stevens, you have a book called "5 chiefs." why? >> it is about the chief justice of the united states. i have that personal contact with the most recent five. they are the five to whom the title refers. >> let me put a slide that shows these by the names and the times -- these five names and the times that they were serving. this starts with fred vinson. nominated by president truman. he served seven years. earl warren served 15.5 years. warren burger, 17 years. john roberts, 6 years. starting with fred vinson.

what did you write about him? >> two parts. i have not taken a second look at it recently, as i mentioned to you. there is the discussion of his appointment and about his work. partly through the observations of one of his former law clerks, our third cedar, who was a classmate of mine in high- school and remains a very good friend. we were born from the same days. we have a lot of reasons to be friends. this save me some things in the book. it the second source was the year ahead when i was working for justice rutledge.

i had some chances to come in contact with chief justice vinson during that. i speak about those i have personal contact with and some of the opinions he wrote, particularly the year i was a clerk. >> what year did you clerk at the court? >> october 1949. -- the october 1947 term. i said sometime in september of '47. i was there until june or early july of 1948. >> that year you were there, what did you take away? >> i took away a lot. a wonderful experience, as other former law clerks can tell you. i do not cover all of this in the book, but i took away some wonderful friendships with

those in other chambers. i learned a lot about the law and working at the supreme court. things are still pretty much the same. it was a very rewarding professional experience. >> how did you get that clerkship? >> that is a long story, too. the congress authorized a second clerkship. it was the summer of 1947. if i remember correctly. justice rutledge decided to hire a second clerk. he was approached by two members of the faculty in northwestern. he had worked for vinson when he was a court of appeals judge. he was a court of appeals judge. they persuaded both simpson and

rutledge to take the advantage of the opportunity to hire a new clerk, pursuant to the statute. they persuaded them that two northwestern graduates could be well qualified. the two that were qualified were my good friend art and i. they thought both of us were qualified. and so they, later in the spring, they had a meeting with us at northwestern and told us that they thought the two clerks hips were certainly available.

they were not sure which one should go for which the job. they suggested they would like us to make that decision. as it turned out, the clerkship with rutledge was available the following year and the one with vinson the following year. we both felt we were ancient citizens because we had experience in the war and we or older than we thought other graduates might have been before the war. we were both anxious to get into the professional world, and the rutledge, we thought it might be better job. we flipped a coin. i won the coin flip. i had the privilege of getting i had the privilege of getting started with justice rutledge . after the coin flipping and the decision, we still had to get

the job. both professors and other members of the faculty supported our applications and persuaded the justices that we were indeed qualified. >> did you have him in class? >> i took labor law from him. >> i took labor law from him. >> your friend art seder, is he still alive? >> yes. >> you have lived a long time. 91 years? >> yes. art and i were born on the same day. >> what have you to done that has kept you alive? >> well, we worked hard. we have exercised. we have good advice from our respective spouses. we have had interesting lives and happy lives. that makes a big difference, to

o. >> where does he live now? >> charlottesville, virginia. >> go back to fred vinson. was he a big man? where did he come from? how did he get on the court as chief justice? >> he was not a big man. he was heavy. he was a heavy man. this was one of the instances i worked into there. on occasion, when his messenger who would usually drive him to work in back to the hotel where he lived -- i cannot think of the name of the of it right now. it was back to the hotel where he lives. i would occasionally have to drive home in this beat up, old ford. he was heavy. he remembered driving up and the doorman seeing the car and trying to shoo him away.

