back at tribute to u.s. and world leaders, including ted kennedy, if ronald reagan, and robert byrd. then, new year's day, all look at what is ahead for the new year's. vladimir putin discusses his future from his annual call-in program. a presidential adviser on the global economy. to creators on entrepreneurship 3 + the art of coal -- a political cartooning. .

>> i have four law clerks, and they are valuable. >> what does this building mean to you? your a man who has studied architecture and art. >> this is the last neo- classical building built in america. it was built in the 1920's and 1930's. taft had been president and he got money to build it. the man who was one of the justices at the time did not want to leave the foreman's

chambers in the basement of the senate. he said if we leave these offices in the senate, nobody will ever hear of us again. but he was wrong. another person said he would never come in here. he said this building is so elaborate, it would go to their heads. maybe he was right. it has become, over time, a symbol of the court system and the need for stability, rule of law, which is what america stands for. >> as you know, the public knows very little about how the court works. what can you eliminate on that subject? -- what can you eliminate on that subject? how it all works, how to the cases come here? >> what is it i do every day? first, keep in mind that law in the united states, 90% or 95% of all law as made in the states.

every state has a system for making law. it has legislature, government, a court system. i asked school children, where is the law may? -- made? it is not washington d.c. well, over there, congress is a block away. they do pass a lot of laws. those are federal laws, but then make up a small percentage. those are the federal laws in those books right there. >> a technical question, how do those books and up on your shelf? >> we all have copies of them. anybody in the united states could write to the federal government. the west publishing co. puts them out. this is the u.s. code of cases. there is a statute book. you can get a copy.

it is that every library. this is how you get a request for identifiable records in a patent case. there are words in it. fontaine pointed out that every word in a statute is a possibility of an argument. does it mean this, or does it mean that? it contains thousands of words, and each worker can produce an argument. >> are these all the laws that have been passed over the years? >> these are all the federal law still in existence. over there is the actual code itself. >> all that is available -- >> it is federal. it is available in every city or country. it is available on the internet. >> how does a case come to you?

>> remember, there are state laws and federal laws. they are in state systems. looking at the case in the federal system, it is complicated. maybe three or four are in federal courts. it can involve a federal issue of law, what does it mean? or what does the constitution of the united states mean? we decide just the federal questions. what the constitution of the united states means. in cases where people are disagreeing about it. the trial, appeals, and finally, by the time you get to the final appeal -- maybe there are 80,000 cases or 100,000 cases that have questions of federal

law. what does this word mean? what does the word "liberty" in the fourteenth amendment mean? assisted suicide is a case we have. it could be an important case. of those 80,000 cases, 8000 ask us each year to hear the case. that is 150 requests to hear the case per week. >> this is for this week. what we do -- we read through these. we look at all of them. and then we vote. we meet at conference and we

vote. if there are four of any of us that want to hear any of these cases, we will hear it. this one is a petition that i picked at random. this is a person can't afford to pay for printing. if he is a criminal defendant, the government builds this. >> does this have to be a certain length? >> yes, it does. it is usually 15 or 20 pages. this is 21 pages. >> that is in a booklet. >> here is the lower court. they asked for a petition. please take our case. here is why we should take it. here is the response, please don't take it. how could i read all of these in one week? i would like to say that is because i am so clever. what we do with these, since it

would be impossible for all any one person to read all of these, one of the things these wonderful clerks do is have a pool. there are about 30 clerks, and those clerks will divide these. they will read five or 6. 30 into 150 is 5 or 6. maybe he is right. if i had read 150, i would not necessarily find that. but by reading five or six, they are going to find out whether there is a case that we should hear. what we really received is a pack of memos like this.

it is how we decide what to hear. think of these memos. i go through that stack, probably in a couple of hours. how could i go through that? it is 2 to 10 pages, maybe 20. i will end up with a small stack. these are the ones that i really think we might hear. how did i get from the big stack to the small stack? once i tell you the criteria i am using, you will understand. taft said that we are not here to correct mistakes of the lower court. already, that person, everyone of them has had a trial, one or two appeals.

we could not do it if our job was to look through these decisions and decide whether it was right or wrong. maybe they are right. maybe we are wrong. the primary job is, said taft, to take the case where there is a need for a nationally uniform decision on the meaning of the particular law. suppose all the lower court judges come to the same conclusion? is there a need for us? what do you think? nope. it is already uniform. supposed to reach different conclusions. we will probably hear it. if they all reached the same conclusion, we probably won't.

that isn't 100% of it, but it is the basic idea. now you can see how i could do this. now you can see how it is possible. >> let me ask you about your chambers. it seems a lot different than where you used to be over in the senate. are there to clerks in here? >> and there are two upstairs. >> it doesn't get any more exciting than this? >> i like it pretty quiet. >> it is a different atmosphere than the judiciary committee? >> absolutely. this, by the way, this is what happens next. the parties, the people that

hear the cases. that is 80 a year, out of 8000, 80,000 possible, 8 million altogether -- these are the ones where the judges disagree. >> does that mean there are 80 times that these parties come to the court room? >> the different parties. those will be two-week sessions. we will hear roughly between 8 and 12 cases during the sessions. they each have an hour argue orally. before i go into the session, we have here march or april. these are the cases filed in april. each one of these boxes is a

case. >> what is in the box? you have heard this case already? >> we have heard them all. before i go into the oral argument, i have read these booklets. and this time, i have read them. i go through it. they write memos that i asked them to do, and we discuss it once or twice. this is an interesting case. this is the blue brief. 50 pages or so were the lawyer says why the district court below was wrong. and we have read brief. that tells us why they are right. >> who writes those? >> this case involved a school district.

they have a view of what the rule of law on search and seizure is. the other side says no, the lower court was right. >> is there a length? >> 50 pages. >> what if they are poor? >> we will appoint somebody to represent you, and it will be paid for. >> how often? >> fairly often. all of those white pieces of paper are all the people that could not afford to pay for it. that is why they didn't print does. if the case is granted, they

will get the money to print it. >> what is your feeling on those numbers, 8000 -- >> we're looking for the legal issues where people have disagreed below. and maybe a few others. if they hold a statute of congress unconstitutional, we will hear that case. there may be some huge issue for the country. what they have in common is that four of us think there is a need in this case to have a uniform rule of federal law in the country. >> what else is in that box? >> the side that filed the blue brief and filed a rebuttal. the colors help us. the government is always red. >> is there reason for that? >> i don't know. you will have to ask them. they are supporting the petitions.

any group can file a brief. we have some people in a group filing one side. >> and they're always light green? >> dark green is on the side of the response. light green is always the side of the petition. so what i will do is read these 12 sets of briefs. look at the number of briefs here. as they get repetitive, i may not read them quite as early. but i will look at them. >> does it ever feel like it is too much? >> in the summer, i have briefs.

i read at home. they follow me around. >> what about security in an office like this, a building like this? >> they can't hack in, we have a very secure computer system. they can't. >> you communicate among the offices? >> with judges, is better to communicate in writing. they're complicated, these cases. we may not think we're talking about the same case. if i have to put it in writing, it is a good way to communicate. we also talk to each other. >> after you have read all this, you are on the bench, how often do you change your mind?

