if they guess wrong. we thank you for your question. other any other questions? >> another -- and no. 0 others have -- and on the court would benefit by having members who had come for blocks of public life. i would appreciate your view on the subject. >> where are you? raise your head. oh, they're your. i was looking over here. -- oh, there you are. i was looking over here. it is very hard to see. i do not consider one of them to be because i was a federal judge.

david souter was a federal judge for about five minutes before he was elevated to the first circuit. we are a pretty diverse bunch. i consider myself a practicing lawyer. i am a member of the bar and that is what i brought. justice souter brushed his experience and justice thomas is the only one who ran an agency. just as brier has experience on the hill. justice kennedy is a practicing lawyer in sacramento. justice ginsburg is an academic. justice alito is the most experienced on the bench before

coming to the court. we have the same label but we are a pretty diverse bunch. we did not bring that experience. i do think it is important that you figure out exactly what it is you think is lacking on the court and not just look at the labels. in the past, we have had a lot of politicians appointed to the court. if they are willing to become judges and leave behind the politics, i think that could be a great source we were talking last night about those that were -- remaining politicians. >> chief justice, what are some

of your favorite books and what do you like to read in your spare time? >> i do not like to read briefs in my spare time >> i like detective models -- a detective mall -- a detective novels. i hear there is a new biography of lincoln out that i think would make good reading. a couple of summers ago, i thought i needed to learn a little bit about my predecessors and to first learn who they are. of all the efforts to probe for possible witnesses, one of them asked me to name the prior 16 chief justices. i am not sure that i could have. but i like to -- there were not

many biographies on my predecessors, but i do try to go through them. a combination of detective novels and historical biographies. >> when we talk about people's favorite books, it is interesting to me because nobody says that they just love judicial biographees. >> as an exception to that, oliver wendell holmes had to be wounded three times in the civil war before people got interested in him. i certainly want to thank you mr. chief justice. >> we have time for one more. if you have gone up or, you might as will get your question. >> the question that i had was really one that the judge

touched on in your introduction. >> that was? >> the effort to get more consensus. >> sure. first of all, unanimity. i am not a little list. 6-3 is close to unanimity in our court. i think my views have been exaggerated a little bit. i am not suggesting that justice is compromised. you cannot do that. you cannot say that some thing is half way of a violation. either it is or it is not. it looks a lot more like law and you get 5-4 that says that this is definitely what the law

requires. you see people being skeptical about that. it is better for the development of the law. against clear guidance. liz this is what everybody thinks. the worst is when nobody knows what that means. i do think that we can come together with a broader agreement. there are consequences. you're more likely to get broader, the mayor were the decision is. but as for people are going to spin off -- that is where people are going to spin off. i think that is a good thing. >> i am delighted to be here. thank you for the friendly welcome.

>> it is a pleasure to have you with us. i understand that the children came with the. -- ken with you. -- came with you. that is just for me. >> which have got a great pet and coming up. -- we have got a great panel coming up. do not go away. we have some wonderful commentary to come. i want to thank the chief justice once again for his role in making this such a splendid conference. >> it was a lot of fun. >> the thank you, judge.

>> now, ruth better ginsburg spoke at the second circuit judicial conference earlier this month of talk about the supreme court nominee. this event is about 30 minutes. [applause] >> i am very glad to be with you and wish that i could stay longer, but monday is the day, the day that all dissenting opinions must be in circulation

sadly, i will leave this afternoon and go right back to my worktable. the first was that in january, the country welcomed the new president and vice president and just days before the inauguration, president obama and vice president biden revive a tradition i had not experienced in my 15 years. they visited the court for a lively conversation that all present enjoyed appreciated. 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 admiration and affection for a colleague with treasure. mine redad, justice david souter is the very best. he works so hard and getting it right. he is a genuinely caring man and a model of stability. never have i heard him utter a harsh or unkind word. i counted my great good fortune to have known him as a working colleague and dear friend.

as much as i will miss his company, i was cheered by the president's nomination of sony and -- of sauna so the more you sonya sotomayor. i am so glad that i am no longer grown to be the lone woman on the court. i look forward to a new colleague that is well equipped to handle the challenges that our work reserves. -- our work presents. we note a few of the most watched cases and then we

describe second circuit decisions on our agenda. last year, i thought we might hear as many as 100 cases this term. that proved incorrect. we heard 78 cases and that was up from 69 in the preceding term. in the next term, we will stay in the high seventies range. of the 78 argue cases, 17 of them were 5-4 decisions. it was considerably higher than last year's 16% and there will be more by-fours in the next few weeks. -- by-fours --5-4's in the

coming weeks. even so, our agreement " out ran our disagreement. and the press tends to focus on splits with the chief justice. justice stevens was on the other. it is not always so. true, there were nine of the 17 that did shake up in the usual way, but in five of the cases, justice stevens, kennedy ben's word and briar basham ginsberg

and briar -- this posed one of many questions consistent with our current sixth amendment jurisprudence. could a judge, rather than a jury, find it essential to the position of consecutive sentences. i answered yes. in agreement with me were justices stevens, kennedy, briar, and alito. sutton, there was a credit card issuers resort to a federal court to compel arbitration of a dispute with a cardholder. although the issue were itself had convinced that in state court. the cardholder had raised a