until he saw the chief justice in front seat, then he treated him in a much more cordial way. then he would with some difficulty get out of the car. and he would go home. >> he was there for seven years. do you remember what significant impact he had on the board and how it ran? >> as far as i could tell, it ran well. there was some feeling in year or two before that there was some friction with in the court, particularly jackson was concerned that he did not become chief himself. there was some feeling that there might have been some antagonism between jackson and hugo black. i never actually witnessed anything like that. there has been a lot of writing

about that. and i think there is some merit to it. i mention it because there was a sense there might be some personal antagonism within the course at -- within the court at the time. i found entirely different. i remember at a conference of around 1970 or so, thurgood marshall went to chicago. he was asked about possible antagonize somm within the cour. thurgood is an honorable man. it turned out to be true. it is a very personal

relationship. those are really excellent. that was true during my entire tenure. >> what impact did vinson have on brown vs. the board of education? >> he was the chief during the first argument. but inhe died before they were able to decide it. it is difficult to know exactly what his whole role in the decision of the process was. but i think he was the chief when they ordered the re- argument.

on the historical issues. he has read a lot of reading about the history. it is what about the sponsors of the amendment were. a lot of that was suggested by justice frankfurter. after earl warren became chief, they had an additional argument. that is when would it was decided -- that is when it was decided. this had very little to do with it. >> i want to screen some other statistics. these are the longest serving justices in history. there are 112 justices. william douglas served the longest. over 36 years. stephen johnson field served

12,614 days. you served 12,611 days. you were three days short of been the second-largest serving in history. did you know that? >> i really did not. people often ask me if i was trying to set a record. i particularly did not want to be remembered for the length of my service. and i never really paid much attention to it because that is not necessarily a testament to the quality of your service or its importance. i was interested to learn that later, and i had also been told or learned somewhere that the he really should not get that many days because for the last several days of service he was either sick or could not participate in the work. i think i may have performed

more time of active, constructive service than he did. >> people that did that, william douglas became the no. 1. >> i succeeded him. he served much longer than i did. >> over 700 days. when did you retire from the court? court? >> the day after the last day. the next justice that you write about is general warren. -- is a borough warren. before i get you to talk about him some, let's watch this. this is a 1952 clip of him on the gene would now are program that used to air.

this is in black and white. he was the governor of california. listen to what he had to say about the world in 1952. >> i do not believe we can continue to travel the road to insolvency by piling up a national debt year after year in time of peace. there's almost always a day of reckoning. i believe that we can and we must restore integrity in government. this and the confidence of people in the integrity of their government. >> he was a member of the tea party. [laughter] and that he was a republican governor of the state of california, appointed by the chief justice of the supreme court. when did you first meet him? >> my memories of him go back before i first met him. i never had the kind of informal meeting with him that i had with

the others that i mentioned. my first personal contact with him was the day i presented an oral argument to the supreme court, which i still remember vividly because even though i vividly because even though i had witnessed a lot of arguments as a law clerk and a practicing lawyer, over the years, when i got up to argue this case involving an issue that nobody would care about today, there he was. he is much closer than he appears here. i had the vivid memory of being that close to the chief justice of the united states, which is an experience you do not forget. it is mentioned in the book. i talked about this with john ruth bader ginsburg and elena kagan.

it is the same service sensation than the first argument. it is very memorable. >> what happened to the case you are arguing? did you win? >> i lost. it is not an earthshaking case. they did decide question of statutory construction under the justification defense. >> you served 34 years on the court. what has it been like for you since you left, and why did you write the books? >> it is a story that group by -- that grew by itself. when i left the court, i was invited to attend a fairly large amount of informal sessions. where i talked to smaller groups like the rotary.

there are groups in arlington and elsewhere. i was repeatedly asked tell us, you served with three chief justices. how they were alike and how they differ? people seem to be interested in possible differences of the different chiefs. then i looked back further. i thought i had some contacts with five. the idea came to me that there may be a fair amount of interest in talking about the chiefs. in fact, andi remember talking to john roberts about the same time. i said to him that ini thought the public did not have a full understanding of all the work that the chief justice does. there are a fair number of additional responsibilities

that might be of interest. i wanted to make the point also that space bangwhen we are deciding this, -- the merits of the cases, the most important things we do, the nine of us are all equal. when you are voting on the outcome of a case, he is just one of nine. i considered myself his people on our most important work. i thought both of those thoughts merited the sort of discussion. merited the sort of discussion. these different ideas came to me. i enjoyed writing. i liked writing opinions while i was the justice.

