rehnquist, who had a real ideological agenda. as a result, justice white would always make two clerks read anything that came there rehnquist's chambers. and we, in keeping with the supreme court tradition, had an opportunity to have lunch with each of the justices. and at the time, this was 1980, we asked justice rehnquist what decision are you most proud of. and he said national league of cities v. usury, a case with a 5-4 majority. the court had struck down federal wage and hour legislation as applied to state government employees. and we said why are you so proud of that? he saw said i view it as an agent -- he said i view it as an agent in place. he had as an agenda, and he made this quite explicit in his early dissent, an agenda to restore limits on federal power. and he eventually accomplished that with the lopez decision, with the prince decision to, in a way that didn't threaten radical change in our entire system of federalism, send a shot over the bow of congress to say you need to be much more careful in defining why

susan: here's some of what william rehnquist wrote. we hold that miranda, being a constitutional decision of this court, may not be overruled by an act of congress, and we decline to overrule miranda ourselves. we therefore hold miranda and its progeny in this court, governing the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation in both state and federal courts. paul: it's a remarkable decision. chief justice rehnquist, both associate justices, repeatedly say that miranda is not a constitutional decision. jeffrey: he suggested he would come up to the edge of overruling it, and then he shocks everybody by upholding it. widely do this? one thing -- why did he do this? one thing, miranda has come to be accepted by the culture, and this, antonin scalia a, his head almost explodes about this. he said, the court has converted keopsa into the very pyramid of judicial arrogance. i did not know even what that was or how to pronounce it until justice scalia reminded us keop was the king who was so arrogant, he believed he could bu

justice rehnquist was a pragmatist. much more conservative. he had been the lone ranger and a little bit here -- pure in his constitutional abuse. we saw those tv warnings. we saw the fact that this symbolized law enforcement across the board. that combined with the fact that the other justices accepted. 7-2, rejected. susan: pete is in georgia. you are on the air. caller: my question is about the hearing in 2013. some of the inherent weaknesses in in miranda were on full display. that you have to invoke your right to silence. that assumes that you know those rights and the police cannot take that opportunity away from you. could you please explain that case? paul: that is one of the follow-on cases. one of the things that is remarkable about miranda, the basic framework is still applied today. i view that differently than jeff does. some people look at the dickerson decision and say that was a bullet that was dodged. i see dickerson and some of these other decisions as opportunity missed. we have not updated miranda at all in the last 50 year

but with chief justice rehnquist, the conferences were much shorter. let's say our road's and the differences of the discussion will come out in the writing. do you have any thoughts about these very different management styles with chief justice burger and chief justice rehnquist? and whether you have a preference for orally extending the conference and irony views that way or whether we should just leave it for the writing? chief justice roberts: well, you know, if you think chief justice burger's were too long and chief were tooehnquist's short, maybe this is a goldilocks moment and we are just right. [laughter] i think it is important. it is probably true that we discussed things a little bit more than we did under chief justice rehnquist. i think that helps move things along. -- thatet to i appoint is -- you do get to a point, you is a phrase we use, leave it to the writing. when you get to the small details, it is hard when you get nine people talking about what does this curly q in the regulation mean? you have to get it on paper so that people

it is probably true we discuss things more than they did under chief justice rehnquist. you get to a point where it will come out in the writing because there are nine of us, night now of course, and the back and forth of the small details, it is hard to tell nine people talking about what does this curly cue and regulation mean. you do have to get it on paper so everybody can focus on it more. >> time for one more question. one final question. i think we have one out there. >> the mic is right behind you. that will help. >> you mentioned earlier the court deals with technology now which is a growing area in the law and science. i was curious with other scientific issues like whether it is biology or climate science, what kind of science backgrounds to the justices have and who do they go to for their expertise? >> that is a very good question. i think the short answer is varied backgrounds. justice thomas, i don't know why, is the most technologically sophisticated on the court and advi advising us we have to get this and that. it is not necessarily by age. some of the

