persal persecution? >> i was certainly -- i would rtainly look at the point e frndakes. i ink it's imptant we recognize this. whever view we talk about the iraq conflict and i supported it, whatever vie we took, iraq now is in -- at least hasome chance of ability and of mocracy. and we're actually seeing me ress in aq. i had a meeting this rning with general petraeus who was bringinge up-to-date on what he believes thtest sittion in iraq. i thinit is imptant t remeer that onef the reasons that our brave serviceen and men fought and died inra was to try and make that a more stle country. and a untry that people who had fled it woulde le to so, ye i will look at the particularssue he raises. but ingeneral, wre here to offer people asylum when they're eeing torture and peecution. t if we hp to me their country safe, they suld be able to he. >> tony cunningham. >> m speaker, can i begin b

thankingrime minister for his recent visit t wt cbria and c he give me a personal assunce that he wouldo everything in power to help thople in west cumbriaho ffered so ievously in re times? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i can certainly give the right honorable gentleman that assurae. ani know how har hseen rkin and other mp in cumbria have bn working to bri people together after this palling tragy. they are as someoaid a very tougpeople inesumbria so verycompasone, very ring a very much a strong community. th've shownhat in how they sponded to theadl events. as iaid in answe tthe right honorabllady we're going to me after question time discuss at will be donxt. i thinth's impornt and i think 's important to recognize this is a part oe countrthat canomimes feel ite cut off. and i think specifically with ect to the amazing workne by theest cumbria hospital which really proved itself facing the most appling tredy d terrible difficulties of so many people

with such awful injuries coming tohat hospital at on. a hospital tha sometim people e inclined toay w it's a bit too small to cope with these things. it coped magnificently and i ink it proved that big is not always beautif. >> gin barwell. >> mr. speaker, the previs government changed the rules so everyone cing asylum have to do irsmy constituency. es the prime minister agr th it's wrong to ask one local authory to shoulder what shoulde a national reonsibility >> i'm certainly hpyo look at this. i remember ts ha been an issue in the past with heathrow airport and thereere mechan to try analleviate some of thburden. so what i will do is make sure thatome office ministers are in tou wit my right horable frnd to make sure we can deal wi this proble >> the european commission has recently rorted that european fish docksre beiished at unsustainable leveland 30% are close to collae.

willhe pme minister no negotiate with european coeagues to seek the andonment t common fisheriepolicy. and if ty don't agro give noticewithdraw frothe cf tt's a question i'm rather used to antipating on side. i think everyone with even the mosthusiastic supports of e euan union would recoize that the common fishers licy has n been a success ther in supportin o fishermeor in ving fis docks. think there are goodessons to be lened om other countries who have de beer inoing this. i have to say,though tt does somemes me some very, ver drastic action iteof closg some fishi are a together. but other countries haveanaged to do that andenerate their fishing stocksso, yes, we'll keward thoseegiations and i'm re on a coalition-wide >> clae rry. >> thank you, mr. speaker. would the prime minister agree with me that we've heard a lot from fairness from the bench opposite thimorning but there's nothin fair theegacy

has ft us. there's 75 bilon pnds of debt interest that we will have to pay onheir debt that we could he spent on public servicesn my constitueof devices and all the constituencin this hou. >> tha you, thank you, mr. speaker. e horable lady kean which is ife don' well, if d'take action to deal with thi deficit, we are going be payingver 7 billion pounds not repaying thet b ju on debt ierest in five yes me you a ofhe revenue gleaned from cortion tax, that is all the tax on ery company in profit in our country. at doesn't eveay f barely half of the de intest bill. that'stheess we've been left in, but this government has coure to do it. >> the prime minteras giv me the cross-border that

important fo assurces that it will contie to stop the blow and there will be an increase in waste services? >> i'm very grafu t the right honorab gentleman for raising that issuend i will certainly look at it. aughter] >> and i cannot prose to arrangall e stops on the east coa main line. th i was a power i don't think sadly i ha. but i'll certainly dmy bt. >> thank y, mr. speaker. right honorable friend will note that i follow my beloved englan team. i ask im to do a gat thing theople of eland and cu through tearacy and nonsense and flyhe flag of end er downing st for the duraon of the world cup. >>hank you, mr. spea m pleaseto tel myonorable friend that i've had those conversation ere wasome quen that this was going to ha a cost

impact, but i manag to cut through that and i can say a no additial st to the taxpar the flag of sireorge wll fly aboveowni street during the worldup a i think they would like --nd i incorhe purpes of this, m looking at all the benches here. i'sure everyone in this house no matter what part oe unitedingd thecome from, they will be cheerinengland. >> can i thaim for his kind rds. can he y in his forthcoming reew wheth he thinks i's still wort t risk of gun use for spor. will this be condered? >>ell, the horable member is right. everythi ho be considered an therere tssues ofhe state of mental health of peop. there are e issues of police visitstheir hos. have -- because of previous

tragedies, vy, very sict rules in terms of wteople who keeps at home have to do in tms overy, ve strict security. and i remeer sitting on e home affrs select committee and king the representative responsible for thisow much leakage w there fm legly ld guns into thellegal and the black markets. and the answeras virtually none. i tnk in terms of ifre looking for wt the problem is, the problem is clearly we have hugeumr of guns in r society we neeto get r of and clearly tre was an appalling pblem >> each week the house of commons is in session, we air this live at 7 a.m. easttrn on c-span2. and at cspan.org you can find

video archifes of the prime minister. >> you have been watching live questions of the british prime minister, david cameron. up next, an encore presentation of our documentary the supreme court. at 2:15 a.m., the future of the tea party movement. >> two views from the computer industry association katherine sloan and walter mccormick on "the communicateors" on c-span2.

