available or digital audio download or so. -- are sold. . .

estes is c-span's "america and the courts." next, presentations from the week of the supreme court's special. first, william suter and his job, and how the supreme court decides to take cases. >> what are redoing today? >> we have a session in court this morning, announcing the orders from last week's conference, and we have the announcement of two opinions. and removing the admission of the attorneys to different groups.

largely, today was a ceremonial day. this is the morning coat. it is a very traditional outfit. here in court, it is worn by the marshall of the court and myself and also the solicitor general of the united states and his staff where it while they argue cases here. some of the women in the staff do not with a code. -- where the coach. one of the women here is a deputy, and she wears it herself. we traditionally wear it when the court is in public, wearing robes. so when we are upstairs, and at the inauguration of the president. so it is very traditional. years and years and years ago, all attorneys arguing cases here were the coat. that has fallen into disuse, and now they wear traditional formal attire. >> how far back as the tradition

go? >> i do not know. a long time. things last a long time around here. >> do you know why it is called a morning coat? >> i do not. there are many stories on the internet, many of which are probably not true. >> you have tails. and they call it a coat, but is it a code? >> yes. m-o-r-n-i-n-g. >> so this is your normal attire. >> yes it is. >> after you are finished with the court, what are your duties? >> the clerk of any court is responsible for their legal business. not writing their opinions.

but normally, members of this court filing documents, recent opposition, applications for state, whatever it might, we receive documents for correctness, legality, on the electronic pocket. we then deal with the attorneys, setting up argument dates, getting preset of justices, maintaining all of the documents for a court. this is not a hard job. it is a great job. it is an honor to work at the supreme court. after all of the years i had in the military, i missed leaving the army because of the camaraderie, but i felt the same thing here. this is a small organization. no politics. justices are appointed for life. there is no civil service

system. the people here are the best qualified. and instead of just having jobs, employees here have a sense of mission. it is really a high calling. so we look at it more as a calling that a job. i do not find it hard. if the justices need something, if something needs to be done, we provide it. for the clerk's office, there are only 32, mostly paralegals. they're highly skilled individuals. >> if we would see them working out, what would we think? >> the men and women working there are doing many things. they are highly automated here at the court, but you have to have a lot of hard copy documents.

we have eliminated much of that. the other side files a brief and opposition. those documents have to be maintained in an orderly fashion, transported to the justice's chambers to be worked on, returned, and documents that are used are recycle and so forth. so we have a real system for everything that enters this court. >> how long to private citizens have cases in front of the -- how often do private citizens have cases in front of this court? >> we have about 8000 petitions asking this court to hear the case. there are very few mandatory appeals. it is basically jurisdiction.

about 2000 of the cases are filed by lawyers who know what they're doing, law firms, or state entities. they are printed and they have to pay a fee. we have about six dozen individuals who are poor. about half of them are in prison, and they under lock and file a petition asking the court to hear their case. outside this building, it's as equal justice under law, and we really believe that. some might be frivolous, but they are looked at carefully. so sometimes you have people called the jail house attorneys. adoption or child custody or income tax, anyone could file a document. some are written by prisoners on

prison stationery. one case was granted and heard that way, and a very important decision resulted in the case. they are not skilled, but they can try at it, and they feel better. our job is to make it as easy as we can for a person to file a document here. the rules of the court are written in plain english so they can be understood, posted on our website. we want to make it as easy as possible. >> this was highly automated.

>> it has been an enlightening time to be here, because you are all over the place. the memos are written by the law clerks. everything is on line. we never hear that the computers are down around here. it just does happen. >> how do you combine automation and tradition? >> we thrive on discipline, and those things are hand in hand. one part of tradition is when an attorney goes into the courtroom in the morning, i brief them before they go in there so they know what to expect, to put on a

tie or a shoe, especially the rookies are sometimes forgetful. but in the courtroom, the first thing they play -- see in the courtroom are handcrafted and ornamental, a gift in the court. did not get an automated pinned. they get something they can take home with them. so we maintain the tradition. when an attorney a purchased the bench, he says mr. chief justice, and will it please the court. everyone gets 30 minutes, not 31 minutes. it is part of tradition, but it is also discipline. >> let's say you are walking into the lawyer's lounge today. >> the attorneys are instructed

to be there at 9:15 in the morning. regulars all know to be there. sometimes they do not know each other. . you do not know your opponent. this is a national court. they want to get everything they need, aspirin, cough drops, to make them comfortable. and the feedback i've gotten over the years is that they liked it very much. the solicitor general, her and her staff are here so frequently.