>> it depends. how often do i hear the oral argument and change or think differently about the case? quite often. 40%, probably pretty high. 30% as a ballpark how often do i come in -- 5% or 10%. dodge the oral argument matters. >> it does matter. it helps me characterized the case. i see what my colleagues think, and i listen. once we hear the argument, we go to the conference room and sit around the table. we talk about it. no one else is in the room. and we vote. the vote is that if tentative.

it is becoming firmer. nowadays, is pretty apparent how it is going to come out. that's because people don't usually understand. this is a case involving a tonnage clause. it is important to people that own ships or tax ships. many of these cases are quite significant, but the press isn't going to write about them. they will write about the very controversial issues where we might divide 5-4. i think the division appears to be greater than really is.

>> this is where the office is. >> amy's job is to keep everything in order. lots of pieces of paper floating around. each case as it comes up, people began to decide and write opinions. tony keeps track of the rest of the world coming in here, which in my case, is quite a lot. people want me to give a talk, the judges, who knows. she is the face of the world. >> standing where you are, you can hear the noise of the tourists down the hallways. you get a sense of not many

people ever get back here? >> you don't, because it is a secured area. fewer people come to the building now. when i first got here, a million people a year came to the building. which is wonderful. i think it has dropped somewhat, but that is not who comes to these offices. these areas are kept secure. >> if i am an attorney, representing a client. can i call you up and come visit? >> no. the basic rule of the court system -- that is called ex- party communication. if you have two people suing each other, these two parties are represented by lawyers. the judge should not have anything to do with the lawyers without the other one being present. we have a very formal system for

making presentations. >> do you ever have to say to our friend or acquaintance, you have gone too far and asked to many questions? >> it would be unusual that i would be talking where it could happen. if we are at dinner and we start talking about a case, i will say, you can ask what you want. i am very restrictive about what i can answer. that usually ends the conversation on that subject. >> on a lighter note, i see some bobble-head dolls. i don't see one of justice breyer. there are a lot of photographs. >> i was a judge for 13 years in boston. 15 years here.

i have had 111 law clerks. 87 came to the reunion, it was absolutely wonderful. they are married, have children, so i feel like a grandparent of a thousand children. >> what is the job of a law clerk? >> they go through all the petitions. and when we hear the case, they will read those briefs, too. i will talk to them about it and ask them to do research. when we decide the case, the next step is to write an opinion. that is divided among the judges. in a particular case, if it is my job to write the opinion, i will get a law clerk to produce a long memo, maybe 40 pages or draft. i will take that memo, take the briefs, and i will read them. this is where this goes on. what i do is, i read them.

it looks like i reading the newspaper this morning. having done that, these are the systems. i go over here. this is a computer going to the outside world. if i want a secure system, i push that button. it is totally separate. i sit here and i write a draft. a lot of my day is spent writing a draft. i give it back to the law clerks. they look at it and go, medium. and they will write a draft based on my draft. i get their draft, i do it again. it goes back and forth. i usually have to spend two or three drafts pretty much from scratch before i am reasonably satisfied that we are going somewhere. and we edit them back and forth. after they are edited back-and-

forth, i circulate it. i hope for the judge's ruling. the four other judges join, i have a court. i would like nine to join. >> decides in the first place? >> the chief justice. he is constrained, because he has to have the same number of opinions. everybody is assigned one, two, three. it will be up to him if he is in the majority. if he is not, whoever is senior will make that decision. it balances out. >> these are some very old looking books. >> they are my own books. very valuable. he spent his life as a professor collecting different books.

he was in cambridge. he was at johns hopkins. he went to harvard and started working the library. did not have a lot of money. >> did you clerk? >> that is the man that i clerked for. in 1964, 1965. >> what did that do to you? >> it was wonderful. his clerks loved him, it was great fun working for him. i was probably recommended by faculty people at harvard. >> and how do you pick your --

>> i have a committee of former clerks. the judge's call me on the court of appeals and say, i have a wonderful clerk for you. we get several hundred applications. between that and the calls of the different court of appeals judges, i might interview 10 or 15 and pick four from that. >> there is normally a roaring fire. >> because it is cold. i love the fire. >> is it real wood? >> yes. >> normally, you have robes on. you normally work without a coat on? >> yes.

>> what kind of atmosphere do you have? >> it is pleasant. people give me odd things. this is an indian tribe stick, it is fun. when you hold it up, people are supposed to listen. it doesn't work, but i like it. >> what about this piece of art? >> we have the privilege, as many appointees do, of going to the museums and see if there are paintings that are not displaying so that we can have them loaned to put up at the office. i borrow them. they can take them back.

that is a nice one. they're all nice, but that is a famous one. >> what is your favorite thing? >> i like this baseball. this was a great thing for me, because i got an invitation from the red sox to throw out the baseball. that is not so easy to do. i am not the world's greatest thrower. boston fans are not very forgiving. so i practiced. we have my 4-year-old granddaughter. she threw the ball the grandpa. and grandpa threw the ball to my wife, who was a very good athlete, and she threw the ball right over the plate. she works at a cancer hospital

in boston. the announcer said that i was throwing the ball with joanna, but she was doing it for the children. she got a lot of applause for that. >> sit over there, we can continue chatting a little bit. what do people not know about this court that you want them to know? the average person that does not understand. >> two things. one is the job of the court -- much more a straight legal job than people think. people think that we decide what we like. that isn't true. i feel like i never decide what i like. very often, these questions are hard, and the law is not clear. the fourteenth amendment says that no person shall be

deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. what does that mean? you cannot be deprived the right of asking a doctor if you're at the end of life to commit suicide? do you have the constitutional right or not? there are ways of finding out. it is not surprising that people divide on such questions. that does not mean you're deciding according to your preferences. i am looking for my copy of the constitution. look at this document. it is a very thin document. it has been in existence for 200 years. what i see every day and my job

that amazed me first and continues to amaze me is sitting up in the bench. i see people of every race, every religion, every nationality. we have 300 million people. probably 900 million points of view. people cannot agree about a lot of things. despite an armistice agreement, they have decided to resolve their differences under the law. i see that every day. they don't have that tradition in other countries. they shoot each other. here, we don't. even if they think that it is misinterpreted, they still follow it.

that has not always been the case. we had to fight a civil war over that. a lot of bad things have happened in the country. over time, people have come to the realization that it is better to follow the law, including interpretations you don't agree with, then it is to take to the streets. that is a tremendous treasure for the united states of america. people have agreed to follow that document. we are entrusted with its interpretation. >> let me ask you about the proximity of this building. it used to be inside the capitol. >> if you look out the window, you can see the capital. >> this building, you can look at it two ways. it is surrounded by congress, or congress is looking up at the supreme court.