>> something different is going on here, and you need to appreciate how different it is to our system of government. >> the framers created it after studying the great law givers in history. >> the government concedes that the destruction of documents in anticipation of a proceeding -- >> these cases are very important. we don't sit here to make the law. we decide who wins under the law that the people have adopted. >> if there are 4-9 of us that

want to hear any of these cases, we'll hear it. >> we cannot have a decision of this court. >> why is it that we have an elegant imposing, impressive structure? it is to remind us that we have an important function and to remind the public of the importance of the knew tralt of the law. -- the nutrality of the law. >> it amazes me and gives me faith in our country to know hoo much people trust the courts. >> i think the danger is that sometimes people come into a building like this and think it important. that is something that i don't think works well for this job.

>> outside, almost daily protests take place. inside, the law dominates. all around there are public faces continuing the symbolism of the law and artwork reminding us of those that have served on the court before. as well as beautiful private rooms that are seen by those privileged few. the justices appointed for life terms have always defined the legal but very real institutions and the buildings in which they do their work.

>> i think it ii the prettyest building in washington, and it is distinctive. it is a different type of marble, to start with. much brighter and lighter than the typical government building, which i think is wonderful. you see it and immediately know this is something different. you understand the court is a different branch of government. and it is more monumental. it looks more like the jefferson memorial or the lon -- lincoln memorial. you can view ii as something of a temple of justice, i think that is entirely appropriate. >> when you first come up the steps there are two candle abra and they have one of your first symbols, which is a blind folded justice holding the scales of justice. it is a symbolic identification

that this has something to do with the law. as you travel up, you see symbols of law and knowledge indicating that the buildings have a purpose, which is the supreme court and the law. >> in couldn't place of justice, in her right hand, she holds blind folded justice. the blindfolded justice is a symbol of impartiality. on the right side of the stair case, the other statue is the authority of law. his left arm rests on a book with the latin term meaning "law." "lex." >> it is important foo the

public to always want to come up these steps because we are doing the job the right way. not a day goes by when we ask ourselves, are we doing this job right. >> i think the supreme ourt is the most experienced branch to the public. they do their work in a marble building where cameras aren't allowed. they are not recognizable generally to the average perron on the street, and then they speak to the public through their opinions. so in some ways they are very public. everything they do that will matter in your life will be down in black and white in a court opinion, but yet they themselves will not publicly athat to a camera. so there is a -- >> the idea is to give a fair interpretation to the meanings people have adopted. the people, when they gratify

the constitution. simple as that, no more, no less. >> i think it is time that americans wake up to what it is the framers had in mind when they tried to create an independent federal judicial branch. they had a clear vision in mind, and that was the federal courts would be decidiig issues of federal law, constitutional and statutory. and that those judgments would be binding on all courts, state and federal. >> i remember explaining to one congressman some of the difficulties that i saw in that case. he answered, we'll let the judges figure that one out. so it is a cooperative venture that congress expects the judges to help fill in the holes and statutes, and it goes on realizing that it is not just trying to read words on a

sterile piece of paper. >> what the public will see eventually is the discipline that a judge follows and what makes judges unlike legislatures. i vote a certain way. you think about every decision you make. >> whhn you go in for a big case where the stakes are really large, where you can feel the constitution actually be beginning or potentially beginning to shift, then you would be brewedish if you didn't have awareness or a high level of sensitivity to the importance of that moment. the court is very much aware of history.

there have only been 110 that have ever served on the supreme court. the place is one where continuity is very important. history really does influence the way the court works. >> if fs it is cllmbing the west stairs or entering the building through its symbolic doors, one recognizes the history of the law and this court. >> it is an impressive marble hall that separates the front door of the building from the doors that lead into the courtroom. that marble hall is called "the great hall." it is characterized by marble columns. >> often when i go home at night, the building is vacant, and i walk through the great hall, and i look around at the pillars and it really impresses upon me the importance of the work that we're doing.. as mr. times as i've walked through that hall, it never ceases to have that impression

on me. >> between the columns, as you walk from the beginning, you can see john marshall -- you can see busts of the justices. john marshall, and at present, there are busts of all the chief justices up and and including chief justice burger. the bust of chief justice rehnquist has not yet been added. in a century, one thing sg true, the oral history of the court. >> the ssory of the court was designed not only by its chiefs overtime but also with the addition of new associate justices to the bench. >> the white house operator tells you that the president is on the line.

i have any cell phone in my ripet hand and i had my left hand over my chest trying to calm my beating heart literally. and the president got on the phone and said to me, judge, i would like to announce you as my selection to be the next associate justice of the uniied states supreme court. and i said to him, -- i caught and i said, "thank you, mr. , %- president." >> judge sotomayor, are you ready to take the oath? >> i am. >> raiseeyour hand and repeat after me. >> justice white always used to say when the court gets a new member, it changes everything, it changes everybody.

