friends for too long. you work it out. that is his main thing. go work it out. that was in attitude that we found. no country would work with 99.9% of all agreements -- when you can't work them out, you go to the lawyer. always.ally do, but not the courts usually get settlements. if they still can't work it out, maybe they will have a trial. arguments, eventually some will come to us that are

important. the fact that that has never been there just shows that aboute the disagreements what the correct answer to these thetions is, about interpretation of the appointments clause, they have worked it out. now they found a way of raising it that they could not. this is a case you will see. jefferson said one thing. handle may have said another -- hamilton said another thing. several presidents have said one thing. congress wrote a report in 1860 saying the opposite. -- when the president from it -- was from a different party, you got something different. people switch sides.

the president may fill vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate. what does that mean? what does they have mean? there are al qaeda of complexity's. -- all kinds of complexities .but then it could not be -- we have to decide it. >> when you are looking at the constitution and trying to answer a question like this, he's are questions that have divided the lower courts and public opinion. the purpose ofde a provision of the constitution, which you will have to do in this recess appointment case,

how do you know what the authors, the founding fathers had in mind? >> good question. let me show you something, which is true of the constitution and also of the origin a -- the statute. how do those words apply? how should they be interpreted? how do we apply them in this case are that? i can give you an example. nothing to do with law i discovered in france. there was a man, a high school teacher on a train. 20was carrying in a basket live snails. he taught biology. he was going to show them to the class. this was not his lunch avoided.. ,he conductor said

you have to buy a ticket for the stale. look what this tariff said. no one may bring animals on a train unless there is a -- they are in a basket. then enough to buy ticket. he it was talking about cats and dogs. not snails. is this nail an animal? snail and animal> ? then you have to buy a ticket. whether high or low details or not, virtually every judge always uses the same basic tools to try to find the answer to a difficult question. you read the text.

if it says animal, one thing we is it is not an caret. caret is not an animal. the text puts limits. you look to history. where did this phrase come from? thie history of the statute? third, you look at the tradition. of habeas corpus. you look at the president. there will be earlier cases that have some relevance. fifth, you look at the person. somebody had an objective and putting that word in the statute. it said animal for some reason. without something to do insurance accidents what was the purpose. and you look at the consequences of dividing -- deciding one way

or the other. if you were dealing with the first amendment, that is probably consequences but speech. with the fourth amendment, consequences a deal with privacy. judges use those six tools. but judges very and emphasize -- very in the emphasis they give one than the other. i give more weight than justice scalia to the purpose and consequence. the historynt into and tradition. he probably gives more weight to the language. tradition. president. this precedent. i am more likely to find those ambiguous. people will look -- look at second amendment. with guns.

i could not have thought of the basic purpose without looking to history. when we got into the detailed argument in the case, as we were on different sides, he was probably willing to look at more history than i am willing to. this is the decision in 2008, for the first time in our history. i think the supreme court said what the second amendment means what it talks about rights. you talk about history. they are divided 524. they do not always provide the answer. court talkges on our of the second amendment, which says a will regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

read the first part. here is what it is about. --n they cast -- past the, -- when theyt constitution,. raisedthe arguments they was, we have just bought a war of independence. state militia were part of the army. the first article to the constitution says that congress can call up and regulate the state militias. how do we know that congress thet do it and destroy state militias? fear not, said madison and hamilton. a bill of rights,

that will stop congress from: them up. that is what this is about. we have pretty good argument. residentreat historic and very little value. the problem of state militias does not exist today. five people said, it to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. that should be interpreted in light of the english civil wars. some decided that was how to interpret it. we are looking at history in both cases. how you apply it, you have to apply it in light of purposes and will be the practical result. and what the content of that second amendment is is very open. it has not been decided by our courts.

