. >> you are the only person left on the supreme court that served with warren burger -- berger. that was taken in the conference room. >> what is the difference between the court did and the court now? >> -- the court and then and the court now -- the core then and the court now -- the court then and the court now. it is determined by how it has operated over the years. there is much more continuity in the way that we do our work than there is change. there is a change when a new chief justice presides. each chief justice has his way of presiding at the conference. our present chief justice is doing an excellent job. he has some virtues that the others did not have, but that pretty much has followed through the years. >> back in those days, were there more cases? how many cases should you have? >. . and they also work on alt opinions that we produce. our practice is i usually write a first draft. i always write a first draft, then they convert it from a draft to an opinion. >> let's walk in this roosm and you can tell us what this room is used for. >> well, this is the room wher

go into the justice department and become solicitor general of the united states, and he was warren burger'slaw clerk, and has his own book about the court, "first among equals at." -- "first among equals." paul has passed the 50 mark. he was here when i was a clerk, and is a partner at king and spalding. mr. johan is managing partner of meyer brown and a contributing editor of supreme court practice. i am not sure it is delivered to keep that in one volume. it is getting bigger. but the supreme court practice book that mr. co-edits, he has great experience because he has been solicitor general of the united states and argued 40 cases before the court. back at the have this experience -- the fact that he has this experience has contributed to that volume. there are things we should not question. but what those things that is not questioned and accepted as authorial is the book on supreme court practice, and it is immensely helpful. i'm going to turn the proceedings over to our contributors. thank you very much for your contributions to the law, and for being here this evening. thank you. [ap

the court under warren burger was not a happy place. relationships between the justices tended to rapidly deteriorated. there was a lot of internal resentment, and the chief justice did not work very hard at trying to dispel that. the way he ran the court at times contributed to that internal dissension, because he would play favorites in the way he assigned opinions. he would sometimes cast his vote one way in order to have control over the assignment, and then change his vote later on. he ran the court in a way that contributed to the internal division. chief justice rehnquist, on the other hand, ran a very happy court, a very collegial court. remember that i am talking about a court in the rehnquist years that was very deeply divided among philosophical and ideological lines. at the same time, the chief justice, using that position which -- know where is it defined -- know where it is a defined that he should be the principal caretaker of the emotional state of the court -- nowhere is a defined perioit de. it is apparent that she jus

process -- >> host: let me stop a minute because that vacancy was created when warren, chief justice warren burger resigned, right? and instead of going outside the court, president reagan selected william rehnquist, was an associate justice to be chief justice, so there was that confirmation, and then selected scalia to take their rehnquist seat, so didn't they come together at the same time? >> guest: yes and that also helped him. he was helped by his italian american heritage, helped by the fact that, you know, he -- his record was for all intensive purposes and plans light but there was no reason for the senators to probe deeply into how deep his conservatism was. but he followed william rehnquist's battle for chief justice -- was what it was quite -- >> guest: it was, and a lot of liberal groups came out against him to be elevated to chief. they didn't like his record on the supreme court as being so conservative. but he also was someone who had been quite outspoken when he was assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel and he had a record that provided, that generated so many

process of drama and let me stop a minute, because of that vacancy was created when chief justice warren burgerresigned, right? >> guest: right. tremont instead of going outside the court, president reagan selected william rehnquist who was an associate justice to be chief justice. so that there was a bad in selected scalia to take the rehnquist seat, right? so did that come sort of together at the same time? >> guest: that also helped him. he was helped by his italian-american heritage but he was helped by the fact that, you know, his record for all intents and purposes right there in plain sight, but there was no reason for the senator to probe too deeply into how deep his conservatism was. by default william rehnquist about for just a. a lot of liberal groups came out very strong against him to be elevated to the chief. they didn't like his record on the supreme court, but he also was someone who had been quite outspoken when he was in the attorney general in the office of legal council. and he had a record that provided -- that generated so many more critics. so liberal senators and liberal

