the bbc parliament channel. >> tomorrow on c-span, all six of the declared candidates for the republican national committee chairmanship debate for the first time. the list includes current rnc chairman michael steele, the moderators grover norquist, the president of the group americans for tax reform, and tuck " carlson. watch live coverage of 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> maturity in a time of pettiness, colman a time of mancur, leadership and a time of uncertainty -- that is what we ask of the united states senate and that is what this office demands of each to serve here. >> search for farewell speeches and hear from retiring senators on the c-span video library with every c-span program since 1987, more than 160,000 hours, all on

line, all free. it is washington your way. >> now our teacher documentary, "the supreme court -- home to america's highest court." ♪ >> you need to appreciate how important it is to our post -- our system of government. >> this is the highest court in the land. and the framers created it after studying the great lawgivers in history. shouldn't the government concedes that the destruction of documents in anticipation of a proceeding -- >> a lot of these cases are very close. you go in on a knife's edge. you do not decide who ought to win.

who -- we decide who wins under the law that the people adopted. >> you would be surprised by a high level of collegiality. >> if up -- if any of the four of the nine of us decide to give the case, we will hear it. >> we cannot have a decision of discourse. >> we decide important questions and that means you have to do your best to get it right. >> why is it that we have an elegant, astonishingly beautiful, imposing, impressive structure? it is to remind us that we have an important function and to remind the public that seize the building of the importance and the centrality of a lot. >> it all ways thrills me, amazes me, and gives me faith in our country to know how much people trust the court.

>> i think the danger is that sometimes you come into a building like this and think it is all about you or that you are important. and that is something that i don't think works well with this job. ♪ >> home to america's highest court, their role of those who serve here is to interpret the constitution of the united states. outside, almost daily expressions of protest are made by those wishing the court to pick up their case or role in their favor. inside, a central space that dominates its proceedings. all around, they're both public spaces containing the symbolism of the law and those that have served in the court before.

as well as beautiful private rooms that are seen by those privileged few. it is the justices, appointed for life terms, that have always defined as a regal, very human institution, and the building in which they do their work. >> i think it is the prettiest building in washington. and it is distinctive. it is that different type of marble, much brighter, much lighter than the typical government building, which i think is wonderful. as soon as you see it you appreciate that this is something different. it recognizes that the court is a different element -- a different branch of government. it is monumental. it looks more like the lincoln memorial in terms of its visual impact than it does look like another government building. if you you would like something like a temple of justice, i think that is entirely inappropriate -- opera.

. >> when you first come up to the court, there are two candelabra on either side. they have some of your for symbols, of blindfolded justice holding the scales of justice. on the other part of that are the three fates. is the first symbolic indication that this building has something to do with the law. and as you travel on to, there are the flagpole bases which have some symbols of alw and knowledge indicating that the building has a purpose to the supreme court and the law. >> the statue to the left is contemplation of justice. in her right hand, she holds a small statue of blindfolded justice. it is a symbol of impartiality. on the right-hand side of the

staircase, the other statute is authority of law. the latin word lex means law. >> we always want to make sure that people want to come up the steps because we do the job the right date -- the right way. there's not a day that goes by that we should not ask ourselves, are we doing this right? >> they do their work in a marble building were cameras are not allowed. they are not recognizable generally to the average person on the street. and then they speak to the public for their opinions. so when someone is, they are very public. anything that they do double matter in your life will be down on black and white in a court opinion. but they themselves will not be publicly announcing that before a camera.

there is a real mystery to the supreme court. >> the role in our democracy is to give a fair and honest interpretation to the meaning of dispositions that the peoples have adopted, either congress in statutes or the people when they ratified 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 judiciary branch. they have a clear vision in mind and that was that the federal courts would be deciding issues of federal law, constitutional and statutory. and that those judgments would be binding on all courts, state and federal. >> when the court tries to do that job, sometimes members

disagree strongly about, they are all trying to do the same thing -- to look at all laws that exist, the constitution's, the statutes, to figure out what it means and apply enforce it. what the public will see eventually is an opinion with reasons. the discipline that a judge follows and what makes it on my legislators -- unlike legislate tores, we have to give reasons for every decisions that we make. >> when you go in for a big case, high-visibility, where the stakes are large, or you can feel the tectonic plates of the constitution actually beginning or potentially beginning to shift, you would just be brutish

if you did not have an awareness of what of high level of sensitivity to the importance of that moment. >> the court is very much aware of history. the place is one where continuity is very important, and history really does influence the way the court works. >> at top of the west step, the symbolic bronze doors which recognize the history of vote -- the law. the ceremonial corps of the building. >> there is an impressive marble hall that separates the front doors of the building from the doors that lead into the court room. that marble hall is called the great hall, and is characterized by more people columns -- marble columns -- and often when i go home tonight, the building is vacant and i walked through the great hall and i look around at

the pillars. it really impresses upon me the importance of the work that we are doing. as many times as i walked through that hall, it never ceases to have that impression on me. >> between the columns are busts of previous chief justices. as a wall from the beginning, you can see john marshall, ta ney, taft, charles evans hughes, earl warren, and at present there are busts of all of the chief justices. in a certain sense, you were walking through the whole history of the court. to in the story of the court is defined not only by its different shapes over time but through a continual additions

of new associate justices to the bench. to the white house operator toeshoes that the president is on the line. i had my cell phone in my right hand and i had my left hand over my chest. trying to call my beating heart, literally. and the president got on the fun and said to me, "judge, i would like to announce u.s. my selection to be the next associate justice of the united states supreme court." and i said to him, i caught to my breath and started to cry and said, "think you, mr. president. >> justice sotomayor, are you ready to take the oath? repeat after me. i do solemnly swear --

>> when the court gets a new member, it changes everything, everybody. we moved the seats around in the court room by warner of seniority. there will be a shift there. but more fundamentally, it can cause it to take a fresh look at how things are defined. the new member will have a particular view about his you should be addressed, and it may be very different from what we have been falling for some time. it is an exciting part of life at the court. in the institution does not change it all. i think the relationships change. you lose a friend and hopefully acquire another one. i miss a lot of my former colleagues on the court, from black and white to bill brennan. but that is the process.

