issuing multiple opinions, one from each justice, as was the custom in england at the time. he thought it important that the court -- that the court speak in unanimously as an institution. his strategy for achieving this was basic. it was fundamental. after serving wine, which he purchased and brought to the court -- in that state of euphoria, the court was able to work through the problems and issue and resolve their differences and issue opinions that were for the large part unanimous. in retrospect, the chief justice was impressively successful during the particularly active. from 1811-1823.

the supreme court decided 457 cases of which 437 were unanimous. chief justice roberts shares justice marshall's view at this -- that the decisions will be more happily received by the public with unanimity. as he observed a few years ago, and i am now quoting "if the court and marshals had issued decisions in important cases the way this court has over the past 30 years, we would not have the supreme court today of the sort that we have." that suggest the what the court has been doing or the 30 years has been eroding the capital that marshall built up. i think the court is also right for a similar refocus or functioning as an institution, because if it does not, it is

going to lose its credibility and legitimacy as an institution. of course, chief justice roberts was exhorting a return to the notion that supreme court speaks as an institution. i must say from my own observation, i believe that he is making significant process, although this is a cap that takes time. this morning, we will begin our session with an interview with the chief justice by our former chief judge, james wilkinson. following that, we will right into our traditional panel on the supreme court, which is moderated by professor dick howard to discuss the supreme court's term. there are still three courses that the court in handed down. i understand we are looking to monday to hear about those. at this time, i would now like

to welcome to the stage judge wilkinson and the chief justice of the united states. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. . .

and we're going to have a wonderful panel that will be moderated by a long time friend of howard. i don't think you can find any better panelists than london greenhouse, it john mcginnis, and ted olson. we're going to discuss some retirements and the past supreme court term. we're very proud of that panelists of this caliber would join us for the occasion. we are especially delighted as always to have our friend and circuit justice, the chief justice. as i mentioned last night, it is sometimes very hard to get judges to be unanimous about anything. i think you can say about judges sometimes, you can say about

legislatures. getting together on something is like herding cattle -- herding cats. those of us and the federal judiciary are arguing -- it is out of respect. he is someone of great warmth and great humor. in the enormous legal skills. one of the things i think that we respect some much about him is that he has an essential sense of the dignity of the job. those of us in the federal judiciary are absolutely -- it is our great good fortune to have someone of the chief justice's caliber leading our system. i have a few questions of you, chief. you mentioned last night in your

remarks that one of the things that you had accomplished was to follow the calendar of the supreme court so that everything would not be jammed up in may and june. that is one of the reforms have worked on. what aspect of present supreme court operations and practice did you -- would you change or de you feel could be improved? what is the one single thing about the present supreme court practice or the way it goes about things that you would change if you had a chance to. --? >> the chief justice should have two votes. [laughter] that would be the easiest one and would solve a lot of the others. i think this will be familiar to a lot of judges. we get a lot of briefing.

it was not the case when the current page limits for briefs were set down that we typically had half a dozen at least, and sometimes 40 briefs. i don't think it would only be good for the bench, but also for the lawyers. it is roughly 50 pages now. we do the work limits because lawyers are very clever about squeezing words on a page. it comes out to roughly 50. of course, if you go back and look at the briefs filed allows a practitioner, there would be some sense of hypocrisy here i'm sure. there is no reason that the party's brief could be more effective after 35 pages. if they hit the main points that had argue, other subsidiary briefs could be fleshed out. it could be good for the judges

and good for the lawyers as well. another thing i think we're getting carried away with our oral arguments. i am sure many of you have been there. it is a little too much domination by the bench, and i am as guilty as anyone. i think justice is feel they really have to pounce on air time to get points across. it would be good if we were a little more restrained. we talk about it every now and then, that we ought to cut back a little bit. if they would really make a conscious effort not to jump on the lawyers during the time they have saved. the actual reform i think we should get the forms for speed chess, the little timers. each justice should have one of those. they can ask a question if they

can, but it will eat up the rest of the time. >> your comments about the shorter briefs -- at the same thing can be said about judges that can be said about lawyers. a dear colleague once said that the opinion is a little bit long. he said, we do not have time to write short opinions. [laughter] chief, one thing i have wondered about -- it they are about two or three positions rolled into one. your head of the sicilian. you have all sorts of things. you can prepare opinion

