the time. it has that advantage as well. yes, they deliver it in private, but that is true of all course. there is no court where they do their deliberations in public. they are excellent at what they do and the decisions are all public, and the proceedings cartagena haraha. .

>> you can watch all the interviews from c-span supreme court special at

c-span.orgsupreme court. join us next week for "america and the courts." saturday evenings at 7:00 eastern on c-span. all this week a rare glimpse in america's highest court. about the court, their work and the history of the iconic supreme court building. >> tonight, we'll show you interviews from chief justice john roberts and john paul stevens. justice roberts talks about the history and procedures of the court, its role in society and the task of the chief justice. this interview took place in the east conference room of the supreme court.

>> the court today, the modern court, how much is it like the court that the framers envisioned? >> i think it is in many respects, it's still as they envisioned, three branches of government under article three. it play as much more important role in society, in government than they may have expected. the easiest way to get a sense of that, they envisioned a capitol building for congress and a building for the president, but didn't give any vision of where the supreme court is based. it was based in a boardinghouse and then the basement in the capitol, which doesn't seem suitable for one of the three co-equal branches of government. but as the court's responsibility, as the responsibilities have expanded, they eventually got this beautiful building of its own. >> and we'll be able to spend more time with the building and how it operates in its

symbolism. as you look along the course of your predecessor, who were the most important in shaping the court over the years to become the court that we know today. well, of course, there's one that stands out above all the rest. we call them the great chief. and that's john marshall. he was the first person to take the job seriously. most lawyers, i think, have this image of him as the first chief. but he wasn't. he was the fourth. the three before him, each only served for a couple of years. didn't regard the court as an important institution. in fact, spent most of their time doing other things. john jay is famous for a treaty he did with the english. but john marshall saw the job differently. he served in it for three decades. he's responsible for establishing the principle that the court has the sthort and responsibility to review acts

of congress for constitutionality. so he really established the court in a prominent position as one of the three co-equal branches of government. among the chief justices who was the most influential. >> chief justice rehnquist had influence on the court. earl warren famous for bringing the court together in deciding one of its most important decisions, brown vs. board of education. so i think the two of them would have to stand out among the modern chiefs. >> how many justices did the earliest court have? >> i think they started with six if my memry serves me right. the very first court had to be adjourned immediately, because they didn't have a quorum. i think the second time they convened, they did some administrative business then

adjourned pretty quickly because they didn't have any cases. so it took a while for the court to be established. the current number of nine was established after the civil war and it's been remained in tact since then. >> not without some chime from washington to make larger. do you ever think how it might have functioned as the court packing as it's called worked. >> it wouldn't have functioned at all. it's an extraordinary effort. roosevelt came into office with huge majorities. he had huge majorities in the senate and in the house. the court wasn't in a very popular position then. it was blocking all of his reforms. reforms that most of the country thought were absolutely critical. and he came up with the court packing plan. allowing him to appoint new justices on the court. good number immediately.

and then more over time. in order to get a court that would rule in his favor. even with his popularity, the country rose up against him. and the plan really didn't get off the ground. i think the public recognized the the importance of having the court as an independent check. even if court was very unpopular as it certainly was at that time. today with all of the visibility of the two other branches of government, the court i think is fair to say less known by the public than the other two branches. so i'd like to have you talk a bit about what people shuled understand about the role of this court in the modern society. >> i think the most important thing for the public to understand is that we're not a political branch of government. they don't elect us. if they don't like what we're doing, it's more or less just too bad other than impeachment which has never happened or conviction of impeachment has

never happened with the court. so they need to understand when we reach a decision it's based on the law and not a policy decision. if we come out in favor of environmental groups. you often read in the paper, "court supports environmental protection requests. the decision has been made by congress and the president. we've not ruling in favor of one side or if favor of another. i think that's very important for the public to appreciate. >> and we've talked about your press sesssors. what's the role of a modern chief justice? >> in many respects not terribly different from the role of an american justice. i have one role. the chief's responsibility is to preside with oral arguments and also to preside in the conference where the justices vote on and decide the cases. that means we get to initiate the discussion and have some

responsibility to make sure that all the issues are adequately aired at conference. my most important responsibility is the responsibility for assigning opinions. if i'm in the majority, i get to determine who will write the pen in that case. and that's the -- write the opinion in that case. and that's important, it's the justice who's view commands the court. some cases are more interesting than others. you want to make sure those are fairly distributed. you want to make sure that's fairly distributed. you want to make sure each justice has a nice mix. you don't want one justice doing criminal cases or something like that. so a lot of factors go into that decision. it's a very important part of it. the chief justice is the head of the judicial justice which

sets the head of the judiciary area. they have odd responsibilities that don't have anything to do with chief justice. i'm automatically chancellor of the smithsonian. so over the past couple of years, i've been learning about museums and research institutions. >> are you also the more or less c.e.o. or supreme court inc? and for the people that work here? >> theoretically, yes. the supreme court from one perspective is a small government agency. we have police and security force. we have 100 people. we have to worry about people slipping on the steps. we have to run the budget. but i have very capable people who know more about that thing to help me discharge that responsibility. when you mention the budget,

one part that we do see every year is the process by which justices go before the congress to request the budget. it always is an interesting example of how the functioning of how they work. >> the framers appreciate that it's very important that the political branches have criminal of the purse, how money is spent in one respect we're no different than anyone else. we have to go to congress with hat and hand to get our budget. as you say, though, it's always a very interesting process. we don't ask for much. we have a very little -- very little burden on the federal fisk. but we have to go ask for it. and when we do, probably because we don't ask for much. the member of congress have very little interest as budget issues. they view it as an opportunity to get some of the justices before them. and we here their opinion on cases that are before us or cases that we've decided.

>> and this building itself, i want to spend a little bit of time on that. you mentioned that the court was housed in the capitol itself which is just across the street. what do you think of this place just as a building among all the monumental buildings? >> i may be biased. i think it's the prettiest building in washington. and it's distinctive. the supreme court building is distink active. it's much light -- distinctive. it's much lighter. it respects that the court is a different branch of government. and it's really is more monumental. it looks like the jefferson memorial or the lincoln memorial in terms of the visual impact than it does look like another government building.

and if you view it as something of a temple of justice, i think that's entirely appropriate. when it was built in 1935, it was pretty controversial, i understand. many people have lots of opinions about this building and how it was -- well, whether it was appropriate for the court and the like. when you walk around here, do you think it suits the work that's done here? >> well, i do, it is part of the controversy. i think it's a grand-looking building. and i'm not sure at the time in 1935 people thought that type of monumental structure was appropriate. but i do think it's suitable to the notion that here we're not involved in the political process. we are applying the law. the thing that makes our system of government unique is that it's bound by the rule of law by a written constitution that lawyers and judges have to interpret. we need to appreciate one, that

something differences is going on here than what goes on in the capitol building or the white house. ander you need to appreciate how important it is to our system of government. the fact that we're a democracy is vitally important. but we're a democracy under law. and in that respect very different from most countries in the world even though those properly claim the democracies as well. >> is its proximity to the capitol appropriate? >> perhaps the fact that it's across the street is appropriate. we often refer to it in oral argument when something makes a an argument, we said you should bring that argument across the street. i think it's very appropriate that we can see the capitol right across the street. and i think it's very appropriate that they can see us. that they understand that we

are responsible -- they are responsible for policy matters. and they understand that we interpret the law. on a casual kind of bay circumstances we obviously, see each other and get to know each other on that basis. and of course, as you mentioned earlier, the budget process, we've got to get money from them. but other than that, very little to be honest with you. our job is not to help them as they develop policy and they don't have a flole helping us as we try to interpret what the law is. so we have friendships across the street. sometimes we have interaction of things like the budget. but our jobs are very different. how about that great plaza in front of the supreme court the sight of so many protests. what do you think of the design of the building that has

