brennan, could be majority but when it was chief justice rehnquist he would then assign it. early on, i know what you're getting at. when he was assigned to antonette scalia, and it was a close vote justice scalia would sometimes lose the fifth vote because you have to write an opinion that will keep all five justices majority of the line on that. rather than something that reflects your hard and fast view. >> host: may be the vote at a conference would be 5-4, the chief justice rehnquist would say, you know, or justice scalia why don't you write the opinion for the board, and then the senior justice in the minority would decide who would write the dissenting opinion or maybe more than one of them. so justice scalia would embark on writing an opinion and you're telling me that because maybe his opinions were so sharp and out there maybe someone would say my gosh i don't think we need to go that far and switch around? >> guest: that happen on occasion -- >> host: how do you ever know? tell me how you know that. that's a secret, isn't it? >> guest: not any more. in part becaus

by default william rehnquist about for just a.a lot of liberal groups came out very strong against him to be elevated to the chief. they didn't like his record on the supreme court, but he also was someone who had been quite outspoken when he was in the attorney general in the office of legal council. and he had a record that provided -- that generated so many more critics. so liberal senators and liberal groups spend all their fire on that nomination, and bill rehnquist gets through. he becomes chief justice. here comes antonin scalia who has this wonderful life story. his nine children line up behind in their. >> host: i was going to ask you when you mention before that he was an only child. it turns out he has nine children, and how many grandchildren now? >> guest: thirty. but i have to check. >> host: i asked him once how could he remember all the names of his grandchildren? he said, what makes you think i remember all the names of my grandchildren? but anyway, he is one of nine and he has got now, he has 30 grandchildren. i

chief justice rehnquist especially did not like to have any of those disturbed. john roberts came on in 2005. he is a little more flexible on things and will let oral arguments go a little bit longer. his predecessor, chief justice rehnquist would often interrupt someone right when the red light went on, even in mid syllable. >> this is the chamber where brown forces -- where brown vs. board of education was decided. the most important decision in our history in defining presidential power was decided in that room by human beings sitting on that bench, after having listened to argument by others. the aura of this place is always present. it does not matter how badly a given loyd is doing. and there are some bad lawyers to appear before the supreme court that are just not up to the task. there is something about the feel of the place that tells you something really important is going on here. to my mind, it is very much difference from watching a debate on the floor of the house and senate, where you realize that what may be going on on the floor at any given mome

in the fullness of time i am sure that many other books will be written about rehnquist, bill rehnquist. he was too important a person for future historians to ignore. but all of those books will be different than mine. i write -- i wrote from the perspective of a devoted friend who is not a lawyer, but an intellectual and social companion of bills over the 19 years we discussed personalities, philosophy, current and past, actual and imagined. we shared interestingly uniquely similar and parallel lives. we were born 12 days apart. i was born on september 19th, 1924. and he on october 1st, 1924. we went into the army as privates shortly after the passage of the 18,7.x19-year-ol draft act in the winter of 1942, '43 we were both discharged in the army as sergeants in april 1946. we graduated from elite colleges. he from stanford. i from dartmouth. after attending public high schools where we were not academic stars but we had very, very happy recollections. six of our seven children attended the same -- graduated from the same public high school in mclean, virginia, and two of them were ac

justice rehnquist did not like to have any of those this dirt. when john roberts came on, he was more flexible on things. he left oral arguments go on longer. reckless what often interrupt somebody speaking when the red light went on. >> this is the chamber where brown vs. board of education occurred. these cases were decided in that room by human beings listening to the cases. the aura of this place is always present. if you go into that room. it does not matter how badly the law your is doing. there's something about the feel of the place that tells you something important is going on here. to my mind, it is very much different from watching the house or the senate where you know what made me go on the floor at any moment does not have anything to do with the legislative process, somebody making a speech about how important mother's day is or how we should honor a certain kind of animal husbandry or something. everything that goes on in the supreme court is related to something important, and it is part of a process that is working from beginni

surly chief justice rehnquist was sympathetic to justice souter's position and said that so much