i think it causes them to take a fresh look at how things are decided. a new member will have a particular view about how issues should be addressed. it may be very different than what we have been following for some time. so it is an exciting part of life with the court. >> the institution doesn't change at all. the relationships change. you lose a friend, nd hopefully gain another one. i miss all my friends on the court. that's the process. they go, new people come on. it is different. >> it is different today than it

was when i first got here. i have to admit, you grow very fond of the court that you spent a long time on. there was a period there with chief justice rehnquist and justice o'connor that when we had gone, we had a long run together, and you get comfortable with that. and then it changes. now it's changing again. >> it is a new court. when i have tried jjry cases, jushly 12, if a juror had to be replaced because one was ill or something, it was just a different dynamic. it was a differenn jury. the same like this. this will be a very different court. >> and it is stressful. because we so admire our colleagues. we wonder, oh, will it ever be the same. but i have great admiration for the system. >> i think it is healthy for the court to have members with different back grounds. i think after this, i saw a

television program recently when somebody said there should always be someone who served in the armed forces. i think there always be someone who has had practical experience in litigation and i think spence in other branches of the government such as the legislatures would be very, very helpful. >> all of my colleagues, all of the justices, have been extraordinarily warm and welcoming. each one of hem has offered advice. each one of them has invited me to call them with questions. and i don't know if i can identify any one particular that i've been turning to. actually, it depends a great deal on whether i'm in the hall. there is always a question on my mind, and when i meet them in the hall, i go up to them and say, can you or would you? and they each p have been

delightfuuly generous in giving me time to walk me through about. so not just one person yet, but they have been all wonderful. >> the court continues to take cases that impact the lives of all americans. >> 8,000 ask us each year to hear the case. that means about 150 a week. 150 what? 150 requests to hear the case. well, here they are for this week. >> i think to my mind the most onerous and interesting part of the job is our rolling all of

the circuit issues that have come to the court. they have increased norm lussly -- enormously since i've been here. >> look at the cases we think are long. we don't look at the cases we think have a lot at stake. our job is to make sure feeeral country. >> all the cases are hard. the only reason we take them, as some of my cclleagues may tell you, is that other courts are in disagrremenn. most of the time. and that means that other judges and other actors in the legal system have come to differing conclusions. every case is that way. >> most people think they have a right to come to the court. for the most part, you don't. not this court. maybe the court of appeals, you normally do, maybe the state courts of appeal and finally the

courts that don't have discretionary jurisdiction. courts of last resort maybe they have a right to gg to those, bu3 discretionary. in other words, we decide if you come. >> you can tell if there is a case on a particular hot-button issue that people are going to give it a lot of a, but i have to say that doesn't enter into our process of deciding. a lot of our dock et is very mundane. you go through and decide 90 cases. probably a half dozen are ones that will make it to the front page of the newspaper. all the others, bankruptcy dax case, and federal arbitration acttcase, pension plan case, those are actually a big plan of our dock et. all vitally important but not one that's going to attract any interest. >> even a case on a subject that you think is kind of boring can turn out to be norm dwrussly challenging at the end of the

day. it could be anything. so i don't think subject maater determines the extent of your interest in it. it is the challenge of developing this particular question of law and making it work. it could be on any subject. >> eamp one gets a vote just like anything else on what cases we should hear, but it only takes four votes top decide whether we are going to hear a case. the court used to have a lot more mandatory jurisdiction. they got congress to pass a law saying we didn't have to hear all the cases. the deal we made was that we didn't need five votes to hear a case. four would be enough. >> these are the cases in justice steven breyer's office. hyped the scenes each justice has their own suite of offices. here they work with a staff of four law clerks and several

office assistants. but it within their own chambers where their personalities and work habits come through. >> i like to be in a quiet place. i like to have my law clerks close at hand. in my regular team, all of the law clerks were inside chambers. now i have two in that office and two down hall. i like a quiet place. i'm glad to be overlooking the court yard and not in front of the building. this is made here at the court. all of the chambers have similar desks. the variation in these chambers is that i have put a granite top on the desk. >> i like this office. to tell you the truth, i've become a home body. if you look at the bow window, you will see the capital. i was very lucky to have this office.

it was harry blackmon's office. it was a lovely office. everyone moves because you obtain offices by seniority. i was the most junior, but when i was appointed, no one wanted to me. i said, that's fine with me. i waa lucky. >> i come in a lot and learn about the law from them. >> i have been in four different chambers since i came. i started down the hall a ways in the chambers referred to as the retired chief justices chambers. i was there for three or four years and then i moved into the chambers that justice o'connor is now occupying. that had been lewis -- louis then i moved into the chambers that justice scleia occupies now which had -- scalia occupies now

and before that time justice black had been in those chamber s. so there had om been three justices in those chambers. now they are -- they are on the other corner of the building. >> it is this view from justice stevens chambers that provides a window into the past of the supreme court. meeting in the bafmente of the 3 their time between 1810 and 1860, john marshall oversaw the court from here. later, roger tawney ruled over this chamber as well until the court moved upstairs in a space vacated by the senate where they would meet until 1935. but with very little space available in the building for justices to do their work and with even less for attorneys to find a place to prepare for oral

argument, one chief justice determined it was time the court have a building of its own. >> i don't think it is an understatement that this building would not be here if it had not been for the persistence of chief justice taft. >> taft believed that they needed a builddng of his own. he believed that as president and when he became chief justice it became almost an obsession. >> there was some opposition in congress, but ultimately taft became the chairman of the committee that was going to build the building. >> tass gilbert was one of the best-known a. techs of his time, so it was the perfect match of a. tech and employer -- architect and employer. >> their idea was to have a building that would com important to jennnfer -- would

comport to jefferson's complex. the task was less than $10 million. during the national depression there was actually a deflation so they were able to build the building and furnish it and still turn money back to the treasury of the united states. so it came in under budget. maybe the only governmmnt building in history that came in under budget. .

