November 20, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10723 

John Ripley is a symbol for the vibrancy of the Marine Corps, one of the 

most storied military forces in the 

globe’s history, and a testament to 

how—amid the enormity and vast confusion of war—a single person can 

make a difference. 

I will miss seeing him at various 

events, including those of the Marine 

Corps Law Enforcement Foundation. 

We will continue to honor his service 

through support of the Marine Corps 

and of all of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. 

I ask unanimous consent that an 

obituary on Colonel Ripley, which appeared in the November 4 edition of the 

New York Times, be printed in the 

RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

[From the New York Times, Nov. 4, 2008] 

COL. JOHN W. RIPLEY, MARINE WHO HALTED

VIETNAMESE ATTACK, DIES AT 69 

(By Dennis Hevesi) 

John W. Ripley, a highly decorated former 

colonel who entered Marine Corps lore when 

he single-handedly blunted a major North 

Vietnamese offensive during the Vietnam 

War by blowing up a strategically placed 

bridge, died Oct. 28 at his home in Annapolis, 

Md. He was 69. 

The cause has not been determined, his son 

Stephen said. 

Colonel Ripley, who at the time was a captain and a military adviser to a South Vietnamese Marine unit, blew up the southern 

end of the Dong Ha Bridge over the Cua Viet 

River on Easter Sunday, April 2, 1972. On the 

north side of the bridge, which was several 

miles south of the demilitarized zone, some 

20,000 North Vietnamese troops and 200 tanks 

were poised to sweep into Quang Tri Province, which was sparsely defended. 

Going back and forth for three hours while 

under fire, Captain Ripley swung hand over 

hand along the steel I-beams beneath the 

bridge, securing himself between girders and 

placing crates holding a total of 500 pounds 

of TNT in a diagonal line from one side of 

the structure to the other. The I-beam wings 

were just wide enough to form pathways 

along which he could slide the boxes. 

When the boxes were in place on the 

bridge, Captain Ripley attached blasting 

caps to detonate the TNT, then connected 

them with a timed-fuse cord that eventually 

extended hundreds of feet. 

‘‘He had to bite down on the blasting caps 

to attach them to the fuses,’’ John Grider 

Miller, author of ‘‘The Bridge at Dong Ha,’’ 

said on Monday. ‘‘If he bit too low on the 

blasting cap, it could come loose; if he bit 

too high, it could blow his head apart.’’ 

Captain Ripley bit safely, and the timedfuse cord gave him about half an hour to 

clamber off the bridge. Moments later, his 

work paid off with a shock wave that tossed 

him into the air but otherwise left him 

unharmed. 

By placing the crates diagonally along the 

bridge, Mr. Miller said, Captain Ripley had 

created ‘‘a twisting motion that ripped the 

bridge apart from its moorings so it couldn’t 

fall back in place, but collapsed into the 

river.’’ 

There were about 600 South Vietnamese 

marines near the south end of the bridge. 

‘‘South Vietnam would have been in big 

trouble,’’ said Fred Schultz, senior editor of 

Naval History Magazine, a publication of the 

United States Naval Institute. ‘‘The force 

numbers defending on that side could not 

have held against that North Vietnamese 

force.’’ 

The destruction of the bridge created a 

bottleneck for the North Vietnamese, allowing American bombers to blunt what became 

known as the Easter offensive. 

Captain Ripley was awarded the Navy 

Cross for his actions at the bridge. He served 

two tours in Vietnam and remained on active duty until 1992, eventually rising to 

colonel. Among other decorations, he received the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and 

a Purple Heart. 

John Walter Ripley was born on June 29, 

1939, and grew up in Radford, Va., the son of 

Bud and Verna Holt Ripley. He enlisted in 

the Marines out of high school in 1956, and a 

year later received approval from the secretary of the Navy to attend a preparatory 

school leading to his appointment to the 

Naval Academy, from which he graduated in 

1962. 

Besides his son Stephen, Colonel Ripley is 

survived by his wife of 44 years, the former 

Moline Blaylock; a sister, Susan 

Goodykoontz; two other sons, Thomas and 

John; a daughter, Mary Ripley; and eight 

grandchildren. 

‘‘Colonel Ripley is well known in marine 

circles,’’ Mr. Schultz said, ‘‘but he’s the most 

revered war hero no one’s ever heard of.’’ 

