just speaking briefly about the rehnquist court, i think it's useful to think about the rehnquist court in two parts. 1996 to 2,002,000 to 2005. the dividing point in history the court in many respects in the history of the country is the court's decision in bush v. gore. that justice scalia does a lot of public speaking and he's often asked the kind of hostile question about bush v. gore. and he always says the same thing. get over it. [laughter] well, speaking just for myself, i am so not over it. [applause] i am really not over it. before i wrote to nine, i wrote a book called too close to call about the time florida, which had a peak part about bush v. gore. one thing i try to do in reporting that the this interview al gore. obviously you can tell that story. you want to interview al gore. he wouldn't talk to me. i shred everything. just by coincidence, i met al gore while i was working on the ninth. i said to him, mr. vice president -- she had read too close to call and i said, i am writing another book where bush v. gore is at the center of it. i said i think i'm the biggest bush

and later chief justice rehnquist. >> yeah.ate to have served as a law clerk for then-justice rehnquist. that's somebody a year or so coming out of law school you go serve with one of the justices for a year. he was a remarkable man, and he taught me a lot both professionally and personally. he was kind of a pioneer. he had a very good sense of balance between work and life that wasn't really that common in his generation. i remember him telling me at one point and two co-clerks, telling three of us, you know, if you want to spend time with your young children, you have to do it when they're young. [laughter] which is a very rehnquistian turn of phrase, you're always left sort of puzzled, but it was a basic point. he was telling us you can't say as soon as i finish this project, i'll spend more time with the kids, as soon as i get over this hump, as soon as i do this because you wake up and find out they're 17 years old, and you've missed your chance. he didn't do that. of he was home at a reasonable hour even though he was a j

as you know both chief justice roberts and rehnquist have been active at trying to get congress to raise the salaries including supreme court justices in the private sector but even compared to the senior law professor there is a great gap. i went back and looked at the same issue in 1810 the of the story on a martial court that talked about his salary and complained to the congress and asked for a raise complaining that daniel webster one of the advocates of making 30 times as much and then looked at the scene issue in 1860 and chief justice said the same thing. the retired general's and the civil war that are making more than we are. so, the trace the evolution of a lot of these customs and practices that the way i went about this institutional history is the anecdotes because i really wanted to give color and life because as we write about the institutional practices people will fall asleep, so why use letters, diaries, old interviews come current interviews to try to bring it to life. do you want me to talk about some of my favorite sources? so, a lot of the sources are very well kno

. >> you talk about being law school classmates with justice rehnquist. >> yes. he ended up number one in the class and you were number three in the class. >> the law school kept no record of how we were ranked. they know what our greats were. they can go look at the grades. >> then you couldn't get a job in law firm and he could easily. >> it was a strange story. at stanford, bulletin board for students it was full of little notices from law firms all over california saying, stanford law graduates, call us, we want to talk to you about work. >> you must have been less to -- >> i called every single number on the bulletin board. i could not get a single interview. i knew a girl my age at stanford, not in law school, but her father was a partner at one of the big california firms. he got me an interview, headquarters in los angeles, i made the trip down. he looked at my resume, miss day, you have a fine record in law school. he said, miss day, this firm has never hired a woman lawyer. i don't see the day when we will. our clients wouldn't stand for it. and i was v

can you tell us a little bit about then justice rehnquist and then later chief justice rehnquist? >> i was very fortunate to have served as a law clerk for chief justice rehnquist pierpont endure so after loss would you serve for one of the chief justice's for a year. he taught me how both personally and professionally. he was kind of a pioneer. he had a very good sense of balance between work and life that was not that uncommon in his generation. i remember him telling me at one. , telling the three of oz clarke's, if you want to spend time with your yonne children, you how to do it when you are young. which is a very renquistian turn of phrase. he is telling us, and you cannot say, as soon as i finish this project i will spend more time with the kids. because you wake up and find out they are 17 years old and you miss your chance. he did not do that he was home with his family even though he was the chief justice of the supreme court. and he taught me a lot. he said, when you work on these cases, you put everything you can in them and you do as good a job as you can, but then yo

the concurring opinion by rehnquist, scalia and thomas and so forth was based upon the statute and was preferable to the majority opinion in that respect. but i, you can't say that the judge must only act when the principle is clear because there will be principles, but there will be applications of a principle that are not clear. and he has to do the best he can without distorting the shape of the law, but nevertheless getting the spirit of the law and the principle of the law into the case correctly. >> host: how does that, how much wiggle room does that give a judge? in other words, is that just kind of the way it is, or can a -- does that make it so that a judge can do whatever a judge wants to do and say, well, you know, i agree with, i agree with judge bork, but many -- but in this case, you know, i had to do the best i could, and it turned out that what will turn out to be the judge's personal preferences are required -- >> guest: no, the idea of following the original understanding of the constitution is not a mechanical idea. you don't just take some kind of thing, a machine o

