court and expect to be treated fairly. >> i do not want legalism. i just want the conclusion. and in a moment, the justices and the one hour at that can sway them on cases that come before the court. >> is the first time that we learn about our colleagues think about the case. >> is 8%? >> these cases are very close and you go in on a knife's edge. persuasive council can make the difference. >> the supreme court -- home to america's highest court as one of three original documentary from c-span included in our american icons to keep -- dvd collection. if your copy for $24.95 for more information about the supreme court, including a virtual tour of the building, the justices in

their own words, a photo gallery and the construction of the supreme court building, and an interactive timeline on the history of the court, go to c- span.org/supremecourt. in the c-span network. we provide coverage of politics, nonfiction books, in american history. it is all available to you on television, radio, on one, and on social media networking sites. find our content any time forsees bands video library. we take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local content vehicles. bringing our resources to your community. it is washington your way. the c-span network -- now available in more than 100 million homes, created as cable, provided as a public service. >> we return now to see -- this feature documentary. >> the supreme court hears cases written between 8100

cases between 18th and 100 -- 80 and 100 cases inside this building that was opened in 1935 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 counsel, if you haven't met them before. it is friendly. 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 pas and attempt to tell jokes during their oral arguments and not refer to their familiarity with one of the justices. 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 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 or aspirin or anything they may need. the feedback 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 bell or buzzer is sounded in each chamber of a justice, about 10 minutes ahead, 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 justice's robes or robes are hung and your judicial collar, 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 impart to the people who come here is the significance, the importance of 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 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 a -- a personal agenda but one that has a constitutional importance. -- institutional importance. and that that constitutional -- institutional 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 collegial body. you may be temporarily miffed because you received a spike in a pending opinion from a -- a spicy dissenting opinion from maina colleague but when we go o 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 enter the back of the courtroom and they divide three justices on the left, three in the middle and three on the right. >> the honorable, the chief justice and the associate justices of the supreme court of the united states. oyez! oyez! oyez!

all persons having business before the honorable, the supreme court of the united states, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the court is now sitting. god save the united states and this honorable court! >> one of the amazing things about the courtroom despite its splendor is the intimacy of it. on the one hand, it is not that big a room but the real intimacy comes in the relationship between the lawyer who is 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 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 where brown v. 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, they think, is that all? and other jurisdictions have more. a lot of it is laid out in writing. the lawyer does not expect it 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 are 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 is the first time we learn 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 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. -- and i am with them 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 participation of a justice as an opportunity for the justice 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 humbling. the moment that i sat down and was able to look out and see all of the people in the audience, that's probably the moment i will most intensely 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 ask has a purpose. it has some importance to something that is troubling me or that i'm curious about. >> as an attorney, i welcomed questions from the bench. i know 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 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 8% and 12% but it is a quota if it is 10%? >> a lot of people have the impression it is just a dog and pony show. what could somebody tell me in half an hour that going to make 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 i come in with my mind not made up. a lot of the cases are close and you go in on the knife's 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. >> it 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 are in a hot case, if you wait until the end

of the sentence you will never get a question in. you have to interrupt to make your voice heard. >> the argument is for us to say, yeah, we read the brief. we know what you think of the case, here are the questions that inspired in 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 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 you know, you have 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 your 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 process. 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 myself, am i really there or am i dreaming? it is one of the most beautiful

courtrooms in the world. comesre's a hush that over people as they walk in. there's a reverence. this is important space. people look up and they see around the top of the courtroom there's an extended panel of sculptural frieze. there's four panels in the frieze above the courtroom. the one in the back of the court -- the story of battle of good versus evil. in the center is justice. she's leaning on her sword. 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. -- despotic power, slander, 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 showed the scales of justice in her hands. out of that you have the procession of the great lawgivers. it start with menes, an egyptian pharaoh who was thought to be the best known. -- the earliest lawgiver known in mankind. then you have moses holding the 10 commandments. octavian --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 king john with the magna carta that and finally the most recent one, napoleon. most people wouldn't think he was known for the law. he was instrumental in creating the civil code which is used in 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 tablet 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 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 bench that they sit up hang perfectly still. the supreme court is imbued in great tradition. we joke that the quills they give to the oral advocates is how they would write their opinions. there are justices that still write out in longhand 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 by justices, a newer custom takes place, following oral argument, one encouraged by its first female justice. [bell ringing] >> it is a beautiful room. very well furnished. but the food is not exactly