‘‘This was 1972,’’ he added, ‘‘and people 

didn’t pay too much attention to war heroes 

at that time.’’ 

f 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 

CHALLENGES 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have 

long been a champion of the intellectual property rights enshrined in the 

Constitution, and have sponsored much 

of the significant legislation in that 

realm over the decades I have served in 

the Senate. On October 24, 2008, Judge 

Richard Linn of the Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit, the court entrusted exclusively with Federal appeals involving patent issues, gave the 

keynote address before the American 

Intellectual Property Law Association’s annual meeting. In that address, 

Judge Linn discusses the challenges 

facing the intellectual property system 

in the coming years, offers advice on 

moving forward as a nation to meet 

those challenges, and provides food for 

thought for anyone interested in this 

important part of our national economy. 

I ask unanimous consent that the 

statement of Judge Richard Linn from 

October 24, 2008, be printed in the 

RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

CHALLENGES AHEAD

I would like to thank the AIPLA for the invitation to speak before you today. I am 

truly honored to speak before the AIPLA, an 

organization I have belonged to since the 

late 60’s. I see in the audience many of my 

friends and former colleagues of the patent 

bar. I feel very much at home here, and it is 

nice to be asked to speak before this distinguished group. 

Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to personally recognize someone who 

has played a unique role in the progress of 

the U.S. patent system for over 40 years, 

someone who has led this organization for 

the past decade and a half, someone who has 

been a special friend to so many of us, and 

someone who is now moving on to a well deserved retirement—Mike Kirk. Please join 

me in a round of applause to show our appreciation for Mike and all that he has done. 

We all know that Mike has done some very 

special things for the AIPLA. But the best 

thing he did was to bring his wife, Mary 

Catherine, into our AIPLA family. I think 

she, too, deserves to be recognized for all she 

has done. 

One measure of a leader is the caliber of 

the person selected to replace him. And here 

again, the AIPLA has risen to the challenge 

of Mike Kirk’s departure in selecting one of 

the few members of our profession who has 

the character, knowledge, and recognized 

leadership skills to honor Mike’s legacy of 

accomplishment. That person is, of course, 

Q. Todd Dickenson, and I think he deserves 

a vote of confidence with a round of applause. 

The program lists my topic as ‘‘Challenges 

Ahead.’’ I selected that topic intentionally 

to give me lots of latitude in what I might 

say. If that phrase was a limitation in a patent claim, the meaning would be hard to discern with specificity and no doubt would 

generate considerable litigation. In a way, 

it’s the perfect topic. So, what is it that I am 

going to talk about? 

John Whealan yesterday focused on recent 

history and ended with a few comments on 

the future. Instead, I will focus on some of 

the challenges I see for the future and will 

begin with a few comments on the changes of 

the recent past. 

We hear a lot about change these days. 

Change in our economy, global climate 

change, and of course, change in our government. Change has been in the air for some 

time. It seems like the only thing we have 

heard, or seen, or read in the media for the 

past 20 months or so has been about change. 

And intellectual property law has been no 

stranger to it in the past few years. While 

one can debate the extent of the changes and 

the reasons underlying them, there is no 

question that the rights of patentees have 

been impacted in one way or the other by a 

number of recent decisions. And while the 

pace of change may slow down at least for a 

while, the fallout of all of this change will 

directly impact all of us. This is evident, for 

example, from an examination of three key 

decisions: KSR v. Teleflex, dealing with the 

test for obviousness; eBay v. MercExchange, 

dealing with the test for injunctive relief; 

and In re Seagate, dealing with the standard 

applicable to prove willful infringement. 

There have been others, such as Medlmmune 

v. Genentech, which made it easier to challenge patents in declaratory judgment actions, and DSU v. JMS, requiring proof of 

specific intent for induced infringement, but 

I will limit my remarks to the holdings and 

possible implications of KSR, eBay, and 

Seagate. 

In KSR, the Supreme Court reviewed the 

test for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The 

Supreme Court began by emphasizing that 

its 1966 decision in Graham v. John Deere informed the obviousness inquiry. It went on 

to reject what it perceived to be a rigid approach taken by our court in applying the 

teaching, suggestion and motivation test. 