william rehnquist was not in the minority in general. wither was war in berger -- arren berger and neither was earl warren -- yes, a republican appointee, but a liberal republican appointee. tawney was supported by all of these jackson democrats and pierce democrats and buchanan democrats on the court. contrariwise, if donald j. trump is picked, and you have to understand that is a real possibility, my friends -- how are sonia sotomayor and elena kagan and ruth bader ginsburg going to react? that's a new york story, too. ok. so, one thing that makes the judiciary powerful is a divided government because it enables the judiciary to be right-wing or left-wing and at least one of the two parties in the divided government is going to be happy with that. so, is hillary clinton in just to win and when the senate and actually when the house -- which could be in play because donald trump could lose the house of representatives for his party? that's going to be a very different world for the likes of the republicans on the court. contrariwise, it

so we now have the natalie cornwell rehnquist dining room.lare: let's shift gears and talk about the lunch break. that ine, i understand the 19th century, oral arguments went on for a very long time and court sessions lasted from 11:00-5:00 and then they were shortened to 12:00-four: 30. what did the justices do about lunch? catherine:: believe it or not, while this was going on, one or two justices at a time would slip behind the bench and their messengers would set up tables and the justices would eat lunch behind the bench while the oral arguments were going on. you are sitting in the courtroom listening to arguments, you cannot see the justices eating behind -- because they were behind the bench or a screen. but could you hear them? catherine: you could. much like we are raised in this room, the court was raised and there was an opening between the three center chairs. but there was a partition, said the justices would be seeded at these tables, you can hear the clatter of knives and forks and dishes and the messenger sometimes would brin

and eventually i was ordered to testify by former judge rehnquist. deirdre: and i also know that you had to go through the whole monica lewinsky affair with the clinton family. i know that you were interrogated for lack of a better term by kenneth starr. you were interwoven even in their personal lives. >> that is exactly right. as hard as it is some people to understand why i wrote this book, they have to look at the position i was placed in by the clinton administration. i don't see any difference in the way president clinton based then, if his wife gets elected and he becomes the first male spouse of a president, how is he going to behave in the white house? will it be the same thing we saw during the eight years i was there? that is one of the things that concerns me. deirdre: gary, what is your biggest concern, if i said the biggest concern it is, fill in the blank? >> the biggest concern is this. mrs. clinton gets elected without people knowing the truth. deirdre: gary byrne, thank you very much. >> thank you very much. deirdre: glad to get you

>> caller: if i recall correctly, chief justice rehnquist placed his opinion on gore v.h that the people did not have a right to vote for president. but then i'll go back to the 24th amendment and said it shall not be abridged which is correct. >> yes, that's what it says for sure. >> robert, thank you for the call. this is from another robert, robert simpson, mr. castle, saying ask your guest to comment on road blocks, if any, by the democrats and republicans to nullify third parties. we touched on this earlier. if you could elaborate any further. >> well, i don't know about the term, nullify, but they keep third parties from becoming a much louder voice by denying us access to the ballot. it takes millions of dollars which quite often third party people do not have to gain access to the ballot and that is because the requirements to get signatures in so many states are so high and so egregious that you actually have to hire people to collect those signatures for you. that makes it very difficult. there are other ways. shut out from the media except for programs like th

chief justice rehnquist had written about impeachment.ad studied this long before these events brought him to the floor of the senate. the nation was very fortunate to have him and his attorneys and his chief of staff who were very dedicated that the trial be a fair trial. we did have moments towards the where the trial conflict between the cameras and the institution arose. under the senate's impeachment rules, the case is laid out in -- to, but deliberate liberations take place in private. with the door closed. there were senators or pressing -- who were pressing their leadership, from both sides of the aisle to open the doors during the deliberation. there was an attempt to convince the chief justice that he should rule that the doors be open. the rules, however, were clear that the doors were to be closed during deliberations. it was a fascinating back and forth between the leadership of the senate who want to the doors close during deliberation, and some members of both sides of the aisle, and the cheap justice -- and the chief justi