pleasing. -- haute cuisine. it comes from the public cafeteria. the justices eat the same things that any visitor to the court might choose. >> you will be surprised by the high level of collegiality. 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 just 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 eight people, whoever shows up having a wonderful lunch together. it is wonderful. >> i try not to miss a post argument lunch because you never know what my colleagues will be talking about. >> usually in an argument day, most of the justices are there 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. something particularly interesting their family dos. the kind of thing everybody would do at lunch with colleagues. >> off the main dining 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 v. madison back in 1803. 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 v. madison is probably the most famous case this court ever decided.

the idea of judicial review for constitutionality, i think is implicit in the constitutional document. but john marshall made 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 v. madison 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 emphatically the power and the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is. that quote from john marshall in marbury v. madison. >> we call him the great chief. he really was the first person

to take the job seriously. he really established the court in a prominent position as one of the three coequal branches of government. the chief justice's 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 method of presiding. the present chief justice is doing a great job. he has 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 established. 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 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 in 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 eight 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 every one 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, we will 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. >> for more information about the supreme court, including a virtual tour of the building, the justices in the wrong words, a photo gallery on the construction of the building, and an interactive timeline, go to c-span.org/supremecourt. this is one of three original documentary from c-span, included in the american icons dvd collection. get your copy for $24.95 and

shipping and handling. order at c-span.org/store. >> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning, it is "washington journal," of poland program about the news of the day. during the week, watched the u.s. house in our continuing coverage to the transition to the news conference -- the new congress. also, supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends coming to consider signature interview programs. you can also watch our programming anytime at c-span and it is all searchable of our c-span video library. c-span, washington your way. a public service created>> we 'e

documentary. >> in the most private and important place of the supreme court, they meet together our round table in the conference room. >> nine justices meet and begin 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 longer. >> one of the best rules and i think it is true for any group, the rule of the conference, is nobody speaks 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 a statement. what you think is the case. but when you're on the end of that queue you do have a certain advantage that is you know what the others think. >> it is not really an 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 an 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 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 prevails, the majority, there's not high-fives. there's a moment of quiet and

respect. >> my most important responsibility 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 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 are harder than others. you 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 lawgivers 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 breathtakingly beautiful room. >> the library, probably one of the most special places in the building.

the archways in the library represent science, law, industry. >> there are shields that 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 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. 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 are 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 a real challenge. >> we have to convince ourselves, when i sit down and write an opinion, the first thing i have got to do is convince myself. a lot goes in the waste basket. and then you have to convince others. 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 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 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 it finally has to be wrested 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 then 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 giving an opinion is to command allegiance to the result. we have no army. we have no budget.

we do not 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 address them fairly and for the rightly. >> now, what if they're assigned to write for the majority opinion circulates an 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 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 write 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 a direction that was different from what i actually thought 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 something you have to anticipate. >> dissents are more fun to write. i have 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 would 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. i had to 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 thurgood marshall's retirement announcement to events with other justices over time, one can get a glimpse into the workings of the court and life here. it is the private view of the ornately decorated east and west conference rooms and their portraits of past chief justices that enhances one's understanding 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 jay, 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 is a better job than being chief justice of the united states. he resigns and becomes governor of new york. then you have a beautiful portrait of john marshall. here's the chief justice himself in a grand portrait similar to the one of george washington in the capitol building. and there's a chance to talk about john marshall to let people know his story and 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 either bemusement or amazement. each of them has a special story to tell, not only personally but 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 an opinion of the court which was vital in establishing the court in its present form. right next to roger taney 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 it was 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 morrison. he had a thousand lawyers and law professors and if you said who morrison wait is, only a couple would know. that's a good lesson. the job doesn't give you a prominent 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 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 from the institution inside will still be tied to past precedence and tradition. 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 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 a human institution and it has the same susceptibility to error as every other human institution has. >> we have 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 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. >> 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. >> i think 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 mean 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 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 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