>> it is different today than when it was when i first got here. i have to admit -- you grow very fond of the court that you spend a long time on. there was a period there when chief justice rehnquist and justice o'connor, we have a long run together. you get comfortable with that and then it changes. and now it is changing again. >> is a new court. when i was trying jury cases, the juror had to be replaced, because one reason, it was a different dynamic, it was a different jury. and the same case -- this will be a very different court. and it is stressful before us because we sold admire our colleagues. we wonder, will it ever be the same? i have great admiration for the

system. the system works. >> i think it is healthy for the court to have members with different backgrounds. i saw a television program recently when someone said there would always -- there should always be someone who served in the armed forces on the court. i think there should always be someone who is had practical experience in litigation, and experience in other branches of the government would be very helpful. >> i think the experiences that i've brought to the job are going to help meet a good deal. being solicitor general, you get to see the court in everything it does, it just from a different point of view, from the point of view of the average debt rather than the judge. it has been no wind. -- it has been a whirlwind. always something different, a lot to learn, the learning curve is extremely steep.

sometimes it seems vertical. >> all of my colleagues have been extraordinarily warm and welcoming. each one has offered it buys. each one of them has invited me to call them with questions. and i do not know if i can identify anyone in particular that i have been turning to. it depends a great deal on whether i am meeting them in the hall. i go with the question on my mind. when i meet someone in the hall, i go up and say, can you or would you, and they each have been delightfully generous in giving me time, to walk me through whatever is that i am asking about. >> from its first chief justice, john jay, to its current one, john roberts, the court continues to make decisions that impact the lives of everyday americans, taking on only a limited amount of cases per term, compared to the number of

those requested of them. >> 8000 each year as this to hear the case. that means about 150 week. 150 what? 150 request to hear the case. here they are for this week. >> i think undoubtedly to my mind, the most onerous and for the most part of the interesting part of the job is ruling on all the cert petitions that come to the court. they have come in -- they have increased since i've come to the court. >> we don't look at the cases that we think are wrong. we don't think of the cases that have a lot of state. we try to make federal law uniform across the country. all of the cases are hard. the only reason we take them, and some of my colleagues may

tell you, is that other courts are in disagreement. that means that other judges and other actors in the legal system have come to different conclusions. every case is that way. >> most people think they have a right to come to the court. for the most part you do not. not this court. maybe the court of appeals, you normally do, maybe the state courts of appeal, but courts the do not have discretionary jurisdiction. the court of last resort, maybe they have a right to go there, but our jurisdiction is discretionary. we decided to come. >> you can tell there is a case with the particular hot-button issue that will give a lot of attention. but i have to say that does not enter into our process of deciding. a lot of hard pocket is a very mundane.

out of 90 cases, maybe a half a dozen will make it to the front pages. others are bankruptcy and tax cases, the federal arbitration act cases, engine cases, that is a big part of our docket. all vitally important, but not anything that will attract interest. >> even a case on a subject that you think of as boring can turn out to be enormously challenging at the end of the day. it could be anything. i do not think subject matter determines our interest in it. it is the challenge of solving this particular question of the law and making it work. it can be on any subject. >> each one gets of bowed to like anyone else on what cases we should hear. but it takes four votes to decide if we hear a case. we used to have a lot more

mandatory jurisdiction cases. when they got congress to pass a law and say, we did not have to hear all the cases, it meant that you did not have to have five votes to hear a case, four would be in us. you did these of the cases and stephen briers office that were heard in the courtroom. each justice has their own suite of offices. here they work with the staff of four law clerks and several office assistance. it is within the room chambers or their personalities and work habits come through. >> i like to work in a quiet place. i like to have the law clerks close at hand. in my regular chambers, all of the law clerks were inside. now i have to do -- two in my office. but i like a quiet place and i

like to be overlooking a courtyard. disturbed by the protesters. all of the chambers have similar tasks. the one in this chambers is where i put a granite top on the does. judy and i was very lucky to have this office. blackmun was my predecessor, and it was a lovely office. everybody moved and obtain offices by seniority. but when i was appointed, no one wanted to move. i said, that is fine with me. i like it. >> is this the view from justice prior's chambers that provides a window into the past of the supreme court. meeting in the basement of the capital for the majority of their time between 1810 and

1860, john marshall oversaw the court from here during his tenure. later roger taney rule of the chamber's well until the court moved upstairs into 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 had a building of its own. didn't i do not think is an understatement to say that this building would not be here if it is not been for the persistence of chief justice taft. >> taft had in mind that it had have of building of this month. 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

began to show the committee they would choose the architect, gilbert, very much the first choice. cass gilbert was one of the best known architects of his time. it was a perfect match of architect and employer. to do the whole idea was to have a building that would comported jefferson's concepts and look right next to the capitol building and yet still stand out on its own. >> $10 million, during the great depression, there was actually deflation. they were able to build the building and furnishing it and still turn $100,000 back to the treasury of the united states. it came in under budget. maybe the only government building in history that came in under budget.

