A look at the personal life of President John F. Kennedy. From an investigative reporter Seymour Hersh. Live at seven. Washington Journal. Our guests include and media per cent president of the National Women's Political Caucus . And Carmen pate. President of Concerned Women for America . And then at ten thirty am. Live from London. A debate on Iraq . With British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Former Prime Minister John Major and other parliament members. Iraq is also the topic of a news conference by President Clinton. Tomorrow he'll meet with Pentagon officials to discuss U.S. policy towards Iraq. You can see live coverage of his briefing beginning at twelve ten P.M. Eastern Time. A picture of the Supreme Court building in Washington D.C. The justices return to the bench a week from today following a month long break . About twenty five hundred people visit the court. Each day the building is open Monday through Friday from nine A.M. to four thirty P.M. if they ever make it to town. Visitors can sit in . Often on oral arguments take tours and hear lectures. And some of the more recent guests have seen the court's newest addition it's a twenty four minute. Visitor's film which offers a look at how the justices work. And think that the film runs fourteen times a day in the court's ground floor theater . And tonight we're going to take a look at that film coming up in about five minutes but first Professor Howard is joining us live from Charlottesville Virginia he's with the University of Virginia Law School and is a long time. Supreme Court scholar Good evening Professor Good evening Paul. Well see the film as I said in about five minutes give us a preview first what are we going to say. Well what you're about to see is a villain that was made quite recently . At the Supreme Court . Is not really a history of the court it doesn't walk you through two hundred years of cases and. Case to case year to year with. But this court really. This case. This film really sets out to do is to introduce the visitor to the court in the way it does its work . In one one approach is this so-called marble palace it's a very impressive building . One goes inside and I suspect the average visitor doesn't have much. Real sense of who the people are that work inside the court. How the justices go about deciding what case to take and how those cases ought to be heard and decided so the purpose of this film. Essentially is to take one inside the court. To see what actually happens there. Tell us how this project got started and what your role is in putting it together. Well project really originated in the court itself. I think the. The the justices are obviously insulated from the political process they're not elected officials they serve for life for good behavior . They're perfectly aware of the fact that the. Opinions they hand down have . Impact on the lives of ordinary people . There had been a film at the court that ran for some years it was a bit dated. So the idea was to take a fresh look at the court. And and talk about the justices and their work. Steve York who is a simply superb if I may say so superb Washington. Film documentary maker was the one who actually put the film together he did the. The work the editing the. The project really was. Came from his studio . My role in it was a frankly a very welcome one I had the. Delightful task of being able to sit down. Chat with the justices. Get them talking about oral argument about . Conference about the other aspects of the work. Essentially give them a chance to talk with each other about how they do things where they where they are now going to see you in this film actually doing some of the. Interviewing How did you personally prepare for this. Well I have been a lifelong student of the work of the court a clerk for one of the justices in the back in the Warren court days I teach constitutional law do a seminar on the Supreme Court and. One of those people I guess you'd call a court watcher . So in a sense I just sort of sat back. Tried to sift out all the details and think about Suppose I were taking someone to the court myself . Suppose I took a friend. A non lawyer to the court and that. Friend peppered me with questions about what he or she might be saying I try to think about that and distill it down to his essence so that the one that when I put questions to the justices. It might simply . Touch the core of. How they go about their work. And briefly before we go on to the film you said Steve York of York television associates actually put it together how much did it cost and where did the money come from. Well I don't know the cost figures I'm sorry to say I don't not aware of the final call. Most of the film the the film was funded from from private money it was not government funds. That produced the film and. I have a note here actually at a cost about two hundred sixty thousand dollars to produce thank you very much for your set up here. Professor Howard I'm going to talk with you after the film in about twenty five minutes take some viewer phone calls out we're looking spoke specifically for comments and questions . On the film and how the court. Operates rather than specific Supreme Court cases so we hope you'll call in and ask specifically about the film. Or the inner workings of the Supreme Court so we'll talk with you opera Fessor. And our viewers in about twenty five minutes here is the film. It begins with a case . A written petition asking the Supreme Court. To act . Petitions arrived by the thousands. Year after year. In quiet chambers. Nine justices consider the question of whether from a prisoner. Believes he was wrongly convicted . Or a president defending his power as commander in chief in a public courtroom to great national questions are argued in a drama both . Last year and . It has become a model for high courts throughout the world . But the Supreme Court of the United States. Remains the most powerful judicial body . Owner of the by deliberate and reach their decisions. In private. We are quiet. So justice all over one little homes. But it is the quiet. Of a storm center . Their legitimacy is in the Constitution . But their power rests on the public faith in their independence . And impartiality . The best Supreme Court interpretes a two hundred year old constitution . Safeguarding liberty. Preserving the Union. And upholding the rule of law. The court poses for a group. portrait Whenever a new justice arrives. Trained in the law. They deal with human dilemmas . They are people