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> the supreme court, home to america's highest court is one of three original documentaries from c-span included in our american icons d.v.d. collection. get your copy for $24.95. for more of information about the supreme court including a tour of the building, the justices in their own words, a photo gallery, an interactive timeline of the history of the court, go to c- span.org/supremecourt. >> next, a conversation with peter knowles of the bbc parliament channel. then a conversation on state homeland security in the united states.

>> security in the time of pettiness. leadership in a time of uncertainty. that is what we ask of the united states senate and that is what this office demands of each of you. >> here farewell speeches and hear from retiring senators with every c-span program since 1987, more than 60,000 hours, all online, all free. it is washington your way. >> next, a look at the television channel in britain that is comparable to c-span. the bbc parliament channel oversees coverage of the house of commons, the house of lords, and several legislative bodies overseeing northern ireland and the house of wales. it's website offers eight channels of video from legislative sessions and

committee actions. to explain it all, we talked to peter knowles. this is 35 minutes. >> the bbc parliament channel is modeled after c-span. it was run by the cable companies. they did not profit the way they did in the united states. they dropped out and bbc took it over. it is eight or nine different channels in the u.k. that the bbc runs. >> in the beginning, who ran it and who controlled it? >> the cable company owned it and ran it. there were quite a number of

strict understandings with parliament as to how it would operate. many of them make sense. >> was an insult to the bbc or did they just take it over? >> the analog cable licenses simply handed it over from the cable companies to the bbc. analog cable hardly exists in the uk. the audience has transferred to satellite and digital cable. >> who controls this audience? >> there is a small team based just across the river in westminster. it is part of bbc news. the mandarin team that produces a great number of programs and a court news channel and a bbc parliament. we have a bbc license fee, just like the other channels.

>> how many people work for you? >> it is shockingly small, 14 journalists including two in brussels. we do have a great deal of technical staff and journalism going on in the rest of bbc. we will take programs going on on the rest of bbc and show them differently. >> how much programming do you do? is it a 24 hours a day, seven days a week network? >> it -- between the night hours between midnight and 6:00 a.m. is rarely that we will show anything that is new. the rest is all original output. it is on every day of the year. in august and in christmas, we are showing best of programs

that bear repeat viewing. >> how many outside cameras do you own or take to of events? >> the simplest of event is a speech. we will only take one and work with that. we will take three or four cameras, a laptop mixing desk, to more complex events. the meeting of the church of england, which we cover in a limited way, we will take several cameras to that. >> parliament for the church of england? >> it passes laws. it is church law rather than state law. the queen and attends it once every five years. we chose to give it some coverage. there are a lot of issues going through that. women priests, women bishops,

all sorts of issues with the relationship with rome. >> how much control does the government have over the church? >> virtually none. there used to be a system whereby the prime minister put forward and approved the name of the archbishop's. -- archbishops. that is gone. >> are members of the clergy also a member of the house of lords? >> a number of bishops are members of the house of lords. it is an interesting -- and dimension to house of lords reform. we could be for the very first time in history be taking the church out of politics. people disagree that bishops

