guest: i had a republican make an analogy to the olympics. the notion of competing against the best makes you better. in a primary field, there are enough candidates. if everybody is in, these candidates will have to beat the best possible opponents before they get to present obama, one

of the best campaigners in a long time. president obama is going to have $8 million to run his campaign. that is the only way they can overcome what is going to be a huge disparity. host: you write that the nominee will be sapped of financial resources. the defeated candidates will make the nominee look vulnerable at the wrong time. guest: the arguments that democrats and republicans make in washington is that a contested primary means the winner will emerge a bruised and bloodied and too far to the right or left. you can actually count the number of times that has happened on one hand. it does not generally happened. it happened in the delaware senate race.

it happened in nevada. that is the list. take a look at the kentucky rest -- the kentucky race. people said rand paul was to out there with his ideas. he is an incoming senator. he will be sworn in this week. the primary campaign looks bad on the outside. let's remember back to 2008 when president obama and hillary clinton continued until june with their primary. that did not hurt president obama's chances at all. host: starting on monday, january 3, the process begins starting with the rnc chairmanship debate, which c- span will cover live. it will be hosted by americans for tax reform. it will be a debate of the folks running for chairman of the republican national committee. it will be nominated -- it will

be moderated by tucker carlson. do you expect that context to be bruising and bloodying? guest: the republican national committee did not spend a lot of money on independent expenditures in favor of republican candidates because they did not have the money. they did not do a good job of raising it. they spent it in other ways. these outside groups that have come in, thanks to court rulings in 2010, the outside groups have stepped up and put a lot of money into republican politics. from all americans to prosperity -- americans our prosperity to american crossroads. it is an alphabet soup of big money and big spending in republican politics.

what the republican national committee does is something unique that only they can do. they put on a convention and in presidential years they are allowed to spend money coordinated with the presidential campaign. it is an extra $50 million or whomever the nominee will be. the republicans have to have an effective republican national committee to do grass-roots targeting and out of reach. the republican turnout model was not fully funded in 2010. the former national committee political director quit his job in mid-november and wrote a memo saying, if we had been able to fund the 72 hour program, we would have one bank extra states. we would have one bank governorships in minnesota. we would have one bank senate -- we would have one -- would have

won governorships in minnesota and senate races in delaware. that is why the rnc race matters. there are only 168 voting members. the party is in serious financial trouble right now. they are reporting more than $15 million in debt. people expect that number to go up north of $25 million. there are documents being floated around now that estimate that going into 2012, they will still have $10 million of debt. all year, they will only have paid off half of the debt depending on how big it actually is. committee members are concerned about their financial future. come february, they have got to deal with a $5 million note that they have to pay back.

as of november 22, the rnc had $120 million in the bank. this is not something they can mess around with. this is a contest between at least six people right now. michael steele is running for reelection. alk about that. but first we want to let the folks know that on "newsmakers" this week, ann wag anywhere of missouri is one of signature candidates running for the chairmanship of the republican committee. the debate among the candidates will take place on monday and the chairman's election is coming on janua 14. in the interview that you'll be able to see tomorrow on c-span, ann wag never was asked about the process of the the vote for the chairman. this is what she had to say. >> i'm commited to building whatever coalitions necessary to advance my chairmanship knowing that what is important is new leadership.

and i have made a commitment to that and will stand by that. and we'll see. the balloting should be interesting. it's a very interesting dynamic in process. and i would ask your viewers to watch that. i'm sure that c-span will be covering the r.n.c. election, and it's an interesting political snapshot that's a little different. majority doesn't win. people can stay in for as long as they like in the balloting. the person who gets the fewest votes does not necessarily drop off. but there's usually a natural progression. there are people in the race that will realize when they've hit their high water mark in terms of support a then generally that support can be shifted to other candidates, it can be, it can go to multiple candates out there. it's a fascinating process and one that i've followed over the last two decades, and very greatly, from election cycle to election cycle. host: you can see the entire