not. This embodied spirit . In all of American history there have been just over one hundred Supreme Court justices. Serving an average of sixteen years. Many remain on the bench twice that long. Decades after the president who appointed them. Has left office and had the honor of nominating. Justice Rehnquist to be the next. Chief Justice of the United States. And presidents have always attempted to shape the court by their nominations. With mixed results . On the Constitution Supreme Court justices have rarely hesitated to assert their independence. The courts membership has always reflected popular sentiment. Through presidential nominations. And the Senate's confirmation roll. As you write down the ones on the birth of the. All of us are primarily responsible to the law . To this institution . To your own conscience . And the public no longer has a direct ability to influence the decision to the ballot box. That's why that confirmation process . Is a very important thing. Joining this court can be a humbling experience . Or as one justice said. Being appointed to the Supreme Court. Is akin to being struck by lightning. When I got here. Some of my colleagues said to me . You've got to give it three years . And I have to three years it will not seem so overwhelming and so strange . One of them said. Pay no attention to the three year rule it takes five . I think probably it's fair to say that you really start doing your work here properly when you forget that you're here. And that takes a few years. They come to a court which is repeatedly called upon to draw the boundaries of government power. Telling the president. Congress and the states what they may or may not do . They cannot avoid controversy . But after two hundred years. Americans have accepted the court's authority . It was not always that way . When the government moved to Washington in one thousand nine hundred one. The Supreme Court was given temporary quarters in the unfinished capital. John Marshall. A promising young lawyer from Virginia . Had just been named . Chief Justice under Marshal. THE COURT. Asserted for the first time . The greatest of all judicial powers . Striking down. An act of Congress. As unconstitutional . Behind John Marshall statue in today's court building. Are inscribed the words of his opinion . In the case of Marbury. Versus Madison. In a later case. Marshall wrote. We must never forget . It is a constitution. Expound. Under his leadership the court made the Constitution and effective instrument of NATION . During the Marshall here's the new court rapidly. Earned. Public respect . As a co-equal branch of government for years later . The court faced the most divisive issue in American history . Dred Scott. A Missouri slave. Claimed his freedom under an act of Congress. Under Chief Justice Roger Brooke Tony. The court ruled that Congress had no power to ban slavery. And that blacks could never be citizens a decision that weakened the court's authority for years. The slavery question was finally resolved by the civil war. And the Dred Scott decision . Is remembered as the court's great. Self-inflicted wound. After the war the Constitution was amended . To abolish slavery. Defined citizenship. And grant voting. The fourteenth Amendment told the states . They could not deny due process of law. Equal protection of the law . And he said this many people would call the fourteenth Amendment the Second Bill of. Rights. By that they mean that. Just as the Bill of Rights was put into place to protect citizens against federal power. The fourteenth Amendment has been used pervasively in our time . To protect individuals against the excesses of state power. So it takes its place in the constitutional galaxy. Right alongside the Bill of Rights. Today's court looks to the Constitution . And the tradition established by John Marshall. To resolve national problems. Justices Kennedy. Stephen . And Ginsburg. Talked with a law professor eight days in a way. We have an advantage that John Marshall. Did not . We have two hundred years of history . Of detachment . In which we can see the folly of some idea is the wisdom of others. The fact that we interpret a document that's two hundred years. Not just a disadvantage just in the way I don't sign me up thank you I don't think the Constitution has become any more clear or means anything different from what it originally meant and . I guess that . Just a difference in. Interpretive philosophy. But we disagreed as you know on some very fundamental things from time to time. But we really all share the same basic objective . And we all respect one another is in trying to achieve that overall objective and there's just no . Basic disagreement among us on what's most fundamental and what we're trying to do. We don't have the time that was written in seventeen. Even seventeen . When the Bill of Rights was added . We have the amendments. We have met the people . The people and that happening right now when we could go. People were held in bondage. And they were not treated as citizens . Any . People do carry along. We the people in Great. Today . Although it didn't. At this time. The Supreme Court receives more than one hundred new cases. Every week. About seven thousand a year . Most arrive as petitions for social written arguments . Attempting to persuade this court . That a lower court ruling was incorrect. The court except very few of them for full consideration . About one hundred a year petitions. Along with written arguments and cases already accepted . Are sent to the justices. Once a week. In their chambers. Each justice is assisted by a small staff of law clerks and secretaries. But each of them is individually responsible for deciding. Each case. As Justice Brandeis said . We do our own work. Yeah yeah. By the time a case arrives here the facts have been established in a trial court . This court considers the legal question. At the lower court. Apply the law. Properly. Is the law constitutional . The justices meet weekly in conference to choose which cases the court will accept . And decide . And to discuss and vote on cases which have already been argued. Chief Justice Rehnquist. And Justices O'Connor . Thomas. And briar. Talk with Deckard. About their work. You're actually living . The fact that people who wrote this document called the Constitution . Somehow managed to produce words that actually guide us in solving problems that occurred two hundred years later . I think one of the most amazing things about the process for granting or denying it. Is