so this replaced a lot of that work that i was doing as an active judge. i should say that i also have a section in theire about the firt justices, as the background. it was suggested by my agent that that would be helpful. so i wrote that after the other parts of the book were put together. that is not a study in depth about the earlier cheeks, but it is some -- but the earlier chiefs, but it is something to give a little background that i thought might be of interest. >> what impact did it earl warren have on the country? >> it had a tremendous impact. i think the most important case is brown vs. the board of

education, which is what he is most famous for. he may be responsible for producing the most unanimous opinion. as i suggested the book, i do not think the unity of the opinion is as important as the result itself. i do not think it would have been the end of the world if there had been dissenting thatons expressed iing views were prevalent in society at the time. i am not one that thought you knew the is a requirement. i often suggest in the book that issent will improve the quality of the because everybody will know the answers to specific arguments. i have never been one who thought that the unanimous character was the major achievement. the major achievement was the result itself, which obviously

is quite literally correct. interestingly about that case, i think the decision is not the product of the history of the historical research, but i think a lot of that history suggests that people who adopted and ratified the 14th amendment did not anticipate or realize that an end could be put to segregated schools. the principle adopted required that result, but i am not sure as a matter of original intent that that is a case in which the original, the actual intent of the draft is the same as a result they produced. >> you were appointed at 75 by gerald ford. >> yes.

>> you served under warren burger. >> yes. that is exactly right. served with him. >> i'm sorry. >> that is exactly right. we did an interview with him during the time. here is an interview to the people are who are not familiar with warren burger can see what he looks like. >> we have, give or take, 1500 in the federal judiciary, 30 magistrates and bankruptcy judges. there are very near 1000 life tenure article three judges now. they are there because we need them and we need more. congress is constantly expanding federal jurisdiction,

and we have to have more to take care of it. >> what was it like serving with chief justice warren burger? >> there are all sorts of aspects of it. he was a very likable man. he is judged as being somewhat pompous and more regal, but he was a good presiding officer. a very gracious public appeal. he handled public affairs very well. on the internal deliberations of the court, i think he was less competent than either of his two successors. to be frank with you, he did many fine things, but i do not think he handled the s as well as william

rehnquist or john roberts did. he is signed opinions to members of the court who did not actually have the votes of four other colleagues on every issue of the case. so he was less than perfect on his work as a presiding officer in conference. in conference. but i think he was an excellent presiding officer in the public proceedings, very fair to both sides. when there was the necessity for bomore time to make arguments, e would frequently allow extra times in argument. >> the part of the court that the public does not know about is the conference. where is the conference room, and who is in there when you are discussing the case? >> the conference room is just east of the court room, across the hall and in the back of the

building. the people in the conference room during the conference, the nine members of the court and no one else. in fact, whenever it is necessary for someone to send a message into the court, they will lock on the door and the junior justice has the responsibility of getting up and answering the door. the town clerk used to say that the town clerk used to say that he is the highest paid justic don in the country. i remember my first or second conference, i was paying very close attention to the discussion. i failed to hear the knock on the door, and bill brennan, on my left, bill rehnquist, on my right, got up to answer the door. made me feel that i was about

two feet high. i remembered that one of the most important jjobs of the junior justice is to answer the door. >> being in a conference run by warren burger or bill rehnquist or john roberts -- can you explain the differences and how warren burger changed the procedure in the court about how you participate? >> the change i think he is responsible for -- i cannot justify from personal -- testify from personal knowledge -- but i am quite sure that it is the change in the order of voting. when i was a law clerk at under rutledge, he explained that the case would be discussed with the chief justice describing the case, and then the justice is talking about the case in order

of seniority, explaining the general views of the case and so forth until it went to the end of the line. but then the voting began with the junior justice, was followed in reverse order. i know that was a practice when rutledge was on the court, when i was a law clerk. he showed us his notes, and he was the second to vote. burton was the most junior justice. when i got there, i was surprised to find that the chief not only discussed the case, but also voted. the voted was an order of seniority. i can remember talking to bill rehnquist from time to time, because he was the second junior. we both exchanged a view that we preferred the other practice because it gave the junior justice -- we thought we gave the junior justice better