The Supreme Court observed that ‘‘when it 

first established the requirement of demonstrating a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known elements in order to 

show that the combination is obvious, the 

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals captured a helpful insight.’’ It then noted, however, that helpful insights need not become 

rigid and mandatory formulas, and ‘‘when a 

court transforms a general principle into a 

rigid rule that limits the obviousness inquiry, as the Court of Appeals did here, it 

errs.’’ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
S10724 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 20, 2008 

The Supreme Court summed up its position 

on obviousness in observing that what is important is to use common sense and to identify a reason that would have prompted a 

person of ordinary skill in the relevant field 

to combine the elements in the way the 

claimed new invention does. It added that 

any need or problem known in the field of 

endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason 

for combining the elements in the manner 

claimed. 

The court also made some interesting observations on the propriety of summary 

judgment on issues of obviousness. The court 

said that ‘‘where, as here, the content of the 

prior art, the scope of the patent claim, and 

the level of ordinary skill in the art are not 

in material dispute, and the obviousness of 

the claim is apparent in light of these factors, summary judgment is appropriate.’’ 

‘‘The obviousness of the claim is apparent in 

light of these factors?’’ What does that 

mean? Does this mean obviousness is sort of 

like obscenity—you know it when you see it? 

I’m not sure what it means, but I am sure 

someone is going to ask me for an answer to 

that question in a brief in the not too distant 

future. 

The net result of KSR is that defendants 

may have a renewed interest in raising and 

pressing obviousness contentions, despite the 

high ‘‘clear and convincing’’ standard that 

applies to validity challenges. They can now 

argue that ‘‘reasons’’ and common sense support a conclusion that the claimed invention 

doesn’t pass muster even when application of 

a teaching, suggestion, and motivation test 

might otherwise have failed. It also means 

that patentees will have to be more prepared 

to gather up evidence to show secondary considerations as a way to overcome expected 

challenges from accused infringers. Finally, 

the Supreme Court’s comments about summary judgment will mean that patentees 

will have to start thinking about how to assist courts in answering questions about 

what the Supreme Court’s comments on 

summary judgment meant as to the way obviousness issues should be presented to juries, if at all. For example, is it still proper 

for a district court to present the ultimate 

question of obviousness to the jury or is the 

district court required to decide obviousness 

as a matter of law in every case, leaving only 

the factual underpinnings for the jury? No 

matter how all this is sorted out, KSR 

makes evident that patentees are likely to 

face more challenges based on section 103. 

We are already seeing this in recent cases 

filed with our court. 

In eBay, the Supreme Court rejected the 

categorical grant of injunctive relief in patent cases and held that in those cases, just as 

in other cases, a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must demonstrate that it 

has suffered irreparable injury; that remedies available at law are inadequate; that 

the balance of hardships warrants injunctive 

relief; and that the public interest would not 

be disserved by a permanent injunction. 

What the Supreme Court did not tell us is 

what happens after infringement is found 

and a court determines that the equitable 

remedy of a permanent injunction is not 

warranted. This is already presenting patentees and the courts with interesting new 

challenges. eBay also leaves open the question of whether there remains a rebuttable 

presumption of irreparable harm in patent 

cases. The bottom line for patentees is that 

they, like all other plaintiffs, will have to 

tow the line and be prepared to make a convincing showing on each of the four equitable factors. This will present new challenges, particularly to non-practicing patentees and alters some of the leverage patentees assumed they enjoyed before the eBay 

decision. 

In re Seagate presented our court with the 

opportunity to pick up where Knorr-Bremse 

left off and to reconsider the question of the 

duty of due care owed to patentees and the 

standard for determining when infringement 

is willful and subject to treble damages. The 

case came to us on a motion for a writ of 

mandamus seeking to overturn an order 

from a district court that would have given 

the patentee’s counsel virtually unfettered 

access to all attorney-client communications and work-product of the accused infringer. That order stemmed from the patentee’s assertion of willful infringement and 

the accused infringer’s good faith reliance on 

the advice of counsel. Because of the abuses 

we perceived in the routine allegation of 

willful infringement and the tension it produced between assertion by the accused infringer of the attorney-client privilege and 

reliance on the advice of counsel, we overruled the duty of due care standard set out in 

Underwater Devices and held that proof of 

willful infringement, permitting enhanced 

damages, requires at least a showing of objective recklessness. Because we abandoned 

the affirmative duty of due care, we also remarked that in the context of willful infringement, there is no affirmative obligation to obtain an opinion of counsel. 

Following Seagate, it can be anticipated 

that there will be continuing debate over application of the objectively reckless standard 

and the parameters of willful infringement. 