the fact that every. Petition filed by high priced legal counsel. Whether it's written. By some. Prisoner sitting in jail someplace in his own hand. Gets the sane individual consideration . And in a country the size of ours. With the number of petitions we have. I think that's remarkable. If you decide not to take a case isn't there an implicit. Affirmation of the result of that. Case below there has no. Precedential value. A denial of search for a right . I think some of the public reporting on what we say. Confuses. What we've done in the search process . When we don't take a case. Often it is reported that. Supreme Court today held . Or the Supreme Court today ordered . When in fact we've done no such thing. She just does taps that. Two courts as enough for justice as between the individuals your trial and at least one appeal for this Court intervene there ought to be something more than just a sense that. One of these parties didn't get quite what they were should have gotten under the law. What was it like the first time he ever went into the conference room I mean it's a mystery to everybody else and then suddenly you're appointed to the court . As your first conference. That first conference. Was the most striking moment of. The end tire procedure as far as I was concerned because all of a sudden. I was sitting at the table. When the nine justices actually participating in re starving someone. Very difficult issues. It was just an electric . Moment . For me. You feel very very daunted by the presence of. Eight people who've had a lot more experience at the June than you've had and a lot more knowledge of it. But you know you're you're there you have a commission just like the others so you participate in the debate. What's the first thing you do you come into the room it's settled down to business. And shake hands shaking or just thank you. Every time we meet before we go on the bench or before we have a conference. Shakes every other just. This is hand. That's good because I think when you touch someone's hand. You're less likely to grow if you will end up disagreeing on the merits about something. Let's assume now at war get this taken place and now in conference you're about to actually take out the final disposition of the case. What happens. Well. I begin the discussion by briefly outlining what seemed to me the issues in the case. And everybody has their say and. At conferences I used to participate in before I became chief justice. There tended to be cross questioning and. People speaking twice before anyone had had a chance to speak once. And since in my fourteen years as an associate justice. I rose to the rank of seventh in seniority which I'm sure is some sort of a record for creeping rather than walking . I had been frustrated by that and so I determined and trust as hard as I could on my colleagues. To have a system where everybody spoke once before anyone spoke twice and I think we pretty much have that you find yourself leaving the conference with and sometimes with a different view of the case from how you came in to the approach that I like to take. Is to have an answer for each case . Before I come in and I have that and an outline form so. I know how I'm going to decide the case . From time to time. That view changes in conference. But. My views don't change that often encounter. One of the difficulties every justice faces . Is that over time. It's as though we have walked through a catch of fresh concrete and we've left France. Behind other things we go in and it becomes less. Open to change . But I did want to ask a question about the mystique of the court. Take it the court prides itself on the distance between itself and the larger public that. With that. I think is remarkably. Open. People think sometimes it's secret . Because they have in mind . A legislature . A legislature doesn't produce all the reasons in public. A judiciary. A court . Has no secrets because it's all. Out there in the opinion . And the inside story of a court . Is there is no inside story. It's people simply thinking . One thing people should understand about the Supreme Court is that the judges can't come in in the morning and say well here's a problem we want to deal with the way. A senator can or a president can or a governor or mayor . They have to wait for people to bring their problems to the courts. So. You mustn't think that that's a just bunch of. Activist judges going in there to do something it's because that. Issue has boiled up in the country . And it's been taken to the court. The court doesn't have to decide everything but when issues knock at the door. Sooner or later the court is going to have to say yes we'll decide . The Supreme Court hears cases. In public. Lawyers on opposing sides of each case are allowed thirty minutes to make their arguments before the court. Oral argument is an hour of high drama. Where nine of the nation's highest officials. Do their work. In public stage for argument. Basically you come into the court room. What do you do . I view the oral argument as simply an opportunity to ask the hard questions . That the briefs raise in your mind. You often think of the are I mean you have a point in mind that you think may not been brought out in the briefs well. But you want to be sure your colleagues don't overlook that so that's what I ask a question to bring it out. And you're not necessarily trying to sell everybody . On the position we want everybody to have at least the point in mind when the people come in this room the public to see our arguments they often . Dialogue between the justices asking the question. And the attorney answering them . And they think of the argument as a series of these dialogues that. As John points out. What is happening. Is the court. Is having a conversation with itself . Through the intermediary of the attorney. Let me put myself in the shoes of a lawyer here. Arguing a case for the first time. What do you expect me to do. But what are you looking for from the. Well first you want to crank the lectern up . OK down so. Appropriate right. I mean really you should have asked Ruth answer the question. Because you know she's Are you had more cases before the court than the rest of us combined and no absolutely that is really the best periods deadly. And one most of them. What was it like to stand here and argue a case . And the first time I argued the case here . I didn't have lunch. I stop in the afternoon . Because I didn't know that I could keep it down. I was terribly nervous . And after about two