities in the United States and that it was a powerful place for Latinos and Latino leaders, and that the business spirit of Miami was going to have a huge impact not only in the economy of Florida but in the economy of the nation. You know, he came; I would visit him periodically; he kept moving from one nice house to another nice house to another nice house; he made more money than any of us; and he’s been incredibly active in the community here. And so he was my first draw to Miami. Then my mother moved to Miami—moved to Margate, Florida, in 1992. The reason I can’t forget the year is because she waited for my induction as a district court judge, went on a supposed vacation, and two weeks later she calls me and she says, “I’m moving to Florida.” My husband—her then-husband—hated New York’s cold, and they came here and fell in love with Florida. So since then, I would come frequently to Florida. I would come every year, multiple times, mostly to visit her but to travel around and see it. So I now have friends who are family here, and I feel like I’m tied to both this city and the state in important ways.
You’re familiar with it, so you could just come visit your friends, but you decided to really pack your schedule these few days. Why was that important?
I’m a storyteller, so you got to live through my stories. Okay, the day I went to the Supreme Court after I was sworn in… outside my office were these tremendously large garbage things that they take the garbage from all of the offices and dump it into. So you know how big that is? Okay, there were three of them outside my office, and I’m like, “What are these?” And I pull my hand in, and it was invitations! And some were congratulations. A few minutes later, one of the mail delivery people walks by, and I said, “Three of these?” And he said, “No, six. There’s three more downstairs.” Oh my goodness! I looked at my then-assistant and said to her, “Wait a minute… I’m going to have to respond to all of this, but I can’t do it immediately. Let’s sort it out, and let’s sort it out by topic and activity.” And so the ones that were congratulations… another lawyer friend helped me devise the letters to respond to people who had written to me. And to this day, I take those forms and I personalize them because every letter has something personal that the person’s asking me, so they’re getting a personal response. But I respond… the other half were literally invitations to every activity in the world. Okay, you name it. People ask me… I’ve traveled the world to do rule-of-law teaching. I’ve been to universities; I’ve met kings and presidents of countries; some of them have come to the Supreme Court to meet me. I’ve met with Supreme Courts—state Supreme Courts in the United States—and also Supreme Courts around the world. If it was only legal, all of those meetings would eat up all my time, just that. Okay, then there are invitations from colleges all over the country, from law schools all over the country, from grammar schools all over the countries. But there are book clubs; there are academic conferences that want me to speak. The list is just endless of activities that people want me to do. But I have a job, and the job requires attention. The work requires attention. If I did everything I was invited to, I wouldn’t be able to work. Okay, there’s no way to do that. It would literally… I wouldn’t work or sleep. Okay, so I had to make a decision of what do I choose to say yes to, all right? And I made a very conscious decision, and really after a lot of thought: Where does my presence… where can my presence make the greatest impact? And my decision was talking to young people, trying to inspire them to understand the power they have because I didn’t know it when I was growing up that I had any power. I also, for those of you who know my story, didn’t grow up in an environment where I actually believed that I could become something great, you know, from where I started and where I’ve landed. It’s a huge road, but I got here.
You did. And even though you had many challenges growing up—the same that many people of my background have, if not all—you did reach this place. It’s nothing short of remarkable.
And certainly you are an inspiration. I’d love to touch on that a little bit more because the trajectory from the projects in the Bronx to a seat on the Supreme Court is paved with incredible resilience. You mentioned challenges, of course. There would be… talk a little bit about what resilience means to you.
This is a saying that then-Vice President Joe Biden told me, and it’s become my definition of resilience. Okay, he told me that it was what his mother said to him. And I, the minute he said it, I knew it reflected my life and how my definition of resilience… it was: His mother told him, Joe—I’m quoting him, okay, I don’t call him Joe—Joe, people are not… people’s character is not measured by the number of times that they’re knocked down; it’s measured by the number of times that they can get up and try again. And that’s what my definition of resilience is. I look at law students, and I know the audience has a few of them, but I think of almost every profession: No one’s 100% successful at every moment in what they do. If you’re a lawyer, you’re going to lose cases. Even if you’re a transactional lawyer, there are going to be some cases that go awry, some deals that go awry. Perfection is impossible in anything you do. A doctor, regretfully and woefully, is going to lose a patient… unless you’re doing something easy. But if you decide to confront life with all its complexities, then success and failure are a part of it. And to me, trying is what’s important. It’s not whether you succeed; no, it’s trying and learning from those failures, that way when you succeed you can enjoy it more.
