they have been wrong. happens. issues for "the washington post" and the silla brush covers it for "the hill." thank you for joining us on "newsmakers." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national3 >> we are rallying against that. it is so ironic that years later i would be a face of similar type of corruption to a new group of people. >> directors alexgibney talks about corruption in his new documentary, "casino ack, the lobbyist jack abrammff."cted documentary, "the supreme court, home to america's highest

courts." >> the hon., the chief justice, and the assisted justices of the supreme court of the unnted stttess >> something different is going onnhere than what goes on in the capitol building or in the white house.. you needdto appreciate how important it is to our government. >> this is the highest court in the land. the framers created it after studying the great lawgivers in history. >> the government can see the destruction of documents in anticipation of a proceeding. >> a lot of these cases are very close. you do not decide who wants to win. we decide who wins under the law the eople have adopted. >> you will be surprised by the high level of congeniality here+

>> why is it we have an astonishingly beautiful, impressive structure is not to remind us that we have an important function? it is also to remind the public when they see the building of the importance and the centrality of the law. >> it always thrill me, amazes me, and gives me faith in our country to know how much people >> i think the danger is that sometimes you can come into a building like this and think it is all abbut. that is something that i do not think works well with the straw. -- with this the drop from grew 0.

>> home to america's highest court,,the role of those who serve here is to interpret the constitution of the united states. outside are those wishing to take up their case or have them grow in their favor. inside, a central staae dominates the proceedings. there are the public spaces containing the symbolism of the of those who have served before. it is the justices appointed for pife terms to have always defined this legal and very >> i think it is the prettiest

building in washington. it is distinctive. the marvel is broached -- is much lighter, which i think is wonderful. immediately, as soon as you see it, you appreciate that it is a different branch of government. it really is more monumental. it looos more like the jefferson memorial or the lincoln memorial in terms of its visual impact. if you do -- if you view it assa is ighly appropriate.hink that- >> when you first step into the plaza, these are one of the first symbols which is the blindfolded justice holding the scale of justice. on the other faces of the candelabra are the symbollc indications that this has something to do with law.

as you travel through the plaza, there are the two five paul -- two flag pole bases which have symbols indicating that this building has a purpose which is the supreme court and the law. >> the stature to the left is the contemplation of justice. in her right hand, she holds the stature of the blindfolded justice. and she is a symbol of impartiality. on the right hand side of the staircase, the of the statute is the authority of law. with a book with the latin word for "wall -- "law." it is important that people always good to come up the steps

because we doothis job the right way. not a day goes by where we must not ask ourselves are we doing our job the right wayy >> the supreme court is the moss mysterious branch to the public. ttey do their work in the and marble building where cameras are not allooed. they are not recognizable generally to the average person on the street. they speak to the public through their opinions. in some ways, they are very public. anything they do that will matter in your life will be on black-and-white in the court opinion. they, themselves, will not be publicly announcing that before a camera so there is a real mystery to the supreme court. >> iis proper role innthe democracy is to give a fair and honest interpretation to the meeting of the dispositions that people have adapted eager congress in statutes or the people when they ratify the constitution.

it is simple as that. nor more -- no more no less. >> i think it is time the americans wake up to with the framework was. they had a clear vision in mind. that wassthat the federal courts would be deciding issues of the federal law, constitutional and statutory. on all courts, state and federal. >> i was explaining to one congressman difficulties the face. we let the judges figure that one not. congress expects the judge's to help fill in the holes in the statutes. they realize they're not just trying to read words on the piece of paper. what the public will see

eventually is an opinion with reasons. the discipline a judge follows and what makes it and like the legislature is that we vote responding and giving reasons for every decision we make. >> when you go in for a big case, one with high visiiility where the stakes are really large. when you can feel are the tectonic plates of the constitution beginning or potentially beginning to shiff. you have a high level of sensitivity to the importance of that moment. the court is very much aware of history. there are 110 have served on the

supreme court. this is one where continuity is very important. history really is influence the way the court works. >> you enter through the symbolic bronze dooos. you recognize the past history of the law and its court. there is an impressive marble hall that separates tte front door of the building from the doors that lead into the courtroom. that marble hall is called the great hall. and is characterized by marble columns. >> when i go home at night, the building is vacant. i want to the great hall and a look around at the fillers -- at the pillars. and impresses upon me the importance of the work we are doing. as many ttmes as i have walked through that hall, it never ceases to have an impression on me.