allowed that space in front. >> i'm not sure gilbert allow it to be a convenient sight for protest. i'm sure that taft who was designed in the architecture didn't intend it for that purpose either. it is a lovely intro dux to the court. -- introduction. it doesn't hereto you immediately. but it's more or less often in the distance. the protest point you bring up is very interesting. i understand people having strong feelings about some of things that we do and we're involved in. but it's not a situation where our decisions should be guided by popular pressure. and so the protests to some extent are there as a way for people to express their feelings but shouldn't be directed at us. you would not want us deciding what the constitution means based on what the popular feeling is. quite often in many of our most famous decisions are ones that

the court took that were quite unpopular and the idea that we should yield into what the public is quite foreign to having the country under the rule of law. >> but are you cognizant of them? >> you can see there there are a lot of people gathered. you suspect they're not there that they're -- to hear the law. >> interaction with the public as a whole. justice briar told us that in the years he's been here the number of tourists has declined from about a million to possibly half that. some of it the construction. some of it downward size of tourism after september 11. do you think the court is visit as much as it should be by the american public? and does the court actively

work to get people here? >> i think everybody who has the opportunity to do so here in washington should come by and visit the court. it is an important part of our constitution functions and how the government operates. gist as important as the white house and the capital. we're kind of tucked away behind the capital. but our role in the constitution is just as vital and just as important. i think that people who come here should have it. i suspect the decline is because of 9/11. and the construction. >> it's a big one. >> we haven't done anything since 1935. at the time it was a very big deal. that there were going to be telephones in the building. and there are so much more in terms of electronic. we have to have the

infrastructure behind the wall. some of it is security related. making sure we're safe in any sort of intrusion. if you've had a building for 70 years you have to update that as well. >> do you ever run into tourists as you walking around the building. >> do -- sure i all the time. >> do they recognize you? >> sometime they stop you. there are a couple of things, you know routes around the building that i need to get from my chambers to some other place. and that's the quickest place. and that's where i go. i'm always happy to see that people are here taking a good look at what we do. >> how often are you recognized as you travel? >> it varies where i am. if i'm going to visit a law school. i'll be recognized a little bit more than on a family vacation. >> and let's move into the

process of how the court functions throughout the year. you gave us a brief synopsis of it, but i would like to spend more time going into detail from where the court opens to how it fuppingses. give us a civics lesson on the court throughout the year. the court is about to close. i'm going to fast forward to the opening of the new session. start us with the cases. >> well, we get a lot of cases that people want us to hear. everybody remembers somebody saying, i'm going to take it all the way to the supreme court. i think about 9,000 of those cases in the year that were just concluding. we only hear about 100. so a big part of that job is going through the 9,000 and trying to figure out what the important cases are. traditionally in the first monday of october, we have a long session where we go through those sessions an try to figure out which ones we are to hear.

it's an interesting process. we don't try to -- you know, look at the cases that we think are wrong. we don't look at the cases that we think have a lot at stake. our main job is to try to make sure federal law is uniform across the country. so if you have a lower federal demourt california that decides a question one way and the lower federal court in new york decides the same question the other way, that's the kind of question we pick from that pile. the first monday in october, we will stop hearing arguments. >> that process is granting serts. >> sotoriari. >> do you even know the history of the first monday in october? >> i don't really know. the courts used to have several terms. we now have one term called the october term. they used to have the february term. i suspect when they had to

travel on circuit as the early justices did. but we condensed it into -- it's called the october term. >> the number of cases that you decided. the ones that are petitioned and the ones that are grantsed. the po portion of that seems to have changed over the past 20 years. there are more requests. fewer granted. why is that? >> the more requests, i think just come from the interest in judicial business throughout the country. fewer granted reflects the growing importance of the court in the constitutional system. ith may seem counter intuitive. earlier in its history the court viewed its for being responsible for every case that came up. in the 19th century most of the cases were admiral cases. but as the court started to have a more important role,

they started to focus on the more important cases for the constitutional system and lee it to the lower federal court to try to get each case right. there are countries around the world where the chief justices would come and visit here and they said, you know, we can't do important work the way you do because we ve to decide 3,000 case as year. so they spent a lot of time pushing paper and making sure individual cases that don't have a lot of impact are correctly decide. we don't. we try to focus on the ones that are going to be important for our system. each one gets a vote just like anything else. but it only takes four votes to grant sert. when they got congress to pass a law saying that we didn't

have to hear all the cases, it wasn't mandatory jurisdiction, it was kind of a dale, you didn't need five. four would be enough. we'll hear it even if it comes out that only four thinks -- >> how much read dog you do on each case? >> not a lot. if we did a lot of reading on each one. our law clerks help us. they where memos. you develop a pretty good eye for what kind of case is one that you ought to look at carefully. i look at the memos. this one we ought to look at more carefully before decided how to vote on. >> how much do you have? >> four. i think i'm entitled to one more.

but four seems to be the right number. >> when you are making those decisions do you know which ones are going to be the blockbusters of the court session? >> sure. you can tell if the case is a particular hot button issue that people are going to give it a lot of attention. but i have to say that doesn't enter into our deciding. probably a half dozen are going make it to the front page of the newspaper. all the other. bankruptcy tax case, and federal arbitration act case, pension plan case. those are actually a big part of our docket, all vitally important but not anything that's going attract any interest. >> with the scope of the work before you, the number of cases that you have to make, do you ever pause to think about how many lives are being changed by that no decision, no we're not going to hear this?

>> sure, those are the people that said at one point, this is so important to me, i'm going to take it to the supreme court. and you realize that was the biger -- big end of the road. it's a very sad thing to have to call somebody and say, look, they're not even going to hear you arguments. it's not going to get in through the door. but by the time it reaches our supreme, litigants have had two chases to prove they are right. so as we put it in legal terms, we are not a court of error. it is not our job to correct every one of those 9,000 cases. we couldn't do it and maintain our position as one of the three branches of government. >> in those cases, when there are human beings' lives involved, do you ever get letters from people after you've made the decision come to your snaufs >> i don't get many.

maybe they don't send them into me. but i haven't seen any. we get correspondence. i like to look at it. most of it is screened. when you gate nice retter that's visited the -- letter that's visited the court, you like to respond ebb though you can't do it very often. >> the schedule of when they will be heard, how is it allocated across the calendar, the timetable for the oral arguments? >> it's a rolling admissions process. when something comes in, we grant, it sourt of fills up the next open slot on the calendar. so cases we decide to grant right before october, aren't going be hearled in october. their going to be -- heard in october. they're going be heard laettner the term. that's how they get assigned to the calendar.

