lines in his face and around the mouth, they're going to gain attention, not just from the cartoonist, but from everyone. you begin to understand how he moves and the way he talks. . >> he has this kind of long shake here and that roundhead as

we talked about before. here is the bit that will be interesting. it is what i call the oval. this line here and this line here, and it is this muscle that is going to get more and more accentuated. plus he has this little thing, you will see this little muscle down here moving when he talks. this line is also going to get stronger. his upper lip is like this. ladies and gentlemen, that is barack obama. that is what he looks like now. let's show you what he is going to look like in a little while. we will stick this one here and take this path of. what he will look like in a year or so from now. this part of his head will get a

little rounder. the years will get better. -- the shares will get better -- of the yearthe ears will get bi. that will be enough to divindefe barack obama. that leads me to a couple of predictions. first we will see the president get older and older. i have this little cartoon i want to show you. if he is looking like this now, this cartoon took place early in his time as president. in 100 days, he is beginning to get gray and look a little older. 200 days, a little more. 500 days, it is going pretty

fast. 1000 days, watch out. he comes around for his election bid in 2012. this is what we might see. i think he had better fix social security fast, if that is the case. i will leave you with one final prediction. we just came out with a new wall calendar. when "the economist" approached me and said let's do a calendar, we would just put some cartoons of on the top. i said today, anyone can do that on their laptop. the digital world is so amazing, you can do just about anything. if you want to do something special, it has to be completely hand drawn from top to bottom. this is true, in the world of cartoons and animation, you are finding that more and more digital work is finding its way

in, replacing the conventional way of delivering art and information and publications and in animation. the new digital stuff is awesome, but i think you'll also find that as the digital stuff moves out some of the traditional handpainted work, that work will become more and more valuable and more and more appreciated over time. that is my prediction for 2010 and beyond. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> this is c-span. coming up next, interviews with the u.s. supreme court justice, sonia sotomayor and the first woman to serve on the court, said today o'connor. that is followed by a look at international leaders.

>> saturday on "washington journal," the look at the rise of al qaeda in yemen. then dr. david shern on a new law that takes effect today. later, a fellow at the center for education reform talks about the state of education in the united states. taking your calls and e-mail like every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> get your own copy of c-span pose the original documentary, the supreme court, on dvd. it is part of our american icons series, one of the many items available at c-span.org. >> next, we talk to the new

supreme court justice, sonia sotomayor. she discusses her nomination by president obama, the confirmation hearings, and her first impressions of the job at a supreme court justice. her interview is followed by one with the first woman to serve on the court, former justice sandra day o'connor. >> 20 years plus, justice o'connor could remember vividly the details of her first argument, telling us what it was like. what are the impressions you are going to take away from yours? >> the moment that i sat down and was able to see the people in the audience, that is what i will intensely remember. there were lawyers that i knew sitting at the table in front of us ready to argue.

watching the intensity of everyone's face -- i had forgotten how much people believe and know that they are affected by the court's decision and you see the anticipation. i can actually say that it is pleasurable. you know in people's faces their concerns. clearly, i knew, besides some part is that people in the room were in, there were people who were there. you understand the voices that they are giving you. but when you see their faces, it reinforces that importance in a way that no thing else can. then there is absolute fear.

you do not know what it is like to sit with eight other colleagues. when i was on the circuit court, that was one thing. but to sit on the supreme court and listen to the questions of your colleagues is somewhat humbling. >> you had to have an awareness that everyone in that room anticipated your first question. >> yes. i have gone in prepared with any number of questions, most of them, except for the two that i asked, were asked by two other justices. i did not know what direction my colleagues were going to go with their questions and what would be left for me to ask.

so the questions i asked eventually were a product of the flow of the conversation. >> so it felt natural? >> i get so intensely engaged in argument that it is never fake. every question i have has a purpose. it has some importance to something that is troubling me or that i am curious about. >> what was that recent weeks like for you with the ceremony and your family coming here to be with you for that and all of the media coverage that you got? were you able to process all of this? >> i have not connected physically with my mind and body it. i am still somewhere out here looking down and saying, oh, wow. is this really happening to me?

that is what it is like. the one question you would not know to ask is what was the most symbolically meaningful moment for me during my public investiture. it was taking the oath with my hand on justice harlan's bible. it was like history coursing through me. it is a interesting admission to make. i do not think that any person can be sure that they are up to the task. and so those moments are, at one point, incredibly meaningful and, in a different

way, incredibly frightening. it is difficult to convey the course in of the motions that both through someone at the moment like that. >> describe where you think your role or largely the role of the court is in our society. >> it always thrills me, amazes me, and gives me faith in our country to know how much people trust the courts. despite the skepticism with which some decisions are received, in the end, i think the american people and the world has confidence that the nine justices are rendering decisions based on their best

ability to arrive at a fair answer under the law. fair being defined as what does the law say? that, to me, it is the most meaningful part of the rule we serve among the three branches of government. the branch that the public looks at end says that there is an objective viewpoint, there are people who are not a part of a party or not part of an executive branch agenda. they are there to look at this objectively, it in a neutral way, and help us come to a resolution of whenever dispute there may be in an objective way. it is a real testimony to our founding fathers that they

created our branch this way. >> at the same point, coming back to responsibility, it is the last court of appeal. >> it is, very much so. is it not wonderful that we also have the ability to rethink issues over time and look at them and think about them and review them and consider whether the answers we have given should be revisited at any point. it should not be done lightly and it never is. it is a gift to america. >> this is the first time you have sat down with television since your appointment was announced. i wonder if you would not mind, for history, telling us the story of when you get the telephone call. >> i was told that the president would be making up his

mind, making his decision, sometime on monday. i had been sitting in my office from 8:00 a.m. that morning, waiting for a phone call. the phone calls i got instead were from my family telling me or asking me what was happening? i was getting the calls almost hourly. every hour, i would say, i do not know. 2:00 p.m. was arriving and my family had been told that they would have to start moving to the airport shortly. so they were more and more anxious about whether they should be going to the airport or not. my response was -- i do not know. finally, about 5:00 p.m., at the airport, they are still

calling me and asking whether they should get on the airplane. my response was, i still do not know. my brother called me from baltimore. he had to make a stop in baltimore and take a shuttle to washington. he said, should i keep going? i said, if they have not told you to stop, then you should keep going. if it is now 7:00 p.m. i called the white house and said, you're getting my family to washington. have any of you given any thought to how i am going to get their? they stopped and said, oh, i guess we should figure that out, shall we not? that was literally the response. i was told that the president had become distracted with important other business that was going on at the time and

that he would call me about 8:00 p.m., but that i should go home and pack to come to washington and that i would prefer not to take an airplane. so i rushed out of my office, home, put a suitcase on my bed and we started packing the suitcase. i called a friend to ask him to drive me to washington. he came or was on his way. at 8:10 p.m., i received a phone call on my cellphone. they said, the president is on the line. >> were you on the road? >> no, i was still packing. i had my cellphone in my right hand and i had my left hand over my chest, trying to calm

my beating heart. he said, the judge, i would like to announce you as my selection to be the next associate of the supreme court. i started to cry. i said, thank you, mr. president. >> and then what? >> he asked me to make him two promises. the first was to remain the person i was. the second was to stay connected to my community.