for example, when chief justice roberts was the deputy solicitor general 18 years ago, he did not attend the briefings. when he left office, he attended the briefing. he has told me cents, he liked the briefings. he wanted me to continue. it was therapeutic. and i am just sitting out my hallway, going over last-minute requirements, and we like to enter the courtroom prepared and ready for both sides of an equal chance winning the case. so we do not take sides. >> do you go on a little bit of counseling, and a little nervous about this day in their life's? >> yes, but to speak to them privately sometimes about not to worry, do not be nervous. those that are nervous need a whole box of cough drops, we

will give them a whole box. if it makes them feel better. sometimes they need a glass of water. we are there to make sure they feel better, and the lawyers do a tremendous job. there are three tickets to successful advocacy. preparation, preparation, preparation. and some council are so good they appear and argue with no notes, no cards, no anything. i do not recommend out, but some are highly experienced and they do about. >> do you have a conversation with them prior to arrival? >> on some occasions. but i have someone who wants the case is granted, you deal with her. she sends you a care package, all the documents you need, here

is your phone number, your e- mail, so they do not hear everything third hand. they get to know each other. and the bottom line is, their word is good. whatever the state, you go to the bank on it. very sophisticated. they're the best. >> so if you walk into these chambers, what do you do? >> i make sure that the attorneys are at the right table, respondents on one side, checked to see if there's anything you need. i then talked to the people making motions for admission. make sure they know what to do, where to stand, went to speak, and those that have been sworn in are briefed on what they are supposed to do. they did not want to come to the highest court in the land and stand-up for service.

they need to explain what is required. so i generally check around to make sure we're ready to go and it 10:00, we start. never late. never. >> a lot of people are doing a lot of work, getting the lawyers in to make sure they are seated, all the spectators, and everyone is in there. the press is even there on time, believe it or not. everything is orderly and respectful. there's a five minute buzzer, and that means five minutes, away we go. they enter on groups of three. the traditional cry is used throughout the country to announce the arrival of the court. the justices enter, take their seats, everyone rises, and it

is an inspirational moment. everyone says, i cannot believe it, they are really there. it is not a broadway production, but it makes the hair on the back of your next day up a little, because this is really it. it is very orderly, very respectful, and a grand moment for everyone up there. >> how does the business then proceed? who is involved? >> normally, the chief will save motions for admissions first, maybe an opinion coming down, and then they will hear argument for smith versus jones, mr. chief justice, may it please the court. they know where to stand. no one is winding around. everyone knows what to do. the chief justice has a script, and even names of ernie's are spelled phonetically so he can

get the right name. you do not want to make any mistake. >> and that is the last time you have any control, right? >> they're out of the gate. at that time, it is too late. they know what to do. they want to get on with it. sometimes, the council would rather go first and second. but that is the way it is. sometimes you'll get up and leave the room for a minute to take a stretch or something, but they have to be back at 11:00, when we start our case. i am their court needs anything. sometimes i need another document, were they will tell council to follow up and submit that to the court, and otherwise, it just be there to assist the court on anything

that might be needed. strange things might happen. the council meets another document or something. but again, it is a good tradition. as you face the court on the far left, the marshall is on the far right. you reach out and shake hands of the next justices. it is a good part. i listened to the argument, but i am more attentive to those i am interested in, so i've witnessed about 1300 arguments since i have been here, seen a lot of good lawyering, and a lot of good lawyering from the justices. ask a lot of questions. a journalist who is a friend of mine has covered this court for 50 years, and he thinks this is the best prepared court as far as the justices being up to speed on the case and asking penetrating questions, the best that he has ever seen. and a couple of cases last term,

in one case they asked 102 questions, and another, 106. in one hour, that is what breeds of the council has to be very well-prepared. >> so tell me a bit more about your interaction between the justices and you. >> i deal more with the chief justice than any others, and i deal with the junior justice every week after the conference. -- the note. -- he takes the notes. and when we're finished, i go to other staff members, sit down, and he tells us what happened at the conference. we are going to call for the views of the solicitor general in this case, and so forth. we then returned to our office, double check everything, and prepare the orders for report which have been released for next monday.

the orders for the court are certified and found. they are then released, they go on the internet, pull the information, and all of the people interested can join us, they know what cases will be heard. >> and when you get that briefing, do you know what happened in terms of the discussion? >> no. we just get the results pretty takes a few minutes. -- we just get the results. it takes a few minutes. they are very good at it. so that is another tradition, that the junior justice takes the notes. >> sitting back in a courtroom, in the chambers, tell us from your vantage point what you say -- see?