and an authority, really, to work for what is right. >> supreme court justices are not shy, and some of the justices felt that the new building was too grand, was too grandiose. chief justice stone is alleged to have said that justice is more like nine black beetles and the temple of karnak, and maybe they should ride in each morning on elephants. >> setting a record with 75 million pounds of marble used in its construction, when it opened in 1935, seven of the nine sitting justices refused to move into their chambers into the new supreme court building. >> one of the justices did not

want to leave the former chambers, which were in the basement of the senate. and he said, "if we leave these offices in the senate, no one will ever hear of us again," but he was wrong. the reason another would not, is that he said the building was so a labyrinth, it would go to their heads, and maybe he is right. -- the building was so elaborate, it would go to their heads. >> the interesting thing is that nnither tass nor gilbert lived to see the building completed. dilberr died only a few months before the building actually opened -- gilbert died. >> you not only see the vision of taft and his architect, but to also see the work of the successor, who oversaw its

completion. and on its eastside is a less often used part of the building in a pediment above. >> the eastport co and plaza of the building has the east pennant sculpture from herman mcneil. he was given a lot of rain by the architect to design his own ideas for the sculpture, and he chose, since he was on the eastern side of the building, to look at the traditions to choose some of his figures. the central figure is moses, and then on either side are confucius and the greek lawgiver. to either side of those are some allegorical figures to protect various aspects of the law and authority. in the corners on either end is the allegory of the tortoise and

the hair, and that is that the slow justice carries through and will win the day over the fast pace of the era. there is justice, the guardian of liberty, and that is a phrase that was written on a memo when they were asked to approve the two inscriptions that were to be put on the building, and he said he would rather that one than tte one the architectural firm suggested. >> on the opposite side of the supreme court. many express their feelings about the court and the constitution. >> so much that gilbert intended it to be a convenient place for -pprotests, and taft, who was heavily involvee, did not

intended for that purpose either. i understand people having strong feelings for some of the things that we do and are involved in, but it is not a situation where our decisions should be guided by popular pressure. and so, the protests to some extent are there as a way for people to express their feelings but not directed, should not be directed at us. you would not want us deciding what the constitution means based on what the popular feeling is. qqite often, most of our famous decisions are ones that the court took that were quite unpopular, and the idea that we should yield to what the public protests is as quiet foreign to what it means to of a country under rule of law. >> as you look up from the west plaza, you see anooher symbolic pediment. this one plays tribute to both the history of law and to some of those into oil in the

building's construction. -- some of the central in the building's construction. >> order and authority on either side. the other figures that are -prepresented in the pennant are those who participated in the construction of the building and also the history of the court. the architect is represented, the chief justice taft is represented as a youth, while he attended yale. we also have john marshall represented as a young man. chief justice hughes is represented. even the sculpture is represented in that frieze -- the sculptor. >> there was a phrase that was approved by chief justice

hughes, but the words have taken on a larger meeting since then. >> equal justice under law is really a statement that judges are to be independent, that the law should be blind in certain respects, and this is not based upon their race or their, or their religion or their background, and the sense that communicates is that one can stand before the court and expected to be treated fairly. >> i do not want legalism. i just want the conclusion. p> in a moment, the justices in what could potentially sway them in cases that come before the court. >> this can alter how you view it right on the spot. >> actually -- >> 8%? >> your honor. >> persuasive council can make

the difference. [captions copyright national cableesatellite corp. 2000] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> for more information, good to c-span.org/supremecourt. there is a photo gallery on the construction of the supreme court building an interactive timeline of the court's history. get your copy of this program, part of the three-disc dvd set. this is $24.95 plus shipping and handling. order it at c-span.org/store. >> we have got three new c-span books for you. abraham lincoln, the supreme court, and who is buried in

grant's tomb? lincoln, the nation's highest court, and the gravesides and lives. good to c-spaa.org/books. each one also a great gift idea for father's day. >> and now, a return to air feature documentary.+ "the supreme court." >> this was envisioned by taft. it was adorned with red drapes and special columns, made from marble imported from italy and spain. but taft's wish called for more than just a new courtroom.

there were rooms added to help justices and attorneys prepare for oral argument. >> in the lawyers' lounge, they come in, and they give practical pointers. they try hard to put people at ease before going into the courtroom, because there is a lot of camaraderie, in is good to meet your opponent. there is a lot of nervous energy in there, of course. >> it is designed to calm lawyers down, to make sure that there are not faux pas, to make sure they do not attempt to tell jokes or to refer to their familiarity with one of the justices and that they will succeed, and they can make their best case, and the court will hear them, and they will get a

straight decision. >> we want them to enter the court prepared and ready, and both sides have an equal chance of winning the case. the attorneys are instructed to be there at 9:15 in the morning, and sometimes, you do not know this is a national court. it is not just a bunch of attorneys to go around the ccurthouse. it is a little different. they exchanged greetings. they take their seats and go over the events that are going to occur that day, let them know if there are opinions coming down, the absences of any justices who may be recused, answer any questions they might have, and offer them cough drops, aspirin, anything that they might need to make them feel more comfortable, and the attorney feedback i have gotten over the years is that they like it very much. >> as the attorneys get their last-minute instructions, the

justices are preppring for the experience in their own way. >> first of all, on days of oral argument, a belt or a buzzer is sounded in each chamber of the justice, about 10 minutes ahead, reminding you that in 10 minutes, you are supposed to be on the bench. at that time, you need to go down to the robing room to get your robe on. chief justices do not like to be late, as you can imagine, into the room. and it has a narrower section where the justices' robes are hung, and if you have a colar, it can be on the shelf. >> it is made for a man. sandra day o'connor and i