minutes. Into the room. I looked up at these guys and I said. I have. A captive audience . They have placed the goal that I think it was the feeling of power . And then there was the challenge with the way. Sometimes the punches. Try to elicit what's in the decision makers by . Rather than sticking to a prepared speech. I think it's a good idea to have a great opening set. And a great. Close if you have. Time. Let me ask how you react to a what's a very impressive. Almost awesome experience standing there in that wonderful court room with the justices looking down . Until the first question. There is this . Perhaps tension. And then it falls away and. The most exciting experience in our going before the court. Is feeling that. There are nine people and yourself. And you're having a conversation and you lose a sense of there being anybody else in the courtroom. It's a. It's a remarkable experience. You know American lawyers usually argue before either one judge. Sometimes three judges. Occasionally five . But to argue before nine . Is a different experience because you're arguing before a corporate group . And they all have their own ideas . And they ask you questions and they use you sometimes as a post office box. To talk to each other and one justice has one idea that he's pursuing with questioning another justice will have another idea that she's pursuing with questioning. So that you have to simultaneously juggle . In thirty minutes. Sometimes. Three and Four different lines of floor. Being drawn out of you by the justices questioning. There's a principle there are three arguments the argument you plan to give with. The argument you gave . And the argument you wish you had given which was all over. We have the luxury on this court. Nowadays of just plucking out of that very complicated case. The one issue that seems to us of national significance. And just concentrating the entire. Oral argument on all the briefs just on that one. That's a great lecture. People will sometime ask you this oral argument make a difference. Of course it makes a difference . It has to make a difference that's the that's the passion and the power and the poetry of the law. But a rhetorical case . Can make a difference. Because abstract principles. Have to be applied in the real life situation and that's what the lawyers are there to remind the court about . You know. Within a few days after hearing arguments. The justices gather in their conference room. To vote on the case . In this room. The nine are alone . There are no law clerks. Or even a secretary . After they vote to decide a case . One of the justices on the majority side is assigned to write an opinion . Explaining the legal reasons for the decision. Opinion writing is the most time consuming part of the justices work . The courts reasoning. In a written opinion . Binds all other courts. As they decide future cases . Law clerks assist in researching and drafting opinions. As well as preparing for oral argument. And screening the flow of new petitions. In addition to the majority opinion. Any justice may write a separate opinion . This standing from the decision. Or concurring in the result. But disagreeing with the reasoning. Normally a first draft of the court's opinion is finished in about four weeks . OPINION drafts are sent to. All nine justices . A Justice may redraft a dozen or more times in the effort to persuade the others to join the opinion. Revisions and adjustments. May go on for months . As the author tries to accommodate. Differing views . Compromise is inevitable. On difficult cases. A justice which is sides. And on rare occasions . The majority becomes the minority. With rare exceptions . The courts. Tradition is to announce decisions and release opinions for all current cases. By the end of the term. In late June . Yet you know five five six six . As the justices announce their decisions in the courtroom. The public information officer is notified by telephone. To release copies of opinions to the press. Working against deadlines. Reporters attempt to explain briefly what the court has decided and the reasons for their books . When he is eighty pages long the other Supreme Court correspondents rely primarily on the court's written opinions. Which run from a few pages on a unanimous decision. To eighty pages or more . When a divided court right separate opinions . Within hours or even minutes. They will be in print or on the air. Explaining what the court did. And its potential impact for millions of them are you wrote the opinion. Along with Rehnquist Kennedy with Thomas sister Asians on civil rights. Criminal Procedure. Taxes . Labor law . Business. And one from North Carolina . The Supreme Court speaks. By and large people obey . And that unspoken . Contract. Is one of the. Hidden keys to our freedom is the key word ever stop defending the Constitution or the people ever stop listening . Then one of the treasures that keep this. The freest nation in the world. Would cease to exist . People see in that institution. Willingness to protect the unpopular. To stand against the. Temporary political ties. Concern for a principle whose today's. People want to know that there is some institution. Through which taking the long view. Most people are willing to accept the fact that the court tries to play it straight. That acceptance. Has been built by preceding. Hundred justices. Going back. Beginning. We are in fact. Trading. The good faith of the conscientiousness justices who went before us . The power of the quare it is the power of prose. The process. The American people . And have your phone the film Supreme Court operation of Court will phone numbers screen for zero two four eleven the Eastern time zones are on or Pacific the number is two six two one one And our is open zero two three zero zero will your calls a couple a reminder Supreme Court was produced by Washington Steve York. Television Professor power again live Virginia how difficult was get a all nine justices for. I'm How easy was it a hold nine justices this film Well time for calls on concerning the and the the Supreme get those on the you two six two eleven in and Central if you the mountain time zones to call zero two four one five. fax line at two three nine six four get to in just minutes and this. visitor's film and directed D.C. filmmaker of York. Associate joins us from Charlottesville easy or it to hold of Supreme Court this film sorry. or difficult to get of all to put together. I think we we obviously had to impose on their schedule because these