and i said to him that those were two easy promises to make because those two things i could not change. and then he said we would see each other in the morning. >> so you had to drive. >> . >> " was that like? >> it went quickly in part because i was working in the entire time on my speech for the next day. i have a draft that they told me to anticipate making a speech. but i was still working on it. >> it is four hours from new york to washington? >> it took a little longer because a torrential rain started on the drive and it knocked out power gps. so we got lost. all of a sudden, i am in

virginia looking up because i had been scribbling on the piece of paper and making changes. all of a sudden, i looked up and looked at my friends. i said, tom, we are not going into washington. we are going away from washington. we better stop. so we pulled over on the road. i started to calling of a friend and say, please, get on the computer and figure out where we have to get back to where we have to go. i had a law clerk who was driving down. he was from washington. he talked us back onto the road and to the hotel. it was a very busy 5.5 hours close to six hours, between the rain and getting lost. it was a very eventful mike.

-- night. >> it sounds like not much sleep. >> no, we arrive in washington and two 30 a.m. i practiced my speech. the last thing i did was to read it and try to committed to memory. three hours later, when i got up, the first thing i did was to give the speech without the papers in front of me. when i was able to do that, i said, i got it. then i was able to shower and get dressed. i chose to be a lawyer and ultimately a judge because i find endless challenge in the complexities of the law. i firmly believe in the rule of law as the foundation for all of our basic rights. for as long as i can remember, i have been inspired by the achievement of our founding fathers. they set forth principles that have endured for more than two

centuries. those principles are as meaningful and as relevant in each generation as the generation before. >> talk to us about how you are setting up your office. >> i have a colleague who is like a brother. he is on the second circuit. when this process was going on, i was getting applications for clerkship. i did not want to jinx the process by becoming involved and thinking about getting clerks. i asked him to go for all of the applications and pick a handful of people that he thought would be suitable for me. suitability was measured by two things. i want smart people, but i want

people who are good people, too. they have to be kind and caring and really smart. >> how did they do? >> he batted 100. i have people who i am absolutely delighted with. i interview them shortly after the hearings concluded. i had pretty much made up my mind. the day that i was sworn in, i was able to call them and they came and started. >> you have had the opportunity -- in history, you're one of the few justices who have served at all three of levels of the court system. that means you have gone through the nomination and confirmation process three times. what is your perspective on how that works for our society today? >> interestingly enough, within a couple of months of my actual hearings, i had moderated a

panel for the federalist society at yale law school. on the panel were a couple of professors and a couple of people involved in the process. each of them had a different perspective on the meaning of the process, fair statement and criticisms about the process. my final question to the panelists was, ok, so what would you do instead of what we do? and they all basically had some minor tinkering or fixes is, as the call them, except for one. one of the panelists looked up and said that the purpose of the nomination process today and the confirmation hearing process is to introduce a prospective justice to the american people.

they can get to know that justice. once the selection is made, most americans will never again have an opportunity to actually hear the justice talk or to learn anything about them until the end of their service. so it gives the american people that chance. i think that is what i learned. he was right. that may be the most important purpose of the confirmation hearings. questions, even over three days, are not going to tell you much about a prospective judge. you have to look at their life's work. that would be a clear reflection of who they are and how they think and what they will do. in the end, though, getting to know the person is very hard from an artificial setting like a hearing.

but over three days, i think you get some sense of what the person is. that does have value. >> you ended up missing 89 united states senators. >> 92. i interviewed with three others after the hearings. before the hearing, it was 89. >> was that necessary? do you look back at that and say that that was time will invested? >> i think i am the first to justice who has met with that many senators. i mean that have been the only, but among the more recent justices, yes. necessary? i do know that i can answer that question. with many senators, i had meaningful conversations.

just like for the american people to see, i think it is important for the senators to look at someone in the eye -- to borrow a phrase that one of them used -- and to sit with them and chat personally and talk openly. obviously, when one speaks about it openly, there are topics that they would like to cover that i cannot talk about for the very reasons that i explained during the hearing. you cannot speak about current issues and would be inappropriate to speak about my personal views. that is not the way i describe a case. i look at the arguments that are presented and what the constitution or statute says and what precedent teaches us about those things.

it gives a day and me an opportunity to talk. -- they and me an opportunity to talk. i think that is important. >> do you suspect you changed any minds? >> actually, i do. there were six unexpected vote. >> you mentioned this last time that the american public sees people after they are sworn in and take a seat on the court. throughout your career, you noted that you have made a special effort to mention the special panel you were on to be invisible. is that something you intend to continue? >> yes. i think that was part of the president's request of me, to stay a part of my community. my community is not defined in

anyway. it is important for justices to help understand our system better and there is no way of doing that unless you're a part of the process of talking with them. i fully expect to stay involved in all of the activities i did before and, i fear, even more now. given the number of invitations i am receiving, i think i have a wider audience now. >> are you intending to make your primary home in washington? >> like many other americans, it would not be wise for me to sell my home in new york because the market is so low. so i am going to keep my home in new york. i think that will be like many other people, have two homes, one in new york and one in washington.