>> they had done such a great job, the u.s. capitol should be moved so that it would have a better view of the court. that was his view. i think he did create a beautiful building, but there is no way that capitol building would be moved to provide a better view. >> it is a french classicism. he was very serious in his intention to create a house, a symbolic house, for the third branch of government that expressed the seriousness of what we were doing, the authority with which the third branch should be invested, and authority to work for what was right. did the supreme court justices are not shy. some of the justices felt that the new building was to grand, was too grandiose. chief justice stone is alleged

to of sand that justices wrote like nine black beetles into the temple of karnak, and maybe they should ride in each morning on elephants. >> setting a record with over 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 in the new supreme court building. >> one of the justices at the time did not want to leave their chambers in the basement of the senate. he said, if we leave these offices in the senate, no one will ever hear of us again. but he was wrong. brandeis said he would not come in here. the reason justice brandeis would not, is that he said the building was so low average, it would go their heads. maybe he was right. if you come over time, it becomes a symbol of the third branch of government, and the

need for stability, rule of law, which is what america stands for. >> the interesting thing is that gilbert and taft never live to see the building completed gilbert died before the building actually open. >> you not only see the vision of taft and his architect, but also work of taft's successor, charles evans hughes, who oversaw the completion. and while most see the west plaza, on its east side is a less often use part of the building, and its pediments above. >> the east porter co and plaza of the building is surrounded at the top by the east pediment sculpted by herbert macneil. he was given a lot of rain to design his own ideas for the sculpture, and he shows on the eastern side to look toward the eastern traditions of law for his figures. the central figure is moses, and

then on either side are , thecius and sdolon greek lawgiver. on either side are allegorical figures, various aspects of the lot and authority. but cornice on either end, the allegory of the tortoise and the hair, the idea that the slow pace of justice or tortoise carries through in the work of the court and will win the day of the fast pace of the hare. above the pet -- below the pediment is the statement, ed justice, the gardening and of liberty. that is what charles evans hughes wrote. i rather prefer just as the garden of liberty rather than the one of the architects' firm had suggested. ♪

>> on the opposite side of the supreme court is the west plaza, the traditional public interest to the building, and also a place where many express their feelings about the court and the constitution. what we want? >> i am not sure that gilbert intended to be a convenient site for protest. and taft, heavily involved in the design, did not intended for that purpose. i understand people having strong feelings about some of the things that we do and we are involved in, but it is not a such a wish and where our decision should be guided by popular pressure. the protests to some extent are there is a way for people to express their feelings but not directed and should not be directed at us. you would not want us deciding what the constitution mean based on what the popular feeling is. quite often in many of our most famous decisions, ones that the

court took that were quite unpopular, and the idea that we should feel to what the public protest this is quite foreign to what it means to have a country under the rule of law. >> sitting at the top of the west plaza is the traditional entrance to the supreme court. due to ongoing security concerns, the court decided in may 2010 to close the symbolic bronze doors as an entrance. still allowing people to exit the building from here. in a statement critical of the decision, justice stephen brier said in part, "while i recognize the reason for this change, on balance i do not believe they justify it." in making this decision, it is important not to undervalue these symbolic and historic importance of allowing visitors to enter the court after walking up gilbert's famous front steps.

as you look up from the steps of the west plaza, you see another symbolic pediment. this one pays tribute to both the history of the law and those in trickle to the building's construction. >> what you see in the west pediment or allegorical figure. the central figure is liberty enthroned. the other figures represented are those that participated in the construction of the building. and also the history of the court. the architect is represented. chief justice taft is represented while he attended yale. you also have john marshall represented as a young man. chief justice hughes is represented.

even the sculptor, robert aitken, is represented in that frieze. to the and just under the pediment of the words "equal justice under law." it was approved by chief justice hughes. the words of taken on a larger meeting since then. .

>> the supreme court is one of three documentaries on c span on our american icon d.v.d. collection. order at s-swan.org/store.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captions performed by the national captioning institute] >> we return now to c-span's feature documentary, the supreme court, home to america's highest court. >> the supreme court hears cases inside this building that was opened in 1985 and envisioned by chief justice william howard

taft in what the architect called the central node of the structure it was adorned with red drapes and special columns made of marble imported from italy and spain. but taft's wish called for more than just a new courtroom. just outside the space are rooms added to help both justices and attorneys prepare for oral argument. >> the clerk of the court comes in and gives pointers. they try to put people at ease. it is a fun place to be before going into the courtroom because there's camaraderie in this and you meet the opposing council if -- counsel, if you haven't met them before. there's a lot of energy in this but it is friendly. >> it is designed to calm lawyers down that is doing their arguments for the first time, to

make sure that they're not faux pases and attempt to tell jokes during their oral arguments and not refer to their familiarity with one of the justices. that -- that -- indeed they will survive the experience. they ought to see it as a place where they could make their best case and the court will hear them and they will get a fair decision. >> we want to -- for them to enter the courtroom prepared and ready and both sides have a chance to win the case. they're instructed to be there at 9:15 in the morning. the regulars know to come there. sometimes you don't know your opponent. it may be new york and california. this is a national court. it is not just a bunch of attorneys that hang around the same courthouse. they exchange greetings and glad to see each other. they take their seats and go over the events that will occur that day. let them know if the opinions come down and how many motions for admissions. the absences of justices who may be recused.