I think that’s such an important message, and it reminds me—you made that point about your mother—that one of the things that she taught you and expected from you was the trying. Yes, she didn’t expect the As; she expected you to try your very best. Tell us more about what your mother represented for you. She clearly had a big impact, and she wanted and toiled hard to make sure that you and your brother had the very best education. What did your mother represent for you?
Everything. I have often said that if I’m half the woman that she is, then I’m very lucky, because she was extraordinary. My mother taught me about community and that civic participation in community is not just government service, right? That it is something much, much broader, bigger, and smaller at the same time. That civic participation is each and every one of us attempting every day of our life to do small and as many big things as we can to make the world a better place. And for her, that was being the nurse for our projects and for the places we lived. Everybody knew Sedena, and I can’t tell you the number of times there was a knock on the door to say, “I heard your mother’s a nurse; will she answer a question?” And inevitably, Mommy would disappear to go help somebody, do something, take a shot, figure out a medical machine, whatever it was. My aunt, when she died—my mother’s sister—when she died, we found… it was extraordinary; there was a stack of letters from every charity in the United States—St. Jude’s, Shriners, you name any church, any nonprofit—all of them got a quarter or 50 cents. I was sitting there thinking of how many stamps she must have used and how inefficient this was, but I recognize a woman who lived on the bottom level of Social Security. Okay? She had never earned hardly anything in her life; a lot of it was earned in being a seamstress where it was off the books. Okay, so her reported income was next to nothing, and yet, for someone who had nothing, she wanted to help others. My grandmother fed the whole neighborhood. From the example of the women in my life, in particular, I saw that community building is not about taking on always the big projects. That’s right. It’s taking on the little ones, too. And I tell audiences, especially of students, you have an obligation to be publicly minded, but not in the sense of becoming a lawyer or a doctor or a firefighter or police officer. It really doesn’t matter what you do. You can be a bus driver; you can be a firefighter. My mother would say to me, you could clean toilets; I don’t care, but whatever you do, be the best at it that you can be. And secondly, when you do it, do it with a smile. And that smile is not unimportant because it makes the world and people around you feel better. And that’s what you do for community; you give outreach as you can within your talents, within whatever limitations you have, but every one of us has an obligation to be a member of your community and helping. And if you see a problem and you can do something about it, you have an obligation to try. And whether you fail or don’t, it’s the trying that’s important.
So that finishes the first question you asked me: Why do I speak to young people? We adults have messed up the world for you. Think about it. We have two world wars going on, or two wars; we have countless local frictions; we have health problems, environmental problems, income disparity problems, educational disparity problems. You name it. What are we giving you? A world full of problems. If you’re relying on the adults to fix it, it ain’t going to happen. So what you have to do is realize, if you’re a young person, that you have not only the energy but you still have not been worn down by life; you should have the optimism necessary to change the world. And that’s what I want you to do. That’s why I come speak to you because I want you to believe in your power to make the world a better place. You have all the bad examples from us; do a better job. Try it in a different way. Maybe the things we tried… you see that we implemented them poorly. Whatever your answer you come to, don’t give up. Continue believing in your power because it’s boundless if you believe in yourselves. And so for me, that’s why I do this.
Yeah, one of the things that you said that’s really stuck with me is this idea that there are no bystanders in this life, and I think that’s such an important idea—this idea that every individual has that power. As you’re talking about… you last year at an event with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, you… in fact, I’ll just read it because I think it’s such an important statement: You said, “Civic engagement is not merely about electoral politics; it is about every act we do as a citizen to help solve a problem that the community has; it is what we undertake as individuals to help resolve difficulties in the world around us.” What’s one thing—and I’m always very action-oriented—what’s one thing that each person here has the power to do when they walk out the door?
