lords have depude for working people and pen showners on low incomes to be taken out of income tax all together. does my right honorable friend agree that this is a thoroughly conservative idea? it's time has truly arrived? >> what i would say to my honorable friend is, almost uniquely i'm not going to prejudge what is in the chancellor's budget, but i think we can say, in reference to what he says, this is if you like, mr. speaker, a budget. [cheering] >> i'm so encouraged that the prime minister is using my language.

good on for him. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister may recall that at the time of the strategic defense and security review, he described it as a mistake and an error for the joint strike fighter. as the ministry of defense is about to perform a u-turn to rescind that original decision, doesn't he now accept and understand that the real mistake and error has been in the defense review that has been inadequate and is fast unraveling? >> the real mistake and error was inheriting a 38 billion pound black hole in the defense budget and to pay tribute to my rightable friend, what he wants as defense secretary is to be the first defense secretary in a generation, frankly, to announce a balanced and funded budget for defense for this year and for many years to come. that is what we're discussing. we will look at all of the evidence, all of the costings and costings as he will know change in defense, but i do

make this pledge. unlike previous governments, if costs change and if facts change, we won't just plow on regardless and make wrong decisions for political reasons. >> order. >> you have been watching prime minister's questions from the british house of commons. next week members of parliament will recess for the easter break in the u.k. prime minister's questions returns on wednesday april 18. watch live coverage or c-span 2 at 7:00 a.m. eastern and you can find video of past prime minister's questions and other british programs on our website at c-span.org. >> on monday, the supreme court starts three days of hearings on the constitutionity of the new health care law. hear the oral argument for yourself in its entirety. the coach releases audio at 1:00 p.m. eastern each day with coverage on cspan3 and c-span radio and at c-span.org, listen and at your comments.

our coverage starts monday morning live on espn with "washington journal" and continues through the day on the supreme court and then the oral argument on cspan3. >> each morning during the supreme court oral argument on health care, all three hours of "washington journal" will be devoted to the arguments. previewing the issues coming before the court that day. on monday david savage joins us to lay out the challenges the court will hear this week. then ilya somin, a constitutional law professor will discuss the question before the court on monday, whether the constitutional challenge to the individual mandate which doesn't go into effect until 2014 is premature. and law professors jonathan turley from george washington university and james simon from n.y.u. will look at the makeup of the supreme court and how it compares to past courts. washington jourge airs live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

follow c-span's local content vehicles throughout next weekend as book tv and american history tv explore the history and literary culture of little rock, arkansas. saturday the 31st at noon eastern, the little known riots and killing of at least 20 african-american sharecroppers. >> you had calls going all up and down the mississippi delta and saying that blacks were now in revolt and the next morning, between 600 and 1,000 men, white men, pour into the county to begin shooting down blacks. >> and on american history tv on c-span 3, next sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern, former student richard lindsay on integration at north little rock high school. >> as if they know what is going to happen. we don't know what is going to

happen. we don't realize what is going to happen when we get up those steps. they seem to because the crowd is with us now. the momentum is behind us. they are pushing us up the steps. >> the stories and others from c-span's local content vehicles in little rock, next weekend on c-span 2 and 3. >> the honorable, the chief justice and the associate justices of the supreme court of the united states. >> something different is going on here than what goes on in the capital building or in the white house and you need to appreciate how important it is to our system of government. >> this is the highest court in the land and the framers created it after studying the great law givers in history. >> the government concedes that the destruction of documents in anticipation of a proceeding.

>> a lot of these cases are very close and you go in on a knife's edge. you don't decide who ought to win. we decide who wins under the law that the people have adopted. >> you will be surprised by the high level of colleaguality mere. >> hour out of nine of us who want to hear any of these cases, we'll hear it. we're hear to decide things. the job is to decide. we decide. >> this court decides important questions and that means you have to do your best to get it right. you have work as hard as you can to get it right. >> why is it that we have an elegant astonishing beautiful imposing impressive structure? it's to remind us that we have an important function. and to remind the public when it sees the building of the importance and the centrality of the law. >> it always thrills me, amazes me and gives me faith in our

country to know how much people trust the courts. >> i think the danger is that sometimes you, to come into a building like this and think it's all about you or that you're important and that is something that i don't think works well with this job. >> home to america's highest court, the role of those who serve here is to interpret the constitution of the united states. outside almost daily expressions of protests are made by those wishing the court to take up their case or rule in their favor. and inside, a central space dominates its proceedings. all around, there are both public spaces containing the

symbolism of the law and artwork reminding us of those that have served on the court before as well as beautiful private rooms that are seen by those privileged few. but it is the justices appointed for life terms who have always defined this legal but very human institution and the buildings in which they do their work. >> i think it's the prettiest building in washington. and it's distinctive. it's a different type of marble to start with. much brighter and lighter than the typically government building. i think it's wonderful because it immediately, as soon as you see it, you appreciate that this is something different. it represents that the court is a different branch of government. it really is more monumental. it looks a lot more like the jefferson memorial or the lincoln memorial in terms of its visual impact than it does look like another government building. if you view it as something of

