roberts. he spoke in tuscaloosa on tuesday on the confirmation process, what he went through as a law clerk, and whether the supreme court should add threat -- attend the state of the union address. >> the chief justice has agreed to take questions. . >> what led you to study law? >> i did not know i was going to

study law before i was in law school. in college, i was a history major. i wanted to teach history. there was no job for people to teach history when i came out of college, so i thought maybe i would go to law school and perhaps teach legal history. when i found myself in first- year law school, i found i enjoyed it so much i dropped history as a career choice and focused on wall. -- on law. >> justice roberts, a follow up. i also have an undergraduate degree in history. how have you found, through your legal career, that that prepared you for the practice of law? >> i think it is great. there are a lot of different undergraduate disciplines that i think are a preparation for law. history was good for me because that is what we do.

the first thing that happens when we get a case is we look at the precedents, the history -- what have we done before. at a more fundamental level, it is important to understand what the people who grew up our original documents, the framers of the constitution, what their experience was when they did that. the same with respect to the civil war amendment -- what was driving them? it is not always determinative. the road certain texts. that guides us. you have to understand the history behind it. >> what are your views on the helgrin case, circa 1937? >> that is the kind of question the senate asks during confirmation hearings.

i cannot comment on particular cases that will have pertinence to my ongoing work. >> when justice thomas was here, he had some strong opinions about the confirmation process, which i tended to agree with -- that a contentious process does not make for a better court. i have seen some of your confirmation hearings on the internet. i wanted to hear what your thoughts were. >> the first-year students i talked to this morning heard me expound on that a little bit. i agree with justice thomas. i think the process is broken down. senators ask questions they know we cannot answer. we tell them, and they ask more questions we cannot answer. i think they view the process as a vehicle for them to make statements about what is important to them, and perhaps their constituents, but not about matters on which we can opined.

they want to know how we're going to rule on certain cases. we cannot tell them that. they think maybe they will get us to reveal something. we cannot tell you how we view the ongoing significance of those cases. we can figure out they are trying to get us to say something about how we are going to decide. they know that is true. i am happy that recent nominees from both presidents and political parties have adhered to the view that is impossible for nominees to tell the senators how they are going to vote in a particular case. i think that is important. the senators are the only ones who can change the process. if they are interested in finding out information that is pertinent, they should change the way they do it. there are a lot of questions they can ask that would reveal something about nominees. what is your theory of the constitution? how are you going to approach to

judging? when you write your opinions, who are you going to write them for? are you going to write them for the academic community? for the public? the decision in brown versus the board of education was about 20 pages long. warren wanted the public to be able to read it, not filter it with experts. are you going to write it for your colleagues? are you going to explain the dissents? are you going to footnote the debate? ask the nominee but the latest book she read was. that would tell them something. what is your interest? what did she think? something that would start giving a better sense of how a nominee would approach the important job. asking them how they are going to rule on a hot-button issue of the day makes no sense. it is counterproductive. you go back and look at the

theories of the judges who participated in a row versus wade, and you will not see any questions about abortion. whenever hot-button issue is going to appear in 10 or 15 years -- the senators do not know. the judges do not know. it is a backward-looking process. i think the process is not very fruitful. i think the only people who could change it are the senators to run it. i hope they do. >> thank you for coming to alabama. since you have argued many cases before the supreme court, could you comment on the process of granting circuitry uri to the case -- certioriori to a case? >> we are not always saying that decision was right.

often it is so wrong we do not think it is going to have an impact on the development of the law. we try to make sure federal law develops uniformly. that is one reason our docket is not very interesting, once you get past a handful of cases. if you have a court in new york deciding a bankruptcy case one way and a court in california deciding the same issue another way, we will grant cert and resolve it, no matter how uninteresting it might be. whenever there is a conflict in the uniformity of federal law, addressing constitutional issues -- it strikes down an act of congress, we are going to review that, even if there is not a conflict. those are the main reasons. it is vitally important. there are supreme courts around the world that have similar case loads. they are required to act as a court -- the opposite of a court

of error. the chief justices of those courts tell me it is a deliberate means of the other branches to keep them from being a significant part in the political process. if you have to decide 9000 cases a year, you do not have time to sit back and say, "this is an important issue about how the government functions." the legal reforms that gave us the right to choose which cases we hear are vitally important to our assuming our role in government. >> chief justice roberts, earlier in the season, the supreme court had a 5-4 decision to remove corporate funding limitations on federal elections. some have said that provides a corruption of democracy. >> i did vote on that. i will have to let my opinion in