opportunity to persuade the seniors if they had not committed themselves to a particular position. but then when he became chief, his views on that changed. and he went along with the other view. >> explain the difference between being chief justice, what their responsibility is, and an associate justice. >> well, the chief has the responsibility -- well, he does not have to do it, he could just vote right away -- he states the case and talks about the controlling issues that need to be decided on before his vote. he says the basis for the discussion. i think i say in the book, warren burger was not as articulate, as skillful and

explaining issues in a concise and unbiased manner as either of his successors were. often when warren was the chief, either bill brennan, or stewart -- stewart was a really brilliant lawyer -- would state the case all over again, state them in a more neutral fashion, and then the discussion would proceed. as i said, that is one of the exit which i think warren burger was less skillful as some of the others. i do not need to just that he was not a good lawyer. he was a very good lawyer and argue cases in the court ahead of one of the divisions of the department justice after eisenhower was elected. >> you say in your book about warren burger, that although he upheld the constitution on the death penalty, that he personally was against it.

>> definitely. >> harry blackmun? >> harry blackmun, the same way. this is a case where this is not the way i thought it should be the case, but this is democratic practice to decide. not to forward his own views, but to follow what -- >> did he ever say that publicly? >> i would assume, but i do not know. >> how often have you found a justice will rule one way or write his opinion one way when he or she disagrees? >> very often. every member of the court on one or more issues. >> can you give us an example when you did that? >> it happened many, many times, but i do not have one at the top of my head right now. i will tell you one, sure.

the case involving the enforcing of the federal narcotics laws against the use of medical marijuana in california, going it on your own premises. whether or not the federal government had the power to enforce that statute. i thought was quite clear that the federal government could do so, but i thought it was very unwise policy. there is a clear mismatch between my political views and what my view of what the law was. >> there was an agreement that he would tell you when it was time to quit? >> that is exactly right. i had the same agreement with

john hastings on the seventh circuit. he had asked me to let him know if he thought -- if i thought he was not performing, but delivering the same quality work as he had in the past. he, by the way, was also a man who rode out the first draft of his own opinion. i remember when i went on the court, when david came, i asked david if he would take me off -- tip me off, because every justice as he gets on in years realizes he has to appreciate the views of others on that. >> did he ever tip you off? >> no, he never did. but he left before i did, so i did not have his protection anymore. i thought it was a serious breach of contract on his part

to resign before i did. >> you sent a letter to him in advance telling him that you were going to retire. how much time did you give him? spam that is all a matter of the public record i think. public record i think. -- >> it is all a matter of public record, i think. i think sometime in june. >> do you remember the moment you said i'm getting al? >> it was actually a process. i was asked this in another interview recently, and i think i misspoke about the details. i began thinking of it more seriously and the years went by , and i think -- i do not remember for how many years. on more than one occasion i may have mentioned to my law clerks that i should be given thought to that and if they had any suggestions.

they were very vociferous in trying to persuade me i should stay. then i became -- i guess maybe it was the year david souter retired. the year before i retired, i decided to hire one law clerk. that was publicly known, so i was up its seriously considering at that time that that would be my last year. but when i did that, i guess three of my then law clerks, three out of the four of them, three out of the four of them, told me that if i changed my mind that they would work for me in the following year. so it is not as though i made an irreversible decision. obviously i was thinking seriously about it. then i guess the event that really sealed the decision for me was when i -- well, i did not

have to, but when i decided to announce my oral dissent in the citizens united case, for some reason i had trouble making the oral announcement. i stumbled on some of the presentation, which i felt was unusual. i thought i was reasonably articulate over the years before, and i became conscious that i didn't do a very good job in that particular occasion. i decided then, and i think i may have mentioned it to steve briar that very day, and that i should put some thought to changing my career. >> you still have an office on the court? >> i do. >> have you sat in? >> i have not. one of the important bits about information about retirement that i learned from the solicitor to the chief is that i'm entitled to keep my chambers