>> ok. the oral argument. the part that people most associate with the court. how does it work. >> once all the briefing is done. a case is scheduled for oral argument. most cases have an hour, a half hour per side. when you tell it to people they say, is that all? when you look at the other common law jurisdiction, they have more. but a lot of oral arguments are written out. they're not going have a chance to give a speech. a lot of the argument -- most of the argument is de voted to justice's questions. we've read the arguments. you've said this. well what about this? you say this is what the record show tabts fact. well, what about this? it's a very, very intense period of questioning. each of the justices has their own unique style about questioning. we have some people who like to

know the rapid fire style. other who is like to spit out hypotheticals. it's a real challenge for the lawyers. not only just to answer the question but to try to do their job of moving the ball in the right direction in defending their client's interests. it's a part of the process i thoroughly enjoy because it does give you a lot of interaction with the bar and through the lawyers. it's the first time we think what our colleagues think about a case. we don't sit down and say this is how i view the case. we come to it cold as far as, you know, everybody thinks. and so through the questioning, we're learning for the first time what the other justices -- how they view the case. that can alter how you view it right on the spot. if they're raises questions about an issue that you don't think it's porn, you can start looking into that a little bit. so it's a very dynamic and very exciting part of the job.

so you need to listen very intently. >> very carefully. not only to the questions but what the lawyers are saying. and understanding how their answer might cause you to focus on another issue appreciating that there's going to be another side of the case as soon as that person's half hour is over. there's a lot going on. >> it sounds like the justices are communicating through one another through the questions. >> it can be that way. thises -- if i think that lawyer has a good answer to a question that afierce be concerning one of my colleagues, i might ask an aggressive question that looks like i'm hostile. i know she is going to come up with a gad answer that might help respond that justice's concern. you mentioned styles. what's yours? >> i think it's more the repeated questions trying to

probe a particular point. i don't usually spit out long hypotheticals maybe because i didn't like them when i was a lawyer. but it's different -- i mean, if i have a particular view of the case that i think the lawyer ought to haven't an opportunity to respond to, my thinking that is developed to that level at that point, i might do more of a spitting out. saying -- council, this is how i see the case. there's this press candidate that goes the other way. and this is how your distinguish the precedent, but that's what's your answer to that? and hopefully that lawyer will have an answer, or if not, i'll appreciate the significance of that. but i think most of the time, it's more rapid fire. not as much as some of my other colleagues because i like to try to get the lawyer to deal with the particular issue and not, well, here's a general question. you try to throw them off balance a little bit. >> you have the particular

experience of having been on the other side of the bench. and i'm wondering what the difference is? what's the experience arguing the case? >> it's a lot easier to ask questions than answer them. the big difference is, we have -- there's a wonderful supreme court bar. and you run into your competitors both on your side and against you on a regular basis. but it's still a competition. you still win or lose as a lawyer. and you still have to call the client and say i'm sorry or call the client and say hooray. and that competitive edge enters of how you approach the job. obviouslyings we have joshts and we have decents, but i don't think any of us think of it as wins or losing. there's no competitive edge. i'm very grateful to have had the opportunity to be on both sides of the bench.

>> do you remember your first oral argument? >> oh, sure, yes. absolutely. case called united states against halper. i was very nervous. but i was very nervous when i did my last oral argument as well. i think if you're a lawyer appearing before the supreme court, you don't really understand what's going on. >> this is a member for all those members of the bar and for all those attorneys to be lucky enough to have a case before the court, what is it that you wish you would have known about the process when you were on that side that you now know? >> everybody says, you have to ans answer the questions. don't try to avoid the questions or distinguish your case in any way. but the importance of that is very accentuated. i appreciate it so much more now that i'm on the other side of the bench. you have to appreciate that the

justices are engaged in the process of trying to help themselves decide the case correctly. so they're going to ask hard questions. they're going to ask questions that don't put your case in the best possibly light. and you need to appreciate that. it's good to establish -- i think i didn't appreciate this as much as i should have. some dispassion, yes, you want to have a certain level of zeal and commitment to your client's cause. the justices know that. but when they ask you a question about a difficult case, it's better to sometimes say, you know, i appreciate that that case doesn't support my side. i appreciate that that causes us some difficulty. here's why i think you shouldn't rely so helve on that case as oppose ds to -- no, that case didn't hurt us at all. they like you to be a part of the process that helps you come to the right result.

if you can convince them that you're on their side in helping them treach right decision as opposed they have to push against to get you to give an answer, i think that's very helpful. not only to the court but to your client. >> do you ever change your mind listening? >> all the time. partly because you don't make up your mind before you go into the control. it's a continuous process of narrowing your decision window. when you pick up the first brief, your blue brief, they're all color coordinated. you don't have much of an idea, when you finish, hey, those are good arguments. >> you pick up the red brief, you see that there are another side of the stories. you sit down with law clerks and you discussion it. what do you think about this? again, you're moving toward a particular decision. sometimes it causes you to go this way. based on your own thoughts,

you're going one way. based on discussions, bouncing ideas off law clerks, i'll move another way. you've moved a little bit back and fourth. you've got all these questions. you learn that other of your colleagues view this part of the case as more significant than you may have thought. so change your mind as maybe -- and that happens sometimes too. you go in and say, i'm pretty sure i'm going to do this. but it's more a question of helping, you goat a point of decision. and then you go to conference and you talk about it with your colleagues and that may cause you to move in an entirely different direction. >> when cases are argued by attorney general do you have a different mind set, a court vs. the administration? >> no, not at off.

i argued against the government. they had very good lawyers. but i thought they were wrong a lot of times. and this was my opportunity to show that. that's really one of the most remarkable things about the process. government of the united states, the most powerful forces in the world, and they have a particular view. and all i have to do representing to save one little individual is convince five lawyers that the government's wrong. and that little individual will win. the government will have to recede. that's an extraordinary thing. it doesn't happen in very many places throughout the world. that's what beam men when they talk about -- mean when people talk about the rule of law. when i say i'm going to defer with more of what the lawyer thinks, it's inconsistent with the whole process. >> just walk through a typical

day how its scheduled and how you go about it. >> as a said, the argument process a perhaps for important for me. it's an exciting part of the process. i'm going to hear what the lawyers have to say. so it's an exciting day. i tend to get here a little earlier -- >> about what time? >> 7:30. give me a little more time to sort of go over some last-minute things. i will call the law clerk who's worked on the case just to bounce off some last-minute idea. what's the problem with this? what's the problem with that? how do you understand this case? aisle look over the briefs, my notes. sort of one last time. and then shortly before argument, we go to the robing room. we put on our robes. we meet in our conference room, which is right behind the

courtroom. we carry on the tradition established by mel --ville fuller, to shake each others' hands. we line you. we announce any opinions that we have to announce. we announce any orders that we have to announce if they're members of the bar or hopeful members -- lawyer who is hope to be admitted to the bar, we go through that process as well. and then we're off and running and as i said, it's an exhilarating for me as i think it is for the lawyers, lawyers involved. >> when you walk out with your colleagues, do you converse about the argument you just heard? >> no, it's -- i think informal protocol. but we don't talk about the case. we go to lunch. by then it's lunch time -- >> together? >> yes, usually. i mean, if somebody has a commitment outside the court,

they're out there. but usually on an argument day, most of the justices are there in our dining room. and it is the rule there that we don't talk about the cases. >> so what do you talk about? >> oh, you know, my colleagues that go to the oprah will talk about the -- opera. will talk about the opera. some will talk about a good movie or a good book they've read. something particularly interesting in their families. the kind of things that colleagues would talk amongst each other. sometimes we have three cases scheduled. it's usually two cases in the morning. in the fall it's often three in the spring usually two because we try to front load the work so that we can get started on opinions earlier and then spend more time in the spring getting them out. >> well, we should move out to conference because our time is

going evaporate quickly. >> talk about that. >> we it? the same plays every day. i sit at one end. justice steevepes who's the -- stevens, who's the most senior. and then it wraps around the table in order of seniority. we have conferences on friday. we'll take each other's hand. >> what's the important of the handshake? >> i think it's to reaffirm that we're a collegial court that we're involved in the same process. we've read the same thing. sometimes we have sharp disagreements on matters of great importance to the country we all love. and that's to show that we're all involved in the same process,, which i think is vitally important. i usually, not usually, i initiate the discussion. the arguments are so and so. and i think we should reverse

or affirm and here's why. sometimes until an easy case it will take you know, a minute. in a hard case, it can take a lot longer. then ith goes to seniority. so justice stevens would go next. he might say, i agree with everything, chief. just nice. or he might say, i disagree, i think it should come out the other way and here's why. then it goes around. justice scalia. then justice den d. justice souter. ginsberg, breyer. . as i talk about the case, i think it should be reversed. we talk about that if there's more discussion, we have more discussion. a fundamental rule that helps things, is nobody speaks twice until everybody's spoken once.