>> i have got to tell you, i still am awed by the building and the institution. i was a lawyer for about 30 years, a lawyer here doing legal, administrative, and clerical work. but i sit there and think that the disputes that are settled in the courtroom rather than in the streets would be illegal, and within the building, all of the landmark cases and cases that are not landmark, they are important to someone out there. a bankruptcy case is not something that gets me to excited, but it is important to someone, and to the legal community. so i take it seriously every time. it is never old hat. it just is not. to me, i think a lot lawyers and

other people are supposed to feel the same way. you are in that room, and it is very, very important. >> when you are sitting there, is there some peace, architecturally, or just something in that court that draws your attention, or has over the years? >> the ceiling. i have never seen that thing before. i saw some in new york a few years ago that look like ours. you do not see them. they are on the elevator doors, all over the building. nothing in particular in mind. he liked them just as much as i like them. they are just beautiful. >> as you continue to look around the room, what represents

the tradition of the court? >> the roads -- robes. the robe is a mark of anonymity, and that is what they really are. they are people who interpret law, and do it fairly, without political persuasion. we do not have a secret courts in this country. citizens can come in and watch the case if they want to. i am glad insole open, that we are all there, a hearing the case argued in public. bush versus gore, hundreds of people work here, and a dark to hear everything the court said, and the court had to return and make an election. is democracy at its best.

-- they had to return and make a decision. it is democracy at its best. >> the oral argument. what do you see? >> i think i see the greatest people on earth. i think this is the greatest country on earth, and those here on vacation with children or school groups or anybody here, some might not fully understand what is going on up there, but there -- they are at least there to see that this is the court of last resort. this is not my building. the justices work for the people. the do the people's work, and we are all there watching it. and the parties that are involved are here. hospital groups, student groups, law students. it is great to see america across the spectrum, all types there.

i have spoken to about 1300 since i came here. so yes, two or three a week. boy scouts, girl scouts, students from all over the united states. many are repeaters. in the united kingdom, where rugby was invented. lots and lots of students, very interesting, and they had questions, the high-school students telling them about cases here with children of all age. i will tell them, let them vote, see who wins. and the justices to a lot of public speaking.

>> do you get unusual questions with those kids? >> yes. >> anything you want to share with us? >> not really. >> the history of your office. tell us a little bit about that. >> the pope was the first person appointed here in 1790. mr. tucker, focused behind me. they did not do a lot of business, because the court did not know exactly what it was supposed to do, and those framing the constitution thought it was a good idea to focus more on the other two bridges of the government, rather than a third branch, as we are called. they say mr. tucker, i've got some documents. but they are getting organized. when i came here, i said i've got to last longer than he does.

so the clerks have taken notes and written things. i know a lot about the history, and i have been gathering a lot of information in front of me, and i would like to compile some sort of historical document when i retire about all the clerks. there are interesting stories. there have been 19. >> are a couple of the 19 jumping out you? >> yes. mr. browning left ear and was appointed to the ninth circuit court of appeals, and he is still there as a senior justice. i believe -- he was the last clerk to hold the bible. and then there was kennedy. so i have met mr. browning. a delightful fellow. i and on about five of the previous clerks. interesting people, and each one

is a little different. i am the first military person. >> are there any artifacts from the early days? >> yes, there is a rolltop desk on my right, and i have a display beneath the portrait, so if they want to use it, he can come back and use the desk. >> i want to ask you about or military background. >> i was a major general. >> what was it that prepared you for a job like this? >> a career. i took my basic training in fort

hood, texas, at rotc. coming out of law school, i enjoyed it. my wife enjoyed it. we lived around the world. bangkok, vietnam's. many assignments in different places. each time, there are different challenges, and i enjoy it all. i felt personally like i was getting ready to come here for this job. it is interesting, because we have places and things to get done here, and we got those things done, and having time and money prepared me for what work would be, getting things done.