that case before itself. -- speak for itself. >> how has your private practice experience helped to perform your job as a justice? >> i think it has helped a little bit, in the sense that i know what many of my friends -- former friends -- [applause] [laughter] i think they get -- i think i get a sense of how they are trying to make their points, what they might be holding back that might be worth exploring. i think i learned a little bit about the process, about how i could be helpful in the court. that allows me to get as much from the lawyers as i can. we do a lot of writing in the briefs. it is somewhat on like riding a decision, but you are dealing

with the same precedents, the same statutory language. i like to think that was good practice. i obviously had the chance to engage in a dialogue with the justices on the best days. that gave me some experience, trying to do that, which is what i spend some of my time doing now. i think it was good preparation. my colleagues all come from a different background, some with a great deal of experience as appeals judges. that gives them a different experience. experience as an academic allows them to take a different perspective on some of these issues. justice thomas ran a government agency. that benefits and a great deal. i thought for a long time that one of the gaps we had on the board was somebody with experience as a trial court judge. justice sotomayor fills that gap. people talk about diversity on the court. there are some areas where we

are lacking. in terms of background, we have a great deal of diversity. >> during the state of the union address, the president made some adverse comments toward a decision regarding mccain-fine gold. -- mccain-feingold. is the state of the union address a proper venue to chide the supreme court for its decisions? >> i think anybody can criticize the supreme court without any qualms. we do it. and that is in our defense. i think people should feel perfectly free to criticize what we do. i think it is an obligation, given their office, if they think we have done something wrong. i have no problems with that. there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances, and the decorum.

the image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the supreme court, cheering and hollering while the court-appointed requirements of protocol mean we have to sit there expressionless, it is troubling. it makes the question whether it makes sense for us to be there. the state of the union has degenerated into a political pep rally. i am not sure why we are there. >> thank you very much for coming to see us, mr. chief justice. you mentioned how when a decision was written briefly so the average person could read it -- what other issues do you think -- what other attributes to you think a good decision, as a piece of writing, has? >> that is a good question is senator could ask.

-- a good question a senator could ask. [laughter] it should be intelligent to -- it should be intelligible to intelligently people who are not lawyers. they should be able to pick it up, read it, and understand it. they are not going to care if it is a case where there is a conflict on interpretation of the bankruptcy code. on a case like brown, and the other important public interest cases, i think it should be accessible to them at least at some level. they may not have to follow all the nuances but they should understand the reasons. it should give an adequate explanation. that is what we have to do. congress does not have to explain why they are doing something. the president does not have to explain. they usually do, but they do not have to, because you can vote them out of office if you do not like what they are doing. you cannot do that to us if you

do not like our decisions, so we have to explain to you why we are doing them. it should not be an opinion, densely written, with 180 footnotes, that is impossible for people to understand except lawyers, or even most lawyers who do not specialize. it should be understandable, concise. explain what you are doing. let the public be the judge of whether you are living up to your oath. show you decide these questions according to the rule of law rather than your personal policy preferences. i think that is what a decision needs to be. >> justice roberts, what is your best advice for somebody holding a judicial position? >> being a judge? that is kind of hard. you have to do the work. there is a lot of reading involved. there is a lot of thinking involved. that would be my advice. you have to read a lot, you have

to write a lot, and you have to think a lot. that would be my advice to law students as well. you are too quick to find all the cases, to read all the history, to make notes about all of this. what you have to do is also stop and think a lot. you have to think, "here is a problem. here is some legal material." sit and think about it for a while. judges have to do the same thing. do not be too quick to start drafting an opinion, if you are a judge. think about things a little bit more. people tend to bring to bear -- law student's work hard. you think you have to work hard, to find something to solve a problem. you have to sit back and think about it. most judges and lawyers do not do that enough.

