bush and justice souter.ed [unintelligible] is completely impossible to have the issue resolved and the controversy resulted time for the federal statutory deadline. we submit that the process has changed. >> if your concern with this -- if you had latigo we might have found exactly how it would have come out, but that was not the intent of mr. olson and governor bush at that particular time. many justices will say that oral arguments don't change their opinions, but that they help them close the gaps and narrowed some of the inconsistencies. i am not sure, but in hindsight, looking at this and listening to the arguments again just the other night, you see justice kennedy in particular trying to wrestle his way to a conclusion that works for him. it was not the more seemingly it to chronicle -- the more seemingly draconian approach it, but the weight to find that the equal protection was not being afforded every voter here, that was a comfort zone for him. >> it is an honor for me to be here as well, it was a

and souter likes his anonymity. he's not easily recognized on the street. he likes to tell stories about how people encounter him in grocery stores and say, you look like a fellow who's on the supreme court. and he says, a lot of people have told me that, or something like that. but he genuinely believes that if they become public personalities and he is sure that would be a product of putting their faces regularly on television, then they would be confronted with a personal security problem. >> it's a false argument. that works if you're a judge in columbia putting drug dealers behind bars. but that's a false argument here. >> it's his argument. >> it's an argument that, unfortunately, perhaps from charles' perspective has been persuasive with his colleagues. and so i'm not sure that i'm persuaded myself by the argument and as a matter of fact my own sense and i know charles agrees with this, is that if there is a constitutional right of public access to public proceedings you cannot say that that right of access depends upon what you will do with the info

bush and justice souter.>> we submit debt incorrecty interpreted [unintelligible] is completely impossible to have the issue resolved and the controversy resulted time for the federal statutory deadline. we submit that the process has changed. >> if your concern with this -- if you had latigo we might have found exactly how it would have come out, but that was not the intent of mr. olson and governor bush at that particular time. many justices will say that oral arguments don't change their opinions, but that they help them close the gaps and narrowed some of the inconsistencies. i am not sure, but in hindsight, looking at this and listening to the arguments again just the other night, you see justice kennedy in particular trying to wrestle his way to a conclusion that works for him. it was not the more seemingly it to chronicle -- the more seemingly draconian approach it, but the weight to find that the equal protection was not being afforded every voter here, that was a comfort zone for him. >> it is an hon

justice souter is a wonderful colleague. we will miss him in our deliberations. and we will miss him around the court. but that's part of the process of the evolution of the court. we will welcome the new member with open arms. and the court will be richer in the court of history. but you do get used to seeing the same people every day. you get used to having lunch with the same people every day. it will be an interesting part of the changeover. justice white always says, when the court gets a new member, it changes everybody. simple changes. we move the seats around. the seats are by order of seniority. same in the conference roomful but more fundamentally, i think it can cause you of how things are decide. the new member is going to have a particular view about how issues should be addressed that may be very different from what we've been following for some time. so it's an exciting time of life in the court. >> does the chief get vacation in the summer time? >> vacation is the wrong word. justice branise said he could do the 12 -- work of the court in 12 month

three justices put their heads together, kennedy, souter, and o'connor put their heads together and fashioned a way by which the court could resolve that case to get it decided. that was really quite unusual to put together a little trio that was managing the case and controlling the outcome, really. they were able to get a majority to sign onto what they had chosen to do. in most of the cases, once the justices have cast an internal vote in the conference and the opinion is decided, it is assigned. then the drafts start circulating. what happens is that the other justices will send what are called joined memos. you can account by a vote for your opinion as it is, or there may be a note that says i am going to write separately, or i will support your opinion but i am still going to write separately, or i am going to dissent. another approach is that i will join your opinion if you make this and this change in it. that is usually done as a paper process. it is not something where the justices get together in a conference and say what do you think about it? it all comes in as a paper flow, and

once there political considerations could go off their own way and become mavericks and justice souter's the most recent example of that, in your review of the history of the court is that actually a very common phenomenon? >> no. you get what you appoint. and, you may not understand who you have a pointed, and that may move somebody come up but fundamental changes and was the justice thinks about the issues facing the united states do not occur on the court. tendencies will move. some judges, byron white, became more conservative as he aged, and i think it is fair to say that john paul stevens became more liberal as he aged, but there are bits of this-- white may have been moving with the country and stevens may look more liberal because the country looks more conservative and it could be as stevens himself would say i stayed in the same place. everything about me has moved, so i don't think you find leopards changing their spots. [applause] >> professor powe thank you for that insightful, franken entertaining book report. we have for you a present for joining us at the book festival. i