Well, I’m not walking out the door, but there isn’t a person in this room that has an excuse for not voting. And I tell every audience that I… of students… I go to college students; only have a 50% rate of voting. That’s inexcusable, and to me it’s inexcusable. I firmly believe that in a republic like ours, voting is our voice. And that means, whether you like politics or not—and I don’t care if you don’t like it—but that’s where the bystander statement comes in. Bylaws are made by whom? By people. So who changes laws? People. And they don’t get changed by being a bystander in life and letting things you don’t like roll over you. Whether it’s a truck hitting you or a bus hitting you or a car hitting you, if you stare at it and don’t do anything, you don’t move out of the way, you’re going to get hit and smashed, and that’ll be the quality of your life. So if you want a better life, you have to understand that you have to do something to change its quality. You have to maintain this Republic. Those were Ben Franklin’s words when he was coming out of the Constitutional Convention. A woman stopped him and said, “What kind of government do we have?” And his response was, “A republic, if you can keep it.” But one of my colleagues, Neil Gorsuch, says, “Democracy is messy business.” It is messy business because democracy means that everybody has a voice, and voices become tension-filled, and cacophony can get very loud and overwhelming. But you can also guide our Republic to a better place if you participate and join with others who think or feel like you do to affect change. But you got to fight for it. You… it doesn’t sit back; it doesn’t just happen. It happens because we care as people, and you have to engage one another.
I’d love to turn a little bit on that point to civility and civil discourse broadly. Some of the most memorable lines from opinions in the last Supreme Court term came from your dissents. Legal issues aside, how you dissent reflects, I think, to me a remarkable ability to make a very pointed argument while also being respectful in disagreement and civil in disagreement with your colleagues. What do you hope citizens draw from those dissents, and do you think there are lessons that we can take away for how members of the Court disagree with one another that we could apply to our broader civil discourse?
People are all surprised about the fact that justices, from whatever backgrounds, and how often they agree or don’t agree… that we are in public, like I was with Amy K. Barrett, is the way I am with all of my colleagues. We really do have a civil discourse. We actually sit around a table and vote, and in our voting we have certain protocols. One of them, which is very important, we go in order when we’re discussing a case, from the most senior Justice, who always starts with the chief, and then it goes down and around the table in descending order of seniority. And our protocol is that no justice is interrupted; they get to say what they want to say, and we go around the table. And then there’s sometimes further exchange back and forth, and then we’re sort of having a cross-conversation. But the first and most important part is listening. Too many people spend their time in discourse arguing their position instead of listening to the other person’s position. And unless you listen, you can’t determine what’s really bothering the person. And until you determine that, you can’t determine whether there’s a way of approaching the problem that could use… that can be a compromise in some way. But it is that listening to each other—not the agreeing with each other—and that’s what people don’t understand, which is it’s the courtesy of knowing that we’re listening to each other that permits us to remain cordial even when we are diametrically opposed to each other in the legal answer.
And if you read our opinions, it’s argument, but it’s not personal argument. I’m not accusing them of being stupid; I’m not accusing them of having ill intentions or ill will. Too many people, when they hear political opponents, automatically ascribe bad intentions to them: They’re bad people. People who you disagree with are not bad people; they have different ideas, and they genuinely… my colleagues whom I disagree with frequently are not bad people. We both love this country; all of us love this country; all of us love our Constitution and our system of governance; all of us are passionate about protecting them. We disagree about what’s best to do that, and we’re trying to engage each other, and understanding what the other thinks will improve that dynamic. But it’s never that I think they’re bad people. You know, I often say, good people do bad things; good colleagues sometimes have silly thoughts, but it doesn’t make them bad.
Or silly. In that act of active listening and respectful exchange, you all come with strong arguments. Does that active listening, from time to time, result in persuasion?