>> cheap request -- -- chief justice rehnquist's file was differed from chief justice roberts. there is quite a difference and a lot of things. he was more, let's keep the trains running. chief justice roberts does not push like that. as far as the composition of the court, you are bringing an -- in this work can be over use -- you are bringing in a new family member. and it changes the whole family. it is different. it is different today than 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 would chief justice rehnquist and justice o'connor when we had a long run together. you get comfortable with that. and then it changes. and now it is changing again. so the institution, the ninth is different. your reactions are different for you get to learn each other and start all over. >> your reference justices within you have served. are there any in history that you find you referred to frequently as giving you a good guidance, good intellectual direction who are particularly significant on the operati

chief justice rehnquist especially did not like to have any of those disturbed. john roberts came on in 2005. he is a little more flexible on things and will let oral arguments go a little bit longer. his predecessor, chief justice rehnquist would often interrupt someone right when the red light went on, even in mid syllable. >> this is the chamber where brown forces -- where brown vs. board of education was decided. the most important decision in our history in defining presidential power was decided in that room by human beings sitting on that bench, after having listened to argument by others. the aura of this place is always present. it does not matter how badly a given loyd is doing. and there are some bad lawyers to appear before the supreme court that are just not up to the task. there is something about the feel of the place that tells you something really important is going on here. to my mind, it is very much difference from watching a debate on the floor of the house and senate, where you realize that what may be going on on the floor at any given mome

>> chief justice rehnquist's style was differed from chief justice roberts. there is quite a difference and a lot of things. he was more, let's keep the trains running. chief justice roberts does not push like that. as far as the composition of the court, you are bringing in a new family member. and it changes the whole family. it is different. it is different today than 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 a long run together. you get comfortable with that. and then it changes. and now it is changing again. so the institution, the ninth is different. your reactions are different. you get to learn each other and start all over. >> are there any in history that you find you referred to frequently as giving you a good guidance, good intellectual direction who are particularly significant on the operation of the court? >> i find people that i have served with and a member of the court i refer back to is the

chief justice rehnquist always had a zinger. it was, "what is the best case for your position?"there is no way that you can answer that and get out ahead. if you did not know, that was a problem. if you did think that you knew it, he knew it better than you did. i thought that was one where i was often done struck. >> -- dumbstruck. >> when they are in stride, they are understand what the court is driving at understanding what the court is driving at. so, i felt that i was arguing, thinking that i was in stride. little did i know that i was over the cliff. chief justice rehnquist seemed to be unperturbed by what i have been saying and suddenly had this look of gasoline alarm and springs forward and flips on his microphone and with his elephant like the memory, as if another case should be overruled. i had not heard of this case. i responded, "absolutely and emphatically not." were we trying to do that? at times, you are going to be embarrassed the best response -- be embarrassed. the best response is to prepare relentlessly. i would close by saying that i always found the moot c

when justice rehnquist was presided, you are really supposed to stop. but some want to raise an issue that i rose with by opposing counsel. first of all -- >> does it matter to you if you win a case 5-419-0 or 8-1? >> i think that a win is a wind. -- a win is a win. there are situations where there are issues that one wanted to have nailed down that were not nailed down. one of my colleagues said that you would rather lose 9-0 because it is 5-4, you always think what you could have done to push one justice over to my column. i think that those of the end skirted nine-zero, there's nothing you could have done. it is a hopeless case. 5-4, there was a point that you could have been able to shift one vote. even when i was unhappy with the court's decisions and felt that i was robbed, the supreme court is so impressive to visitors. i think that they get the sense that these are very serious people. they are trying to do the best they can. i would like to take others into the court and have them watch smart people ask probing questions and trying to find help