>> when justice thomas was here, he suggested that oftentimes when he is listening to oral arguments, his mind is already made up. i was wondering, after you have done an initial look at a case and are leaning one way or another, how much influence does conversation with your colleagues have on your decision? is that a diminished role? what is the significance of oral arguments? >> my take on it would be a little different than justice thomas's . the oral argument is important to me, maybe because i participated it -- participated in it a lot as a lawyer. i would hate to think it did not matter. [laughter] it is a constant process of narrowing your communication. a question is presented in our

cert petitions. that is on the first page. you have to explain what it is. you read the opening brief. it sounds pretty good. there are good arguments. your view of the case narrows somewhat. you read the other side's view, and all of a sudden the opening arguments do not sound so good. you read the reply and your view of the case -- your notion of how you should vote crystallizes. you go back and read the cases they are siding, the statutes, the language. you go firmly in one direction or another. your perspective is filled. i sit down with my law clerks, talk to them, play devil's advocate, get different views. the process crystallizes. you come up to the argument. does the argument ever change your vote? if you took a vote before the argument, would it be different?

i do not know. we do not take boats before and after. -- we do not take votes before and after. it may cause you to change your view, just like reading a respondence brief caused you to change your view a little bet -- a respondent's grief caused you to change your view a little bit. this is also the first time i hear the views of my colleagues. if i hear one think a particular issue is important that i dismissed, that may change my opinion on the case. we may have different rationales that could support the decision. maybe i am focused on one but it seems like the other is gaining credibility. i'm i want to focus on that. the lawyers might turn as one way or the other. the oral argument plays a very important role, just like the other steps leading up to it and beyond.

the conference with my colleagues plays an important role. people do not ask if my boat changes in conference. sometimes. it is not carved in stone until we reach that point. the opinion process helps explain what we are doing. sometimes, when we talk about what the opinion should be -- sometimes you find you cannot explain it. it does not work. it is easier to write it coming out the other way. that should tell you something. we change even at that late stage. >> when you are looking at law clerks, what is something you are looking for? >> they have to have a good academic record. i have to be comfortable they could read a lot, get a lot out of it quickly, they can write well. i like them to be able to talk well. i do not have them do bench memos, but i sit down with them

and discuss. some people are better writing stuff than they are talking. i want somebody who's going to be good at talking. that is how i like to prepare -- bounce ideas off of someone. they have to seem like nice people. you spend a lot of time with them, over the course of a year. they not only have to get along with me, but they have to get along with other clerks as well. i like people with self- confidence who are going to feel comfortable expressing their views and defending those views without wilting. once, when i chose my clerks, i had a great idea for assessing their degree of self-confidence. this was at a time when at least court of appeals courts -- you were basically choosing them on one day. we had 13 or 14 interviews scheduled for one day. i brought in one dozen crispy cream doughnuts.

-- one dozen krispy kreme donuts. there were powdered sugar and glazed. i put them out there and said help yourself. i figured anybody 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 remember saying, "anybody who has a doughnut, i will hire." i am not making this up. there were a dozen donuts left at the end of the day. i had to go back and look at their resonates. [laughter] -- i had to go back and look at their resumes. [laughter] i am looking for people with a high degree of confidence. >> reading the future -- what is a book you have read? i heard the twilight books are

good. [laughter] >> legal books -- edward white has a biography of john marshall that has been around for a while. i really recommend it. i read it after i became chief justice. i learned a lot about him. very well written. a nice introduction to the major cases of the founding. it teaches you a lot about john marshall that people do not know, a remarkable figure that was largely responsible for shaping the supreme court in its current role, and through that decision shaping the country -- defining the nation, as he put it. a lot of people do not know about john marshall. he was a war hero. he was george washington's favorite lt. at valley forge. valley forge is where he began

to think of himself as a citizen of the united states rather than a citizen of virginia. a remarkable man. that is a good book to pick up, if you have not. it is very readable. i do not get a share of the royalties. [laughter] >> mr. chief justice, were you more nervous the first time you gave oral arguments or the first time you heard them? >> the first time i gave them. it is easier to ask questions and answer them. i mean, i was certainly nervous. it was an emotional day, among other things. the day began with justice stevens reading the court's message on the death of my old boss, chief justice rehnquist. i took over and presided. that was an emotional day. when you are there arguing a case, that is an intimidating

thing. you have to have that self- confidence i was talking about. the issues are always tough. it is exhilarating arguing a case. you have an added stimulation of the competition. on the bench, we never win or lose. even when we are debating among ourselves, you never think of yourself as winning or losing. you are engaged in the same process. if you are on the floor, you win or you lose. it does not depend entirely on what you do, but it can depend a lot on what you do. it is an exciting process. i would say it is nerve wracking. >> mr. chief justice, i am getting married this weekend. how would you balance law practice and family life? [laughter] >> congratulations. that is great. i will tell you one thing.