thought it would be appropriate if we included as part of our robes something typical of a woman, so i had many, many colars. >> i am sure we could do our work without the robes or this glorious building. but what it in part to the people that come here is the significance, the importance of what goes on here. >> it is a symbol that we are all in the business of impartial judge iing, ging, and that thine pattern was set by chief justice john marshall. they should not wear royal robes, they should not wear red

robes. they should wear plain black. >> a process ggeater than ourselves. they remind us that the world we are playing is not a personal role and not a role that should have a personal agenda but one that has an institutional importance aad that that institutional importance is bigger than us. >> the first thing we do is go around the room. each justice shaking hands with every other, and that is a symbol of the work that we do. you may be temporarilymiffed

because you received a spicy opinion from a colleague, but we look at each other, shake hands, and it is a way of saying that we are all in this together. >> when all nine are there and accounted for, the chief justice says, "it is time to go, and so, we line up in order of seniority, across the hallway to enter the back of the court room, and there are ttree justices on the left, three in the middle, and three on the right." >> the honorable justices and the associate justices of the supreme court of the united states. oh, yay, oh, yah, oh, yah, all persons who have business before the supreme court are to draw close and pay attention.

god save the united states and this honorable court. >> one of the amazing things about that courtroom, despite its splendor, is the intimacy of it. on the one hand, it is not that big of a room, but thh real intimacy comes in the relationship between a lawyer who is arguing at the podium and the court that he is arguing to, and if you stop to think of it when you go in there, you will see that if one of us leaned over the bench as far as we could lean, and the lawyer toward us, we could almost shake hands, and that is a very important thing, because it means that when the arguments take place, you are physically

and psychologically close enough to ach other so that there is a possibility for real engagement. we are not just a bunch of people talking in microphones with a big space between us, so there is a happy paradox of that room that it is a grand room in which a process takes place that is intimate, and it is the kernal of a very grand building that has a very intimate results for every american. >> the honor of the place is always present. this is the chamber where brown vs. the board of education was decided. there was the most important in our history about presidential power that was decided in that room by human beings sitting on the bench after having listened to arguments from other human beings.

>> when you tell it to people, they think, is that all? but a lot of it has been laid out in writing. they will not have a chance to get up and give a speech. >> you are seated right next to the podium, and the first thing you have to say under court etiquette is, "mr. chief justice, and may it please the court." >> they correctly held in that they could not share in the award given by the jury unless -- have a few sentences. usually, you have chosen to deliver them to the court, but you start getting questions usually within the first minute or two. >> each of the justices has their own unique style about questioning.

there are some people who like the rapid-fire style. others like to spin out long hypotheticals. >> i do not want legalism. i just want a conclusion. a minute has passed since he has said yes. does that become the unlawful? >> why it is irrelevant whether the gun was operable or not? >> what if the government came along and said, you have got to disclose certain facts about your hospital, or we're going to shut it down? >> we do not sit down before argument and say, "this is what we think," or "this is how i view the case." through the questioning, we are learning for the first time with the other justices -- how they view the case, and that can alter it how you view it right on the spot, and if they are raising issues that you did not think was important, you can

start raising questions, so it is a very dynamic and very exciting part of the job. there, and i am with them, and we are talking. this is a conversation. i have no awareness of the courtroom, the people in the courtroom, any physical movements that may be goinggon. it is really quite remarkable. >> my philosophy is to ask questions when i think the answer might hell me of a group in deciding the case. i do not view the participation of a justice as an opportunity por the justice to advocate one point of view. >> to sit on the supreme court and listened to the questions of your colleagues is somewhat humbling.

this is probabll the moment i will most intensely remember, because their lawyers to i have known for years sitting at the table in front of us, ready to argue, but then, watching the intensity of everyone space, i had forgotten how much people believe and know that they are decisions. every question i asked has a purpose. it has some importance to something thht is troubling me and i am curious about. >> as an attorney, i welcome questions from the bench. the speech that are preparing to make. but an advocate wants to know

what is on the mind of a judge, because he will welcome questions as a way of satisfying the judge on a matter that you might not resolved as well without counsel's response. >> it is all about fielding those questions and using the time strategically so that you respond to the questions. it is central to answer the questions. you cannot persuade a justice if you do not answer what they ask. they are very demanding, as they should be. that is their job. it is very challenging in that respect. >> 4%? >> no, your honor. >> pixar number. eight? 8%? does it stop being a quota because it is somewhere between 8% and 12%, but it is a quota if it is 10%? >> a lot of people think it is just a dog and ony show.

what can somebody tell me in half an hour that is going to make a difference? and the answer is, it is probably quite rare, although not unheard of, that oral arguments could change my mind. but it is quite common that i go in with my mind not made up. i mean, a lot of these cases are very close, and you go in on aknife's edge. persuasive argument can make the difference. >> i had over 50 questions once. the interrupt each other. >> it had been my practice on until some of the end of the lawyers their breath before interrupting, and here, i learned that if you do that, or in a hot case, if you wait until the end of a sentence, you will not get a question in. you have to interrupt to makee your voice heard. >> i guess i'd you oral argument a little bit differently.