counterclaim governed by federal law. justices scalia, kennedy, souter and thomas joined me in holding that the issue had to stay on the state court track and their petition for arbitration would not be in federal court. the fourth circuit, whose decision we reviewed was on a different ground of the fourth circuit. third and by far the most prominent of this, the court revisited a case and substantially cut back on the scope of automobile searches. once the scene has been secured, police may search the interior of the car if and only

if they reasonably believe that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense for which the defendant was arrested in other words, no search for drugs when the arrest is for speeding. careful listeners would have noticed that i emerged in these cases has the swing justice. the only member of the court in the majority in all three of those five if-4 decisions -- by- 4 decisions. [unintelligible]

there was a predecessor the year before the court held eight-one that the fda's regime for medical devices pre-empted all state lawsuits and was allowed to be marketed but caused physical injuries. i was the lone dissenter in that case. dan another case involved drugs rather than devices and the absence of a pre-emption clause in that statute proved this positive. tort suits could be maintained

another case kid with a record resembling john grisham's novel, "the appeal." they charged that the coal companies predatory practices drove him out of business. the west virginia supreme court divided 3-2 and reversed the judgment and declared victory for the coal company. and there was one problem. justice benjamin, who cast the deciding vote was nearly elected to the court and the coal company's ceo had spent $3 million to defeat the incumbent. dividing five-four, we continued that his participation in the

case violated the right to due process. a justice kennedy's opinion for the court, joined by justice stevens, souter, ginsburg and brier, found that it was disproportionate on the election and the temporal relationship between the election and the pending case. finally, among these most watched cases, and perhaps the most important case of the term, northwest austin newton -- northwest austin municipal utility district, at stake was the year 200625-year removal of section 5 of the voting rights act. it was a measure initially enacted in 1965. under the act, nine states,

seven of them in the south, all had histories of discrimination against minority group voters. they said they must obtain clearance -- before any change. the requirement extends to all local units within a designated state or area and to gain free clearance, the applicant must show that the proposed change has neither the purpose nor the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race. eight days after congress' voting rights act, a small utility district in travis county taxes, formed in the late 1980's, filed suit in federal court, alleging that it never

engaged in discriminatory practices. the utility district saw a statutory exemption, a release to pre clear that was called a bailout. the bailout is not available to the utility district, then the 2006 voting rights act that we -- would be unconstitutional. it would exeunt congress ' power. congress passed the measure with an overwhelming majority. they stress the difference that

they rejected the act. what the supreme court will do with this case remains to be seen. the second circuit rate high on our grant was this term. -- rate high on our grant list this term. -- ranked high on our grant list this term. in the two most recently decided cases, the court affirmed the circuit's judgment. two of the reversals were issued on the same fitting day. one of the two involved a

section of the clean water act that specified the standards governing cooling water intake systems must reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. several states and environmental groups challenged as unduly lax, the performance standards that were set for the structures. concluding that the statute did not permit the epa to use cost- benefit analysis, the second circuit remanded it to the agency for clarification on whether the epa had relied on that analysis. the supreme court held that the statute could reasonably be read to allow for that. he criticized the majority.

the second of april 1 decisions, it concerned a collective bargaining agreement, providing that union members had to arbitrate, not bring suit in court. relying on may 1974 decision, the district court held that a collective bargaining agreement could not waive coverage workers' rights for claims that congress created. " the supreme court reversal

cause of justice souter to explain why our party year-old president remained solid and should have controlled it. another case decided that should never have bought that it should never have gotten off the ground. there was a 2004 determination that a broadcast of isolated utterance of the ef or s word could -- >> the court of appeals expressed doubt that the fcc's current fleeting expletive regime could survive first amendment inspection.

the supreme court reversed, holding that the fcc had adequately explain this new policy in. because the court of appeals had not ruled on the constitutionality of the fcc's orders, the court declined to address that issue. just as briar wrote the dissent. in a separate dissent, i noted the long shot of the first amendment cast -- long shadow of the first amendment passed. -- the long shadow of the first of them cast -- the first amendment cast. the words, i am told, were

spoken in the argument before the court of appeals, but lawyers were alerted that some of the justices might find that unseemly, so only the letters f and s were used in our court. [laughter] the court reversed the second circuit for the fourth time. it was initiated by pakistan in moslem that was arrested on criminal charges in the wake of 9/11 and held under highly restrictive conditions in brooklyn's metropolitan detention center. they sued a number of offices, alleging that his harsh treatment carried out a discriminatory policy under which he was designated a person of high interest solely because

of his race, religion or national origin. in the former attorney general and director of the fbi were both named defendants. they saw a threshold dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity. disagreeing with the district court and court of appeals, the supreme court held the big leagues were insufficient -- held the plebes -- deeply beans -- pleadings were insufficient. a plant this must -- a plaintiff must allege a fax -- alleged

fa facts. jerry did not create the plausibility standard, but he did began the whole business. [laughter] perhaps he can tell us which side got it right. in my personal view, the court messed up the federal rules. justice briar dissented separately to underscore a seat -- a key point the court had made. one government defendant asserts qualified immunity, the trial court that is responsible for managing the case can structure discovery in ways that diminish the risk of