he looked at the robes, and he said that it looks really boring. it might be the mundane part of it is, but it is for good reason. this building. i just look at it. it the architecture. the rooms, the atmosphere. how quiet it is, how serious it is. it says to you that the work is important. i think the danger is that sometimes you could come into a building like this and think it is all about you. . . i happen to think that our job is to decide cases. maybe sometimes, there are so many problems that come our way, issues and questions that come our way, that we have a larger role than the framers envisioned. but it is certainly one of the three branches of government. beyond that, deciding important things about our society, i do not have a particular view that we are larger than life or anything like that. >> can you tell me about your job? >> which part? >> well, describe what you do. there is a lot of process that goes into it. >> there is. you are right. and that is the mundane part. you remember years ago that there were several tv programs abou

he looked at the robes, and he said that it looks really boring. it might be the mundane part of it is, but it is for good reason. this building. i just look at it. it the architecture. the rooms, the atmosphere. how quiet it is, how serious it is. it says to you that the work is important. i think the danger is that sometimes you could come into a building like this and think it is all about you. . . i happen to think that our job is to decide cases. maybe sometimes, there are so many problems that come our way, issues and questions that come our way, that we have a larger role than the framers envisioned. but it is certainly one of the three branches of government. beyond that, deciding important things about our society, i do not have a particular view that we are larger than life or anything like that. >> can you tell me about your job? >> which part? >> well, describe what you do. there is a lot of process that goes into it. >> there is. you are right. and that is the mundane part. you remember years ago that there were several tv programs abou

shortly before argument, we go to the robing room and we put on our roads and meet in the conference room which is right behind the court room. we carry on the tradition established by a chief justice more than 100 years ago. we shake each other's hands before we go to the bench. we announce the opinions that we have to announce and we announce any orders that we have to announce. lawyers who hope to be admitted to the bar, we go through those -- that process. as i said, it is as exhilarating for me as it is for the lawyers involved. >> when you walked out with your colleagues, the converse about the argument you just heard -- the you converse about the argument you just heard? >> -- to you converse about the argument you just heard? -- do you converse about the argument you just heard. no, that is inappropriate. -- >> no, that is inappropriate. we go to lunch? >> together? yes. -- >> yes. we talk about the kinds of things everybody would talk about with colleagues. >> and did you hear another case in the afternoon -- and then you hear another case in the afternoon? >> sometimes. in

and then shortly before argument, we go to the robing room. we put on our robes. we meet in our conference room, which is right behind the courtroom. we carry on the tradition established by mel --ville fuller, to shake each others' hands. we line you. we announce any opinions that we have to announce. we announce any orders that we have to announce if they're members of the bar or hopeful members -- lawyer who is hope to be admitted to the bar, we go through that process as well. and then we're off and running and as i said, it's an exhilarating for me as i think it is for the lawyers, lawyers involved. >> when you walk out with your colleagues, do you converse about the argument you just heard? >> no, it's -- i think informal protocol. but we don't talk about the case. we go to lunch. by then it's lunch time -- >> together? >> yes, usually. i mean, if somebody has a commitment outside the court, they're out there. but usually on an argument day, most of the justices are there in our dining room. and it is the rule there that we don't talk about the cases. >> so w

. >> this is the mass ranks of peers in their robes, some familiar faces and lord margaret thatcher andthe two archbishops of canterbury and york. appearing in the official stagecoach. as all the peers stood, the queen and duke took their seats on the throne. >> you may be seated. >> this year saw a new black robe, the queen's messenger, he made his customary walk to the commons and the door was slammed in his face. which means he has to bang on the door. he spoke his usual words. >> the queen has to attend her majesty immediately in the house of peers. >> and the mp's made their way from the commons to the lords, they appear to be talking to each issue. -- each other. the speech was handed to her majesty. >> my lord and dears of the house of commons. my governorance of a rising priority is to deliver a fair and prosperous economy for families and businesses. as the british economy recovers from the economic downturn. through employment and training programs, restructuring the financial structure and strengthening the infrastructure and providing responsible investment. >> opening the d

the justices come in in their robes. we have a very active in these days so there is a lot of give- and-take. that is intriguing to watch. sometimes you can get clues from the arguments about how they might rule. they may surprise you when the issue an opinion. it is not where they may appear to be headed when they are on the bench. >> there is an ongoing debate and there has been and it will never end as to whether the presence of cameras in the court changes people. i suppose the debate was reasonable of long time ago. we have had so much experience now in state courts with cameras in the court room any difference at all. even in the federal courts now, where they are experimenting. i think that judges are sufficiently aware of the craft of judging, that having an observer in the process is not going to be different in terms of how it affects the process, whether or not the observer has a notepad as i do or a camera taking images of what for the hesperia that is a debatable point. i do not think that lawyers will play t