Absolutely. Yeah. And in ways the public… well, just take something you can see, which is look at our voting. Yes, there are opinions where you can see the divide and imagine that it’s all political, you know, it’s six—the conservatives and three the liberals—but it’s not always that way. Certainly there are some cases, often they’re constitutional cases, for the following reason: Because we all have our ways of approaching the Constitution, and that way of approaching things might be a decent indicator of where we might come out. Okay. But if you look at the rest of our cases—and most of them—you’ll see big divides that are not ideological in terms of politics; they are really different ways of using statutory interpretation tools to come to an answer. And you can tell what a Justice values in terms of which tool they think is more important than the other, but it’s not made up; it is very much using standard tools of interpretation and saying those standard tools lead me to this result. And that’s why our decisions can be 5–4 sometimes, and the mixture of people’s… can be dramatically different. And we have those kinds of cases all of the time, and that’s because we are thinking about each legal problem on its own. Not every statute is the same; not every business issue is the same; not anything else is the same; and neither is our response to everything.
I think that level of transparency around the nuance of all of these questions is so important because we often these days are talking about the erosion of trust in our institutions. I know this is a topic that has been, you know, near to you. Just last week, while you were visiting Kentucky, you made the point… you had concerns that the court gets ahead of public opinion. There have been a lot of precedents overturned that leads to further concerns about the trustworthiness of our institutions, maybe the Supreme Court specifically. What are the steps do you think that the court and other institutions need to take to strengthen public confidence?
Well, I did speak about it last week. For the court itself, what I have explained is that most people believe that law is black and white. You know, they think… and they don’t understand why we disagree because it’s the law, and you should be able to get an answer clearly. And law is not black and white; law is gray. And it’s gray because very few laws are written in such precise terms that you can tell its limits exactly, all right? And the Constitution says no unreasonable searches and seizures. How do you define what’s unreasonable? It’s a bit of trial and error, isn’t it? It’s the development of law and precedent that sort of defines the parameters of that, and that’s almost… all things are written in that way. No undue delay—that’s a favorite lawyer’s term. Okay, what’s undue? When is it undue? What circumstances is it undue? Those are why you hire lawyers and why you have judges to try to figure out what the parameters of law are and of what the parameters of whatever words are chosen are. But people come away with discomfort with that. One of my colleagues said, “We’re only umpires,” and my retort is: Has any of you ever been umpires? Is the ball in or out? What do you do when it’s right on the line? The umpire has to call it. Those are judgments, and that’s what life is: It’s a series of judgments with… people can get uncomfortable with that.
Yeah. When I said, “Don’t get ahead of public opinion,” I think that was not quite what I said. We don’t decide on the basis of public opinion, but we must be cognizant that every time we upset… we upset people’s expectations in the stability of law, it rocks the boat in a way that makes people uneasy about whether they’re protected or not protected by the law. And so there are circumstances where we have and should do it. *Brown v. Board of Education* was a dramatic change from existing law—not so dramatic if you had actually watched the evolution of what had happened after *Plessy v. Ferguson* in 1898. That was the case that said separate but equal. There had been, from that time till *Brown v. Board of Education*, cases throughout the United States, many of them brought by Thurgood Marshall and his team, that were challenging the premises of that case—that in certain states were saying, “We said separate but equal, but if you have a white law school and you don’t have a black law school, there’s nothing separate and equal about that.” Okay? And so we had cases like that sort of telling the states, “Wait a minute, we meant it when we said separate…” and then slowly we start… cases started coming and showing the inequality until you got a Supreme Court who, through many, many amicus briefs, looked at the record and realized something very important. And the case was originally argued this way, which was the arguments were first that the equality wasn’t real, all right? And that’s how Thurgood Marshall’s team started in the courts. And at a certain point, they realized it’s not just that equality isn’t equal, but it’s not faithful to the meaning of the Constitution—the equal protection of the law—and that it was a dignitary harm that you didn’t have to measure by how many professors the school had or what resources the school had, but by whether it was consonant with a civil war that had promised equality to all its citizens. And so that’s when the shift came, and the court there was a little bit ahead of the society. And as you know, public opinion wasn’t uniformly in favor of it.