>> in your biography, you talk about some of the invitation to have gotten. has anyone approached you to write your more or your life story? do you intend to do it? >> eventually. >> many of the justices that we have talked to tell us that it takes years to become comfortable in this court. do anticipate your service on the federal bench that it will take you years to feel comfortable? >> yes. >> why? >> when i started on the district court, i do not think that any start would have that same amount of anxiety, the learning, the need for reaching

deep within yourself to absorb new information. i tell people, in giving a speech, during my first year in the district court, i said, i have finally a understood why the mind is a muscle. there were the days at the end of which, on the district court, after a hit spent the day and conferences where i would be dealing with 25 or 30 different subject areas of litigation, 25 and 30 and sometimes 60 to 100 different legal questions that parties were asking me to rule on. i did not have a headache. i had a brain ache. it was as if i had stretched the muscles of my brain to their outer limits with the broad information that i was

asking my brain to observe. i don't think that will ever experience that again. but at each type of judging or process of judging, there is new information to learn. there are areas or controversies that i was not aware existed. as a circuit court judge, i thought that i had and new about what all of the areas of legal contention were. that is not true. and there are so many new areas of law that i will have to become involved in, new processes that the courts are involved in and that i will have to become aware of. i have no reason to doubt that it will take years to feel some degree of comfort in this process. >> in the process of getting

acclimated, to find that you have any particular mentors? >> all of the justices, all of my colleagues, have been extraordinarily warm and welcoming. each one has offered advice. each one has invited me to call them with questions. i don't know if i can identify any in particular that i have been turning to. actually, it depends on a great deal if i am reading them in the hall. there's always a question on my mind. when i meet them in the hall, i just spoke to them and said, can you or would you? and they have each been delightfully generous in giving me time to walk me through whatever it is that i am asking about. there's not one person yet. they have all been wonderful. >> do you have any sense on whether or not the workload may

be lighter than what you experienced at the appellate level? >> when i was on the court of appeals, most did not have the idea of the workload of the appellate judges. they have little understanding of the burdens of the court. reviewing petitions, of which the numbers have been growing exponentially each year, is an extraordinarily time-consuming process. i have only had an occasion to work on one case so far. but reading the briefs that came in were also quite time consuming. it is too early in my career to talk about it. but i do not anticipate that it is as light as the public perceives it to be.

>> what can your colleagues expect from you in your writing process? >> i welcome the views of my colleagues here and i share with my colleagues ways in which to ensure that each draft that we are issuing is addressing the important points that the parties are making. what they can expect from me is an interactive colleague, both in welcoming their suggestions and incorporating them into drafts and sharing with them my own views as well. >> do you anticipate doing that as well here? do you intend to work in chambers or do work better in your own environment? >> i work better in chambers. i like being at my desk and having everything around me. i also like to be able to call

out to my law clerks with an idea of or popping out of my desk and coming to them and say, how about this? and engaging them with the idea. i do like working at my desk. >> we have learned so much about that room and when the door closes and with the experience is like. what was it like for you? >> there is a real gift in the practice of the court, of letting all of the other justices speak in turn. i did not expect any less. i had my expectations puzzling confirmed, that the justices are very fall full about what they're doing. each one was very thoughtful about giving their reasons for their vote.

as i said, i did not expect any less, but i was very pleased that my expectation was confirmed. >> as the junior justice, you will be the last in line in the go around to make your argument. how do you use that to your advantage? >> my sense is that, if you go in with a plan, it is likely to go awry. when i was a lawyer, i knew that you had to plan everything to the last detail. but the best lawyer was the one who went in and just did what was right at the moment. so that is how i think i will approach everything that i do it in my the judging process. >> justice alito is leaving to you all of the responsibilities of the junior justice. has he briefed on those things?

>> my first day of conference, at the end of confidence, i was having coffee and cookies come in. the court personnel who was helping us with that wanted to open the doors as the justices were leaving. i said, no, you cannot take my job. i just got here. so i jumped ahead to open the door. in fact, that party did not. i have not sat down with him yet on recording the court's decisions. we're going to do that process in the next couple of weeks before the first conference day on the 29th. >> overall, with regard to being the junior justice, people watch it so carefully, where you

sit in the court. why are the traditions that go with that so important to an institution like this? >> why are traditions important in life? traditions are very important to me. holidays, what i do on the holidays, who i spend them7mb with, the roles that each person plays -- a tradition anchors us in a process that is greater than ourselves. they remind us that the rule we are playing his money personal role and not a role that should have a personal agenda, but one that has an institutional importance. that institutional importance is bigger than us. i think that that is an important role for tradition,

too underscore that for us. yes, where you sit, what order you sit in, how you go, all of those traditions, all of those practices remind us of our institutional importance. i liked traditions. i think they measure our history and they give us our history to pass on to others. that is what has kept us alive as a nation for over 200 years. it is rare in the history of mankind that any form of government has lasted as peacefully as we have for as long as we have. >> you have referenced in the sense of history streaming through you as you took the oath and knew that he would be getting this job. do you have touchstones?

>> i am smiling only because, when you select a justice, there is a perception that you are selecting a judicial philosophy, a way of making decisions. i think there's a danger in that perception. i think that the history of the court is not one individual justice. the history of the court is how each of the justices of the court has contributed a view, a way of writing, a way of thinking, in a way of approaching one topical or another, and that each justice has made valuable contributions. no justice has defined the

court as a whole. i think that is the beauty of this court and that the decisions are not made by just three justice, but by nine now. i will let select just one judge does setting a definition of that history. i would say that it is the combined body of work that i draw from and that we all draw from incoming into decisions in each new case that comes before us. >> we heard of the importance of meeting characters in contemporary culture, like perry mason, where they lead you in a career direction. would reduce say to someone even now contemplating a career in the law?

>> i had not anticipated that question. " i tell people in selecting careers of all is to pick the career that every day gives you some joy in the tasks that you are doing. that sounds simple, but it is very hard. if you like working with your hands, then finding the career that led to do that. that will give you joy. if you like figuring out puzzles and things of that nature, you might like computers. that will give you a moment of joy each day. if you like thinking about problems that people are having

and you like reading in a way to solve those problems, as opposed to sitting in their room and working them up with the person, then you might like to be a lawyer. you can sit in a room and help people talk through their problems and give them a framework to do that in or you could be a judge, like i am, and read about their problems and look through books and figure out how to enter their problems. but, in the end, the device that i give most young people is that the world will let you be a part of everyone's lives. the law affects every part of our society. as a lawyer or as a judge, you

will get to learn about what other people do and you will help them figure out how to do it better. we help solve their problems. that, to me, is the fascination of law. i get to review cases that involve every facet of our society. as a judge, i do not have a voice in resolving those problems. that is decided by the law. but i have a part in that process. i would tell young people that, if you want to follow a career in law, figure out if that will bring you joy. if it will, then follow your hearts during. >> in these early days of your tenure on the supreme court, we thank you for your time with us. >> thank you.

>> for more on the supreme court and the justices, goat to c-span.org/supremecourt. >> get your own copy of c-span's original documentary. it is a three-disc set, including programs on the white house and the capital, many of the items available at c- span.org/store. >> tonight is the final evening for a rare glimpse of the supreme court. >> next, an interview with former supreme court justice sandra day o'connor.

