if it says animal, one thing we know for certain is it is not a carrot because the carrot is not an animal, no matter what. the text put on limits. they do look at the history, where did this phrase come from of what was the history of the statute? third, you look at tradition. suppose a sense of the about habeas corpus. there is a tradition that surrounds those words. fourth, you look at the precedent, there are earlier cases that have some relevance. somebody had an objective in putting that word in the statute. what was the purpose? six, look at consequences of deciding one way or another in the light of the purpose.

if you are looking at the first amendment, that is the cobwebs of speech. the fourth amendment is consequent as of privacy. all judges use posix tools, but judges very in the emphasis that the give one or the other. i probably give more weight to the purpose and the consequence. my fellow judge would take into account the history, and i would give the language. the tradition, the precedent that is the same with this case today. that is why people -- do i look at history? look at the second amendment. guns.

with the basic purpose -- i could not figure out the basic turbos, without looking at history. we got into a detailed discussion, and they will look into more history than i am willing to. >> this was the supreme court decision in 2008. for the first time in our nation history, the supreme court said what the second amendment means. you talk about history, the court is divided 5-4, so history does not always provide the answer? >> some judges on our court thought that the second amendment but which says a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state about right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

here's what it is about. when they passed the constitution, madison and hamilton, they wanted that document, which they knew was a good one, to be ratified. but there were people around causing trouble. it was a close question. one of the arguments that they raised was that we have just bought a war of independence. state militias were part of the revolutionary army. the first article to the constitution says that congress can call up the state militias and regulate them. how do we know that congress will not do it and destroy the state militias? fear not, said madison and hamilton, we will pass a bill of rights, the second amendment will stop congress from calling them up. now this -- if that is what this is about, it is a great historical interest, very little

practical fell you -- value. it was atrophic argument, but only -- a terrific argument, but only for people accepted it. five people believed that it was about the people, in both cases we are looking at history. when you apply, you still have to apply it in light of her process, in light of what is going to be the practical result, and what the content of that second amendment is. very open, it is not in decided by our court. >> sometimes you have to fill in the blanks.

sometimes your deciding what it means. consider the case the supreme court said about the constitution that says anyone who wants to be elected to congress has to be a u.s. citizen, have to live in the state of tennessee, and then try to enact term limits -- of candidacy, and then try to enact term limits. >> this case reminds me a little bit of that one. is term limits constitutional? let's look at the text. it says a -- can arkansas say that its members of congress can serve no more than two terms, or for terms -- four terms? the text says you have to be 25 years old, and the an american citizen, and be a citizen of the state from which you come. the qualification is can you add another qualification?

what did the founders say? jefferson said monday, madison said another. they said opposite things. pretty typical. let's look at consequences purposes. can you not add qualifications? they added a property qualification?

case they you cannot be a lunatic? [laughter] clearly not. it is ready evenly balanced. if you read the opinion, they said we could not add one. the 10th amendment reserves the power to the state and what power, and how strongly should that be interpreted? if those in congress are elected state officials -- well, wait, they are technically a federal official, but they are state official -- and it is the emphasis that you put. there are no real answers to a lot of these questions. we are going with the answer that we think is right. these questions are very close

and there's just no obviously correct answer. in your profession it is awfully tempting to say there's good and there's bad, and there's right and there's wrong. that is not how it looks. >> or in my profession, more likely to say liberal and conservative. >> correct. >> how do you avoid deciding a case based on how you would like it to come out? if you cannot base it on history, purpose, or consequence, how you a sit on say -- how do you avoid saying i think this is the way it should be? >> i never get to do what i want. [laughter] there is as much of that internal feeling because -- if i were to ask you honestly, what

do you think controls these close questions, most of you will write down politics. the members of the junior varsity politicians, but i say no. the reason being, why do we have the power to make a decision that what the elected branches of government did violate the constitution? some think that john marshall made it up, but he did not. if you look at the histories of the time, the vast majority of the people in the convention thought that the judges would have that power. why?