and once even's spoken we decide if there's a need for more discussion. sometimes there is. sometimes there isn't. sometimes we have a lot manufacture discussion and don't steam be getting anywhere. at that point, we'll we'll say, we'll work it out in the writing chfment means there will be memo of how they've decided. i try to make sure that both sides have an opportunity. if there are two sides to get their views out. >> you talked earl yes about how you allocate and being fair and giving people different experiences. when do you decide to read it yourself? >> it's a tough part of the job. obviously, there are good cases and i'd like to take them all. but you have to be fair. i'm very conscious of the need to take my fair share of the ones that are interesting and my share share of ones that are

hard. >> what's the process of writing an opinion? >> first of all, i do it longhand. i don't do it on the computer. >> is that the way you have done it? >> yes, i think i was a couple of years too late going through high school that the technological revolution was slightly behind me. i never learned how to write on the computer. if there's something i think they could write par of this, i feel comfortable with this so you go ahead and draft something up that i will helve edit. if its a new area, i will try to do it myself. i like to do a lot of the facts myself. i think they're very important. certainly by the time the opinion is done, i don't put it to bed until i feel comfortable that its my work.

there's a lot of -- it's an ongoing process. you write a first draft. you go back and read the case. you're always going back and looking at the briefs. always bringing bouncing ideas off of them. it's sort of a continue waugs of the oral argument process. what tease answer to this? what's the answer to that? >> sometimes they go around to the other justices before that. at conference i said this, i said this is the reason as i've gotten more deeply into it. i don't think that's the right basis for decision i'm going write the opinion this way, just so they're alerted to that. i like to do a lot of different drafts. 20 drafts, 25 drafts is not unusual. changing one thing and changing something else, sometimes changing it back and changing it back again, i like the writing process. so i enjoy that. and when you're ready to send

it out to the toughest critics in the world, that's what you do. it's printed up nicely. joyce always makes look authoritative. but it doesn't work with them. they want to go that way and they'll send detail memoranda about it. sometimes it's fine. sometime they say, don't cite that case. i don't think that's right. you make those accommodations if necessary to get their support. obviously, if you're starting out. and somebody says you have to change this or that, you're going to change it. the fifty vote more critical one. you're more susceptible at making changes than the ninth vote. >> what about those 5-4 cases

tan process of decent? can you talk through knowing that this is beginning to be a 5-4 decision, how much more extra time you will write the opinion, crafting the opinion and then the value of the de snent that process? >> you know, i don't think i spend more time on a case that i know is going to be 5-4. it's an opinion that's going to show up in those bound books on judges' and lawyers' shelfs. >> and your cognizant of that? >> i'm very cognizant of that. decent is a very valuable part of our process. it shows the thinking of different parts of the court. it shows that arguments have been fully considered. and it's valuable for the writer of majority. because we're -- we have a healthy degree of kept schism about what we're saying up to the very end. so it's good to see those

fleshed out. obviously, you don't like it when somebody disagrees with you. but in some cases that could be very important. now not in every case, and you hope to be able to persuade people. and you think it's a good thing if we talk about cases and send memos around and try to come together as much as we can in agreement. but sometimes we can't do that. and sometimes there's dissent. and you need to respond to it. and there's a lot of back and fourth. what ten dissent comes around, you're wrong about this, this, and this, and you say, he tease answer to that. sometimes you go back and forth a lot. but it's an important process. >> do you broker dissent that might get too personal? >> i think all of us do. on the court of appeals, a couple of the judges have what i thought was a very good process. when it was all done, and of course, the court of appeals is

going to be 2-1. everybody sat down and they ask what is it about my opinion that crosses the line? and they would say. mostly is taking outed a verbs or adjective. they didn't agree that it was important. so you'll take that out and say the majority is not persuaded by these cases or something like that. i thought that was a very good custom. it's not quite so formalized here. but there are times when you sit down with somebody and say, you know, on the reflection that you really want to be that harsh? and most of the time they're surprised adged say, oh, -- and say, oh, i didn't view it was going be that way. it's not just me. i think it's my colleagues. >> what was the transition like for you? how did you get up to speed

with the many traditions and operating procedures of conference so that you felt in command the way that your responsibilities give you the role. are inner command is the wrong word as i'm sure my colleagues would help you with that. it helps that i was a law clerk. >> but you never got to go in that room as a law crerk. >> it helped arguing cases here. so you pick up a little bit of a sense about how the court functions. and when i got here, my colleagues were very helpful on filling me in on how things worked. often in contradictory ways. you get a sense of what's expected in the process. and then you go in and do it. and hold your brth and hopefully they won't say, well,

what are you talking about? in one breath. my eight colleagues work extraordinary comfortable in making me feel very comfortable. imagine, it's in the that i was coming in as chief and the youngest among the bunch and in many times the least experience. you can easily imagine that that would be difficult. but every one of them went out of their way to make me feel comfortable in the process. >> we have five minutes and of course, i have 25 minutes worth of questions. let me move to this building, because it's really why we're here ultimately. when you're here after your work is done and you have the opportunity to work the court building, where do you most like to go? where is your place of reflection? where your real sense of history and purpose? >> i like to go sometimes on a quiet night to the conference

rooms -- called the east conference room or west conference room. we're not creative on naming things. because the portraits are all my predecessors as chief justice. and you know, to some extent you look up them on the wall with degree of awe, appreciation for what they've been through. they're probably looking down at me with either be moussement or amacement. and each of hem has a special story to tell not only individually but as the institution of the court. you look up at marshall and you appreciate him moving the court from a situation where each justice wrote his own opinion and instead saying, we're going to have an opinion of the court which was vital in establishing the demourt its present form.

then you go right back to him, you know, roger tawny, the most unfortunate of my spread sors, the author of the dread-scott decision. this is how he was going solve it. and tremendously misguided and injured the court for generations to come. so that helps how you look at your own job. you walk down further, -- farther and you see morrison wade. you look at melvin fuller. you understand his role in making sure the court functioned collegially. you see charles evan hughes. and you recall his role and you think about the importance of thiness of the judiciary,

things like that. so it's always an interesting way, perhaps to -- don't do it every day. but from time to time i find it a useful reminder of the role of the court and the role of the chief justice. >> and looking at what your predecessors did and small things like the handshake, for example, sets the tone. have you instituted changes in the roberts' court that help change the way the place functions? >> i don't think. so at least none that i'm aware of. it's kind of hard to say if things have changed when you not real sure how they were before. so i guess the short sans is none that i'm aware of. >> when you put your hand on the bible and took the oath, what was your sense of -- i mean, there have only been 16 people before you to hold this job. what was your sense of the responsibilitys that you were taking upon yourself? >> that i had an important job

to do. that i was very grateful that i had eight colleagues. if i had to make these decisions on my organization i think it would be paralyzing. but we share the burden. we share the responsibilities. and we help each other out in discharging that process. but obviously, i was very exciting. we were hearing cases that day. i had cases right away. >> i was anxious to get to work. >> the court is in the process of preparing for a new member. can you give us a sense of what's that like? saying good-bye to a new member. >> to some extent, it's unsettling. it becomes kind of hard to think of it as involving anyone else. it's like the way people look at their families. how could it be different.

but you do get new arrivals in both of those situations. it's a tremendous sense of loss. justice souter is a wonderful colleague. we will miss him in our deliberations. and we will miss him around the court. but that's part of the process of the evolution of the court. we will welcome the new member with open arms. and the court will be richer in the court of history. but you do get used to seeing the same people every day. you get used to having lunch with the same people every day. it will be an interesting part of the changeover. justice white always says, when the court gets a new member, it changes everybody. simple changes. we move the seats around. the seats are by order of seniority. same in the conference roomful

but more fundamentally, i think it can cause you of how things are decide. the new member is going to have a particular view about how issues should be addressed that may be very different from what we've been following for some time. so it's an exciting time of life in the court. >> does the chief get vacation in the summer time? >> vacation is the wrong word. justice branise said he could do the 12 -- work of the court in 12 months. we have work that we continue to do we continue to pore through those 9,000 petition. you can't put those off until the fall. we get emergency matters from time to time. but we do get out of washington. the workload is significantly

reduced, get to spend a little more time with my family than was the case during -- as always the case during the sitting. >> thank you for spending almost an hour with us, chief justice. >> thank you very much. >> if you would like to own a copy of our original documentary, a three diisc set including "the capitol, the white house, the supreme court" you can order it at c-span.org/supremecourt. for more information go to c-span.th dol org/supremecourt. -- c-span.org/supremecourt.