. >> host: and justice souter said it's going to be a long time. >> guest: it's a shame, from his butif you he thinks it's nobody's business and i think fellow justices are happy because when they send a note to a colleague did like to keep it quiet i think but for a journalist it's great because then you know what was going on and gives you insight into the finished product were all you see is the final law of the land which obviously is then survives this court but it's nice to see the dynamics that produced it. >> host: it's a treasure trove. you are in a store in and journalist doing both with books like this. tell me about the fact that once in awhile justice scalia's opinions would be sharply critical of his colleagues. somewhat disdainful perhaps in you mentioned that someone pointed out as in your book, i can't recall who, says there is sarcasm in there from time to time. tell us about that. was that true? and did it alienate his colleagues? >> guest: a did and semper specs but they came to embrace it as that. >> host: if you do it long enough you can get away with it or becau

justice souter is there a wonderful colleague -- is a wonderful colleague. that is part of the process of the evolution of the court. we will welcome the new member with open arms and the court will be richer and the course of history. but you do get used to seeing the same people every day and you get used to having lunch with the same people every day. it is an interesting part of the changeover. justice white said that when the court gets a new member, it changes everything. it changes everybody. we've moved the seats around -- remove the seeds around -- we've moved up the seats are around -- we move the seats around. issues that are addressed may be very different than what we have been falling for sometimes. -- for some time. >> does the chief get a vacation in the summertime? >> vacation is the wrong word. one justice said he could do 12 months of work in a 10 months. it is good that we get a break from each other. we have work that we continue to do. we continue to pour through those 9000 petitions. we get emergency matters from time to time. when we

there is no sadder day around here than when a member of this court -- than when justice souter announce that when he was leaving -- remember, i served 18 years with him, almost 18 years. he becomes your friend. you do not have to agree, but he is your friend. when you hear one of your colleagues is sick, it is one of your family members who are sick. so much is made of whether we agree or disagree. can you think of any human being with him you agree on everything? large or small? it does not exist. it does not happen. but you feel a closeness and you have done it in no way did you think has been respectful to each other and to the institution and to your fellow citizens. >> let me move to the court and the public. we just recently conducted, with the help of the washington public opinion firm, a survey of more than a thousand americans on the court. it was interesting that when asked to name any sitting justice, a majority of the respondents could not name one. aheadis that appropriate? >> i think that may be a reflection on the way we teach civics. but i do not think that everyone has

inç fact, justice souter unwittingly gave support to this momentum inñ7 his victory speech that he from here were he said that the public knowledge about the structure of government is abysmal and we have toç improve civic education for this new generation. xdçwhat better way than to lean about the supreme court and to allow cameras to cover the proceedings. >> if you've got a case that involved a question of womenç can a plan administrator for benefits su and under what conditions can that administrator be sued, i am not sure that anybody will stay up late and watch this. >>nbxd1+lg#w2;w( ç]@!Ñóob0ee y$ú"jájjt about audio, even more bizarre than the court's power to say noç overall videos the court's policy on when they allow audio. one of the things that has been driving me insane is that the only times that the public gets access to audio are in the opposite of that case. the court, by some a trick that is not known to humankind, they decide toc'ków3çç buyç args z;[idea of treatment. cases, affirmative action cases and cases that make people insane and the justic

in the end, justices kennedy, o'connor, and david souter got together and fashioned a way by which theoe vs. wade, at least in substantial part, and they did indeed strike down only that one çiÑiÑipart, the requirement tha womanjf contemplating abortion notify her husband that she was doing so. to my mind, it is a classic demonstration of deciding what you want to argue, going in to make that argument, and no matter how hard the resistance is to you making your argument, to holding to it, sticking to it until the bitter end, and then hoping for the best. it was a very classical performance by really talented lawyer, and to this day, a good many years later, roe still survives in the form that emerged as a direct consequence of catherine colbert's argument. thank you for including me in thisçó project. the year 2000 was also a presidential election year, so it was not terribly tough to select bush vs. gore 2000 as one of the cases to write about for this collection. indeed, it was a case unique in the history of the country, for starters, in american politics, and in the circumstances

