be jammed up in june. that is one of the reforms to work done. if there is any aspect of the practice that you would change or 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? . . the others. but this, i think, will be familiar to a lot of judges. we get a lot of briefing. it was not the case when the current limits for briefs were set down that we typically had a half-dozen, at least, and

sometimes 40 briefs in each case, and i think it would be good not only for the bench before the lawyers to come and cut back a good bit. it is roughly 50 pages right now. it comes out to roughly 50. and if you go back and look at it when i was a practitioner, there is a sense of hypocrisy, but there is no reason that the party brief could not be more effective at 35 pages, 40 pages. it would force lawyers to do a better job at hitting their main point. other subsidiary jobs could be fleshed out, and i think that would be good for the judges and good for lawyers, as well. another thing, i think we're getting carried away with oral arguments. i am sure many of you have been

there. this is a little too much domination by the bench. it has gone to the time were justices feel they have to best air time to get points across and get answers, and it would be better if we were more restrained. we talked about cutting back a little bit, certain the hon. time. we make a conscience -- conscious effort not to jump on a lawyer's during the time to make their points. i think we should get one of the timers they have for speed chess. it's just a should have one of those in front of them. if they want just a five-minute question, they can. but if they want to not eat up the rest of their questions, that would be a good idea. >> the same thing could be said

about judges as you said about lawyers. dear colleagues, says emory wide near, somebody said the opinions are a little bit long, and you say, oh, my goodness, we do not have time to write short opinions. one thing i've wondered about, the job of chief justice is about to positions or three positions ruled in one. and i think with different duties that you have, your head of the smithsonian, for one thing. you have all sorts of things. you could take the first cut of the list or conference and whenever fellow justices have a

matter of some moments, and you have been gracious and excepting obligations. on top of that, you are a parent of an 8-year-old and a 7-year- old, or maybe they are both 8 now. but i do not really understand how you managed to do all you do. do you have a chance to read a mystery or watch football, because the amounts of things you are required to oversee is astonishing. do you get any downtime?

>> starting tuesday, i will. worked really ramps up to the end of the term and then it just drops off. you, after the term is over and twiddle your thumbs. we carry forward a certain level of work to keep up with the occasional emergencies, and a lot of items he mentioned, they're wonderful people carrying goes forward. i have on paper responsibility for a lot of the administration of the federal court and judicial conference that does all the heavy lifting in that regard. i try not to make too many mistakes in terms of second- guessing what they will do.

the smithsonian is an interesting distraction but obviously they do not turn any heavy responsibilities over to me in that regard. it is -- you do not have a lot of spare time during the year end the trade off is you have a lot in the summer and you try to catch up on things. >> last night you were talking about your predecessors, who they were, and which ones you admired, and those that you thought went awry, and looking back on the history of the supreme court, people said the two most important decisions were probably around the board of education and versus madison, for really different reasons,

but looking back over the history of the supreme court, there are some decisions that stick in your mind other than those two as being of the most monumental consequence, because it seems to me when people start getting beyond the cases that are typical, the importance diverges. so i was wondering what cases you might add to that list of really landmark cases in the past? >> one stands out. people talk about monumental cases and you assume that they're talking about the good ones, marbury and brown. the third most significant case was dread scott, in the sense

that marbury and brown are good examples of what to do in challenging situations, but dread scott is an example where things went terribly wrong, and we need to try and figure out why, looking at that. i think some of the reasons are clear. you had the most divisive issue in our history, leaving the country toward civil war, the overlay on top of that. the political branches failing to address it and causing more harm than good in the legislature, and you had larger columns whose reputation would be different if it were not for one case. looking at it and seeing it, the issue is threatening to destroy the country, and i am going to solve it. i am the only one who can, and

we will lead the court into a revolution of those issues that are dividing country, and in a broadway that really had no focus in the reading of the constitution and in a decision that could have been resolved either way on much narrower grounds which would have preserved for the court and avoided a civil war -- i am not suggesting that. but i am suggesting that the court as an institution would have been able to play a more effective role is that had not suffered the salt-inflected wounds. so i think we look at margaret for the lessons he can draw about the necessity of developing a broad group consensus so the court is speaking as a court, approaching

the case in narrow ground, avoiding politicization -- you have to remember, democratic republicans were just waiting to take action on the central action that would have resulted in a packing gland, and i think the court would have been attacked dramatically, and i do not know if it could have survived. he looked at dread scott and say, well, this is a good example. and that can teach you just as much as other examples. >> would you want to draw from that a rule that this court should steer clear of controversy? >> no, not controversy. but you have a case that could have been resolved on narrow grounds. i am not suggesting it would have resulted in a decision freeing the country from slavery treated may have