>> within the columns are busts of chief justices as you walk from the beginning there are john marshall, charles evans hughes, warren. at present, there are busts of all of the chief justice's including chief justice burger. rehnquist has not yet been added. in a sense, you're walking through the entire histooy of the court. >> the story of the court is defined not only by its achievements over time but also through continuing editions of the sessa justices to the bench. >> the white house operator tells you that the president is on the line. i have my cell phone in my right

hand. i have my left hand over my chest. i'm trying to calm my beating heart. the president got on the phone and said to me, judge, i would selection to be the next associate justice of the united states supreme court." and i said to him, "-- i caught my breath and started to cry. president." >> judge sotomayor, are you prepared to take the oath? please raise your right hand and repeat after me. i, a seminar, do solemnly swear -- i, sonia sotomayor work, do solemnly swear. >> justice white what said win wwen the court gets a new

its seeds by in order of seniorrty so there will be a shift there. fundamentally, it can cause you to look at how things are decided, the new number of having a particular view about how issues should be addressed may be addressed from the we had recently. and is an exciting time of life in the court. change at all, i think. i think the relationships change. to acquire another one.opefully- i miss a lot of my former colleagues on the court from white to bill brennan. that is thh cross -- that is the process. they leave and people come on. >> it is different today than what it was when i first got here. i have to admit thattyou grow up

very fond of the court. there was a. there were chief justice -- there was a time with chief justice rehnquist and sandra day o'connor, we had a long time together to get comfortable. it is a new court. >> when i was trying jury cases, if a juror had been replaced because one was ill or something, it was just a it is a different jury. this should be a very different courts in the same way. it is stressful for us becausee we so admire our colleagues.+ i have great admiration for the3 it works. >> i saw a television program

recently where someone said there should always be someone who served in the armed forces on the court. there should always be someone i think experience in other very helpful. >> all the justices, all of my colleagues, have been extraordinarily warm and welcoming.+ each one of them has offered advice. each one of them has invited me to call them with questions. i do not know if i can identify to. it depends on whether i am meeting them in the fall. there's always a question in my mind. just ask them.em in the hall, i

generous in giving me time, walking me through whenever it is that i am asking about. it is not just one person et, but they have an all wonderful. >> from its first chief justice, john jay, to its current one,, john roberts, the court continues to make decisions that impact the lives of everyday americans taking on only a limited amount of cases per term compared to the number of those >> 8000 ask us each year to hear a case. that means 150 cases per week. 150 requests to hear a case. here they are for this week. clark's undoubtably -- >> i undoubtably to my mind, the most uninteresting part of the java is ruling on the petitions -- an

interesting part of the job is ruling on the petitions. >> is an interesting process. we ddd not look at the cases that we think are wrong or have a lot at stake. our job is to make sure ffderal law is upheld across the country. all of the cases are hard. >> the only reason we take them is that other courts are in disagreement. that means that ther judges and people in the the legal system have come to different conclusions. every case is that way. >> most people think they have a right to come to the court. for the most part, they do not, not this court. maybe the court of appeals, maybe the state courts of appeals, the course that do not

here, most of our juuisdictton is discretionary. and in other words, we decide the outcome. >> you can tell if there is a particular hot-button issue that people give attennion to. that does not linger into our process of deciding. a lot of our docket is mmnday. probably a half dozen or so will make it to the front page. the rest are bankruptcy tax cases, federal arbitration act, a pension plan case. dockets.a big part of our%- they are vitally important but not a thing that will attract interest. >> even the case i cedric is you think of boring -- even on a case you hink of as boring, it can be anything.

i do not think subject matter determines the extent of your interest. it is the challenge of solvingg this particular question of law and making it work it could be on any subject. >> it only takes four votes to decide to hear a cass. the court used to have a lot more mandatory jurisdiction in cases they had to hear. they got congress to pass a law saying we did not have to hear all the cases. it is a deal we made. we did not need five votes. >> these are the casessthat were granted and heard in the courrroom. behind the scenes,,each of justice has their own suite of offices. here they work with a staff with four law clerks and several assistance. it is within their own chambers

where their personalities and work habits come through. >> i like to be in a quiet place. at hand.. now have two in that office. i had two down the hall. i like a quiet place. i like it to be overlooking the courtyard. this desk was made here at the courts. all of the chambers of similar desks. the variation is that someone could a granite talk on the desk. >> i have become a homebody. if you look out the window, you can see the capital. i was lucky to have this office. it is a love the office.3

was reported, everyone attend offices by seniority. i was the most junior. when i was appointed, no one that is fine with me. >> you are in the office of two offmy law clerks. i come in a lot and learn about the law from them. i started down the hallwaysbers. adjacent to the chambers referred to as the retired chief justice is chambers. i was there for three or four years. then i moved into the chamber is that justice o'connor is now that had been louis paul's chambers. after that, moved into the opera -- occupies now. i took over wwen justice stewart

retired. before that time, just as black had been there. there had been 3 justices there. they are on the other corner of >> it is this year from justice stevens chambers that provides a window into the past of the supreme court. meetinn in the basement of the capital for the majority of their time between 1810 and 1860, john marshall under saw the court from here during his tenure. later, roger taney of world of this hamber as well until the court moved upstairs into a ppace vacated by the senate where they would meet until 1935. with very little space available pn the building for justices to do their work and with even less for attorneys to find a place to prepare for oral argument, when

chief justice determined it was time the court have a building of its own. >> i do not think it is an understatement to say that this building would not be here f it had not been of chief justice taft. >> he had in his mind that the court needed a uilding of its own. became an obsession. congress and, but ultimately taft chaired the committee to choose the architect. gilbert was the first choice that taft had in mind. he was one of the est known architects of his time. architect and employer. their idea was to have a building that would comport to jefferson's concepts and would look right next to the capitol building but still stand on its