a temple of justice, i think that's entirely appropriate. >> when you first come up those steps from the sidewalk up on to the plaza or forecourt, there are two candleabra on the first set of stairs. this is one of your first symbols, a blindfolded justice on the scales of justice. on the other side are the three figures. it's the first symbolic indication that this building has something to do with the law. as you travel up on to the plaza, there are the two flagpole bases which also have some symbols of law and knowledge indicating that the building has a purpose which is the supreme court and the law. >> the statue to the left is contemplation of justice. in her right hand she holds a smaller statue of blindfolded

justice. that is a symbol of impartiality. on the right-hand side of the staircase, the other statue is authority of law. his left armrests on a book with the litin term lex meaning law. >> it's important for the justices, it's important for the attorneys, it's important for the public to make sure that people always want to come up these steps because we're doing the job the right way and not a day goes by where we must not ask ourselves are we doing this job the right way. >> i think the supreme court is the most mysterious branch to the public. they do their work in a marble building where cameras are not allowed. they are not recognizable generally to the average person on the street and they speak to the public through their opinions. so in some ways they're very public because anything that they do that will matter in your life will be down on black

and white in a court opinion, but yet they themselves will not be publicly announcing that before a camera. so there is a real mystery to the supreme court. >> the proper role is in a democracy to give a fair and honest interpretation to the meaning of dispositions that the people have adopted, either congress in statutes or the people when they ratify the constitution. simple as that, no more, no less. >> i think it is time that americans wake up to what it is the framers had in mind when they tried to create an independent federal judicial branch. they had a clear vision in mind and that was that the federal courts would be deciding issues of federal law, constitutional and statutory. and that those judgments would be binding on all courts, state

and federal. >> when the court tries to do that job, it questions which sometimes members of the court disagree about and disagree strongly about, but i think we're all trying to do the same thing which is to look at the law that exists, the constitution, the statutes, to figure out what it means and to apply and enforce it. >> what the public will see eventually is an opinion with reasons. the discipline that a judge follows and what makes judges unlike legislators, we don't say i vote that the petitioner should win or i vote that the respondent should win. we have to give reasons on every decision we make. >> when you go in for a big case, that's one with high visibility where the stakes are really large, where you can

feel the technical tonic plates of the constitution actually beginning or potentially beginning to shift, you would just be brutish if you didn't have an awareness or a high level of sensitivity to the importance of that moment. the court is very much aware of history. the place is where continuity is very important and history really does influence the way the court works. >> at the top of the west steps are the symbolic bronze doors which recognize the history of the law and this court. just on the other side is the ceremonial core of the building. >> there is an impressive marble hall that separates the front door of the building from the doors that lead into the courtroom. that marble hall is called the great hall. it's characterized by marble columns.

>> often when i go home at night, the building is vacant and i walk through the great hall and i look around at the pillars and it really impresses upon me the importance of the work that we're doing. as many times as i have walked through that hall, it never ceases to have that impression on me. >> between the columns are busts of chief justices. as you walk from the beginning, you can see john marshall, upton taft, charles evans hughes, earl warren. at present there are of all of the chief justices. in a certain sense, you're walking through the whole history of the court. >> the story of the court is

designed not only by its different chiefs over time but also through continual addition of new associate justices to the bench. >> the white house operator tells you that the president is on the line. i have my cell phone in my right hand and i had my left hand over my chest trying to calm my beating heart literally. and the president got on the phone and said to me, judge, i would like to announce you as my selection to be the next associate justice of the united states supreme court. and i said to him, i caught my breath and started to cry and said thank you, mr. president. >> judge society mare are you prepared to take the oath?

>> i am. >> please raise your right hand and repeat after me. i sonia sotomayor do slunly swear -- >> just white always used to say when the court gets a new member, it changes everything, it changes everything. simple changes, we move the seats around in the courtroom. there will be a shift there in seen i don't recall. the same in the conference room. more fundamentally, i think it can cause you to take a pressure look at how things are decided. the new member is going to have a particular view about issues should be addressed that are very different from what we have been following for some time. so it's an exciting part of life at the court. >> oh, the institution doesn't change at all. i think the relationships change. you lose a friend and hopefully acquire another one. i miss a lot of my former

colleagues on the court from byron white to bill brennan, but that's the process. they go and new people come on. >> it's different. it's different today than what it was when i first got here. and i have to admit you grow very fond of the court that you spend a long time on. there was a period there with chief justice rehnquist and justice o'connor when we had gone, we had a long run together and you get comfortable with that and then it changes. and now it's changing again. >> it's a new court. when i was trying jury cases, usually 12, if a juror had to be replaced because one was ill or something, it was just a different dynamic. it was a different jury. the same way here, this will be a very different court. and it's stressful for us

because we so admire our colleagues, wonder oh, will it ever be the same? i have deteriorate admiration for the system. the system works. >> i think it's healthy for the court to have members with different backgrounds. i saw a television program recently when somebody said there should always be someone who had served in the armed forces on the court. i think there should always be someone who has had practical experience in litigation and i think experience in other branches of the government such as the legislatures would be very, very helpful. >> i think that the experiences that i have brought to the job are going to help me a good deal and being solicitor general, you get to see the court in everything it does just from a different point of view, from the point of view of the advocate rather than the judge. it's been a whirlwind. it's like drinking out of a fire hose, you know.