The one thing that is no longer in debate, 

however, is that patentees can no longer 

bank on a determination of willfulness and 

enhanced damages merely because infringement was found against an accused who had 

prior notice of the patent. 

The net result of all of these decisions is 

that patentees are likely to have to confront 

more obviousness challenges, patentees are 

less likely to obtain enhanced damage 

awards based on willfulness, and patentees 

will be more challenged to obtain injunctive 

relief than just a few years ago. These cases 

thus will cause patentees to reassess their 

strategies and to revalue their patent portfolios. 

But patentees are not only struggling to 

cope with recent decisions of the Supreme 

Court and the Federal Circuit. Patentees 

continue to suffer needlessly from self-inflicted wounds. These are the walking 

wounded, who regularly report to the MASH 

units-the district courts-for help. And if they 

don’t get the help they need at the district 

court MASH unit, they come to the general 

hospital-the Federal Circuit, to cure all that 

ails them. 

What self-inflicted wounds am I talking 

about? There are two in particular that I 

want to highlight. The first relates to the 

continuing propensity of patentees, particularly in the electrical and mechanical arts, 

to disclose in their applications only one embodiment of the invention, while arguing 

that the claims cover something broader 

than the one disclosed embodiment might 

suggest. I have no idea why so many patentees continue to limit the number of embodiments disclosed when, in so many cases 

we hear, the entire controversy is about the 

scope of a claim supported only by a single 

disclosed embodiment. Patentees who desire 

broad coverage and only disclose a single 

embodiment are shooting themselves in the 

foot. 

Scientists and engineers are familiar with 

the concept that an area cannot be defined 

by a single point or even two points. To define an area requires at least three points. It 

is surprising, then, that patent attorneys, 

who are trained both in the law and in 

science or engineering, often forget this 

three-point concept in drafting patent applications. Careful prosecutors follow a general 

rule and include in patent specifications not 

merely one embodiment of an invention, but 

multiple embodiments to better illustrate 

the full area of the discovery embraced by 

the claims. This is a sound practice that 

helps to inform the public of the proper 

scope of the claims and avoids uncertainty 

and interpretive disputes. The uncertainty of 

single embodiment specifications has 

brought us a steady stream of cases, and I 

urge all of you not to shoot yourselves or 

your clients in the foot by disclosing only 

one embodiment, particularly in mechanical 

and electrical cases. 

The second example of a self-inflicted 

wound is the continuing practice of adding 

terminology to claims, particularly after an 

interview, to place the claims in condition 

for allowance without explaining the reason 

for the change or pointing out where in the 

specification support for the added language 

can be found. Again, in case after case before 

our court, we are called upon to construe the 

scope of claim language which appears nowhere else but in the claims. Without any 

support in the written description, we are 

left to infer meaning from parts of the specification that often do not directly relate to 

the limitation in question or from the prosecution history of events leading up to the 

amendment. These are often poor guides for 

interpretation and frequently lead to protracted and costly litigation, not to mention 

unpredictable outcomes. Here again, the 

wound is self-inflicted and patentees are well 

advised to avoid shooting themselves in the 

foot by leaving the meaning of critical limitations to unguided inference. 

The message for those who regularly write 

and prosecute patent applications for clients 

is that while the swinging of the patent pendulum of court decisions is largely beyond 

any patentee’s ability to alter, there are 

things that are entirely within your control, 

such as including multiple embodiments in 

patent applications to make broad construction of claim terms more likely and providing support or an explanation for claim 

terms added during prosecution. Those 

things you can control. And they will help 

your client avoid going through life as a 

walking wounded patentee. 

I would like to turn now to some challenges I see for the PTO. With a new administration soon to occupy the White House, a 

change in leadership at the PTO can be expected within the next year. The new leaders 

at the PTO will face many difficult challenges. The past leadership has much to be 

proud of. Director Dudas successfully 

oversaw the completion of a modern new facility and the end to fee diversion. He and 

his colleagues have upgraded technology resources for examiners, have ramped up hiring, and have instituted comprehensive 

training programs, to name just a few of 

their many accomplishments. All of that is 

commendable. 

But it seems to me that what is needed 

now goes beyond facilities or finances to the 

heart of the PTO’s mission to thoroughly, 

carefully, and promptly examine the applications of those who seek the protection of 

patents and who rely on the effective operation of our patent system. With the solid 

foundation of the achievements of the current Director, the PTO now needs the leadership of those with intimate knowledge of 

patents and patent law. People who understand first-hand the problems faced by users 

of the system and who have the ability to 

comprehensively relate to the practicing 

bar. That leadership is best found in the 

ranks of experienced practitioners, many of 

whom are in this very room. 