answer any questions they may have and offer them cough drops ors a sprin or anything they may need. the feed back i got over the years is they like it very much. >> as the attorneys get the last-minute instructions before entering the courtroom, the justices are preparing for the experience in their own way. first of all on days of oral, a -- a bell or buzzer is sounded in each chamber of a justice. about 10 minutes ahead. we -- reminding you that in 10 minutes you're supposed to be on the bench. at that point you need to go down to the robing room to get your robe on and be ready to go into the courtroom at the appointed hour. chief justices don't like to be late. as you can imagine into the courtroom. the robing room has narrow sections of a larger cabinet in

which the justices robes or robes are hung and your judicial color, if you have one can be on the shelf. you know the standard robe is made for a man because it has a place for this shirt to show and the tie. so sandra day o'connor and i thought it would be appropriate if we included it as part of our robe, something typical of a woman. so i have many collars. >> i'm sure we could do our work without the robes. we could do our work without this glorious building. what the robes are like, the building. in part. to the people who come here. is the -- is the -- is the significance, the importance offer what goes on here. >> i think that is a profound symbol that kind of plain black robe that says i'm going to try to -- to the extent i can, not to be guided by any personal

experiences or personal characteristics but to apply the law and -- law in the fairest way i think is possible. >> those traditions anchor us in a process that is greater than ourselves. they remind us that the role that we're playing is not a personal role. not a role that should have a perm agenda but one that has an constitutional importance. and that that constitutional importance is bigger than us. >> as we enter the robing room, or if we -- on the late side, the conference room, the first thing we do is go around the room, each justice shaking hands with every other. that is a symbol of the work that we do as a collegal body. you may be temporarily missed

because you received a spike in a pending opinion from a colleague but when we go to sit on the bench, we look at each other, shake hands and it is a way of saying we're all in this together. >> when all nine are there and accounted for, the chief justice says it is time to go and so -- you line up in order of seniority, cross the hallway to intert back of the courtroom and they divide three justices on the left, three in the middle and three on the right. >> the honorable and chief justices of the united states. oh yah, all persons having business before the honorable and the supreme court of the united states are admonished to draw near and give their

attention, for the court is now sitting. god say the united states and this honorable court. >> one of the amazing things about the courtroom despite its splend cert intimacy of it. on the one hand, it is not that big a room but the real intimacy comes in the relationship between the -- the lawyer who was arguing at the podium and the court that he's arguing to. if you stop to think of it, you will see if one of us leaned over the bench as far as we could lean and the lawyer arguing at the podium leaned toward us, we could almost shake hands. that is a very important thing because it means that when the

-- when the arguments take place, you are physically and psychologically close enough to each other so there's a possibility for real engagement. we're not just a bunch of people talking in microphones with a big space between us. the happy paradox of that room is that it is a grand room in which a very intimate process takes place. >> it is the kernel of a very grand building which has very intimate results for every american. >> the aura of the place is always present. this is the chamber were brown versus board of education was decided. this is the chamber were the big steel seizure case was decided. the most important case in history which decided presidential power was decided in that room by human beings sitting on the bench after having listened to argument by other human beings. >> most cases have an hour and a

-- per case, half hour per side. when you tell that to people, you think is that all? and other jurisdictions have more. a lot of it is laid out in writing. the lawyer is not sexeckeded and even if they expect to, they won't have a chance to give a speech. most of the argument is devoted to justices questions. >> it is very intense. that's what it is really like. you seated right next to the podium. you really just stand up and slide over a few inches. the first thing you have to say under court etiquette is mr. chief justice -- >> may it please the court. >> the 10th circuit in the case correctly held that stone could not share in the award given by the jury unless he was -- >> and then you have to -- you have a few sentences, usually that you have chosen to deliver the court but you will start getting questions usually within the first minute or two. >> each of the justices have

their own unique style about questioning. we have some people who like the rapid fire style, others who like to spin out long hypotheticals. >> i don't want legalism, i just want the conclusion. a minute has passed before he says yes. has that changed everything and it becomes lawfully? >> will you explain again why it was irrelevant whether the gun was operable or not? >> with the hypothetical, the government came in and said in order to run the hospital, you have to disclose certain facts, otherwise we're going to shut it down. >> it was the first time we learned what our colleagues think about a case. we don't sit down before argument and say this is how i view the case. we come to it cold as far as knowing what -- what everybody thinks. so through the questioning, we're learning for the first time what the other justices view -- how they view the case. that can alter how you view it right on the spot.

if you raise questions, you could look into that issue during the questioning a bit. it is a very dynamic and very exciting part of the job. >> there are nine people up there and we're talking. this is a conversation. i have no awareness of the courtroom, the people in the courtroom, any physical movements that may be going on. it is quite remarkable. >> my philosophy is to ask questions when i think the answer may give me help in deciding the case. i don't view the -- the participation of a justice as an opportunity for the justice to -- to advocate one point of view. i think rather, the questioning should -- be designed to help understand what the arguments on both sides are in order to enable the justice to reach a decision. >> to sit on the supreme court and listen to the questions of

your colleagues is somewhat until bling. the moment that i sat down and was able to look out at -- and see all of the people in the ought audance, that's probably the moment i will most intentionally remember. because there were lawyers who i have known for years sitting at the table in front of us ready to argue with you then watching the intensity of everyone's face and i forgotten how much people believe -- believe and know that they're affected by the court's decisions. every question i asked has a purpose. it has some importance to something that is troubling me or that i'm -- i'm curious about. >> as an attorney, i welcomed questions from the bench. i no e that some lawyers regard questions as an interruption in

a speech they're prepared to make. but -- an advocate wants to know what is on the judge's mind. so she will welcome questions as a way of satisfying the judge on the matter that might not resolve as well without -- without counsel's response. >> it is all about just fielding those questions and using the time strategically so you respond to the question. it is essential to answer the questions. you can't persuade a justice if you didn't answer what they have asked. >> they're very demanding, as they should be. that's their job. very challenging exercise. >> 2% critical mass? >> i don't think so. >> 4%? >> no. >> you have to pick a number. >> 8%? >> your honor. >> does it stop being a quota because it is somewhere between eight and 12 but it is a quota if it is 10.