should be a part of the lawmaking body. >> 20 years at the network. did the parliamentary channel start in 1989? were there a couple of years? >> i came on nine years ago. >> what were you doing? >> i was the assistant editor for television news. that was a major part of the news room. before that, i was the news editor for bbc world. >> how long have you worked for bbc? >> 25 years. >> can you describe the organization? >> it is more than 2 billion. >> 2 billion pounds, which would be more than $3 billion. >> more than 20,000 in staff. it runs a whole range of tv and radio networks in the u.k. and international networks. it is a big organization. in some areas in radio, it is

quite dominant in the u.k. >> what is your relationship to the bbc parliamentary channel to be members of the house of parliament and the house of lords? how much do they say over what you do? >> they have no formal role. if they want to talk to us about what they're doing, that has never been a problem. we are regulated at exactly the same as all of the other networks. we are not regulated by parliament, but a regulatory body. when we talk to them, it is not on the basis of following their instructions. >> how restrictive does this government go when it comes to the media? in our country, we have something called the first amendment. do you have anything like that in great britain?

>> no equivalent. freedom of information is quite recent. it has changed the landscape dramatically in terms of the ability for journalists to find out difficult facts of public life. that is what led to the crisis of the members of parliament over expenses when their expenses were poured over. people were astonished to see what was going on. >> what about the regulatory agency? do you have a contract with anybody? >> the principal means of regulation is with bbc trust, which is independent of the bbc, even though it has bbc in its title. i agree with them each year a contract in terms of an hours, the kind of output, in real

detail, of the amount of committee coverage that we do. we have to stick to that. that is a very precise document, publicly available. that is the principal means by which we are governed. >> do you change every day what you are covering or do you go along with this contract? >> normally, we would always be covering the house of commons live. we would be showing the house of lords the next day. just last week, there was a day when the house of commons business was not especially interesting or important and the house of lords was debating the census review, which has a dramatic impact on the defense in the u.k. taking part in it were former

defense chiefs. i said that was so much more important than the house of commons. i wrote to the house of commons to say that is what we were doing. quite a bit of interest lies in that. we commissioned the coverage out of them out of 30 or 40 committees a week. >> does your contract say that you are going to cover x numbers of hearings or x hours of hearings. >> 10 hours is the minimum. the committees are as fascinating as they are in washington. we showed them friday, saturday, sunday evenings. all of the other commitments, crowd around a couple of hours. we have developed a big website with a to video streams. that allows us to do much more coverage of the committees.

>> i want to come back to that. go to the floor of the house of commons and the house of lords. how many cameras? >> 8 in the house of commons and six in the house of lords. an independent company controls them. the rules of coverage are controlled by a parliamentary official, not by me. >> one of the things that you notice watching the house of commons or lords is reaction shots, which you do not have in the house of representatives in the united states. they will switch the picture to somebody listening. who sets that? how this is it. -- loose is it?

>> i do not believe the rules have changed, but the interpretation of the rules has changed by miles. the house of stories have been happy over the years to relax so that you can watch people listening. why that matters is that without it, the pictures are dead. you have no sense of the atmosphere. it is one person reading out loud. you have no sense of it. you have to see the shots to get a feel for the place. it is what you expect when you are watching any kind of broadcast or debate. over time, the house authorities here have realized that they will get a better hearing if the people see what they're doing in a more realistic way. this probably did not happen in

the first few years. the last 10 years, each year has gotten a little bit better. it almost feels like you are given the shots that you would hope to see if you had free range. >> if and member of parliament, you have 646 members, is upset about something they're seeing on the parliamentary channel, who can they call and complain? >> they call me. they get my direct line and string me up. people seem to accept the terms under which we work. they hope that we're doing it fairly and with good intent. >> if somebody does not like a shot from the house of lords or house of commons, who do they complain to? >> they would usually complain

to me. to be honest, they have usually been on our side of the argument. for the rules to change and be used in a more relaxed way. they do not want to look as though they are in a photo booth. they want to look like they're taking part in a proper debate. on the whole, this has been very encouraging for the continued relaxation. >> in our situation, c-span is not government and neither is the bbc. you get your money from where? >> from the public. if you open -- you -- if own a television set, you have to pay a license of 140 pounds every year. >> in our case, it would be close to $300.