>> the overall impression that i have working in congress is that that is where the power is. we are a democracy. at that power flows up from the people. you can't work their that thinking every minute that we are responsible directly to the people. i remember coming to my office one day, and someone was looking to the books. i said, can i help you? it was probably a student. she said, i had a question. i thought i would look at these books. shall i be a little annoyed? nope. maybe she is a constituent. you see? that is the thinking that people have when they are elected. and they should, because they are representing the people.

what we're doing with this document is not telling them over there what they can and cannot do. we're looking at this as the ground rules. these are the ground rules, what they say in this document is one, we will have a democratic process. we will have democracy. it is a certain kind of democracy. it exists on a degree of the quality. it insists on protection for fundamental rights. it insists on separating powers into pockets. state, federal, executive, legislative, judicial so that no group becomes too powerful. those things don't say how to live in society. they tell you the ground rules. we apply those through democratic processes. we figure out what kind of cities, towns, countries may

have to follow these rules. our job is a difficult one. you take what others have done and look at it carefully. we will probably spend two, three, maybe four months on a case. and then we come up with the conclusion about what it means and whether it is consistent with the constitution. here is the end product. when everybody has written the dissent, everybody has written

anything they want to say, there is no strategizing or everything the next day, it is released. in all these books, it is a little essay. here's one i'm taking at random. jones vs. the united states. there were some people in the majority, there were some people dissenting. there were three people dissenting, and six in the majority. that is about 20-plus pages, 25 pages. in those opinions, they are giving their real reasons. they are giving a real reason as to why they think it is different from congress. they're not supposed to tell you why the statute is on the book.

the statute just tells you what to do. it doesn't tell you why congress decided to have to do it. these documents tell you why the judge came to the conclusion, and the upshot is the inside story of the court. >> often, you'll see concurring opinion in a dissenting opinions. to those have an impact? >> i would say yes. the part that you haven't seen is, the first time i say right an opinion. you say, write a dissent. i read what he said, and i make sure my argument was as good as i thought it was. the impact will be at least to make me write a better decision. >> you get the dissent before the final decision? >> absolutely. and you will read what i wrote, and he will revise your descent. and ultimately, i hope -- and it doesn't always work this way -- we narrow our differences to

the point where i think an objective person would have to say, most of the time, these differences are within the range of reason. nobody has really made a mistake. it is simply different people reaching reasonable conclusions for somewhat different reasons. but i can understand how people can differ. >> is there a time where there is a deadlock? let's say you have nine members of the court. let's say they all concur and hungry. pooh decides when is the final word typed and we have an opinion that we can announce. >> at the conference. remember, we need the four votes and we go and discuss the case. the first order is always a list of the opinions that are circulated.

and what the chief justice always says, and he knows because he keeps track as do we all, is everyone in on this? has everybody joined? everyone agrees that they have nothing more to say, that is when it comes out. >> what if you can't get to that point? >> we get to it. it hasn't happened. the job is to get to the point. we're not working on works that will never see the light of day. our job is to decide. we decide. >> what is the longest period of time you can remember from the moment you accepted a case to the moment you announced the decision on the bench? >> i know the longest that can be possible would be hearing

the argument in the week of october and wouldn't get it out until the end of june. that is the longest it could take. >> it can't go over until the next year? >> no. it is slightly more absolute than is warranted. we have the power to hold the case over for the next term. i don't think that has happened since i have been here. if you were to find a counterexample, fine. but i do not think has happened. >> let me ask you again about the building. what is your favorite place? >> alike this office. i am a homebody. there we are. the job is reading and writing. i say, the job, if you do your homework really well, you can get a job doing homework the rest of your life. i am reading and i am writing. it is a pleasant room to work

in. i like it. every two weeks, i am hearing oral argument, sitting in the courtroom. i very much like that, too. i can't say they're like the exercise, but there is a track down there. this is comfortable. i like it in the winter. i like it in the summer. there is a very nice view. it is a great privilege to be here. >> you often read that there are nine different law offices. is that the way it works? >> to a degree. it is somewhat of an overstatement, because the

suggestion is that we do not talk to each other. we do talk to each other. we have ways of finding out, sometimes directly, what other judges are thinking. it is an individual law office in the sense that what i am writing an opinion, i have my draft, i have my law clerks. they will do the research necessary. it wants to know something, go look it up. the library is fabulous. it is connected to the library of congress and the whole world. if i want and what the french statute of limitations is in some kind of commercial action, i can ask them. the next day, it will be on my desk. they're very good. >> how often are you on a point he can't resolve and you walk down the hall to one of the other justices offices? >> sometimes. the first thing, i want to know from my law clerks, what is the answer. there are a couple of different

kinds of questions. what is the statute saying on this? i will go as clerks or as the library. i see that, i wonder how i should factor that then. i am having a problem here. you can't do it all the time, or you will not get the work done. but to say you would never do it would be an exaggeration. >> you had something to do with the courthouse. you were right into the architecture. >> we needed one. we spent a long time trying to get a decent building built. it is a nice building. ellsworth kelley produced this. the light the design of the

building. he put his paintings in there. harry cobb was the architect. selecting the architect and finding the painter and the decoration -- we probably spent, my guess would be an afternoon a week for three or four years. meeting after meeting after meeting. it was not easy. harry was fabulous in getting the money. i hope you look at some time. the theme of that is that it is a public building. the judges are part of a community. the building should be used for community activity. we want to bring people into it. there is, in fact, a staff there that does nothing other than trying to get the lawyers

to bring high school classes in. or to bring public school students in. the jury room is used for meetings of all different kinds. >> what is the difference in the field you have in the courthouse and the one here at the supreme court? >> that is a district court, trial court, and court of appeals. the court house -- that is a feeling we wanted. the public's business is being conducted. it is not a procession to the throne or the judge sits. it is a marketplace with an architectural feeling, ideas going back and forth carrying on the business of the clients. the judges, in a sense, are part

of the furniture. here, it is not quite that feeling. this is more of a processional. it is viewed as symbolic. it is a very important building. do i like the activity more? i worked at the senate. this is a different job. >> if you could do it again, would you do the same way? >> i am not architect. the person who designed this building was a brilliant architect. i was happy when there were a million people a year visiting us. >> why hasn't gone down? >> i think the general concern in washington. people are slowly, bit by bit, doing a heating system.

an air-conditioning system and an electric system. it was built in the 1930's. the appearance want change, but the insides will. >> just a couple questions. you are moving out of this office, and you -- they are going to work on it. are you going to come back? >> of course. >> is there any other office you want in the building? >> no. i was very lucky. this is a great office. right before ginsburg was appointed, i was the most junior. when i was appointed, nobody wanted to move. that is fine with me. >> when you come back, is your fireplace going to be here? >> i certainly expected to be.