are very busy people . Well they do . Not only the writing of opinions and have. Research to do . In turning out the actual cases that they've been hearing but they have to do a lot of background work. To think about cases that are being docketed all those petitions for source Aurore that flow through their chambers so they have an incredibly busy schedule we only see the end of what comes out we don't know what goes on behind doors and I think those are not people who by nature seek publicity they don't go around the country they're not running for reelection they don't really need airtime as it were. And I think it took a certain amount of patience to gather them all together but I must say from my own personal perspective I found them. Wonderful to work with they certainly iterator the into the spirit of the enterprise completely and were wonderfully gracious and helpful when we put the film together. How was it decided what topic areas would be addressed how. What was the approach in terms of the questions and the production of this thing. Well we spent some time thinking about the questions that ought to be put to the justices I didn't simply walk into the room with them and sort of. Say the first thing that came off the top of my head. We tried to imagine ourselves as a lay visitor to the court series Whelan form browse about public affairs but not knowing a great deal about how the court works itself I think we really had two challenges one was the fact that one who visits the court sees there's this marble temple and. Really doesn't see the personalities inside of it and the other challenge is that even those who do follow the work of the court. Typically have access to it through the written opinions which is the end product and . I think our questions were aimed at giving the visitor to the court . Those who might hear a case or otherwise . Giving them some sense of all the steps in the process that occur between the first filing of a case . And the final handing down of an opinion . And I think anyone who watched the film that we've just been showing . Would Have some would come to realize that the opinions you know just so Mel appear. From the brow of the justices here there's a a lot of work and thought. And negotiation and compromise and . And persuasion that goes all and it may take several months for all this to happen and so we. We tried to gear our questions towards really opening that process up. Professor we have calls coming in from. Throughout the country we want to remind our viewers that we're looking for your thoughts or questions on the film or the operation of the Supreme Court not specifically about any Supreme Court cases again we'll have plenty of time for that in upcoming programs you do have a call in. First from upstate New York only on to New York go right ahead. I get evening and evening a quick observation for you I enjoyed the film immensely but it seems that when the justice. Were gathered together . David Souter was never really part of the segment. Just that you have is that something that . Because I've never read. He's always seemed to be a quiet person ever. He was nominated and I was born or if you had any comments about that or. Am I just looking too closely into it . Thank you. Well I would I wouldn't. Examine that too closely you might remember there were nine justices to be. To be interviewed and we thought that it would be helpful to have them. Sitting in groups as it were so that there could be some inner interaction among them then I think this kind of a. We had a sort of a rule of thumb that . Three or four people might be about the right number to sit around a table and talk. Plus myself asking questions and I think. It just happens to Justice Souter too to be talked to separately out of. I don't think I draw any particular inferences from the fact that the interviews on camera happened to be in his chambers . You may have noticed that some of the other. Shots were taken of Justice Brier it is. Keyboard Justice Stevens with his clerks and that sort of thing. How much time did you spend at the court. I'm sorry. How much time did you spend over at the court putting this together. We obviously taped more interviews than you actually saw on film but. We tried to be fair. Really economical of the justices time I would say we might have spent an hour or so in the room with the group that was talking about. Conference. Perhaps another hour. Sitting in the court room itself and. Talking with another set of justices about . The oral argument part of it. And then of course . Steve York and his crew. Spent a fair amount of time around the court taking shots in the Public Information Office and other parts of the court. I couldn't tell you often how many hours total were spent but. It was quite a professional job. We have another call in from the state of Nevada What's a name your town place. Total PA. Go right ahead sir. I was wondering how the Supreme Court maintains its authority over the court of appeals I noticed recently that one of the appeals courts said that the Lopez decision was an aberration the actually used the word aberration. How does the Supreme Court deal with the appeals court saying. Oh you're an aberration. Well I think the Supreme Court has many ways to enforce its final writ as you know it has jurisdiction not only over federal courts but. Feels from state courts as well and it's. Lower courts I'm sure are free to in. Dollars themselves in language in characterizing a Supreme Court opinion they may want to characterize the Supreme Court opinion as aberrational or use whatever language they like . I think the real test is whether that court of appeals in fact. Carries out the mandate that's given to the Supreme Court in in a case that's been sent back . Remanded for further action by the court below . I don't think this is the justices lose much sleep over the language that might be used characterizing. A majority concurring or dissenting opinion in any particular case they may hand down. It's go to Lincolnton North Carolina Good evening. And good evening. And then first of all thank you very much for C.