That’s right. In fact, there was a huge amount of resistance. There was a question whether President Eisenhower would enforce the court orders of these segregations, and all of you know Norman Rockwell’s famous painting with the little African-American girl dressed in a white outfit being walked by marshals to her school—famous painting. There were many of those, but there was a question whether Eisenhower was going to send the police, the marshals, to do that, and he did, and he obeyed the law even though he personally disagreed with it. But having said that, most of the time the court doesn’t go ahead of public opinion. We never did with women’s rights because the court isn’t a social engine; the court is an enforcer of the laws that the society passes. And on women’s rights, it was women in the political arena who got voting in 1920; it was not the courts. And up until Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor came to the court, women lost in the Supreme Court. We have Supreme Court cases saying women could be denied certain areas of practice in law; they couldn’t be prosecutors or defense attorneys because their frail constitutions would not cope with that sort of work. Those were the terms used to deny women being butchers, all right? This… the court… my court was really far behind equality. It wasn’t until Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, all of the other things that got passed by the society that the court could then step in and enforce what laws had been written. So it is… we walk a very tight line, and that line… but it’s one that involves all of you as citizens with a small “c,” being engaged in moving the law forward.
You just referenced President Eisenhower and the question of whether he would enforce the Court’s decision. I think that’s a really timely topic… I’m not getting too much into… no, but this… broadly speaking, the relationship between the branches of government, the checks and balances in our system… how do you view the continued relevance of these founding principles of checks and balances in maintaining our constitutional democracy?
You know, our founders believed that they had created—and they have—created a pretty incredible checks and balances system. The… the woman who asked Franklin, she said, “Do we have a monarchy or something else?” And his response was, “A republic.” Our Founders were hellbent on ensuring that we didn’t have a monarchy, and the first way they thought of that was to give Congress the power of the purse. And because that’s an incredible power, they gave the president the power of the military, and that’s also… and that means not just Armed Forces but law enforcement, which is an incredible obligation of the president. They gave the courts the power to interpret, and we have to do it by persuasion. We have to, in our opinions, make it clear to the society, to the presidents, to the Congress, to the people that we are doing things based on law and the Constitution as we are interpreting it fairly. And so our goodwill or our power is the power of reason, and that’s… most people would consider a soft power, but it’s the most powerful of all of it because money can be taken away by Congress; if they give it, they can take it away. A president has four years, and he or she could be removed. Those things are ephemeral in that sense of it. Court decisions stand, whether one particular person chooses to abide by them or not; it doesn’t change the foundation that it’s still a court order that someone will respect at some point. That’s the faith I have in our system, and that other actors in the system, whether it’s Congress or others, will follow the law because it’s what we all take an oath of office to do.
I think it’s important and timely… another one of our institutions that has suffered from eroding trust, but was so critical that our founding fathers insisted on naming it in our First Amendment: And that is the freedom of the press—freedom of the press and the news media. And of course, that’s the world I come from, and something that I and the Knight Foundation spend so much time really working to reinvigorate in our nation. I’d love to hear a little bit from you about how important you feel the role of the press is for our country, for our democracy, and to the extent you wish to share with us, where do you turn to for your news and information?
I mean, it’s… I’m not going to name… I tried, but I will say the following: Many have called the press in the past the fourth branch of government because the press has always brought transparency to whatever the other three branches are, and that’s fundamental to a republic or a democracy because it is truth that lets people see and make informed choices. The internet is creating an extraordinary challenge to the press and to the world because it’s largely unregulated; it has no standards of conduct. You know, most newspapers and news channels have requirements of vetting the information that they’re disseminating. Walter Cronkite was one of the most respected men in his era. If Walter said it, everybody believed it, all right? And they had reason to because Walter Cronkite, as a newscaster, had an incredible code of honor, and every word he spoke was vetted completely. Don’t have that anymore. And so what the press is dealing with is the same thing government is in almost the same way.
Yeah, which is a lack of trust. Yes. But I am not… I mean, papers have to… papers and newscasters, podcasters, and internet users… integrity comes from within. Whatever the law permits you to do is the minimum standard of conduct; that’s not the standard that you should be aspiring to. Everyone who interacts on the internet should impose their own higher standard of integrity. What are you going to report on? When are you going to take unverified information and just pass it on? People get to know the news sources that are more reliable in that respect. It may take time, but they start doing that. And all of us have an obligation, too, right now, which is: Information literacy is the most important topic of our society today. That’s what, in part, the Knight Foundation is trying to promote; that’s what my organization, iCivics.org, is doing. We have whole lessons on information literacy—of learning about how to check facts. Wikipedia is not reliable; don’t cite Wikipedia in your papers. Okay? But you have to learn how to be a real researcher; you have to go back to original sources; you cannot depend on what people are telling you before you make choices about the direction anything should be going in in this country. Actually study it, and don’t trust that any news source is giving you the whole picture, no matter how reliable you feel they’ve been. That’s a dangerous practice in a world that has changed so dramatically. When I was growing up, there were three main news channels; now there are hundreds, if not thousands, sometimes. And I turn on the TV, and I don’t know where to start. You know, and talking about on the internet, you can get lost in the materials to digest. News literacy is the obligation of all of us to become more knowledgeable on how to get accurate information.
