THIS IS CONGRESSMAN MARION BERRY OF ARKANSAS. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. >> THIS IS C-SPAN "AMERICA AND THE COURTS." NEXT, U.S. CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS IN HIS LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE FORMER PRESIDENT. THE CHIEF JUSTICE SPOKE AT THE RONALD REAGAN PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8. [APPLAUSE] >> ...

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND THANK YOU, FRED, FOR THAT OVERLY GENEROUS INTRODUCTION. AND, THANK YOU LADIES AND GENTLEMEN FOR THAT WARM AND ENCOURAGING WELCOME. BEFORE I DO ANYTHING ELSE I WANT VERY MUCH TO THANK DUKE BLACKWOOD FOR A WONDERFUL TOUR I HAD THIS AFTERNOON OF THIS SPECTACULAR FACILITY. THE HIGHLIGHT OF WHICH FOR ME I THINK WAS THE AIR FORCE ONE PAVILION. I REMEMBERED THE TRIP I TOOK WITH PRESIDENT REAGAN ON AIR FORCE ONE TO MY HOME STATE OF INDIANA BACK WHEN I WAS WORKING IN THE ADMINISTRATION. AND I ALSO BEGAN TO THINK AS I WAS WALKING THROUGH THE AIRPLANE, YOU KNOW, THE -- UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, THE JUDICIAL BRAVERPBING BRANCH AND THE -- BRANCH AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ARE COEQUAL. THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS THIS BEAUTIFUL AIRPLANE. [LAUGHTER] >> MAYBE NOT IN MY FIRST BUDGET REQUEST TO CONGRESS. [LAUGHTER] >> MRS. ...

REAGAN, DISTINGUISHED TRUSTEES, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IT'S A TERRIBLE THING TO ASK SOMEONE TO SPEAK HERE AT THE RONALD REAGAN LIBRARY. THE BEST EFFORTS OF THE MOST GIFTED SPEAKER WOULD PALE COMPARED TO THE ECOSE OF THE SPEECHES THAT REVERBERATE IN THESE HALLS. THE TRUSTEES HAVE COMPOUNDED THAT DIFFICULTY BY INVITING TONIGHT AS A SPEAKER A JUDGE, AND TO MAKE IT WORSE, A JUDGE IN HIS FIRST PUBLIC SPEAKING ENGAGEMENT SINCE I WAS CONFIRMED LAST SEPTEMBER. WHEN I WAS CONFIRMED I ADOPTED A VERY STRICT POLICY. I WAS GOING TO ACCEPT NO OUTSIDE SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS MY FIRST YEAR. FOR TWO REASONS, REALLY. ONE, I NEEDED TO DEVOTE ALL OF MY ENERGIES TO MY NEW RESPONSIBILITIES. AND, TWO, IT WASN'T CLEAR THAT I HAD ANYTHING TO SAY. [LAUGHTER] >> ...

SO MY POLICY RESPECT TO SPEAKING INVITATIONS HAS TO JUST SAY NO. [APPLAUSE] >>

I HAD A GREAT MOD NELL THAT RESPECT TO FOLLOW FROM MY IMMEDIATE PREDECESSOR CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST. HE HAD TWO RESPONSES PREPARED TO SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS. THE FIRST WERE FOR SPEAKING EBB GUAGEMENTS IN THE COMING YEAR. AND IT SAID, THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND INVITATION. I AM AFRAID I MUST DECLINE. I AM SURE THAT YOU APPRECIATE THAT MY SCHEDULE FILLS UP QUICKLY. AND THE NEXT WAS FOR INVITATIONS MORE THAN A YEAR OUT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND INVITATION, I'M AFRAID THAT I MUST DECLINE. I'M SURE THAT YOU APPRECIATE THAT I CAN'T SCHEDULE THAT FAR IN ADVANCE. [LAUGHTER] >> ALL OF THIS WAS WORKING OUT BEAUTIFULLY UNTIL A FEW MONTHS AGO I FOUND MYSELF SEATED NEXT TO MRS. ...

REAGAN AT A DINNER, AND IT WAS IN A HOUSE IN WASHINGTON, A HOUSE WITH WHICH SHE WAS MUCH MORE FAMILIAR THAN I WAS, AND OVER APPETIZERS THE POSSIBILITY OF COMING OUT AND SPEAKING AT THE LIBRARY CAME UP. I EXPLAINED MY VERY STRICT ...

POLICY. [LAUGHTER] >> BY THE TIME WE WERE FINISHING THE ENTREES WE WERE JUST NAILING DOWN THE SPECIFIC DATE. [LAUGHTER] >> BUT IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN EXCEPTION TO MY STRICT POLICY IT WOULD BE, OF COURSE, TO COME HERE FOR THE REAGAN LECTURE. BECAUSE MY FIRST JOB AS A LAWYER AFTER CLERKING WAS IN THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION. ...