it is easier as a judge than as a lawyer. as chief justice, it must be hard. it is easier. if you are a lawyer, and your brief is due tomorrow and your son's basketball game is today, it is tough. if you are a judge, your opinion is not due tomorrow. if it does not come out tomorrow, it will come out the next day or the next week. you have more flexibility to do things with your family. my old boss, chief justice rehnquist, once said, "if you want to spend time with your young children, you have to do it when they are young." which means do not fall into the track of thinking "i am going to work this week but will be able to do something next week." that becomes next year. you wake up and you are 60.

it is like anything else. the work -- presumably, you find it intellectually stimulating, but you have to balance it with other things. it is not easy. you have to remember, if you are a good lawyer -- and everybody here is going to be a good lawyer -- you can make that compromise. do not listen to the partner who tells you, "you have to do this or it is not going to get done." you have other things to do that are important. you have professional responsibilities, but if you get in a position where that does not leave you the time to fulfill your responsibilities as a husband or father, you have mixed up your priorities. >> first off, and want to express alabama's collective gladness that the rumors of your resignation were greatly exaggerated. [laughter] >> before you get started on

that, i have to announce that the professor who said that has been so overwhelmed he has decided to leave teaching. [laughter] i feel sorry about it, but what can you do? >> i have a question about, essentially, the other branches of government's role in interpreting the constitution, which it seems to have given up. the best example comes from president bush's example to sign something into law while saying it was not constitutional but the courts would shake it out. what do you think the result of that is? is it a bad thing? what would you like to see happen? >> i think it is a bad thing. congress does is at well -- does it as well. they take the same oath we take to uphold the constitution of the united states.

they have the same obligation. it is wrong for them to think it is not part of their job and we will figure it out. congress passes the laws. if they think it is unconstitutional, they should not pass it. if the president thinks it is unconstitutional, he should not sign it. it is a high obligation should take more seriously. >> would you comment on the role that you believe international law should play in the american constitutional order? >> sure. without any reference to any particular case, that is a discussion where i think each side is deliberately missing the point of the other side. nobody doubts for a minute that we can gain a great deal from looking at international law, the decisions of other courts. if another court has dealt with an issue of the relationship of a particular type of national security question to individual

liberties, we should look at it and benefit from it. i do not think there is a dispute about that. the question comes up when the issue is whether international decisions should influence our interpretation of our constitution. members were looking at contemporary norms, that kind of thing. you look at the decisions of other courts around the world. i think it is more difficult in a number of respects. which decisions do you look at? you may like what the german high court says. you may not like what the indonesian high court says. if you just decide which ones you like, what are you doing? you are looking over a crowd and picking out your friends. it does not help narrow your discretion in any way. there are serious legitimacy issues if you follow the french high court. you are following somebody none of us had the opportunity to

vote for, in the confirmation process, inform the substance of american law. that is problematic. it is an issue the justices debate. it is important to keep those two aspects in mind. if people say those justices do not believe in international law -- of course we benefit from looking at that. we do. the other question is a more difficult one. >> mr. chief justice, when justice thomas was here, he informed us that in conference chief justice rehnquist had a signature clear that he would employ to move the discussion along. he said most often it was on just as briar -- on justice bryer. what tactics do you use to

restrict your colleagues time on the bench and move along the discussion? [laughter] >> as a law clerk, i think you know -- i think i know what where you are talking about. i saw that often enough when i was working with justice rehnquist. discussion and conflicts are an important part of our process. i let it go on longer than all -- than my predecessor, maybe because i'm getting used to it. he was there 25 years. he made a judgment he knew what was going to be said. i am not at that point yet. it is a difficult point -- a difficult part of the job to not control the discussion but make it move along in a profitable way. i think i will get better at it as i go along. i will look to justice thomas for advice on how to do it. [laughter] >> what are your views on the

ninth and 10th amendments? >> argued the same guy who as the other question about that case? you know i cannot answer a question like that. >> i had a question. you mentioned that in the past year you had 9000 petitions for cert. i know the discovery is causing a problem with electronic documents and arbitration. do you think our methods of dispute resolution are the most effective? how can we adjust to account for the share increase in litigation? >> the way the judiciary is developing has problems. it is an extraordinarily complicated process. only the very wealthy people with a lot of resources can look to them to resolve disputes.