resulted in the same decision. but it would not have the political impact. 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. aside from that, and i'm certainly no film critic, but what an astounding cast, great drama, wonderful cinematography, the images, walking through the russian winter, you know on a more fundamental level, it does tell the store roif the triumph of the human spirit and the basic human emotions over oppressiveness of communist

regime, over the oppressiveness of war and revolution. you still have people at a personal level triumph, including the triumph of art, remember that great scene where the young girl plays -- the notion that art is going to persist through these great challenges, as the main character's poetry. it's one of the things that appeals at any number of different levels, but i think that's the central message. once you get me started -- >> you know -- you know it's the symbolism of the people triumphing over the russian winter and the story line of their fundamental human emotions persisting through the oppression, i think it all comes together, it's a great story and

-- >> and that beautiful theme song. >> right, good song. can whistle along. >> we would like to hear from members of the audience. i know some of you have had a question you would enjoy asking of the chief justice. if we step up to the microphone -- please step up to the microphone and pose your albuquerque i ask that it be a question, not a speech or monolog, but somebody come forward -- or monologue, but somebody come forward. >> this is usually not a shy bunch. >> come on, you're all lawyers. >> mr. chief justice, judge, last term, i think it was, there was a school case commonly known as bong hits for jesus. this term you had a school case

involving a strip search. if you were a school administrator, how do you go forward? in the alaska case, unfettered power to punish a student for speech off campus, this term, an administrator strip searches a student believing the administrators have the power to do that, but the court rules no there is a limit to the power. what guidance do cool administrators get from those cases? >> first, i wouldn't characterize the bong hits case as unfettered power, there are limitations there. but also i think it's a central point, it's true across the board. if you're going to get all your guidance on issues of that type from the supreme court, you're

going to have a lot of difficulties. take the strip search example. in many cases, most -- many communities have policies and they say they don't care, typically they don't care what's going on, don't strip search the children. that's where a school administrator gets their guidance. it's only when body who was the on the ground responsibility for laying out the rules haven't done so that the courts have to get involved. it's no different than anything else. businesspeople read our antitrust cases and they say, we don't have a lot of guidance. that's why we have the f.t.c. 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. someone is already headed to the microphone. >> the question i had was one that the judge to act on in his introduction, and i was wondering if you could touch on it, if the effort to obtain more consensus on the court.

>> first of all, unanimity. i am not a unanimity literal a separate 6-3 as close enough. -- 6-3 is close to unanimity. on our core. [laughter] i am not suggesting that justice is compromised. you cannot do that. that is a violation of fourth amendment. this looks a lot more like long, with five-forcing it is -- 5-for being a little more skeptical, it looks more like all law. people say, this is what everybody thinks, or close to it.

2, 3, one kind of thing that nobody knows. but we can come together on a broader agreement, and that is better. there are jurors potential consequences. you are more likely to get broader agreement. if you try to spin it out more broadly and insert issues, that is what people are going to spin off. the narrower the ground, the more likely they are to give broad agreement, and i think that is a good thing. i am delighted to be here, and thank you very much for the opportunity. i should issue a warning. broadly when that is just for

me. [laughter] >> we have got a great panel coming up. we are going to ask our moderator, dick howard, to begin to assemble those. do not go away. we have wonderful commentary ahead, and i would like to thank the chief justice once again for his role in making this such a splendid conference. cloud of -- [applause] >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> now, supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg, she spoke

at the second circuit judicial conference earlier -- earlier this month and talked about supreme court nominee sotomayor. this is about 30 minutes. >> i'm very glad to be with you, wish i could stay longer, but monday is d-day at the court, the day all dissenting opinions must be in circulation system of sadly i will leave this afternoon and go right back to my work table. i wanted to start by mentioning that beyond our business as usual, there were at least three extraordinary events at the court this term. can you hear me in the back?

ok. the first was that in january, the country welcomed a new president and vice president, and just days before the inauguration, president obama and vice president biden revived a tradition i had not experienced in my then over 15 years as an associate justice. they slitted the court for a live -- they visited the court for a lively conversation that all present enjoyed and appreciated. second, on may 1, justice souter formally advised the president that he would leave the court when we adjourned for the summer. each of us released a statement that day expressing our administration and affection far colleague we treasure.

mine read, among jurists with whom i have served, justice david h. souter is the very best. his level of preparation for the cases we consider is astonishing. he works so hard at getting it right. he is a genuinely caring man and a model of civility. never have i heard him utter a harsh or unkind word. i count it my great good fortune to have known him as a working colleague and dear friend. much as i will miss david souter's company, i was cheered by the next banner headline, the president's nomination of second circuit judge sonia sotomayor as the next associate justice. the