i think it is an opportunity that there is an advocate to fill in the blanks. it is hard to have a conversation when nobody is listening. i think you should allow people to complete their answers and their thoughts and to continue their conversation. p find that that coherence hat to get from a conversation is far more helpful than the rapid fire, and i do not see how you can learn a lot when there are 50 questions in one hour. >> one of the bad signs of an oral argument is when the question stop. it means that you have either not persuaded them, or they figured it out already, and there is nothing ore that you can add. >> a light will go on when you have five minutes remaining, aad when your time has expired, a

red light goes on, and when that comes on, you are just supposed >> a case that i've been studying for a very long time, i will hear what the lawyers have to say. it is such an exciting day. >> sometimes, i say to myself, really their?" >> there is a reference that this is an important space. people look up and see around the top of the court room. there is sculptural friezes. there are four panels, and in the back is the battle of good versus evil, and in the center of this is justice, and she is leaning on her sword, but she is

ready for action, if needed. among the forces of evil are despotic power, corruption. the forces on good on the other side of the defense of virtue and charity and peace. behind justices, a figure of divine inspiration, which iss holding the scales of justice in her hand. out of that, you have this perception. it starts with an egyptian thought to be the earliest blogger ever known the and he is followed by many others.

and then on the other side, you come into more modern times, and you have justinian, known for the justinian code. you have the magna carta, and then, finally, the most recent one, napoleon. many do not think of napoleon about the law, but there is the napoleonic code which is used in many european countries. there is the power a lot in governments sitting on the throne with the 10 amendments to the constitution, the bill of rights right in the center, with american eagle's spreading its wings behind there, and he is holding a book of laws. on the other side, you have another group of citizens, and those. there is the authority of the law, but then you need to have the strength to back up that the law needs to be enforced by.

>> it is amazing when you walked in, and even the two american flags that flank the mahogany bench that they all sit back. they hang perfectly still. the supreme court is in viewed in a great tradition. in fact, we sometimes joke that the quills that are given to the justices are how they write their opinions, and there are some that still write them up longhand on a legal pad, as opposed to a computer, the way most would do today. >> the supreme court, which with traditions, is also a very uman institution. in a private room, a newark custom takes place following

oral arguments, one inspired by its fiist female justice. >> it is a beautiful room, very well furnished. the ood is not exactly haute cuisine. it comes from the cafeteria. the justices eat the same thing that any visitors to tte court might choose for lunch. you'd be surprised bb the high level of our collegiality here. one justice once commented that there was no justice within the disagreed more often than

justice brennan, and yet, justice scalia consider justice brennan his best friend at that time. and the feeling was reciprocated. >> it was done by justice o'connor on the court, and it stuck. "now, declarants, you should come to lunch." she is very sweet but very persistent. it is hard to be angry or bitter at someone and to break bread and look them in the eye. it is a fine lunch. very did work it's down there. it is just nine people, eight

people, whoever shows up, having a wonderful lunch together. it s wonderful. >> i try to not make a post argument lunch, because you never know what my colleagues will be talking about. >> it is a world there that we do not talk about the cases. the collins will go to the opera and talk about the opera. some f us will talk about a baseball game or a ball tournament or a good movie we have seen or a good book we ever read. something particular interesting, our families, the kinds of things that everyone will talk about when having lunch with colleagues. >> off of the main justices' dining room, there is a smaller dining room. chief justice warren burger decided he wanted to make that the theme of the room, and so

the court had donated a portrait of the famous litigant in the case of marbury vs. madison back in 18 03. chief justice burger said, "we need to get a companion portrait for that'," said they literally are on the wall. >> that was probably the most famous case this court ever decided. the idea of judicial review. john marshall made it explicit in the case of marbury vs. madison. >> there is no one case that says as much to a justice about what it is like to be a justice, because marbury vs. madison is the embodiment of judicial

reviee. there is no quotation in all of the history of supreme court writing that justices more prefer to repeat then the phrase which says "it is emphatically the power and the duty of the judiciary to say what the lot is." that quote from john marshall in marbury vs. madison. >> we call him "the great chief." he was really the first person who took the job seriously. he established the court's position as one of the three coequal branches of the government. i get to initiate a discussion and have some responsibility to make sure that all the issues are adequately aired. >> there is a change when a new chief justice is presenting.

each chief justice has his own way, method of presiding at the conference, and the present chief justice is doing an excellent job. he has some virtues that others did not have, but that pretty much follows the tradition. >> there is not much that a chief justice can do. the eight associate justices have a lifetime job. they have a duty to uphold the law. he cannot fire them. they have to get along. we have decisions that will outlast any chief justice, said the chief justice comes to a court where there are these and we have our tradition. on the other hand, the chief justice who presides and who

steers us through the mechanics of communications, by his personality and his warmth and his decisiveness and his understanding of the law and of the institution of his colleagues, it can do a great deal to affect the tone. >> when i got here, my colleagues were very helpful and filling me in on how things work, often in contradictory ways, but you do get some sense of what is expected in the process, and then you go in and do it and hold your breath and hope they all do not say at once, "well, what are you talking about? why are you doing that?" my eight colleagues were extraordinary in making me feel comfortable. it is not just that i was coming in as chief anddthe youngest among the bunch, but they had been together for 11 years without any change.

you can easily imagine that that would be difficult, but i think everyone went out of their way to make me feel comfortable in the process, which i've always been very appreciative. >> in a moment, go behind the scenes to perhaps the most private and important room in the building, where the decisions of the court begin to take shape. >> no one goes into the room who is not a justice, no secretary, no locklear, not even a message there. >> i can remember the first time i set foot in the room, and the doors close. it is pretty daunting, because that is where the actual work, the decision making takes place. >> get your copy of "the supreme court." it is part of he three-disc set

along with our docuuentaries on the capitol and the white house, called "american icons." it is $24.95, plus shipping and handling. order is at c-span.org/store. for more information on this documentary and the nation's highest court, go to c-span.org /supremecourt. there is a virtual tour of the building, conversations with the justices, if of a gallery on the construction of the supreme court building, and an interactive timeline of the court's history. >> we have got three new c-span books for you. abraham lincoln, the supreme court, and who is buried in grant's tomb? perhaps, something new to you about lincoln, the nation's highest court, and the gravesides and lives of american presidents. go to it.