hamilton explains it, he says we have written a beautiful document. it is neat, compact, and has lasted a long time. in the federalist 56, hamilton says this is a beautiful document, but if somebody does not have to -- the power to say when the branches of government have gone too far, set boundaries and guidelines, let's hang up in a museum. beautiful people can admire it but put it in the smithsonian -- except it wasn't there yet. you have to have somebody, who? the president? too much power. if he can do everything he can

do, and say this in the constitution or not, that it is too much. congress? it is a democracy? he writes in effect, he says congress will do it and do it all right as long as the popular answer. they are experts in popularity they know popularity. if they didn't, they would not be where they are. this document gives the same rights to the least popular to the most popular. so we better not give this to a group of people who are really persuaded by what is popular too much of time according to hamilton, to do this job. the judges. why the judges? they are grey, nobody knows them, it is a legal job, and they will not be persuaded by popularity.

the do not have the power of the purse, and the do not have the power of the sword. so they will be careful. that is basically what he says. if we wanted to decide politically we're really flying in the face of what the level that hamilton wants -- in the face of what hamilton wanted the only explanation i have ever seen of that is from a political perspective he would rent a civil war. it probably helped created. judges are terrible politicians. very few of them have been elected to anything.

we don't have the capacity, and it is not the job. i eight hours on this one, because i will -- i do not think people decide politics, real politics is where are the votes? who is going to get elected? i think i could convince you of that, -- you mean ideology? are you a marxist? a free enterprise are? if i catch myself think i am -- thinking i am doing it because it fits into some ideological world, i know it is wrong. there is a third thing, i am who i am. i went to stanford, i am from california. i tried that test that the new york times has, and it is a dialect test that tells you where you are from.

two of the city for fresno and bakersfield. i grew up in california. it is pretty good. my point is that i have the background i have. most of us have certain views about our profession at it. the global -- at a philosophical level. where do we all fit in, how does law fit in? when you get to these great big open constitutional questions, i think that that plays a role. what is the freedom of speech? 14th amendment. equal protection of the laws. no deprivation of life, liberty, or property without the due

process of law. by the time they reached the supreme court, there are good arguments of both sides, most of the time. a person's background, how they see the law, how they developed over time, it does have an impact. it cannot be avoided, and i do not think it is wrong. that is one reason why these terms last a long time. different presidents with different views appoint different people. now any president who thinks that he is going to get the decisions he always wants. surely wrong. teddy roosevelt appointed wendell holmes. he ended up deciding in the wrong way in an antitrust case. they may have more luck at a deep philosophical level.

even then they do not always get the one they want. san francisco, i was born and grew up in. i lived in cambridge massachusetts an awful lot of times. i have seen a lot of disagreements, but i did not know what one was until i came here. i wish those people agree with me more. over time, i thought, it is a big country. there are a lot of different points of view. we have 310 million people. they think every race, religion, point of view possible. well, it is not so bad that you have courts with it and points of view, based at that level of philosophic philosophy or different basic approaches. it is ok. and i am not always in the minority. it shifts a lot.

when i am, it is a miraculous thing. i see it every day. there is a miraculous thing still that these 310 million people have decided to resolve their differences under the law. it was not always that way. it only took us a few horrors like the civil war, slavery, 80 years of legal segregation. the country has not always been on a great track. but with the ups and downs, this rule of law has arrived, and it is a tremendous advantage to our country. i talked to student audiences. i like talking to student audiences, as you can see. i said, the remarkable thing about bush v. gore, which often comes up, i heard senator reid say, the remarkable thing never is remarked upon. despite tremendous disagreement,

very important case, affects a lot of people, and this important matter decided by unelected authorities, and by the way, judges are human. and they are sometimes wrong. i thought they were in that case. i suspect senator reid thought so, too. not popular. at least 50% thought it was wrong. maybe more. nonetheless, they followed it. no guns. no riots in the street. fabulous. i know my studio audience will say, i am sure 20% of you are

thinking, too bad there were not riots. really? turn on the television set and see how countries are when they resolve their problems that way. >> let me ask you one more before we invite questions from the students. there was a recent study that showed only 50% of americans could identify john roberts as chief justice, more than two thirds could name a judge on "american idol you have said the constitution's democracy assumes that we understand how the government works. this audience is clearly an exception, but are you worried that schools no longer teach civics and government as much as they once did and we are building a population that does not understand how the government works? >> yes. i follow sandra o'connor, who is always talking about this, as is justice kennedy. we talk about it all the time.