chief justice rehnquist had written about impeachment. he had studied this long before the events were brought to before the senate to the presiding office. the nation was very fortunate to have him and his attorneys and his chief of staff who were absolutely incredibly dedicated that the trial be a fair trial. we did have moments toward the end of the trial where the conflict between the cameras in the institution arose. under the senate impeachment rules, the case is laid out in public but deliberations take place in private. deliberations take place with the door closed and there were senators who were pressing their respective leadership, and this came from both sides of the aisle, who opened the doors during deliberation and there was actually an attempt to convict the chief justice -- convinced the chief justice that he ruled that the doors should be open. the rules, however were clear that the doors should be closed during deliberation and it was a fascinating back and forth between the leadership of the senate who want to be doors

we'll be talking about a quite granular, quite modest, the great bigger parts of the legacy of the rehnquist and roberts court not overruled substantively or by name. how many people think big change is afoot? will does. will doesn't feel great about it. >> i think big changes either way. i think the center won't hold. so over the next five years you're going to see one way or the other, depending which way the election goes, a substantial change in the makeup of the court. and i do think there will be big changes. in terms of stare decisis, that was an important principle that the liberal bloc of the court thought was being underrecognized by the conservative part of the court. we'll see what they have to say if they have five votes. from my perspective as someone who litigates these cases that are bound up in stare decisis quite often, like fisher and shelby county, which i know were all very popular here today, we've asked the court to overturn precedent and seen resistance. i've very much enjoyed seeing the commentary from many people who see the prospect of the court shifting and making

reagan made this point quite eloquently when he presided over the swearing in of not just william rehnquist as chief justice of the supreme court but also one antonin scalia as associate justice. president reagan explained that -- quote -- the founding fathers recognized that the constitution is the supreme and ultimate expression of the will of the american people. and of course president reagan was right. the founding fathers recognized that the very purpose of the constitution was to embody the spirit and the voice of the american people, so i find it preposterous when my republican colleagues who purport to revere the constitution and the framers ' original intent insist that the only way to guarantee that the people's voice is heard is to delay filling the vacancy, because after all the founding fathers didn't just contemplate such a situation, they actually experienced it. when president john adams, himself a founding father and a drafter of the declaration of independence, was presented with the opportunity to point -- to appoint a supreme court justice, he was himself a lame-duck pr

when chief justice rehnquist affirmed maranda, he said it has come to be accepted by the culture.ow many cases can you say that about? host: in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, let's talk about policing in this country. we were talking about how we are currently in a debate in this country about policing tactics. why is that? >> what we saw in the country was a significant improvement in policing. in the 1930's, the third degree, putting pressure and threats to get confessions was a widespread tactic. in the 1940's and 50's, those tactics started to disappear. then the question was, all right, if question is an going to be used in the form of physical threats, our officers going to use psychological tacticand techniques, and what kind of regulation should there be on those? those are the issues maranda wrestles with. >> looking at the country at that time, were there any regional aspects to this? cases where for example blacks in the south had more problems with prosecution. >> there was a huge debate about police brutality and it focuses on the south. as paul said, in the 1930's, conf

testify against the president in a criminal case and i was ordered to testify by supreme court justice rehnquistuart: you were ordered to testify in a case against president clinton? >> over the monica lewinsky scandal and they tried to deny their relationship and signed affidavits and starr had dna proof they had a connection. >> what was your role in the investigation. >> i was posted outside the oval office all those time and i could put them together and they compelled me to testify and then the secret service, basically took a bunch of young officers like myself and propelled us forward to protect themselves. the senior people in the secret service at the time knew what this investigation wanted, but they didn't want to be involved so they pushed us forward and officers like myself, a few injury agents and one senior guy that wasn't even an agent that wasn't on the detail at the time. so it was kind of manipulated and you certainly see this in hindsight. stuart: one of the issues which has been brought to the fore in this election cycle how hillary clinton treated the women that had been in