able to turn around and hear justice rehnquist say, we will now hear arguments in the case of bush v. gore 2000. and so that unfolded, and people got a chance to hear what was happening in the court. what they heard from my judgment was two extremely competent the attorneys arguing. ted olson on we half of the bush campaign, and david boies on behalf of the gore campaign. somewhat in contrast to your attorney, dahlia, these were extremely accomplished faces, although david boies had only once argued at the u.s. supreme court, he had been handling the arguments in the florida courts and was probably as familiar as anyone with florida law as it unfolded. now, what he encountered, and i spent some time talking with each of them subsequent to the arguments in preparation for this book, was what had become a bit of a two-track possibility in the way that the court was going to decide the case of bush v. gore. .. the court in florida had adhered to constitutional provisions, really a structural approach as to whether the court in florida was respecting the desires, the wishes of the florid

[unintelligible] >> you can see that he was so wrapped up in the details, chief justice rehnquist becameoyed and told him to stop it, and he kept telling back to stipulation bit 7. unfortunately, it just kept going in that way. he never really took on the person in the argument that was very crucial to the case. he again got so impassioned about the frouduit that his clit group, that it became a real embarrassment. we can go to the third clip where he was arguing that his clients grow green plums, and the ad really should have been about green plums. people think that green plums or underwrite and will have bad effects on people. >> if you are thinking to yourself, you did not want to give your wife diarrhea. >> i have never seen green plums. >> he was directing it to justice scalia. he was saying why should you tell me i should not buy green plums for my wife, i have never seen a greenbaum? he was not trying for humor, but it just completely fell flat. in the end, he lost the case 5- 4, and a lot of people think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ú@ @ @ @ @ @ @ better than a run-of-the-mill lawyer that it

and i knew chief justice burger and chief justice rehnquist and that chief justice roberts. on the one hand, there is not much that a chief justice can do. there are eight associate justices, with a duty to uphold the constitution. he cannot fire them. he has to get along with them. we have traditions which will outlast any chief justice. so the chief justice comes to a court where there are these elements of stability and permanence and protection, and we have our tradition and our boath. on the other hand, the chief justice presides over our conference and a steer us through the mechanics of hearing the cases. by his personality and his warrant and decisiveness and his understanding of the wall and the institution, he can do a great deal to set the tone. >> it will bear with us, we will be able to see various rooms and it would be interesting to hear your take on what happens in those rooms. we've heard about the process in the conference from some of the justices. if we were to have a camera in the conference why you were there, which we will never be able to do, what is

for an appointed supreme court justice, a great record as a law student, a clerkship which justice rehnquist, a career and the justice department, the solicitor general's office in private practice with a glorious record is the supreme court advocate. you couldn't vote against john roberts of the with my recollection is correct every samole democratic candidate for president in 2008 voted against john roberts and the rationale i think was, honestly it was appealed to the base but it comes very close to the republican shouldn't be allowed to appoint supreme court justices. something that i will note republicans believe about democrats, as you noted with the sotomayor hearings and i think the sotomayor hearings reflected the culmination of the roberts hearings. that is, a nominee who is coached never to answer a question but if you have the answer, please don't answer it truthfully. [laughter] and does, you get massive perjury going on, but we forgive it because everyone knows they are lying. [laughter] i was really disappointed in sherman leahy. i wish that his opening statement to judge soto

chief justice rehnquist always had a zinger. it was, "what is the best case for your position?"there is no way that you can answer that and get out ahead. if you did not know, that was a problem. if you did think that you knew it, he knew it better than you did. i thought that was one where i was often done struck. >> -- dumbstruck. >> when they are in stride, they are understand what the court is driving at understanding what the court is driving at. so, i felt that i was arguing, thinking that i was in stride. little did i know that i was over the cliff. chief justice rehnquist seemed to be unperturbed by what i have been saying and suddenly had this look of gasoline alarm and springs forward and flips on his microphone and with his elephant like the memory, as if another case should be overruled. i had not heard of this case. i responded, "absolutely and emphatically not." were we trying to do that? at times, you are going to be embarrassed the best response -- be embarrassed. the best response is to prepare relentlessly. i would close by saying that i always found the moot c