>> the nature of most human enterprises to ask yourself as an intraspeculative way, am i doing this the right way. >> all this week, a rare glimpse into america's highest court through conversations with 10 supreme court justice. interviews with supreme court justice, 8:00 a.m. eastern. and get your own copy on defend. it's part of c-span's american icon's selection. a three-disc set. it's available on c-span.org slashstore. a rare glimpse into america's highest court through on the record conversations with 10 supreme court justices about the court, their work and the history of the iconic supreme

court building. >> now our interview with justice john paul steevepes. he takes us on a -- john spall stevens. he -- john paul stevens. he takes on a tour. >> justice stevens, what part of the chamber are we in? >> you're in the office of two of my law clerks. lindsay works in here. i learn about the law from there. how many law clerks do you have? >> four. two others are upstairs. >> you have some photographs on the wall. one of them in particular is interesting because you're the only person left on the supreme court that served with warren bird. >> that's correct.

i think that was taken the day that justice -- the justice was sworn in. >> what's the difference between the court then and the court now? >> eight different justices. the eight are in that picture have all succeeded my present colleagues. very there a difference the way the court works today? .

>> you do about 80 cases a year. were there more in the past? and from a particular perspective, how many cases should you have a year? >> the number we handle right now is about right. maybe we should be up to a 100. but there were well over 150 when i started. that was a very heavy workload. a number of reasons for the change, one of which is that we no longer have the mandatory jurisdiction applied that when chief justice berger was here. we have more control over our docket. i think we do a better job, but the most part, in picking cases, although i think we should take

a few more than we do. >> what is your relationship with the people in this room? how many clerks do you have? >> somebody knows that i do not. they play a very important role in two or three different ways. the review all the cert petitions that come thin. any that i would have a likelihood of grading. they also work on the opinions that have been introduced. i usually write a first draft and then they converted to into an opinion and make it much better than it started out. >> let's walk into this room and tell us what is in here. >> this is the room where my secretary and assistant secretary our end. a room for visitors to sit and

see what the place looks like. >> how many visitors do you get over the years? how easy is it to come see you? >> i should not say this but usually we are pretty busy. the schedule is governed by the available time. and it is a full-time job, so you spend an awful lot of time but preparing for arguments, reading briefs ahead of time, and talking over the cases. and the major work is in writing opinions. >> do you total how many hours you have to read a week? >> it is a lot more than 40. >> what is your pattern on a given day? >> i am an early morning person. i do work early in the morning and i am well prepared when i come down 10. and i have flexibility. on days that we are not sitting,

i can work at home with computers. i can work on opinions and read it home and i sometimes do. sometimes i come down. it's a totally optional schedule. >> where is this office located in the court? >> it is in the northwest corner of the building. >> have you always been in this space? >> no, i have been in four different spaces. i started in the chambers referred to as the retired chief justice's chambers. i was there for three or four years, and then i moved into the chambers that justice o'connor now occupies. and after that, i move into the chambers that justice scalia occupies now, which had previously been occupied by justice stewart. i took over when he retired. before that time, justice black

had been there. there had only been three justices in this chamber is when i was there. and now nino has this chambers. >> let me ask you about the portraits on the wall. who is that gentleman? >> that is wiley rutledge. he is a supreme court justice for who might clerked. he is one of my heroes. -- for whom i clerked. he is one of my heroes. he was a court -- he was on the court of appeals for the fourth circuit. he had been the dean of the st. louis law school and taught at others during his career as well. >> when did you work for him? >> 1947. >> what did you learn from that experience that you may still hold on to today? >> i learned an awful lot, i will have to tell you.

i learned to take the time they're right at your round draft to be sure that you understand a case before you turn it over to someone else to work on. i learned that every case is important, not just ones where money is involved. it is important to the people involved in it. >> back to the right thing of the first draft that you do. is that unique for you? >> i cannot speak for my colleagues. i am sure that some right first drafts but i am not sure that they all do. justice rutledge root them out on of pad. dalai type them out on computers, but he would write out in longhand awful first draft, and then his secretary would type it up, and usually that was hit. we would supply some footnotes and suggestions, but he did the whole thing himself.

>> what is the lead of an opinion that you would write and the dissent that you would write or concurrence? >> the link it depends on the case. -- the length depends upon the case. i think that footnotes need to be an opinion and people would gain from having be option to read. i am one of those old timers to things but does perform a very useful function. some of my colleagues things that you should never use but not -- footnotes. >> why did they feel that way? >> fayed they give it is some port not to be in the opinion, it should be in the tax. and you should save the

leading it out otherwise. >> how does it change from the first draft that you write until the time that it is pat -- finish? >> sometimes it does not change at all. sometimes to get shorter or longer. more often it becomes a little longer. i am a fan of shorter opinions as possible, but you cannot always do it. >> on the wall is a number 22 baseball jersey. what is that from? >> that is a gift from my law clerks a few years ago because they know i am a cubs fan. they encouraged by continued interest. > i think three years ago, that was the highlight of my career. i had all my grandchildren, most

of them there, and i can tell you that i was a hero that day, much more important in my job. >> did you make it from the mounted a catcher? >> absolutely. i had a practice, to tell you the truth. >> other pictures are from white? >> the first one is a picture of gerald ford's funeral, that his family gave me. the casket was just passing by. and then a letter that he wrote to me that i was very proud of. and this picture was taken at the swearing in of the vice- president in january. and that i have a picture of my colleagues on the court of appeals for the seventh circuit. the one at the top is the court, my first court. >> you clerked for wiley

rutledge, and as you come down the pictures, this court right now -- >> i served on the court until 1975. and this is the court that i joined along the bottom. >> let me go back to the second circuit. >> it covers wisconsin, illinois, and indiana. >> was a learning experience on the seventh circuit? >> i learned a great deal. i learned an awful lot about federal law. i served with some awfully good judges and learned a lot from them. in that picture, tom fairchild, i learned a lot from him. >> what is the difference between a circuit court of appeals and the supreme court? >> on the circuit court of appeals, you are more bound by precedent than you are at the

court of appeals. the court of appeals is really required to follow it. whereas in this court, there are many more open questions that have not really been finally resolved. you have more of a duty to decide things for the first time that have not been faced before. >> let's go into your main office here. he had been a lot of different offices. does the atmosphere you are working in matter to you? >> actually, it does not. i enjoyed the office and i have a wonderful view of the capitol building. but the most important part of the office is the computer sitting right next to me. where you are, you spend a lot of time reading and composing on the computer. >> of heine your desk are a number of pictures.

give us an overview. >> most of them are family. president ford, of course, and justice rutledge, and my two law partners in the lower left-hand corner there. that is my wife. it was taken a few years ago. those are my parents, there, and my three daughters and my wife in that picture. >> give us some background on your parents. >> is a long story. they live the long time, but there are probably the most notable part of their career, my dad was responsible what is now the conrad hilton in chicago, and he was in the hotel business. also, he was a lawyer and studied at northwestern back in the days of would more.