interview on "newsmakers" sunday, tomorrow morning, at 10:00 a.m. and again at 6:00 p.m. on c-span. it's also available on line at ww.c-span.org. now, regarding chairman steele who is currently there, you will -- one of the "newsmakers" reporters for last week's interview with gentry collins who is another candidate. talk about gentry collins, ann wagner, steele, and everybody else who is running. handicap this for us. we're coming around the far turn and heading for the home stretch. handie c.a.p. the finish. guest: -- handi cap the finish. guest: this has been a month and a half. so it's interesting to see the sprint as opposed to the marathon campaign. in this race, i think there are two clear tears. in the first tier you've got the wisconsin republican party

chairman. he h the most public commitments. he has got the most sort of quiet support as well. it looks like he will come out in top on the first round of balloting. this balloting process, by the way, an ann just said, a majority has to vote for the winner. but that doesn't necessarily mean that anybody has to drop out. the guy who finishes last doesn't have to leave the race if he doesn't want to. in 2009 it took three rounds for anybody to drop out. so this is a content in which second, ird choices matter, in a lot 06 cases even fourth choices matter. he is starting out with a good base of support. he has about 27 public votes. you need 85 of the 168 to win. in second place at the moment is michael steele. he's got about 15 public votes. but second place for an incumbent chairman is not where you want to be. the incumbent is never anybody's second choice. and in this case, a lot of his

closest supporters are backing other candidates. look at ryan as well. he served as the top lawyer until he resigned earlier this year. he has been somebody whos very close to steele, has been putting out fires everybody every time steele makes a mistake. now that he has turned he is pulling in some of steele's closest backers that's sending a signal that his foundation isn't there any more. it's crumble. so along with priebus, you have others, all of whom have at least ten public supporters. those make up the top tier. the second i would put collins, and chairman steele in that second tier. it's going to be tougher for any of those three candidates to win at the end of the day. host: 2012 presidential

politics,articularly on the republican side of the i'll but we'll also touch base with some of the docrats, is our topic for the next 35 minutes. reid wilson is our guest. the numbers are on the screen. ohio is where our first call comes from. dan for indents. caller: my question was do you feel that's predictable that the rising influence of the tea party will weaken the republican candidate to the point that the in fighting will ultimately lead to a democratic victoryor obama or whoever else may be running at that time? and how will the republican party manage that in fighting process at that point? guest: that's a really good question and i think there's going to be some impornt stuff to watch in the fst couple of months to watch. one of the first things that members of congress are going to have to vote on is the debt

ceiling and whether or not to raise the ceiling and allow t u.s. to issue more debt. this is one of those votes where it's not an option. you can't vote no because the u.s. defaults on loans and the economy goes back into the tank. so john boehners going, and republicans in congress, are going to use this as an opportunity to demand snding cuts and other cuts in government. but you've still got 80-something new freshmen who come from an ideological background in which they only want to cut government and one of the first votes is a vote to raise the debt ceiling, to allow more spending. it's going to be interesting to see how republicans spin that to their own base and explain it awayy saying we've got these cuts. the abc of course would come back, but -- answer would be you just allowed more spending. i'm watching that closely. i would expect that to come in

april or perhaps even early may is when the u.s. will have spt enough that we need to raise the debt ceiling one more time. as we go forward into 2012, though, it's going to be fascinating to watch how the tea party plays out in this elect rat. the tea party is largely a poll lust movement as opposed to more of an establishment republican movement. and a lot ofases, the establishment candidate ends up winning the primary. it's hard to think the last time that a sort of populous won. you can talk about ronald reagan but he lost the primary. by 1980 he was the establishment pick. so it's going to be interesting to see this sort of manager versus populous ethose that's going to play out. i don't think we'll see any kind of split within the republicans. there will be some headaches, certainly, and the republican nominee will have to eventually deal with some sort of larger

questions of how they position themselves for a general election. but i don't think it's going to -- i don't think that alone ensures president obama winning reelection. he's got a pretty good jot at the moment but i think that ensures his reelection. host: the op lead, tea party at turning point. our next call comes from fairfield, california. terry on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: thank you very much. i just want to make a couple of points. i'll try to do it as fast as i can. my first point is, this false dichotomy between tea party and republicans. i mean, we all know that the tea party are voting republican and really represent republican values that a lot of the established republicans wayed away from. so i don't buy into this tea party versus republican thing.