i certainly hope so. we will be all right for a year. that's fine. >> anything you want to say about anything? >> have i forgotten anything? >> this is our first one. it is a terrific start for us, exploiting the system and how it works. >> is there anything you find interesting, the justices getting together for lunch? >> before we go into the oral argument, it is usually 10:00 to 12:00. five minutes before 10:00, we go put the robes on and come back to the conference room. we always shake hands with each other before the conference. i was the most junior member of

this court for 11 years. when we had our conference, i had the special job of opening the door in case somebody knocked. somebody forgot a paper. once, there was coffee for justice scalia. i have been doing this for 10 years, and i have gotten pretty good at it. he said, i am not sure. we have fun. >> do you have lunch every week together? >> not everybody always comes to launch, but when we are in session, we usually have lunch in the dining room. >> on the conference itself, is there no staff in there? in a recording device? >> no.

but we take notes on what each other says. two very good customs and rules. everybody takes notes. if i am writing the opinion, i better know what you think. if i don't know what you think, you will not join my opinion. we keep track of everyone's tentative vote. one of the best rules, and i think it is true for any group, the rule of that conference is that no one speaks twice until everyone has spoken once. i think it is a very good rule. the other rule that is absolute is what i call, tomorrow is another day. we are not the greatest allies in the world on this case. those who disagree with us are completely wrong.

we are going to convince them that we are complete allies. the case is over. the next case. we are on totally opposite sides. the fact you were my ally in case one has nothing to do with case two. that's good, too. it produces good human relations. if you disagree, you know that tomorrow, we may agree. >> we will continue with the supreme court interviews in a moment. visit our web site for information about the nine justices and read about the history of the court at c- span.org/supremecourt. now, more information on this week's series on the supreme court. >> that is not the business judges are in. we do not sit here to make the law, decide who ought to win.

we decide who wins under the law that the people have adopted. >> a rare glimpse into america's highest court threw unprecedented and on the record conversations with 10 supreme court justices. and thursday, scalia and ginsberg. get our copy of the supreme court on dvd. it is part of the "american icons" collection. it includes programs on the white house and the capital. one of the many items available at c-span.org/store. >> now, our conversation with justice clarence thomas. he has served since 1991. we met with him in the east conference room at the supreme court building. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> justice thomas, you were sitting in the supreme court conference room for this conversation. do you have a memory of the first time you ever walked inside this building? >> gosh. well, i do. i was a hill staffer in the russell senate office building in the early 1980's. it may have been 1979. i love this city. i would walk over to the library of congress, the then- new madison building. i poked my head in this building monday and was overwhelmed by what i saw, and immediately left. i only got as far as the great hall. >> why is that? dodge the supreme court is special. it was special when i was a kid. it is special for what it has done and what it symbolizes.

the supreme court was awesome, in a sense that it was someplace maybe i am not supposed to be here. i was young, and it was my first foray into the building. i did not come back until years later. and just briefly before i was nominated, one of my former law clerks took me on a brief tour of the building. that was about it when i came. >> any of those visits, do you remember feeling as inspirational? >> goodness, no. this was not something i could

look forward to or think about. i had actually not thought about being a judge. the irony was, i had been approached about considering becoming a member of the missouri supreme court in my early 30's. i thought that was far too young. i did not know whether or not i wanted to be a judge. >> why does age matter when you are a judge? >> i think we mature at different rates. but the decisions that we make at 40 or 50, we would not make that 20 or 30. i think you have judgment that comes from having experiences and experience that you do not have in the early years. >> i was interested in the tour

your former clerk took you on. where do you take people on tours? >> i don't do tours. >> not even for friends and family? >> not really, but the whole building is special to me. every room, special. the various gardens are special. i think that if i had to envision what a supreme court would look like, this is it. i would not change anything. there were times in my early years late at night, we did not have this connectivity. you get trained, tired,

wondering, why am i doing this? i would leave the building and go round front and look at this institution from that side. it is hard not to get goose bumps. it is hard not to realize that this is much larger than me. i remember when i first got here and i was relatively young. justice powell and i went to lunch. we were returning, and he looked at this building. at that time, he had retired from the court and had questionable health. we loved to have lunch and chat. he looked at this building as we approached and said, once you think you belong here, it

is time to leave. this institution, what it represents, what we do is much larger than us. it says each of us that it is much larger than us. >> can you speak a little bit about how you said it was the perfect building? you visited both state supreme courts and courts in other countries. what is it about what the architects captured in this building? >> i am not architects, and i am not an artist. >> but it appeals to you. what is it? >> that sense that there is something that transcends the mundane part of the job. there is something that is beyond the day to day back-and- forth.

the disagreements, the opinion work, the reading of the briefs. i remember when i got here, senator danforth came over when chief justice rehnquist was swearing me in. he looked at the robes, and he said that it looks really boring. it might be the mundane part of it is, but it is for good reason. this building. i just look at it. it the architecture. the rooms, the atmosphere. how quiet it is, how serious it is. it says to you that the work is important. i think the danger is that sometimes you could come into a building like this and think it is all about you. .

. i happen to think that our job is to decide cases. maybe sometimes, there are so many problems that come our way, issues and questions that come our way, that we have a

larger role than the framers envisioned. but it is certainly one of the three branches of government. beyond that, deciding important things about our society, i do not have a particular view that we are larger than life or anything like that. >> can you tell me about your job? >> which part? >> well, describe what you do. there is a lot of process that goes into it. >> there is. you are right. and that is the mundane part. you remember years ago that there were several tv programs about the court, and they were supposed to be sitcoms. i just wondered, who in the heck is going to watch that? because most of it is rather sad and very. you come in, you sit, you get

the work done. when i first got here, justice white said that you have to get a system. you develop a system to approach every case. because there is nobody to tell you when to start, there is no game plan that is set out by anyone, there is no timeline. you know when the sittings are, you know when the cases are going to be dealt with, and i usually divide the work into three categories. you have to decide which cases come here, you decide those cases, and then you write opinions. and you agree or does a bit -- and you agree or disagree with the opinions. that is it. you continue throughout the year reviewing the search positions -- cert petitions.

most people think that they have a right to come to this court. normally you do not. maybe the state courts of appeals and courts that do not have discretionary jurisdiction. the courts of last resort, maybe they have a right to go to those. but here most of our jurisdiction is discretionary. in other words, we decid if you come. we receive about 9000 requests a year. in the last few years, we've taken around 80cases. there is the process of sorting through that. i like to go through all of those requests. we do that in short memoranda, they are not social. they're called pool memoranda. two of the justices are not part of that pool.

but that is just a regular pool. you do that almost every day. i like to have that done on the weekend before the conference, which is normally on friday. that is a part of your work day, that you do not normally think about. it is routine, like brushing your teeth. and it is continuous. as far as preparing for argued cases, those are the ones that we have said we will hear, there are two ways to argue. there is writing and then in the courtroom, the oral argument. most of your job is reading their written arguments.