-SPAN Oh sure are going to have on the workings of the court. There has been one constitutional amendment. Repealed . The court has reversed previous decisions and chief judge. As Marshall said the Constitution is what the court says it is . Is it possible for the court to declare. A new constitutional amendment unconstitutional . Though that has to be one of the ultimate jurisprudential questions. There are some foreign countries in which. There are instances where a a particular part of the Constitution may be thought to be beyond . Amendment itself . In our situation I think that has to be a hypothetical and know of no case where the court's ever been asked to pass on that kind of ruling So I think it's probably going to be room for me in a question for. Classroom or academic discussion. AG Dick Howard is teaching law right now at the University of Virginia Law School in Charlottesville where he is tonight live. He's a graduate of the University of Richmond he has a law degree from the University of Virginia a Rhodes scholar and clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court for justice. Hugo Black we have another call from Naperville Illinois . Good evening a privilege I think of the film. I thought it was very informative I watched it with my children. I was wondering if you could tell me. Each of the justices in which President appointed them . Well that's. That's very interesting you know the court has had in a little over two centuries . Just over one hundred justices on the average of about one . They can see every two years but the fact is since they don't serve for a term of years they've served for life for good behavior. The. Vacancies occur. At the time that which of Justice dies retires or resigns and. There's no way of way of predicting that. Franklin Roosevelt for example put eight justices on the court. Richard Nixon put four justices on the court about two that have years very very short time indeed . The justices on . There is no one left on the present court. Who was there during the Warren court the. So all of the justices . Serving on the present court have come there. As of about the early one nine hundred seventy S. and beyond we have achieved . It is Rehnquist who was first appointed to the chord by President Nixon . In the night you took his seat in one thousand nine hundred seventy two Justice Stevens who came to the court . Having been appointed by President Ford. The rest of the justices come later three of the justices were put on the court by President Reagan's two by Bush and finally two by President Clinton. So there's actually been a fair amount of turnover in the court in recent years . Seven out of the nine justices . Have taken their seats. Since about one thousand nine hundred nine hundred eighty one so the court . The. There's been a fair amount of turnover I guess now we're going to see a very very stable court for a period of time . And the issue of allegiance to those presidents did come up by in the film can you give us a lot more insight into that issue. Ilija Mr President that you know that's a fascinating question I think it might be easy to assume that a justice would feel. Some debt or a sense of obligation to the president the put that justice on the court I think the fact is that the ability to predict what a justice will do . Once on the court. By reference to the hopes or expectations of a president is very difficult indeed. President Eisenhower was heard to grumble. At one time about to achieve justice or a war and he had put on the court . Teddy Roosevelt I was disappointed in Oliver Wendell Holmes . I think the gap between expectation and. Actual performance is often a very long when . I think it would be zero. Though the court. And its work. Impact politics clearly the decisions of the court matter in the political arena they affect the country at large I think it would be a a misunderstanding of the court to somehow suppose that when the justices go about their work. There they are very much concerned about what most of us would call politics. I think of course they read the newspapers there where the news they follow events as we do. They know that what they do . Outers of the country but I think it's in the. Lay or popular sense of the word really not a very political institution. And we have a call from that says Dinerral and just outside Washington go ahead that has death. you Thank. What a breath of fresh air . And this part we want. Harm the have that wonderful documentary about the answer . To should not his but glue that holds us all together. I was very much. Spidey justice. Promises observation that. The press doesn't always get it right. I'm in quite a good time for probably go same reasons that it's not getting it right. Very often be used days . About other matters . But I thank you thank you caller laid out that point I wanted to ask you that question as well Professor Howard. The justices viewpoint on press coverage of what they do. Well I think that's an interesting question the court will handle currently seventy to eighty of. Written opinions a year used to be rather more than that. These often a very long opinions they may run to . Dozens and scores of pages . They're all. That will be a majority of concurring a dissenting opinion several justices may write in any one case. Even if a journalist has briefed him or herself . Thoroughly on the case before the opinion came down. They have to digest . Frequently a fairly long opinion in a very short period of time and I often respond to queries from the press and I'm impressed by the. The. Care and thorough it is that the reporters I know anything about bring to their job the least the most most reporters I think really . Are doing their best to get it straight. I think if there's any skewing of press coverage of the court. There's any distortion of the end product it's probably not so much what the press has to say a. Any particular opinion . Distorting what the court actually said in that case . I think the distortion like than the fact that the court decides . A range of cases that run from the very controversial to the very least in the public mind to the very ordinary or Monday in. And there's only so much room or time or attention to cover all those opinions and . So the press. Not surprisingly will focus more of its attention on the cases that. Seem somehow to be . To be the most controversial the ones that are the cases that have to do with. Busing or abortion or racial discrimination or questions like that and then. The run of the mill cases probably don't get all that much attention. And they are facts here from a local viewer I am a second year law student at George Washington University My question is this what would happen if the executive branch refused to enforce the Supreme Court's decision such as when the segregation in the school system was awarded by the Supreme Court can you answer that. Well I think that's that's a very