and my law clerk and my secretary even if i do not sit on cases. but if i do not sit on cases, i will not be qualified for a raise in pay. i'm not really going to lose any sleep over the likelihood that there will be a salary increase. let's watch an interview clips from william rehnquist. >> today we have a rule where first 5, 6, 7, now eight of the justice pool their law clerks. that did not exist when i was a law clerk. my co-clerk and i, to justice

jackson, divided up 12 pieces between ourselves, and wrote the most to him in that way. i think justice stevens still operates that way. and that was that true? you did not operate as part of the cirpool? >> that is true. exactly right. you might be interested in knowing that justice of lido top knowing that justice of lido top -- justice of lialito decided to operate independently. where there were nine, there are now eight again. >> there were 5000 cases presented every year. now there are 9000. i think chief justice roberts said there are something like 9000. 9000. have you changed your mind at all about how the cases are decided? i know you talk in the book

about the fact that there used to be a lot more cases argued, and i think it was justice and i think it was justice bergeurger that reduced it to 30 minutes? and you decided that it should go back to lager arguments? >> i think they should reduce the -- make it more arguments, not on every case. relief for two different reasons. one is -- really, for two different reasons. the time available was four hours in each argument of the day. it used to be two in the morning, two in the afternoon. now they rarely sit in the afternoon. particularly in cases with multiple issues that are rather divisive, there is an awful lot

of time taken up with questioning. i think the more time that is taken up with questioning these days than it was when i first joined the court or when i was a law clerk, i think so much time is taken up that sometimes the is taken up that sometimes the lawyers really do not get an adequate opportunity to say everything they planned to say. so i think it would be, in those cases, more time would be more fair to the lawyers, more helpful to the court, and also that the whole process would be approved. i do not think they have to do that with every case. >> what about chief justice rehnquist? what do you must remember about him? >> there are many, many things i remember about him. having watched the redskins on sunday, i think i would have won two books from him. >> you bet on every game? >> on every game.

normally it was a dollar. very serious. >> who won the most? >> bill won the most. >> what impact did he have on the running of the court? >> well, he was, i think, a more efficient presiding officer, both in conferences and in open court as well. i think perhaps he may have been too efficient in open court. he was very firm on when the red light goes on, the argument is over. i think there are times when he might have been wise to give a little more time. but on the whole, he did an excellent job. he was totally impartial. he treated everyone exactly alike, and they all had to watch lights.

>> former senator arlen specter, he tried to get a couple of words in when he was in front of the court? >> yes, he was representing a client -- i can remember the details right now -- and wanted to continue argument, but his time was up and the chief insisted that the argument was over. i think senator specter has never forgiven him for that. >> not only did he appear not to have forgiven him, but he introduced legislation -- not only did he appear not to have forgiven him, but he introduced legislation that the court should go on television. what was the resolution he tried to get passed? >> on the one hand, televising the court would be good for the court and for the country because i think people would

realize that the justices are very thorough in their preparation for arguments and their understanding of the cases. they ask intelligent questions, and people i think are generally favorably impressed when they see the court work. that is a very strong plus, and that is what i think senator specter is primarily interested in. but the other side of the coin is that television often has unexpected and unintended consequences, and you're never 100% sure that it might not cause a change in procedure that might have an access -- that might have an adverse effect on it. in football, all of a sudden the players are standing around for a minute or two. television has got their commercials to get in, so it changes. the televising of legislative

proceedings i think has sometimes had an adverse effect on the quality of what goes on. so you're never 100% sure that the consequences of televising, what they would be. i think most feel more strongly than i do or i did, but i think they are very concerned that televising might have an unforeseen, adverse impact with lawyers and an occasional justice might behave differently than he would if he was not being televised. >> what is your guess as to what might happen over the years with television? for instance, just yesterday when we were recording this, the pennsylvania state supreme court had a public meeting and they went on television for the first time, and now all their proceedings are on television. >> and the florida supreme court was one of the first to do that, too. basically, the experience has been -- has not been adverse.