>> my calendar has been rather haphazard. i have not set a specific schedule. instead, i have accepted various specific engagements and have adjusted my calendar accordingly. in an ideal world, i think i would do it a little differently. but it has not settled down yet. i hope it will.

i have been involved, as perhaps you know, with some projects concerning educating america in little bit about what the framers of our constitution had in mind when they established an independent judicial branch at the federal level. and think people have lost sight of that overtime. when our state's first form, they follow the pattern of the federal government. there was confirmation by a state legislature. it was president andrew jackson who persuaded states to take a different approach. he was a populist.

it was his thinking that the states should elect their judges in popular elections. georgia was the first state to say, yes, that is a good idea and they changed to a popular election of judges. many states follow suit. we can talk more about that later, but it has not been a wonderful development over time. >> i refer back to the book you wrote in 2002. >> yes. >> early on in the book, you talk about the work of art in the supreme court courtroom and how it always held important symbolism for you. >> it is the symbolism that the supreme court itself has and

that the court in our country, whose opinions are binding on all of the lower courts. the supreme court is only responsible for deciding issues of the federal law, whether it is statutory or constitutional. a court does not get involved in trying to interpret and apply state law. it is up to the states. but the symbolism is that this is the highest court in the land. the framers created it after studying the great lawgivers and history and taking a look at what they thought, worldwide, was important for the judicial branch to do and how it should be structured. as you know, the court room contains representative figures of great lawgiver is in the past.

that concept was carried forward by the architects with the knowledge that the framers had also considered contributions from the great lawgivers of history. so we have a very majestic court room representing the majesty of the law and the process of governance. >> you write in the book that the first time you really experienced an oral argument was as a brand new sitting justice. >> that is right. >> do you still have strong memories of that day? >> my first day on the court, it was such a remarkable feeling to have been sworn in as a justice of the court, a position i never anticipated holding. i never aspired to that.

i did not think it was a realistic desperation and i never spend time thinking about it. all of a sudden, out of the blue, here came inquiries about my availability to talk about a position on the court. that was a shock. i did not believe that it would occur. in the first place, already serving on the court, was one of my classmates from law school, william rehnquist. he had been a good friend. he lived in arizona. i knew his wife as an undergraduate at stanford. there were personal friends of my husband and mine. it was just inconceivable of me that we would be asked to be served at the same time. for the small state of arizona

to suddenly have two at the same time, it was unimaginable to me. when i was interviewed by william frank smith and some of the cabinet members in the reagan to administration, i did not believe for a minute that would be asked to serve. i went back to arizona after those interviews and said to my husband, how interesting it was to visit washington, d.c. and to meet the people around the president and, indeed, to meet the president himself and to talk to him. but i said, thank goodness i do not have to go to that job. i did not want it. and i was not sure that i could do the job well enough to justify trying. i have often said that it is wonderful to be the first to do something, but i did not want to be the last. if i did not do a good job, it

might of been the last indeed, when i retired, i was not replaced then by a woman. that gives one pause to think, oh, what did i do wrong that led to this? but i am sure that the future will show that we have other women serving on the court. it is hard to be the only woman on the court, which i experienced for about 10 years or so. in a population which, these days, produces 50% of law school students being women, it is realistic to think of a number of women on the court, not just one. >> back to the initial oral argument, not having come from the federal court system, sitting there and going through that process, what was it like? >> it had a sense of unreality about it for me.

i still not believe that i was the person asked to serve on the court. it just did not seem real. the arguments of the court are not long. there's only an hour allotted per case, normally, unless extended time is permitted. i discover that, indeed, we did have members of the court who liked to ask a number of questions. i was reluctant to ask questions because of my lack of experience in the courtroom at this level. to learn how often they felt it

was a program to us questions and to learn how they asked questions and how the whole process unfolded, i had a high learning curve at first. i had to see how the cases unfold in a courtroom at the oral argument and what was appropriate and what was not. >> are you cognizant of the public in the back or are you conscious of what is going on in the room or do you focus only on the lawyers making the case? >> normally, the focus would be only on the lawyers making the case. there were a couple of times when someone created a bit of a disturbance in the courtroom that was quickly resolved. of course, that would divert your attention. for the most part, people in the audience are very quiet. the staff of the court escorts them and quietly and explains that they should try to be very

quiet while in the courtroom. they're told not to even sit there taking notes. really, the focus is on the lawyers and what they have to say. some focus is on your colleagues if they are asking questions. you are interested in what is that is troubling your colleagues. they can lead you into a new area of inquiry that perhaps you did not have yourself. >> back to your early days of the court, everything you did was rocked with symbolism. we spoke with justice scalia that members of the judiciary continue to wear robes. how did you make the choice about what your robe would look like? >> i did not make much of a choice. there were very few robes available. i did not know anyone who made robes for women justices. most of what was available was

something like a choir robe or an academic robe often used for academic processions and graduations at universities. i think that was all that was available. i think i just got what was available and put it on. harder was the choice for a woman for the traditional color. i had a robe in arizona and i brought that with me. it was very simple. and did not have the judicial collars in those days in arizona. i just put it on over whatever i was wearing. i was given a note from someone in the audience of the courtroom. it said, dear justice o'connor, i have been in the audience watching the court today. i noticed that you did not have

a judicial collar. all your colleagues were wearing white shirt collars. they showed under the robe. you just looked like a washed out justice to me. what is happening? i took that to heart. i figured i should find some sort of judicial collars to wear. i did not always have a white shirt under the robe. it was hard to find. nobody in those days made judicial white collars for women. i discovered that the only place you could find them were in england. there was a woman who was the first female judge in the state of delaware. she was older at the time. i had met her. she gave me her judicial collars, which was kind of a lace thing that she had

acquired somewhere down the line. and that was pretty elegant. so i used that as well. but finding appropriate judicial collars turned out to be quite a task. >> our cameras have visited the robing room. knowing that the court is full of conditions, can you tell us what the procedure is like? >> on the days of oral argument, a bell or buzzer is sounded. it reminds you that, in 10 minutes, you are supposed to be on the bench. at that point, you need to go down to the robing room and get your robe on and be ready to go into the courtroom at the appointed hour. chief justices do not like to be late, as you can imagine. the robing room has a number of narrow little sections of the larger cabinet in which the

justices' robes are hung and your judicial collars, if you have one, could be on the shelf. there are attendants. you can pick up the robe that you are going to put on that day. they will help you into the robe and you get it fastened in front. . .