each one a great idea for father's daa. >> and now, we return to our feature documentary, "the supreme court -- , to america's highest court." >> in the most private and perhaps important place inside the supreme court, justices, and table in the justices'r around - conference room. they discuss the cases heard in oral argument and begin the process of reaching the decision of the court. >> we said at the conference table at the same places every day. i sit at one end. justice stevens, who is the most senior, sits at anotherrand, and that wraps around in order of seniority. >> i remember the first time i set foot in that room, and the doors closed. it is pretty daunting the first few times. because that is where the actual

worked and the decision making takes place. >> we do not have any observers in the conference room. there is nobody who is not a justice, no secretaries, no locklear, not evee a message there. fair, and each of my colleagues feel the same way, so there is a little bit of tension in the room, but we loved it. this job is no good if you cannot argue. >> for a argued case, i will say, "this case is about this. the arguments are so and so. i think we should reverse or a firm." sometimes, it will take a minute. in a hard case, it can take a lot longer, and then it goes with seniority, so justice stevens will go next. he might say, "i agree with

everything, chief, which is nice, or he coold say, i disagree. i think it should come out the other way, and this is why. now, one of the best roles, and i think it is true, the will of that conference is that no one speaks twice until everyone has spoken ones. p think it is a very good role. it produces very good feelings, and everyone thinks they have been heard. >> first to make a statement about what you think of the case, but when you are on the end of that, you do have a know what the others think. >> it is not really an exercise in persuading each other. ittis an exercise in stating reviews, and the rest of us take notes, and you take notes so if

you get assign the opinion, you know how to write it in a way that would get at least four other votes aside from your own. >> i was the junior ember of this court for 11 years, and always when we had our conferences, and there was no one else in the room, i had the special job of opening the door if somebody knocked. usually somebody forgot a paper. i would say that i had been doing this for 10 years and i hhve gotten pretty good at it. we get on very well. the nine of us get on very well. >> everyone is congenial, and there is a certain amount of conversation, but mostly, it is business. >> the justices are actually very thoughtful about what they are doing, and each one is very

thoughtful about giving their reasons for their vote. >> i just finished my 18th term, and i still have not heard the first unkind word in that room. when you think that we decide life and death, abortion, execution, war, peace, financial ruin, government relationship with citizens, you name it, we have decided it. >> those discussions lead did justice to affirm or not in any particular case. now, that vote is not cast in concrete. you are not walking on wet concrete yet. you can change your mind. >> it is just not win or lose, win or a firm. it isswhat rationale you use,

what principles you used to teach, and if the case is close, 5-4, and let's say you are on the side to prevail with the majority, there are not a lot of hi-igh-fives. >> if i am in the majority, i get to determine whom rights the opinion in that case, and that is a very important responsibility, because you want to make sure that is given to the justice use of you has the most support. some are a little slower than others. get heavier assignments earlier+ on. some cases are harder than you want to make sure that is

fairly distributed. you've got all sorts of different issues, and you want to make sure that each justice gets a nice mix. you do not want one justice to do just criminal cases. this is a very important part of it. p> may be a sweet roll or a cookie or something. >> as opinion writing assignments are handed out at the end of conference, a route exists upstairs in the supreme court which helps the justices and their staff consult president through the words written in the kalas legal volumes house here. a room filled with not onll books but the symbolism of the great lawgivers and admired by those few who enter into its mahogany grandeur. >> if they want to see the most beautiful room in washington, the optical of to the library on the third floor, which nobody hardly sees today. that is not so much roman classiiism, but it is just a

breathtakinnly beautiful roma. >> the library is probably one the most special places in the building. >> the archways and the library. science, law, industry there are shields directly above the archways, and those represent various symbols. when i was clerking, i spent a lot of time in the library, and

it is a gorgeous library. i would not go there to read the those would be in our own chambers, but hen looking for secondary material of different kinds, we would go to the library, and it was a wonderful place to work. >> the library is one of the special rings in the building. unfortunately, it does not get used as much as it was when the building was opened, and that goes back to the way things have changed. they would literally call the dockee each day in court, said he would not know necessarily which case would e argued that day. you had an idea, but a lot of attorneys had to be on site, because if it came up, they had to be ready to go argue. that is why you have the lawyers lounge, where they waited to find out which cases would be heard, and that is why you have a beautiful library. this is reserved for members of

the bar and court staff only. >> there have been a number of times when i had to use material from a number of cases, that we occupy and number of the tables, and we would go up and sit in their reading room and actually revert to all those passages in the preparation of an opinion. >> with presidents and research done, justices go about the process of writing the opinion, both majority and dissenting that eventually made their way to the public as the final decisions of the court. >> it is an ongoing process. you write a first draft. the figure at you need to learn a little bit more. you're always going back and looking at the breeze, always bringing the law clerks in and bouncing ideas off of them. it is sort of a continuation of the orallargument process. >> it is terribly challenging. -psome of the issues are really

tough. some are not. some are clear-cut, but some are enormously challenging, and some cause you to want to wake yourself until you see other views being expressed before you are firm in your own view, and it is a help to see it in writing, and it is a help when you have to write to help put it down in words rather than just think it through. it is a real challenge. >> we have to convince ourselves. the first and i have to do when i sit down to write in opinion is convince myself. then you have to convince others. so, again, the court remind you of the fact that you have this job to try to write something out. sometimes learn things about the case that you did not fully appreciate or understand before, and there have been more than one case in which i had changed

my views when i was writing the opinion. >> as i have often put it, i do not enjoy writing. i enjoy having written. it is a difficult process. ice went over it. i write and write again. before the opinion goes out, the law clerk will say, "it is going out. do you want to read it one last time?" and i will say, "yes, i want to read it one last time." and it is always been changed. up until i send it down to the printer. >> i have to do several drafts before i am reasonably satisfied, and then we edit them back and forth, and once they are edited back and forth, i circulate it, and i hope four other judges joined. if four other judges join, i have the court.