inevitable the digital world this rubs them, the internet is robes them in either leaned forward and figure out what the hell you do about it and it would have been better if he thought about leaning forward ten years ago the now. yes, sir. >> i have two comments. one is, i was here recently and nobody asked me if i am indian. the other, and i have is, the internet is not actually free. i pay $10 a month to access the internet. now, the content may be freed but the issue is, i don't mind paying for the internet but i do have a problem paying for individual sites when it looks like news is a commodity and i don't want to go on a particular side and pay for it but i don't mind paying for content effect gaither mia isd comment desai cable. i have 150 channels but i don't pay for each individual channel. >> let me understand. you are saying if you pay $35 a month for your broadband connection you consider that thing for news? >> i don't consider that thing for news. i'm just saying the internet is not free. and i know that i am paying the $35 for connectivity, but i wouldn't pay the $35 u

the supreme court. as fancy as it gets is when william rehnquist put those four gold stripes on each of his sleeves or wind justice o'connor and justice ginsberg wore a fancy color with their black robes. that was daring. this is a place endued with tradition. they don't like to break the decorum or what was done in the past. >> we sometimes kid that the quill pens they give to the oral advocates are exactly how they write their opinions. there are some justices who still write out their opinion in longhand and on legal pads rather than on computers. the whole thing is set by a tradition. oral arguments go for a specific hour. each side gets 30 minutes. a white light goes on when there is only five minutes left and then a red light comes on. there are certain days they have their meetings. the court has its own rhythms. chief justice rehnquist especially did not like to have any of those disturbed. john roberts came on in 2005. he is a little more flexible on things and will let oral arguments go a little bit longer. his predecessor, chief justice rehnquist would often interrupt someone right when the red light went on, even in mid syllable. >> this is the chamber where brown forces -

go beyond the velvet robes to public tours into those rarely seen places of the white house. america's most famous home, explore the history, art and architecture of the capital. one of america's most symbolic structures. american icons, a three disc dvd set. it is $24.95 plus shipping and handling. order on line at c-span.org/store. oklahoma and tennessee. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president, we are here obviously, as we are on a daily basis, to discuss the a daily basis, to discuss the >> mr. president, we are here obviously as we are on a daily basis to discuss the issue of health care reform, but we are and a rather unusual situation this morning, because we don't know what we are discussing or debating. i mean refiners cells in an interesting situation after almost a year of consideration of health care reform, with the measure of that is-- at least a couple of the outlines of that we no, but frankly we have had no details, except that medicare is going to be extended to eligibility for medicare is going to be extended to age 55. i just wo

so from the side or from the men and women in robes across the street, how in the world would we, one, and two, why would it be the burden of the federal government to bring about that very aims under expensive of enforcement to find out whether they are fording, whether it is durable? we have been asked over the years to buy into, you might remember the digital millennium copyright act, buy into schemes that we are going to empower others to primarily do it. it each time when it failed, you come back to us. so i'm going to leave that as a rhetorical question because it is beyond the scope for the just of his hearing but i think what the chairman, we are very interested into doubt whether or not what's been brought to his if we dealt with it, we could be effective. i think the general. deal back. >> thank you, mr. ice. ibc, i think the sentiment here on this side, is to ensure that the creative community is protected, and continues to operate and function in a way that produces the kind of products that the united states has a lead, has an advantage on, if you will. i believe that to

from this side, or from the men and women in robes across the street, how in the world would we one,rce it and two, why would it be the burden of the federal government to bring about that very expensive enforcement of finding out whether someone is storing something in their home and whether they're forwarding and whether it is durable. we been asked over the years to buy into -- you play remember the copyright act and buy into schemes that were going to empower others it primarily do it. and each time when it failed, you have come back to us. so i'm going to leave that as rhetorical question. it is beyond the scope of this hearing. i think with the chairman, we're very interested in figuring out whether or not what is wrought to us is in fact something that if we dealt with it, we could be effective. the chairman yields back. >> and thank you. >> i obviously, i think that the -- that the, that the sentiment here, on -- on this side is to insure that the -- the creative community is protected and continues to operate and function in a way that produces the kind of products that the