is that her home or individual? >> per home. >> if i am an elected member of parliament and i am upset about the camera angle, who can i go to under law? the speaker of the house can just direct that it be done. they work directly for the speaker. can a party leader call up somebody and say, change that angle? >> the only issues i could imagine are rising is if somebody has been caught in shot making faces or having a private conversation that was not meant to be seen. these issues do not really occur. there were lots of fears on the how badthe mp's about

television would be for them and very strict rules at first. they can see and we can see a more relaxed view of coverage. we have been helped that the house of lords has always been pushing first for relaxation of the rules. they have been helpful. most of the things we have been doing has been different overtime. >> does every session in the house of commons and the house of lords find its way to the parliamentary channel? >> in full. >> what is of interest to you in this as compared to what you have done in the past? >> it is a complementary activity towards news journalists. people do need this access. we are not restricted to that. we are making a lot of editorial

choices as well. i am in charge of all aspects of this. you can have a channel that is yours and it is a tremendous privilege. we make a lot of editorial choices about the events outside the parliament that we cover. and what you give prominence to and what you put in primetime and which hearings that you cover. which parliaments that you cover. the irish have a major budget debate coming up. if possible, it probably would clash with the house of commons and i would not be able to. i will find some slot for it instead. it is fun finding a way around those issues. >> what do you know about your audience?

>> we have two kinds of audience. we have the audience at home and it is like the nielsen ratings. we have been on average reaching 1.8 million. that is people. that audience is an older audience that tends to be over 50. it strongly tends to be male. it is people watching the daytime that may be retired or semi-retired that care about politics. it is a very different offering to the rest of daytime television. what we do not about -- know about is the audience watching in offices. that is probably younger, more professional, probably more equally mixed male, female.

>> where are you from in the united kingdom? >> it is near manchester. it is 200 miles to the northwest. >> what kind of family did you grow up in? >> we grew up in a family that was very against color television. my family -- my father did not believe that it would take off. probably one of the last household in the uk to get digital television. i do not think my family know a huge amount about what i do in this world. >> who is alive and in your family? >> my mother and father. >> you either live on the scottish island that or you lived in bolten. how many choices do you have

about where you get television in the home? >> 3 or 4 if you are on analog television. all of those have been switched off one by one or around the country. more than 90% have got a digital television, which is a choice of 18 or more channels. >> is their way -- a way to describe the difference between analog and digital television? >> catalog is using wave form. digital is pumping it out as a bunch of digits. on digital television, you can pump out a huge number of channels. on analog you are restricted to four or five. >> because it costs money or is it free? >> it is free, but you have to buy a new box to receive it.

that is not a hurdle. >> other than the year the bbc fee, is there any other yearly cost to television? >> no, unless you get satellite television from sky. their subscription fees are much higher, but then you are getting exclusive sports rights and stuff like that. >> that is owned by rupert murdoch. >> news corp. >> how many channels does sky have? >> it is a great many. a lot of movie channels, a lot of sports channels. >> the do you have any idea what percentage of brits take the sky channel? >> it is quite substantial. maybe two to one over watching

satellites. the proportions of watching news keep changing. >> what happened to cable television in great britain? >> it trickled. it was very expensive. the trees were being damaged when the cables were being put in. i have cable at home. it is not the most commonly used format. >> are you on all of the formats? do you have any idea how many homes you go to? >> probably about 90% of 25 million households. 1.8 million average reached this year. it is small, but it is very good for a news channel. >> 25 million homes in great britain.

about 18 million homes in the united states. 310 million people in the united states. go back to your start in life in bolten. what kind of education did you need? >> i studied english. i got work experience for a variety of different things. i got experience working in the news room. i was in the north of england. i got my first job as a local reporter in the north of england. then i joined the bbc as a trainee. >> what did your mom and dad do? >> my father worked for the bbc as eight journalist. his passion was for the trade union. that is where he put all of his energy. he is a life member of the union. my mother is a teacher.

