>> to be honest, it was not an abiding interest from the beginning. i did not know until i was in law school. [laughter] in college, i was a history major and there were no jobs for people to teach history when i came out of college. so i thought i would go to law school and perhaps teach legal history. when i found myself in the first year of law school, i found i enjoyed it so much that i adopted it as a choice and focused on wall. .

you do have to understand the history behind it. >> what are your views on --

>> you must have ambitions for the senate. that is the kind of questions that they ask. i will give you the same answer, i cannot comment on particular cases that will have some pertinent to my ongoing work. >> when justice thomas was here, he had some strong opinions about the confirmation process. i agree that the contentious process does not make for a better court. i have seen some of your hearings on the internet. i agree with the opinions of justice thomas. i think that the senators ask questions they know we cannot answer. we tell them this and they still

do it. they use the process as a vehicle for them to talk about what they want to talk about. we cannot tell you how we look at ongoing significance of the cases. they are trying to get us to know something about this. i am very happy that recent nominees have had an adherence to the opinion about how they will vote. the senators are the only ones who can change on how they conduct the process. if they would like to find out

information that is pertinent, they should do it. there are many good questions they can ask that can reveal something about the nominee. what is your theory of the constitution? who will you write the opinion for food for the academic community, for the public? the decision in brown vs. board of education is about 20 pages long. he wanted the public to be able to read it. that would be a good question. asked what the latest interest are. what did they think? you can give me a sense of how

the nominee would approach the jobs. asking them how they will rule on a hot-button issue of the day makes no sense because they cannot do this. it is also counterproductive. you look at the judges who ruled on roe vs. wade, they did not know that that would be a hot button issue. this is a bit backward looking process. >the process is not very fruitful. the only people that can change it are the senators that run it and i hope that they do. >> since you have argued many cases before the supreme court, can you talk about the granting of -- to a case? >> we get about 9000 a year.

we don't decide those cases. our job is to resolve conflicts among the circuits so that federal law develops and uniformly. that is why our pocket is not that interesting once you get past the handful of cases that will be from general interest. you have a federal court in one area the country voting one way and one voting another way, we will look into this matter how on interesting it will be. we addressed important constitutional issues.

it is vitally important. there are supreme courts around the world that have similar caseloads and they are required to act as a court of error and decide those cases. they tell me that this is a deliberate means to keep them from being a significant part in the political and legal cases. you don't have any time to say that this is an important issue about the cases. >> chief justice, earlier in the season the supreme court decided to remove corporate funding

restrictions. some say that this provides an opportunity to corrupt democracy. >> i will have to let my opinion speak for itself. >> i ate was wondering if he could speak about how your private business experience has helped you. >> it has helped in the sense that the way that my friends are trying to do. what they are holding back which might be worth exploring. or would like to think i learned a little bit about the process in general, how that can be helpful in court.

the court twriting in greece, ts with the same language. i would like to think that this was good practice. i had a chance to engage in a dialogue with the justices. that gave me some experience in trying to do that. i think it was good preparation. my colleagues come from a different background. they had a great deal of experience. justice thomas also benefits. i fought for the longest time

was someone with experience as a trial court judge. i think it is very good. people talk about diversity on the court. in terms of background, we have some diversity. >> during the state of the union, the president made some adverse comments towards your decision regarding mccain/feingold, is the state of the union address a proper union to chide the supreme court? >> anyone can criticize the supreme court without any form. we do it in mass and our descent, right? people should feel perfectly free to criticize what we do. some people have an obligation

to criticize what they do given their office. on the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances. the image of having one member of the government literally surrounding the supreme court while the court has to sit there expressionless and this is very troubling the. to the extent that the state of the union has degenerated into a political pep rally, i'm not sure why we're there. >> thank you for coming to see us. you mentioned how the ground forces the board of education was written briefly so the average person could read it.

what other virtues are there? >> that is a good question that a senator could ask. it should be accessible to intelligence laypeople. this is an important decision. on a case like brown on the big and important public interest cases, it should be interesting. it should give an adequate explanation. that is what we have to do. congress does not explain why

they're doing something. the president does not have to explain to you. you can throw them out of office the next time they are up and dow. it should not be an 80 page opinion with 100 page footnotes which is impossible for people to understand. it should be something that the public can understand, explain what you are doing, let them make a judgment about whether or not you are living up to the post of your office. >> what is your best personal advice for someone wanting to get into a judicial position? >> that is kind of art.

you have to do the work. there is a lot of reading and thinking involved. -- that is kind of hard. you have to think alikot. what you have to do is stop and think. here's the problem, here is some legal material. sit and think about it. judges have to do the same thing. don't be too quick to start drafting an opinion if you are a judge. think about this a little bit more. people tend to bring to bear

what they have sent out you have to sit back and think about it. both judges and lawyers to not do that enough. >> justice roberts said that when he enters into oral arguments that his mind is already made out. what impact that discussions with your colleagues have? >> my take would be different then justice thomas. the oral argument is very important for me. i would hate to think this did

not matter. it is a continuing process of marrying the view of the case. you have the question presented, you have to explain what it is. then you read the opening brief. it sounds pretty good. your opinion of the case narrows somewhat. then you read the other side brief. then the opening arguments don't sound so good. then you read the reply. then you go back and read the cases they are saving -- citing. i sit down with my law clerks, i talked to them about the case.