>> you are northwestern law graduate. it is not that useful than have someone on the court from northwestern. >> justice goldberg was from northwestern. i went to law school at northwestern and did my undergraduate work at the university of chicago. >> any difference from growing to a midwestern school? >> i think that there is. every school has its virtues and its strengths, but the northwestern really had a fine law school and still does. and there are good schools all over the country. i learned that from then hiring law clerks. i've hired from many different schools and have done a magnificent job, even though they think we're not from the ivy league. >> i read that you were the top stated in the history of the northwestern law school. is that still the case?

>> i have been told that it is true. i do not know about the record since then. but i was told that that was the case. >> with all your experience -- northwestern law school, your job as a clerk here, service and the seventh circuit, and your father was an attorney -- where along the way did you get your philosophy of the law? >> it is a combination of many things. the combined to give you your views of what a lot is. a lot of that is just the result of your reading and a lot of it is your own experiences. i know that my experiences during world war ii have shaped me in so many cases. i was in the navy. and my experiences as a practicing lawyer have had an impact on the work that i have done. bad experience on the seventh circuit affected me and in all lot of things have combined to

affect your view of the law. >> when you're sitting on the bench looking out at the court during an oral argument, what are you thinking? what do you see that we do not see? >> i often remember, the first time i argued before the court, i was really surprised at how close i was to the justices. i say to myself, he is thinking the same thing. he did not expect to be quite as close to us and be as intimate and experience as it really is. you are having a conversation with the people on the other side of the bench. it is a very interesting experience. >> you have been here long enough for the bank itself being straight? >> note, warren burger made that change i year or two before i got here. since i have been a justice, it has always been with the ankle on the two sites.

when i was a law clerk, it was a straight bench. >> what is yours favorite spot? what room do you like the best? >> i have not really thought that through. i suppose that i enjoyed the oral arguments and i like the court room, i really do. i enjoy my own office. one of the most interesting places in the court is the spiral staircases, well worth seeing if you come in. >> have you spent much time studying the history of this place? >> if picked up a good deal of history but i have not made an independent study. some people have made it of the white house, very interesting work on the white house. >> what are those books behind you? >> those of the u.s. reports. they are the last 40 years of the u.s. report, and over there i have the reports from the

beginning. >> what are the u.s. reports? walk around his desk and i will meet you on the other side. >> they are the reports of the decisions by the court. they include all the majority opinions and all the dissenting in separate opinions that have been written. >> we have read for years that you figured out a way to spend part of your time here and part of your time and florida. when did you start running a couple of weeks in florida and doing work down there? >> i had been doing that for at least 25 years, perhaps more. part of that is the product of the computer. you can continue your communication with the office here, even though you are working there. it is the kind of job that you do not have to be in the office to perform. you can read briefs and two other research without being in the office. and you can write opinion without being in the office.

i did just as much work when i am in florida as i do here, except i do not hear any oral argument. sometimes i read briefs sitting on the beach, and i can remember getting a kick out of the fact that i had the breves on the bench one day, and i shook the sand out of the breeds. it made my neighbors all jealous. >> when you are around washington, the supreme court justices, everybody knows and i sure if you're in supermarket saying that there's justice stevens. you ever get that and florida? >> the only time i ever remember being recognized at what i'm doing the shopping, i was renting a video -- i do not know the name of the outfit, but the guy who owned the store had been

admitted to the bar a couple of weeks earlier, and he recognized me. he was a lawyer and an entrepreneur. but i am almost never recognized, which is nice. i just do the shopping and so forth and no one knows who it is. >> let me go back -- what is the way -- there correct way to print out search your -- certiori? >> it is a statutory briwrit, a petition, a request for this court to grant review of the case and set it down for argument. and we get, i do not know how many thousands of year, but the cases we grant come out of that number.

>> how many justices participate in the search pool -- cert pool, and what is it? >> there were six justices when i joined. i did not join because having been a law clerk years earlier, i had some familiarity with that process, and i thought i could handle cases more efficiently myself without participating in these memos prepared for the group of justices. there were six man, and after i joined, at every justice that has joined the court has joined the polls since then. there have been eight, with the one exception, last year justice alito decided independent as well. there seven that shared their law clerks and memos as presentation for the cert conference. >> why did you not decide to

join it? >> i thought i could handle cases more efficiently and independently. the memos that they prepare are very thorough and very carefully written, but they are a lot longer than i thought was necessary in order to make a decision on whether to vote to grant or deny. >> what does that did your personal law clerks work load? >> you would have to last them. i think it makes it less but they go through every petition themselves and divide them up. but they do not have to write a memorandum in every case. they read more petitions, but they write fewer memorandum. it cancels out. >> was the petition is accepted -- and how does that happen? where does it happen? >> once a week, except when we are in recess, we have a conference on friday, and we review all the petitions that have come since the last

conference. and we vote on whether to grant or deny them. it four justices to vote to grant, then the petition is granted. we do it in the conference room of the court. all of the justices are present at the conference, but no one else is present. our deliberations are entirely off the record. >> what is that conference room like? >> it is a nice big room with big to -- one big table and nine chairs around it. we have copies it and and maybe a sweet roll or cookie. >> how long as the meeting? >> it is informal in the sense that everyone is congenial, and there is a certain amount of conversation, but most of it is business. we're fairly -- in our roles

that we talk in order of seniority about the cases. sometimes after we had discussed the case or a petition, we will talk about it a little further. but usually is one go round the table. >> you are seated. >> i am senior and age and years of service, but the chief justice speaks first. >> did you ever think it would be here 40 years? >> note, in fact i had a law clerk named stuart becker, and i asked him to prepare a memorandum for me. the ages of retirement of all my predecessors, and to suggest in a jazz should plan on retiring. -- to suggest an age i should plan on retiring.

i would be helpful to have that type of guidance. i did not follow his recommendation. >> what did he suggest? >> i cannot remember exactly but it is a year long gone by. >> you're the longest serving justice in the industry -- in history and the oldest justice. >> i have not out to break any records. each year, i continue to enjoy it and make a contribution. >> what the deal at age 89 to stay as healthy as you are? >> i play a lot of tennis. i did not play as much golf as i used to. but for some is not the same as it used to be. in florida, i go swimming every day, and played tennis three times a week. >> is that painting of a mental

having any significance? >> that is queen victoria has a young lady. apparently that is a portrait in a number of the school's in eli. >> sit over here and we will make you more comfortable. right out that window is the capitol building. >> that is right. >> put the court in perspective where we have a president and the capitol building and now this building. what is its role? >> it is an independent branch of government. it has to decide cases and controversies that raise federal questions. it has to do it with the best of ability that it can. >> does it do it the way that you want to do it? >> sometimes, sometimes not. it is been true that there are

cases that are very difficult. sometimes there's a difference of judgment by different members of the court. when you are not in the majority, you wish they had decided it the other way. you think the world with been better off -- would have been better off. but if you do not have the votes, you cannot do it. >> are there some cases that matter or important to you within any other? >> if you ask me which more -- which was the more significant, i would have to say the ones i am currently writing are more significant. >> which one had the most reaction or the biggest sensation in the country? you sit here and write the opinion said that pop out, and then they are all of the knees. you pay any attention to that? >> you read the papers, of course.

you have to let others decide which are the most significant. >> the plan, when you retire, that your papers will eventually be released for the public? >> i think i am going to send them over to the library of congress. >> in the case of justice marshall, they were released early. >> i do not remember the exact date that i have arranged for. >> go back to wiley rutledge hill was the justice that you serve does court. were there other justices in history that made a difference for you? >> yes, indeed. the quality of their work -- there have been some truly great justices that have sat on the court. >> some that you have mentioned? >> brandeis and another, and justice holmes was an exceptional justice.