>> a lot of people have the impress it is just a dog and pony show. what could somebody tell me in half an hour that going to blake a difference. and the answer is that it is probably quite rare, although not unheard of that oral argument will change my mind but it is quite common that guy in with my mind not made up. a lot of the cases have close and you go in on the edge. persuasive counsel can make the difference. >> i think one time they asked 56 questions in 30 minutes. it is a lot of questions. they interrupt each other even. >> had been my practice on the court of appeals to wait for the end of the lawyer's paragraph before interrupting with a question. here i learned if you do that or even if you in a hot case, if you -- wait until the end of the sentence you will never get a question in. you have to be -- you have to interrupt to -- to make your

voice heard. >> the argument is for us to say, yeah, we read the brief. we know what youing of the case, here are the questions that inspired this us. here are the concerns we have. here are the uncertainties that you left open. and use oral argument to do that. >> i view oral argument differently. i think it is an opportunity for -- the advocate, the lawyers, to fill in the blanks. i think it is hard to have a conversation when nobody is listening. when you can't complete sentence or answers. perhaps that's a e southern thing. i don't know. i think you should allow people to complete their answers and their thoughts and to continue their conversation. i find that coherence you get from a conversation far more helpful than the rapid fire question. i don't see how you can learn a

lot when there are 50 questions in an hour. >> one of the bad signs of an oral argument is when the questions stop. it means that ow you know, you either not persuaded them or they figured it out already and there's nothing more you could add. >> a white light will go on when you have five minutes remaining and when you're time is expired, a red light goes on. when the red light goes on, you're supposed to stop. >> it is an exciting part of the bross. and i'm going to learn what my colleagues think about a case that i have been studying for a long time, from the very first time. i'm going to hear what the lawyers have to say. it is an exciting day. >> sometimes i say to hymns myself, am i really there or am i dreaming? it is one of the most beautiful courtrooms in the world. >> there's a hush that comes over people as they walk in. there's a reference.

this is important space. people look up and they see around the top of the courtroom there's an extended panel of sculptural freese. there's four panels in the freese above the courtroom. the with one in the back of the story -- the story of battle of good versus evil. the center is justice. she's leaning on her sword. it is ready -- she's ready for action if needed to protect the forces of good from the forces of evil. among the forces of evil are despot i think power, and corruption. the forces of good on the other side are the defense of virtue and charity and peace. behind the justices is a figure of divine inspiration which showeding the scales of justice in her hands. out of that you have the procession of the great log

gives. it start with an egyptian pharaoh who was thought to be the best known. and then some of the ancient greek and romans. then the other side, you come into modern times and you got justinian known for the code and magna car that and finally the most recent one, napoleon. nobody -- most people wouldn't think he was known for the law. he was instrumental in creating the civil code which is used many european countries. it ends in the last figure where you have the majesty of law and power of government sitting on a thrown with the tablett of the 10 amendments to the constitution, the bill of rights right in the center. an american eagle spreading its wings there.

on the one side you have a group of citizens and they're protected by a lawyer or a judge. he's in a robe and holding a book of laws. on the other side, you have another group of citizens and there's a warrior in front of those. there's the authority of the law, but then you need to have these -- the strength to back up what the law needs to be enforced by. >> it is amazing when you walk in how fixed in time it is. even the two american flags, the flank the besm that they sit up hang perfectly still. the sproort is imbued in great tradition. we joke that the quilts they give to the oral advocates is how they would write their opinions. there's justice that is still write out in long hand on a legal pad rather than type at computers the way most people would do today.

>> the supreme court rich with traditions is also a very human institution. in a private room reserved for use bit justices, a newer custom takes place, following oral argument, once encureminged by its first female justice. [bell ringing] >> it is the beautiful room. very well furnished. but the food is not exactly pleasing. it comes from the public cafeteria. the justices eat the same things

that any visitor to the court might choose. >> you will be surprised bit high level. justice scalia once commented in his early years on the court, there was no justice with whom he disagreed more often than justice brennan. and yet, justice scalia considered justice brennan his best friend on the court at that time. he thought the feeling was reciprocated. >> this is a tradition eating lunch together that was pushed by justice o'connor when she was on the court. it su stuck. justice o'connor insisted we have lunch every day. now clarence, you should come to

lunch. she was really sweet but very persistent. i came to lunch. it was one of the best things i did. it is hard to be angry and bitter with someone and break bread and look them in the eye. it is a fun lunch. very little work gets done there. it is just not in people -- eight people, whoever shows up having a wonderful lunch together. it is wonderful. >> i try not to miss a postargument lunch because you never know what my colleagues will be talking about. >> usually in an argument day, most of the justices are there and -- in the dining room. it is the rule it there that we don't talk about the cases. my colleagues that go to the opera will talk about the opera. some will talk about the baseball game or the golf tournament. some will talk about a good movie they have seen or a good book they read. what -- something particularly interesting their family dos.

the kind of thing everybody would do at lunch with colleagues. off the main drining room is a smaller dining room known as the john marshall dining room. that's due to a sculpture that was placed there of john marshall, warren berger wanted to make that the theme of the room. the court had been donated a portrait of william marbury. he was the famous litigant in the case of marbury versus madison back this 18g03. chief justice burger said we need to get a companion portrait for that so the great litigants are on the wall literally of the small dining room. >> marbury madison is probably the most famous case this court ever decided. the idea of judicial review for constitutionality, i think is impoliceant in the constitutional document.