it's always something new, something different, a lot to learn. the learning curve is extremely steep. sometimes it seems vertical. >> all of my colleagues have been extraordinarily warm and welcoming. each one of them has offered advice. each one of them has invited me to call them with questions. and i don't know if there is -- i can identify any one in particular that i have been turning to. actually it depends a great deal on whether i'm meeting them in the hall. there is always a question on my mind. when i meet them in the hall, i just go up to them and say can you or would you and they each have been delightfully generous in giving me time to walk me through whatever it is that i'm asking about. >> from its first chief justice, john jay, to its current one, john roberts, the court continues to make decisions that impact the lives

of everyday americans taking on only a limited amount of cases per term compared to the number of those requested of them. >> 8,000 ask us each year to hear the case. that means about 150 a week. >> 150 what? 150 requests to hear the case. well, here they are for this week. >> i think undoubtedly, to my mind, the most, what should i say the onerous and most uninteresting part of the job is ruling on all of the petitions that have come to the court. they have increased enormously in the time that i have been there. >> we don't look at the cases that we think are wrong. we don't look at the cases that we think have a lot the stake. our job is to make sure federal

law is uniform across the country. >> all of the cases are hard. the only reason we take them, as some of my colleagues may tell you, is that other courts are in agreement most of the time. and that means that other judges and other actors in the legal system have come to differing conclusions. every case is that way. >> most people think they have a right to come to the court. for the most part you don't, not this court. maybe the court of appeals you normally do. maybe the state courts of appeal and final, the courts that don't have discretionary jurisdiction, the courts of last resort, maybe they have a right to go to those. here most of our jurisdiction is discretionary. in other words, we decide if you come. >> you can tell if there is a case that is on a particular hot button issue that people are going to give it a lot of attention.

i have to say that doesn't enter into our process of deciding. a lot of our docket is very mundane. you go through the year and we're deciding 90 cases, probably a half dozen are ones that are going to make to the front page of the newspaper. all of the others, bankruptcy tax case and federal arbitration act case, a pen shun -- pension plan case, very important, but not going to attract any interest. >> even a case on a subject that you think of as kind of boring can turn out to be enormously challenging at the end of the day. it could be anything. so i don't think subject matter determines the extent of your interest in it. it's the challenge of solving this particular question of law and making it work. it could be on any subject. >> each one gets a vote just like anything else on what cases we should hear, but it only takes four votes to decide

we're going to hear a case. the court used to have a lot more mandatory jurisdiction cases they had to hear. when they got congress to pass a law saying that we didn't have to hear all of the cases, it wasn't mandatory jurisdiction, kind of the deal we made with the hill is you didn't need five votes to hear a case. four would be enough. >> these are the cases in justice stephen breyer's office that were granted and heard in the courtroom. behind the scenes, each justice has their own suite of offices. here they work with the staff of four law clerks and several office assistants. but it is within their own chambers where their personalities and work habits come through. >> i like to be in a quiet place. i like to have my law clerk close at hand. in my regular chambers, all of the law clerks were inside chambers. now i have two that are in that

office and two down the hall, but i like a quiet place. i'm glad to be overlooking the courtyard and not in front of the building so i'm not disturbed by demonstrators. this desk is made here at the court. all of the chambers have similar desks. the variation in these chambers is that i have put a granite top on the desk. >> i was very lucky to have this office. it was harry black monday's office. he was my predecessor here. it was a lovely office. the year before ruth bader ginsberg was appointed, everybody moved and you get the office by seniority. i was the junior and no one wanted to move. that was fine with me, i was lucky. >> it is this view from justice breyer's chambers that provides a window into the past of the

supreme court. meeting in the basement of the capital for the majority of their time between 1810 and 1860, john marshall oversaw the court from here during his ten tour. and later roger tony ruled over the chamber as well until the court moved upstairs into a space vacated by the senate where they would meet until 1935. but with very little space available in the building for justices to do their work and with even less for attorneys to find a place to prepare for oral argument, one chief justice determined it was time the court have a building of its own. >> i don't think it's an understatement to say that this building would not be here if it hadn't been for the preest ens of chief justice taft. >> taft had in mind that the court needed to have a building of its own. he believed that when he was president and when he became chief justice it became almost

an obsession. there was some opposition in congress, but ultimately taft began to chair the committee that was to choose the architect, gilbert was very much the first choice that taft had in mind. gilbert was one of the best known architects of his time. so it was the perfect match of architect and employer. their idea was to have a building that would comport to jefferson's concepts and would be next to the capital building, but still stand on its own. the appropriation that taft asked for was a little bit less than $10 million. during the great depression, there was actually a deplace, and so they were able to build the building and furnish it and still turn $100,000 back to the treasury of the united states.