i think they're going to come together in the end. that's my first point my second point is regarding chairman -- i hope you remember thes my second point is regarding chairman steele. i don't understand why this man does a great job. every time you turn around he dizz a great job. and people are always wanting to replace him. they're banting to dump on him. i don't understand why it is that so many republicans keep trying to go after this man. and every time he turns around he does a great job. he's had a couple of missteps but he does a great job. guest: you bring up two interesting points. first, the tea party versus republican split. i agree with you. i think that there is a -- calling something the tea party doesn't nofsely make it the tea party. there is no tea party as sort of one organization. it's sort of a hide ra with

different parts and moving pieces and i don't think every tea partier would agree with every other on every particular issue. i wouldn't set them aside from the republican party but the point that you brought up is i think illsstrative 06 why there is a tea party. you said after the tea party movement is helping the republican party get back to its core values after more mainstream leaders, more establishment leaders had strayed a bit. i think that's the exact right point. this is one faction of the republican party rising up and attempting to take over the larger party. so good point there. as to whether or not michael steele should get credit for the republican wins in november, there are a number of different organizations around washington. the national republican congressional committee, the republican governor's association, the national republican senate torle committee that's in charge of electing senate candidates, all of these organizations have raised and spe millions of their own dollars and right

after the election it was fascinating to watch everybody sortf try to claim credit without really claiming credit. we saw a victory party, victy party that was sort of a scaled-down party featuring john boehner and a lot of house republicans. mitch mcconnell and some of the senate republicans held their own celebration. it was notable that michael steele was not on the podium. the next day you had mitch mcconnell, john boehner, and hailey bar bor who heads the republican governor's association all standing together claiming credit and talking about republican winds. the r.n.c. wasn't represented. they st weren't there. so it's been interesting. whether or not you think steele deserves credit for wins in 2010, there 45s been a noticeable effort to sort of block him out and not allow him the same credit some organizations are trying to claim. host: joe in new york calls us.

good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. i just wanted to point out that a lot of what we hear in the mainstream media is all these new republicans, and i think a lot of that is simply becse they don't have a record because rublicans who have a record, whose record is known, who are noun what they've done to this country couldn't get electsed dog catcher for the most part or couldn't get elected president certainly. we remember the bush years, believe it or not, and they will come back to haunt you. you say that new republicans, this is the same thing we heard last time at the end of the bush administration. oh, give us another chance. we'll do it right this time. well, last time we screwed up, but this time we're going to do better. we're brand new. we know what we did wrong. this is what we hear every single time from the republican party, and they go back to the same old mantra.

lower taxes, less regulation, every man for himself. thank you. i'd like to hear an answer to that and possibly like to respond to your answer, too. thanks. . .

guest: 2010 was a rejection of the democratic agenda. we have seen a number of rejections over the election cycles. when it comes to chris christie, he is undergoing its first real criticism right now after mishandling the snowstorm. if you are a politician, do not miss handle snow. make sure you get the plows out on the street. michael bloomberg and chris

christie are taking heat for slow snow response. the mayor of new york -- the mayor of newark, new jersey got applause for helping his constituents shovel snow. it is dangerous for politicians. you can take a look at a long roster of mayors around the country. mayors of denver, of chicago, of seattle, all have lost reelection bids after that snowstorms with bad responses. watch out if you get snow coming your way. host: joe, are you still there? caller: i wonder what that has to do with my original question and my original observation. we are talking about a stalking horse. the republicans filibustered everything. we had more than 100 filibusters under this economy -- under this

congress. how can you expect things to be done under those circumstances given that level of obstruction and b.s. from the republicans? guest: i thought i got to the point. one thing that is interesting is that something will have to be done. there are two major problems facing republicans. the continuing resolution run out in early march. the debt ceiling issue comes up in february. many senate democrats will get in bob -- will get involved. those two issues are going to insure that something will be done. they do not have an option not

to do something. host: next up, san francisco, california. you are on the "washington journal w with -- with reid wilson. caller: i thought the former caller was whining. anyway i called michael steele last year and told him i had $4,000. i said what was he going to do? he said there was nothing he could do. i sent before thousand dollars to the tea party express. in the fourth quarter, i called. who was answering the phone, lawyers? why is the gop paid lawyers to