there is no sadder day around here than when a member of this court -- than when justice souter announce that when he was leaving -- remember, i served 18 years with him, almost 18 years. he becomes your friend. you do not have to agree, but he is your friend. when you hear one of your colleagues is sick, it is one of your family members who are sick. so much is made of whether we agree or disagree. can you think of any human being with him you agree on everything? large or small? it does not exist. it does not happen. but you feel a closeness and you have done it in no way did you think has been respectful to each other and to the institution and to your fellow citizens. >> let me move to the court and the public. we just recently conducted, with the help of the washington public opinion firm, a survey of more than a thousand americans on the court. it was interesting that when asked to name any sitting justice, a majority of the respondents could not name one. aheadis that appropriate? >> i think that may be a reflection on the way we teach civics. but i do not think that everyone has

souter. >> thank you. mr. sullivan, you have used the check point repeatedly. for their points or two or one that had a list? >> there were too. >> so it wasn't a point, it was checkpoints that failed. >> yes, sir. >> and the list you are referring to, was the list provided by the social secretary or is this a list that has been social security numbers vetted, they're has been background checks on the individuals that might have turned up some of the questionable things in the couple's background and who they were associated with was a social secretary list to we invite or was it a vetted list? >> i believe i have this right and if i don't we will correct it but what happens before the event whitehouse staff will give a list of the people that have been inflated and we will take that list and they will provide name and date of birth and social security number. we will then do the appropriate record checks for those individuals. if anything does come up that would lead us to believe somebody should not be led into the white house we would get back to the white h

general souter advises us wisely, yes, no, and then qualify or add to the answer and so forth. and so i felt on one particular occasion, which i remember all too vividly that i was arguing along, thinking that i was in stride. little did i know that i was over the cliff. [laughter] >> and chief justice rehnquist, who seemed to be utterly unperturbed by what i was saying had a look of ghastly alarm. springs forward, flips on his microphone and with his elephant-time memory and said, general, are you suggesting that oklahoma publishing vs. walling should be overruled? i had never heard of -- >> precisely. >> and so the best i could do, absolutely and emphatically no, mr. chief justice. ed, were we trying to get that overruled. at times you will be embarrassed and the best response is even though as our chief justice, john roberts, a very, very fine, none was better, as an advocate than john roberts, jr., and as he described it, as an advocate, you prepare relentlessly, whether that's on weekends or whatever. and i would just close by saying, i always found the moot court experien

and sonia sotomayor who essentially succeeds another person overseeing liberal philosophy, david souter and the next person who will probably leave this justice john paul stevens probably to be succeeded by another liberal and it will be a wash, but he will have consistently five very strong conservatives, antonin scalia, samuel alitha, chief justice john roberts, clearance thomas and for the most part anthony kennedy. you have got a pretty core group for the average age right now is a decade younger than the average of the liberal so we will hear from barry now and then we will ask each other couple of questions and then i hope he will have some questions to. >> it is great to be here at the miami book fair. this will lived you if you don't have small children but i got to have my picture taken with my young daughters live, olivia the ped so it was a special moment. [laughter] i am thrilled to be here with john who has written a wonderful book about justice scalia. i stayed up too late to many evenings, i could not put it down so i'm thrilled to be here to sort of follow-up because it

. >> host: and justice souter. >> guest: which was a shame. from his point of view, he thinks it's nobody's business, and some of his fellow justices are happy because when they send a memo to a colleague, they like to keep it quiet, i think. but for journalist, it's great because you know what was going on and it gives you insights into the finished product where all you see is the final law of the land, which obviously is what then survives the court. but it's nice to see the dynamics that produced i it. >> host: it's a treasure trove when you're a journalist doing books like this. tell me about the fact that once in a while justice scalia's opinions would be sharply critical of his colleagues? somewhat disdainful, perhaps. you mentioned that someone opinioned out, there's sarcasm in there from time to time. tell us about that. >> guest: from time to time, yes. >> host: is that true? and did it alienate his colleagues? >> guest: well, it did some respects but they came to embrace it, that's. >> host: you do it long enough you can get away wi