we have done this before and a lot of these areas we have worked on before whether it is the fourth amendment, fifth amendment, whether it is the first amendment -- you are getting another iteration of an old problem. you're getting another view, another aspect of it, but it is not brand new. it is not perry mason. it is not some mysterious thing going on. we know where the law is going as and this is just another part of it. you read the briefs, and i have what i call with all my clerks a clerks' conference. we debate it back and forth. then we write a dispensation memorandum. we have all this before the oral argument. sometimes i think they're far

too many questions but we all learn differently. some members of the court like that interaction. it helps the learning process. what they have been thinking of. i prefer to listen and think it through more quietly. but each to his own. after oral argument, i go back and meet again with my law clerks and think about if there is anything new from oral argument to add to the equation. usually there are a few things but nothing that totally changes what we have done based on the briefs. after that, we finalize our disposition memorandum. we go to conference, the cases that we hear on monday are decided on wednesday afternoonh, , the cases argued on tuesday

and wednesday are decided on friday morning. i go to conference with this disposition, and that is the explanation for the vote. the senior member in the majority vote is normally the chief justice and he assigns who writes the opinion. you get the opinion. now i already have an outline, together with my notes from conference. just like we were taught in the eighth grade, you have an outline for your essay. we have an outline for the draft opinion and that is basically the process. you go to the draft and is circulated and then it is finalized. >> can i pick that up part of a little bit more to learn about the process? about the cases that you will decide here, but volume versus the number selected, it seems as though the cases heard continues to lower slightly each year. why is that? does the court hear the

appropriate number? >> it takes four members to decide whether we will hear. when i first came on the court. we had 120 -- 110 or so. i like that number. i think that is a good number. >> what is the difference? >> it keeps you busy. you hear four cases a day rather than two. it really pushes the process. the problem is this. we only take what we call cert worthy. there has to be some confusion in a lower court. there may be one or two that i would quibble with per term, but there is not some huge list to make up the difference.

the number reflects what is cert worthy. maybe the courts of appeals are in agreement and maybe there has not been major legislation that changes the landscape. we had the bankruptcy act when i first came aboard, you had erisa. going on out there. our mandatory jurisdiction has been eliminated or is minimal. you do not have that big pocket. i cannot explain it and i do not think anyone can. anything we said would be speculative. there is no desire to reduce the numbers on my part or to my thinking and anything i have seen on the part of my colleagues. >> some of the other justices have particular areas of reviewed that they find more interesting and intellectually challenging. do you?

are there certain parts of the constitution that you love to dig into a and get another opportunity to visit with a case? >> it goes against my nature to want to make big decisions about other people's lives. that is my job and i do it. so i cannot tell you that i look forward to wading into these certain areas. i look forward to watching my nebraska cornhuskers, but i am not going to say i look for it -- this is about our country and our constitution, and i get my game face on. this is our job. the cases i am most excited in about are the ones that have the least impact on people's lives. the relieve you of the burden. the way i try to do it is not to get some exhilaration from

it, but to be faithful to the constitution, to be faithful to the oath that i took to uphold and interpret -- and the exhilaration i get is at the end of the term to say that i gave it my best shot. >> when you talk about the recognition that your work affects people's lives? what you just said -- the cases that you prefer, that do not directly have an impact on the way people live their lives. why is that? help me understand that. and>> when you look at our country, some of the decisions that we make in interpreting the constitution, people went, people lose, and it may have tremendous impact. you have changes in the constitution. you have cases involving tension, execution of other

people are sentencing, the criminal justice system, the first amendment, what can be seized from other human beings, our fellow citizens. i do not get joy at of making decisions like that. what i'd do get up fulfillment from is living up to the oath to do it the right way. to know that on behalf of my fellow citizens, i have tried to be faithful to their constitution, to our constitution -- that is where the exhilaration come spirit living up to the oath that i took and the obligations that i have under article 3. >> let me move to arguments. you wrote that you listen to the argument. we've read and heard from other justices is that the arguments

are used for the justices to communicate with one another, to telegraph their opinions with a type of question. do you find that happening a lot? >> i have no idea. >> you get cues from other justices? >> not really. i guess i'd view oral argument a little bit differently. i think it is an opportunity for the advocate, the lawyers, to fill in the blanks, to make their case, to point out things perhaps that were not covered in the briefs or to emphasize things or to respond to some concerns -- that sort of thing. in other words, to flesh out the case a little better, to get into the weeds a little bit more. i think that we're here, the

nine of us -- and we can talk to each other any time that we want to -- so i would not use that 30 minutes of the advocate's time to do that, to talk to each other. but as i said earlier, we all learn differently. my bride would learn in school that she is more interactive. i was never that way. i do not learn that way. when i first came to the court, but court was much quieter than could it is now. perhaps it was too quiet. i do not know. i like it that way, because it left big gaps so that you could actually have a conversation. i think it is hard to have a conversation when nobody is listening.

when you cannot complete sentences or answers. perhaps that is a sudden fame, i -- of southern thing, i do not know, but i think you should allow people to complete their answers and are thought, and to continue their conversations, i find that coherence that you get from my conversation far more helpful than the rapid-fire questioning. i don't see how you can learn so much when you have 50 questions in an hour. >> let me move to the process of conference. it still feels mysterious. >> it should be. >> all behind closed doors. can you tell us what happens in that room? >> it should be mysterious. i can still remember the first time i set foot in that room and those doors closed. it is pretty daunting the first few times. that is where the actual work

and the decision making takes place. it is just the nine. there is no staff, no recording devices. we vote in descending order of seniority. normally when i was a staffer, you always had assistance around. people are engaged. they actually talk about the case, they actually tell you what they think and why. you record the votes and there is some back and forth -- there is more now with -- and when chief justice rehnquist was here. he moved along very quickly. now there is more back-and- forth and more discussion. we normally have one break and

there is more discussion off to the site about cases. and to see people who are trying their best to decide hard things and feel strongly about their view of it, it is fascinating. the thing that has been great -- and i just finished my 18th term -- and i still have not heard the first unkind word in that room. you think what we have decided. life-and-death, abortion, executions, war and peace, financial ruin, the government, the relationship with citizens -- you name it, we have decided it. and i still have not heard the first ad hominem in that room.

it is an example of what i thought the decision making would be in all parts of our country. >> what ensures that decorum? >> the human beings on this court, and that people do in one way or another, one degree or another, understand it is not about them. it is about the constitution, our country, and our fettle -- our fellow citizens. they do not take themselves as seriously as they take the work of the court. >> we've learned a lot about the many traditions this court holds, passed down from court to court. some of those happened in the court room such as that handshake. how important are symbols and traditions to the process that happens here?

