Premise: Justice Ginsburg, we have no quarrel with the objective of harmonization fitting within the "promote the progress of science" understanding subject to constitutional limitations. If France adopted a rule that said you couldn't grant copyrights to hate speech, we could not harmonize with that rule consistent with our First Amendment and similarly, as Mary Beth Peters testified before Congress, ours is the only Constitution that has an express limitation on terms.
Hypothesis: Justice Ginsburg and Mary Beth Peters testified know each other