the process crystallizes. people wonder if the argument changes the vote. if you took a vote before argument, would it be different? >> ththe answer is that i do not know. there might be a decision along the same path. it is the first time that the cases heard. if one of my colleagues things that a particular issue is important, it might change the way i look at the case altogether. there might be rationale that is different.

the lawyers might turn this one way or another. the oral argument plays a very important role just as the steps leading up to it too. how often has your vote changed. sometimes you cannot explain how things work. we changed some time at the late stage. >> when you are looking in choosing new clerks, buwhat are you looking for?

>> they have to have a good academic record. i would like them to be able to speak well. i sit down with them and discuss things. some people are better writing and talking. i want someone who is good about talking. that is how i like to prepare. they have to seem like nice people. you spend a lot of time with them over the course of the year. they have to get along with me and other clerks. a lot of people feel comfortable expressing their opinions without wolves iilting. i had a great idea about assessing self-confidence.

some of the appeals court said to be chosen on one day. i brought in a dozen krispy kreme doughnuts. that is not a commercial endorsement, it could have been in the print out they were powder, sugar, glaze. i figured anyone who had enough self-confidence to pick up a doughnut that is glazed or with powdered sugar would be the sort of person i was interested in. i even remember saying, anyone who has a tenant, i will hire. i am not making this up, there were a dozen left over. basically, ability to get along with people and a high degree of

confidence. >> what is a book that you have read that you would recommend? >> there is a biography of john marshall that i recommend. it is very well written. it gives you a nice introduction to the major cases and teaches you a lot about john marshall that people cannot know. a figure who is largely responsible for shaping the supreme court in its current role. through that, shaping the country. a lot of us to not know enough about john marshall, he was a

hero can't jus. he said that the valley forge was the place where he began to dig himself as a citizen of the united states. >> were you more nervous giving arguments than receiving them? >> i was nervous the first day that i presided. it was an emotional day. the day began with justice stevens reading the news about

my old boss could tel. when you are arguing a case, it is intimidating. you have to have the same degree of self-confidence i was talking about. the issues are always tough. you have the added the stimulation of the competition. on the bench, we never win or lose. you never think of yourself as winning or losing. when you are arguing, you are going to win or lose and this can effect how you do. this process can be nerve wracking.

>> i am getting married this weekend and i would like to take your brain on how to balance law practice and family life? >> it is easier to do as a judge then as a lawyer. if you are a lawyer and your brief is due tomorrow, your son's basketball game is today, it is tough. if you are a judge, your opinion is not due tomorrow, you have a lot more flexibility. my old boss said if you want to spend time with your young children, you have to do it when they're young.

don't fall into the trap of thinking, i will work this week but i will be able to do something next week. it becomes next week, next year, then they are 16. you do have the ballast to work with other things. it is not easy. you have to remember, if you are a good lawyer, you can make that compromise. don't listen to the park that tells you, look, you have got to do this or it will not get done. you should say they have other things that are important. if you get yourself in a position where it does not lead you time for your responsibilities, then you reassess your priorities.

>> of first of all, i want to express our gladness that the rumors of your resignation were greatly saturated. >> apparently the professor who said that has been so overwhelmed that he has decided to leave teaching. i feel sorry about it but what can you do? >> i have a question about the other branches of government role in interpreting the constitution. the best example comes from the last president bush's signing -- into law. what would you like to see happen? >> congress has a debate.

is this constitutional or not? they take the same oath we take to uphold the constitution. they have the same contribution. it is wrong for them to say that is not part of their job. congress passes a law, if they think it is unconstitutional, they should not sign it. congress has the same obligation that we have and they should take it seriously. >> would you comment on the role that you believe that there is the constitutional order? >> that is a discussion that i think that each side is almost deliberately missing the point. nobody doubts that we can gain a

great deal from looking at international law. if another court has dealt with an issue of a relationship with a particular type of national security question, of course we should look at it and benefit from it. i don't think there's any dispute. the question comes up when the question is international decisions should directly inform our interpretations of the constitution. if you look at decisions of other courts around the world to reform that. there i think it is a little bit more difficult in a number of respects. which decisions do you look at. you might like what the german high court says. if you decide which ones you like, what are you doing. someone is looking out over a

crowd and taking out your friends. i think that there are serious legitimacy issues. you can look into french cases, for example. however, nobody voted for these people and they're not part of our system. you have to keep this in mind. sometimes, people say those justices don't believe in international law think that we're not willing to do the former. of course they are. we benefit from them. >> when justice thomas was here, he informed us that in conference, the chief justice had a signature clear that he would employ to move t