Thank you for that. I couldn’t agree more, and I know that we have so many of our students here across local universities, and I know it’s a topic that’s so pressing. I feel like I need to jump on that same soapbox because I really think fundamentally: If we don’t have information, if we don’t have news literacy, we simply are not equipped to make decisions; we’re going to lose our democracy. We will lose our democracy if all of you—particularly you young people, but everyone—make it their responsibility to be literate about the basis for your decision-making. We have a lot of people in this room who are leaders across sectors—academic leaders; we have business leaders; we have student leaders; we have folks who are active in our arts and culture in South Florida. I’d love to hear a little bit about how each of these folks could inspire, using their own platforms and their own reach and voice—how could they inspire the community and use their platforms for the public good?
There’s a sign upstairs—on one of the posters on the floor—that I got out of, and it said, “World change happens through inspiration, education, and a smile.” I’m going to change that: It happens through inspiration, education, and passion. Most leaders are followed because of the passion that they have in their vision. People will follow those who have are wide-eyed and really… you believe are caring about whatever they’re leading on, and they show it in not only their words but in their actions. And so if you’re a leader of any kind, do not be afraid to exhibit your passion; it’s your greatest selling point; it is what convinces people… people to follow you. And so for me… if you don’t know I love the law
We have majority and dissenting opinions, and sometimes concurrences. Each side presents its best arguments and exposes flaws in the opposing logic; we test each other. Many majority opinions improve after the dissenting opinion's first draft, because it pokes so many holes in the majority's arguments that they must be refined. The dissenting opinion raises the bar. We go back and forth until each side presents its strongest arguments. If anyone takes shortcuts, the other side will pounce. Then, you, the citizens, can examine the cited sources and decide for yourselves. That's what constitutes discourse: listening, understanding each side, and responding thoughtfully. Justices' opinions always begin by stating their view and reasoning. The second half explains why the opposing arguments are unconvincing. The reader should maintain their initial belief at the decision's end.
I'm distressed by how few people have read a Supreme Court decision cover-to-cover. Look at how many hands aren't raised! It's not due to illiteracy or lack of education; you're caring citizens. Most people don't believe they'd understand, but you won't know unless you try. After reading a decision cover-to-cover, you'll likely pause and say, "Wait, the other side made good points." I read both sides' briefs. I start with the petitioner, and often think, "Wow, that's powerful." Then I read the respondent's brief and think, "That's a good answer." Then I decide what I think is right. You'd do the same, but most people don't. To be an informed citizen, read Supreme Court decisions. Your legal opinions will then be less politically or emotionally driven, and more informed by what you believe is legally right. Everyone has an assignment: choose a decision, read it, and email the Justice your thoughts.
I'd like to address a shared experience: being the first woman, Latina, or person of color in a role. What advice do you have on navigating this while maintaining integrity and authenticity? I integrate myself into new institutions. I've never isolated myself, using my identity to create a sense of security. At law school, my five closest friends were all people of color, sharing similar backgrounds. At Princeton, I joined many groups. At Yale Law School, I was on the Law Journal, worked in admissions, and became managing editor of the Yale Law Journal on World Public Order. At the Court, I attend every event—from Historical Society gatherings to events with state court judges and attorneys general. It's important to be involved.