in fact, they have a library which lawyers can go look at prior arguments and learn a little bit more about the best way to proceed. from what i understand, i do not think that it has been used in state courts, it has not had the adverse effect. one reason for that is it's not the most popular program in the world. i do not think a tremendous audience for the everyday argument of the state supreme court decision that is argued, whereas a i think the audience would probably, at least in some cases, would be larger with the united states supreme court. >> do you think it would ever go on television? on television? >> well, "ever" is a long word. but i would not hold my breath. >> in the book you talk about the fact that chief justice

william rehnquist had the four stripes on his -- help me out here. >> on his robe. >> did you ever talk about that? >> he did at one time before he had his own robes decorated with the stripes, he did make the suggestion to all of us at an informal gathering that he thought that the robes of some foreign dignitaries were very impressive, and we ought to give thought to it. and i think i remember -- perhaps i should not be saying it publicly -- i think remember sandra day o'connor saying that it reminded her of president nixon's suggestion that he should have military personnel at the white house have white uniforms. she thought it was a very bad idea, and she also thought it

would be a bad idea for the court to depart from the very conservative black robes that we have always followed. i do not think the chief needs a special form of address to identify himself. >> what would be the legalisms of that? would you be able to put four stripes on your robe if you wanted to? >> i believe so. >> could the other justices have prevented the chief from putting stripes on his robe? >> that is an interesting question. i do not know. i suppose if we felt strongly enough about it and as a majority asked him not to do it, he probably would have respected that. but that is the kind of thing that each member of the court pretty much respect the judgment of the member who may be doing it, i think.

>> who assigns something as simple as an office? how do you get to choose your office? >> it is a little bit like asking who decides who will be chief. a lot of these things just happened and it has never changed. it has been part of the practice and the tradition throughout the court. the first chief was designated chief but president washington, and that has been followed, but i do not think this is any law that would prevent the members of the supreme court from treating that office differently than other state appellate courts do. i don't think there is a statute or a provision in the constitution of which i am aware that specifies that the president shall nominate the chief, but he has always done it so nobody has even thought

about it, as far as i know. >> so in your 34 years plus over there, how many different offices were you in? >> well, i was in 1, 2, 3, 4. four different offices. >> and you move in order of seniority? >> well, no -- well, yes, i started out in a beautiful spot on the west side of the building with a beautiful view of the capital. it is the office that was originally, as i understand, was originally thought to be assigned to the retired chief justice. warren burger did use it, but there was no retired chief justice. i did not want to make an issue out of it when he wanted to keep his chambers, so i took the location at the front of the court. then i was able to leave that office and moved halfway down the hall when tom clark died.

he had chambers on the side of the court, and i went to his chambers for two or three years. then when stewart retired, and moved into his chambers, at a beautiful office. i stayed there until they did the series redecoration 34 years ago, when all sorts of changes were made. serious redecoration three or four years ago, when all sorts of changes were made. then i moved into justice o'connor's chambers, and i liked it so i stayed there until i retired. >> you have served with 19 of the 112 justices over the years. >> is that right? >> yes. i do not know if you want to i do not know if you want to answer this, but who were you

closest to over the years? >> i should have an answer to that question and i have been thinking about it lately. i was very fond of byron white. i was very fond of them. but i felt very strong about stewart, thurgood marshall, harry blackmun. we were all friends. sandra, the same way, and david when he came on. it's very difficult to elevate one over the other. >> when you talked about sitting on the bench next to nino, as you say, antonin scalia, there was one point that he leaned over to you in an argument and said to you, "must be dumb