>> sometimes the supreme court has to this -- fill in the blanks. had thatthe case they congressody elected to has to be the u.s. citizen, 25 years old, and live in the state of candid see. the constitution does not say anything about term limits. how do you decide a case like that mr. mark >> that is a terrific question. i thought, is term limits constitutional? what look at the text. -- let's look at the text. -- can arkansas say its members of congress can serve two terms are for terms? let's look at the text.

you have to be an american citizen and 25 years old. the citizen of the state from which you come. it doesn't say these are the only altercations. can arkansas at another one? let's look at what the founders said. said one thing, medicine said another. -- madison said another. at consequences, purposes. can't you add qualifications? they at a property qualification. add a property qualification. what about not being a lunatic?

clearly not . [laughter] easilylearly -- pretty balanced. ultimately, i think it came down to the 10th amendment reserves powers of the state. how strongly should that be interpreted? these are state officials. a member of congress is a state official. but wait, he is a federal official. should we have federal officials with different altercations? well, he is a state official. how much weight you put on that 10th amendment? how do you see the interaction? there is no real answer to a lot of these questions. we are human. these questions are very close. , there is no obviously

correct answer. it is awfully tended to say there is good and bad. right and wrong. that is not how it looks. in my profession, more likely to save liberal and conservative. >> how do you avoid deciding a case based on what you -- how you would like it to come out? saying, this is what i personally think it ought to be? never get to do what i want. this is my own feeling. [laughter] that is like my own failing. there is much of that feeling. to ask you, what

controls these close questions? i know what most of you will say. politics. our juniorthe court volatility -- varsity politicians. i say, that is wrong. the reason, why do we have the power to make a decision that with the elected branches of government did violates the constitution? why do we have that power? some think john marshall made it up. if you look at the history, the vast majority of people in the convention thought judges would have that power. why? hamilton explains it in federalist 56. he says, we have written a beautiful document.

compact, not too many words. it has lasted a long time. great work. says ifalist 56, he this is a beautiful document -- if somebody does not have the power to say when the branches of government have gone too far, fences, rules, boundaries, nobody has the power to say when the others have gone too far. let's hang it up in the museum. people can admire it. put it in the smithsonian. they didn't say that because the smithsonian did not exist. somebody has to have this power. who? the president? too far, too much power. my god he can do almost anything if he has that power. congress?

why not congress? it is a democracy. he writes, in effect, congress will do it all right. and they will do it well. but only if the answer they come up with is popular. if they did not know popularity, they would not be where they are. the samedocument gives rights to the least popular person as it does to the most popular. to theld not give it people who are persuaded by what is popular. who? the judges. why for summer nobody knows them. they are great -- gray. it is something of a legal job. they will not be moved by

popularity. they do not have to be elected. they are weak. they don't have the power of the purse or the sword. they will be careful. that is basically what he says in federalist 56. if we want to decide politically, we are fine in the face of what hamilton wants. -- dredo read trench. scott, perhaps the worst day in the history of the court, the only explanation is that he thought from a political perspective he would prevent a civil war. but he helped create the civil war. and prevented. -- he didn't prevent it. judges are terrible politicians. they may think they know politics. job.n't the this, which in

will not take. decide --ink people real politics is, where are the votes? who is going to get elected? what about bush v gore? it is not just real politics. you didn't say politics. you mean ideology. a marxist? a maoist troublemaker? and adam smith free enterprise are? never. say but if i catch myself, i know that is wrong. people try not to do it dur. i am who i am. i grew up and sent cisco i went to a public house cool -- a public high school. i'm from california.

the new york times has the dialect. says, you try it. it touching where you are from. tells you where you are from. it picked cities and they were fresno and bakersfield. i have the background i have. by the time we reach a certain age, have views about our profession. where does law fit in? ford's law about? -- what is law about? openyou get to the big constitutional questions, that plays a role. what is the freedom of speech? 14th amendment? equal protections of the laws?

no deprivation of life, liberty, or property? those words don't explain themselves. by the time they reached the supreme court, there are good arguments on both sides. backgrounderson's and how he sees the law or how butr she has developed -- then it could not be avoided and that is why these terms last a long time. different presidents with different views of point different people. any president that thinks that he is going to get the decisions he wants is 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 conscience 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? i 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 kidders. 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. when the decision is real for anybody, all of a sudden, it makes a difference, and you focus and you think about it hard. that is why i cannot answer your question. >> 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 are 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 thinking. 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 case 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. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]