The next group of leaders at the PTO will 

need to be creative in finding new ways to 

improve not only productivity but quality as 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
November 20, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10725 

well. The number of new applications that 

are projected over the next several years is 

staggering. Technology will continue to get 

more complicated. And the demands of managing such a sizable organization will be rigorous. To keep pace will take bold new measures to improve efficiency and effectiveness 

of almost every aspect of PTO operations. 

That may entail cooperative efforts with 

other patent offices around the world to find 

ways to share search results. It may entail 

establishing a program of deferred examination to give applicants an opportunity to 

fully evaluate the need for patent protection 

before the office is called upon to conduct 

any examination. My point here is not to 

suggest specific initiatives. It is not my 

place to tell the PTO how it should operate. 

I only cite these as examples of the kinds of 

things the new leadership of the PTO will 

need to seek out if it is to avoid getting buried in the avalanche of new applications 

looming on the horizon. 

I know the PTO has engaged in a vigorous 

effort to hire and train new examiners. I 

have been privileged to speak at a graduation ceremony for an impressive class of new 

examiners from the PTO’s new patent academy. But that’s only half of the equation. It 

serves no real purpose to hire new examiners 

if an equal number of examiners—especially 

experienced examiners—resign. The PTO will 

need to go back to basics and creatively 

apply a new version of the Three R’s we all 

learned as kids. The rule for how to treat examiners couldn’t be simpler: Respect, Reward, and Retain. In this regard, it may be 

time for the PTO to develop new standards of 

examiner performance that mirror the standards of attorney performance used by law 

firms and corporate law departments. Just 

as attorney performance is not measured by 

billable hours alone, examiner performance 

measured principally by the number of disposals may not be the best approach. Counting disposals may be a raw indicator of performance but does not recognize the judgment, thoroughness, and legal skills provided by first-rate examiners and expected 

by the public. 

Other patent offices around the world are 

involved not only in giving birth to patents 

but in assessing questions of validity raised 

over the life of a patent. That may explain 

why examiners in many countries are treated differently than U.S. examiners. It is not 

that U.S. examiners are less competent or 

any less dedicated. Far from it. But if the 

primary role of an examiner is limited to ex 

parte matters that end on the day the patent 

issues, there will understandably be a different interest on the part of the public in 

what examiners do and who they are than if 

they played an essential role in the determination of validity challenges throughout 

the life of the patent. One way U.S. examiners would have a greater opportunity to be 

recognized in much the same way as their 

counterparts in other countries is if the new 

leadership at the PTO decides to energize the 

current reexamination system to make it 

the attractive alternative to litigation it 

was originally intended to be. This would require a much expanded corps of experienced 

reexamination examiners and the implementation of streamlined procedures to accelerate the processing of all reexamination applications. 

While it is evident that the PTO will face 

unprecedented challenges in the years ahead, 

the leaders and examiners I know are capable, dedicated, and clearly up to the task. I 

have every confidence that the PTO will 

meet the challenges ahead and will continue 

to be a model for the rest of the world. 

Many have said that this is the golden age 

of intellectual property. In the years to 

come, we can expect to see significant advances in energy technology, green technology, nanotechnology, and a host of other 

things. The need for effective protection for 

the discoveries of tomorrow’s scientists, engineers, and researchers will be greater than 

ever before. And the changing legal landscape and the pace of technological progress 

will present us all with new and difficult 

challenges. The challenges ahead are many, 

but we are all fortunate to have the chance 

to enjoy the opportunities and to confront 

the challenges the golden age of IP offers to 

each of us. 

I have enjoyed being with you and thank 

you for your attention. 

f 

VERMONT’S 12TH ANNUAL WOMEN’S ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

CONFERENCE 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I 

would like to share with my friends in 

the Senate a great story of personal 

triumph and success as told by 

Vermont Supreme Court Associate Justice Marilyn Skoglund, the keynote 

speaker for Vermont’s 12th Annual 

Women’s Economic Opportunity Conference. 