interesting from his. Question from a historical perspective because Alexander Hamilton once referred to the Supreme Court as the least dangerous branch. And what he meant by that was that the court has neither the power of the sword nor the purse it can't command troops it can't really or the spending of money . It has to depend among. In the first place ultimately public acceptance of the court's work I think Phil made that point very well that the court's authority its mandate has a legitimacy really resting a good part upon a general of common popular consensus that . When the court speaks in is interpreted the law than one really ought to obey that mandate . At times of crisis or stress in American history that . General consensus has been. Been put to the test . And that's when the support of the other branches comes into play. For example back in the one nine hundred fifty S. we had the crisis that . Little Rock Central High School in Little Rock where it was . There was some concern . Or that the court's decisions from an after Brown versus Board of Education dealing with desegregation. Might not. In fact be accepted that the popular resistance . May I suppose. Happily in the history of this country we haven't seen the test. Come very often when the court. When people have tried to. Just outright resist with the courses . Needs to follow in the wake of its opinion. We have about fifteen minutes left with Professor. Dick how would we go to Provo Utah thank you for hanging on the right ahead. Thank you great education . You made a group of statues come to life. I appreciate . My question . Are you doing anything to make this available for colleges and high schools so we can have our kids got the right . Let me jump right in there professor because we have information on how folks at home can get the film it's going to cost eight dollars and . You can get it through the Supreme Court Historical Society gift shop or. You can write. To the society at one. First Street. Northeast. That's Washington D.C. two zero five four three there's also a phone number one eight eight eight five three nine four four three eight I will leave that up. On the screen for a second or two there. And then repeat that a little bit later in the program so hopefully you can write that down. Professor one of the issues came up about the openness we talked about reporting but they also talked about openness . Of the Supreme Court I think it was Justice briar that said the story the inside story of the court . Is that there is no inside story in People simply thinking do you agree with that . Well I think Justice brother made a very telling point is one that's often not appreciated. And that is of the three branches of the government the executive the legislative and the judicial only one of those branches by tradition and practice . Is obliged to explain his reasoning. The president can simply. Probably gave an executive order of the. Congress can simply pass a law they may or may not give reasons those reasons may or may not resemble what it was in fact going on but the tradition of the judiciary . In particular the. Tradition and practice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Is that they're obliged to tell you what the case is about what the facts are who the parties are. What the arguments were and how they got from the origin of that case to the conclusion I think they lay out before you on the printed page . The mode of reasoning and of course is subjected to enormous criticism. We talk a little bit about how the press tries to explain the opinions . But then the opinion gets tossed into the fulcrum of academic professional legal political debate. People spend a lot of time dissecting what the Supreme Court does. And I think. Granted that we've already agreed that the justices are not up for reelection they don't have to defend themselves in that way. They are very professional and very mindful of their reputation both in their own day and in the lens of history. And I think they. They take great pride in their work. One thing that impresses me about . Supreme Court opinions argument discussion debate is the amount of effort they put in to to sharpen and. Polish and. And shape the product. So that they can stand behind the written opinion . But that they realize that once an opinion has been been issued that . They don't get a chance to go into a press conference or into enter into a debate. Where they really have no further opportunity to explain or defend their opinion if the pinion really has to stand for itself and that's. That's quite a responsibility and I think they take that very seriously. With a call from a Garfield New Jersey thank you for checking Ensign I go right ahead. Oh hi I'm a third year law student . And I was wondering if it is usually possible for someone . That's a member of the general public to watch. One of the courts or arguments. How can the average per. Sit in on an oral argument as the court room is not an enormous place but there are seats there for the public this is part of the court room is set aside for the lawyers for the bar but there is a an area for the general public and one simply has to present oneself at the court with the time cases being argued seats may be a little bit hard to come by when there's a. When there's a really major case being argued you may have to queue up ahead of time. If you want to get a seat but it is open to the public and. One can simply sit there through the entire argument . I would urge you to do that is nothing quite like sitting there watching that process and. In the film you may recall the scene during which the justices were talking about . Does oral argument matter. And I concur in. Justice Kennedy's observation that it does matter . The justices take it seriously they take the opportunity the occasion of oral argument. Perhaps to pluck out some point that's not been made clear enough in the Braves. Perhaps to press home some point that they feel strongly about . To really engage in a dialogue not only with the lawyer arguing the case with the other justices on the bench. And he said I think it's very. Electrifying for the visitor to sit there in the courtroom as one can do and. Watch that process take place. And if you can't get in and sit in on an oral argument there are lots of other things you can do you can take a tour there are about twenty five hundred visitors a day. To the U.S. Supreme Court building it's open from nine A.M. to four thirty P.M. Monday through Friday. And addition to sitting