ask anyone in public life, members of congress. they would not be in public life if, at some level, they thought the government was important. i do not have to tell you that because you are here. but of course, generally, i cannot tell people your age what to do. i cannot. they would not do it anyway. i cannot tell them what to do. i hope they will find someone to love, i hope that they have a career that they can practice, and i hope they will devote some of their life to civic affairs which at any level -- library commissioner -- many different levels to participate in political life. of course, i believe that strongly. i cannot tell you what to do but i have become more familiar with this document, and i can fill you, if you do not, the document will not work. it assumes a basic knowledge and understanding of how the

government works. it assumes knowledge of the fact that the document itself -- we are looked the border patrol. it creates borders, but the decisions of how your community, state, how the nation will work, what kind of country, city, what kind of town you want, it leads to you, the democratic process. we cannot decide those things. of course you have to participate. i found a good quotation that i will use some time. he was talking about athens, it century bc. in a funeral oration he says why athens is so great. democracy, etc. very few people participate but still better a few than none. he says, what do we say in athens about a man who does not participate in public life?

we do not say there is a man who mind his own business. we say there is a man that has no business here. that is what the document said. >> very good. we have a long line of questions from both sides of the room. we will start here. >> john graves, harvard extension. i was going to ask you first, if you have ever presided over a case that you knew you got it wrong. i think you alluded to the fact that that was possible. rather, i would ask, have you ever voted against your conscious to uphold the law? >> if you really have a

tremendously strong conscientious objective, and you could not do it, you should not take the job. what i was confirmed, i was asked the question, how do you feel about the death penalty? by said if i was against it so much on moral grounds that i could not read myself to follow what the law is, at that time 20 years ago, that i should not take this job. so i would like the job and i hope you will confirm me. i do not think it is so terrible that i could not bring myself to vote against. that is far as i went. when you say a matter of conscience, i voted in many cases where i would have far preferred the result to be the opposite. i voted in many cases where i would say, i cannot believe this, but the mixture of morale and he and other things in that, i do not separate out.

>> the law is supposed to work on moral ground. the criminal is supposed to punish those people who deserve to be punished. it does not always work out. then you have to take into account the need to have laws that are not perfect and people not being perfect. >> jordan, university of san diego. we briefly touched upon term limits. i wonder if you thought there were any negative aspects to lifetime appointment for supreme court justices? >> yes, there are. as far as i can see, it would be just as good, and may be preferable, from an individual judge's point of view, if it were long-term. 18 years. the term would have to be long. would have to be long. when you do not want from the public interest review -- point of view is, what is my next job?

not a good idea. i would actually prefer if it were a fairly lengthy term of years for a lot of reasons. nonetheless, it is not. the constitution says term for good behavior. >> thank you. >> quinnipiac. given the recent surge of social media covering trials and events, is there any thought to opening up supreme court arguments to the public via media? >> we are a conservative law in that respect, small c. you say, why are you so conservative? after all, the written press is there, why not television? the concerns are, first of all it is a symbol of our court. if we let it in, it may be in all criminal cases.

that is a problem. people testify where they will be seen by their neighbors jurors, etc. another problem is people will think the oral argument is what it is about. 99% is really briefs. and then another problem. we are deciding -- people relate to people they know more than those they do not know. they relate to people they see more than those they read about. there will be a good guy and a bad guy. that is risky for the court because we are deciding things for the 310 million people who are not in that courtroom. that is the rule of law. and then of course, as i am honest about it, people worry about the demonizing or the angel-izing of people you see. we do not know.

my own answer to this is experience will build up. i suspect eventually it will be there. it is a question of when. >> hofstra university. could you speak more about what led to the supreme court decision in bush v. gore? >> what can i say? there were lengthy opinions. people thought it through and they came to different conclusions. i can add one thing, which i have said quite a lot. before i came to my own conclusion about it, i had to ask myself this question. what i come out the same way? after all, i was appointed by president clinton and vice president gore may have had something to do with it. i have met him.