assignments and take the first cut of the discussion. whenever the fellow justices and members of the staff have a matter of moments, they bring it to you. you have some in the invitations flooding in, and many of those invitations you want to accept any have been very gracious and accepting. on top of that, you are a parent of the day year-old or a seven year-old. maybe they are both 8 years old now. i don't really understand how you managed to do what you do. one of the questions i have, do have a chance to kick back and read a mystery or watch some football? the amount of things you are

required oversee is absolutely astonishing. do get any downtime? >> starting tuesday, i will. the funny thing about it, our work really ramps up to the end of the term, and then it just drops off. you come in there the day after the term is over, and you kind of twiddle your thumbs. we carry forward in the summer. there is a certain level of work to keep up with the occasional emergency. a lot of the items you mentioned are the wonderful people who carry those forward. i have responsibility for administration of the federal courts as a whole. the judicial conference does all the heavy lifting in that regard. did you participate in that.

administrative matters and the administrative office, i try not to make too many mistakes in terms of second-guessing what they would do. the smithsonian is an interesting distraction. they obviously did not turn heavy responsibilities over to me. in that regard, you do not have a lot of spare time during the year. the trade-off is that you have a lot in the summer and to try to catch up on things. >> last night you were talking about your predecessors and one of those that you admired. looking back on the history of the supreme court, people say that the two most important

decisions were probably brown vs. board of education and mulberry vs. madison for different reasons. looking back over the history of the supreme court, are there some decisions that stick in your mind other than those two as being the most monumental consequence? it seems to me that when people start getting beyond marguerite the madison -- margueritmulberre madison, what cases which add to the list of really landmark cases? >> i do think there is one that stands out. it is a counterpoint. people talk about the monumental cases, and you assume they're

talking about the good ones. i was a the third most significant case in the court's history was fred scott -- dred scott. there are examples of what to do and very challenging to tuitions and had handled them, but the scott cases is an example of hw things went incredibly wrong. i think some of the reasons are pretty clear. yet the most divisive issue in our history, leading the country toward civil war. the political branches failing to address it in the case of the executive and causing more harm than good in the case of the legislature. you had roger taney whose reputation would be quite different if it weren't for this one case.

looking at it and saying the other branches are working, the issue was threatening to destroy the country. i'm going to solve it. i am the only one who can. i'm more less took it upon myself to lead the court into a resolution that was dividing the country, and in a broadway that really had no basis in a proper reading of the constitution and in a situation that could have been resolved in either way on much narrower grounds that would have preserved the court above the fray. i did not think we could have avoided the civil war, but i am suggesting that the court as an institution could have been able to play a more effective role as the crisis evolved. and certainly after the civil war if it had not suffered the self-inflicted wound. when you look at marbury for the lessons you can draw,

developing a broad degree of consensus so the court can approach the case in narrow grounds, whether they're leaving right of way or avoiding politicization. democratic republicans, the debt -- the jeffersonian is were just waiting for marshall to take action on the central issue that would have resulted for the federalist. i do not know if it could have survived. you need to look and say that this is a good example of how not to do it. >> you want to draw from that, a general rule that courts should steer clear of controversy -- >> not controversy, but i think what johnnie did was easing a case that could of been resolved

on quite narrow grounds. i am not suggesting it would of resulted in a nobler decision, freeing the country from slavery. in my well of resulted in the same decision. but it would have not had a dramatic political impact. it could result in several different levels. either to result in relief for dread scott or not. but instead, she went straight to the results on the broadest possible grounds, and as a result, through the course into the political realm, so consciously. marshall's decision in marguerite reflected a decision to pull back. jeffersonian had legislature and said that their efforts would be blocked. that is the central political issue of the day and marshall

does not even get to it. he pulls back results on a much narrower ground. so there are situation where the court actually has legal issues of great political significance. but i think it is important to look and see if you can do that on a narrow basis, and if you do not, it is important to recognize there will be huge consequences. >> i want to return to a more personal vein before taking questions from the audience. during confirmation hearings, i remember that senator schumer asked you what your favorite movie was, and i think he responded dr. zhivago. that is my favorite movie to. -- that is my favorite, too.