people who have no resources who are being represented -- they have to be represented in a way that takes that into account. if you are a medium-sized business with an important dispute, the last we want to look is to litigation. i think that is bad. the judiciary has to have part of their docket represent the economic life of the nation. reform is needed in the discovery process. for those of you who do not follow this, if you have a dispute over a particular question, you file a request saying, "give us all your e- mails." that is literally millions for a big company. you have to go through those to make sure they are not privileged material. it becomes the determining factor in the case. whoever can position or discovery -- clever can position their discovery request in the right way will win.

discovery, the way it was developed, was a wonderful innovation in its time. but it has kind of grown in a way that no one anticipated. we have to figure out a way to make that more successful. >> did you have any reservations about your nomination for chief justice? >> of course. it is a tremendously important office. i feel very privileged to occupy at. -- to occupy it. it was quite a week. i was preparing saturday night. i think the hearings were starting the next tuesday. when i get nervous, i do not get much sleep. my wife came up and told me that

she justice rehnquist had died. i was at that point nominated to replace justice o'connor. i was asked to become chief justice the next morning. in a short time, a mentor who i respected and admired died. the nomination had been changed. all the sudden, it was to be a chief justice. i felt my own inadequacy when i was appointed to replace justice o'connor. now these additional responsibilities were in the offing. i was not quite nervous, but i was aware of the significance of the opportunity. i felt very privileged to have the opportunity and to serve the country that has been so good to me and my family in an area of

the law which i enjoy very much. i think anybody who is given that sort of opportunity appreciates the significance of it. when you go around -- we have our two conferences. they have pictures on the wall of the prior 16 chief justices. there is not room for another one. the first eight are in one room. the second eight are in the other. you go in and look at them. on a quiet evening, you see john marshall and all that he has done. next to him, you see roger thomas. each of them served about three decades. one was a huge success, the other a huge failure. you go into the other room and you see charles hughes, the chief justice during roosevelt's patent crisis. the way he handled that maintain

the independence of the judicial branch. you wonder if you're going to be john marshall. you are certainly not going to be john marshall. but you want to avoid the dangers. the study hall they approached their jobs differently. marshall established the judiciary as an independent branch of government, protected our liberties, and insured that the supreme court would be able to do that. tawny -- marbury versus madison, dread scott. he almost destroyed the court. its reputation was tarnished for two generations before it recovered. something justice rehnquist taught me in describing how he approached things -- he said it

is an important responsibility on which some much rides, but it is also a job. you have to do the best you can with the limited abilities you are given and then move on to the next case. i am comforted every day by the fact that it is not my decision, but the court's decision. i have eight wonderful, talented, hard-working colleagues. i cannot do a thing until four of them agree with me. that spreads what would otherwise be an almost unbearable burden of responsibility. >> i was wondering if you thought the court was an insular institutions, given that most justices and clerks are graduates from a handful of elite law institutions. >> i think they would all benefit from a broader representation. i know justice rehnquist always

tried to broaden the scope of schools from which he took clarks'. i have tried to do the same. as far as the justices go, i do not know. i think presidents should pick people they think are the most talented, accomplished, and best suited. i do not know they should be terribly concerned about where they went to law school. >> in reference to war crimes, how do you feel about the talk we have heard around the world the last few years? in their opinion, if federal courts had looked into allegations -- that americans should be responsible to international court jurisdictions. >> that is the kind of question i cannot answer. you will enjoy life in the senate. [laughter] >> thank you. i know i do not qualify as a

student, but to all the students i wanted to say, in this wonderful room -- as chief justice of the supreme court, i want to thank you on behalf of the 249 state judges we have in alabama for coming to alabama. i want to stay to the students -- i want to say to the students that you have a rare opportunity that i promise you great trial judges here would love to exchange places to have this privilege to be here. thank you so much for being here. i want to ask a question. for someone who is on the board of directors for the conference of chief justices, and involved in the chief justice's association -- the chief justices have an increasing concern about the amounts of

money that are being required to elect judges in the state. it is a significant issue for the judges across the state. as one of the former justices of the supreme court, sandra day o'connor -- her stepping down from the court, she has spent a significant amount of time on the issue of how increasing amounts of money in judicial elections could possibly be impacting the impartiality and independence of the state trial courts and appellate courts. do you share justice o'connor's concern? >> well, i do share her concern. the question becomes what to do about it. there, i think, the subject is more open to debate. these days if you are going to have elections there is going to