i thought, would i decide the same case the same way if everything were the same and the names were reversed? i had to come to the conclusion that i would. when i said this at stanford i added, truthfully, people are great self caterers. you do not always know you have an answer to that question, but you try. i am not sorry the way that i voted, but i am sure that each of my colleagues went through some version of that. and you have to. you do not know that you are always getting that right, the answer to that question, but you know you can try. and you know your colleagues tried. that is the best i can do. >> my name is alexis. i am from juniata college. pennsylvania attorney general kathleen kane announced she would not defend pennsylvania's defense of marriage act in the

pennsylvania constitution in a court of law eerie because she believed the law was unconstitutional and morally wrong. what is your opinion on that? >> i can give an opinion on her decision, not the opinion. i cannot give an opinion to your question because it is an issue that might come in front of us. the reason for that, first there is an ethical problem with it. underlying that is something that is really practical. when you have a party and you have your friends expressing opinion, i sometimes do that too. then you have to make a decision for real. when you have to make that decision for real, before you do that, and believe me, there will be a lot of briefs in that case, on both sides, and we read them.

it is my life, reading and writing. i told my son, if you do your homework well, you can do homework the rest of your life. sometimes it turns out that what you first expressed as your cocktail party view is not what your view is. sometimes it turns out that what you first expressed as your cocktail party view is not what your view is. >> michael arthur, stanford university. in light of recent cases like citizens united, do you believe the supreme court is tending to dispense justice or fairness in the american system? >> you mean do i agree with citizens united? i agree with the dissent. it is not such an easy argument as sometimes you might read in the press.

i do not want you to believe this argument, but i want you to see what it is. it does say congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. i know you can say campaign contributions our money, not speech. but you try to express your views politically without money in a political campaign. may as well lock yourself in a closet. political speech is protected by the first amendment, perhaps first and foremost, and you cannot speak without money. but congress does not deprive you of money, just regulates it. well, perhaps our greatest judge said, do not get into the business, talking to judges, of trying to tell people when too much money is too much. people will pass laws on that and they will be really protecting themselves and their jobs. it is a risky thing for

judges to get into that. my position is we have to do that. as i voted to strike down a campaign law in vermont that limited x editors, i think $100, i said, is that all you can contribute? now i am in the business. i think there are other arguments on the other side. i think there are important arguments on the other side, such as the need not to give everyone some kind of voice and not to drown out the people who have less money. they have a right, too. the need for people to think that congress is not just responding to money but responding to opinions that the first amendment is there to protect, i think there are some good arguments on my side, too. but i do not want you to think it is all one-sided.

>> my name is ryan navarro from juniata college. what has been the most controversial case at the supreme court during your time on the bench? >> you would know better than me. what do you think? >> the second amendment case was controversial, so was health care, and bush v. gore. >> those are good answers. >> those of you out there with cases like that, bring them. we love those cases. >> good evening, justice. a pleasure to have you with us. i am from suffolk university. your book is widely regarded as a direct response to justice scalia's book. i was wondering how much truth there is to that and moreover, how do you reconcile with someone who you have such a

fundamental difference in constitutional interpretation with? >> on a personal basis, we are friends. the relations among the judges are fine. we have lunch together. i can remember once we had really tough ones in the conference just before lunch. 5-4 one way, 5-4 the other way. i said to chief justice rehnquist -- we are having lunch, enjoy each other's company, and 45 minutes -- he said yes, you had four members of the court thinking the five others were out of their mind. the discussions and conferences are professional. i have never heard a voice raised in anger in that conference. you go around the table. it is a good point for people, what ever you are in. you start getting emotional about something, and you discredit your argument. particularly for lawyers.

be careful. you have a point, you are trying to get across a point of view or a set of arguments to see how people react. calm helps. >> what about the book? >> i did not write it necessarily to be a response. i wrote that particular book because -- probably i had to give some lectures. the real point is, i read this interesting essay by a french thinker. he made this distinction which i have always read. isaiah berlin made a distinction between positive and negative liberties.