>> i think the handshake -- whether you are in sports or church or other activities, it means something. it still means something. we can sense when someone is phony and don't mean it. these people in this room are genuine. it is warm and professional. there is always a handshake before we go on the bench. when we see each other, the first time during the day, we always make sure that we shake hands, whether in public or private. there is a sense of courtesy and decency and civility that is a part of it. on the days that we work, whether on the bench or we are in conference, we get lunch together.

in the early years, when i first came here, we had that lunch in a small room off the main dining room. we have lunch every day when we were sitting. "now, clarence, you should come to lunch." and she is very sweet but very persistent. i came to lunch and it was one ahead of the best things that i did. it is hard to be angry or bitter with someone and break bread and look them in the eye. adheringit is a fun lunch, very little work is done there. it is just nine people, eight people, whoever shows up, having a wonderful lunch together. so the traditions, i think, are important. it is like traditions in our society and culture. they develop over time for a cahow reason, and it helps sustain us in the other work

that we do. they help sustain us. >> the chief makes the assignment as to who will write the opinion after the initial round of voting. he told us -- i cannot think of a better word, but judicious -- in handing out the assignments. do you ever have a sense of indicating or lobbying that this is one that you would like to tackle? how does that work? >> no, i do not. i think chief justice rehnquist approached me and said years ago that i have not lobbied him for anything and was there anything that i wanted. and i said, this is a missouri sales tax case, i really like that. but i really believe that the chief justice is fair in what he does. it is his job to make the

assignment. we are on the same side, i write the opinion and i try to be faithful to the conference. but i do not lobby. the only time i would ask for assignments was if i had work imbalances in my chamber. but otherwise i do not lobby. or i think i am the best person to write it -- there might be one where the court was a little fractured and i think i have a way of pulling us together, but that is not an ego thing. let us get this done and maybe we can get everybody on board if we try it this way. and if you cannot, at least you have given at the college try. but i do not really lobby for anything. >> do you intellectually approach the writing of majority opinions the same as a dissent?

>> oh, yes, you're an agent of the majority where you write the majority opinion. that is the way i approach that. and what you try to do is -- let us say for example that -- i will put it numerically so it is easier to follow -- let's say i would go the same direction but i would go 80 yards, but the majority only wants to go 60 yards. 60 will decide the case as well. i would write the opinion to go 60. ahaand not say anything about, i would also go the other 20 yards. now if i were writing a concurrence or dissent on my own, i would write the opinion pathan in a way that reflects i would go 80. i could not write an opinion that went in a direction that

was different from what i actually thought we should go. but you do have to make adjustments in the approach to the opinion to reflect the views of the majority. and if you cannot do that, then cahow you should not write the opinion. >> do you read the major and longtime reporters covering the court? ever take a look? >> i rarely read anything about the current events about the court. >> i was wondering about what you thought about the quality of the reporting. >> there is a reason i do not read it. i think they are wonderful people out here to do good jobs and do a fantastic job, like jan greenberg. andbut i normally do not follow her. i might look at a few things at the end of the term that were brought to my attention, but i do not want to get distracted. it is like a lot of the really

good athletes do not read press clippings. i do not read the ups and downs. my job is to decide cases. people can write what they want to write about it. that is up to them. but my job is to decide cases. >> staying out of current events in the years since you have been appointed when a new associate justices of for confirmation, did you follow that at all? >> only what i cannot avoid. i did not have a fond experience up there and i do not wish that on anyone. and also, something justice white said when i first got here has stuck with me. it does not matter how you got here. it matters what you do after you have gotten here. that has always stuck with me.

the members of the court were appointed by different presidents. when they walk on this building, they become a part of the nine. and we work with them. the most important thing is that they are good people who are conscientious and try to do the job in the best way that they can. and i respect that, i have to respect that and believe that they will do that. agreement is not in consideration. that is why we have the luncheons. -- the elections. you do not have to agree with me because i am not going to agree with them just to be agreeable. but i do not really follow that. >> the court is about to welcome a new associate justice. when you have watched the new justices come on board, how long does it take before they get it?

>> i do not know. i think we all learned different paces. when i came to the court, i asked that same question because it was very important for me to figure out when what i get my sea legs. years. justice white was also say it takes about that long to go around the full horn of all the cases, the kinds of cases that we get. and that may be about right. it does not mean that you cannot do your work. it just means that things are still new for the first five years. you may not have had as many our original jurisdiction cases involving water rights or boundaries. you may not have had a lot of admiralty cases. you get all of that. it was chief justice rehnquist,

when i was complaining that, oh, my goodness, what am i doing here, my first year. i looked around and see people like him, who had been here at that time almost three decades, you see justice white who was legendary, justice o'connor. he said, "well, clarence, your first five years will make you wonder how you got here. after that, you wonder how your colleagues got here." i do not know what that is true but that five-year period was fairly well accepted as the break-in period. >> what effects to the tenor of any particular court does the chief give? -- the composition of the court or the chief justice?

>> chief justice rehnquist's style was differed from chief justice roberts. there is quite a difference and a lot of things. he was more, let's keep the trains running. chief justice roberts does not push like that. as far as the composition of the court, you are bringing in a new family member. and it changes the whole family. it is different. it is different today than when i first got here. and i have to admit, you grow very fond of the court that you spend a long time on. there was a period there with chief justice rehnquist and justice o'connor when we had a

long run together. you get comfortable with that. and then it changes. and now it is changing again. so the institution, the ninth is different. your reactions are different. you get to learn each other and start all over. >> are there any in history that you find you referred to frequently as giving you a good guidance, good intellectual direction who are particularly significant on the operation of the court? >> i find people that i have served with and a member of the court i refer back to is the first justice harlan. i find his dissent in plessey v. ferguson, where he admits

his own biases, and that i might have a particular view, i might have a bias, but not this document. that to me is judging. to admit that you may have a weakness and a problem but you cannot put that into this document. the two are separate. the members of the court with them i have served have been wonderful. you learn from people. justice o'connor is a wonderful friend. there is no sadder day around here than when a member of this court -- than when justice souter announce that when he was leaving -- remember, i served 18 years with him, almost 18 years.

he becomes your friend. you do not have to agree, but he is your friend. when you hear one of your colleagues is sick, it is one of your family members who are sick. so much is made of whether we agree or disagree. can you think of any human being with him you agree on everything? large or small? it does not exist. it does not happen. but you feel a closeness and you have done it in no way did you think has been respectful to each other and to the institution and to your fellow citizens. >> let me move to the court and the public. we just recently conducted, with the help of the washington public opinion firm, a survey

of more than a thousand americans on the court. it was interesting that when asked to name any sitting justice, a majority of the respondents could not name one. aheadis that appropriate? >> i think that may be a reflection on the way we teach civics. but i do not think that everyone has to know who we are. i think i would prefer that they know few of us who are making big decisions that are affecting their country and our lives. when i was a kid, we took civics and we were required to learn those basic things. it may not be the best news but i would prefer that they would know little bit more about their court. >> doesn't that speak to the

level of disability that the -- the visibility that the court has? >> i do not know how many of those people also knew who their congressman was. >> we did not ask that question. >> i do not think the court should necessarily fit into everyone's -- every aspect of their lives. maybe people should know who all the federal judges are in their district. maybe we shouldn't be any more visible than we are. we are not politicians. i don't think we have to be back public. we should do our job and we speak as an institution. the supreme court, they are aware of the supreme court. maybe that should be enough. i am the 106th member of the court and i think sometimes that we make too much of who is here now.

when you go back, it is hard to remember who was here before. name me 20 dead members of the court. that would be hard-pressed, even people who consider themselves court followers. >> to that end, a minority of respondents who could name a justice, three were named. you are among the three. are you frequently recognized? >> oh, yes. the anonymity is gone. that is probably one of the more difficult things to except. the lost anonymity, the ability to walk down the mall unnoticed or to go to home depot unnoticed.