but john maral sha made it -- it explicit in the great case of marbury against madison. in all of the supreme court's history, there's no one case that says as much to a justice about what it is like to be the justice because marbury versus mad son is the embodiment of judicial review. there's no -- there's no quotation in all of the history of supreme court writing that justices prefer to repeat than the phrase which says, it is -- it is emphatically the power and the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is. that quote from john marshall in marbury versus madison. >> we call him the great chief. he really was the first person to take the job seriously. he really steapeded -- established the court in a prominent position as one of the three coequal branches of

government. the chief responsibility is to preside at oral argument and at the conferences where the justices vote on and decide the cases. that means i get to initiate the discussion and have some responsibility to make sure that all of the issues are adequately aired at conference. there's a change when the new chief justice is presiding at conference. each chief justice has his own way -- method of handling -- presiding. ed present chief justice is doing a great job. some virtues the others don't have. that pretty much follows the tradition been followed for many years. >> on the other hand, there's not much the chief justice can do. it is eight associate justices a lifetime job and the duty to hold up the constitution. he can't fire them. he got to get along with them. we have traditions which will

outlast any chief justice and so the chief justice comes to a court where there are these elements of stab belt and permanent protection. and we have our tradition. we have our oath. on the other hand, the chief justice that presides and steers us through the mechanics of hearing the cases on the calendar, by his -- by his personality and his warmth and decisiveness and his understanding of the law and of the institution, his colleagues can do a great deal to set the tone. >> when i got here, my colleagues were helpful in filling me n-on how things worked. often in contradictory ways. you do get a sense of what is expected in the process. and then you go in and do it and hold your breath and hope they all don't say at once, what are you talking about?

>> why are you doing that? >> and the real key is that my eighth colleagues were extraordinarily helpful in making me feel very comfortable. i mean, imagine, it is not just i was coming in as chief and the youngest among the bunch and many respects the least experienced as a judge but they had been together for 11 years. without any change. and you could easily imagine that would be difficult. but everyone of them -- every one of them i think went out of their way to make me feel comfortable in the process, for which i have 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. >> nobody can enter the room who is not a justice. and the secretary, the law clerk, and not even a message there. >> i can still remember when i set foot in the room and the

doors closed. it is pretty daunting, the first few times. that's where the actual work and the decision making takes place.

>> nine justices meet and begin the process of reaching the decision of the court. >> we sit at the conference

table in the same places every day. i sit at one end and then it wraps around the table in order of seniority. >> i can still remember the first time i set foot in the room and those doors closed. my goodness, it is -- it is pretty daunting the first few times. because that's where the actual work and the decision making takes place. >> we don't have any observers in the conference room. nobody can enter the room who is not a justice. no secretary, no law clerk. not even a message bearer. >> i have to be professional and accurate and fair and each of my colleagues feel the same way. we're designed to do that. the job is no good if you can't argue. >> i initiate the discussion for an argued case. i'll say this case is about this. the arguments are so-and-so and i think we should reverse or

affirm and here's why. sometimes in an easy case it will take a minute. in a hard case it'll take honger. >> one of the best rules and i think it is true for any group, the rule of the conference, is nobody speaks spes twice until everyone has spoken once. i was junior and it helped me. it is a good rule. everybody feels they have been heard. >> it is great to go first because you could tell the rest in -- in -- in a statement. what you think is the case. but when you're on the -- the end of that queue you do have a certain advantage that is you know what the others think. >> it is not really a exercise

in persuading each other. it is stating your views and you take notes. you take notes so if you get assigned to the opinion, you know how to write it in a way that will get four other votes besides your own. >> i was the most junior member of the court for 11 years. it was always when we had our conferences, it was -- no one else was in the room, i had the special job of opening the door in case somebody knocked. somebody knocked, usually they forgot a paper or coffee for justice scalia. i have been doing this for 0 years. i think i'm good at it, i said, i'm not sure. we get on very well. the nine of us do. >> who wants to be a part of a institution where everybody dislikes each other. it is one of the great things about the court right now is that even when people disagree and disagree sharply there are important questions, hard

questions that people have strong views on, but that they could understand that -- that everybody is trying to do the best they can and everybody is working really hard and everybody cares a lot about -- about the law and about -- about this country as well. >> i just finished my 18th term. i still haven't heard the first unkind word in that room. and you think what we decide. life and death, abortion, execution. war and peace. financial ruin. government relationship with citizens. you name it, we have decided it. >> those discussions lead the justice to conclude tentatively to affirm or reverse in their particular case. now that vote is not cast in

concrete. you're not walking on wet concrete yet. you can change your mind. >> it is not win or lose. reversal or affirm. it is what rationale you use. what principle you use to teach something. if -- if -- if the -- the case is close 5-4. let's say you're on the side that re-- prevails, the majority, there's not high-fives. there's a moment of quiet and respect. >> my most important responsibility is -- is the responsibility for assigning a --. is once the votes are in. you find -- if i'm in the majority, get to determine who will write the nine that case. that's an important responsibility. you want to make sure the assignment is given to the justice whose view commands the most support on the court. you want to make sure the work

gets done on time, so someone is slower than others, that person gets heavy assignments earlier on. some cases are more interesting than others. you want to make sure those are fairly distributed. some cases harder than others. want to make sure that's fairly distributed. we get all sorts of different issues. you want to make sure that each justice has a nice mix. not one justice just doing criminal cases or something like that. a lot of factors go into that decision. it is a very important part of it. >> when we get through, sometimes they send coffee in and a sweet roll or cookies or something. >> as the opinion writing assignments are handed out, a room exists upstairs in the supreme court which helps the justices and their staff consult precedent, through the words written in the countless legal volumes housed here. a room filled with not only books but the symbolism of the great law givers and admired by those that enter into the