so it came in under budget. may be the only government building in history that came in under budget. >> gilbert had thought he had done such a great job that the u.s. capitol should be moved so that people would have a better view of the court. that was his view. i think he did create a beautiful building, but there is no way the capital is going to be moved to provide a better view. >> gilbert worked in what is essentially a sort of french classicism. he was very serious and his intentions to create a house and a symbolic house for the third branch of government that expressed the seriousness of what we were doing, the authority in which the third branch should be invested and authority really to work for what was right. >> the supreme court justices are not shy and some of the justices felt that the new

building was too grand, was to grandio search . chief justice stone has alleged said to say that the justices were nine black beatles in the temple of karmac and they should right in each morning on elephants. >> setting a record with the amount of marble used in construction, when it opened in 1935, seven of the nine sitting justices refused to move into their chambers in the new supreme court building. >> one of the justices who did a lot of work on it didn't want to leave the former chambers which were in the basement of the senate. he said if we leave these offices in the senate, no one will ever hear of us again. well, he was wrong. another said he wouldn't come in here and the reason that justice wouldn't come is he said this building is so elaborate, it would go to their heads. maybe he was right.

it has become over time a symbol of the court system, the third branch of government and the need for stability rule of law which is what america stands for. >> the interesting thing is that neither taft nor gilbert lived to see the building completed. gilbert died only a few months before the building actually opened. >> as you look at the building today, you not only see the vision of taft and his architect, but also the work of taft's successor, chief justice charles evans hughes who oversaw its completion. and while most visitors see the west plaza of the structure, on its east side is a less often viewed part of the building and its pedestrianment above. >> the east portco and plaza of the building is surrounded by a structure by herman mcneal. he was given a lot of reign by the architect cass gilbert to design his own ideas for this sculpture. he chose to look towards the

eastern traditions of law to choose some of his figures. the central figure is moses and then on either side are confucio sunch and the greek lawto either side of those are allegorical figures that depict aspects of the law and authority. in the corners on either end are the allegory of the tortoise and the hair and the ideas that the slow pace of the tortoise carries through in work of the court and will win the court of the day. he wrote this on a memo when they're asked to approve the to inscriptions that would be put on the building. he said i would rather prefer it.

>> on the opposite side of the supreme court is the west plaza, at the traditional public interest -- entrance to the building and more many express their feelings about the courts and constitution. it was a pattern that was heavily involved in side for that purpose. i understand people having strong feelings about some of the things that we do and are involved in. it is not a situation where our distinction should be/popular

pressure. protests are a way for people to express their feelings. " he would not want us deciding bois what is popular to us. >> sitting at the top of the west plaza is the traditional entrance to the supreme court. to to ongoing security concerns, the court decided in may of 2010 to close the bronze doors as an entrance a lot of allowing people to exit the building from here. in a statement critical of the decision, justice stephen brier said "while i recognize the reasons for this change, on balance i do not think they justify its. it is important not to undervalue the symbolic and

historic importance of allowing visitors to enter the court after walking up the famed front steps." >> as you look up, may see another symbolic pediment. it pays tribute to the history of the law and to some of those and trickle in the building's construction. -- and to some of those injured goal in the building's construction. ergal in the building's construction. >> the architect is represented. the chief justice taft is represented. you also have john marshall

represented as a young man. chief justice hughes is represented. even the sculptor is represented in that freeze. >> just under the sculpture are the words " equal justice under law. it was approved by chief justice hughes. the were taken on a larger meaning since then. >> it is a statement that the fact that judges ought to be independent of the law and the blind in certain respects and recognize differences based upon race or their color or religion or their background. the sense that they communicate is that one can stand before the court and expect to be treated fairly.

>> i do not want legalism. >> in a moment, ed the justices. they swayed them uncases that come before the courts. >> is the first time we learn what they think about the case. it can alter what you think. cases are very close. persuades the council can make the difference. -- persuasive council can make the difference. >> the supreme court hears between 8100 cases in this term. it was opened in 1935 and envisioned by william howard taft. the court room was stored with red drapes and special columns made of marble imported from italy and spain. taft called for more than a new

courtroom. outside the rooms added to help both the justices and attorneys prepare for oral arguments. >> the clerk of the courts comes in and they give practical pointers. if they try hard to put people at ease. it is a fun place to be before going into the courtroom. there is a lot of camaraderie. you get to meet your counsel. it is a family. a lot of nervous energy but it is friendly. >> it is designed to come to where they're doing arguments for the first time to make sure for it toot faux pas tell jokes during their oral arguments are not referred to their familiarity with one of the justices. they will survive the experience. did they will see it as a place