>> are you asking him will ask questions? >> you walk into the conference room and you put your rove on and you shake every other justices hand. when all nine are there and accounted for, the chief justice says it is time to go. people lined up in order of seniority. up, across the hallway to enter

the back of the hallway and they divide the three justices on the left, three in the middle and three on the right depending on where you are going to be seated. when the chief justice gives the signal to the staff, the gavel drops in the courtroom by the marshall, and people enter. the justices go behind their shares until the formal introduction of the court is made -- behind their chairs until the formal introduction of the court is made. >> [unintelligible] >> of course. you're not laughing are talking. you are attentive. then someone behind the chair helps you get your chair seated. the chief justice will normally

call for the lawyers who are going to introduce and proposed admission to the bar of some new member of the bar. that usually occurs first. then the chief justice will call upon the lawyer for the petitioner in the first case. then they come and proceed. there are lights at the podium for the lawyer who is making the argument. when the lawyer has only five minutes remaining, another life goes on. when time is up, a red light goes on. depending on the chief justice, that could be closely observed or somewhat relaxed. when bill rehnquist was chief justice, he made them mature to the time very strictly. >> you mentioned that the bill in order of seniority. we learned that seniority -- you mentioned that you lineup in order of seniority.

we learned that seniority is important. does that make a difference in the way that you approach the argument? >> it depends -- it makes a difference in what part of the line you are in. it does not change anything about the argument or what you do. you still are what you are, one of the justices. some like to us questions and some do not. we have justices that seldom ask questions and we have justices that always ask questions. >> what was your own approach in asking questions? >> i asked what i thought i needed to know. we'll read the briefs before the oral argument. we spend a lot of time in advance with the oral argument -- advent of the oral argument reading. this court, unlike most courts around the world, allow a filing

of a friend-of-the-court brief who want to weigh in on the issue. they can file an application asking to file a friend-of-the- court brief. if it is a timely request and there is no objection, it is granted. we typically have a number of friend-of-the-court briefs in addition to the ones filed by the parties. deal of reading before ever coming into the courtroom. . i am sure that most of the justices had an opinion on every case.

we have done our homework. you cannot do that and form some opinions about a particular case. when you go into the courtroom, you have concluded one thing or another about the case. oftentimes you still have questions, you would like to know some factual background or some legal position that is being urged. the cadet>> and other interviewf learned about the initial vote at happens and conference after the cases have been hurt. there's understanding of which direction the final outcome might be. we have gone to the final stage

of the process. how old do you are right at the final vote tally on any case. take us from the rating to the final outcome. >> ok. let me go back to the conference discussion on the merits of the case. that is very important. that discussion does not take place until later in the week during which the are year -- the oral arguments are heard. we get around and talk about the merits of the case. normally there's only one discussion takes place and it is that discussion. sometimes there are cases where there is not a clear consensus and there has to be a second discussion. that is the exception, not the rule. normally it is the dawn

discussion that occurs in that conference room in the week of the oral argument. as you have heard, it starts with the chief justice and goes down the line to the junior justice. those discussions lead a justice to conclude to affirm or reverse in a particular case. that to vote is not cast in concrete. you are not walking on -- walking on wet concrete. the chief justice, if he is in the majority, he assigns the other members to sign a.

now, the dissenting view is also typically assigned by the most senior justice on the dissenting side. but that is in a minority of cases i do not know what it is at present, but normally it runs about 15% or 20% of the cases. now, once the person assigned to write for the majority opinion circulates that opinion, then the other eight have a chance to weigh in. normally, they start within a day or two. they may say that they want to give a little more thought to this. then they say that if you will change this, then i would be able to try. it is something like that that happens. if there is a dissenting opinion to be written, often people will wait and look at the

dissent before they cast their vote. it could be so powerful that it could change someone's you. the details are worked out, not around the conference table, but in the riding of the opinion that the persuasion takes place -- the riding of the opinion that to persuasion takes place -- of the week by king -- the writing of the opinion that persuasion takes place. -when you are sitting around with a general discussion, it is in very general and not specific. when you sit around, you can get a very specific. so, it really occurs in the riding. -- writing.

>> due to enjoy the intellectual portion of the job? >> yes. deciding your view of the case itself is terribly challenging. some of the issues are really tough. some are not. some are clear-cut. some are enormously challenging. it is a help to see it in writing and it is a help we have to write it to have to put it down in words rather than just think it through. >> were there any particular types of cases that you are most attracted to? >> no. i don't think so. even a case on a subject that you think is kind of boring can turn out to be an enormously challenging at the end of the day. it could be anything. i don't think that subject matter determines the extent of

the interest. is the challenge of solving this particular question of law and making it work. it could be on any subject. >> when the distance -- the dissents are quite personal, did you ever take them that way? >> yes, and that the thought it was too unfortunate, i would ask the justice if they really wanted to say that that way. i was not averse to making that request. >> you write about the

acceptance of the other died -- by the other justices. is this court much like a family? are there is -- are you friends outside the building? >> by and large, it is a very collegial group. i was very blessed for 25 years, that was the case. it was not always that way. there are times when certain members of the court had strong antipathy. that would not be a happy time to be here. i was very grateful that people got along pretty well. >> we have just about five minutes left and i have some big questions for you. first, about the building

itself, you have come back to a place that you spent a quarter century of your life, what about this is an effectiveness of the symbol? >> the architect thought he had done such a great job that the u.s. capital should be moved so that people would have a better view of the court. i think that he created a beautiful building, but i did nothing to capital will be moved. this has a beautiful steps in front.

it is marble from different places in the united states. you walk through the marble hallway and into the courtroom, which is much like the greek temple design. it is an inspiring area. it is smaller than the light think. there are court of appeals court rooms are larger than this one and the offices of the justices are not large. judges and even some district court judges in courthouses around the land that have larger chambers than a justice on theit is not size that makes the grand tour of the place. it is what it symbolizes and what goes on here that makes it special. >> do you have any favorite places inside this building that you tend to retreat to? >> there is no place to retreat. the retreat to your arm chambers if you want to get anything done. we have a beautiful library upstairs them if there were a few times when i had to use material from so many cases that we occupied to where three of those tables, leaving the books out so that the law clerks and i could go there and sit in the reading room and referred to all those passages.