my good friends, potter stewart and byron white, were great justices. a number of great men had sat on the court. >> in your opinion, what makes it just as great? >> the quality of his work is the major main thing. and you judge them by their work product that they produce when they have been on the court. the >> what makes good quality of writing? >> i cannot give a lesson in english grammar but you have to write clearly and accurately and honestly about the issues. >> go back to what we were talking about earlier. the court and that things that you disagree with -- what is your option if you are sitting

in the conference and a vote, not your way? what role does your dissenting opinion play in the law? >> it sometimes becomes persuasive later on. sometimes it does not. but i do not write this cents -- dussissents to chase a lot. this is an open process in that this is one institution that explains in a public way of what it decides and what it does. it is a program for those who disagree why they thought the other side had the better or worse argument. >> you have been active in the oral argument. we run an argument week on our radio station and i listen to you.

what is your philosophy of participation during the actual oral argument? >> my philosophy is to ask questions when i think the answer might give me a little help in deciding the case. i do not view the participation of the justice has an opportunity for the justice to advocate one point of view. i think rather the questioning should be designed to help understand what the arguments on both sides are to enable the justice to reach a decision on his or her own views. >> how often do you change your mind after an oral argument? >> sometimes. i cannot tell you that number but it has happened, and it does happen when i have been riding an opinion. that is why i think it is important for the justice to do the first draft, because when you try to write something out,

you sometimes learn things about the case that you did not fully appreciate or understand before. there have been more than one case in which i have changed my view when i was writing the opinion. >> so young man or woman comes into your office and they are 17 years old and they say to you, i want to be like you. i want to be a justice sunday. what advice you give them along the way, and is it possible that you could decided a young age that you want to be a supreme court justice? >> i did not know. i certainly did not decided the young age. i cannot remember talking to anyone aged 17 and that has for that advice. the basic rule is to study hard and did the best job that you can at understanding what you can learn at college. >> in the future, this is a court that has every member of

the history of serving on a circuit court of appeals. they are all circuit court veterans. is that something that will be expected from now on four justices? >> that is something that future presidents will have to decide. i think it's healthy for the court have members from different backgrounds. i saw a television program recently were somebody said they should always be someone who served in the armed forces on the court. i think there should always be someone who has had had practical experience in litigation. and i think experiences in other branches of government, such as the legislature, would be very helpful. for example, justice o'connor had experience as a legislator. i think she made a very significant contribution to deliberation because of that experience. and in my own case, the experience i had as a staff

attorney on the legislative committees taught me a great deal about legislation that i know has affected my work to interpret statutes. differing backgrounds is a plus. >> what year did you serve on the subcommittee? >> 1951. >> who was there at the time, the chairman? >> max sellers was the chairman, the democrat from brooklyn. chauncey read was the senior minority member. he was a republican from to page county, illinois. i was hired by chauncey read. >> role does the legislative history played when you think about the case? >> i think it is all a significant. i think our job is to figure out what congress intended to do in enacting a statute.

i can remember being asked by members of the committee about it rather tricky questions that might be presented in the case. i remember explaining to one congressman some of the difficulties that i saw in the case. he entered, we will let the judges figure that one out. it is a cooperative venture. congress expects the judges to help fill in the holes in statutes as it goes along. realizing that it is not just trying to read the words on a sterile piece of paper. i think that is important to every judge. >> thank you, justice stevens. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> it would like to on a copy of our original documentary on the supreme court, it is part of our american icons dvd said. one of the many items available

at c-span.org/store. for more informational the supreme court and the justices, go to c-span.org/supremecourt. interviews with the justices, a photo gallery on the construction of the supreme court building, and an interactive timeline on the history of the court. >> the nature of most human enterprises is to ask yourself as an introspective way, am i doing this the right way? >> all this week, a rare glimpse into america's highest court threw unprecedented, on the record conversations with 10 supreme court justices. tuesday, associate justices anthony kennedy and samuel alito. interviews with supreme court

justices, 8:00 p.m. eastern, on c-span. get your own copy of our original documentary on the supreme court on dvd. it is part of the american icons collection, including programs on the white house and the capitol building 31 of many items available at c-span.org /store. the birt>> next, remarks from sl financial journal since -- journalist. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> has the financial crisis changed economic news? we are familiar with the saying that while the press cannot tell people what to think, it certainly can tell them what to think about.

we have heard a great deal in recent months and weeks about the subject of debt and deficits. thus, the conference. i am standing here tonight in this historic, a splendid building and wonder what some of the founders of the republic might have thought about the subject of our discussion today and tomorrow. how do we govern through debt and deficits? in fact, most of them had some acquaintance with the subject of debt and deficits. alexander hamilton, for example, the first secretary of the treasury, is said to have said, "the national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to was a national blessing." mr. jefferson did not always follow his advice to others and said, "never spend your money before you have it."

i have often fought, too, is that what we have tonight is a discussion about how people's thoughts, ideas, and opinions and reactions to the news events of the days are affected by the 24-hour, seven days a week coverage. tonight we are here to find out. we have a panel moderated by of franklin, and in the award winning journalist -- by bob franken. he is third with cnbc. bob franken, whom i have known from the years, was recently inducted into the society for professional journalists and washington's hall of fame. our second panelists is margaret brennan, an anger and reporter

from bloomberg television news in new york. previously, she was a general assignment reporter for cnbc and a contributor to nbc's today's issue -- today show and nightly news. she is also a graduate of mr. jefferson's university of virginia. [inaudible] [laughter] alan murray is the executive editor online for the wall street journal 3 he was previously assistant managing editor for the "wall street journal," and offered a weekly business column. he has served as the washington bureau chief for cnbc. we're fortunate to have al-anon are governing council at the miller center of public affairs here at the university. a distinction of many years. next we have robert samuelson, compared shooting -- i comparative -- a contributing

editor to newsweek. his articles appear in the los angeles times, the boston globe, and other leading newspapers. his latest book, "the great inflation". in case you're wondering about all holiday gift. he is also the business, economics, and occasional correspondent for the pbs and news hour. he answers questions on the business does. he has become a fellow at yale's berkeley college and the brady johnson distinguished scholar for political economy at yale. it is for those of you who are in our discussions this afternoon who know that he was a lively moderator and the panel that followed dinner. and with that, i'll turn to bob franken and ask him to conduct the discussions among our panel members on the question, has the

financial crisis change the nature of economic news? bob? >> president jefferson, other slightly less notable whites who are here, first of all, i will make a deal with you. no jokes about tiger woods or the salahis'. but they do make a point, in that people are desperate to pay attention to that type of thing. they are encouraged to do so by certainly are medium, television, but there is so much that is probably of much greater consequence these days, and what we have when it comes to financial reporting is the best of times in the worst of times. what we have here are the best of times, people i admire because of their ability to take these very complex principles and explain them in language that people can understand. unfortunately people often do

not take the time to understand, and so we have oftentimes is media coverage that is feeding the self-defeating media frenzy. bob, do you feel that you are singing to the death as you were writing? >> y? >> singing to the deatf? >> i feel that i am fading. there is of votes in my house with a rush to get a hearing aid, four-one, and i am the one. no, i did not. i think there is a real hunger for information in journalism. but i think the people feel overwhelmed by the amount of information that they are getting and that they have a hard time sifting through all of a broad data -- all the broad data -- raw dat.