you are dealing with people and things. and it is the same thing here. >> what is your favorite part of this building? >> this office. it is very comfortable. is a great place to work and keep visitors. i am very big on delegating authority to everyone else to make decisions, but for instance, the law clerks, i see them, men and women who are dedicated and bright. but they will see whatever person or deputy is responsible for that area, e-mail them, call them by phone. they do not have to see me. so not all of them. >> do you remember your first as clerk? >> yes. i was clueless.

i put on the air that i knew what i was doing. i walked around. be careful about making changes to quickly, and be careful about what you believe. just take it easy. i had interviews with all of the justices, and it was very interesting to me to come in and talk to those important people. the budget was fine. little by little, we got moving. i wore one of my brand new suits that day, also. >> [inaudible] >> i did not remember the name of it. >> had you ever visited the court as a kid? >> yes. i would come here as an army officer to your military cases. several times, i came over and hurt cases we have a great interest in.

you want to see the argument. you want to see the interaction that goes on, because you are interested in it. i was admitted to practice here. i had some friends that worked over here. i was always lost. >> and you have not been made yourself before the corporate >> no. >> tell me about what people see when they do that, and what some of those things mean to you. >> when they are walking up the steps to argue a case? >> or when you visit as a tourist. >> as a tourist, i think you see it as a monument, not just to

the judiciary, to america. this is not just a courthouse. we make decisions that affect all of us. you see this as a place where laws are not made, laws are interpreted. those walking up the steps to argue a case do not see anything or hear anything, even those with a lot of experience. they have to. but they are very good. i wish all my students in this country would come here and see an argument. it is just wonderful, seeing it all played out in front of everybody. >> what is your for your part? >> the columns are what you can see the most. >> what do you make the most different in your job? >> hiring and training of staff. it takes a lot of work from a

lot of people. maintaining them, taking care of them, supporting them, making sure that they are loyal to the institution, which they are, but that is very important. if you do not have a good staff, -- you will have a lawyer clerk with a staff that is not good, you will not have a good office. that is one of my main jobs. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you for coming. >> you are watching c-span's " america and the courts." we continue with our encore presentations from c-span's supreme court week, with the construction of the current supreme court building. >> this is the last new classical building built in america.

it was built in the 20's and 30's. the architect got money for a -- it, and it is a very attractive building. has become the symbol of the supreme court. one of the justices who did a lot of work on it did not want to leave the former chambers, the basis of the senate. he said if we leave these offices in the senate, no one will ever hear of us again. but he was wrong. brandeis said he would not come in here, because this building is so elaborate. and he was right. but over time it has become a symbol of the search -- third branch of government, and the need for stability and rule of

law, which is what america stands for. >> the building was opened in 1935. before moving here, the justices met in different chambers in the capital. first we hear from jim o'hara about the stories and characters behind to move to get the court its own home. >> chief justice taft was the dynamic force that made the supreme court building possible. he was a former president of the united states. he is the only president who ever served on the supreme court. there are a few earlier presidents, but none ever served. he was determined that the supreme court should not be an afterthought. it was working out of rooms that were very, very constricted in the capitol building. the courtroom itself was a former senate chambers. for some purposes, they would

have to borrow things from the senate. the justices' library was the old chambers in the basement. the court should have a place of its own. it was a branch of government, and he forced to that issue. he forced that issue. some other issues -- justices did not agree with it. but he forced the issue. >> it now seems so obvious as you look at the white house, the capital, it seems that people assume it has been there forever. why wasn't it? >> early on, when washington was being billed, they actually mentioned there should be a hall of justice for the supreme court, but it was never built.

using the capital for storage, there was no conference room there. they met on wednesdays, when the senate did not meet, to discuss cases. and justices worked out of their homes. they would have messengers who would go from one justices house to another house with a draft of opinions. i think sometimes that if any of those justices have known that sometimes the messengers were just riding the streetcar, if they have lost the case, that had gotten out, somebody could have made a killing on the stock market knowing what the court was going to do in advance. but that never happened. and some of the justices were happy with that arrangement. they could come to the capital

when a case was being heard. >> taft himself, it sounds like there was resistance to getting a supreme court building built itself. did it take someone might him, -- like him, or could anybody have got in that building off the ground? >> i do not know if someone else could have ever done what he did to build that building. i do not know the answer. maybe another chief justice who was fixated on the building could of pulled it off. but the fact is, taft was the 10th or 11th chief justice, and none before had been able to do it, even though they were hiding respective figures and he