own. the appropriation that taft asked for was less than $10 million.+ during the great depression, they were able to build the building and furnishing it still give up $100,000 back to the treasury. they came in under budget. it may be the only government under budget. >> and gilbert had done such a great job. they felt the capital should be moved so people could have a better view of the court. i'd think he did create a beautiful building. there is no way the capital is going to be moved to provide a better view.3 classicism. he was very serious in his intention to create a symbolic

house for the third branch of the government. it expresses the seriousness of what we were doing, the authority with which the third the authority to work or what is right. >> the supreme court justices are nottshy. some justices feet the new building was to grant, too grandiose. chief justice stone is alleged to say the justices were like nine beatles in the temple of karnak and mayye they should write in each morning on pplicans. >> setting a record with over 75 million tons of marble used in its construction, when it opened in 1935 seven of the nine sitting justices refused to move into their chambers in the new supreme court building. >> one of the justices at the time did not want to leave the

former chambers of hich were in the basement of the senate building. he said if we leave these offices in the senate, no one will hear of us again. he was wrong. brandeis said he would not comee in here. he said the building was so allow britain. -- so elaborate. it has become over time a symbol for the third branch of government, the need for stability, the rule of law, which is what ameriia stands for. >> the interesting thing is that neiiher taft or gilbert lived see the building completed. gilbbrt died a few months before the month -- before the building opened. >> as you look at the building today, you not only see the vision of taft, but also the work of pasts assessors, chief justice charles evans hughes oversaw its completion. most visitors see the west

clause of the structure. on the east side is a less often view the building. p> and the east portico and applause of has the east pennant sculpture by mikheil. he was given rain by gilbert to design his own ideas for the sculpture. since was on the eastern side of the building, he wanted to look towards the eastern traditions of lot to choose his figures. the central figure is was this -- was moses. next to him is confucius. there are allegorical figures that depict various aspects of the law and authority. in the cornees onneither end is the allegory of the tortoise and the hair and the idea that the slow pace of justice carries through in the work of the court

and will win the day over the fast pace of the hair. -- fast pace of the hare. this is a phrase that charles evans hughes wrote on a memo when they were asked to approve the two inscriptions put on the building. he said he would prefer, "justice the guardian of liberty" than what they had suggested. ♪ ♪ >> on the opposite side of the supreme court is the west plaza, the traditional public entrance to the building and a place where many express their feelings about the court and the constitution. >> i am not ure gilbert pntended it to be a convenient site for protesting. i am pretty sure taft, who was heavily involved in the design and architecture, did not design it for that purpose either. i and stand people having strong

feelings about some of the things that we do and we are involved in. it is not a situation where our decisions should be guided by popular pressures. the protests, to some extent, are there as a way for people to express their feelings but they should now be directed at us. you do not want us the siding with the constitution means based on what the popular feeling is. quite often in mmny of our most famous decisions,,there are once the court took that are quite unpopular. the idea we shoold yield to with the public protest is is contrary to what it means to have a country under berlin wall. >> as you look up from the west court, yyu see another symbolic3 the sum paid tribute to both of the history of the law and to some of those integral to the building process construction. >> what ou see in the west

edmonton are allegorical figures. the central one is liberty, order, and authority flanker. -- flanked her. the others in the pediment are those who participated in the construction. the architect as represeeted.. chief justice taft is represented with a sculpture of him as he attended yale. chhef justice hughes is represented. even the sculptor is represented in that freeze. just under the pediment sculptures are the words, "equal justice under law." it was approved by chief juutice use. the words have taken on a larger meaning since then.

-- chief justice hughes. >> is a stateeent of the fact that judges ought to be independent, the law ought to be blind and not recognized based on their color, religion, or background. .

>> who for more innormation, go to c-span.org/supreme the space court -- supremecourt. an interactive timeline on the court's hiitory. -p get your copy of "the supreme couut -- home to america's highest court." it is part of a dvd set along with hard documentaries on the white house and the capitol building. order at c-span.org/store. books for you. "abraham lincoln," "the supreme court," and "who's buried in grant's tomb?" each with a unique contemporrry perspective and perhaps

something new to you about lincoln, the nation's highest court, and the gravesites and lives of america's presidents. to order, go to c- span.org/books. each one also a great gift idea for father's day. >> and now we return to our feature documentary, "the supreme court -- home to america's highest court." >> the supreme court hears between 8100 cases each term insideethis building opened in 1935 an invasion by chief justice william howard taft. and with the architect called the central nervous of the structure -- central node of the structure, the marble was just out south the rooms added attorneys prepare for oral argument.

>> in the lawyers lounge, the clerk of the court will come in and give praatical pointers to put it ease the participants before going into the court room. there's a lot of camaraderie there. there's a lot of nervous energy >> is designed to call lawyerss down who are doing arguments for the first time, to make sure that there are not mistakes and they do not tell jokes or attempt to tell jokes during oral argument or not referred to the maturities with one of the justices -- familiarity with one of the justices. they will get a fair decision. we want them to enter that court

room prepared and ready and both sides having an equal site at winning the chase -- the case. the attorneys are instructed to be there at 9:15 in the morning, and the regulars know to be there. sometimes you dd not know your california. this is a national court. they do not all ang around the same courthouse. it is different here. they exchanged greetings. they take their seats and i go to occurred that day, let them know how many motions for admission, the absence of any answer any question that they might have, offer them cough dropp, aspirin, at anything like that than they might need to make them feel more comfortable. gotten is that they like it very much. >> assthe attorneys get their last minute instrrctions before entering the courtroom, the justices are preparinggfor the experience in their own way.

