justice souter was driving from his home to new hampshire. the guy said i know you are, you are on the supreme court; right? yes. you are stephen breyer. souter didn't want to embarrass himself. yes, i'm stephen breyer. they chatted. then he asked, justice breyer, what's the best thing about being on the supreme court? he paused and thought, i'd have to say it's the privilege of serving with david souter. how could you not love a guy like that; right? [laughter] >> but he's gone now. and -- not gone gone. i mean he's just back in new hampshire where he'd prefer to be anyway. and the court is a different place than it was. you know, people often talk about, you know, facts about the supreme court. there are certain indisputable facts, six men and three women. there are six products of harvard law school and three products of yale, there are six catholics, and three jews. those are interesting facts. what i submit to you, it's the only important fact about the supreme court is this, that there are five republicans and four democrats. that is al

my answer for a long time was david souter. he was such a wonderful, unique american character on the supreme court. this is a guy with no cellphone and no answering machine that did not use a computer and who does not like electric light. he used to move his chair around his chambers during the course of the day to catch the sunlight going through the window. justice souter could be somewhat eccentric and he also knew that there was a fact about the united states supreme court. they are simultaneously very public figures, important people. and largely unknown to the public. people don't recognize them very often. they are really not very widely recognized figures. the justices sometimes have of little fun with it. there is a peculiar fact in this regard, and this has been true for a very long time. bryer and souter are frequently mistaken for each other. one time not too long ago, justice souter was driving from washington and the stock at a little restaurant to get something to eat. a couple came up to him and the guy said, i

are -- there is not likely to be cameras in the supreme court anytime soon. >> my friend, justice souter -- over his dead body. >> keep you think it would help the public's perception in understanding of the supreme court, or do you think not? >> i think it is ridiculous there are no cameras and the supreme court. i think there are reasonable arguments can be made. i am not persuaded by them, but reasonable arguments that in trial courts where you have civilian witnesses, jurors, cameras could have 75. in appellate courts, where you are dealing with professional lawyers, professional judges, i think it is absurd there are no cameras in the court. i was amused to see that justice ginsburg gave a speech a couple weeks ago where she plucked out funny and vaguely embarrassing comments that the justices had made during oral arguments and said -- and then conclude by saying, as you can see, we are not going to be allowing cameras in the courtroom any time soon, because it would be embarrassing to have this stuff on camera. it imagine if you can to the supreme court in a first amendment case, a

. >> with respect to justice souter, it marked the first time in american history where the court did not have a member within a state court experience. you think that that matters? >> i believe that it is terrible. i believe in diversity but it is not just about race and gender. there are eight former federal appeals court judges on the court and only a latent -- elena kagan is not. the court that decided brown v. board of education, eight of the nine justices have never sat on any court before, had never been a judge before. think about how different that is. i think it is terrible that there are no state court judges on the court. i think it is terrible there are no former elected officials on the court. there used to be a long tradition of appointing people with political experience. and you see that. justice breyer, he writes, a formative experience of his life was when he was chief counsel to the judiciary committee. he saw how laws were made. and he basically thought that process was a good process, and something the court needed to take seriously. the rest of the court, and pa