in on an oral argument there are self guided tours lectures conducted in the court room and of course the film that we just showed a twenty four minute film. On the workings of the Supreme Court that is played in the basement fourteen times a day we go to Louisville Kentucky thank you for hanging on to go right ahead. Yes. Gentleman. The purpose of our call the seat you know is due to what's going on in our executive branch. Day. It is an impeachment process was to. Be initiated. What kind of position. Would that put the court. Hand. Or if any pressure would be put upon him. Thanks color. The Constitution provides. As far as impeachment goes that . The House of Representatives. Will sit in effect as a grand jury they're the ones who examined data and facts and gather that and decide whether or not to present so-called. Articles of Impeachment this happened for example in one nine hundred seventy four. During Mr President Nixon's time. If the House decides to go forward with impeachment that's the equivalent of a grand jury indictment. The case then goes over to the U.S. Senate . And under the Constitution the Senate is given as the Constitution puts it the sole authority . To try and impeachment. So they will decide whether or not. Conviction of teens . If an officer of the gov civil office or the governor the president or his or some other officer is convicted by the Senate . Then. Removal from office follows now . One of the unanswered questions of constitutional law is whether the U.S. Supreme Court . Would ever take a look at the results of the new PIETSCHMANN. Process I think the conventional wisdom if you look at the text of the Constitution. Would lead you to these. To the assumption that the framers intended . That action. And impeachment action to be to be an in fact a political decision something. Undertaken by the legislative branch and not really one committed to the. To the Supreme Court itself there's certainly no . Textual provision for the Supreme Court to review that candor than PIETSCHMANN. That doesn't mean that it could not happen and not arguing that the court . Might not find a perk . For example procedure would be so manifestly unfair or so tainted so. So was simply beyond the best bounds of propriety that it ought not to be reviewed. But we have no precedent for that. Time for a couple more calls here we go to Fort Collins Colorado . I don't know what. I mean what I mean what. Opinions. One of our local heroes Byron Whizzer White for Among his most notable. Thank you. Well Judge Justice White was only court for a very long time and. He came on . I think during the during the presidency of the Jack Kennedy stayed on the court . Throughout the the Warren court into the Burger court years. I think Justice White is one of those interesting figures on the court . That is hard to sort of. Categorize and say aha there's sort of a landmark opinion I think . He came to the court . From the. Kitty Justice Department. And was a fairly pragmatic figure on the court I think. I think of him in contrast to some justices historically think of Justice Black for example that you would benefit. With an absolute his view of the first and then that you think of Justice Frankfurter who took a rather historical Anglo-Saxon view of the law . Etc I don't think Justice White really set out to put his stamp on . Sort of an architecture the cost of tuition as it were. We have time for. One last call here Victoria Texas go ahead. Victoria. Well first of all I appreciate the film and I was trying to gain. So now . Now if there is a particular justice that perhaps. Carries a little bit more weight . Our chance to be a bit more persuasive . And I can give you some insight in there. Yes. Thanks . Well I hope. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't single out any one of the nine sitting justices. As having been the most persuasive these are all people with whom I've worked and. Whose whose work I admired I think. I think it did bit invidious somehow of a sort of single out one from the. other I think if I can go back to earlier courses certainly have been just as his hoost historically who have made their. Left their footprints in history . John Marshall obviously in the first chord would be the great chief justice of his period I think. It's just this is like Brett Bryan does or Holmes. Frankfurter or black . There are those who've clearly been influential. I wish we had more time . Time for the question that's just been asked because the question of what it means to be influential . Is not always an obvious question it may sometimes simply be the quiet influence of discussions and conference of which of course there is no public record no one is in the conference room with the justices and therefore. Of the question of who finally. Is influential when they're all casting their votes can be of. Can be a pretty elusive question. How about the role of very briefly of the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court . Well that's that's a very interesting question the chief justice has one vote among the nine . They call Imprimis enter parse that is first among equals . I think the most important power any chief justice has is the power. If the chief justice is in the majority in the vote in conference. The power to assign the opinion the majority opinion. So if Chief Justice Rehnquist is in the majority in a given case then he will decide whether he will write the opinion or one of his colleagues also the in majority does that perhaps is the most important single power that is committed to the chief justice. Just about out of time what was the single most interesting or important thing I heard from the justices learn from them in this process and this project. Well I think it's to me the most interesting thing about the project the thing went. What I think about my approach is patient and what I carry away from that . I find that it confirms my instinct of a group of people. Very intelligent very hardworking. Often disagreeing rather sharply on important issues of federalism with the First Amendment or criminal justice or whatever the subject may be sharp debates both and I'm sure in conference certainly in the in the written opinions but. What I came away with this is sort of central lesson was the sense of integrity and purpose that these. This is bring to their work I think that given the fact that part of our custom to tional checks and balances . Is to have an unelected judiciary. One that doesn't have to go to the ballot place . I think . I feel...