defendant de." how often did you whisper things like that to each other? >> well, not that one particularly often. but in tinselly is a wonderful guy. he comes up with things like that on average -- but antonin scalia is a wonderful guy. he comes up with things like that. i cannot overstate how clever a person he is. >> here is your fifth chief justice, john roberts. >> justice brandeis once said he could do the 12 months of the work of the court in 10 months, but he could not do it in 12 months. it is good that we get something of a break from each other. we have work that we continue to do. we continue to pour through the 9000 petitions that come in. we get emergency matters from time to time. but we do get out of washington, get to spend a little more time

with my family them was the with my family them was the case during time in the city. >> you said william rehnquist said, "call me bill," but you did not. >> we called him chief. >> what happens when a younger justice comes in to the court? >> i call him chief. i feel more comfortable calling him chief. it would not bother him in the slightest if i called him john, because we're good friends, but it is one of those traditions and part of the court that sticks with me. >> what has been his impact on the court? how has he affected the operation itself? >> he has continued to do a very fine job in handling the conferences. he is an excellent presiding officer. i think he may well be the best

-- well, i could not really evaluate warren in that way because he is highly regarded the way he handled public affairs, too. but john is an excellent presiding officer. he is particularly good also in public affairs, where he might have to be talking to a group of judges from a foreign country who are paying a visit to the court and explaining what is going on. he would always have something interesting to say about the history of the court that they could understand and appreciate. he's a very attractive person. >> so of all the 112 over the years, let's pick on the one that you did not serve with. who would you have liked to have known? >> that is a wonderful question.

the three that come most immediately to mind are the three that are regarded as when i was a law student. i was a law student. cardo -- so, brandeis >> brandeis was the first jewish member of the court? >> i believe that is right. >> there are six catholics and it -- now that you're gone, does that make a difference as to how people make decisions? >> i do not think it makes a difference at all, although at one time it was thought to be important. there was considered to be a jewish seat on the court for a while, and that went from -- i do not know if it was steve or

roof, but in any event, i guess i'm the last wasp. when i first came on the court, most of the court over the years has been protestant, a white anglo-saxon. i do not think it makes a particle of difference. it really is totally irrelevant to the discussion. there may be an occasion when a religious holiday is given particular significance by a member of the court, but other than that is totally irrelevant to the decision will process. >> how did you do this book? >> the same way i write opinions. opinions. i write them out, do more, and when i got to a certain point i asked my law clerk to read it over with any suggestions, and

my law clerk said not on my opinions and i got excellent suggestions as i went along. and i think i may have mentioned my agent suggested the chapter about the earlier chiefs. but i wrote most of it at home. >> i am sure over the years you wrote me a copy on the way you made your decisions and whether or not gerald ford was happy with your political positions on the different issues. the question, did you and president ford talk about that in private? >> no, never either before i was appointed or after i was appointed. he did write me a letter that i am very proud of that i have on genuinelyhich genera indicates agreement with my judicial work, but i do not remember ever discussing any legal issue with him. >> what is the thing you wanted

people most to take away from the book? >> from the book? yeah.dir >> is a series of recollections on different aspects of the court and different people. i do not know. i do not expect it to be valued very highly by scholars because it is not really directed at scholars. i think perhaps there are some members of the general public who think i have too much discussion of cases in there, and others may think otherwise. it is something that just kind of grew as i worked on it. >> justice john paul stevens, we are out of time. fivebook is called " cheese." thank you. >> thank you.

-- "five chiefs." thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> for a free copy of this program, visit us at q-and- a.org. >> next, live, your calls and comments on "washington journal." then, live at 11:00 a.m., a foreign-policy speech by republican presidential candidate john huntsman. live at 5:30 p.m., -- jon huntsman. last monday, efforts to build a

$40 billion high-speed wireless network. >> for the first time, americans will have access even if there is a natural disaster or other things happening, through the satellite network. >> tonight, questions on the company goals and possible gps interference with paul brown, and jim perkins, and fred schulte on 8:00 -- at 8:00 on c- span 2. >> damon moglen and cindy schild offer their perspectives on a proposed $7 billion oil pipeline from canada to texas. then michael malbin, executive director of the campaign finance institutes of examines 2012 campaign fund-rag