grandeur. >> if they want to be the most beautiful room in washington, they ought to go to the library on the third floor that nobody hardly sees today. that is -- that's not so much roman classism as renee classism but it is a wreth takingly beautiful room. -- breath takingly beautiful room. >> the library, probably one of the most special places in the building. we met the archwayses in the library represent science, law, industry. ♪ >> there are shield that is are directly above the archways. those represent various printer

symbols. >> when i was clerking i spent a lot of time in the library. it was a gorgeous library. you wouldn't go there to read supreme court cases because those would be in our own chambers, but when looking for secondary materials of different kinds, we would go to the library and work with the librarians. it was a wonderful place to work. it was also a quiet place to work. >> the library is one of the special rooms in the building. unfortunately it doesn't get used as much as it was when the building was first opened. that goes back to the way the court changed the way it does things. when the court first moved into the building in 1935, they would literally call the docket each day in court. you didn't know which case was necessarily going to be argued that day. you had an idea but a lot of attorneys had to be on -- onsite, because if the case came

up they needed to be ready to argue. you have the lawyer's lounge which is where they stay. it is why you have the magnificent reading room in the library. this is used for the members of the bar and the court staff only. >> there have been a few times when i had -- to use material from so many cases that we occupied two or three of those tables, leaving the books out, so that the law clerks and i could go up there and sit up in the reading room and actually refer to all of those passages in the preparation of the opinion. >> with precedence and cases researched, in quiet chambers below this library, justices go about the process of writing the opinions, both majority and dissenting that eventually make their way to the public as the final decisions of the court. >> it is an ongoing process, you write a first draft the. you figure out i need to know more about how this case fits in. you read the case.

you're going back and looking at the briefs and bringing the law clerks in and bouncing ideas off them. what is wrong with it, it is a continuation of the oral argument process. >> deciding your view of the case itself is terribly challenging. some of the issues a really tough. some are not. some are clear-cut. but some are enormously challenging. some cause you to want to wait yourself until you see other views expressed before being firm in your own view. it is a help to see it in writing when you have to write to put it down in words rather than just think it through. it is -- it is a real challenge. >> we have to convince ourselves, when i sit down and write a opinion, the first thing got to do is convince myself. a lot goes in the waste basket. and then you have to convince others. so, i -- again this court

reminds you of the fact that you have this job to do. >> the way we write something out, you sometimes learn things about the case that you -- you didn't fully appreciate and understand before. and there have been -- more than one case in which i have changed my views when i was writing the opinion . >> as i have often put it, i do not enjoy writing. i enjoy having written. i find writing a difficult process. i sweat -- i sweat over it. i rewrite and rewrite again. >> before the opinion goes out, the law clerks say, it is going out this afternoon, you want to read it one last time? yeah. i guarantee you every time i read it, i will change something else. so finally has to be rested from my grasp and sent down to the printer. >> i usually spend two or three drafts, pretty much from scratch before i'm reasonably satisfied we're going somewhere and thip

we edit them back and forth and after that, i circulate it and hope four other judges join. if so, i have the court. we realize that one of us will have to write out a decision which teaches and gives reasons for what we do. the point of yig an opinion is to command allegiance to the result. we no army. we have no budget. we do not -- have -- have press conferences and we don't give speeches saying how wonderful this was and how bad the majority. we don't do that. we're judged by what we write. >> i would like my opinions to be -- as clear as possible. i would like people to pick them up and understand them. i like them to be as thoughtful as possible. i would like to write the kind of opinions which really do

address the competing arguments, don't try to sweep competing arguments under the rug and try to -- to address them fairly and for the rightly. >> now, what if theer. assigned to write for the majority opinion circulates a opinion draft? then the other -- eight have a chance to weigh in. and normally they start acting within a day or two. they'll read it and say, dear, sandra, i join. or dear sandra, i'll wait for the dissent. or dear sandra, i want to give more thought to this before i act or dear sandra, if you will change a, b and c, i would join. it is something like that that happens. if there's a dissenting opinion to be written often people will wait and look at the dissent before casting their vote. now, once the dissent circulates, it could be so

powerful that it causes someone who -- who tentatively had been with the majority to change their view to some extent. so, all of this -- the details are worked out not around the conference table. it is in the writing of the opinions. -- that the persuasion takes place. >> let's say i would go the same direction but i would go 80 yards. the majority only wants to go 60 and 60 would decide the case too. i where the opinion to go 60. and not say anything about i would also go the other 20 yards. now if i were writing a concurrence or dissent on my own, i would write the opinion in a way reflects that i would go 80. we're going the same way, i could not write an opinion that went -- in the -- in a direction that was different from what i actually thought with -- we

should go. >> the dissents are rigorous. and -- they don't pull punches. i think it ultimately improves the quality of the majority opinion but it is -- it is -- it is something you have to anticipate. >> dissents are more fun to write. i got to say that. when you have the dissent, it is yours. you say what you want. if somebody doesn't want to join, who cares? you don't want to join, fine. this is what i want to say. when you're writing majority, you don't have the luxury. you have to craft it in a way that at least four other people can jump on and actually, you try to craft it in a way that as many people as possible will jump on. which means accepting some suggestions, stylistic and otherwise that really you don't think is the best but are the best -- but nonetheless, you know -- in order to get everybody on board, you take them. >> if you're just starting out and someone says, i like you to change this or that, you're

going to be very receptive and you got eight votes and the ninth comes in. you often say, you know -- >> not quite go fly a kite but you know, the fifth vote is more critical one. you're more susceptible at making changes than the ninth vote. the job is to get to it. we're not hearing -- hear to spin out theory. we're not producing works that will never see the light of day. we're here to decide things, the job is to decide, we decide. >> united states. justice alito has the attention of the court this morning. >> this is our moment because grab the copies of the opinions and go rushing through. the guy from reuters is always the most pushy to get through because he wants to get on the wire service. you better get out of his way. the rest of us dictate or write. >> you remain -- with the issues on monday. >> here.