>> first of all, on days of oral argument, of belle or buzzer is sounded in each chamber of the justice about 10 minutes ahead remindiig you that in 10 minutes you're supposed to be on the bench. down to the robing room to get your roboam and be ready to go into the court room at the appointed hour. chief justices don't likeeto be late, as you can imagine, into the courtroom. the robing room has a number of narrow sections larger cabinets in which the justices' robes ar3 if you have one, it can be on the shelf. >> the standard robes are made for a man. sandra day o'connor and i thought it would be appropriate

if we included as part of our rope something typical f a >> i am sure that we couldddo our work without the roads. we could do our work without this glorious building. but the robe like the building imparts to the people who come here the significance, -pthe importance of what gges on here. >> we are all in the business of impartial judging. and the great chief justice john marshall said justices should not wear royal robes. not read or maroon.

those traditions anger ross andd a concept that is greater than -- anchor us in a concept that is greater than ourselves. it is one that has institutional importance, and that institutional importance is bigger than us. >> as we enter the robing room, or the conference room, the first thing we do is we go around the room shaking hands with every other justice, and that is a symbol of the work that we dooas collegial body. you may be temporarily miffed because of opinions of a colleague, but when we get to

sit on the bench, we looking at each other, shaking hands, and we are all in this together. >> when all nine are there and accounted for, the chief justice as it is time to go, and so you line up in order of seniority, across the hallway, and into the back of the courtroom. and they diddby three justices on the left, three in the middle, and three on the right. >> the honorable the chief justice and the associate justices of the supreme ourt of the united states. oyez, oyez, oyez. all people with business before the supreme court dropped close and give your attention because the supreme court is now sitting. god save the united states and this honorable court.

♪ >> one of the amazing things about that court room, despite its blunder, it is the intimacy on the one hand, it is not that big a room. but the real intimacy comes in lawyer who is arguing at the podium aad the court he is arguing to.. if you stop and think of it when yyu go in there, you will see that if one of us leaned over the bench as far as they could blame, and the lawyer arguing at the podium leaned toward us, you could almost shake hands. and that is a very important thing, because it means that when the argument takes place, you are physically and psychologically close enough to each other so that there is a

possibility for real engagement. we're not just a bunch offpeopl+ talking and the microphones with a big space in between us. the happy paradox of that room is that it is a grand room in which a very intimaae process takes place. it is the kernel of a very grand building which has an intimate results for every american. >> the aura of the place is always present. this is a place where brown v. board of education was decided. this was the of room in which the steel seizure case was decided here, by human beings sitting on that bench having been -- having been argued in front of by other human beings. >> how and half-hour per side. they say, that is all?

but a lot of the arguments are laid out. lawyers are not expected and will not have a chance to get up and make a speech. most of the argument is devoted to the justices' questions. >> it is very intense. you were seated right next to the podium. you coulddslant -- stand up and slide over a few inches. the first thing you ave to say is -- may have pleased the court. >> they correctly held they could not share in the award given by the jury. >> and then you have a few sentences. you will start getting first minute or two. >> if the justices have their own unique styles about question. we have some who like the rapid-

fireestyle, others who like to spend out wong hypotheticals. >> i just want the conclusion. amid has passed before you said yes. does that change everything and it becomes lawful? >> it explains again why it was irrelevant? >> what the government came allng and said, it in order to run your hospital, you have to3 we have to close it downn >> is the first time we learn about what our colleagues think about the case. ww generally do not speak about we come to week-old as far as knowing what everybody thinks. -- we come to it cold as far as knowing what everybody thinks. if they are raising questions about an issue that you had not thought was important, you can start looking into that issue during the questioning of little bit. pt's dynamic in a very part --

exciting part of the job. >> i am out there and we're talking. it is a onversation, and i have any physical movements that may be going on. it is really quite remarkable. >> i ask questions when i think i will get information in deciding the case. i don't view participation as an opportunity to advocate one point of viiw but rather the questioning should be designed to help understand what the arguments on both sides of our in order to enable the justice to reach aadecision. >> to sit on the supreme court and listen to the questions of your colleagues is somewhat humbling. the minute that i sat down and was able to look out and see

all of the people in the audience was probably the moment i will most intensely remember. their lawyers to i have known for years sitting at the table in front of us, ready to argue, but then watchiig the intensity of everyone's face -- i have worked on and how much people believe and know that they are affected by the court's decision. every question i asked has a purpose. it has some importance to something that is troubling me or that i am curious about. bench as an attorney. i don't view it as an interruption in an eloqqent speech. an advocate wants to know what that -- what is on the judge's

mind. and then they want to satisfy the judge on a matter that they've might not solve as well without the advocates response. >> it is about fielding the question and using the time strategically so that you respond to the questioos. you cannot persuade justice if you do not answer what they have passed. that is their job. it is very challenging. >> is 2% a critical mass? >> 4%? pick a number. it is 8%? does it stop being a quota because it is somewhere between 8% and 12%, but is a quota it if it is 10%? >> a lottoffpeople have the idea that is a dog and pony show.

