paul clement. >> thank you. he had a more balanced view of oral argument i think in the since he understood the virtue of asking questions and also the virtue of having lawyers have an ample opportunity to explain their positions. i think in a sense we moved to a different place historically where now supreme court argument, anyways, is dominated by the questions. it's funny at that time, justices and in his book, it was almost like they felt the need to explain why it was appropriate for them to ask questions at all. i think some lawyers had the idea oral argument was there time and they got to give this nice prose to and share it with the justices. i think he was of the view it's important for the justices to have an opportunity and it was good for the lawyer to have an understanding of what was bothering the justices about their side of the case. >> fred in washington, d.c., welcome to our discussion. fred, are you there? >> caller: yes. >> your question? >> caller: yes, my question is i would like to know if

the first amendment is what the judges right and it's important to keep in mind people like paul clement are the ones who keep the first amendment live in many respects when it comes to their litigation. a new face that is going to be seeing a lot more you may know the name the masterpiece she has a petition before the court involving customs and same-sex weddings and another in a disclosure requirement casee so keep your eye on those when it comes to the first amendment in terms of supreme court litigation and with that i'm happy to turn over to my colleague. >> thanks, ron and thanks for the opportunity to participate in this project with you and many thanks to cato. i want to talk about three things when it comes to the roberts court and first amendment. those are category, context and content. those are all important in first amendment methodologies. one way that we determine whether speech ison protected by the first amendment is to determine whether it falls into an unprotected category of speech. for example the supreme court recognized the fighting words exception in 1942 and ove

i think it's very important to keep in mind that people like bob corn-revere, people like paul clement, people like james popp are the ones who keep the first amendment alive in many respects when it comes to their litigation and a new face, i think they seem a lot more is tristan waggoner. you may know the name. she successor successfully argued the cake shop case, she has asserted position before the court, eileen south of washington who worked in same-sex weddings and she has another vacation in a disclosure of the crimes case so keep your eyes of those lawyer when it comes to the first amendment in terms of supreme court litigation and with on happy to turn it over to my colleague . >> and thank you so much for the opportunity to participate in this project with you and many thanks to cato. i want to talk about readings when it comes to the roberts court in the first amendment and those are category, context and content and those are all important in first amendment methodology. the first point of category, one way we determine whether speech is protected by the first amendment is

that's because of his administrative capacity as paul d. clement has been discussing. he helped conference in an authoritative, authoritarian manner. he would announce his views at first. and then he would have the other justices go around and discuss the case. he held a pretty tight rain over the discussion within conference and over the court in general. >> could we contrast that with what we know about the current chief justice style? >> i think there are certainly similarities, not necessarily in the point of the way the conferences conduct on a day-to-day basis. but i think that justice hughes, in between the time he was justice and chief justice, wrote a book on the supreme court. it was itself a unique thing to get a window into the supreme court from somebody who's already served as associate justice. he talks about the role of the chief justice in that book, and he talks about the limits on what a chief justice can do. at the end of the day, the chief justice of the united states, but you are only given one vote. you do have to lead in a way that i think is mo