Marilyn forged her own remarkable 

path to success. She received her bachelor’s degree in fine arts from Southern 

Illinois University, and after moving to 

Vermont, passed the bar exam on her 

first try all while raising her 7-year-old 

daughter. Marilyn continued to rise 

through the ranks of the Vermont Office of the Attorney General where she 

served as both chief of the civil law division and chief of the public protection division before her appointment in 

1994 to the district court, and subsequently the Vermont Supreme Court in 

1997. In addition to her accomplishments, Marcelle and I admired 

Marilyn’s candidness as she walked us 

through her journey. She offered more 

than 300 Vermont women a very honest 

and inspirational perspective on the realities of balancing both a career and a 

family. 

Marcelle and I have hosted the 

Vermont Women’s Economic Opportunity Conference for 12 years, and we 

look forward to attending each year because we consider it one of the most 

important events in which we take 

part. Though our economy may be facing difficult challenges, this year’s 

conference, and Marilyn’s story, 

showed that adversity can be overcome 

and met with great success—especially 

by motivated and talented women of 

all ages. 

Vermont’s economic future depends 

on the countless talented women who 

drive it. According to the Vermont 

Center for Women’s Business Studies, 

women-owned firms generate an impressive $1.5 billion annually and currently employ more than 35,000 

Vermonters. In 2006, approximately 39 

percent of all Vermont businesses were 

owned, or partially owned, by women. 

Even though the number of Vermont 

women-owned businesses is on the rise, 

we must continue working to encourage greater growth. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Justice Skoglund’s speech, 

written for Vermont’s 12th annual 

Women’s Economic Opportunity Conference, detailing her journey to success, be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

SENATOR LEAHY’S 12TH WOMEN’S ECONOMIC

OPPORTUNITY CONFERENCE

I begin with a disclaimer. In Senator Leahy’s letter, asking me to be the keynote 

speaker, he wrote as follows: ‘‘We invite you 

to share your compelling personal experiences of how you molded your successful career path to the Vermont Supreme Court, all 

the while raising two daughters as a single 

mother.’’ 

I was of course so excited to learn that 

Senator Leahy knew my name. And, that he 

thought I had done a good job of balancing a 

career and a family. But, after skipping 

around the kitchen a bit, I settled down. 

Sen. Leahy did not really know what those 

compelling personal experiences were. Perhaps he was lured into inviting me because a 

staff member had heard rumors that my 

‘‘successful career path’’ was pretty funny. 

Someday I will be old enough to know better 

than to discuss my past in public just because I was so flattered someone of Sen. Leahy’s stature asked, but, here I am. Ready to 

reveal. I accept Sen. Leahy’s invitation to 

share my compelling, maybe, but more accurately, my ridiculous, oddball, clueless, experiences of how I managed to crawl my way 

into the best job on the planet, all the while 

dragging two innocent, courageous daughters along in my wake. The journey through 

the thicket of experiences was not always 

pleasant, and mistakes were made. Truth is; 

I may have nothing to offer to this audience. 

This is an economic conference. I am not an 

economist. I am not a psychologist. So, if 

you all just want to go get coffee and skip 

the gory details, I will understand. 

To begin, how does one grade ‘‘success’’ in 

balancing work and family? I am a justice on 

the Vermont Supreme Court. I have a good 

reputation as a jurist. I was a very good lawyer. I have no arrest record. So far so good. 

I raised one daughter, let’s call her Martha, 

who is an ObGyn doctor delivering babies in 

New Hampshire. She seems very content and 

satisfied with her life. She just got married 

to a wonderful man on August 30th. Most important indicia of success: She loves me. I 

raised another daughter; I will call her Ruby, 

who is working on a Ph.D. in clinical psychology. She is currently very annoyed at 

how hard life is, but feels good about her 

work. She loves me. This sounds great! By 

the way, I have changed their names to protect their privacy. They each bear their father’s last names, as do I, so hopefully, I 

have shielded them from any further embarrassment from their mother, at least for 

today. 

Because, while they may be well adjusted 

women, the truth is, they adjusted to what 

their mother put them through. And, if ‘‘successfully balancing’’ includes a solid marriage, I am not your girl. Two creative, interesting, unique men, neither ever bored 

me. I love them to this day, I danced with 

each at Martha’s wedding, but it did not 

work out. 

In addition to my inadequacies standing up 

here before you, I would also point out that 

everyone in this audience is clearly way 

ahead of where I was when I wandered into 

adulthood. Obviously, you are all women 

with a high degree of confidence in yourselves and your ideas, ambitions, and goals. 

You are at an economic conference, for heaven’s sake. You have given some thought to 

your life. At the beginning of my meandering 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE