this observation. the news cycle, the attention span being what it is, they have 48 hours to make the point. we write for a different time dimension. .

hot rods anything they keep that will matter in their lives will be

down in black and white. perr >> where you can feel that taconic plates of the court beginning to shift, you can be kurdish. to the importance of the court. the court is very of much aware

of history. there are only 110 who ever served on the supreme court. it is one where continuity is very important, and history influences the with the court works. >> the take traditions seriously. william rehnquist put those gold stripes on each of his sleeves or when others used fancy ties for their black robes. they cannot like to bring the cora -- that the quorum of what went on in the past. there are justices who still write out their opinions on longhand. the whole thing is set by

tradition. oral arguments go for a specific hour. a white light comes on, then a red light. there are certain days they have their meetings. the court has its own rhythms in its own orbit. justice rehnquist did not like to have any of those this dirt. when john roberts came on, he was more flexible on things. he left oral arguments go on longer. reckless what often interrupt somebody speaking when the red light went on. >> this is the chamber where brown vs. board of education occurred. these cases were decided in that

room by human beings listening to the cases. the aura of this place is always present. if you go into that room. it does not matter how badly the law your is doing. there's something about the feel of the place that tells you something important is going on here. to my mind, it is very much different from watching the house or the senate where you know what made me go on the floor at any moment does not have anything to do with the legislative process, somebody making a speech about how important mother's day is or how we should honor a certain kind of animal husbandry or

something. everything that goes on in the supreme court is related to something important, and it is part of a process that is working from beginning and end and will result in a substantive outcome. >> i like a lot of elements of covering the court. i love the oral arguments. i always described it as one of the grape field trips in washington. it is a lot of fun, especially since it is not televised. it is very ceremonial. the whole room is very beautiful. the justices come in in their robes. we have a very active in these days so there is a lot of give- and-take. that is intriguing to watch.

sometimes you can get clues from the arguments about how they might rule. they may surprise you when the issue an opinion. it is not where they may appear to be headed when they are on the bench. >> there is an ongoing debate and there has been and it will never end as to whether the presence of cameras in the court changes people. i suppose the debate was reasonable of long time ago. we have had so much experience now in state courts with cameras in the court room any difference at all. even in the federal courts now, where they are experimenting.

i think that judges are sufficiently aware of the craft of judging, that having an observer in the process is not going to be different in terms of how it affects the process, whether or not the observer has a notepad as i do or a camera taking images of what for the hesperia that is a debatable point. i do not think that lawyers will play to the cameras. the have one task, to persuade five people. that is all it takes to win. if you get up there at the

podium and you are plain to the cameras, the audience out there, chances are good that you will lose the focus on the five that you are trying to persuade. if you are sitting on that bench, and you are thinking about what the audience out there is thinking, you are going to lose the focus on what is happening in front of you. the dynamic of an oral argument is such that you have to participate to really make it work for you because the justices use the arguments to try to persuade each other. when properly understood, the arguments are and i joined the best setting function.

the conversation that the justices will have will be influenced th. the conversation has started when they were on the bench. >> 4%? >> no, your honor. the mother doesn't stop being a quota because it is somewhere between% and 12% of >> there is a residual sense someone will react to it, that someone will ham it up. justice scalia said one of them reasons is that he would oppose it because they would play it for the cameras. i suspect the one most likely to do so with the justice scalia. >> justice scalia is the most

fascinating justice. he is a man who came on with a different approach tall -- to tell all. for many of years, he was alone in his views, this is the clinton people beyond the marble walls. now he has a majority on the corporate meanwhile, he is an interesting figure. he is someone i found people want to know more about. he is very much out there during oral arguments. he will say very candid and blunt things which he was talking to student groups roo. justice scalia and justice ginsburg are good friends.

they have very different manners on the bench. justice ginsburg can deprive her son's of hers cents -- her sense of civility. when they were on the court of appeals, they would swap opinions. other justices have formed a bridge clubs. it is a human institution. they are appointed for life so there is an instinct for them to get along. they very much value collegiality. they want to get along. they were must challenge in 2000 after a bush v. gore.

they have their differences. they know there is an incentive to keep getting along because there aren't have to share the building for many years. many justices stay for 30 years. there is an incentive to appreciate each other's company. in recent years, most of the justices have been easy going and what types a ton was set that encouraged cooperation. >> however much you may have resented the way your colleagues on the other side have decided the case, there will be another tough case coming up right after.

if the underlying meaning prevailing atmosphere is one of collegiality, then you are able to have a tussle over a case, but once decided, you can move on. it is an institution where virtually everybody knows everybody else. among ... this is, this depends on the pattern that the chief justice cents. if he wants a collie deal corps, he can do things. chief justice warren had a very collegial court. he always did deal with if you that never seemed -- warren himself was a warm and friendly person. he ran a chord that was

agreeable with other. the court under burger was not a happy place. religious between the justices appeared to deteriorate. there was a lot of internal resentment among them about each other could the chief justice did not work very hard at trying to dispel that. the way he ran fourth at to the internal dissension could he would play favorites. he would sometimes cast his vote one way in order to have control and then changed his vote later on. he ran the court in a way that contributed to the internal division her chief justice rehnquist ran a very happy court remember i am talking

about a court divided along philosophical lines. at the same time, the chief justice, using that position, no where is it the find that he should be the principal caretaker of the emotional state of the court, but he has the capacity, using the functions of the office and his leader of the court to make the court a harmonious place it is apparent chief justice roberts is trying to follow the example of chief justice rehnquist had had a collegiate record clear he has a bit of a disadvantage. unlike rehnquist he was not on the court to establish relationships before he was

chief justice. that helped win quest, to be one of nine and then to be the leader. just as robbers did not have that opportunity. -- justice roberts did not have the opportunity. it makes it more than ample for him to establish the leadership potential that he he should have. people who have no john nutter say he is no more cuts people whom have known the john roberts say he is no more conservative than he ought to be. the court under jon lovitz is an institution that is -- under john robertso isn't an

institution the has longstanding precedents. he is a justice who once the court to move in more incremental ways, to take similar steps curricle there is that the mention -- that the mention. there are times when his conservative orientation, which is deep, leads him to want to push the court to try to take bold steps just this sense -- when he is on the winning side, he will determine who was wanted to write the opinion it

will also guide the work courts and the public's. that is the most important role. he also has a ceremonial position. he runs the private conference of some. he is a member of boards in the town terex when it comes to actual all of the line. are you compare it to take the oath? >> i am. >> i solemnly swear hugs -- they love the court sets all of the land and the new justice can tip the ideological balance

record. remember you could be a part of any group of nine where a new member can accommodate how the person does business. >> each new justice changes the court. what he meant by that was because of a chorus of nine, there is a dynamic that the phelps in the crewninegroup of nine. i remember justice harry blackmun said at one point kulka the woman came here with an agenda and she means to carry

it out. he was unhappy with her because his perception was that a new justice should come to the court and not be visible for a couple of years. sandra was kind of throwing her weight rounaround. before the end of november she was filing opinions dissenting from the courthouse decisions. it is a bold thing to do if you are a brand new on the court to clear a new justice comes into the court and brings a personality, history, a style of judging, a style of writing, and because there is this constantly changing internal dynamic, the addition of a new ingredient changes the whole

yea. it opens up the possibility of a shifting within the court. >> any justice will bring great diversity to the court. there is only one african- american justice. adding and his running just as well at eight diverse the end of the second female voice. you can see how america is a male, at female, to have only one justice female appears to be lopsided. even two our of the nine will be more than there is now clea.

what will their personality like who how will they decide on the law? will she end up being something other justices play off of? justice sotomayor happens to be from the bronx. regenerator ginsburg is from brooklyn. samuel alito is from trenton, new jersey. there will be a little bit of mixing it up from the bench. this is where they will begin the process of reaching the decisions.

the goal of a round after the chief justice has set up the case. this is what we are front to decide. the start casting votes. the someone is not ready to vote, they can wait, but typically it is up to the ninth justice to have their say and then once every justice has been able to speak, there may be give and take care that is what they do for every case. also, they go through this see if there is a discussion to be made for a case on appeal to decide whether to take the case. it is a very serious business. they start with a little coffee and pastry. then they tell that they keep carryin.

they do that before the holder conference. justice o'connor said she loved the idea of shaking hands with a colleague and having that human contact before they were about to disagree vigorously. then they go back to their chambers and every conversation they have is done in writing with the document that is carried by a messenger from chamber to chamber. if a justice wants to make an amendment in an opinion or write a note about how he or she might be prepared to rolule, that justice writes that them and that it is hand delivered to another chamber. there will be occasions when a justice will pick up the phone and talk to another justice. the competing kate -- they

communicate by messenger. hamas if you pay close attention and look at the test papers that are often available, at various universities, the decision process is a paper process rather than one in which somebody walks down the hallway and tries to persuade each other. there are exceptions to that. in 1992, the court was examining roe v. wade. three justices put their heads together and fashioned a way by which the court could resolve that. that was unusual, to put together a little trio that was

managing the case and controlling the outcome of the case. they were able to get a majority to sign off on what they had chosen to do. in most of the cases, once they have cast an internal flow and the opinion is decided, then the draft starts circulating and what happens is the other justices will send join memos. you can count my vote for my opinion as this. maybe a note that says i will write separately, so i will not join your opinion. or i will support your opinion, but i will still write separately. or i will descent. -- dissent.

that is usually done as a paper process. what he think about a coat at all comes in as a paper flow and the person who has the task of writing the opinion as the decision of whether to incorporate all the changes. if you think you are on to lose one of your five, then you will be more agreeable to what justices may think before you hold of the. -- hold vote. to negotiate -- you have to negotiate.

that is an expendable vote. even not want to offend them, but that is what you do not need. he will be less accommodating to that justice if it is a 5-4. >> this is our moment. the guy from reuters is almost the most pushing carry carey. the supreme court information office says here is the material. we will make sure you have the material. that is an enormously in fireable function. it is nice not to have the

sense of us came up i want to hear the decision announced from the bench. i want to hear the justice announced what is in the opinion. then i will go down to the press area and i write a first version of that story so it can get on our internet site. it is much different than when i first started covering the court when he would take all they do call people, get their reaction, and then file a story of around 6:00 p.m. and now readers want to know as soon as possible what the court's role. the amount we are in the early stages of profound shifts in which the press attention to the court, the press awareness of

the court, is going to be so much smaller over time. maybe the american people can find the court even more of a stranger to them. the newspaper industry's decline is something that will not be reversed. one cannot imagine an economic model that will keep that medium flyable or restore it to its former prominence. at any foreseeable time in the future. so the question arises who will be the chronicler of the supreme court of this teacher who who will tell the american people what the supreme court is, what

it is doing, where it is calling, who is on that? who will be paying attention thato it as ? the electronic media can take up the slack, but the pressure in the electronic media for constant, a four-hour coverage enhances the importance of gravity. in covering the supreme court, rosa lee can be the enemy of clarity. -- brevity can be the enemy of clarity. bmi if i weren't for the next day's clifford accord rolled a five-four, who would care, because everybody would not by the time they woke up the next

morning and other newspaper. what they want to know at 10:30 p.m. or of a plot p.m. at the of the ruling is how they role, and what they want next day is something that is a further analytical. >> where people who say the press corps of the court is there on bended knee, the have become apologists for it, we treat the justices asked if they were untouchable carr. that this understands the role of the crust. even though we try to be as the test as we can be from the court as the court is from libor world, it does not hurt, and i think it helps enormously to be aware of the atmosphere, have

some succesense of being an apot to the court, but also to grant dness and the majesty of the place. >> in a teacher i think the supreme court might be ahead of the country on long-aw. in terms of technology, they will probably always be behind the rest of us. >> he is an institution that does most of its work in the open, and the word comes in the front door and goes out the front door. the labeing >> next d, drew dayd

maureen mahoney. >> de you remember your first or absolutely. >> i was very nervous before my last oral argument as well. >> you are in a moment and it is all bout fielding those questions and using the time strategically so the response of the questions the. >> i have no awareness of the

courtroom, the people in the courtroom, any physical movement that is going on. it is remarkable. >> we talked with attorneys who have our vieargued numerous cass and front of the court. we begin in a room just down the hall from the chamber, where attorneys gathered before or curral arguments in. >> they come in and they get practical pointers. it is friendly. a lot of nervous energy in their parents >> it is designed to

doing are immense for the first time, to make sure that there are no mistakes, that they try not to tell jokes during their argument and they do not refer to any familiarity with the justices. they can make the best case and the court will hear them carry you want them to be prepared and both sides of an equal the chance of winning the case. it must be in new york or california. it is not just a bunch of attorneys hanging around the same courthouse. the exchange greetings. they take their seats the carr.

the feedback i have gotten it is they like it very much. >> the hon. chief justice and the assistant justices of the supreme court of the united states. all business before the supreme court been th. >> when you are sitting in the chair, you are waiting for them to come in, and the men from behind the curtain. it is a very formal entry. everyone rises to show respect,

and then the devil is how the people sit down and the court is in session. it is very ceremonial. the procedures are in high sir money. very official. nothing informal or modern about the way the court conducts hiit proceedings. i like it that way. it instills the enormous respect for the institution, the processes, and reverence for the courts. >> it is a very powerful experience. even people who have been or the court many times still get a

rush when it happens. one of lawyers on my staff, quite a good lawyer, and when i was new, i said, how we feel could you have butterflies? he said, i do. he said, i decided that you are nervous until the first hit. after that is fine -- it is fine. >> i remember the enormous pressure to reform. it was probably most intense the first time because if i did not do well and would not the opportunity to come back. it is the crowning achievement of many lawyers' careers the

article from the supreme court. >> creates the certain nervousness. my recollection is in the voting rights case before the court, and my opponent was not particularly skilled. i got the sense that horton was reaching out to help him and i wanted to know, why not me? eventually won the case. one of the things i remember about that s was a different rhythm of oral argument when chief justice burger handed the court. let's heaheaded the court. when i argued later, the

rhythm was quite different. he ran into in a military way, and he got 30 minutes, and if you were in mid syllable, he would say thank you and that was the end of the story. i had to get accustomed to that. now with chief justice roberts we are back to a more relaxed sense of the court. this is because roberts was an advocate before the court in number of times and to the extent he has been identified with arguing cases that maybe they are allowed to finish their sensetences before they sit down hn.

>> having some anxiety helps you perform at your highest level. you want to perform at your best. they observe it. it helps the development of all. -- of the law. when you look at the courtroom, you can see that he did not want very far. there are seated right next to the podium. he just stand up and slide over a few inches. for me it is about taking a deep rbreath and saying, mr. and chief justice, if it pleases the court --

and then you have a few sentences where you have cuts and then you get horses is within the first minute or two. >> we have some people like rapid fire style. others like to spin out hypothetical spirit. >> has that changed everything? >> what the government came along and set in order to run the hospital yet disclose certain facts, otherwise we will shut it down? this is a conversation, and i have no awareness of the courtroom, but people in the courtroom, any physical

movements that may be going on. this physical closeness, approximately, and there is something about the [/ p.a. system, because it is very sensitive. some lawyers have real problems and they looked down at their nose for a moment and they forget where the question is coming from because it could be coming from any place, particularly when justice o'connor, justice ginsburg came on because they want women, an attorney with say, no, justice ginsburg, and it was a question from justice o'connor. when the justice o'connor left,

they leave out t-shirts that said, no, i'm not sandra, i'm ruth, and then another t-shirt said, no, i'm not ruth, i'm sandra. >> a first of all -- >> once you start your in the moment, and it is all about justice is fielding the questions and using that time she really so you respond to the questions. you cannot persuade a question if he did not answer with a have asked. he also have to remember that you have a limited amount of time. at most you will have 30 minutes. often the argument is an or 15. we have to cover a lot of ground and the time you have.

in some question, getting across points, response is, trying to change the subject if you need to, but you do it in a way that feel that you have addressed the concerns of the justices. >> there are questions that are real questions were the justices want to know the answers to. other times they are talking to a fellow just as true view. you are a central lesson the main -- ventriloquist dummy. you can move your argument to the next level after that. the court is concerned with not only result in the case before the thinking about how their

decisions will affect cases down the road. what will be the impact of president. one of the cancers that is given but is not helpful is that you cannot blame yourself, saying that is not this case. one of the justices will say we know that, that is why we asked the question. the argument goes on for a while, and one of the bad signs of an oral argument is when the questions stop. it means that you have not persuaded them or they have figured it out already and there is nothing more you can add. you sit down and then the response -- and then the respondent get an up and tries

to piquet holes in the argument that was made by the petitioner. >> it is as you are giving are not usually wonderful sound bites. they are designed -- it is a much more scholarly exercise. it is designed to, based on the president of the case, to bring all those materials the bear in a concise and persuasive way and to do it in a small amount of time. you have to be well prepared if you are on to do well. you have to know more case backwards and forwards. you better know it better than anyone in the courtroom. you have to be able to recall anything critically and be able

to weave it into the narrative of. it is challenging. they are all relieved. america should be enormously proud of the courts. the supreme court is excellent care if it is challenging to arm at the level and meet their expectations. >> i do not think so, your honor. >> you have it that some number. does this not being a quota because it is somewhere between 8% and club%, but it is a quota if it is 10%? >> what can somebody tell me in a half an hour. it is quite rare the oral

argument change my mind, but it is quite common that i go in with my mind not made up. a lot of these cases are very close, and this was the council can make the difference. >> it will be very rich richer if you talk 4, minute. he's the be sometimes within the first 20 seconds. yes, you can questions from him just as at any time, and your job is that it to the question. it is not coming in with a prepared speech korea must of the time i spent in anticipating questions and preparing answers that i would like to get to those questions. sometimes that means fielding hundreds of questions that they

may ask harr. it is a lot of questions. they ought interrupt each other. there was one time when it was arguing with the chief justice copps i was answering the question from one justice and another just as the cut in. they said let's her finish her answer. my reaction was it was a great day. >> whether one focuses on it a go justice, all skilled advocates understand that they should be familiar with the

views of the justice, based upon what they have done in related cases and be prepared to recognize questions actually are the result of this set of positions that a justice has taken. it is not a smart a kurdish as an oral advocate of this is not a smart approach to focus as a lamont one of justice. i do not think the justices like that very much. i do not think there he goes arm bruise to a much. indeed, very surprising things happen. one of the early cases i argued i was convinced that justice stevens was with me every step of the way. he was asking a great questions. he was looking at me benignly.

when the case came out, it was 7-2, and he was one of the centers. -- one of the dissenters. he said, cannot take people granted on these issues. he said it is a road map of how administrative action ought to be taken to steer clear of some of the problems that he sought and the federal statute i was defending. >> you cannot be sure where the argument is telling. once his bowling. -- is going. sometimes he will have to make that judgment early on in the

case. that is not completely changing strategy. irresistibly something you have thought about carey >. i think it is helpful and the more you know about the court and the way they do their jobs, it is more of an unpainted to. there are many advocates to show up for the first town who have never been to an argument before you do a wonderful job because they have mastered their case. they had anticipated questions without knowing what questions justices may ask. mastering the case is the most important. >> she was not engaged in the five services -- in bona fide services.

>> it is often the the glove for the public to understand what is happening at arguments because of issues that can be complex and they are often about statutory interpretation. they are unraveling words in this that she and turning less and talking about the enactment history, about how decisions have intersected with the girl mall. i think a discussion of that type is that will for the public to follow. there are other cases that are easier to get their arms announced. i have a case about recruiting eighth-grade athlete's career at the first amendment protections that would apply in a recruitment cross. that was about a potential for a coach to unduly influence an

athlete of making calls to the home. people listen and not their heads about what was happening. a white light will go on with five minutes remaining. when your time is expired, a red light goes on. the supreme court, when the red light goes on, you are to stop. when chief justice rehnquist was presiding, the release of the stock carries less hume weren't really supposed to stop. >> doesn't matter to you whether you win a case 5-4 wh? >> is the case leave for

another day the same issue where you have a closely divided court who there are situations where there are issues that one wanted at mailed hotel that that not get nailed down her one of my colleagues said he would rather have 9-0, because if you have five-four, he will always wonder what he could have done to get another injustice into my column wh? my sense has then that even when i was unhappy with the decisions and had the of was a route since -- that i had the is

robbed sense, people get the sense that these are very serious people who understand the way on their shoulders, who are trying to do the best they can. i love the people from other countries into the court and have them watch smart people ask probing questions and trying to find helpful answers to the issue before them. they are not a mysterious potting. -- body. i think it is great for the justices because they continue to have less 80 not active at the same person on the the pe o