for they can make their best place and the court will hear them. >> we want to hear them into that courtroom prepared and ready and both sides have an equal chance of winning the case. the attorneys are expected to be there at 9:15 a.m. the regulators knew to come there. sometimes they do not know each other. this is a national court. it is not just a bunch of attorneys to all hang around the same courthouse. they exchange greetings. they go over the events that will occur that day. the absence of any justices might be recused. the answer any questions they might have and offer them cough drops, aspirin, anything like that to make them feel more comfortable. the attorney feedback i've gotten is they like it very much. >> as the attorneys get their

last-minute instructions before entering the courtroom, at the justices are preparing for the experience in their own way. >> on days of oral argument, that a buzzer is sounded in each chamber. it reminded them that in 10 minutes you are supposed to be on the bench. at that point you need to go down to the room to be ready to go into the courtroom. chief justices do not like to be late, as you can imagine, into the courtroom. it has a number of narrow little sections of a larger cabinet in which the justices are hung up. it can be on the shelf. >> you know the standard room is made for a man. it has a place for his shirt and

tie. sandra day o'connor and i thought it would be appropriate if we included it as part of our road something typical of a woman. i had many callers. >> i am sure we could do our work without the robes. we could do our work without this glorious building. we imparted to the people. -- in part it to the people. it is the significance of what goes on. >> that is a profound symbol, i will trythat says not to be guided by any personal experiences are characteristics. we will apply the law and the fairest way as possible. >> those traditions anger us in

a process that is greater than ourselves. they remind us that this is not a personal role. another robe that it has an institutional importance and that it is bigger than us. >> as we enter the robing room or if we are on the late side, the conference room, the first thing we do is go around the room, eat justice shaking hands with every other. that is a symbol of the work that we do. we may be temporarily miffed because you see a spicy dissenting opinion. to sit on the bench,

we shake hands. it is a way to say we're all in this together. >> when all nine are there and accounted for comment the chief justice as it is time to go. there, the chiefhwew, justice as it is time to go. they line up three on the left and three on the right. >> all persons have been business before the supreme court's can give their attention. this court is now sitting. god save the united states. >> one of the amazing things

about that court room despite its splendor is the intimacy of it. on one hand it is thought that big a room. the intimacy considering the relationship between the lawyer who is arguing at the podium and the court he is arguing to. if the 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 means at this, we could almost shake hands. that is a very important things. . it means when the argument takes place, you are psychologically close to each other so there's a possibility for real engagement.

the paradox is that it is a a very intoin which i the process takes place. it has intimate and is there is. >> this is always in demand. this is a chamber in which the big steel seizure case was decided, the most important case in deciding presidential power. they listened to arguments by other human beings. >> most happen in our per side. we tell it to people, they say "is that all? a lot of arguments have been made in writing.

they are not going to have a chance to get up and give a speech. most of the argument is devoted to the justice question. >> it is intense. you are seated decks to the podium. you stand up and slide over a few inches. you have to say. >> the 10th circuit said they cannot share in the award given by the jury. >> there are a few sentences that you have chosen to deliver the court. you will start getting questions usually within the first minute or two. >> east of the judges have their own unique style. we have some people who like the rapid fire style. others like long hypothetical. >> i just want the conclusion.

a minute has passed before he says yes. has that changed anything? >> will you explain why it was irrelevant? >> the government said you have to disclose certain facts otherwise we will shut it down. >> it is the first time we learned what our colleagues think about a case. we do not sit down and say this is what we think. we come to it cold as far as knowing what everybody thinks. we are learning for the first time how they view the case. it can alter how you view it right on the spot. >> there are nine people up there. i am with there.

i have no awareness of the court room, any physical movement. it is quite remarkable. >> my philosophy is to ask questions when it may help me decide the case. it is an opportunity for the justice to advocate one point of view. rather the questioning should be designed to help understand what the arguments on both sides are in able to reach a decision. >> you get on the supreme court and listen to questions of your colleague. it is somewhat humbling. this is probably the

moment i will remember. watching the intensity of everyone's face, i had forgotten how much people believe and know that they are affected by the court's decision. everything i asked has a purpose. it has some importance to something that is troubling me or that i am curious about. >> i welcome questions for the bench. i know some lawyers regard questions as an interruption. an advocate wants to know what is on the judge's mind. she would welcome questions as a way of satisfying the judge on the matter that the judge mights

well. essential. you cannot sway a judge if he did not answer what they ask. they're very demanding. if they should be. that is their job. >> i do not think so, your honor. >> 4%. >> you have to pick some number. >> 8%? it is a quote if it is 10? >> a lot of people have an impression that it is a dog and pony show. what can they tell me that will make a difference? it is probably quite rare

although not unheard of that the oral argument would change my mind. it is quite common that i go in with my mind not made up. a lot of these cases are very close. persuasive council can make a difference. >> i once had an argument or they asked 56 questions and 30 minutes. it is a lot of questions. >> we tried to wait for the end of the paragraph before interrupting with the question. here i learned if you do that or if you wait till the end of the sentence, you'll never get a question. you have to interrupt to make your voice heard. >> the arguments is for us to say we know what you think of the case. tiered the questions that inspired and us. here are the concerns we had for the uncertainties you left open.

you use it in order to get that. >> i view of oral arguments differently. i think it is an opportunity for the advocates, the lawyers to fill in the blank. it is hard to have a conversation when nobody is listening. when you have complete senses or answers. i find this coherence is far more helpful than the rapid-fire question. i do not see how you can learn a whole lot when they're 50 questions and an hour. >> one of the bad signs is when the questions stop. it means that you're either not persuaded them are they have figured it out already.