>> is that because of the confirmation hearing? >> no, that was 18 years ago. i am the only black guy here so it is easier to recognize. justice o'connor was the only woman, so it was easier to pick one person out. maybe that is part of it. i've enjoyed such positive press and notoriety, i think that may be a part of it. i have no idea. >> what are the interactions like? >> they are always very pleasant. they are nice people, good people, all of this country. one of the things that happens up here is that we tend to be very heavily northeastern in our mentality. eight of the nine of us are from ivy league schools.

this court does not represent all regions of the country. there is a tendency to almost be cliquish in that way. i like the idea of getting out and being around the real -- the citizens, the other citizens of the country, the people and make it all work, the people to build our homes and fight our wars -- i like being around them. i also liked the idea that their kids could come up here and clerk, that they could be a part of all of this. i lost the anonymity and i would prefer to have that back. but that is not going to happen. but the good part is to have people come of regular people come up and talk with you, and talk to you. there's some wonderful exchanges. i go togettysburg every year, and a person came up out of

breath. he had a maritime case. he had this parchment paper. he said, would you sign this for me? i said, why are you even reading this opinion? he said, that is what this is about. the maritime commission case. for some people will say thank you for writing your opinions in the way that you can understand them. not that he agreed with it, but that he could understand it. that the laws and his constitution are sensible to him. that is what we try to do -- to make sure that those people do come up to you have a part of this institution and feel a part of this institution. it is not all mysterious, as you said the conference room is. >> so you get into that motor

coach, and that is intentional? >> that is one of the reasons. i wanted to ride around. someone said the nicest people in the country are in rv parks. in 10 years of doing this, i have found nothing to disagree with them about that. they have been nice, they have been neighborly, they have been friendly good people. we seem to be at each people's throats in this town. they're still a bunch of people out there that you can sit down and have a cup of coffee with and talk about the game or the weather or how good the country is, the problems that we all have and maybe be more civil with each other. >> do you judge differently as a result of those trips?

>> i think my focus is more on the regular citizens when i judge and on our fellow citizens. it is not who writes law review articles but is on the guy who came up to me at gettysburg or the man you run into at home depot or the person just returned from a war or the person who teaches. these are the experiences in the rv parks and the truck stops, the rest stops, the things that stay with you. you ask me about opinions that you are exhilarated about. what exhilarates me is meeting those people and letting them know that this member of the court enjoys the same things

they enjoyed, and this member of the court is willing to be where you are in this rv park enjoying the simple things about this country. of>> thank you for this conversation. valera's that is not the business at the judges are in. we are not here to decide who ought to win. we are here to decide who does when under the laws the people adopted. >> unprecedented conversations with 10 supreme court judges. thursday, and tendons scalia and through a better ginsberg. -- antonin scalia and ruth bader

ginsberg. one of many items available at c-span.org/store. >> coming up, remarks from the president and ceo of the chik- fil-e restaurant chain. now we continue our look at the supreme court. we spoke to the supreme court -- and -- reporter about the 2010 agenda. host: greg stohr, harvard law school graduate and reporter for bloomberg news, supreme court reporter for bloomberg news, here to talk about the supreme court and their 2010 agenda. the 2010 term. we'll start with -- at the

beginning of this most recent term, there was talk about a possible retirement among the justices. where is that now? >> the talk centered on justice john paul stevens, the oldest justice at age 89, and there's always talk about him because of his age, even though he appears to be very much at the top of his game. but at the beginning of the term, it came out that he had only hired one law clerk for the term that would begin in october of 2010. and typically he would have hired four, his full crop at that point. so the thinking is that perhaps he's making it possible for himself to retire at the end of this term in june or july. host: greg stohr is with us until 8:30 to take your calls and comments and emails and tweets about the supreme court. so if up to the start dialing, go ahead and do that as well. the supreme court -- the term, or the last term ended up in september, and it was justice society owe mayer's first case, the case on campaign financial

reform, tell us about that case and when might the court reach a decision on it. guest: a lot of us thought they would have decided it by now. they heard arguments in september. that was the second time they heard arguments, which is highly unusual. host: why in september? guest: they didn't have to do it in september. they chose to, presumablely to speed it up so that -- the speculation is that people would know what the rules are as we hd@/@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ u we're anticipating soon after they come back. host: did they come back for the second half of the term? guest: january 11, i believe. that will have several decision days there and they could decide if any point. host: we want to remind our viewers that we're bringing you interviews with the supreme

court justices. and midnight eastern all this week. and justice sotomayor will be later in the week. i wanted to ask you, from your observations so far, what do you make of her? guest: she is a very active justice. she's very engaged. she asks as many questions as anybody up there. with any justice, you're going to have a learning curve. she does not seem to be at all inhibited. you know, gets right in there. it's a little early to say for certain how she's going to come out from a philosophical standpoint, but so far the signs you see from questioning makes it seem like she'll fit in the liberal or liberal to moderate camp of the court. host: have you seen any opinions yet? guest: there was one written opinion. the word was workmanlike. it was not an especially interesting case. usually the first opinion they'll have a relatively noncontroversial opinion. hers was unanimous.