>> we realize that one of us is going to have to write out a decision which teaches and gives peasons for what we do the point of writing an opinion is to command some allegiance to the results, and we have no army. we have no budget. we do not have prees conferences, and we do not give speeches saying how wonderful my dissent was or how bad the majority. we do not do that. we are judged on what we write, and we have to write something that shows we are following the rules and that we are open and honest and that we give reasons for you to believe that what we did was right. >> i welcome the views of my colleagues. i share with my colleagues might use of wayssin which to ensure that each issue we are addressing and each draft that

we are issuing is addressing the important points that thh parties were making, and so, i guess what they can expect from the is a very interactive colleague, both in welcoming their suggestions and incorporating them into drabs and sharing with them my own views, as well. >> sometimes, you do eight more pages than people think you should, and i use footnotes, because i think footnotes are optional reading. if there is something that should be in the opinion the thing people might gain from, but they do not always have to read it to understand argument and the opinions.3 opinion circulates a draft, then the other eight have a chance to weigh in, and normally, they start asking within a day or two. and then they will say, "dear

sandra. i will join." or, "dear sandra, i want toogive a little bit more time." or, "dear sandra, if you would change the following, i would be willing to join." there is something like that that happens. now, if there is a dissenting opinion, often people will wait and look at the dissent before casting their votes. now, once the descent circulates, it could be so powerful that it causes someone to tentatively to have been with the majority to change their view to some extent. so all of this, tte details, are worked out, not around the conference table. it is in the riding of the opinion that the persuasion >> let's say i would go the same direction, but i would go 80 yards, but the majority only ones to go 60, and 60 would

decide this case, too. so i would write the opinion to go 60 and not say anything about it "i would also go the other 20." now, if i were writing a concurrence or a dissent on my own, i would write the opinion in a way that reflects going 80, so we are going the same way. i could not write an opinion that when in a direction that is different from what i actually thought we should go. >> the dissent's here are rigorous. and they do not pull punches, so i think it ultimately improves the quality of the majooity opinion. bbt it is something you have to anticipate. >> dissents are more fun to write, because when you have the dissent, it is yours, you say what you want, and if somebody does not want to join, who this is my descent. this is what i want to write.

when you are writing in the majority, you do not have that. you have to crafted in a way that at least four other people can jump on, and yoo try to crafted in a way that as many people as possible could jump on, which means sit -- accepting some suggestions styler other -- style or other. >> you have got eight votes, and the ninth one comes in and says, "change this or that," use a not quite, typical fought a kite, " but your fifth vote is more critical and you are more susceptible to making changes than the 90 votes. -- ninth vote. >> we are here to decide things. we are here to six -- to decide.

>> honorable court. >> justice alito has the opinion of the court. >> this is our moment. grab the copies of the opinions and go rushing. the guy from ridereuter's is als rushing to get in on the wire service, so you have to get out of the way. the supreme court public information office simply says, and here is the material. make of it what you will. but we will make sure that you have the material, and that is an enormously valuable thing. it is also good to not have the sense that someone is trying to spin you. >> i like to hear the justice himself or herself announce what is in the opinion. then, i raced down the tairs to

the court press area, where we all have our laptops set up now, and i write a first version of that story so it can get on our internet site. readers really want to know as soon as possible what the court ruled and what potentially that miggt mean. >> a lot of people say it is a very secret institution. no, it is not. it is an institution that does most of its work in the open, and as they say, the worker goes in the front door and goes out the front door. >> near the courtroom, there are two rooms used by the justices to occasionally speak to the public, as well, from the retirement of thurgooo marshall on, one can get a glimpse at the working of the court. but it is a private view of the ornately decorated east and west conference rooms and their

portraits of the past chief justice's that helps one understand the history of the court. >> in the east conference room, we have the first eight justices' portis is, you can talk about john jay, and how we got to the court, appointed by george washington, and then hh gets to be elected to the governor of new york, and the decides that is best. and then you have a beautiful portraits of the chief justice in a grand portrait, very similar to the one of george washington in the capitol building, and there is your chance to talk about that. that carries over into the west conference room with the more modern justices. there are the two instrumental justices in this building, william howard taft on one wall and charles evans hughes above the fireplace, looking at each other through time. >> i like to go sometimes on a

quiet night to the connerence rooms, because the portraits on the walls are all of my predecessors as chief justice. to some extent, you look up at them onnthe walls with a degree of a lot and an appreciation of what they did. they are eager looking down on me with either bemusement or amazement. each of them has the story to tell, not even personally but the institution of the court. you look up at marshall and appreciate the court functioning as a court, moving the court from a situation where each justice wrote his own opinion. instead of saying, no, we are going to have an opinion of the court, which was crucial in having it in its present form, write to the most unfortunate of my predecessors, the author of the dread scott decision, and you have to understand that he thought he was going to e