he looked at that in the context and said that positive liberty was a bad thing. rousseau had that idea, that it led to fascism. constante said the greek idea of dividing sovereign power among the people -- who were not women or slaves then -- but the citizens of athens shared a sovereign power. they would decide together how the country should be conducted. that basic idea of democracy is what he calls positive liberty. negative liberty is simply freedom from the state telling you what to do. both have desirable aspects. i thought a whole lot of what i do in the court, and the notion of positive liberty is tremendously helpful because it

suggests a need for participation, that the government is you. it is not us versus them. where did that idea come from? in my life, in high school, if you grew up in san francisco in the 1950s, you would have it strong. i think this is a helpful idea. i wanted to explain that idea in that book. >> my name is kimberly. i go to juniata college. i was wondering how you-based decisions where there is no text or history or tradition? >> there is going to be a text. contrary to what you see as first-year law students, in the court, statutory, we consider regulations, federal statutes, and the constitution, so there will be some text. very hard to think of a case where there is no text.

what i tend to do more is, i say, there are some words here. somebody wrote them. if they come out of congress the person who wrote those words had some kind of view, even if you never spoke to the senator that it would not displease the senator that he works for. the person who wrote this had some idea. it did not spring from nowhere. what was that idea, what were they trying to do with those words, what was the purpose, will this interpretation, as opposed to that, will it further that purpose or will it hinder the purpose? those are not always determinative, but they are usually helpful. >> good evening. i attend suffolk university. thank you for taking time to speak to us today. i was wondering, do you believe

citizens united will be overturned sometime in the future? >> who knows? the tendency is rarely to overturn an earlier case. citizens united, you see, is about -- the case itself is about corporations and labor unions independently spending their money without coordination of a candidate in the last few months of a campaign to buy time on television that seem to be for or against a candidate. now, wealthy people, very wealthy people, billionaires from both parties, can do that anyway, and they do. there is no law that forbids a wealthy person from doing it. the real question in the case is, it in a world where wealthy individuals can do this, could labor unions and corporations

also do this? i thought the answer to that question is no. congress has the power to regulate that. five people thought it was yes. but note how i framed the question. sort of a narrow issue, isn't it? you see, i'm trying to show you something. >> thank you. >> good evening. i am from the harvard extension school. i am sure you would already agree, but in a country that has enforced legal segregation and slavery, purpose and consequence as a extensive history to prove they should carry the most weight. if you can disclose, is there discord between the judges about what should be valued more, and in terms of hierarchy importance the six pillars you had

mentioned in terms of making a decision. >> not too much. justice scalia and i have on several occasions spoken to audiences together. we spoke to a large student audience in lubbock, texas. it is always interesting to me. i hope it is interesting to him. we discuss these things. senator leahy was chairman of the senate judiciary committee and asked us to come to talk about it to the committee. you had quite a few people there, senators from both parties, and they asked substantive questions and did not make it into some kind of clinically oriented thing. we sort of talk to them about this. i thought there were good questions, good discussions, very substantive. now he has taken that and made tapes and shows it in schools in vermont. so we get some discussion.

>> to expand on that question, when you are voting together for the first time, you are not saying i think the text takes me here, the history takes me here, it is much quicker than that. >> the way the conference works, we will hear these cases. for example, today, tomorrow wednesday. procedure is more important in the court then you think. you have to decide. that is the job. so we get all the briefs from the case two weeks before. i will read those briefs but i will divide the 12 for the oral arguments session, which is two weeks alone. monday, tuesday wednesday. thursday we are supposed to be thinking and friday we are in conference.

i will divide them among my law clerks, i have four. you each read three sets and you better know it better than i do. then i will have a discussion with them. i will talk about what they should write as a memo, things i want answered. then we will have another discussion. by the time of oral arguments, i have read the briefs, my law clerks have read it, i have talked to her, i have talked to them, i have a memo, i have read it, so the questions are ones that we think we know the argument. we do not 20 or hear more of these basic arguments. we were there really to ask questions. that helps much more than people think. it forces you. it is amazing. it forces you to get your thoughts. in the day before the conference, you are thinking, i will have to say something in

