she was really rolling for a major loss if she either offended kennedy or o'connor.xurbs that we played for the audience, it is clear that both of them came into the argument skeptical of her go for broke approach. i don't think -- you could probably say it was an aberration in the sense that not many causes are that emotional. dahlia's is another case that is, but most of the time when you go into an oral argument, the issue is not quite as close as it was in this case. most of the cases are not bound to be 5-4. that is still an exception. more cases are decided by 7-2 or 6-3. when you know going into a case is likely to be 5-4, the risk is exponential. catherine understood that as a political activity, she could not do anything else. she was lucky in this sense. no matter which way the argument went, or the outcome when, they had a political issue, because if the supreme court struck down roe, then you could make the argument that we have got to get a president who cares about reproductive rights. while it was high risk in the sense that catherine colbert may well

i remember justice harry blackmun said to me at one. , he was quite resentful about justice o'connor. he said that woman came here with an agenda, and she means to carry it out. he was unhappy with per because his perception was that a new justice should come into the court and not be very busy bridgette not be very visible -- should come into the court and not be very visible for a couple of years. i recall that before the end of november, she was falling opinions dissenting from the court's decisions. a dissent from a denial or review is kind of a bold thing to do, particularly if your brain you on the court. the new justice comes into the court -- if you are brand new on the court. and you just this brings a new style of judging and writing. because there is is constantly changing internal dynamic, the addition of a new ingredient changes the whole. it does not cause other justices necessarily to change their views, but it does open up the possibility of a kind of shifting of majorities, a shifting lot within the court. >> a new judge to happens to be hispanic will bring great dive

when the justice o'connor left, they leave out t-shirts that said, no, i'm not sandra, i'm ruth, and then another t-shirt said, no, i'm not ruth, i'm sandra. >> a first of all -- >> once you start your in the moment, and it is all about justice is fielding the questions and using that time she really so you respond to the questions. you cannot persuade a question if he did not answer with a have asked. he also have to remember that you have a limited amount of time. at most you will have 30 minutes. often the argument is an or 15. we have to cover a lot of ground and the time you have. in some question, getting across points, response is, trying to change the subject if you need to, but you do it in a way that feel that you have addressed the concerns of the justices. >> there are questions that are real questions were the justices want to know the answers to. other times they are talking to a fellow just as true view. you are a central lesson the main -- ventriloquist dummy. you can move your argument to the next level after that. the court is concerned with not only result in the c

i mean, she was really rolling for a major loss if she either offended kennedy or o'connor. because she clearly needed both of them. and from the excerpts that we played for our audience, it's clear that both of them came into the arguments skeptical of her go for broke approach. i don't think it was -- well, you could probably say it was an aberration in the sense that not many causes are that emotional. i mean, dahlia's chapter is about one of the ideas, and a death penalty case is, too. but most of the time when you go into an oral argument, the issue is not quite as close as it is -- as it was in this case. most of the cases are not bound to be 5-4. i mean, the 5-4 is still an exception. the court still decides more cases by 7-2, 6-3 so when you know going into a case that it's likely to be 5-4, the risks just rise largely. but katherine simply understood that as a political activity she couldn't do anything else. and, in fact, she was lucky in this sense. no matter which way the argument went or the outcome went, they had a political issue. because if the supreme court

biography i did justice sandra day o'connor who was such a pioneering individual, who was such a natural as a subject. but he's, in some ways, he's one of the nine, he's a conservative certainly, he's outspoken, but why focus so much on him? but his, he is, he is an original. i mean, you know firsthand. you've been following him and being close to him for decades. he's, he's so distintive in his style, you know, the opera viewing with ruth bader ginsburg, duck hunting with dick cheney, but his approach to the law and his approach to life is such a wide embrace that he is distinctive among his black-robed peers. .. >> guest: there were times when i would go to watch him speak and he would stand up and i would start to let because he has this showman's movement about him, that's both operatic but also, go. just the way justice scalia even composes his opinion, he said he sits on his computer, he puts on his classical music and he starts to conduct as if he is doing a symphony. so there is something large and operatic about him. >> host: so you didn't think for a moment that he has four law