be the issue of what role money is going to play in them. it is going to be a difficult and important one. i cannot talk too much about what to do about it in the judicial forum, since it does implicate broader issues of funding in elections in general, but also issues of whether you should have an elected judiciary in the first place. those are broader public policy questions that i have views on that i am not sure it makes sense for me to share. even though i did this morning. [laughter] >> mr. chief justice, there is an excellent article in the most recent "aba journal" about justice rehnquist. it speaks of his frugality. i wonder if you could share some

stories of that character trait. >> i certainly can. there was a famous story. it was not my year. back then, he had three clerks. he could have had for, but he liked to play tennis and that made good doubles. even though it meant more work, he did not care. one of the clerks would drive from the court to the tennis court, a short drive, less than a half a mile. one time, the chief leaned over, it took a dollar out of his wallet, and said, "i am giving david a dollar to help pay for gas. i think you should all do the same." he was quite concerned about the gas money that was being spent on a very short ride. >> last question. >> mr. chief justice, do you

enjoy what you are doing? >> every day. i really do. i was talking to the faculty earlier. i have given some thought to why that is the case. the thing that is great about the job is that you have a limited number of things to do. you have to do a lot of reading, a lot of writing, a lot of thinking about cases. you have flexibility. if you are researching and are not getting much out of the reading that day, you can put it outside and right opinion. if you are writing an opinion and that is not working, you can talk to your law clerks about upcoming cases. if that is not working, i can try to focus on some administrative obligations. you should never have a day that is not productive, where you are not enjoying something that you like to do. i feel extraordinarily privileged to have that opportunity. as i said, i enjoy every day and

feel that i am very lucky. >> we have one announcement for those of you who are in overflow rooms. we regret that. the chief justice will come to each of your room so you can see him in person. it has been a wonderful afternoon. we thank you for spending your time. >> thank you all. >> we appreciate it. [applause] >> i will follow you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> this was a 45 minute portion of the discussion with chief justice john roberts. you can watch the program at our website, c-span.org. just click on "america and the courts." join us next saturday evening here on c-span. on "washington journal," we

talked to a supreme court reporter about remarks made by chief justice roberts. host: david savage is a long- term observer of the supreme court on behalf of the "los angeles times." i want to read a headline. "obama versus the supreme court come aroun, round 2." what is happening? guest: senate democrats are also wound up about this issue. late january, the court said corporations had a free-speech right to spend unlimited amounts on election campaigns. the democrats thought that was a gift to the republicans. they were angry about that decision. they want to overturn it through some sort of legislation.

the president criticized it with the justices sitting there. that is a little bit unusual. a lot of democrats stood up and cheered. this week, john roberts said it was a troubling scene that they had the justices sitting right there as part of what he called a political pep rally. this is a big decision. it has political impact. it is a rare case where something the supreme court did set off an immediate political reaction. >host: let us listen to the state of the union address and then play what the chief justice said to a law school. >> with all due deference to separation of power, the supreme court reversed a century of law that i believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections. [applause]

i do not think american elections should be bankrolled by america's more powerful interests, or by foreign entities. they should be decided by the american people. host: now we will listen to justice roberts giving a talk at the university of alabama law school. >> is the state of the union address the proper venue to chide the supreme court for its decisions? first of all, i think anybody can criticize the supreme court without any qualms. we do it in our defense. [laughter] i think people should feel perfectly free to criticize what we do. some people have an obligation to criticize what we do, given

their office, if they think we have done something wrong. i have no problems with that. there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances, and the decorum. the image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the supreme court, cheering and hollering while the court, according to the requirements of protocol, has to sit there, expressionless. i think it is troubling. it does cause me to think whether or not it makes sense for us to be there, to the extent the state of the union has degenerated into a political pep rally. i am not sure why we are there. host: what are you hearing? guest: i think he is miffed by what happened and is telling us he will not be there next year. they do not have to be there. other justices -- a few, and if you do not.

