>> i am not sure, i think bill rehnquist wasn't too bad. he was a sharp guy, he really was, he was in law school too. >> rose: i know you both went to stanford. same class? >> same class. >> rose: why did you retire? >> well, because john connor, my beloved husband had alzheimer's disease and that gets worse as time passes and he was reaching the point where he was going to have to go in a care facility, and i really thought he should be in arizona where our children were. >> rose: right. >> and i wasn't there and it seemed to me, at that point, i better get down from the court and be available for john. >> rose: you are comfortable with your role in history? >> oh, i am honored to have been the first woman on the court. i mean, how could i ever imagine doing anything like that? i certainly didn't when i was admitted to law school, it was not anything to which i aspired. it was inconceivable. >> rose: and when ronald reagan called you up to say i want you to -- >> he got on the phone and i was at my office in my chambers on the court of app

back in the olden days, the s, the traditional wisdom was rehnquist would never agree to cameras unless all of the agreed and there was no unanimity on it. here was speculation that thurgood marshall would step down, then cameras would happen. happen.dn't some justices in the confirmation hearings suggested receptive to cameras and they come back to congress in the,000 hearings, i've changed my mind, over my dead body. what's the situation now? are they ever going to embrace cameras in the courtroom? >> i would like to say its's some day some day, before the medium of television it's es so outdated that irrelevant. but i'm not sure i see a clear except for , possibly congress telling them to. it's just such a -- intransient -- so stubborn about it, they, as you strategy - the media and it's not really a strategy, as to wait for new young justices to come on who weren't afraid of cameras. justices would come on and they were afraid of cameras. it's -- it's something about the aura of the court that descends on new justices once they're in there. and it's not a matter of the itting justic

back in the olden days, in 1980's, the conventional wisdom was rehnquist was never going to agree to cameras in the court unless all the justices agreed and there was speculation that once marshall stepped down cameras would be allowed, that didn't happen. we had demonstrations to show how unappreciated they were, it didn't seem to make much difference. some justices have suggested they would be recentive to cameras and then when they come back to congress were authorization hearings they say i've changed my mind, over my dead body. so what's the situation now? are they ever going to embrace this notion of cameras in courtroom? >> i'd like to say it's ine i believe someday, when media and television become so outdated that it's irrelevant. i'm not sure to see a clear path of that except for congress telling them to. -- they're so stubborn about it, as they say, the media strategy and it's not really a strategy was to wait for new young justices to come on who weren't afraid of cameras. and new young justices would come on and they're afraid of cameras. it's something about the aura o

sandra day o'connor, john paul stevens and stephen breyer, also former chief justice the late william rehnquiston't have to prove the textualism is perfect, i just have to prove it is better than anything else. there is a lot of suggestion that i really changed my views on the death penalty, and i am not really sure that is accurate. >> i like to play bridge, i like to play poker, i like to play charades. >> you like to bet on basketball games. >> which we have done.

educated person with a formidable resume and went to princeton and harvard law and clerked for justice rehnquist, and argued in front of the supreme court, and shut down multiple cabinet agencies and how do you reconcile the two of them? >> well, you have to go back to the great biography, and alex altman's great piece regardless of how libelous we are. he used a mnemonic device to memorize the constitution. he would go around the state of texas to write the constitution from scratch because he had memorized it. it is not a guy raised like regular teenagers, and he had an ideological viewpoint and clearly when his father was here, and when he was at liberal places, he defined himself against the establishment. he is the arrival of someone from this tea party view of the country and the constitution who e really does have the credentials that all of his predecessors have lacked and really his abilities. the abilities are far beyond what sarah palin could do or michele bachmann in terms of being a communicator for this message. >> and andrew dyson, the part of this if you expand the cruz story int

now we have lunch with the chief justice once per year which is better than under judge rehnquist when we had lunch every two years. it is a beach where there was and still is a lot of collegiality but not a lot of scoops. because of the momentum and the intensity of new media, we are routinely eating each other's lunches with exclusives large and small. the competition is at an over all, i think the vast changes brought by new media platforms has been to the good even though numerically, there are fewer journalists covering the supreme court. the overall output of information about the court that is available to the public has vastly increased and that is great. in this expanded universe, there is room for both the 140 character tweet and the analysis that my colleagues here are just terrific at. that kind ofthink analysis, that kind of coverage will always be needed even though you can find a supreme court ruling online very quickly. it does not mean that the public will read it and there will still be some role for journalists to interpret. i want to talk about the ways in which the

. >> mark rehnquist that writes about this, he helps students navigate this, key parts of the president'sroposal such as tying federal aid to institutional performance will require an act of congress. this will not happen in the current divided congress. >> okay. you and i are out of time unfortunately. i can go on with you forever. you get it. >> keep talking about it. families are really worried about this. they should be. the president trying to make a part of his legacy, i think, to try to find a way to fix it. >> good point. christine romans joining us and chris cuomo will talk to the president tonight. we'll have athat on new day and make sure you tune in. the big interview tomorrow and this will be tough on chris cuomo's list of questions for sure. flat out of time. around the world starts off the short break. la's known definitely for its traffic, congestion, for the smog. but there are a lot of people that do ride the bus. and now that the buses are running on natural gas, they don't throw out as much pollution into the air. so i feel good. i feel like i'm doing my part to help o

with gh now we have lunch the chief justice once a year, better than under rehnquist when we had lunchvery two years. stand of us. could it's a beat where there was and collegiality, of but not a lot of scoops. momentum cause of the and the intensity of new media, eating each ly other's lunches with exclusives, and small. the competition is good and the but new ges brought media platforms are brought to the good. are fewer there reporters covering the supreme beat.in terms of a the overall output to the public is increased. that's great. this expanded universe, there is room for both 140-character and the analysis that my just gues here are terrific at. and i hope and i think that that of analysis, that kind of coverage will always be needed. even though you can find a supreme court ruling on-line uickly doesn't mean that every member of the public is going to read it and i think there will journalists to interpret. but i wanted to spend a few ways s talking about the in which the supreme court is anti-deluveann the to access.t comes fred graham used to say that cia the vatican and the

although now we have lunch with the chief justice once a year, which is a lot better than under rehnquistwhen we had lunch every two years. that's all he could stand of us. it's a beat where there was and still is a lot of collegiality, but not a lot of scoops. and now because of the momentum and the intensity of new media, we're routinely eating each other's lunches with exclusives, large and small. the competition is good and the vast changes brought but new media platforms are brought to the good. numerically there are fewer reporters covering the supreme court in terms of a beat. the overall output to the public is increased. that's great. in this expanded universe, there is room for both 140-character tweet and the analysis that my colleagues here are just terrific at. and i hope and i think that that kind of analysis, that kind of coverage will always be needed. even though you can find a supreme court ruling on-line quickly doesn't mean that every member of the public is going to read it and i think there will be some role for journalists to interpret. but i wanted to spend a few m