this conference. what am i going to say? >> in the conference it is just united. >> yes, just the justices in the morning. we discussed the case. we each have a book for each case. it has the name of the other justices and places to write. the first thing that happens is the chief justice says, the issue in this case is this and that. my view is. it is sustained, probably five minutes. my view is this and that. i would vote to affirm or reverse. i have the essence of what he is inking. then it goes to justice scalia and that justice kennedy justice thomas, justice ginsburg, me, justice alito, justice sotomayor, and justice kagan. each of us will take note of what the others say. nobody speaks twice until everyone has spoken once. that is a very good rule in any

small group. everybody feels they have gotten a fair chance. then there will be back-and- forth discussions. probably a little bit more with chief justice roberts then with red whisks -- rehnquist. the point of the discussion, and the point of what i have said is not to say that i have a better argument. there are hundreds of arguments. it is what i think. the reason why i am waiting in this direction is -- and it better be truthful. that is why they are in private. i do not have to worry about what i am saying, i can try things on. there is some discussion back and forth. on the basis of that, people would cast a tentative vote, but it is less tentative than it would have been the day before. and it is less tentative than it would have been before the oral arguments. on the basis of that, the chief

justice will assign someone to be the rapporteur. he is much more constrained in that. everybody gets one case before they get two. by the way, half of our cases are unanimous. where they are 5-4, i learned how to get it assigned to me. i was the longest-serving junior justice in history almost. i could get it assigned to me. here is how. it breaks down 4-4. how do i get it to me, which i certainly did not want. i said, i am not sure. they have to assign it to me. that will determine the outcome. i better be more certain than that.

nonetheless, he has to try to get the court, do it by the numbers, and that he has some discretion. then we sit down, we write, i get my law clerk to write a long draft or memo, and then i will go read it. i will sit down and then write my draft. i often say, i know you think yours was better. then she will go in give me another draft, and i will probably do another draft. i was a law professor. i am picky. then we go back and forth and get a draft and circulate it. i hope i pick up before you are more votes. if i do that, it is the opinion of the court. i am always willing to change, even when i have the majority. when i have the majority signed up, i am a little less willing. nonetheless, somebody may write

a dissent or concurrence. eventually everyone either joined or writes his own. and the opinion comes out. it is mechanical. that plays a role. >> my name is alexis from juniata college. my question is in regards to your view on education. last week, we discussed how approximately only two percent of the national budget is spent on education. how do you feel about the amount of money that goes to public education and what you feel we could do to improve the public education system if we were allotted more money to do so? >> i declare my bias. this is my father's watch. it says irving breyer, legal advisor, san francisco unified school district, 1933-1973.

i grew up with the public schools. obviously, i cannot think of anything more important. there are a lot of very good schools, and a lot that are not so good. those that are not, i am really startled. of course, i do not have the answer. when i listen to experts in the field, they say nobody really has the answer. the person who is the principal or the headmaster makes a difference. experiment. see what works. that is what frank and roosevelt said. try something. if it does not work, try something else. but of course we should. i am sure in many places they are. i cannot think of anything more important i would like to spend more money on. we know money alone does not do it but it does help. i tend to agree with where you

are coming from. >> good evening, my name is jeffrey from miami-dade college. you mentioned the process in which you make decisions. sometimes they are very challenging. which kay's have you decided on that was the most difficult? >> another rule, nobody speaks twice until everybody speaks once. another unwritten rule is tomorrow is another day. if we are both on the court, you and i would have been the best allies on case one, but that has nothing to do with how we may be total enemies in case two. the fact that it is onto the next one means i do not go back and again on those two often. i might on occasion, but i have had some terrible times on difficult cases, but i tend to drive them out of my memory. there is one where i had to decide something about kansas.

there was some kind of rule about mental illness in prisons and what they could do. i ended up thinking it was a violation of the clause. here is how the psychology works, and it will work the same way with you. you have a difficult decision to make. not concern yourself. who knows once our own ego gets into it. not concerning yourself. i have asked businesspeople to make this decision. my goodness this is difficult. then you go back and forth and decide. you decide. the next day, you thought it was difficult. do you think the next day, it was so difficult, i should have decided differently? no, you think, that was very difficult, but i am glad i

decided the way i did. two weeks after that, i am glad i decided the way i did. two months after that, how right i was. that is how the human mind works. that is why it is tough for me to find one case. >> i'm sorry to say this will have to be the last question. >> i am from quinnipiac university. as a supreme court justice aware you have to make difficult decisions, what is it about the judicial system, where many people may see it as flawed or broken, that you love so much? >> it is a good job being a lawyer. everybody has views on something. being a lawyer or a judge, you have to bring your mind to work as well as your heart, both. you are helping individuals or you are helping communities, you are trying to be helpful, but in a particular way which requires thought.