roberts has been to all of the state of the union addresses so far. a lot of judges has commented -- judges have commented before that they are not comfortable being part of a political pep rally. the president talks. the members of his party get up and cheer. the justices sit there like bombs on the log. it is a little bit of an uncomfortable situation. i think john roberts and the other justices are saying they are not going to show up again. host: i am going to open up our phone lines. would like to hear your comments about the escalation of dialogue between the president and the supreme court, and also on the citizens united decision. there was a hearing on capitol hill. congress looked for legislative remedies, on the democratic side, to address what they see as the wrongheadedness of that decision. the press has been critical of

it. there is lots of discussion. we will go to phone calls in a minute. salon.com had a piece about the chief justice. "what makes roberts petty grievance striking is this is what judges do all the time. it is the essence of the judicial branch. federal judges are tyrants to rule over a court room with virtually no restraint. they can induce, criticize, and humiliate anybody who appears before them -- defendants, lawyers, witnesses, and audience members, and use the force of law to cause the targets to sit silent and not respont." guest: he is a lawyer, and i think he has had bad experiences with justices. they can be tyrants in their

court room. they can strike down laws that elected representatives have passed. i think there is something to be said for the fact that if you are invited as a guest into a situation where you have to sit there quietly, it is a little bit uncomfortable. you have to imagine, from the point of view of the justices. it is hard to have everybody stand up and cheer at the criticism of your decision. i understand why he was put off. this is one of those things where what you think of the underlying decision -- there are very different views about who is being partisan and who is being political. from john roberts's point of view, he is citing a first amendment issue. we have to decide issues that are unpopular, but we decide them based on the law. from the democrats' point of view, the supreme court, in activist mode, was striking down

a law, and giving big benefit to republicans and corporate interests. from their view, it is the court that was being partisan and political. host: republican line. good morning. caller: there are a couple of things i would like to say this morning. there is a delay in your voice and your lips moving. host: that is because of the satellite. that is part of our technology. it takes a couple of seconds for the signal to go up from washington and down to your home. caller: it is annoying. i have to look away while you are talking. mr. savage, obama was very rude in dressing down the supreme court while they sat there. the democrats were rude for standing up and clapping like a bunch of teenage girls.

thank you. host: thank you. guest: she would probably get five votes on the supreme court for that proposition. host: you talked about just as a leto, the discussion that came out about whether he mouthed the words "not true." how does that play out? guest: john roberts said, "we had to sit there expressionless." samuel leto clearly did not do that. -- samuel rubin alitalito cleart do that. the supreme court overturned a century of law. most people think it is either 100 years or 68 years. congress had said corporations and unions could not spend money on electioneering. alito describe this as a recent thing. in the early '90s, the supreme

court had a decision that said there was no first amendment right for corporation. he took the view this was a recent thing. as soon as somebody starts to say "this is a century old," he starts to say it is not. it is a strange dispute. he does not agree with the criticisms. host: from minnesota on the democrats' line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i think the supreme court is dismantling the mccain-feingold bill. i also think they are taking the boys away from the people -- taking be athe voice away from the people and putting it in the hands of corporations, foreign or domestic.

most of them only have the interest of their corporation in mind. they do not care whether policy making is damaging to the public or not. an example of that would be the health-care. the insurance companies are completely out of control, as far as i am concerned. they want more money while we are making less. for the last year, i think 56% increase in their income. i think we are going backward if we allow more control by corporations and less control by the majority of the people. thank you. caller: every time i listen to

this discussion and debate on the health-care issue -- somebody said recently there are too great fears -- there are two great years in american political life. one is fear of big government. the other is fear of big corporate wealth. i think we are seeing both play out this year. the republicans have attacked the democrats by saying the health care bill is a government takeover. there are a lot of people in the country that are worried about the government having too much power. this issue plays more to the democrats' view of the world. do you want big corporations to use their unlimited wealth to set the rules? that is why the white house and the democrats have reacted very strongly to this. they know that a lot of people around the country are with them on this issue. they are worried about

corporations having even more power to set the rules. the republicans are much more -- their voters tend to be more concerned about the government having too much power. this is a dispute were both fears come into play. host: he has also criticized the senate confirmation process. guest: he called it contentious and nonproductive. he said that when you go up there the senators want to ask a lot of questions that say, "how're you going to vote on this issue and that is the kind of thing you cannot tell them." is an unproductive exchange for the ask the nominee a series of leading questions that cannot answer. from john roberts' point of view, they sit there for a

couple of days and get picked at. the american public does not get to learn much about who they are or what they believe. i suppose the counter argument is that it is the one time the public gets to see these people talk and answer questions. i do not know what the solution is. i think from john roberts' point of view, they should not have the hearings, if that is all it is going to be, if they are not going to talk about anything of significance. from the senators' point of view, these people get a lifetime appointment. there ought to be some questioning of a nominee before you go on the court for 20 years. host: has there been a time when the confirmation process worked better? guest:no. there was a time when the confirmation process was basically nothing. jfk pick a supreme court justice that was confirmed 10 days