answer their phone? i am is sending $4,000 to the tea party express. the gop is going to go bankrupt because of michael steele. guest: one interesting thing that is indicative of republican donors and their biggest complaint about michael steele is that republicans have a large donor program where people can give $30,000 to the rnc. a lot of those donors are complaining that they never got a phone call from michael steele. the big donors from across the country will say, where was the rnc. they gave to american crossroads because they got a phone call. the only thing they want from the rnc is a police and a thank

you. they never got a call. -- the only thing they want from the rnc is a police - a please and a thank you. you are spending more than 60 cents or 70 cents on every dollar you raise in raising the money. on the big donors, you spend money to get them into the recession, but they give $30,000. that has been the chief complaint against michael steele. he has allowed a big donor program to wither on the vine. host: we have a tweet that says, "obama loves his sheep. he heads them off to the slaughter all the time." there is a research poll. the question is, should obama be

renominated in 2012 to about 78% said obama should be renominated. 19% set a different candidate. 3% had no opinion. guest: i think that was 78% of democrats. a lot of republicans do not want him renominated, but they do not get a lot of say. the idea that there will be a primary challenge to president obama is far-fetched. president obama is going to have $1 billion -- is going to have $1 billion in the bank. he has done a lot during the laying that -- during the lame duck session to placate the base. the repeal of don't ask don't tell was a big deal. that will make them happy for a couple of years. the notion of someone campaigning against him probably

is not going to happen in any serious way. the guys who might be there, per my senator bernie sanders who is not technically -- vermont senator bernie sanders, who is not technically a democrat, has said he is not going to run against him. any more. host: allen on the line. caller: i was curious and wanted to ask mr. wilson what affect this will have on the republican nomination and if romney is elected it looks like we would have an effect on the general election. guest: the vast majority of candidates who are going to run in 2012 are main line protest attendants or evangelicals. romney is the only one who is not. this is something he dealt with in the 2008 election and he is mormon. i'm not sure what it says about

religion at large and especially about mormonism's place in politics. the notion that he can't be elected because he is a mormon i'm not buying that. at the moment i think he is probably the front-runner for the republican nomination in 2012. but the mormon thing as they call it is an actual issue. people do talk about it. however quietly. nobody will be quoted in a newspaper. but you talk to the average voter in iowa or new hampshire or south carolina and it is -- people know it, people undetand, people are aware of the fact that he is a mormon. i don't think people would know that haley barbour is a presbyterian. but knowing that he is a presbyterian don't think a lots of people know or care. but the fact that people know mitt romney is a mormon is sort

of indicative that he does have a problem with at least some voters, not enoh to totally kill his chances. host: our nextall is from boston, massachusetts, elon on the line for independents. >> happy new year. i want to make a comment regarding the way the republicans, administration and congress have run the campaign the past one year. my comment is based on what happened in the 1980's. we saw gingrich when he came to power and we saw how president clinton couldn't do anything. my concern right now as an american is that we are coming to another session where we find john boehner who the pas year has opposed everything the

president put on the table. have we come to a position in our country where the two-party system is not working for the average american. i will take the comments after i hang up. thank you. guest: i think that the people, some people would say we have reached t point where the two-party system is not working quite a long time o. but it does work. president clinton passed a huge amount of legislation in the six years with republicans in office. president bush even passed stuff in the democratic senate. i is not like it is completely broken. i'm not so pessimistic on the motion there will be nothing but gridlock the next couple of years. something will get done because it has to be done. the economy is still recovering slowly. there is turmoil around the world. something has to be done. now that republicans have a stake they take it seriously.

they are not just playing politics the buyer time. it is not going to be president obama's agenda. it won't b hserepublicans' agenda that gets passed but some amalgamation of the two that they can agree on. host: this morning in the anchorage daily news online they have the headline miller ends challenge in u.s. senate race. he says he will not end his fight for conservative values. joe miller said he is givin up the legal challenge of the write-in election win of lisa murkowski as he asserted that he was in the fight in -- that his fight, rather, was in the best interests of the state and country. how will this affect lisa murkowski's status when she gets back to washington? guest: i think this purports he a unique position almost.