and then, then justice rehnquist said that, so you won't settle for susan b. anthony's face on the new dollar. this is the same as when i joined the court, and my submission was going to be protected by janet reno. most attorneys general like to be called general. janet said, i am not a general. i am ms. reno. so she wasn't so accustomed to using ms. or mrs. and he wanted to make sure that he could say it smoothly, so it kind of a dress rehearsal before we went in and said ms. reno, ms. reno, three times the. [laughter] he cared about getting it right. been in the vmi case, he didn't do in my, he did join the judgment. this was about admitting women to the virginia military institute, a facility that the state of virginia operated for men only and had nothing comparable for women. it wasn't a case that separate schools. most of them were on our site. the idea was the state cannot make an educational opportunity available for one sex only. in any event, that left justice scalia as the lone dissenter in the vmi case. now, the case about the family medical leave

historic in nature, with justice rehnquist, warren, both conservatives and as a result they say that it is very possible that roberts could go on the liberals. in striking down proposition 8. and making same-sex marriage the law of the land. >> with earlier today proponents/supporters have been voicing their opinions. j. r. stone continues are working coverage. >> when it comes to the reaction in court the reaction was positive. those in san francisco backpack same-sex marriage say " yes ". it is frustrating that they are still waiting but they will now eventually have a final decision. this is what the supporters had to say. >> to read the marriage is starting in city hall we do not want to obscure that of the tremendous progress that is been made with the respect to. you quality of the last decade. >> in my nervous? >> yes. if you never want to be waiting for the supreme court to be deciding something but i'm also optimistic. and we have to believe the court will do the right thing which will give these gay & lesbian couples the opportunity to marry. >> the other side of the aisle

provides the sixth vote and then you have three votes in the minority justice scalia, chief justice rehnquist and justice thomas, justice scalia right and announces from the bench of vehement defense which see she says basically the court has taken sides in the culture war, not behaving in a fashion that can be tied to the constitution in any way, this will mean a slippery slope to things like bigamy and widespread obscenity and gay marriage and justice thomas writes for himself saying while he believes these laws are and commonly silly to use his expression quoting from earlier justice, if he were a texas legislator he would vote to repeal the laws, he is a judge and not a legislature and there's nothing in the constitution protecting a right to privacy so he provides a clear dissenting vote. >> host: the kennedy-scalia division is interesting. they were ronald reagan appointees from the 1980s, both of them catholics, born in the 1930s, had similar backgrounds, but on these types -- a lot of things on criminal cases, corporate -- on the culture war cases justice kennedy always seemed very mu

justice calleja, chief justice rehnquist and justice thomas. justice calleja announces from the bench a vehement dissent which says the court has taken signs and the culture war that it's not behaving in a fashion tied to the constitution in any way that would mean a slippery slope to things like it could mean and widespread affinity and he said gay marriage. and justice thomas writes for himself that while he believes these laws are uncommonly silly to use that expression quoting from an earlier just to. if you're a texas legislator, he would repeal these laws. there's nothing in the constitution protect a right to privacy. so he provides that their descendents hope. >> host: the kennedy scully a division is so interesting because ronald reagan appointee from the late 1980s. both of them cap leaks in the 1930s had some similar background. but they agree on a lot of things on criminal cases, corporate cases. but on the culture war cases, justice kennedy always seems to be much of a california republican, a completely different instinct than jus

just speaking briefly about the rehnquist court, i think it's useful to think about the rehnquist court in two parts. 1996 to 2,002,000 to 2005. the dividing point in history the court in many respects in the history of the country is the court's decision in bush v. gore. that justice scalia does a lot of public speaking and he's often asked the kind of hostile question about bush v. gore. and he always says the same thing. get over it. [laughter] well, speaking just for myself, i am so not over it. [applause] i am really not over it. before i wrote to nine, i wrote a book called too close to call about the time florida, which had a peak part about bush v. gore. one thing i try to do in reporting that the this interview al gore. obviously you can tell that story. you want to interview al gore. he wouldn't talk to me. i shred everything. just by coincidence, i met al gore while i was working on the ninth. i said to him, mr. vice president -- she had read too close to call and i said, i am writing another book where bush v. gore is at the center of it. i said i think i'm the biggest bush