and the answer is, it is probably quite rare although not unheard of the oral argument will change my mind. but it is quite common that i go a lot of these cases of very%- close in you go in on a knife's edge. persuasive council can make the difference. >> i once had an oral argument where they asked 60 questions and 30 minutes. >> it had been my practice on phe court ffappeals to try to wwit until the end of the lawyers paaagraph before interrupting with the question. here i learned that if you do that or even in a hot case if you wait until the end of the sentence, you will never get a question in. you have to interrupt. >> i feel oral argument differently. i think it is an opportunity for fill in the blaze.lawyers, to%-

i think it is hard to have a conversation when nobody is listening. when you cannot complete sentences are answers, perhaps that is me, i do not know. i think you should allow them to thoughts. and i find it that coherence that you get from conversation far more helpful than the rapid- fire questions. i don't see how you can learn a whole lot from the 50 questions and half an hour. >> one offthe bad signs of an oral argument is won the question stop. you have either not persuaded them or they have figured it out already and there is nothing more you can add. >> f white light will go on and you have 5 minutes. and when your time has expired, a red light goes on. when the red light goes on, if you have to stop.

>> is an exciting part of the process. you learn what colleagues think about a case that i have been studying for a long time. i'm going to see what the lawwers hhve to say. it is an exciting day. ♪ >> sometimes iisay to myself, am i really there or is it a dream? it is one of the most beautiful court rooms i've ever seen. >> there is a harsh that comes over people as they come in, our reverend's that this is an important base. people look up and see around the court room and extended the annual -- and extended panel, a sculptural frieze. there are four. one is the allegory of the battle between good and evil. justice is leaning on her sword but she is readyyto protect good from the forces offevil.

among the forces of evil are despotic power, corruption. the forces of good are the defense of virtue and charity and peace. behind the justices are symbols of divine inspiration, holding the scales of justice in our hands. -- and her hands.+ and then you have to procession of the great lawgivers. it starts withmenes, thought to be the earliest lawgiver known in the history of mankind. there is moses holding the 10 commandments, octavian, some of the ancient greek and roman lawgivers, wlike solon. and then on the other side, more modern times.

you have justinian, king john of the magna karta, and then the poll in. he would not know napoleon for the law but he created a civil code which is now used in many of the european countries. it ends on the laat figure, the power of government sitting on a throne with the 10 amendments to the constitution, with an -paaerican in w -- an american a group of citizens protected by a judge, olding a book a loss. on the other side, if you have another group of citizens, and there is a warrior in front of those. the authority of the law, but you have to have the strength to back up what the law says. >> it's amazing when you walk

again at how fixed in time it is. even the american flags hang perfectly still. the supreme court is a great tradition. we sometimes say that the quill pens that they give to the oral their opinions. and they're so much just -- there are some justices that right out in long hand rather than on computers. human institution. in a private room reserved for use by the justices, on your custom take place following oral arguments.. one incurred by its first female justice.

[bell ringing] ♪ >> it is a beautiful room, very the food is not exactly haute cuisine. it comes from the cafeteria.. you would be surprised by the high level of collegiality heee. justice scalia once commented that there was no justice with them he disagreed more often than justice brennan.

and yet justice scalia considered justice brennan his best friend on the court aa that time. lunch together that began by justice o'connor. >> justice o'connor insisted that we have lunch every day when the court was sitting. now, clarence, you should come to lunch. and she can be very persistent. i came to lunches, and it was one of the best things that i did. it is hard to be angry and bitter with someone and break bread and looo them in the eye. very little work is done there. it is just nine people, eiggt people, whoever shows up, having

a wonderful lunch together. it is wonderful. >> i try not to miss a post- argument once because i want to know what my colleagues are talking about. >> usually they are all there. and you do not talk about the cases. our colleagues to go to the opera -- will talk about the opera. maybe a baseball game recalled tournament, talk about good movie they have seen or a good book they have read. or something particularly interesting in their family. thh type of thing that everyone talks about at lunch with their colleagues. >> off the main justices' dining room is a small or dining room -pknown as the john marshall that is due to a sculpture place there in the mid-1970s of john marshall. chief justice warren marshall decided to make that the theme of the room.

a portrait of william more ain was donated. -- william marbury was done at it. so they are wrong but full literally of this dining room. >> marbury v. maaison is probably the most famous court -- as this court ever decided. judicial review is implicit in the constitutional document, but john marshall made it explicit in that great case. >> in all the supreme court's that says as much to a justice about what it is like to be a justice, because marbury is the embodiment of judicial review.

there is no quotation in all of the history of supreme court writing that justice is more prefer to repeat than the phrase which says, "it is emphatically the power and the duty of the judiciary to say what the what is." is from john marshall in that case. >> he really was the first person to take the opportunity to establish the court and a prominent position as one of the three coequal branches of government. the chief justice precise at all oral arguments and at the conference were at the vote on and decide the cases. that means i get to initiate a discussion and have some responsibilities to make sure thht all the issuessare adequately aired at conference. >> there is a change. presiding over the conference.