that is not often. normally, we can put them on the car and get them downstairs to use them downstairs. in these times, you can find on a computer screen, so you're more apt to use a computer screen. when i first came to the court, we had massive computers that were hard to use. you were not at all attempted to go to your computer. today, they tend to be much easier to use. >> you said that you have been spending a great deal of, open

the court. will you reflect on the role of supreme court -- of the supreme court of society and what people should know about? >> the supreme court, in general, has been respected by the american people. i think it has been one of the institutions of government that is most respected. obviously, the legislative branch create mixed impressions among citizens because you have members from both political parties offering very different views of things. the president himself can sometimes be criticized by some groups and admired by others. but the court, in general, has had the respect and admiration of the people. i hope that we can keep it that way. there have been more criticisms of judges that i have heard in the past 25 years and then has been typical in previous years, with a few exceptions.

that distresses me. i think it is time that americans wake up to what it is that the framers had in mind when they tried to create an independent federal judicial branch. and they had particular is a month. -- have particulars in mind. this that was the framers concept. they provided no term of years for this service. it says that federal judges will serve for good behavior. they provided that the salary of a federal judge could not be reduced during that term of service. the framers did not want the other branches of government imposing sanctions on federal

judges by virtue of some decision in which they disagreed. >> he told us that when you came home from the interview, this was a job that you did not think you wanted. now that you have had the job and left it for a few years, could you imagine what life will have been like? >> i have been very privileged to be here and it enabled me to see just what a wonderful institution the supreme court of the united states billy is. -- really is. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> for more of permission on the supreme court, go to c-span.org supremecourt. resources include a photo gallery, and our dealers, a

construction of the building, an interactive timeline on a history of the courts. >> get your own copy of the c- span's the original documentary on dvd. it is part of our american icons collection. the >> saturday, but a look at the rise of al qaeda in yemen. and then a discussion about a new law that takes effect today. we will have a look about the -- we will have a discussion about the state of education in our country. "washington journal" starr said 7:00 a.m. every day here on c- span. -- starts at 7:00 a.m.

next, a look at international concerns with canadian prime minister stephen harper. then in a speech with president medvedev and afterwards russian prime minister vladimir putin. >> stephen harper answers questions on the canadian mission in afghanistan, climate change, and his relationship with president obama. this event runs about 40 minutes. >> welcome. we will be talking about stephen harper about the kind of year we

had in 2009 and we might look forward to in 2010. it does not seem that long ago that you were here. unless some we're talking about what you described as the great recession. you're talking about the kind of stimulus spending you would have to put in case. is the recovery sustainable? >> technically, we're intowe do not yet have a turnaround in the job market. some of the people are not going back to work. there are some positive things. the employment situation has stabilized. 2009 has been a tough year, but not as tough in canada as other places.

we're optimistic 2010 will be a year for recovery. >> the stimulus is the big question. >> we are pretty clear. we are in the two-year stimulus program that ends at the end of the coming year. march 2011 will have a second economic action plan in march and will start to plan for the end of the stimulus. we have to keep pushing the stimulus out. we have to return to balanced budgets and continue to look at ways of what will be a more constrained financial situation

in the future. activities that will lead to a strong economy. >> talking about 2010 being a year of recovery. you talked about the fact that the european and american economies are going to continue to grow slowly. how do we get recovery when the american neighbor is it going to be going slowly? >> i said they may grow slowly for some time. we have new trade agreements with eight new countries. we have important negotiations that are under way with the european union. we have a study with india. we will continue to diversify our markets. there is there reason canada cannot grow somewhat faster than some of the other developed western economies. we are in a relatively strong position. >> one of the greatest successes has been home

renovation tax. everyone is taking advantage of it. it has created a lot of jobs. materials used by many canadians. it is only for one year. can we extend this? give us a christmas present? >> you can ask me. those answers to some of those questions will have to wait till the second phase of the economic action plan in march. we're looking at ways we can continue to deliver our stimulus, to have real impact on the economy, and be in a position where we can return a balanced budget next year. >> i will take that as a yes, prime minister. another important issue. interest rates are not going to stay near zero levels for much longer.

there is consumer debt and buying houses that people cannot afford. how serious of a concerned should we take this? >> it is a concern. i would not hit the panic button right now. we are monitoring this closely. we have changed some of our rules to assure ourselves that we can avoid the kind housing bubble that had in the united states. certainly, debt levels in canada are on the high side. they are nowhere near the kind of situation we have seen in the united states. i do think families out there should remember -- mortgage rates really are at not just historic lows but unusual lows. it is inevitable that interest rates will be higher. families should budget accordingly. >> the deficit is forecast for $56 billion. you seem to be telling us that

we can move forward and cover-up this deficit without tax hikes. >> we need to exercise discipline. we have to put our deficit into perspective. it sounds large. our deficit is one of the smallest in the world. and we have low debt levels. there was a spiral in the 1980's and the 19th mid 90's. we have had tough economic times to help people and to help the unemployed, help stimulate job creation. when the recession ends, we have to reestablish fiscal discipline. we will not be raising taxes, but will be making sure growth is very much contained in the future and? the tax base of the country cannot gradually recover. if we follow that path, we

should be back to a balanced budget. and the think that is the way towe should not engage in radical approaches and program cuts or tax increases, but try to live within a disciplined constrained spending program. >> the government is still hiring people. what about cuts in spending? >> in terms of the federal government, through last fall and into the budget, we insisted on very tough contracts with federal workers. we have had job cuts. we have constraint very much the growth of wages within the public service. that will have to continue as we move towards a balanced budget. if we exercise discipline, we enter with a great fiscal

position that allowed us to do a lot of things that will be of long-term advantage to the country. coming out of it, we will have to constrain spending. if we constrain spending, we do not need to engage in radical cuts. we should find ourselves in just about the strongest fiscal position of any developed country. you went down to see the president in the white house. in the quiet we were making some progress. are we anywhere near a deal that will be satisfactory to both countries? >> i think we are making progress. i had a chat with the minister and he has been speaking with our negotiators. we believe we're making progress. i spoke to president obama about it. i remain optimistic about this. i'm worried about the bigger

picture. the buy america provisions have caused some disruptions. the vast majority of our trade with the united states is irritant-free. . . that is the example we are trying to set for the world and is the message which tried to push forward. >> we will come back and ask about your relationship with the american president. that is always critical. that in many other topics still to come.

>> mr. harper, please do something about the environment now. >> there are some pretty compelling concerns. there is the copenhagen accord. people are wondering what this is. there is an agreement but it is not legally binding. >> it is important, an important step forward. it certainly is not all we were seeking. it is not yet a legally binding accord. that is where we hope this will eventually go. there are some important steps forward. all of the countries are recognizing this is a problem. we had a big battle until very recently. they were denying that had anything to do about their emissions. we have been asking about this for about four years.

everybody is now incorrect i think the objectives are not going to satisfy all of the environmental groups. if countries hole to these objectives, they will make meaningful progress. >> canada was getting beaten up about this. why? >> these are the environmental groups that have always attacked our governments and others and they are unhappy with the accords. governments have to balance progress with growth. these are not easy questions. we have a position that is held, but all countries that attended the copenhagen conference. i think it's a good accord and we will continue to work with our international partners. the environmental groups will continue to attack us and others.

>> you are talking about policy with the americans. we're talking about 20% reductions by 2020. obama's target is 17%. once that gets into the u.s. congress, it could very well be watered it down. some are saying we are allowing ourselves to have it is being held hostage by the american congress. >> this is a continental economy. we have seen in the past decade and a half that if the americans do not take realistic actions, it is difficult for canada to do much. quite frankly, factories and economic activity will relocate south of the border. if the americans but are prepared to act, it is essential we act. since president obama came to

office, one of the first things that i did, because he was committed to tackling climate change, we sat down to make sure we will be working together on all aspects of this. that will make all aspects of our job easier. we do have to work closely with our economic partners in the united states. that is the only way to make the system worked. the previous government had a kyoto accord. they found it was unworkable without american participation. we have to have harmonization. >> i think we have to work closely with the united states. we are so closely integrated and we have to work together. this can provide real opportunities for canada as well because we're ultimately

not just the biggest supplier of energy to the united states, where the most secure supplier of energy to the united states. >> some people have criticized you for not developing a national environmental plan, arguing we have seen quebec and ontario leading the way. how worried are you about the unity of the country if we get a situation where central canada is fighting with alberta over environmental policy? >> i do not think canadians want to see that. we will be acting in concert with the united states on a continental basis. we hope that all provinces will cooperate in those efforts.

it is essential. only the other industry must do something. to be effective, we're going to have to have all parts of the country contributing to the solution. ñi>> your environmental minister said he was ticked off being taken at the federal government and its attitude towards the informant by ontario and others at the conference. >> i think canadians expect when canada gets into the international realm of negotiations, they expect the debates, personal agendas will be left behind. so obviously some of that was unfortunate. in the end, it was the countries of the world that were getting together solving this

problem and acting on this problem. >> to deal with the provinces so that we come but some kind of solution so we're not going to get into a unity war. >> we're not going to leave this in a direction of a unity war. the federal government is not going to go in that direction. >> you saw the caricatures of yourself. maybe people were concerned about how you really feel in regard to climate change. tell us your stand on the environment. >> in terms of climate change, the preponderance of scientific evidence is that global warming is real. there has been controversy around the scandal.

these are complex scientific matters. they're projecting well into the future. there is considerable debate about this. the overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence is that this is a serious problem that we need to tackle. getting every country and every province and understanding that these have real impact on the economy. it is a complex problem. it is not a simple matter of having moral outrage. one has to develop a plan that will reduce emissions in a way that will not cause hundreds of thousands of people to lose their jobs in the middle of a recession. >> and that is a fine balance that continues on. >> long term. in the short term, it is very difficult to reduce emissions

without affecting economic activity. that is a very real problem. so little has been done on this. the solution has a bigçó technological change away from carbon intensive energy sources. governments are investing tens of billions of dollars in these research projects. we have a long way to go to get where we need to dig in the next 10 to 20 years. >> do you think people faced a carbon tax? >> i hope not. obviously we're looking to avoid any kind additional taxes on canadians. ñithat is a pretty firm priority of this government.

>> there has never been a proven allegation of abuse. >> i have a question. what are you going to do about afghanistan? >> the detainee controversy has been a thorn. what are you going to do about it now? would you close down the session of parliament? >> in terms of the afghan detainee controversy, if they expect to 2006. i am hearing the same stories. the government its first year of office and working with our military, we instituted a number of improvements to our transfer arrangement.

ñii think they have worked prety well for the past three years or so, one of the great successes of the missions. it is not perfect but i think it is working well today. in terms of late spring session of parliament, we're looking at a new set of legislations but we've not made any final decisions. >> this session is still in place. >> haven't decided what to do. we will be bringing forward a new budget in march. we have not taken any decisions on a number of those things, questions of filling senators. >> one argument the conservatives say it makes sense is that your government has been frustrated in the senate because they have been changing legislation by the house of commons. i know in january you'll get five new senators but you will

not get control of the committee system. >> there has been some pretty important legislation. i can think of three bills allowing the government to institute mandatory recall of products. they cracked down on auto theft. these things have all but frustrated in the senate. we're looking at opportunities to take care of that problem. canadians are clear on these measures. in terms of filling the senate seats or other actions, i have not made any decisions. >> there is a perception when it comes to detainees that your government is covering up or trying to deny information, military complaints to the parliamentary commission or to parliament itself. is there a cover-up going on? >> of course not.

your viewers should be clear. the government cannot order the documents to be withheld. they are released or with help based on the law. there are lawyers who a minister these at arm's life. i think the facts are clear. there were problems with the agreement that we inherited when we came to office. our diplomats made efforts as this all problems to fix things. i think we have a pretty good record. >> aren't you losing a perception? you could have said these prisons are not the best places. we do not think anyone is being tortured. you can never be sure. you guys were saying, absolutely

not possible. >> wherever there has been evidence of problems, theñi military have taken appropriate action. i think canadians understand. let's be clear. these allegations against the government of canada or against canadian military personnel, these are problems in the government of afghanistan and its corrections program. canadian military officials have handled themselves with the highest of standards of behavior at all times. we should be very proud of that. we should be spending our time doing thinking about some of these military personnel and their families whose lives are endangered and thanking them for their tremendous effort they have done in a violent country. >> the opposition party has been saying you are in essenceñi a bully for having watchdog

commissions and denying information, not giving the money for the parliamentary budget officer, taking the elections. is this fair? çó>> i find the document story quite amusing. tens of thousands of pages of documents have been released. the government follows the laws at all times. some of these cases have been thrown out of court. i am confident that our diplomats handle this situation. >> would you release those documents? >> the government does not decide which documents are released or not released. these decisions are made by lawyers following pull laws that are on the books.