>> when your time is expired, a red light goes on. when the red light goes on, you are supposed to stop. >> it is an exciting part of the process. to lure of my colleagues think, we will hear what the lawyers say. it is an exciting day. >> sometimes i say to myself, am i really here are is this a dream? it is one of the most beautiful ones in the world. >> there is a hush that comes over people when they come in. this is an important space. people see there is an extended panel of scriptural freeze. there are four panels in the frieze above the court room. the one in the back is the story of the battle of good versus

evil. she's leaning on her sword. she is ready for action. there are the virtues of charity and peace. behind justices, a figure of divine inspiration which is holding the scales of justice in your hand. out of that you have this procession. it starts with an egyptian pharaoh who was thought to be the earliest ever known. he is followed by moses holding the 10 commandments. some of the ancient and others.

on the other side, you come into more modern times. you have justinian known for the justinian code. finally the most recent one, and napoleon. bustle not think of him that you know from the law. he was instrumental in creating the civil code. it ends in that last figure. they sit in with a throne. there is the bill of rights in the center. the american eagle spreading their mean-spirited than half a group of citizens that are protected by a lawyer. on the other side you have another group of citizens. there is a warrior in front of them.

you need to have the strength to back up what the law needs to be backed up by. they sit at this binge. it hangs perfectly still. the supreme court is imbued in great tradition. the aura advocates are how they receive their opinions. there's some the still read other opinions in longhand. >> the supreme court is also a very human institution.

in a private room, and your customer takes place following oral arguments. one is encouraged by the first female justice. >> it is a beautiful room. the food is not exactly haute cuisine. dick comes from -- it comes from the cafeteria. you will be surprised by the high level here.

justice scalia commented that there was no justice with which to disagree more often than justice brennan. justice scalia considered him his best friend at that time. he got the feeling was reciprocated. >> this is tradition by justice o'connor when she was on the court. >> we have this every day. you should come to lunch. this is one the best things i did. it is hard to be angry and bitter at someone and break bread and look them in the eye.

it is a fun lunch. very little work is done there. it is just nine people, a people, and webber shows up, having a wonderful lunch together. >> i try not to miss a post argument let's. you never know what they may be talking about. >> most justices are there. my colleagues to go to the opera will talk about the opera. some will talk about the baseball game. some will talk about a good book they read. these are the kinds of things everybody with talk about. >> of the main room is a smaller dining room for small functions.

this is due to a sculpture that was placed there in the mid- 19th-70's. he decided he wanted to make this the theme of the room. he said we need to get a campaign important for that. >> marbury madison is the best case they ever decide it. the idea of judicial review for constitutionality i think is implicit. john marshall made it explicit in the great case of marbury versus madison. >> there is no one case that

says as much as a justice about what it is like to be this. marbury versus madison is the embodiment of judicial review. there is the power in duty of them to say what the law is. he really established the court in a prominent position as one of the three political branches. the chief responsibility is to preside where the justices vote on and decide the cases. that means i get to initiate the discussion and have some responsibility to make sure all

the issues are adequately aired. >> there is a change that each chief justice has their own method of handling this. this follows the tradition that has been followed for many years. >> there is not much the chief justice can do perri. they have a duty to uphold the constitution. you cannot fire them. you have to get along with them. we have traditions will outlast any chief justice. the chief justice comes to a court where there are these elements of stability. we have our tradition. we have our oath.

on the other hand, the chief justice who presides over it to this.us >> when i got here, my colleagues are very helpful in giving me in on how things worked, often in contradictory ways. you do get some sense about what is expected in the process. then you go ahead and do it and hold your breath and hope they all do not say at once "why are you doing that?" my eight colleagues were extraordinary helpful in making me feel very comfortable. imagine not that i was just coming in done this in the

bunch and least experienced. they had been together for 11 years without any change. you can easily imagine that it would be difficult. every one of them went out of their way to make me feel comfortable. >> in a moment come and go behind the scenes to perhaps the most private an important german the building, where the decisions of the court began to take shape. >> it was not a justice or even a mashes there. >> i can number the first time i slept in that room and the doors closed. it is pretty daunting the first few times. that is where the actual work and the decision making takes place. in the most private an

important place inside the supreme court, nine justices and only them, meet around a table in the conference room. they discuss the cases heard oral arguments in begin the process of reaching a decision of the court. >> we sit at the conference table in the same places every day. i sit at one end and it wraps around the table in order of seniority. >> i remember the first time i stepped in the room and the doors closed. it is pretty daunting the first few times. that is where the actual work in the decision making takes place. >> we do not have any observers in the conference room. no one can enter the room who is not a justice. no secretary.