you don't -- when you lose a primary challenge and win as an independent there is no question that lisa murkowski is a republican but what she has done is asserted her independence from mitch mcconnell and the senate republicans. look at some of the major votes that came through the lame duck session from everything from the "don't ask, don't tell" repeal to a couple of other things tt came through and she voted with democrats frequently, not a little bit. s she, scott brown, olympia snowe voteed a few times with democrats that the democrats,ed to pass. so it sort of takes away mitch mcconnell's ability to say you have to toe the republican line. she can say i

>> the one thing we have learned is that economists are not good at predicting what actually happens. >> robert samuelson has written about politics, the economy and social issues for over three decades. he will join us sunday night on c-span's "q & a." now supreme court chief justice john roberts talks to law students. he talks about his career influences and about life on the court. this is one hour and 25 minutes.

that we are gathered here to talk to the chief justice of the united states is a testament to a man who is association to the college predated our pre law

center and included a decade of service on the board of regents. though not a catholic himself, he greatly admired the college or it jesuit scholastic tradition and its curriculum grounded in the humanities. on the occasion of the announcement of the establishment of the pre law center, he a lot his -- outlined his vision that -- outlined his vision of what lawyers should study. a rich cultural development through the medium of a liberal arts programs such as this college offers is an essential part of a lawyer's education. the men who will introduce the chief justice can be sent to truly embody the qualities that future attorneys should aspire

to. he received his bachelor of english in 1964. he went to harvard law school three years later. during his career at the washington law firm, he earned a degree in and below-irish literature and has authored several scholarly works on william butler yeats. he established the endowment that supports the contemporary writers' series at the college. he has recruited irish literary figures to visit our campus. he was elected to the board in 2007 and is currently the chair of its academics committee and a member of its executive committee. he was named texting -- named a

distinguished alumni in 1999. joseph hassett, [applause] welcome welcome. >> thank you. what a marvelous privilege and pleasure it is to welcome home to buffalo and to canisius chief justice john roberts. the homecoming has been a rich figure in the human imagination for almost as long as we have had human consciousness. for canisius, a homecoming of the chief justice is a richly significant and memorable occasion.

we are enormously grateful to him for his precious gift of his time, his thoughts, and his energy. it is an example of the way the chief justice approaches anything. his visit has been deeply thoughtful and fully realized. he has been to several classes and he has met with any number of small groups and formally with every constituency of the college. we are grateful to the chief justice for giving us all an opportunity to feel a direct link into the government and our history. it is not easy to know where to begin to introduce a man of many -- as many achievements as the chief justice. given his it is in education and we are an educational institution and given how exemplary his own life is for students, we might approach him in terms of his life as a student. in his post-stick years, you

know his student achievement -- in his post student years, you know his achievements. given his many achievements, it was almost inevitable that he would be the chief justice. he has been a brilliant student at harvard college and harvard law school. he was a clerk for judge henry friendly in new york, often a steppingstone to prominence. he clerked for the associate justice william rehnquist. he had been assistant attorney general. he had been associate counsel to be present. he had been the deputy solicitor general to the united states and represented the united states to the simple -- to the supreme court. he was a partner in a law forum where -- a law firm where he was thought to be the best constitutional lawyer in the country.

was it inevitable to the young student that he would reach those lofty heights? or was it so clear for the college student, like many canisius students, spent his summers working in a steel mill? or was it something about his college years that brought him to distinction? we know some things about his college life that are instructive. he was a liberal arts major, essentially a history major. his pay -- his paper on daniel webster won a prize for undergraduate excellence in english composition at harvard in 1976. we know from that paper, which is preserved in the library at harvard, that he was a writer of

enormous lucidity. we know from that paper that he was adept at finding ideas together with what, in a phrase he admires, "the silken cords of mutual patriotic affection." the paper showed that as a writer for the weekly standard, he grows most eloquent when he describes a man of character, a disinterested and self sacrificing men of wisdom. we know that if that young history student made his own way into our national life and our national history, he manifesting

those same qualities that he admired, identified, and wrote about in daniel webster. it is a great pleasure to present to you a man of character, a disinterested self sacrificing men of wisdom, the chief justice of the united states and native son of buffalo, john roberts. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thanks very much. i appreciate it. thank you for that warm welcome. thank you, joe, or that overly

generous introduction. i will live up to my side of the bargain. joe's new book is available now from oxford university press. operators are standing by. [laughter] 's please -- i am pleased to visit canisius. i live in buffalo. it was just nominated as one of the best american cities to raise a family. the steel business took my family away from buffalo to indiana when i was in second grade. i have learned enough that while buffalo is a city for all seasons. it makes sense to visit in october rather than debris. today is not just in the day in october. it marks a significant anniversary.

