the court had been donated a portrait of william marbury.s the famous litigant in the case of marbury versus madison back this 18g03. chief justice burger said we need to get a companion portrait for that so the great litigants are on the wall literally of the small dining room. >> marbury madison is probably the most famous case this court ever decided. the idea of judicial review for constitutionality, i think is impoliceant in the constitutional document. but john maral sha made it -- it explicit in the great case of marbury against madison. in all of the supreme court's history, there's no one case that says as much to a justice about what it is like to be the justice because marbury versus mad son is the embodiment of judicial review. there's no -- there's no quotation in all of the history of supreme court writing that justices prefer to repeat than the phrase which says, it is -- it is emphatically the power and the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is. that quote from john marshall in marbury versus madison. >> we call him th

. -- marbury versus maryland. it makes perfect sense.you have a conflict between the constitution and the state, the constitution prevails. there is a difference between striking down things like marbury and tracking down things because you do not like them. the notion that the court is simply -- the courts simply likes and dislikes things because they are in tune with the culture of the time is certainly partially true. no doubt about that. there is a term in constitutional law for that. it is called locknering. the court lockners all the time. it follows popular perversions and makes them its own. it sometimes leads popular perversions and further perverts the people. of course. the majority of the people do have alternately the right -- to have ultimately the right to have what they wish. the constitution's words have to presumptively rule over sentiment. do we have statements on the court -- the we have status on the court? does justice scalia have a state is? i debated him -- the us justice scalia had a status. -- does justice scali

last month [laughter] in marbury v.r a final decider. it's because they have to interpret the constitution in the course of deciding cases between parties. it's a natural part of same plaintiff wins or defendant wins. that same logic to the other two branches have to interpret the constitution when they do their job. when congress passes a law, lovely thing about the constitutionality of the law first and.net unconstitutional laws. when a president enforces the law, he or she has to figure out what that means and he shouldn't or she shouldn't enforce unconstitutional laws either. the constitutional does say is walter and kennedy pointed out they're in charge says that if the constitution and statutes only to do two different things? what does a president do? just like the supreme court of marbury, the president has to follow a person not followed the entrance to show law. second point i'd like to make goes to walters worrying about the history. this is not some wild idea that the bush administration came up with an eye

the course decision in marbury versus madison was not limited to the president's judicial commissions. it had a broader principal. likewise in the heller and mcdonald, there was an announcement by the court that second amendment secures a fundamental right and moreover this right is to be explored and defined in the way which it was understood by the people that framed it. there's no argument that i have seen or heard from anyone that americans in 1791 or 1868 understood it to expand no further than the home. it's true that heller and mcdonald didn't have those applications. it's clear that heller and mcdonald decided that the right to keep and bear arms was a right to keep and carry arms as the heller case says. this is something that voiced upon the court and heller. because district of columbia insisted that bear arms had this exclusive military meaning, meaning to soldier to go ahead and participate in some kind of state-sanctioned military activity. the supreme court ejected that. it gave a different interpretation. no bear meant to carry. lower court have found that language use

decision, barbara -- marbury versus madison, you can pick it up and read it and understand it. if people cannot understand court decisions, we do not do a good enough job of exploiting our work in the opinions. >> from a different standpoint, a student asks about your style in performing your duties justice thomas said in a c-span interview he found it reared to be frequently at directing. she asked whether you think the jurors in indiana as into was your work on the court. >> i do. i will include western n.y. in my definition of a mid westerner. that is pushing get a little bit. [laughter] i suppose justice thomas thinks i am being rude if i interrupt and some of my colleagues do as well. it is not in a rude way. we have an important job to do. we have to get information from the lawyers. we have a short amount of time. they only have half an hour to argue. you get interrupted after the first minute. i am sure we do that as well. if you have not been to the supreme court, i encourage you to go. it is not your image of a lawyer giving a speech. that is not what happens. in one

the court's decision in marbury versus madison was not limited to the deliveryf judicial commissions. it had a broader principle behind it. in the heller case and mcdonald there was an announcement by the court that the second amendment secures a fundamental right and this right is to defined with reference to the way in which it was understood by the people who framed it. there is absolutely no argument that i have seen or heard from anyone that americans in 1791 or 1868 understood the second amendment to extend no further than the home. i haven't even seen the alleged evidence for this proposition. it's true that heller and mcdonald didn't have those applications. but it's fairly clear that heller and mcdonald decided that they'd like to keep and bear arms, was actually a right to keep and carry arms, as the heller case repeatedly says. this is something that was foisted upon the supreme court in heller. the dstrict of columbia insisted that bear arms had this exclusive military meaning, meaning to soldier to go ahead and participate in some kind of state-sanctioned military activit

the court's decision in marbury versus madison was not limited to the delivery of judicial commissions. it had a broader principle behind it. in the heller case and mcdonald there was an announcement by the court that the second amendment secures a fundamental right and this right is to be defined with reference to the way in which it was understood by the people who framed it. there is absolutely no argument that i have seen or heard from anyone that americans in 1791 or 1868 understood the second amendment to extend no further than the home. i haven't even seen the alleged evidence for this proposition. it's true that heller and mcdonald didn't have those applications. but it's fairly clear that heller and mcdonald decided that they'd like to keep and bear arms, was actually a right to keep and carry arms, as the heller case repeatedly says. this is something that was foisted upon the supreme court in heller. the district of columbia insisted that bear arms had this exclusive military meaning, meaning to soldier to go ahead and participate in some kind of state-sanctioned military ac

the court's decision in marbury versus madison was not limited to the delivery of judicial commissions. it had a broader principle behind it. in the heller case and mcdonald there was an announcement by the court that the second amendment secures a fundamental right and this right is to be defined with reference to the way in which it was understood by the people who framed it. there is absolutely no argument that i have seen or heard from yohmics 17or 18 ueroothsend enentoxtd fther an the home. i haven't even seen the alleged evidence for this proposition. it's true that heller and mcdonald didn't have those applications. but it's fairly clear that heller and mcdonald decided that they'd like to keep and bear arms, was actually a right to keep and carry arms, as the heller case repeatedly says. this is something that was foisted upon the supreme court in heller. the district of columbia insisted that bear arms had this exclusive military meaning, meaning to soldier to go ahead and participate in some kind of state-sanctioned military activity. the supreme court rejected that. and it g