no law clerk. not even messengers. >> i have to be professional and accurate and fair. each of my colleagues deals the same way. there's a little tension and excitement in the room. we love it. the job is so good if you cannot argue. >> i initiate the discussion for and argued case. this case is about this. did the arguments are so and so. sometimes it will take a minute. i think it is true for any group, the role of that conference, no one speaks twice until everyone has spoken once. >> it helped me. it is a very good role. everyone feels that he has been hurt. but it is great to go first.

when you are on the end of the you have the advantage that you know what the other thinks. >> it is not an exercise in persuading. it is an exercise in stating your views. >> you take note. if you get assign the opinion, you know how to write it in a way that will get at least four other boats. >> i was the most senior member for the least four other years. it was always will we had our conferences that no one else was in the room pattern usually somebody forgot a paper.

i have been doing this for 10 years. we get on very well. >> no. would want to be part of an institution where everybody dislikes each other? one of the great things about the court right now is that even when people disagree sharply, there are important and hard questions that people have but they can understand and everybody is working very hard. " i just finished my 18th term. i still not have heard the first unkind word in that room. if you think about what we have

decided, life-and-death, abortion, execution, war, peace, a financial ruin, at government, relationship, a citizens, you name it, we have decided it. >> those discussion leave the justices to affirm or reverse a number of particular cases. is not concrete. you can change your mind. >> it is not just win or lose, reverse or a firm. it is what rationale do you use. >> if the case is close, 5-4, and let's say you are on the side that prevailed with the majority, there are not a lot of

high fives. there is a moment of quiet and respect. >> my most important responsibility is the responsibility for assigning opinions. once the boats are in, if i am in the majority, i get to decide who will write the opinion. that is important. you want to make sure the assignment is given to the justice that commands the must support on the court. you want to make sure the work is done on time. some cases are more interesting than others. did you want to make sure those are fairly distributed. some are harder. we get all sorts of different issues. you want to make sure they have a nice mix and not just one justice doing criminal cases are something like that. a lot of factors go into that decision. it is very important. >> as opinion writing

assignments are handed out, this house the justices and their staff consults precedent by the words written in the countless legal volumes housed here. a room filled with books and the symbolism of the great givers and it meyer by those that are injured by the mahogany grandeur. >> if you want to see them as the double room in washington, they need to go to the library on the floor that nobody hardly sees today. that is just a breathtakingly beautiful room. >> the library is probably one of the bush special places in the building. the archway -- one of the most

special places in the building. to the art represents law, science, industry. there are shields directly above the archways that represents various printers symbols. when i was clerking, i spent a lot of time in the library. it is gorgeous. i would not go there to read supreme court cases because the would be in our own chambers but when looking for a secondary materials of different kinds, we would go to the library and look at the library. it was a wonderful place to look. i thought it was a quiet place

to work. >> the library is one of the special rooms in the building. it does not get used as much as it did when the building was first opened. it goes back to the way the court does things. they would literally call the docket each day in court. you did not know which case would be argued that day. you had an idea. a lot of our attorneys had to be on site because they would have to be ready to go down there. you have the lawyers lounge. it is why you have this magnificent reading room. this space is reserved for the use of the members of the bar and the court staff only. >> there have been a few times when i had to use materials from sell many cases that we occupied two or three of those tables, leaving the books out so the law clerks and i could go up there and sit up in the reading room and refer to all of those passages.

>> with president encases research, justices go about the process of writing the opinions of majority and descending that eventually made their way to the public as the final decision. >> it is an ongoing process. you write a first draft. you need to learn a little bit more. you read the case. you're always bringing the law clerks and. it is just a continuation. >> it is terribly challenging. some of the issues are real. some are clear-cut. some are enormously challenging. you want to see other views expressed before being formed. it is the help to have it in

writing. you have to put it down in words rather than thinking it through. it is a real challenge. >> we had to convince our self that a lot of stuff goes in the wastebasket. you had to convince others. the cordray mine to of the fact reduce the court reminds you of the fact that you have to write the -- of the court reminded of the fact that you have to write things out. there has been more than one case where i have changed my decision as i was writing the opinion. >> i do not enjoy a rising. i enjoy having written. i find writing a very difficult process. i sweat over it. i right in rewrite -- write and

rewrite. let me read it one last time. every time i read it i would change something else. they have been rescued from my grasp. >> this is before i am reasonably satisfied. i circulated. i hope the judges joined. i have the court. we realize one of us will have to write out the decision which teaches and gives reasons for what we do. the point of writing an opinion is to command some allegiance to the results. we have no army.