I learn about my colleagues, meeting their families and learning their interests (I know a lot from the confirmation process). I try to connect with the institution and its traditions. I attend every employee recognition day and the annual spring barbecue (though I no longer man the grill!). Being present helps you become part of that world. To stay true to yourself, maintain connections with what matters. My Latino, Black, Native American, and Mexican-American friends remain lifelong friends. My family has been critical; they traveled to Princeton and Yale. My small room held six of us at once. I took my mother and family to the dining hall. She always took me to a Chinese restaurant afterward. My Mexican-American friend brought food sent by her mother. My Puerto Rican friends and I had Puerto Rican meals. I brought the Puerto Rican traveling theater to Princeton, created a class on Puerto Rican history there, and wrote my Yale note on Puerto Rican seabed rights. This kept me connected to my community without separating me from the institution.
I may be the only Justice to have a Latina wedding at the Court (sadly, no dancing!). Photography was allowed, and we had a portrait unveiling. The cafeteria cook made a Latino-spiced dish; he even roasted a pig outside in the rain! I’ve never denied my culture or hidden my love for Spanish, salsa, or our music, las décimas (rhyming verses). These things are important, and I share them proudly. We must enjoy new experiences, integrate, and stay true to ourselves. I tell kids to bring their families when visiting colleges. Many in this audience have similar backgrounds. I ask how many have brought their parents or grandparents. There’s often a fear of misunderstanding or awkwardness. That's okay; their presence can help you feel less insecure. It's all right for your mother to say, "It's okay." But they need to see it to understand it. Integrate, but hold onto your own identity.
Now, two student questions. Noah Feberg from Florida International University: The Judiciary is often called the non-political branch. What role should public opinion play, especially with major societal implications? Public opinion shouldn't dictate outcomes; that's why federal judges have lifetime appointments—to avoid political pressure. But we should be sensitive to how we express ourselves. Consider *Marbury v. Madison*, which established judicial review. Some call it a made-up doctrine, as the Constitution doesn't explicitly state it. Most other governments don't have this system. *Marbury v. Madison* was revolutionary. It brilliantly reasoned from the Constitutional structure and checks and balances that judicial review is necessary. It’s brilliant legal work, but not based on plain meaning. The court avoided a crisis by not ordering Jefferson to deliver a commission, but established a rule of law we've largely followed. There have been exceptions (Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, the Trail of Tears), but largely, the rule of law has helped maintain our democracy. The Court proceeds cautiously, avoiding getting too far ahead or behind society. We must move slowly, allowing society to absorb the changes. Undoing precedent should happen gradually. We should decide cases based on individual facts; broader pronouncements have produced poor results.
Amanda Santos from the University of Miami Law School: There's so much information on career aspirations, money, and success. It's hard to discern personal versus external expectations. You famously said, "I don't measure myself by others' expectations or let others define my worth." How did you arrive at that decision, and how has it impacted your life? When graduating from Yale, I met Robert Morgenthau, head of the Manhattan DA's office. I intended to be an international commercial lawyer, but took a chance at the DA's office after he offered me a job. My Yale advisors and friends advised against it, fearing it would hinder my career. But I knew there were things I wanted to learn about the practice of law. It was the best decision, even though it wasn't glamorous. I started at $17,500 with student loans, but my mother earned similarly and raised two children. Put things in perspective. Stay true to yourself and define success by your own goals. I didn't aspire to be a Supreme Court Justice. I wanted to graduate from high school, college, and law school and get a job; my dream was to be a trial lawyer. But I took every opportunity, always trying my hardest. My book details my efforts to improve my writing. I tried my best at every job. During my district court judge interview, everyone on the committee knew someone who could vouch for me because of my community activities. Forget the noise; figure out what you need to do. If you focus on making a difference, you will. It's okay to be ambitious; it's what you do with that ambition that matters. Many of my law clerks do pro bono work. They balance business and heart. You can combine your ambitions with a commitment to others. There is always a way to serve.
Thank you to the Knight Foundation, Miami Dade College, and iCivics.org. Sander De O’Connor started iCivics to combat declining civic education and the increasingly partisan discourse. Civic education receives only 5 cents for every $50 spent on STEM. iCivics uses video games to teach middle schoolers, and is now expanding to high school and college. Play the games; even lawyers won't pass them all. I'm proud of my participation on the iCivics board. Civic education is critical. Thank you for attending. Here's an illustration of the Freedom Tower as a commemorative postcard. Thank you, Justice Sotomayor.