on october 18, john j. took the oath of office as our first chief justice. he presided over the court in its early years. he resigned his post as chief justice in favor of what he considered a far more prestigious position, governor of new york. i do not know if he would make the same decision today. [laughter] i would like to take this opportunity to extend a special thanks to the college president for making this this is possible and to the law center for this opportunity to have a public discussion with my former partners. discussions between judges and lawyers, practicing lawyers, are often a delicate matter. i do remember the stories i was told when a lawyer was arguing before an english judge. he began by saying, my lord, i have three arguments today.

one is a winner for my client. the second one is evenly balanced. it might come out my way. it might come out my opponent's way. the last argument is frivolous. the judge said, began with your strong argument. the lawyer said, i have no intention of telling you which is which. before jo and -- joe and i sit down for our conversation, i would like to give you some information about the supreme court. the first day of the term, the first monday in october, is always an exciting day. this one was different because associate justice john paul stevens was not on the bench. 33 years, think about that. for the life of virtually all of the students here, he had been on the court and had been an important figure in the court

also deliberations. he decided to retire at the age of 90. we all miss justice stevens greatly. he was an extraordinary terrorist -- extraordinary jurist and patriots. we are happy with elena kagan. she hails from new york. her presence on the court is historic. for the first time, the court has three women on the bench. she joins justice sotomayor. and justice ginsburg has served on the court since 1993. there is one item of history that i would like to mention. this month marks the 70th anniversary of the supreme court building. most of you have seen pictures of our building or have had a chance to visit it. it is a beautiful house in the opposite the capitol in washington, d.c. the court did not convene there until 1990 -- until 1935 when

the institution was 100 years old. before that, the court always thought the short end of the stick when it came to government housing. the court's first home was in new york city. the first congress occupied federal call while the supreme court took up residence on the supreme court -- took up residence in the second floor of the merchant exchange building. the court's first home was about a shopping mall. when the capital moved to philadelphia, congress was given orders for its own use. the court shared space. when there was a conflict, it was the supreme court that got the bump. when the government moved to washington, congress provided the white house with the president and the capital for itself. everyone knows the constitution

established a system of government with three separate and independent branches and secure homes for the legislative branch, the executive branch. congress then provided a building for the patent office. congress neglected to provide a separate building for the supreme court. instead, the court took up residence in a cramped room in the basement of the capital. the court met therefore 50 years, including the entire tenure of john marshall. that dark courtroom was the forum for the arguments of daniel webster and henry clay. they were congrressmen who knew their way around the capital. a new york newspaper said that "a stranger might traverse the dark avenues of the capitol without finding the real capital in which justice is administered for the american republic."

the supreme court moved to modestly better quarters in 1850. the senate moved a new and more elaborate chamber of stairs. the court move into the old senate chamber. it was more spacious, but the justices let and all of their own. when former president william howard taft became chief justice in 1921, he took up the challenge of securing for the court a building of its own. he had considerable stature in every sense of the word. he was our largest president and our largest chief justice. he got up and gave his speech to three women. [laughter] he had more than mere physical stature. he used his influence and prestige to get congress to approve the supreme court building project an appropriate the necessary funds.

