a good chief justice rehnquist used to cases urth amendment involving searches and seizures. and i just hate fourth amendment cases. i think those things, it's almost a jury question, you whether this variation is an unreasonable search and 3,542, yeah, ation i'll write the opinion, but i consider it a plum, but bill rehnquist used to consider it a plum. he thought ou that, he was entitled to give you a og, and i didn't much like that. > you are a writer and you've written three books now, is that correct? >> oh, no, two. >> two? >> two. writing is something that it seems as though you enjoy. you don't want to be an appellate judge if you're not good at writing. >> my question is, at this part process, do you enjoy the writing of opinions and the exchange of the precise words to point? r >> as i have often put it, i do not writing. enjoy having written. difficult ing a very process. i sweat over it. write. i rewrite. i rewrite again. before the opinion goes out, the law clerks say it's going out this afternoon, you want to read it one last time? it one last read time and i gu

chief justice rehnquist at the time of the murder decision a lawyer in phoenix. so history repeats repeats itself in many ways, miranda was from here, judge lawyer rehnquist was here and then it becomes a constitutional decision in 2000. something interesting something interesting happened when the dickerson case were not. if you look and dig into that case and read the briefs the briefs and supreme court cases invite a class of people for lack of a better word, they're called him a key briefs, friends of the court. they're not pardons to the case but they're interested in the issues and so they invite people to write briefs and many of those briefs were filed in the dickerson case by chiefs of police associations. other law-enforcement agencies arguing for miranda. no longer believe in that miranda is a bad thing. no longer believe longer believing that it harms law-enforcement. believing what the reality has become in the reality is that if the police officer does his does his or her job and give the miranda warnings and does it in the proper way, tape recordin

that opinion was written by chief justice rehnquist. chief justice rehnquist was at the time of the miranda decision a practicing lawyer here in phoenix. so history repeats itself in many ways. miranda was from here. judge then lawyer rehnquist was here and all of that gets transferred to the year 2000 which it becomes a constitutional decision. something interesting happened in 2000 when the dickerson case went up. if you look, date into that case and read the briefs, because briefs in supreme court cases, u.s. supreme court cases, they invite a class of people, for lack of a better word, called amicus cure i, or amicus briefs, friends of the court, they are not parties to the case but they're interested in the issue and so they invite people to write briefs that are called amicus briefs. and a good many of those briefs were filed in the dickerson case by chiefs of police associations, other law enforcement agencies arguing for miranda. no longer believing that miranda is a bad thing. no longer believing that it harms law enforcement.

judge, then lawyer rehnquist was here.nd all of that gets transferred to the year 2000 in which it becomes a constitutional decision. something interested happened in 2000 when the dickerson case came up. when you look into that case and read the briefs. breaches in u.s. supreme court cases, they invite a class of people, for lack of a better world. they're called am cuss curiae, or acquit briefs. friends of the court. they're note parties tot case but they're interested in the issue. they invite people to write briefs, and a good many of those briefs were filed in the dickerson case by chiefs of police, sokes, other law enforcement agencies arguing for miranda, no longer believing that miranda is a bad thing. no longer believing that it harms law enforcement. believing what the reality has become, and the reality is that if the police officer does his or her job and gives those miranda warnings and does it in the proper way, tape recording, video recording, written documentation in some form that's reliable, then what's h

bill rehnquist thought he was entitled to give you a dog. and i did not much like that. susan swain: you are a writer. you have written three books now, is that correct? justice scalia: two. susan swain: two? writing is something it seems you enjoy. justice scalia: you don't want to be an appellate judge if you are not good at writing. susan swain: do you enjoy the writing of opinions and to the exchange of precise words -- justice scalia: as i have put it, i don't enjoy writing, i enjoy having written. i find to writing a very much difficult process. i rewrite, i write again. i sweat over it. before the opinion goes out, clerks say it is going out this afternoon, do you want to read it one last time? yeah, i will read it one last time. and i guarantee you, every time i read it, i will change it something else. it has to be wrestled from my grasp and sent down to the printer. now, i am not a fast writer, but -- now, i am not a facile writer, but i think writing is a job that is worth the time you spent on it. susan swain: has technology in this time here made the process

chief justice rehnquist has cancer, we monitored the situation and expected we were preparing for a vacancy i get to the white house and there i am met by a small group of individuals to make final recommendations about who he would appoint to the supreme court. that would be the vice president, the chief of staff, the council, mysel council, mysy general and karl rove. so i arrive at the oval office and everyone is there except for andy who's been traveling but he is on the phone over teleconference and we talk about how we are going to prepare to roll out this announcement and help the president makes a decision and we talked about half an hour and we all get up to leave it president bush says will you stay behind. so i'm in the office with the vice president and the president and before i can even sit down president bush says i'm not going to put you on the court. you're doing a great job as the justice. i need to keep you at the department of justice. so my immediate response was of course i was disappointed. it would have been an honor to be the first hispanic on the supreme court but

. >> the judge makes a good point, i will remind us how chief justice rehnquist made it a routine partof his annual message on the judiciary, lamenting the federalization of crimes. it seems for a decade or more this was always a part of his end-of-the-year message to congress and to the people. that is the point you're making by your comments. >> there's another thing and that is also monumental changes that happen over time and to whom the bill of rights applied and to whom it protects. as originally enacted the anniversary we are celebrating applied its limitations on the federal government only, not the states. and who the people were is a much narrower bunch than it had come to be over time where the civil war has grown the number of people that when the understand protections in its application after the civil war and most of its provision to the state. and so it's a bit younger document in that sense, not chronologically but in the breath and scope of the application and i think a lot of people understand up front. in the last thing i would say is it's not only the government ch

. >> rose: rehnquist. >> and sandra day o'connor both from a state with a relatively small population, both stanford law school. >> rose: an classmates weren't they pretty close. >> yeah t was finally confirmed that they did date one time. (laughter). >> rose: it is great to have two new yorkers back home. (applause) >> for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us online at pbs.org and charlie rose.com. #r captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org . >> rose: on the next charlie rose a continuation of our conversation about politics, about america, and about books and movies that may interest you. >> i was in a groove playing at home. i took the time off and tie trying to come back after, that i just didn't quite have the same feel. and i thought it would pick up right away. i was ready to compete. i was ready to go. and man, it's tough knowing that i see a shot and i can kind of feel it. but it's not quite there yet. if it's not quite there yet, hey, do you wait over a year to get back to this point. let's be smart

justice rehnquist made it a routine part of his annual message on the judiciary lamenting the federalization of crimes. it seems that for a decade or more this was always a part of his end of the year message to congress and the people. and that's the point that you're making by your comment, judge. >> if i could also add though, there's another thing, and that's also monumental changes that have happened over time and to whom the bill of rights applies or to whom it protects. as originally enacted, it was -- the anniversary we're celebrating applied its limitations on the federal government only, not the states. and who the people were was a much narrower bunch than it has come to be over time where, you know, both the civil war, power of women and as our society has grown, the number of people and the understanding of its protections and its application after the civil war, most of its provisions to the states. and so the, it's a bit younger document in that sense. not chronologically, but in the breadth and scope of its application than i think a lot of people understand up front. and i g