we have no budget. we do not have press conferences. we do not give speeches saying how wonderful my dissent was or the majority. it is just what we write. >> i would like opinions to be as clear as possible. i would like people to pick them up and understand them. i would like for them to be as thoughtful as process. a light to write opinions that address competing arguments. >> once a person assigned to write for the majority opinion circulate a draft, and then the other eight have a chance to weigh in. he started acting within a day or two. i will wait for the dissent.

he said if he will change this to that, i will be able to join. it is something like that that happens. if there is a dissenting opinion to be written, often people will wait and look at the dissent for forecasting it. once the dissent circulate, it could be so powerful that it causes someone who previously had been with the majority to change their view to some extent. it is in the rising of the opinion. >> i say how good the same direction. the majority only ones to go 60. 60 would decide this.

i would write the opinion to go 60 and not say anything about the other 20 yards. if i were writing a concurrent or dissent on my own, i would write the opinion in a way that reflects that i would go 80. we're going the same way. i cannot write an opinion that went in a direction that was different from what i actually thought we should go. >> the dissent here are rigorous. they do not pull punches. and it ultimately improves the quality of the majority opinion. it is something you have to anticipate. >> dissents are more fun to write. when you have it, it is yours. you say what you what. if someone does not want to join it, who cares. this is mine. when you're writing a majority, you do not have that much.

you have the crafted in a way that at least four other people can jump on. he tried to crack it in a way that as many people as possible will join on. that means some suggest is -- suggestion stylistic and otherwise the do not think are the best. in order to get everybody on board you take them. >> you're going to be very receptive. we have eight votes, you often say not quite go fly a kite. the job is to get to it. we are not here to spenin out works that will never see the light of day. >> justice let's get has the

opinion of the court -- salito has the opinion of the court. >> the rest of us then go and dictatorship -- dictate it. >> the supreme court public information simply says here is the material, make of it what you will. we will make sure you have the material. that is enormously invaluable. it is also very nice not to have a sense that someone is trying to spin you. >> i like the pageantry of the bench. i like to hear the justice announced the opinion. then i raced down the stairs to the court press area where we all have our laptops set up.

i write a first version of the stories of a can get, internet site. readers want to know as soon as possible what the court ruled in what it might mean. >> it does most of its work in the open. the work comes in the front door. he goes out the front door. >> you are just a few steps away from the court room. vacation is the to the public as well. there are events with other justices over time. there is innately decorated conference rooms and their portraits that past chief justices that helps one understand the history of the

court. >> in the east conference room, we have the first eight portraits. you can go in there and talk about the portrait of john j. and how he came to the court appointed by george washington. then he get elected as governor of new york and a size that is a better job than being chief justice. he becomes the governor of new york. they have a beautiful portrait of george marshall. we talked about him to let people know his story. the air behind the fireplace looking at each other through time. >> i like to go sometimes on a quiet night to our conference

rooms. all my predecessors as chief justices. to some extent, and you look up at them on the walls with a and depreciation. each of them has a special story to tell with the institution of the court. the had the courts function as a court, moving it from a situation where each justice wrote his own opinion. it was vital in establishing the court in its present form. you understand that he saw this great problem in the country of slavery. this is how he is going to solve

it. that helps inform how you look at your own job. he walked on a little further and you see more. you have a thousand law professors. a couple of them would know. that is a good lesson. you recall his vital role in turning back this. they're things like that. i find it a useful reminder for the trade. >> as time moves forward, and this building will remain timeless.

it is still be tied to past presidents and tradition. in many other ways, it is a forever changing place defined by the human being serving their as justices. they're all trying to interpret the document over 200 years old in the context of an ever- changing world. >> you cannot judge judges unless you know the material of their working with. you cannot say this is a good decision simply because you like the results. it seems you that the person who won.rved to win thone >> we do not get a right of the time. >> we have 300 million people. probably have 500 million points.

people in this country do not agree about a lot of things. they tried to resolve their differences under law. >> what i do get a fulfillment from is living up to the oath to do the right way and to know that on behalf of my fellow citizens i have tried to be faithful to their constitution. >> what i see has been very inspiring. i think you have nine people who are working really hard and you're trying the best that they're able to do something really important in this country. >> the most important thing for the public to understand is that we're not in the political branch of government. if they do not like us or what we're doing, it is too bad other than impeachment which has never happened.

we need to understand it was not based on a policy preference. >> i think they need something. i think they trust us to interpret and apply those laws fairly and evenhandedly. this is the great responsibility that we have a. >> the supreme court in general has been respected by the american people. it is not a size that makes the grand your for the specialness of -- grandeur or the specialist of the place. it is what goes on here that makes it special. and it is.

>> if you like to learn more, learn about the extended interviews with the justices. >> coming up on c-span, "q & a" with sonja sohn and david cameron on troop levels in afghanistan. it is one of several topics on this week's "question time." timothy geithner testified about the european debt crisis. >> on monday, the supreme court stars three days of hearings on the constitutionality of the new health-care law. here the oral argument for yourself in its entirety as the release audio at