the present chief ustice is doing an excellent job. he has some virtues that the others did not have, and he pretty much follows that the tradition that has been followed for many years. >> on the one hand, there's not do. the eight associate justices have a lifetime job with the duty to uphold the constitution. you cannot fire them. we have traditions which will outlast any chief justice. and so the chief justice comes to a court with here are these elements of stability and permanence. we have our traditions and we have our votes. on the other hand, the chief justice who presides steers as through the mechanics of putting

the cases on the caleedar. by his personality and his want and his understanding of law and the constitution of his college, he can do a great deal. >> when i first got here, my colleagues were helpful, on how things work. often in contradictory ways, but we do get some sense about what's is expected in the process. and then you go in and you do it aad you hold your breath and hooe you all -- hope they do not all say at once, what you're talking about? the real key is that my eight colleagues are extraordinary helpful in making me feel very comfortable. imagine -- i was the youngest among the bunch, but they had been togethee for 11 years. without any change. and you could easily imagine

that that would be difficult. but every one of them went out of their way to make me feel comfortable in the process, for which i have always been appreciative. >> in a moment, at he behind- the-scenes to perhaps the most private and important room in the building. where the decisions of the court began to take shape. >> no one else enters the room. no secretary, and no law clerk, not even a message bearer. >> i can remember the first time i set foot in that room and those doors closedd it is pretty daunting the first time because that is where the actual work, the decision making, takes place. >> get your copy of "the supreme court -- home to america's highest court."3

part documentary on the capitoo building and lighthouse, called "american icon." order at c-span.org/store. >> for more information, go to c-span.org. resources include a virtual tour of the uilding, conversations with that justices, a photo gallery on the construction of the building, the court's history.imeline on books for you. "abraham lincoln," "the supreme court," and "who's buried inn+ grant's tomb?" eacc with a unique contemporary perspective and perhaps something new to you about lincoln, the nation's highest court, and the gravesites and lives of america's presidents. to order, go to c- span.org/books.3 for father's day.

>> and now we return o our feature documentary, "the supreme court -- home to america's highest court." perhaps most important place inside the supreme court, nine justices ann only them meet together are around a table in the justices' conference room. the discuss the cases heard at oral arguments and began the process of reaching a decision of the court. >> we set at the conference table in the same places every day. i said at one end, justice stevens, the most senior, at the other end, and there sat in order of seniority. >> i can remember the first time i stepped into that room. it is pretty daunting the first few times. that is where the actual work and the decision making takes

place. >> you do not have any disturbances and the conference room. no one can enter who is not justice. the secretary, no law clerk, not even a message beaaer. >> i have to be professional and accurate. and each of my colleagues feels the same way. so therr is tension and excitement in the room but we the job is no good if you cannot argue. >> i inittate discussions about the argued case. the case is about this, the arguments are so and so, and i think that we hould affirm or, and sometimes in an easy case it will take a minute, and in a hard case it can take a lot longer. but it goes in seniority. so justice stevens would go next. he might say, i agree with everything, chief. which is nice. or he might say, i disagree. i think -- come out another way

and hhre's why. i think the reasoning should be this. >> one of the best roles, the rule of that conference is no one speaks twice until everyone has spoken once. and i was the most junior. it introduces a very good feeling that everyone gets their word and. >> when you are on the end of that queue, you do have a certain and vantage. you know what the other s saying. >> it is the really an exercise in persuading each other. -- not really an exercise in persuading each other. hh states reviews and the justices take notes.

you know how to write the opinion in a way that will get four other votes besides run. >> i was the most junior member of the score for 11 years. if no one else was in the room, i had a special group -- job of opening thh door if somebody knocked. usually someone had forgotten the paper. i had been doing that for 10 years. i think i have gotten pretty good at it. oh, i'm not sure. but we get along very well. the nine of us get on very well. >> is in formal in the sense there's a certain amount of conversation. but most of his wook. >> the justices are actually very thoughtful bout what they're doing. and each one was very thoughtful about giving their

reasons for their vote. >> i still not heard the first unkind word in that room. now you think what we have decided. life-and-death, abortion, execution, war and peace, financial ruin government, relationship with the citizen -- you name it, we have decided it. >> those discussions lead a tentatively.+ that vote is not cast in concrete. concrete yet.+ you can change her mind. >> it is not just win or lose. reversal or ffrm, but what rationale that you use, with principal you used to teachh something.

