Two of the world’s most distinguished jurists compared and contrasted their judicial systems in a discussion yesterday at the Georgetown University Law Center. In a packed auditorium, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Baroness Brenda Hale, the first woman to join the British House of Lords as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, spoke on topics ranging from the structure of the British and U.S. judicial systems to sexism and its influence on bathrooms in the courthouse. The discussion was centered on the creation of a new supreme court in the United Kingdom on which Hale will serve as one of 12 justices. The new supreme court, scheduled to open for business in 2009, will mark a move toward a more unified national judiciary for Britain. Both noted that one issue they had in adjusting to life in their male-dominated field was the restrooms. “Everybody’s got a bathroom story,” Hale said. Hers was a lack of a bathroom. As a new member of the Privy Council, Hale found when arriving to her new place of work that a women’s restroom for her was not yet complete. She used the registrar’s bathroom until hers was ready. Ginsburg told of a time she and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor both received the same letter from “Dear Abby,” an advice columnist, who told of a reader who had been denied use of a women’s bathroom at the U.S. Supreme Court building because it was too early in the morning. The woman, visiting the court with her husband, wanted to use the restroom before listening to arguments that morning. When she tried, a security guard informed her that the bathroom would not be opened until 9 a.m. “It was tradition, and nobody thought about changing it,” Ginsburg said. The two moved on to issues such as the role of law clerks – called legal assistants in the United Kingdom – on their respective high courts and a discussion of difficult questions the courts are currently facing. Hale noted that legal assistants in her court have a much smaller role in shaping judges’ decisions than Supreme Court law clerks. “They never, ever, ever write our judgments. Never ever,” she said. Hale did note, however, that the House of Lords “dines à la carte,” meaning it, like the Supreme Court, decides what cases it will hear. Both women agreed that the treatment of suspected terrorists was a major legal issue in both countries. To make her point, Ginsburg pulled out a pocket Constitution. “Our constitution, in the 14th Amendment, says, `Nor shall any State deprive any person’ – person, not citizen – `of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,'” she said. “The United States Constitution surely recognizes the fundamental rights of all persons.” During the question-and-answer session, one attendee asked about ethics in the legal profession. Ginsburg spoke of a responsibility legal professionals have to the community. “Make things a little better in your community, your nation and your world,” she said. Hale echoed in agreement, noting her belief was more general. “The greatest duty of the legal profession is to be honest,” the Baroness said. The discussion was sponsored by the Law Center and the Supreme Court Fellows Alumni Association.