the protection jurisprudence. kennedy and the other four justices -- the number of occasions on which government can point to a group of individuals to make a decision when applications -- the supreme court gives a clear direction that it will not allow you under the circumstances before government can ever use race of an individual or group of individuals and to make a decision based on bat, you need a strong evidentiary basis and you must not unduly harm the non-minority. .

>> why didn't they come to them and say let's go and have everyone be eligible to be picked. because one principle, even if you can go to the measure, even if you disagree with me, it remains you must use it narrowly and have a tight fit between the remedy and the ever and you must not displace the

innocent. this was the most drastic remedy of depriving everyone. >> we will have to stop. >> you can watch this or other programming featuring the supreme court nominee at any time by visiting our website. look at the featured topic section of the supreme court. join us each saturday evening for america and the courts, a new weekly look at the judiciary. it starts at 7 eastern on c- span. >> up next, remarks from chief justice john roberts, all but a speech from earlier this month. later, a former bush administration justice department official talks about

her nomination to the supreme court. >> on tomorrow's washington journal, we will talk to retired lieutenant colonel john nagl.. after that, the president for the center talks about the situation and honduras later in the program, the end of the supreme court term. washington journal begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern. later, what is ahead for to run.

max, a conversation with u.s. supreme court john roberts. he is joined by harvey wilkinson, a federal judge serving on the fourth circuit court of appeals. this is part of the judicial conference. it is a low " -- a low over 30 minutes. >> could we have you take your seats, please? >> good morning, we have a very special program this morning. chief justice marshall worried

that the supreme court's role in the trial apartheid -- in the tripartite government, one from each justice as was the custom at the time. he felt that the court should speak unanimously as an institution. he conference cases after dinner, after serving wine, which should personally purchased. in that state of euphoria, the court was able to work through the problems and resolve their differences and issue opinions that were unanimous. in retrospect, the chief justice

was impressive as successful during a particularly active. -- during the particularly active time. 437 people -- for the 37 were unanimous. chief justice roberts shares justice marshall's view. as chief justice roberts observed in the years ago, if the court and marshals era issued important cases the with this court has over the past 30 years, we would not have a supreme court today of the sort that we have. that suggests that what the court has been doing has been eroding, to some extent, the capital that marshall built up.

i think that the court is also right for a similar refocus as an institution because if it does not, is more to lose its credibility and legitimacy as the institution. of course, the chief justice roberts was a sword in a return to the notion that the supreme court's because an institution. -- court speak as an institution. this morning, we will begin our session with an interview of the chief justice by our former chief judge. then, following that, we will move into our traditional panel which is moderated by professor dick howard to discuss the supreme court term. there are still three cases look

court to hand down. i understand that we are looking to one day hear about those. at this point, i would now like to welcome to the stage judge wilkinson and the chief justice of the united states. >> thank you, paul. >> the exit. >> thank you do >> thank you. >> thank you. [applause] good morning everyone. we are absolutely delighted to have the chief justice of the united states here to kick off our program on the review of the supreme court term.

we will have the audience asking the questions of the chief justice. then, we will have a wonderful panel which will be moderated by a longtime friend. i do not think you can find any better panelists then linda greenhouse and ted olson. they will discuss for placements and retirements. we are very very proud that we have panelists of this caliber. we're delighted to have our friend and circuit justice, as i mentioned, is sometimes very hard to be unanimous about

anything. this is like herding cats. if there is one thing, it is our respect for chief justices. one of the things that i think we respect so much about him is that he has an essential service of the dignity of the job. it is our great fortune to have someone of the chief justice's caliber leading our system.

i have a few questions for you. you mentioned last night, in your remarks, that one of the things that you had accomplished was to follow the caliber of the supreme court little bit so that everything would and get jammed up in may and june. that is one of the reforms to have worked on. if there is -- what aspect of operations would you change? what is the one single thing about the president -- the present supreme court practice that you would change if you had a chance to? >> the chief justice should have two votes. >> that will solve all the others. [laughter] >> this will be familiar to a

lot of judges. we did a lot of briefing. that was not the case when the current page limits for briefs were set down, we typically had a half-dozen at least and sometimes 40 on because briefs -- and sometimes 40 and meet his briefs -- sometimes 40 briefs. if you go back and look at the breves, there is no reason that it could not be more effective at 35 pages.

other points could be fleshed out of that often are. i think that would be not only good for the judges, but good for lawyers as well. we are getting carried away with oral arguments. it is a little too much domination by the bench. it has gotten to the point that justices have to pounce. it would be good if we were a little more strained. we really make a conscious effort not to jump all lawyers. i think we should get one of those. we only get so much total time.

each justice should have one of those. if you want to ask a 5 minute question, they can. that would be a good idea. >> your comments about shorter breezes bring to mind something. the same thing could be said about lawyers. they said that europeans as a lawn. we do not have time to rush your opinions. >> one thing i have worried about are the positions rolled into one. your head of the smithsonian.