and if the case is closed, 5-4, and you're on the side with the majority, they're not a lot of backslapping. there's a moment of quiet and respect. in the most important responsibility is the responsibility for assigning opinions once the votes are in. if i am in the majority, i get to determine who will write the opinion in that case. and that is an important responsibility, becaase you want to make sure that the -- that is given to the justice who commands the most support. you want to make sure that the work gets done on time. so someene is slower than other, make sure they get a heavier assignments early wrong. some cases are more interesting than others. you want to make sure that they are fairly distributed. some are harder than others. you get different issues and you

want to make sure each justice you don't want a justice just doing criminal cases or something like that. a lot of factors go into that decision and that is aa important partt>> sometimes we have coffee cents and and a3 >> as opinions are handed out at the end of conference, our room upstairs helps the justices and their staff consult precedents. our room filled with not only books but the symbolism of the great lawgivers and admired by those few who enter into its mahogany grandeur. >> if you want to see the most beautiful room in washington, go up to the library on he third floor that no one hardly sees. that is not so much roman classicism as renaissance classicism, but it is a

breathtakingly beautiful oom. >> the library is probably one of tte most special places in the building. >> the archways in the library represent law, industry, science. >> the shields directly above the archways are various printers symbols. lot of time in the library. a and it is a gorgeous library. you would not go there tooread a

supreme court cases, because they would be and are in chambers, but we're looking for sedentary material of some kind. it was a wonderful place to work. a quiet place to work. >> the library is one of the special rooms in the building. unfortunately it does not get used as much as it was when the building was first opened, and that goes back out of court is change the way that it doesn't. in 1935, they would literally call the docket that day. a lot of attorneys had to be on site because if their case came up, they had to go down and be ready to argue. that is why you had a lawyers' lounge to find oot what cases would be argued, and why you have this magnificent reading room in the library. this is reserved for members of the bar and court staff only. >> the times, have had some

material for so many cases ttat we occupied several of the tables, so the lawwclerks and i could go up and sit in the reading room and actually refer to all those passageein the preparation of an opinion. >> with research, justices go about the process of writing the opinion, both majority and dissenting, for the final decisions of the accord. >> is an ongoing process. you write a first draft. you figure out that you need a little bit more and you go back and read a case. you're always going back and looking at the briefs and to colleagues and bouucing ideas off of them. oral argument prices.n of the >> deciding your view of the case itself is terribly challenging. some of the issues are really

some are clear-cut. but some are enormously challenging. some call as you point to wait yourself and to use the other views expressed before being firm in your wn view. -pit is a help to see it in writing. and t is a help when you have to write, to have to put it down into words rather than just think it through. it is a rare talent. >> we have to convince ourselves. when i sit down to write an opinion, the first thing i do is convince myself. there is a lot of stuff that goessinto the wastebaskkt. again, this court reminds yoo of >> when you write something else, you learn things about the case that you did not really appreciate or understand before. there's been more than one case when i was writing the opinion.

>> as i have often opinion, i enjoy having it written. i find writing a difficult process. i swept over it. i write, i write, again and again. before the opinion goes out, do you want to read it more time? yes. i guarantee you every timm i read it, i will change something else. it finally has to be wrested from my grasp and sat down to the printer. >> i would write three drafts before i am reasonably satisfied that we're going somewhere, and then you comeeback. and when they are edited back and forth, i circulated and i hope and other justices. if four other justices joined, i have the court. >> one of us is going to have to

write out a decision which teaches and gives reasons for what we do. the point of writing an opinion is to command the allegiance to the result. we have no army, we have no budget, we do not have press conferences, and we do not give speeches about how wonderful our descent was. we do not do ttat. we're judged by what we right. and we have to write something which shows we're following the rules, we are opee and honest, and we give reasons for you to believe that we did was right. >> i welcome the views of my colleagues on every draft that i did. i share with my colleagues my views of ways in which to ensure that each issue we are addressing and each draft that we issue is addressing the

important points that the parties are making. and so i respect and nteractive colleague, but then welcoming incorporating them within traps and sharing my own views as well. >> sometimes you take three more pages than peeple think you should. i use footnotes regularly because i think booknotes are optional reading, something that should be in the opinion or people might gain from having the opportunity but they do not have to read it to understand the argument and the opinion. >> when they circulate an opinion draft, then the others have a chance to weigh in. nnrmally they will start out within a day or two, saying,, sandra, i joined. order center, i want to give a

little more thought to this before i add. corke dear sandra, if you would change this to that come i would be able to join. it is something like that that happened. if there is a dissenting opinion to be renton, often people will wait and look at the dissent before casting their vote. once the dissent circulates, it could be so powerful that it causes someone who tentatively had been with the majority to ccange their view to some extent. so all of this -- the details are worked out not around a conference table. it is in the riding of the opinions that the persuasion takes place. >> let's say i would go the same -pdirection but i would go 80 yards. the majority only wants to go 60 yards,,and 600would decide the case to.

i would write the opinion to go 60 yards, and not say anything about going the other 20 yards.. now if i were writing a -- writing a concurrence or dissent on my own, i would write the opinion reflecting that i would go 80 yards. so we're going the same way. i cannot go on a direction from what i actively thought we should go. >> dissents re rigorous and do not pull punches. i think it ultimately improves the quality of the majority opinion, but it's something you have to anticipate. >> dissents are more fun o write. when you have the dissent, is youus. you say what you want and if someone does not want to join it, who cares? this is my dissent and this is what i want to say. when you are writing the majority, you do not have that luxury.