many dealers think that there's someone someone who knows what means -- what it means. but there is not always. the sensation of feeling -- of not understanding what is going on, it is in fact one of the advance that we are praying. part of this economic crisis, i would say a large part of it, was that the events on the ground moved faster, in a way that was not anticipated by the people who are supposed to be in charge him by the people who were supposed to understand what was going on. but i do not sense that there is at the out there or in difference. but i think there is that type of confusion that reflects the reality that there is confusion but also the fact that there are

so many different sources of information, that even someone serious and ernest is going to be bombarded by lots of stuff that you cannot make sense out of. >> by the way, this is going to be less a panel discussion that conversation. what i wanted to do is ask you to participate in the conversation from the get go. if you have something that you want at your question you want to ask, starting now, bill free to walk up to the microphone and feel free to enter j.p. the panel becomes everyone in this room, what they would call conference committee of the whole. >> i think bob is exactly right. when you look at the long historical view of the last 20 years, i think that there are more talented financial journalist today than there have ever been in my career. school in 1977. governor, i thank you for not

mentioning it but i did go to the university of north carolina and when i got out of school, being a financial journalist at most papers was kind of the place you put the guy who wasn't doing very well and maybe had a bit of a -- an alcohol problem. and when i moved to washington in 1979 the first thing i did was find bob samuelson because he was one of the very few people out there who was writing intelligent stuff on these topics. and the world has changed a great deal since then. up and many of your colleagues, margaret, do wonderful stuff. what you have done at the newshour, paul, there's just been an explosion of really good, smart financial journalism. the problem is there's been an explosion of everything else too and i totally agree with bob. the problem is not the media. in fact in my view the whole concept of the mainstream

media, which may have should -- had some meaning 25 years ago when you had thee networks and a couple yuzz services and a couple of papers that mattered, has no meaning today. you have so many different sources of information. the problem is not that there isn't good information out there. the problem is frankly what people are choosing to consume. i don't know what you do about that. there are an awful lot of people who for whatever reason seem to prefer to consume news, information, that's supports their own prelilexes -- prell i willexes and -- pred i will exes and biases. and technology makes it a very easy thing to do. if you are in line with moveon.org and you only want to read columnists and get information that supports your personal biases, you can do that. >> and here you have media now

that are exploiting that. >> sure. and doing very well. and so you can spend -- you can find enough stuff on huffington post to read all day long or if you lean in the other direction it's very easy, you know, you can go to lucyann.org or a half dozen other plogs and never read anything that challenges your view of the world and i think that's a problem for society but i don't really -- maybe this is self-justification but i don't see it as the media's fault. the media is putting lots of stuff out there. if you want to get quality information about what's going on in the world of finance you can. >> but a lot is not quality stuff. there's an old joke in our business that the marching orders on television news are to get out there and scratch the surface. and unfortunately we're not talking about a subject that

can be adequately presented by scratching the surface. i know you probably have to deal with this dilemma every day. >> right. it's interesting because you've seen and there are sort of two points in here but what alan was just talking about is basically not just the democratization of the media face -- space in that anyone can sort of express their own views in whatever form, block, twitter, the media is -- believe it or not there really is life to this thing, 140 characters, you can get some sort of thought out there. people are forling it and investing in it. then there is this self-selection process which you're right, is ha louing people to just hone -- home in on the information they want. i'd like to think there is a little change of the opinion in

that process in cable news last year because i've had a lot of people come up to me and say they are tired of that, tired of the noise and looking for the nuggets. how do you get a news organization that can afford to give you the nuggets right now in in environment, that can afford to publish the papers and get them out there? >> you get the sense you should call the nielsen organization and get a box in their house because that's not what the nielsen numbers are showing. >> well, there's a bet on this. the paper content thing. that's a whole other topic. but you were talking about this idea of scratchinging the surface and it's something i have struggled with because now i'm at bloomberg news which is wonderful because you can really go in depth and i've been given the platform and leeway to do so. i can go beyond a minute and 30 on something, which is

unbelievable. your vfering -- average television report is one minute seven or something. unless you're the president you're not getting that. but i had a wonderful experience being with the msnbc family so long, so not only was i take -- talking to people who were choosing to seek out financial content, it was going and talking to people at home who were forced to understand financial news all of a sudden and that is scratching the surface but it raises the question of how much onus should be put on the journalists themselves to be disstill sg down to the point that people do need to know and not just reflecting what people want to hear. >> not just the journalists but the people who tell the journalists what they should be covering the >> right. >> which is not a problem at pbs. >> no, no. that's why i stayed there all those years.

i've been at the newshour or one of its incarnations or another since 1985 and literally it's true that within a couple of years of being there i thought i will never take another job anywhere else in television because it would be so confining and it would not allow me to do what i do. even so, the length of a typical newshour piece is shrinking. >> down to seven minutes now? >> no, we still go longer than that. [laughter] i think the piece you had on tonight was about seven. and that was all right for me. i felt as if i had a member lopped off, you know, to -- >> that's like my dream to -- >> you see why then i would continue to do this job forever. it's not singing to the deaf, it's singing to the attention

deficit disordered that's the issue. i had a piece a few years ago, well, quite a few years ago, that ran 18 minutes. >> i'm weeping. >> you remember george burns once said he loved the newshour, he went to sleep to it every night. he may have been watching that piece. i don't really know. but no, it's -- in the culture in general there is a shrinking of the sound bite. . the al lead people who play whatever video game, so we are -- super mario games.

it affects us all. and that is tremendously problematic. if you're talking about trying to explain something, that people who are here today, we had moments in the panel where, as an aside, i would ask someone a question, what do you mean by that? they took a minute and 20 seconds to have the exchange. that is obviously a problem. >> people are presented with the idea that they do not have to think beyond a minute and 15 seconds. add to that the willingness of the politicians to exploit that. they used to be calling that demagoguery. and you end up with situations like this summer with health care, where we had these town meetings. you had people who are just completely ignorant going out and acting in very disruptive

ways because they had been pushed, partly by a lack of information that they got in the media, and that blood was spilled by a politician perfectly willing to exploit it. -- and that void was filled by a politician willing to exploit it. >> some of those people -- i was going to say that some of the people you are talking about -- great deal. it is not that they are unwilling to read. it is what they are reading. >> the national enquirer, but you and i get great national economic news. >> things that support their point of view. >> it reaffirms the idea that each and every boy should be heard. people would get stronger convictions when they do not get conflicting information. it feeds that cycle. >> and there is market pressure.

you're right about the quality and quantity of economic and financial journalism. when i started out on the "washington post", i was hired as a reporter and was told to report to work in three weeks. ben bradlee was then the editor and said that we have an opening on the business page. why don't you take it? i was 23 and just hired. i thought it was not a good idea to tell the editor to shove it. i took it. but i did not have any background in this. the entire business section was five people. the last time i checked, of the years ago, he was 80. -- it was 80. we're still talking about 15 times what it was back in the late 1960's. and people to come into it, they usually have some background. i remember giving a lecture to a

guy at newsweek about 10 years ago on depreciation. at "newsweek," and he stopped me "newsweek," and he stopped me and said, the idea that -- i have an mba. i know all about this. the idea that a reporter would have then mba in the 1960's was an absurd. new sources create an enormous amount of pressure, not all of which is bad, but some of which is bad, to reach conclusions, to distill things into understandable sound bites or whatever you want to call them, because that is complication to get a police and the illusion of as much information as you can in a short -- or at least the illusion of as much information in a short amount of time as you can. when i came to "news we" in 1984

and started writing columns, it was about 1100 words long. it is now 700 words long. i do not want to see all of the missing words are gems, but you have to take things out when you write 700 words out of 1000 that it might be good to leave in. >> use it to market pressures. you have a circumstance now or various market pressures and all the technologies are driving the ability of traditional media to afford the kind of expertise they need and the kind of investment they need to properly represent the subject as complex as the economy and health care,

and i like to combine them when i am talking about this, and what you get is what i said before -- demagoguery. >> there is also the question of not just market pressures, which is a fair point, and it is obviously a relative one. it is hard to think of an industry that has not this year, but the organizations i know have all felt a lot of market pressure, and the financial institutions have all of a sudden got shoved from the back pages to the front page. we also have to talk about it -- you cannot suggest blamed the adb generation. -- you cannot just blame the add generation. news organizations reaching market pressures