you know, everything so far is very consistent with what people saw in the confirmation hearings. host: a call on our independent line. joe from baltimore for greg stohr. good morning. go ahead. caller: yeah, i'd like to talk about immigration t. has to do with the supreme court justice version. i think that the way you could, you know, not the immigration, but the people coming in, i think a good way to stop them is if you put about 5,000 marines down at the border a half a mile part from each other with machine guns, you'll stop everything that u need to stop. host: well, the court doesn't have any immigration cases, but they do have a case coming up on guantanamo do, they not? guest: they do have a case on guantanamo that actually touches on the immigration laws. the question there is whether inmates who have been there for seven years or so, whether in the case of some who have been

cleared for release, who everybody agrees are not dangerous, whether they can be released into the united states. this is a case of a number of uighurs, muslims from an area in china who say that if they get sent back to china, they would be tortured there. so far the united states has not been able to find a country willing to accept them. so they are, in a technical matter, released, but not really able to leave guantanamo. they're living in special facility there. the government argues that it would be a violation of our immigration laws for a judge to say that these individuals have to be released into the united states. host: you write about a case coming up, government worker privacy gets a high court review. the supreme court will decide whether a california police officer's constitutional rights were violated when the department reviewed personal text messages he sent and received on government-issued pager. tell us more about this case. guest: that's a case that got a lot of attention a couple of

weeksing what the court agreed to hear it. it is just about government workers, although the reasoning can certainly apply to some private contacts. the question is a fourth amendment context question about how much of an expectation of privacy a government worker has in those pagers or other personal devices that they have. in this case, the officer said that even though it was a government-issued pager, my superiors had implicitly said to me, you know, you can use it for personal use. in fact, if you go over the limit on characters, you can pay for it yourself. and as long as you pay for it yourself, we won't look into what you're actually using it for. it turns out he was using it for, among other things, sexually explicit emails, and he sued the police department for invading his privacy. host: and the ninth circuit held that they overruled that. did they overrule the lower court in this case? guest: the ninth circuit said that there was -- that there

was not -- i'm now getting a little turned around here in who said what. but the fundamental question is whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. that's kind of the catch phrase. host: when might the court -- when are they going to -- guest: the court will hear arguments in this case in march or april and rule by june. host: i have a question for you, a tweet, how can we disassociate the court from political influence as soon as that it can really address the core interests of americans? guest: it's a good question. it's an ongoing question. there are times when the court is very involved in political questions. obviously the bush v. gore case is the prime example. in the majority of the court's work that people don't pay attention to are not the hot-button cases.

most people who don't follow the court closely would be surprised at how many near unanimous rulings there are when there isn't that feeling to it. on those hot-button cases, though, you often have a divided court, and then when it comes time for a nomination, those are the kinds of cases that capture the attention of the public and the white house and the senators, and we end up sort of debating those and thinking about the court in very political terms. host: rodney, good morning, for greg stohr. go ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i hadded a question regarding the court's proper position on tort reform. as you recall under bush, many agendas were pushed through to try to revert toward reform as it relates to issues such as medical liability and malpractice. certainly that would be relevant under the current healthcare reform that we're looking at now in the cost ratio involved there.

product liability, government sovereign and unity and government liability and statute of limitations and corporate persons, how do you think the court will look at those issues? guest: this court has, over the last few years, been very skeptical of the plaintiffs. in case after case where you have trial lawyers pressing a security suit or a consumer suit, a patient product liability suit, usually the court sides with the defendant in those cases. in the last term, there was a real shift -- shift may to be strong of a word, but it was striking that the biggest such cases, the biggest product liability cases, the consumers actually won. there was a case involving drug lawsuits, the case involving tobacco lawsuits. it will be -- what i'm really interested in is to see whether that is the beginning of a

trend or whether that was kind of a one-off year and the court will sort of return to the general pro-business type of approach. host: in reading the opinion on that case that you mentioned, did you glean anything from that that would indicate why they may have -- why they may have changed their view in that one case. guest: these cases tend to be issue-specific, case-specific. it's hard to generalize too much. that being said, there was one development involving justice clarence thomas who is actually one of the justices less willing to preclude a product liability suit. he said in the drug cases, he is not willing to say that congress preempted -- in other words, precluded a state law product liability claim unless congress said so explicitly. in that case, congress had not done so explicitly. so at least with that justice, there's a sign that he's going to be a real tough vote for the business side to get. host: fulton, georgia accident next up.

franks, democrats line, hi there. caller: good morning. listen here, we talk lot about this congress, set up for our constitutional law. that supreme court is going to have through the constitutional law thing again, balls the thing is that it's been broken constantly. you look at civil rights, you look at all these constitutional laws that we got as far as people's well-being, and then did you into the part where we have these laws that are supposed to be in effect to keep our constitutions straight. this supreme court is going to have to include it and make sure people thand this is a living, breathing science, and it needs to be -- it needs to be in process of working for people. and everybody else in america, you understand what -- host: thank you, frank. follow occupy his comment a bit, on the constitution,

specifically the second amendment, balls the court will have a case coming up in march. it goes back to the d.c. case that they handled a couple of years ago. what's ahead when it comes to the second amendment guns right zphace guest: the case you referred to earlier involving d.c. said there's an individual right to bear arms. what it didn't say is whether that right applies just to the federal government in d.c. in that case or also to the states. host: because that case was about d.c. guest: that case was about d.c., which the court assumed was basically part of the federal government. the question now is whether the second amendment is, as they say, incorporated by the other parts of the constitutional amendments so that it applies to the states. this is a case arising out of chicago, which has a handgun ban and some other restrictions. and there are a number of interesting aspects to the case, but basically if the court torp say it only applies to the federal government, the

second amendment would be far less effective than most people think it is. host: based on what the court has said so far, any indication of how they're going to rule in that one, the leaning of the court so far in this? guest: based on the fact that they talked in that case like it was a fundamental right, which is the type that the court usually says is incorporated and applies against the states, it would be surprising to a lot of people, to most observers, if they did not also say that it applies to the states as well. host: here's a call from warner robbins, georgia, and ivan on our independent line. hi there. caller: hi there. good morning, gentlemen. just had a quick question, and that is, concerning the text messages, i was in the military, my wife was in the military also. for them to say to him that to be able to use this phone for a text message for personal use, if it wasn't in writing, which i don't understand how it would be occur, then maybe he

shouldn't have been there. but to me, this is only my personal opinion, common sense would tell you, if you're using a work phone or if you're using a pager that is issued by the government, you can pretty much guarantee they're going to look at it, nation you put in there. that doesn't make any sense. . i'm not sure americans understand what that entails. it really violates a lot of our constitutional rights, as far as our phones tapped. he gets into it and other issues like airport security. they assume that they can do that and they create more security. what is next? will they be scanning your brain?

guest: no patriot act cases. there may be some in the pipeline that may come up in the next term. there are not on the court's agenda right now. the national security docket has tended to focus on the guantanamo cases. ore on the guantanamo cases. host: you -- he commented on the text messaging kansas in your view that if you should be yourself using government property -- on government time. a lot of these arguments, by the time they reach the court, they have been argued over and over so you are left with the fundamental question of what's the issue is about. the justices do get into detail, don't they? guest: in these cases they have to go into some detail because it does go to what the officers should have believed about the pager. the caller is correct there is

nothing in writing. he actually did a good job making the case for of the department, there was no expectation of privacy. in this case, the justices will have to drill down into the facts of the case to figure out what people in the department thought was the case. host: we occasionally get the opportunity to air the same day of oral arguments from key cases and have done so in the past. but as a reporter, what is it like to watch the oral argument? guest: guest: it is the best part of the job from my standpoint. you get to see some great interactions between the justices. you get to watch their demeanor, who seems interested in board, who is shaking their head. host: do you learn more about the case from what they say that from reading the briefs?