intrigued by my choice of him because of course for my first biography i did justice sandra day o'connor was a pioneer and natural as a subject but he is in some ways for people who don't know the court, just he's one of the line, he's a conservative certainly, outspoken but why focus so much on him? but he is an original. you know first hand, you've been following him and have been close to him for decades. he's so distinctive and his style, the all-pro viewing with ruth bader ginsburg, hunting with cheney but his approach to the wall and life is such a wide embrace that he is distinctive among his black brogue it appears. >> host: i think of him so robust and full of life, you mentioned the opera. i think of justice scalia as someone who might have been in an opera because he is a battalion of course, that fits, and he is larger than life and has a force of personality that when he is in a room everyone listens to him and talks to him and that is true in the supreme court, too is in that? you talk about that in your book you have a chapter about his oral argument and what it's like to

justice o'connor is a wonderful friend. there is knows sadder day are around here than when a member of this court, then when justice souter announce that when he was leaving -- remember, i served 18 years with him, almost 18 years. he becomes your friend. you do not have to agree, but he is your friend. when you hear one of your colleagues is sick, it is one of your family members who are sick. so much is made of whether we agree or disagree. can you think of any human being with him you agree on everything? larger small? it does not suggest. it does not happen. -- it does not exist. it does not happen. but you feel a closeness and you have done it in no way did you think has been respectful to each other and to the institution and to your fellow citizens. >> let me move to the court and the public. we just recently conducted, with the help of the washington public opinion firm, a survey of more than a thousand americans on the court. it was interesting that when asked to name any sitting justice, a majority of the respond

. >> justice o'connor joining the conversation shortly after justice kennedy. may i start with beckstrom, when justice kennedy said can we begin with jurisdiction first? the reason being, he had to real target sitting on the bench in front of him, kennedy and o'connor. he knew going in that this was pretty much a 5-4 court because the court had also taken the unusual step of issuing a stay on the accounting procedures in florida. that was done on saturday. arguments were on monday. the issuance of this day suggested there werer>iñzímá ar five boats stacked against mr. boysen and vice president gore. he was going to persuade anyone, he had to focus his attention on kennedy and o'connor. if justice kennedy said can we start here? there was only one response, and that wasÑi yes, justice, let's start there at and discuss that. what essentially happened is that the five boats that ultimately decided this case, though i would prefer not to say decided the election, that was the carry over from what the four numbers resulted in, ultimately it came down to justice ken

the difference is the trade of sandra o'connor for samuel alito. that is the only difference on that. in a very famous case that everyone in legal education, in 2003, the court had a michigan affirmative action case, bruder versus bollinger and the university of michigan law school had a very aggressive affirmative action program that looked at least to my law school is like tempers send a deborah class should be class-- and it should happen here and in your out. they didn't get it perfectly every time but i don't think it was forewarned of trying in the numbers are just so close every year. would michigan argued was they used the holistic approach. it didn't look just at grades, adjusted gpa but everything in my guess is the everything turned very nicely on hispanic surnames and perhaps being a member of the thurgood marshall society, some helpful extracurricular activity. it looked like the thing to virtually all observers that the michigan program was going to be held unconstitutional by a 5-4 vote. that was consistent with the majority on that,

and he, sandra day o'connor's lives has been a teachable 80 years. and the way she handle her husband's issues was so graceful and so open endearing and at mireable that it's -- sorry to see him go. >> most of you alluded to sonia sotomayor and agreeing that her confirmation hearing is a sham. i would like to know if the press will bring that about? >> wa, wa. you know, if you all took heart what adam said you know, about all of us writing the same story when we cover the court. it was times of billion. it was so funny. because you had newspapers that had eight seats in that room. someone was podcasting. somebody was answering. you were talking about nothing for five days. i kept thinking there's got to be a p.t.a. meeting somewhere that i could be covering. or something is really happening that's interesting. it's a debacle for all the reasons i might said. i might disagree that it was rock bottom. but i think that we've gone so far down the road of turning this into embarrassment on ice. i mean just this horrific kind of parade of off -- it plays t

beginning with justice o'connor's ascension to the bench in 1981, it was very clear that roe vs.ny woman's right to abortion was under siege. each time a new opinion came out on the court, the court appeared to be less committed to sustaining the right to terminate, abortion, and finally got to the point where the majority was down to 5-4. there had been indication in 1989 that conner might provide a vote to overturn roe vs. wade. indeed, the reagan administration had tried several times to persuade the court. i chose this case because of the audacity of the council who argued in favor of maintaining roe. the women's rights movement, fearing it was in jeopardy had to shape this case to be a genuine test case. we often talk about test cases as if they do not always passed. this was put together as a fundamental test over whether it was still viable. when the justice put together the committee with her colleagues that ask one simple question. is entirely unlike any other argument you'll see in front of the supreme court. it has the supreme court overruled roe vs. wade. the supreme