>> no decision yet? >> government lawyers are required to follow laws. >> what you make of these ambassadors who said you have mistreated richard coleman and that this is going to make it difficult for the civil servants to be able to give you truthful advice or the best device the possibly can? are you facing some kind of backlash from this? >> there are people concerned about some of the charges coleman made against his fellow diplomats. our military officials have been before the parliamentary committee. they have been refused. >> 2011, the mission in afghanistan. what is going to happen after that time ends? >> this is the track we have

been on. we have been stepping up our efforts to train afghan security forces so they can handle a greater load of the data. we have been trying to transition to a more civilian- oriented mission. i noticed what president obama has done in terms of the additional troop commitments, the surge. but also in terms of how he structured the mission. the emphasis is on training and drawing down. i think it is a confirmation that we have been on the right track. afghanistan is going to remain

a challenging theater for the world as will the problems in neighboring countries. >> are you now confident that agreement signed is not going to expose canadian forces in afghanistan between now and 2011 to participating in geneva- based war crimes as a result of possible torture? >> we thought we had a good agreement prior to that. there were some deficiencies. at all times, when we get information that requires usñi o improve, that is what we have done. i think the system has been working well since then. it has not been perfect. we stopped transfers on a couple of publications. but i think we have adequate monitoring in place and a

program to help develop the afghan prison system itself and we think we're making progress on these things. >> we have had a lot of trouble this year. it has been interesting. i probably need a little bit of rest now. >> it has been in place about a year now. >> you should know what i have always said. the prime minister of canada has an obligation to establish a good relationship with the president of the united states because the united states is so important to our economic interest. they are our best ally and closest neighbor. they are our best friend and we should not forget that. we have established a good

relationship. we have worked well at some of these international meetings. we have been looking to align on security issues and a think we're making progress on some difficult issues. i do not envy president obama. his challengers are much greater than mine, not just the fact that the united states has much more global responsibilities, but the problems in the inner states with the economy, health care, there's so much deeper. i do not envy his position. we're there and to try and be helpful while protecting our own interests. >> you're just recently in china. i would like to get your reaction of the premier in china, who seemed to be giving you a dressing down. they are powerful players in the world.

>> i have met president hu many times before. i have had a chance to have bilateral meetings at a number of these international summits. what strikes me most about the chinese leadership is the degree to which it is a collective leadership. you can meet any number of chinese leaders in any number of situations and their lines are all the same. the communist party is not a charismatically leader-driven party. they want to have good productive relations with others. we're dealing with a different

kind of political system. to be effective without, you have to be open and a firm in defending your interest. these are people who know what they want. >> all the western countries still regard al qaeda as a great threat. is there another foreign threat to use the booming now? the americans seemed to be a pointing to iran. >> there is a threat in any particular countries. these are governments that are attempting to be nuclear powers and for no good reason. i have great concern about the government of iran, not just its nuclear ambition, but combined with its malignant ideologies, anti-israeli, anti- western. this is a real danger in the world. when we're at the g-8 and other summits, we coordinate whatever efforts we can.

these are things that you can lose sleep about. >> how worried are you of an israeli attack? >> i am worried about iran and the combination of its ideologies and its threats to israel. we should be concerned about this. i have expressed my concerns in the strongest possible white wheat to our international partners. >> what are our people sang directly to iran? >> we have been leading the

world in terms of expressingñi our concerns and our repulsion at president ahmadinejad's statements. we have led through several years condemning the human rights records. i don't think anyone is under any illusions of were the government of canada stands. they have threats to others and the desire to get nuclear weapons. >> we will be continuing with one final block for our audience and we will have some important questions coming to you in just a moment. >> ♪ happy birthday to you >> how does a guy like you keep in shape? >> my question for you is, do you plan to write another hockey book? >> what kind of resolutions will be making for this coming year? >> how do you stay in shape?

>> my doctor would tell you i do not. since i became prime minister, i tried to be a little better. i have lost a little bit of weight. i have been playing a little bit of tennis and ping-pong. the problem i have and the way i've tried to keep in shape physically is doing sports with my son. as he gets bigger and stronger, it is getting to be less and less of a contest. >> you have trouble beating him out? >> i have trouble beating him at anything. >> what about a hockey book? >> i have made good progress. i am in the stage of writing it. i am hoping, this is a book on an early team, it is for people

who are really specialized in hockey history. i have worked at it 15 minutes, half an hour a day, six years now, and we're starting to make progress. i concede the light at the end of the tunnel. >> to you have a new year's resolution? >> i have not made it any yet. i think my first resolution is to get through the first couple days, have some down time, and reflect. i feel pretty good, even though it has been a difficult year. i feel good about the way the country has pulled together. i feel optimistic about 2010. i did not feel optimistic either this year or the year before. i feel optimistic going forward. we will be hosting the olympics. we have international summits. bui think probably the thing we have done really well this year is we have just focused on governing the country.

but the opposition, houses of parliament, don't distracted. a focus on the things that matter to people. if we have had success this year, that is responsible for it. >> piano man. what convinced you to get up on stage and do that? you are usually not the kind of guy who would get up and sing in front of a lot of people. >> it was my wife who convinced me to do it. i wish she had came to me earlier, but she came to me two weeks before the concert and said, i want you to play in this gala that i am chairing. i had been practicing with this book, herringbone, a little bit, something i just did for fun. i was reluctant at first, not status because of my personality, but at the same time i was attracted to it. one of the advantages to get to

do as prime minister is to get to do things you normally would not do. normally i sing and play a little bit but nobody would want to hear me perform. i started to think, if i don't do this, i will always regret it. we put together a couple of practices, they all came over, they said it is good enough. ñiso we mustered up the courage and we did it. i have to say i was more nervous about that than anything i have ever done in public life. it seems now when i look back. >> i was in the national arts center when you came out, and there was a gasp. they said, there is the majority. they just knew this would break down everybody in the population. are you in a situation now where you possibly could not win a majority government? >> who knows? we will know the next election. nobody wants to have an election.

obviously, the pastçó year, the polls have looked good. it is great to have good polls when there is no election in sight. we will cross that bridge when we come to it. we have a lot of work to do to get the country through the last phases of this recession into a genuine recovery and looking down the road of how we take advantage of the situation that we find in terms of a long-term global recovery. i am not focused on the election right now. >> you mentioned the olympics, everybody looking forward to the first gold medal won by canadians, which is bound to happen. >> we will have more than one. we have a good canadian winter olympic team. since 1998, we have been building constantly. we had a great finish in italy, and i am confident we will see a number of gold medals. >> we are seeing the phenomenon of the porch run catching on. es