i am sure you have profound reasons for liking it. i wonder if he might tell us why you responded to the senator by saying that it was your favorite movie, and what you like so much about it? >> it is my favorite movie. i was under oath. and if i were under of here, i would respond the same way you did. they had no standing -- an outstanding cast, great cinematography, the images of the washington winter. but on a more fundamental level,

it does tell a story about the triumph of the human spirit and basic human emotions over aggressiveness of a communist regime, the aggressiveness of war and revolution. you still have people at a very personal level, including the triumph of art. remember that scene where the young girl place the ball like a -- plays balalaika, and the notion that art will persist. those things appeal on any number of different levels, but i think that is the central message. >> is a triumph. the symbolism of these people triumphing over the russian winter and the story line of

fundamental to human emotions persisting, i think it all comes together, it is a great story. a beautiful theme song. you can whistle along. >> we would like to cheer for members of the audience, and i know you have questions you would enjoy, so please step up to the microphone and pose your question. i will ask that it be a question, not a speech or monologue. but somebody come forward. >> this is usually not shied bunch. >> come on, you are all lawyers. >> [laughter]

>> mr. chief justice, a judge. last term, there was a school case commonly known as bong hits for jesus. yet a case involving a strip search of this term. if you're an administrator, how you go forward? in the last in case, unfettered power to punish a student for speech off-campus, this term, an administrator strip searches a student believing that the administrators have the power to do that. but the court rules no. there is a limit to the power. what guidance to school administrators get from those cases? >> i would not characterize the bomb hits case as unfettered power.

there are limitations there. but i think it is a central point, true across the board. if you're going to get all of your guidance of that type from the supreme court, he will have a lot of difficulty. just take the steps search examples -- strip search example. it is only when bodies with the on-the-ground responsibility for laying out rules, folks have to get involved, and it is no different than anything else. read a couple antitrust cases, we do not have precise guidance. that is why we have an ftc. i hear the same thing for the

patent bar. you hear it from the labour side and the management side. with every stage, there are other people with expertise to have the opportunity to lay out guidance. you cannot expect to get a whole list of regulations from the supreme court. that would be bad, because we would not do a good job that and we would not have the necessary presentation that i think is very important. the flip side of the decision that recently came out was that administrators have immunity because we recognized that they did not have guidance and that was largely are false -- our fault in trying to put together decisions. so we knew what they can and cannot do but we said they had to for cover damages from their own personal funds if they

guessed wrong. >> thank you. other questions? >> mr. chief justice, a number of observers have pointed out that the current court is drawn entirely from the courts of appeals, and that the court would benefit by having members who have come from all walks of public life. i'm interested in your views on the subject. >> i have speculated on the past what is behind that. it is unusual. it is the first time that people are gone from the federal court judges. whatever the reason -- i do not consider it one of the reasons i was appointed was because i was a federal judge. david souter was a federal judge for about five minutes before he was eligible.

so a little misleading. and it is important to recognize that in terms of legal experience, we are a diverse bunch. i consider myself a practicing lawyer, a member of the bar. we have a couple justices with careers as academics. justice thomas ran an agency, just as briar had extensive experience on the hill that the rest of us do not have. justice kennedy is a practicing lawyer in sacramento, justice ginsberg, both as an academic and a practicing lawyer before the court in the area of equal protection. justice alito, the most experienced on the bench before coming to the corn and experienced with federal prosecutors. so we are also a diverse bunch.

having said that, obviously some great justices did not bring that experience. they were great judges and justices. you have to figure out exactly what it is without looking at labels. in the past, with had a lot of politicians for the court, and if they are willing to become judges and leave behind the politics, i think sad is a great resource. but i guess they were talking last night about sam chase, drawn from the political dance, and he remained a politician and the court suffered because of that. >> an additional question? yes, sir? >> chief justice, what are your favorite books, and what do you like to read in your spare time?

>> i do not like to read brief in my spare time. [laughter] i like detective novels, mystery novels, the sort of things you read on the beach. i like historical biography. saw all of the efforts to probe for weaknesses, and one person asked me the name of 15 or 16 chief justice -- i would have been devastated, because i am not sure i could have. but i did try to get through to it. a combination of detective

novels, elmore leonard and things like that, and historical biographies. >> talk about people's favorite books. it is interesting to me because no one said to me, "i just love judicial biographies." with the exception of oliver wendell holmes, but he was wounded in the civil war before people got interested in him. i certainly want to thank you. >> we have time. >> we have time. someone is alrea >> thank you very much. the question that i had it was one that the judge touched on his introduction. i was wondering if you in mind elaborating