you have to crafted in a way that at least four other people can jump on and actually try to crafted in a way that as many people as possible will jump on. which means excepting some suggestions, stylistic and ooherwise, that you do not think are the best but none the less in order to get everybody on board, you take it. >> if you work to starting out and if someone ask you to change this are that, if you'll be very receptive. if you ave eight votes, and the night "says this, you probably say no. this is a vote is more critical. you're more susceptible to making changes. >> that job is to get to it. we're not here producing work that will never see tte light of day. the job is to deciie. you decide. >> justice alito has the opinion

of this court. >> this is our moment. copies of the opinion, the guys from reuters is the most pushy to get through. he wants to get it on to the waters. >> the supreme court office supplies says, here is the material, make up what you will. we will make sure that you have the material. that is an enormously valuable thing. there's not the sense the someone is trying to spend. >> i want to go out and hear the opinion and now. i like the pageantry of that. i like to hear that justice himself or herself announce what is in the opinion. then i raced down the stairs to the corps press area where we all have our laptop set out.

and i write a first version of phat story said that it didn't get on our internet site. readers want to know as soon as possible what the court ruled. >> a lot of people say that it is a sacred institution. no, it is not. it is an institution where most+ of his work is done in the open. the work comes in the front door and goes out the front door. >> you're just a few steps away from the courtroom.. >> near the court room are two rooms used by the justice to occasional speech to the public. at third marshall's retirement annnuncement, one can get a glimpse into the workings of the court and life here. but this is the private view of the ornately decorated east and west conference rooms and the portraits of past chief justice's that holds one understand the history of the court.

-- helps one understand the history of a quorum. >> in the east conference room, if you have the eight first chief justice'ss john j. and how he came to the court, appointed by george and then gets elected to be governor of new york and the sides that is a better job than being chief justice of the united statts. he resigned to become governor of new york. your beautiful portrait of john marshall, in a grand portrait, there is some more to the one of george washington in the capitol building three have a chance to talk about george -- john marshall. that carries over into the west conference room with more modern justices. wwlliam howard taft on one wall and charles allen hughes over the fireplace looking at one another over time. >> a light to go in a quiet

night to the conference room, because the portraits on the wall are all my predecessors as chief justice's. to some extent, you looked up at them ith a degree of all an appreciation for what they went through. they're looking down at you with amusement or mazement. each of them have a special story to tell, not only personally in the institution of the court. you look up at marshall and appreciate the importance of having tte courts function as a court, moving the court from where it eech justice wrote their own opinion, to having the opinion of the court, establishing the court and its present form. right next to him is chief justice taney, the most unfortunate. you understand that he saw this great problem offslavery and he was going to solve it. it was a tremendously misguided

and enter the court for centuries to come. that helps to form how you look it to run job. you walk down further and see more some weight. -- the job does not give you historical significance just because you hold the job. you understand another role in making sure that the corke function: gilad. you see charles evans hughes and recalled his final role and turning backed thheats to the independence of the judiciary. things like that. from time to time, i find it useful reminder of the role of the court and the role of thee chief justice. >> as time goes forward, this building will remain time was.

as the work of the institution inside will be tied to past presidents and tradition, but in many ways it is a forever changing plays defined by the human being serving there is -pjustices. all trying to interpret the document over 200 years old in the context of an ever-changing world. treating you really cannot judge pustices uuless you know the materials that they are wwrking with. you cannot say, this is a ggod decision, this was a good court simply because you liked the results. it seemed to you that the person that deserve to win one. that is not the bids is that -- businesses that justices are in. >> we do not get it right all the time. it is a human institution and it has the same susceptibility to error that ther human institutions have a. what i think the court does do

is to try all the time. my sense is that probably a substantial number of people in the united states probably give us credit for trying even on the days when an think we should have tried harder. >> we have the ability to rethink issues over time. and look attthem and think about them and review them and consider what that theeanswers we have given should be revisited at any point. it should not be done lightly and never is, but it is a gift to america that we can do that. >> would add to get up the film from is living up to the oath to do with the right way, and to know that on behalf of my fellow citizens, i try to be faithful to their constitution, to our constitution. -pthat ii where the deceleration comes, living up to the oath

that i chose. >> we are not a political branch of goveenment. they do not collect as. if they do not like what we're doing, or less it is just too bad it other thhn impeachment, which has neverrhappened, or conviction of impeachment has never happened in the court. we make decisions based n law and not a policy preference. >> i think this ii an open process in the sense that this is a new institution that explains in a public way what it decides it what it does. >> we have the constitution and laws, and i think they mean pomething. they do not necessarily mean what i'd expect in every instance. i think the people of united states trust us to interpret and apply those laws fairly and we have. >> a 300 million people 900

million points of view. i think people in this country3 things. and despite enormous this agreement, they decided to resolve heir differences under law. >> the supreme court in general has been respected by the american people. i think it has been one of the3 is most respected. so it is not size that makes the grand tour, or the specialness of the place, it is what it symbolizes and what goes on here that makes it special. and it is. ♪ ♪

>> get your copy of "the supreme court -- home to america's highest court," part of a three-

d b d disk set called open what american icons." order at c-span.org/store. for more informational thiss documentary and the nation's highest court, go to c-span.org. resources include a virtual tour of the building, conversations with the justices, a photo gallery on the conntruction of the supreme court building, and an interactive timeline from the court's history. the confirmation hearing ffr supreme court nominees elena kagan begins june 28. watch live coverage on the c- span television networks and on our website, c-span.org. up next,