>> if you are passionate about a trade union, what does that mean in this country? >> i do not know it is so different than the states. >> in the states, the unions have about 12 million memberships out of a lot more. what is the membership in this country? >> i could not give you the numbers. it is a high number of people working in the public services, much more than the private sector. the unions are still important and powerful. you see england in the next few days will have big demonstrations because of the cuts to public spending that are coming up. >> where do journalists said in respect in society? in america, they are weighed down right now. >> there is a very clear distinction in public service

between what people think of newspaper journalism and broadcast journalism. broadcast journalism has a lot of trust in it. i am not making any special claim to the bbc over commercial news rooms. people buy in great numbers the more lurid newspapers. they do not necessarily believe what they read. >> go back to the bbc parliamentary channel. any advertising? >>no. do you have to -- >> do you have to get those ratings or do you just get them because you want them? >> i am fascinated by them. there is no pressure on that. one of the most important things about our audience is that it is driven by the level of interest in politics.

i am not deciding the outcome of the next election. the more interest in politics, the more people will come to this channel. >> you mentioned the web, the internet, and the multiple channels that you called democracy live. >> we have been worried for quite some time that we have not been able to properly reflect the democratic settlement in the u.k. we have two parliamentary channels in westchester. we have the european parliament in brussels and strasbourg. we have one tv channel and c- span has got three. we have a web site with eight video streams. that allows us to cover at the same time all of those. it gives us the space to also select committee hearings to be

running at the same time. across a single home page screen, you can begin to see the relationship between all of these parliaments and assemblies. that is the first time it has been possible. it is quite the feet to have eight video streams running in the same box on the same screen. it is very difficult to navigate your way around this material, to know who said what about what. you have to be an expert researcher to find your way. the democracy live has an incredibly clever search mechanism that will take you to the exact moment in video where somebody has spoken a word in a debate. that is so valuable. a lot of people are using it and

finding that it has changed the way that they work. >> can people in the united states get on this web site? >> it is available everywhere. it is bbc dot com/ -- bbc.co/uk/democracylive. >> what about the different hearings and all and the lords and the common stocks are their choices at any time or do you just click on the screens? >> when one of those is not in session, then we will have chosen a hearing or a debate or a statement that is important that is available on demand. there are times when the lines

are open and it is great. >> how do you do that and is that your responsibility? >> we have teams in london. they are driving their part of the site. they have all of the local knowledge. >> do they work for you or the bbc? >> there are under our umbrella. >> is there a requirement under the law in scotland and ireland and those places that the bbc must televise what is going on there? what do they do? >> these departments and assemblies are quite powerful. we would not be telling the story if we did not. >> why are they getting more powerful? >> over time, they are getting more and more lawmaking powers. the scottish parliament started off powerful and in control of

most aspects of policy in scotland. northern ireland and wales are beginning to look at increasing their powers. >> do either of those bodies have tax raising ability? >> no. the scottish parliament has that, but to a small degree. >> what is your view, having bent in this business for 25 years, what has happened in great britain with all of these new channels, there are 80 in almost everyone's home, there are hundreds in others. what has the impact ben on bbc? >> they still get big audiences. it is still possible if you put on a good drama to get audiences in the millions. serious news programs still get

huge audiences. what i think is great is that bbc parliament as an example, but there are others. there are genuinely more choices and people can pursue their interests much more easily. >> if there is one thing that i have noticed that is very different than american television, especially on bbc, the news channel, whenever you are watching it, there is a person standing there doing sign language. prominent on our screen. we have the closed-captioned. we usually have somebody in the lower right-hand corner or the left hand corner. who is requiring that? >> that is a regulatory body. the office of communications. >> the federal communications commission. >> the i