he also said -- also selected the architect. the architect died before the building was completed. --taft died before the building was completed, but i am sure he would have been pleased with what the architect produce. it was observed that the building symbolizes the national ideal of justice. one of the court's advocates said the supreme court now has a permanent home that in beauty and dignity is worthy of the institution it is designed to house and worthy of the architectural company it keeps. not everybody agreed. some of the justice dissented. an associate justice called the building almost bombastic the pretentious and wholly inappropriate to a quiet group of old boys such as the supreme

court of the united states. he said it was likely to ripple of -- the temple of carnac. my colleagues and i feel privileged to work in this beautiful building. we still garnered -- we feel honored to carry out the business of the court. we select our cases from thousands of petitions that are filed each year. so far, we have selected 62 cases to review this term, enough cases to fill our argument calendar through january. we select more cases as the year goes on. it is too early to predict, but i suspect it will be 90 cases for this term. we have updated our website, which now includes an interactive calendar that identifies which cases are being argued and provides links to the

questions asked. we post friendship of the oral arguments on the same day the case is argued. we are posting the tape recordings of the arguments at the end of each argument week so you can hear the arguments shortly after they are delivered. there is no reason for you not to be completely up-to-date with everything the court does. it is probably a good time for me to sit down and began my conversation with joseph hassett. before i do so, i would like to take the opportunity to thank you all for the wonderful welcome and for making me feel so at home back home. let's get on with the questions. [applause] >> the number of students have asked questions about how the

court functions as an institution and your role as the chief justice. this question asks if you look to your predecessors for developing your own style as chief justice? >> i would not say i can be any style. one thing about the office of chief justice, someone once said you have to hold the reins of power very likely. he pulled them, you will find that they are not attached to having -- attached to anything. all justices have the same vote. my predecessor, chief justice rehnquist, was famous for running a tight ship. he would not let the discussions go on one minute longer than he thought appropriate. my colleagues tell me that i let the sessions go on a little bit

longer. some of them think too long in some cases and not enough -- and not long enough in others. you did not get a guidebook. i try to talk with my colleagues to find out the things they do not like about how i am administering the conference. my job is to initiate the discussions at conference. we meet in our conference room, a beautiful conference room right off of my office. there are four portraits on the wall. one of them is robert jackson. i lead the discussion in the sense that i kicked it off and tell them what i think the case is about. we go around the table. the other rule is that nobody speaks twice until everyone has spoken once.

then let's everybody get a chance to participate. we have a little back and forth until we reach a point where we have a tentative decision to move onto the next case. sometimes the discussion goes on for a long time. sometimes it can be short. everyone focuses onb our -- opus is on our 5-4 decisions. we have unanimous decisions. sometimes we have to go extra days. i am sure i will change. i will have a better sense in five years or 10 years about how to best facilitate that conversation. i have not had a lot of complaints from my colleagues. they would not be shy about it if they had complaints. >> when you get to the end of the discussion process and it is time for you to write an opinion, a student notes that in

a recent c-span interview you spoke about the importance of the process of writing opinions. this student asks, when you write an opinion do you write for an academic audience, a lay audience or does it depend on the perception of the case? >> the justice would give a different answer for that. i try to write for an audience a of intelligence -- of intelligent lay people. i want people who are not lawyers to understand the case, understand what we did about it and understand why. it end -- it is an important part of our democracy. congress does not have to explain to you why it is voting

for a lot. you do not -- voting for a lot -- for a law. you do not have to --you do not get to fire us. we have to justify why we are vote in a certain way. you have to decide for yourself, yes, this makes sense. the justices are acting like judges. this is what they are supposed to do. or this is not right. they are not carrying out their responsibilities. you, the intelligent lay person gets to decide, not just the lawyers. the audience i write for are intelligent lay people like my sisters, who are not lawyers. that is our most cases.

there is going to be some technical cases, section 185, which deals with the tax treatment in certain aspects of bankruptcy. and intelligent -- an intelligent lay person would not read it. in those cases, you have a more narrow audience. >> a graduate of the college and is a law student at george washington has a question. a recent c-span poll found that only 33% of respondents could identify any supreme court decision. 75% named roe v. wade. do you think the populace should know more about the court and its major decisions. if so, what do you think might improve the public knowledge?

>> they should know more. i do not know who they are talking to. most americans know about the court closest -- the core's decision in brown versus the board of education -- the court's decision in brown versus the board of education. the decision that says it was okay to intern japanese- americans. that was a bad decision. i cannot say i have achieve my goal in writing an opinion for an intelligent lay person in every case. it is interesting to me that when you go back in history and read the important cases, there is a point in the law where people started writing decisions which legal language. the most important