it is that combination of head and heart that i think makes law a great interest to people. as far as the courts are concerned, probably the primary characteristic is what i have said before, a rule of law. i get this question so often. we had a group of african judges from burkina faso, a group from togo, and a woman from ghana who is the president of the supreme court asked the same question. why do people do what you say? it is very hard to answer. you have to look at history, they do not always. think of the history we have been through. think of little rock, where you had a governor, in my lifetime

standing in the schoolhouse doors, saying those children will not come into this white school and integrate. and then you had a president called the 101st airborne out. they were the heroes of world war ii, and those children were taken into the school. and that was not the end of it. a year later they closed the school. but it began a series of things like the freedom marchers, martin luther king, and all sorts of things. what i say to people is do not talk to the lawyers. do not confine your discussion of the rule of law to lawyers. contrary to popular belief there are 310 million americans who are not lawyers. it is the fact that they support this rule of law that is the tremendous asset to our country. go out to villages. convince people why it is a desirable thing to have a group

of judges who are human and can make mistakes decide things that will make a difference to your life and could be very unpopular. that is hard to do. but we have this asset in our country. not perfect, but it is there. we participate in a system that can transmit that from generation to generation, and allow so many people to live together without killing each other. that is a wonderful thing. and it is probably that which i see -- as you can see, i feel this. it is probably that that i see as the major virtue of these courts, and it is the rule of law. >> thank you all for your questions. justice breyer, thank you very much. [applause]

>> if you could, maybe indulge us -- a colleague of mr. williams recommended that, justice, you might enjoy the opportunity in this situation to ask mr. williams a question. >> [laughter] i hope when you can do is use your influence. can you keep the professional journalists at work in the supreme court? >> i certainly hope so. as one, i would like to continue doing it. the news media is changing rapidly. where people get their information is changing so fast. i learned the other day, we have a website, nbcnews.com. most people find stories on that website not by going to it, but i what is passed along to them by their friends in social media, or what they find in a blog.

what we find more and more is our audience is not coming to us, we have to go to our audience. those of you in this room, you probably do not watch television or read a newspaper as much as justice breyer and i did when we were growing up. the news media are changing because of that. what we cover, government, the supreme court, is till tremendously important, still an enormous amount of interest. one last anecdote. when the supreme court decided the case, the website scotusblog got over a million hits that day. there is enormous interest in the court. it is a great institution to cover and i love every day that i am there. thank you. [applause] >> on behalf of the washington center, edward kennedy institute for the senate, students and faculty here, thank you for a wonderful evening. as a token of our appreciation

a fashionable washington center tote bag, guaranteed to hold many pounds of legal brief. [applause] thank you so much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> washington journal begins in a moment. we will look at today's news. chris christie will be sworn in for a second term. we will have live coverage from renton at 11:30 a.m. eastern. washington journal will hold a discussion on the the midterm elections. the brazilian ambassador will

deliver remarks at george washington university. watch live coverage it at 5:30 p.m. eastern. rush is pointing the tightest security in the history of the olympics as they prepare to host the winter games . this morning, we will look at the security and politics with the winter games. live coverage is at 8:30 a.m. eastern time on c-span2. four years ago, the supreme court said that a law that allowed unlimited construct -- contributions. it we will be joined by the heritage foundation.

we will discuss job growth for 2014. you can join the conversation on twitter and facebook. ♪\ host: good morning and welcome to "the washington journal." iran dominates the front pages with of the united nations resending its invitation to iran to attend the syrian peace talks. the u.s. demanded the u.n. disinvite iran because the talks begin wednesday in switzerland and iran did not agree to stipulations that the sorrow assad must go. -- that bashar al-assad must go.