typically when justice souter was on the court they stayed together. those cases are worth focusing on because as he said in the main, i think the consensus in washington and other places is that these -- justice sotomayor's replacement of justice souter and a replacement of justice stevens may not change the dynamic in some of the 5-4 cases that divide along traditional lines. on the other hand, in some of these criminal cases and the confrontation clause cases, it is possible that a substitution of justice souter and stevens may impact the court's direction in those cases. i would be the last person who would claim to be privy to the obama administration's selection process, but i rather doubt the litmus test applied is the prendi test or the crawford test. i do think these cases will be an interesting area to watch as the court moves forward. let me finish with two other thoughts. one is to foreshadow a bit. one area where we may see an interesting alliance son the criminal side is on the honor services fraud cases, which we are going to discuss lat

justice souter said we have to get rid of this quote mr. justice -- this "mr. justice" business. after that, we took off the term and just started using the term "justice." that was a couple of years before justice o'connor joined the court. i think a lot of people thought she was responsible for the change. i thought i would straighten out thh record. [laughter] [applause] thought my second major historical -- my second major historical event that i want to describe it refers to the chicago cubs. [laughter] i was, in fact, a witness of the home run by babe ruth. last year i was responding to questions in one of the sessions where you get questions from the audience, and somebody asked me if i was really there. i said, yes i was, and i remember sitting behind third base and watching dave ruth -- baby ruth -- babe ruth pointing to center field and following up with the famous shot. after the discussion, when everybody had left, a young man came up to me, he may have been a bankruptcy judge and not as young a man as he seemed -- [laughter] he said he did not want to be responsible

typically when justice souter was on the court they stayed together.g on because as he said in the main, i think the consensus in washington and other places is that these -- justice sotomayor's replacement of justice souter and a replacement of justice stevens may not change the dynamic in some of the 5-4 cases that divide along traditional lines on the other hand, in some of these criminal cases and the confrontation clause cases, it is possible that a substitution of justice souter and stevens may impact the court's direction in those cases. i would be the last person who would claim to be privy to the obama administration's selection process, but i rather doubt the litmus test applied is the prendi test or the crawford test. i do think these cases will be an interesting area to watch as the court moves forward let me finish with two other thoughts. one is to foreshadow a bit. one area where we may see an interesting alliance son the criminal side is on the honor services fraud cases, which we are going to discuss later. the last thing i will say is

. >> justice souter has famously said that cameras would come in to the supreme court ruling over his dead body. sonia sotomayor seems to have an opposite view. if you are asked whether c-span should be allowed to televise, what would you say and why? >> i have a feeling they will not ask me. this is one -- they will make the decision themselves and probably should. they're the folks who best know the dynamics on the court. i would not pretend to give them advice. i have thought about the question a bit as i have watched in the past several months. i was confirmed by the senate on march 21. the day after that was the supreme court's march 6-n. a one to every argument there and for the april sitting as well. i watched the court and a more sustained way. i was struck by that if cameras were in the courtroom, the american public would seek enemies and extraordinary events. this court is so smart and so prepared and so engaged. everybody gets up there at the podium -- the toughest questions are thrown at the person. the debate has extraordinary intellectual depth. years back when c-span f

the house republicans will lose a member of their caucus when congressman mark souter retires at 10:00me -- resigning actually. the reason for that is it has been discovered that he had an affair with a staffer in his district office cann. he was elected during the republican revolution of 1994. he is married and has three children. fox news is saying he will announce his resolution -- resignation after announcing an affair. elected as a family values conservative as part of the republican revolution, he survived a primary challenge two weeks ago. he was absent from washington most of last week. he only voted on thursday. it makes him the second lawmaker to step down in less than two months. i want to go back to our topic. we will take a telephone call from houston. this is billy. caller: i'd like to comment on capitalism and free markets. [unintelligible] as far as capitalism goes, isn't it the whole point to allow physicists to fail so that someone else can step in and take over and that is the whole point of a free-market? i will give you two quick examples because i work in the ind

when justice souter was under consideration, another was a good champion of hers. president obama has known her since her days in chicago. she has many prominent friends and supporters. she was nominated but never voted on for an appeals court judge action the clinton administration. the seats went to judge roberts before the wind to the supreme court. the idea of elevating heard to a judgeship has been around for a while. she has distinguished herself wherever she has been. she has known the president for a good number of years. host: las vegas. caller: the number of justices are not spelled out in the constitution. why is that? why have we settled on nine? it is then as low as six and high is 13. and can you comment on clarence thomas. i listened to the supreme court arguments on c-span. what is his story? guest: justice thomas had not ask questions in a number of years. he said that he thinks lawyers -- justices are asking too many questions of lawyers. they are not allowing them to finish their sentences before they jump in. he says he gets what he needs from t

caller: we have all the interviews, except for the one with david souter. he agreed to the television interviewall the other interviee part one of the books. you do not get to hear them very often. part two of the book, all the interviews we did for the television project with a great journalists, historians, and curators. part three of the book is the appendix. there's a great deal of historical information, as well of surveys that we have done with the american people. host: mark farkas, you said that this is in their own words. it is in the q&a style. was there any editing with how the questions were asked for how the justices answered? caller: tguest: the interviews e presented in the book as we taped them. there was a mistake made on one question about the budget for the supreme court. other than that, all the interviews are presented in their entirety. host: how did you go about the interviews for the documentary? to give people an idea of what went into the interviews. guest: hopefully folks will not be frustrated by interviews. they will not seek th