the audio was released as soon as the arguments were concluded, so no sooner had justice rehnquist uttered," that in moments we were able to turn around in here justice rehnquist's say "will now hear arguments in the case of bush ñrvs. gore 2000." so that unfolded and people got a chance to hear what was happening in the court. what they heard from my judgment was two extremely competent attorneys arguing, ted olson on behalf of the bush campaign and davidÑi boise on behalf of the gore campaign. these were extremely accomplished, familiar faces, once previously at the u.s. supreme court. he had been handling the arguments of the florida courts and was probably as familiar as anyone with florida law as it unfolded. what the uncounted -- what he encountered was what had become a bit of a two-track possibility in the way the court was going gore. it was either going to be an article to issue as to whether the court in florida had adhered to constitutional provisions, really a structural approach as to whether the court in florida was respecting the desires, the wishes of the florida legislatu

[laughter] >> but chief justice rehnquist always had a zinger. it was, what's the best case for your position? there is no way to answer that question. and get out ahead or leave ahead because if you didn't know it, it was a problem. if you did think you knew it, he knew it better than you did and it would continue to pound you on the facts and the ruling of the court and what the justices had said about that particular case. so i thought that was one where i often was dumbstruck at least almost. >> i think advocates have an intuitive feel of when they are in stride. that they are understanding what the court is driving at. they're being hopefully responsive. general souter advises us wisely, yes, no, and then qualify or add to the answer and so forth. and so i felt on one particular occasion, which i remember all too vividly that i was arguing along, thinking that i was in stride. little did i know that i was over the cliff. [laughter] >> and chief justice rehnquist, who seemed to be utterly unperturbed by what i was saying had a look of ghastly

. >> chief justice rehnquist had influence on the court. earl warren famous for bringing the court together in deciding one of its most important decisions, brown vs. board of education. so i think the two of them would have to stand out among the modern chiefs. >> how many justices did the earliest court have? >> i think they started with six if my memry serves me right. the very first court had to be adjourned immediately, because they didn't have a quorum. i think the second time they convened, they did some administrative business then adjourned pretty quickly because they didn't have any cases. so it took a while for the court to be established. the current number of nine was established after the civil war and it's been remained in tact since then. >> not without some chime from washington to make larger. do you ever think how it might have functioned as the court packing as it's called worked. >> it wouldn't have functioned at all. it's an extraordinary effort. roosevelt came into office with huge majorities. he had huge majorities i

when chief justice rehnquist was presiding, you were really supposed to stop. >> i wanted to address some of the issues that were just raised on the mootness issue with respect to the erie issue as well. first of all -- >> does it matter to you whether you win a case 5-4 or 9-0 or 8-1? >> i think a win is a win but looking down the road the question is which -- what precedence rble value is the case going to have? is it going to leave for another day the same issue where you have the closely divided court? there are situations where there are issues that one wanted to have nailed down that don't get nailed down but i think, as one of my colleagues said, you'd rather lose 9-0 because if it's 5-4 you'll always think what could i have done to push one justice over to my column? so i think those are the ends. 9-0, nothing you could have done, hopeless case. 5-4, there was a point where you might have been able to shift one vote. my sense has been that even when i was unhappy about the court's decisions and had the i was robbed sense for a moment, the supreme court is so impressive to vis

. >> merman obermayer looks a look at his last great friend, william rehnquist. it's 45 minutes. >> and i would like to see i'm very flattered that so many people came out here on a rainy day. and i also acknowledge that you're here because you're interested in bill rehnquist. he was a fascinating man. many people -- even those who knew him fleetingly and those by reputation felt a deep affection for him because he was a remarkable man who believed deeply and i will explain some of that but i have to start by addressing the question all of my friends ask and i ask myself, why would a happily married man who had no need for more money or more worldly acclaim, who is