had be chief justice for a long time. i suppose there was a time justices were happy with that arrangement because many of them did not live close to the capitol building, so living close to it was not an easy thing. and many justices lived relatively close. all lot lived around connecticut avenue or near dupont circle. but taft had in mind that the court needed a building of its own. he believed that when he was president and when he became chief justice, it became almost an obsession. >> how much was he involved in the actual design of the building, the fact that went into what was left? >> he was interested in that building to such an extent that when he initially went to congress, to the appropriate

committees of congress, to ask for the money, taft immediately ran into a little problem in that the architect of the capital wanted to have [inaudible] , and taft thought that the legislation would make him chairman of the commission. taft and one of the other justices were on the commission. the architect was arnold tool, but taft controlled the commission because he was friendly with the appropriate chairman of the committees in the house and senate, the teacher that other members would be members of the house and senate. so he was responsible for choosing the architect. he liked the architect chosen.

he said of all the architects in america, this was the one to build the building. and the architect actually had sketches that were done years before he officially got that job. just thinking that if you are going to describe the job, maybe he can do some ideas or what not. >> the supreme court have but classical look to it -- has that classical look to it. a tie-in to ancient roman times. but that was against the grain of what was going on in america at the time in terms of architecture. so was there some kind of fight these guys have to go through to get something like that bill? >> -- built? >> architect and chief justice taft both felt the building should reflect jefferson's the

original idea for the capital. jefferson was a great admirer of greek and roman architecture. jefferson's concept of the capital city was a city that would remind people of ancient rome or athens. and the architect of the supreme court was very, very comfortable with that idea. although modern architecture reflected people like frank lloyd wright, who would have done something very different, i think that gilbert and have felt jefferson's idea, better than a school of architecture that might have ended up just being a fad.

>> it is a little bit more than $10 million. >> it was actually a deflation. they were able to finish it and turn $100,000 over, so it came in under budget. it might have been the only government building in history that came in under budget. he was thoroughly familiar with the plants, and i think he died quite happy with the building that he knew was going to be built. he and the architect, cass gilbert, they corresponded regularly and calorically --

catholic lay. and when taft was president, he had appointed gilbert to a fine arts commission at the capitol. so gilbert knew what it was about, and he knew what visions jefferson had had. some of the justices did not like it hurt much. some continued to work out of their homes, happy with that arrangement. of course they came to the building for hearing cases the

chief justice at that time was charles evans hughes, and the office they provided for him and the building was more as a ceremonial office to greet distinguished visitors and so forth, and he continued working out of his home. most justices at the time did not even claim the of the space -- office space. the first justice who use that building extensively as his office was hubert block, roosevelt's first appointee, appointed after the building was completed. supreme court justices are not shy, and some felt that the new building was to grant, too grandiose. later, chief justice stone, he was an associate justice when the building was built, and

alleged to say that he thought the justices were like nine black beetles, and they should write in each morning on elephants. he also made the comment that the building was for nine old guys on the supreme court. the other thing about the building, aside from the fact that it had an awful lot of marble in a -- if it -- in it, which the justices were not accustomed to, the building was very large. gilbert and tapped vote of like unlike many other -- they thought that like many other buildings, they recognized it is a corporate world.

so a lot of space was there, and justices who came to the court felt that there was a lot of wasted space, and of course, i think that both taft and gilbert proved to be correct, because the same building was used for the court, and of course there were still nine justices. the office has grown, and the number of cases has grown exponentially in terms of the cases the court is asked to hear, and there has to be a place for storage. now that the building is properly bursting at its steams, it surely is not too large for present activities. >> so it must have been a bit lonely over there.

>> just as pat probably felt all little awkward when he came in, but as you recall, after black was appointed, president roosevelt had a lot of appointments in a bill to the short time. that was almost immediately drawn by justice read for appointments, and he was in the middle of another put appointment with frankfurter and douglas and burns. so in a short time, he was joined by lots of other appointees, and they all use the offices we provided for them in the building. justice brandeis never moved into the building. he was perfectly capable, perfectly happy with working in his home.

of course, justice brandeis, for all of his superb mental abilities and superb legal mind, was a very gentle, simple man, and maybe thought the building was not the kind of building he could write his opinions in and feel at home. so he never moved in. >> he was opposed to the court building you were covering in this program. he felt plans for to grand -- that the plans were excessively grand, he liked the chambers that existed in the capitol building, he told that the buildings, the new proposed building would not contribute to the justices humility, which they needed.