justice o'connor used to say that she just loved the idea of having a human contact before they were about to disagree vigorously. after they meet in conference, carried by messenger fromthe justice wants to make fellow justice about he or she might be prepared to rule, or changes suggested in language, the justice rights that will lose one of your five, then you will be much more agreeable to accepting what that justice would like in the opinion in order to hold the vote. that happens just sell them. you have to negotiate in order to hold together your vote. if you have a seven vote majority, if one of the seven says a do not like that he did not want to abandon, but that is a boat you really don't need. it will probably be less accommodating than if it is a 5-4. >> this is our moment. the guy from reverse is always pushing the most to get through so he can -- a guy from reuters is always pushing to get through. the supreme court public intermission office says here is the material, make of it what you will. we will make sure you have the material. that is an enormously invaluable f

justice o'connor is a wonderful friend. there is no sadder day around here than when a member of this court -- than when justice souter announce that when he was leaving -- remember, i served 18 years with him, almost 18 years. he becomes your friend. you do not have to agree, but he is your friend. when you hear one of your colleagues is sick, it is one of your family members who are sick. so much is made of whether we agree or disagree. can you think of any human being with him you agree on everything? large or small? it does not exist. it does not happen. but you feel a closeness and you have done it in no way did you think has been respectful to each other and to the institution and to your fellow citizens. >> let me move to the court and the public. we just recently conducted, with the help of the washington public opinion firm, a survey of more than a thousand americans on the court. it was interesting that when asked to name any sitting justice, a majority of the respondents could not name one. aheadis that appropria

then i moved into the chambers justice o'connor was occupying then i moved into the chambers justice scalia is occupying now and then before that time justice black had been in those chambers. there had been only three justices in those chambers. now nino has those. >> let me ask you about the portrait. who is that gentleman? >> that's wily rutledge, a great justice of the court in the 1947 term and he's one of my heroes. >> who was he? >> he was a justice of the court here and before that a judge on the court of appeals on the district of columbia circuit. before that he'd been the deaven the university of iowa law school and he taught at other law schools in his career as well. >> what year did you clerk for him? 1947. the 1947-1948 term. >> what did you learn from that experience that you still hold on to today? >> i learned an awful lot, to tell you. i learned to take the time to draft out your own opinions and make sure you understand a case before you turn it over to someone else to work on. i learned that every case is important, not just when there's a lot of money involved o

for example, justice o'connor had experience as a legislator. i think she made a very significant contribution to deliberation because of that experience. and in my own case, the experience i had as a staff attorney on the legislative committees taught me a great deal about legislation that i know has affected my work to interpret statutes. differing backgrounds is a plus. >> what year did you serve on the subcommittee? >> 1951. >> who was there at the time, the chairman? >> max sellers was the chairman, the democrat from brooklyn. chauncey read was the senior minority member. he was a republican from to page county, illinois. i was hired by chauncey read. >> role does the legislative history played when you think about the case? >> i think it is all a significant. i think our job is to figure out what congress intended to do in enacting a statute. i can remember being asked by members of the committee about it rather tricky questions that might be presented in the case. i remember explaining to one congressman some of the difficulties that i sa

here's the way justice o'connor put it, writing for the supreme court in new york v. the united states. and this is in new york v. the united states in 1992. quote -- "but the constitution protects us from our own best intentions: it divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location, as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day." pretty remarkable statement. i could not have said it better myself. those are either principles that we must obey or cliches that we may ignore. if the constitution means anything more -- if it means anything anymore, if it does what it was created to do by not only empowering but, more importantly, limiting government power, then now is the time to stand on principle rather than slip on politics. i suggest the absence of a quorum. i withdraw that. i yield the floor. mr. demint: mr. president? the presiding officer: -- mr. brownback: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas the. mr. brownback: thank you, mr. president.

i remember justice harry blackmun said to me at one. , he was quite resentful about justice o'connor. he said that woman came here with an agenda, and she means to carry it out. he was unhappy with per because his perception was that a new justice should come into the court and not be very busy bridgette not be very visible -- should come into the court and not be very visible for a couple of years. i recall that before the end of november, she was falling opinions dissenting from the court's decisions. a dissent from a denial or review is kind of a bold thing to do, particularly if your brain you on the court. the new justice comes into the court -- if you are brand new on the court.

i had the benefit of having the assistance of two of justice o'connor's. had the knowledge of the operating procedures. >> did they give you some of the traditions and customs? >> there wasn't any formal training. it was learned to go. it may be because it was a little hectic in the middle of the term. >> the junior justice has special privileges and responsibilities in the conference, we have heard. can you explain that? >> i don't think the junior justice has any special privilege. but he has to duties. the first and the less onerous is to open the door of the conference room. we meet in the conference. there are no staff members present. occasionally, someone will lock on the door. the job of the junior justice is to open the door. the other duty is to keep the official vote of grants of serve to hold in the case. when we hold the conference, we will go through a long list of cases and we will vote on whether the we are going to take the case or deny it or do something else. it is the junior injustice's responsibility to keep the official vote. >> what

i had the benefit of having the assistance of two justice o'connor's law clerks who stayed over and were familiar with the internal operating procedures. but it was baptism by fire. >> does anyone give you a briefing on what you can expect and what you can and cannot do in the customs? >> a little bit about the customs. i don't remember any formal training. it was learned as you go. it may have been because it was hectic right in the middle of the term. >> we have heard often in our discussions that the jr. justices has special privileges and responsibilities in the conference. can you explain how that work? >> i don't think the junior justice has any special privileges. but there are two duties. the first and less onerous is opening the door in the conference room. there are no staff members present and occasionally someone will knock on the door. it is the job of the junior justice to get up and answer the door. and usually is somebody's classes or a memo or something like that. and then the other duty is to keep the official vote of grants of cert or decisions to hold a case. when we

sandra o'connor's life has been a teachable 80 years. the way she handled her husband's alzheimer's disease was so graceful and so open and endearing, this sorry to see him go. >> most of you alluded to -- sotomayor and agreeing that her confirmation hearing is a sham. i would like to know if the press will bring that about? >> wa, wa. you know, if you all took heart what adam said you know, about all of us writing the same story when we cover the court. it was times of billion. it was so funny. because you had newspapers that had eight seats in that room. someone was podcasting. somebody was answering. you were talking about nothing for five days. i kept thinking there's got to be a p.t.a. meeting somewhere that i could be covering. or something is really happening that's interesting. it's a debacle for all the reasons i might said. i might disagree that it was rock bottom. but i think that we've gone so far down the road of turning this into embarrassment on ice. i mean just this horrific kind of parade of off -- it plays to the worse

among them jim o'connor, john walker, rob krause.we have at united a very good lord, focused and plans for the future. which is important for the governance and performance in the communities we serve, indeed such as chicago. the chicago business community represented here in this room stands together on the civic and community front better than any that i have personally ever known. it serves, i think, as a point of great distinction for our city. so, i am very pleased to be with you here today in chicago, our home town, as david said. i have a good number of our management team with us today. many of them sit on civic and nonprofit boards in chicago, and they also represent much of what we have been able to achieve in these past several years. some of which i would like to talk about today. being called chicago's hometown airline is not really a marketing slogan. we think united is something that has to be earned, as do most of the important things in our lives and in our businesses. it has been a very seemingly short six years sin

many people said wide justice scalia especially after doing something on justice o'connor who really was a boat that tamplin oyster bellow justices. justice scalia was never known for that but one of the points of my book is that over time, he became someone it wasn't just dissenting and speaking to his accolades belong the marble walls but was controlling cases and this rally culminated in the washington d.c. handguns case. i thought i would talk a little bit about how i ended up talking to him and getting access, a little bit about what i found that, what surprised me and just hit a couple of highlights and then turn it over to bury. justice o'connor was ronald reagan's first appointment of course, chosen to fulfill his campaign promise of the first woman on the court but as of is doing research on her i realize the real manifestation of ronald reagan's cultural social revolution and the counterrevolution was antonin scalia, appointed in 1986. he was much more the person who ronald reagan wanted on the court so that interested me in justice scalia. i interviewed him for the first t

i had a conversation with justice sandra day o'connor about what she would make available in her papers and said directly do not hold your breath. get on with your life. >> host: and justice souter. >> guest: which was a shame. from his point of view, he thinks it's nobody's business, and some of his fellow justices are happy because when they send a memo to a colleague, they like to keep it quiet, i think. but for journalist, it's great because you know what was going on and it gives you insights into the finished product where all you see is the final law of the land, which obviously is what then survives the court. but it's nice to see the dynamics that produced i it. >> host: it's a treasure trove when you're a journalist doing books like this. tell me about the fact that once in a while justice scalia's opinions would be sharply critical of his colleagues? somewhat disdainful, perhaps. you mentioned that someone opinioned out, there's sarcasm in there from time to time. tell us about that. >> guest: from time to time, yes. >> host: is that true? and did it alienate his colleagues?