you have all sorts of things. whenever your fellow justices or members of the staff had a moment, they bring it to you and have so many invitations floating in. you've been very gracious and excepting them. on top of that, you're the parent of an eight-year rule. maybe they are both 8, now. i don't really understand how you do all you do. men do you ever have the chance to kick back and read a mystery of what shall football you want

to watch? >> the amount of things you're required to oversee, that is absolutely astonishing. did you get any downtime? >> starting tuesday, will. that is the funny thing about it just drops off. the gunmen, the day after. and you're quibbling your thumbs -- your twiddling our thumbs -- you come in, the day after. . and your travel in your thumbs. >> -- you come in the day after and your twiddling your thumbs.

the administrative matters and the administrative office, i try not to make too many mistakes in terms of second-guessing what they do. the smithsonian is an interesting distraction but obviously they do not do that in that regard. the trade-off is, -- >> last night, we were talking about your predecessors and one of those that you admired. you think someone when arrive. looking back on the history of

the supreme court, people say that the two most important decisions were probably brown vs. the board of education. looking back over the history of the supreme court, there were some decisions that stick in your mind. are they of the most monumental consequence? it seems to me that when people start getting beyond that, they wonder what cases you might add to that list of landmark cases. what i do think there is one

that stands out. people talk about the monumental cases. you assume they're talking about the good ones. >> i will say that been a significant case is scott. that is the sense that they are good examples of what to do. that is where they went terribly wrong. >> i think that some of the reasons are pretty clear. you have the most divisive issue of our history, leaving the country towards civil war. the political branches failed to address it in the case. you had roger, whose reputation

would be quite different if it were for this one case. -- if it were not for this one case. he moralistic it upon himself to leave the court into a resolution of those issues -- he more less took it upon himself to leave the -- to lead the court -- he more or less took it upon himself to lead the court into a resolution of those issues. it would have preserved the court. it could have avoided the civil war. the court, as an institution, could have played a more affected will after the civil -- and more effective role after

the civil war. you look for the lessons that you can draw about the necessity of one. approaching the case from narrow grounds, avoiding politicization. you have to remember that the republicans and jeffersonians were waiting to take action. it would have been attacked dramatically. all of those things are good. this is a good example of how not to do it. >> you don't want to draw that the court -- a

>> knott controversy, i think what he did was use a case that could have been resolved on narrow grounds. i am not suggesting that it was not a noble decision, but it might well have had the dramatic impact. it would result in relief. he resolved on the broad list -- on the broadest possible grounds. marshall's decision reflected a decision to pull the cord back. the jeffersonian said the white house, the jefferson orleans could block of the supreme court.

there were trying to pack the court with federalists. marshall does not even get to it. he pulls back and resolve the case on a much narrower ground. the court has to resolve issues that are of great political significance. as marshall did, i think it is important to see if you can do that. it is important to recognize the consequences if you involve the court in politics. but some want to return to his somewhat personal thing. i remember during her confirmation hearings with senator shimmer and he asked you what your favorite movie was and i think that you responded that it was dr. zhivago and. that is my favorite movie, too.

it is a good one. i am sure you have more profound reasons for liking it. i wonder if you could tell us why you responded by saying dr. zhivago was your favorite movie. >> it is my favorite movie. i was under oath, after all. if i were under oath here, all have to answer pretty much the same way that you did. [laughter] aside from that, i am certainly no film critic. what an astounding cast and great trauma and cinematography.

the images of walking through the washington -- the russian winter. it tells a story about the triumph of the human spirit and basic human emotions over a purse of this and war and revolution. you include the triumphal far. he plays the notion that art is one to persist through all these great challenges. i think that is something. >> the symbolism of these people

triumphing over the russian winter and the story line of their fundamental human emotions persisting through human oppression, i think it all comes together and it is a great story. >> and that beautiful films on. >> -- and that beautiful team song -- a theme song -- of that beautiful things song -- that beautiful tunes song -- that beautiful theme song. >> this is usually not is shy bunch. come on, you are all lawyers. >> mr. chief justice, judge,

last time, i think there was a school case known as "bonnets for jesus -- bong" bong hitz for jesus." you have the power to punish for speech on campus. in this term, and administrator strip searches a student, believing that the administrators of the power to do that, but the court says there is a limit to the power.

first, i wouldn't characterize the first case. i think it is a central point and it is true across the board. if you're going to get all your guidance from the supreme court, you're going to have a lot of difficulties. just take the strip search example. they don't care what is going on. that is where a school administrator it's their guidance. it is only where bodies but laid out the rules of thumb so. businesspeople read some of our antitrust cases and say we don't have any guidance i hear the

same in other cases. at every stage, there are other people that have the opportunity to lay down more precise rules. he can expect to get a whole list of regulations from the supreme court. that would be bad. we would not have the type of adversary presentation on each other that we have. the one thing on school the administrators is that the administrators of community because we recognized the did not have clear guidance we laid down the rule about what they could and could not do.