>> frank gill byrd is the grandson of supreme court justice louis brandeis. he sat down with us to talk about his grandfather's time on the supreme court and his reasons for the opposition to the court's new home. >> my grandfather declined to use the chamber's in the new building. in fact, he never set foot inside the chambers, continuing to work at home in his apartment. and i'm told the staff used the building in the 1930's to point out what the offices will look like. the grandfather did not need all of that space. the efficiency apartment where he worked was quite modest. but back and hold -- at home, he

had lawbooks spread out on the floor of his office, " and it was not a big home. but that served. he saw no need for this model palace. he had very good relations with his fellow justices. they'll use the building -- they all used the building. one clerk told me years later that one of his fellow injustices -- justices raised objection about the building. and the grandfather turned to the law clerk and said, well, he voted for it. that is not typical. but he obviously had strong feelings against the building has been to grant. he did not say anything. he just got the notion --

people got the notion he did not approve of it. but he would not speak out. he would just cast his vote against the plans. i would add my grandmother, beyond grandfather, had a curiosity about what the suite of offices will look like, so we should -- she went over to inspect them, and she regained her ploys as she left and said the rooms have two things my husband never uses. one is the shower, and the other was a tap for ice water. in those days, the people were given a cap from which they could get ice water. the grandfather did not use ice water and not use a shower. >> to do you have any thoughts about the court ruling itself,

compared to the supreme court chamber inside the capitol? >> he argued in the capitol building, it was fair to describe as an imminent chamber. he was a successful advocate for the supreme court before he became a justice, very comfortable in that building. and in the old chambers, he argued a case on the rights of the state of oregon to limit the powers of women working in a laundry or other industrial use in oregon. the case was miller versus oregon, and its stance for the principle but grants what was demonstrated in that case, to bring in outside evidence of what was going on in the world.

so a number of legal precedents were cited, and the supreme court was presented 100 pages from all over the country and world about the importance of reasonable ballots for a wound. and that was in the chamber that it was submitted to the supreme court. >> to 07 interesting story about your mother. one of the first women to argue a case. tell us about that. >> my mother, in new york city in the 1920's bus, came at the appeals level and did it on behalf of a lawyer find for charging, for overcharging it representative of the family who was deceased. congress had given benefits, but placed a very low limit on what

the lawyer for the veterans family could charge. so on appeal, a mother argued and lost. grandfather did not sit the case, naturally, but i know that he was proud of my mother when she argued this case before the supreme court. >> as a jewish person, did your grandfather ever talk about sort of the -- either the pride that he had at being the first jewish supreme court justice, with the challenges that may have come along with that? >> grandfather was indeed very proud of his jewish heritage. who was going in this country, the son of people who had come over, 1848, come over from prague. he was very proud of his jewish heritage, an early end committed

zionist who felt deeply about the homeland for the jewish people, and he worked very hard to achieve what is now the state of israel. and it is well known that grandfather faced anti-semitism on the supreme court. one fella justice would leave the room when he was speaking at conferences held by the justices to decide the case. so justice mcreynolds served on the court with grandfather and he did not treat him politely, nor did he treat politely justice cardozo when he was appointed to the court, and he served for a couple of years before a transfer and showed anti semitism.

>> how did your grandfather deal with that? >> i think he just -- in terms of justice mcreynolds, i think he just first -- went forth and did his work. with his resignation, as was customary, the chief justice wrote a letter to the retired justice to praise him and indicate how much the court would miss him. and after chief justice hughes drafted this letter, the senior justice declined to sign the letter. the other justices in the design of the letter -- immediately signed the letter, sent off to grandfather as an indication of how justice mcreynolds stood by

my grandfather, but he did not need the signature. he wanted to stand by others indicating respect and affection for my grandfather. >> did he understand the path that he was pleasing, the precedent that he was setting? >> as a justice, again, he was very conscious of his jewish heritage. and in a quiet way, he was very proud of it. he certainly was one of the first jewish justice is. that was not a central public fiend during the nomination battle -- it was a very long battle in 1916. today, it is commonplace, but in those days, you would go for many years without an