go beyond the bill that robes of public torras into those rarely seen spaces of the white house -- ropes of public tours and into the rarely seen spaces of the white house. "american icons," a three-disc dvd set is 24.95 plus shipping and handling. c-span.org order. oneline at c-span.org/store. >> a free-lance journalist talks about his detainment in an iranian prison. hosted by the woodrow wilson center in washington, this is a little less than an hour and a half. >> i am vice president for programs at the woodrow wilson center in washington, d.c. -- = i would like to welcome those viewing this on c-span. today's session will focus on iran's the elections and the tumultuous aftermath. i want to offer the world of wall gump -- a word of welcome to the woodrow wilson center. the mission is to provide a bridge between the worlds of learning in public policy through its sponsored research and through some 800 meetings we host. today we are particularly pleased to be parting with the pulitzer center on crisis reporting, a relatively new organization that has already made quite a mark on the

." >> see explicit detail of the supreme court to the eyes of the justices, go beyond the bill but robesublic tours in to the rarely seen spaces of the white house -- america's most famous home. export history, art, and architecture of the capital, one of america's most symbolic structures. " the american icons" a three- disc set plus shipping and handling. order online c-span.org/store.

the supreme court. as fancy as it gets is when william rehnquist put those four gold stripes on each of his sleeves or wind justice o'connor and justice ginsberg wore a fancy color with their black robes. that was daring. this is a place endued with tradition. they don't like to break the decorum or what was done in the past. >> we sometimes kid that the quill pens they give to the oral advocates are exactly how they write their opinions. there are some justices who still write out their opinion in longhand and on legal pads rather than on computers. the whole thing is set by a tradition. oral arguments go for a specific hour. each side gets 30 minutes. a white light goes on when there is only five minutes left and then a red light comes on. there are certain days they have their meetings. the court has its own rhythms. chief justice rehnquist especially did not like to have any of those disturbed. john roberts came on in 2005. he is a little more flexible on things and will let oral arguments go a little bit longer. his predecessor, chief justice rehnquist would often interrupt someone right when the red light went on, even in mid syllable. >> this is the chamber where brown forces -

there was the traditional sight of the max mass ranks of peers clad in their robes, some distinguished faces including the former prime minister margaret, now lady thatcher. the enterprise czar, the two archbishops of canterbury of york. the queen arrived in the traditional irish state coach. ♪ as all the peers stood, the queen and the duke took their seats on the thrones. >> my lords, you may be seated. >> this year saw a new black rod, the queen's messenger. he's freddie biggest. he made his cursory walk to the entrance of the commons, and the door was slammed in his face which means he has to bang on the door. black rod spoke his usual words of invitation -- >> the queen commands this oval house to attend her majesty immediately in the house of peers. >> and mps made their way from the commons to the lords. rival politicians always talk to each other on this occasion or at least appear to be talking to each other. the speech was handed to her majesty by the lord chancellor, jack straw. >> my lords and members of the house of commons, my government's overriding priority is to insure

duck hunting with dick cheney, but his approach to the law and his approach to life is such a wide embrace that he is distinctive among his black-robed peers. .. >> guest: there were times when i would go to watch him speak and he would stand up and i would start to let because he has this showman's movement about him, that's both operatic but also, go. just the way justice scalia even composes his opinion, he said he sits on his computer, he puts on his classical music and he starts to conduct as if he is doing a symphony. so there is something large and operatic about him. >> host: so you didn't think for a moment that he has four law clerks sit down and write opinions and he just signed his name to them? >> guest: well, as you know, he relies on his clerks to some extent for the research. but his writing style is so distinctive, so original that he can hardly be really influenced by clerks or have his clerks to his first draft. even john paul stevens who does his own first draft. justice stevens as i will leave the bench when i stopped doing my first draft. justice scalia is that way. >> host: i love to pick up an opinion of a jus

robe mind. but he starts mixing it up a little bit more that way than he does also a conference in fact i was just talking to a formal -- >> host: explain the conference. >> guest: it is talking to a clerk yesterday about what goes on. first it is only the nine justices, no law clerks, legal secretaries, staff, no one else, and around a table and they talk in order of seniority. >> host: this is after they've heard an argument when they are deciding the case. >> guest: two times a week, wednesdays to look at the first, some of the early cases of the week to decide how they might preliminary how they will vote on those, how they will resolve those and also on fridays. and what they're looking at is not just how they will vote on cases but what cases they will even take because as you know hundreds of appeals are filed at the supreme court and only to a small handful of those. chris koza the start with the most senior justice. >> guest: right. and during most of justice scalia's time it would have been chief justice rehnquist, laying out the fact of the case and going around the table to say who will vote which way. and justice, chief justice