>> note, warren burger made that change i year or two before i got here. since i have been a justice, it has always been with the ankle on the two sites. when i was a law clerk, it was a straight bench. >> what is yours favorite spot? what room do you like the best? >> i have not really thought that through. i suppose that i enjoyed the oral arguments and i like the court room, i really do. i enjoy my own office. one of the most interesting places in the court is the spiral staircases, well worth seeing if you come in. >> have you spent much time studying the history of this place? >> if picked up a good deal of history but i have not made an independent study. some people have made it of the white house, very interesting work on the white house. >> what are those books behind you? >> those of the u.s. reports. they are the last 40 years of the u.s. report, and over there i have the reports from the beginning. >> what are the u.s. reports? walk around his desk and i will meet you on the other side. >> they are the reports of the decisions by the court. the

go into the justice department and become solicitor general of the united states, and he was warren burger'srst among equals at." -- "first among equals." paul has passed the 50 mark. he was here when i was a clerk, and is a partner at king and spalding. @@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great experience because he has been solicitor general of the united states and argued 40 cases before the court. back at the have this experience -- the fact that he has this experience has contributed to that volume. there are things we should not question. but what those things that is not questioned and accepted as authorial is the book on supreme court practice, and it is immensely helpful. i'm going to turn the proceedings over to our contributors. thank you very much for your contributions to the law, and for being here this evening. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, and good evening. i'm a member of the board of trustees of the supreme court historical society and the chairman of the program committee. that committee oversees development and execution of the society's many educational outreach effort

the court under warren burger was not a happy place. relationships between the justices tended to rapidly deteriorated. there was a lot of internal resentment, and the chief justice did not work very hard at trying to dispel that. the way he ran the court at times contributed to that internal dissension, because he would play favorites in the way he assigned opinions. he would sometimes cast his vote one way in order to have control over the assignment, and then change his vote later on. he ran the court in a way that contributed to the internal division. chief justice rehnquist, on the other hand, ran a very happy court, a very collegial court. remember that i am talking about a court in the rehnquist years that was very deeply divided among philosophical and ideological lines. at the same time, the chief justice, using that position which -- know where is it defined -- know where it is a defined that he should be the principal caretaker of the emotional state of the court -- nowhere is it defined. it is apparent that she justice rober

warren himself was a warm and friendly person. he ran a chord that was agreeable with other. the court under burger was not a happy place. religious between the justices appeared to deteriorate. there was a lot of internal resentment among them about each other could the chief justice did not work very hard at trying to dispel that. the way he ran fourth at to the internal dissension could he would play favorites. he would sometimes cast his vote one way in order to have control and then changed his vote later on. he ran the court in a way that contributed to the internal division her chief justice rehnquist ran a very happy court remember i am talking about a court divided along philosophical lines. at the same time, the chief justice, using that position, no where is it the find that he should be the principal caretaker of the emotional state of the court, but he has the capacity, using the functions of the office and his leader of the court to make the court a harmonious place it is apparent chief justice roberts is trying to follow the example of chief justice rehnquist had had a collegiate record clear he has a bit

warren very well. we were family friends. of course, i knew chief justice burger and now chief justice roberts.on the one hand, there's not much of the chief justice can do. the eight associate justices have a lifetime job and have the duty to uphold the constitution. he can fire them. he has to get along with them. so the chief justice comes to a court where there are these elements of stability and permanence and protection. we have our tradition and our oath. on the other hand, the chief justice who presides steers us through the mechanics of hearing the cases and calendars. by his personality and his warmth and his decisiveness and his thunderstanding of the law, his colleagues can do a great deal to set the tone. >> we are going to be able to see various rooms. it would be interesting to hear your take on what happens in these rooms. we heard the process of conference. if we were to have a camera in conference while you're there, which we would never be able to do, what is it like? >> i believe justice breyer made an interesting comment. somebody asked us, are you nervous before you go on