>> the supreme court public information office simply says, here is the material, make of it what you will. we will make sure that you have the material and that's -- and that's an enormously invaluable function. it is also very nice not to have the sense that somebody is trying to spin you. >> ier. ly do go up and want to hear the opinion announced from the bench. i like the pageantry of that. i like to hear the justice himself or herself announce what is in the opinion. then i race down the stairs 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 the internet site. readers really want to know as soon as possible what the court ruled and potentially what that might mean. >> a lot of people say, it is a very secretive institution. no, it isn't. >> it is an institution that virtually, it does most of its work in the open. and -- as they like to say, the work comes in the front door and goes out the front door.

you're a few steps away from the courtroom. >> near the courtroom are two rooms used by the justices to occasionally speak to the public as well. from thur good marshall's retirement announcement to events with other justices over time, one can get a glim position into the workings of the court and life here. it is the private view of the orrinately decorated east and west conference rooms and their portraits of past chief justices that ep hads one snand the -- understand the history of the court. >> the east conference room we have the first eight justices portraits. you could go in and talk about the portrait of john j, the first chief justice and how he came to the court appointed by george washington and then he gets elected to be governor of new york and decides that -- that is a better job of being chief justice of the united states. he rae signs and becomes governor of new york. then you have a beautiful

portrait of john marshall. here's the chief justice himself in a grnd portrait similar to the one of george washington in the capital building. and there's a chance to talk about john marshall to let people know his story and that -- that carries through over into the west conference room with the more modern justices, where you have 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 conference rooms because the portraits on the walls are all my predecessors as chief justice. to some extent you look up at them on the walls with a degree of awe and appreciation for what they been through. and they're probably looking down at me with -- with either beamusement or amazement. each of them has a special story to tell, not only personally but with -- with the institution of the court.

you look up at marshall and appreciate the importance for him of having the court function as a court. moving the court from a situation where each justice wrote his own opinion and instead saying, no we're going to have a opinion of the court which was -- vital in a -- in establishing the court and its -- in its present form. right next to roger tawny the most unfortunate of my predecessors, the author of the scott decision and he saw this great problem of slavery. he was going to solve it. this is how he was going to solve it and tremendously misguided and injured the court for generations to come. that helps inform how you look at your own job. you walk down further and you see morrisonn. he had a thousand haurs and law professors and if you said who is morrisonn wait, only a couple would know. that's a good lesson. the job doesn't give you a brom nent role or historical significance just because you hold the job. you look at melville fuller and

his role of making sure the court functioned collegially. then you see hughes and recall his vital role. you think about the importance of the independence of the judiciary. things like that. >> from time to time, i find it a useful -- a useful reminder of the role of the court and the role of the chief justice. >> as time moves forward, this building will remain timeless. the work fert institution inside will still be tied to past precedence and trade i guess. but in many other ways, it is a forever changing place, defined by the human piece serving there as justices. all trying to interpret a document over 200 years old in the context of an ever changing world. >> you really can't judge judges. unless you know the materials that they're working with.

you can't say, oh, this is a -- this is a good decision and this was a good court, simply because you liked the result. it seems to you that the person that deserved to win won. that's not the business judges are in. >> we don't get it right all the time. this is -- this is a -- a human institution and it has the -- has the same susceptibility to error as every other human institution has. >> we had 300 million people, probably 900 million points of view. i mean, people in this countries don't agree about a lot of things. and despite enormous disagreement, they have decided to resolve their differences under law. what i do -- >> what i do get a fulfillment from is living up to the oath to do it the right way. and to know that on behalf of my fellow citizens, i have tried to be faithful to their

constitution, to our constitution. >> when -- what i see i think has been very inspiring because i think you have nine people who are working really hard and who are trying the best they're able to do something really important in this country. scrining the most important thing for the public to understand is that we're not a political branch of government. they don't elect us. if they don't like what we're doing, it is more or less just too bad, other than impeachment which is has never happened or conviction on impeachment never happened in the court. they need to understand when we reach a decision, it is based on the law and not a policy preference. >> we have the constitution and the laws, i think they immediate something. they don't necessarily mean what i want them to mean in every instance, they mean something and i think the people of the united states trust us to -- to interpret and apply those laws fairly and even handedly and objectively and that's the great

responsibility that we have. >> the supreme court has been respected by the american people. i think it has been one of the stutions -- institutions of government that is most respected, so it isn't size that makes the grandeur or the specialness of the place, it is what it symbolizes and what goes on here that makes it special. and it is. ♪

>> the supreme court home to america's highest court is one of three original documentarys from c-span included in our american icons d.v.d. collection. get your copy for $24.95. [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2011] [captions performed by the national captioning institute] . . >> calm in a time of anger and leadership in a 2kwr50eu78 of uncertainty. that's what the nation asks of the united states senate. that's what this office demands of each who serve here. sforche farewell speeches and hear from retiring senators on the c-span video line prairie.