I JOINED AS A SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO ATTORNEY GENERAL GENERAL WILLIAM FRENCH SMITH IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF GENERAL SMITH'S VERY YOUNG CHIEF OF STAFF KEN STARR. I HAD A NICE OFFICE ON THE FIFTH FLOOR AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. AND DOWN ONE HALL WAS THE HEAD OF THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, TED OLSON. YEARS LATER WHEN WE WERE BOTH IF PRIVATE PRACTICE, I ARGUED A CASE AGAINST TED IN THE SUPREME COURT. AND I LOST. DOWN THE HALL IN THE OTHER DIRECTION WAS PRESIDENT REAGAN'S SOLICITOR GENERAL, REX LEE. YEARS LATER I ARGUED A CASE AGAINST REX LEE IN THE SUPREME COURT AND I LOST THAT ONE TOO. I LEARNED VERY EARLY ON THAT THERE WAS JUST NO PREMIUM IN ARGUING AGAINST THE LAWYERS THAT WILLIAM FRENCH SMITH AND RONALD REAGAN HAD BROUGHT TO WASHINGTON. AFTER ABOUT A YEAR IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT I MOVED TO THE WHITE HOUSE. THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S OFFICE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF FRED FIELDING AND HIS DEPUTY RICHARD HOWSER. I VIVIDLY REMEMBER MY FIRST DAY ON THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF. MY OFFICE, OF COURSE, WAS IN THE OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING. I DIDN'T RATE ONE IN THE WEST WING. BUT DON'T TRY TO TELL ME OR ANY OF THE REST OF US THERE THAT WE WEREN'T WORKING IN THE WHITE HOUSE. I WAS SETTLING IN AT MY DESK ON THE FIRST DAY AND THE PHONE RANG. I PICKED IT UP AND IT WAS THE WHITE HOUSE OPERATOR. COULD I HOLD FOR THE PRESIDENT? WELL, YES, I COULD. [LAUGHTER] >> ...

IT WAS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PRESIDENT'S FAMOUS CHARM, WITH ALL HE HAD TO DO, CALLING A NEW STAFFER ON HIS FIRST DAY TO WISH HIM WELL. I THINK THAT I DID WHAT I THINK MOST PEOPLE DO WHEN THEY GET A CALL FROM THE PRESIDENT AT THEIR DESK, I STOOD UP. [LAUGHTER] >> A FEW MINUTES WENT BY, BUT, OF COURSE, THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE. HE'S THE PRESIDENT, HE IS PROBABLY FINISHING UP THE CALL WITH BRESH NEFF OR SOMETHING. ...

AND A FEW MORE MINUTES WENT BY AND I SAT DOWN, AND FIGURED I WOULD STAND UP WHEN THE PRESIDENT CAME ON THE LINE. ONE OF MY NEW COLLEAGUES IN THE OFFICE WANDERED INTO MY OFFICE AND I WAVED HIM AWAY, THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT. HE NODDED QUICKLY AND LEFT. A FEW MORE MINUTES WENT BY. AND THEN SOME MORE. HE'S THE PRESIDENT, HE'S BUSY, BUT -- AND THEN I HEARD THE MUFFLED LAUGHTER OUTSIDE OF MY ...

DOOR. [LAUGHTER] >> AND, OF COURSE, IT DAWNED ON ME WHAT WAS GOING ON. AND I PUT THE PHONE DOWN AND I WENT TO THE LITTLE ROOM, AND THERE, OF COURSE, WERE MY NEW COLLEAGUE WHO HAD PLACED THE PHONY CALL FROM THE PRESIDENT. THEY HAD A BETTING POOL HOW LONG I WOULD STAY ON HOLD. [LAUGHTER] >> I DON'T REMEMBER WHO IT WAS, BUT WHOEVER HAD THE 15 TO 20 MINUTE SLOT WON THE ...

MONEY. LAST SUMMER GAVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO RELIVE IN UNUSUAL DETAIL MY YEARS IN THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION. IN THE WAKE OF MY NOMINATION OF THE SUPREME COURT, THE SENATE JURISDICTIONY COMMITTEE WAS DESIREOUS OF SEEING EVERYTHING THAT I HAD WRITTEN DURING MY YEARS ON THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF. THIS PRESENTED AN ENORMOUS CHALLENGE FOR THE ARKANSAS VIFTS HERE AT THE LIBRARY -- AR -- AND THEY WERE SURPRISED AS I WAS THAT MY PAPERS WERE A MATTER OF INTEREST. BUT THEY PUT THEIR SHOULDER TO THE PLOUGH AND THEY WORKED EXTRAORDINARY HOURS AND THROUGH THOSE EFFORTS THEY WERE ABLE TO FIND, PROCESS AND RELEASE TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SOME 60,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS. IN TIME FOR THE SENATORS TO REVIEW BEFORE THE START OF MY HEARINGS. AND NOW IN RESPONSE TO THAT EFFORT THERE'S ONLY ONE THING THAT I CAN SAY. THANKS A LOT. [LAUGHTER] NO, SERIOUSLY, IT WAS IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE DOCUMENTS OUT. IT CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE DELAYED THE HEARINGS I THINK IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN OUT AND I'M GRATEFUL TO THEM, AND I'M VERY HAPPY TO HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TELL THEM THAT IN PERSON EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON. THEY CERTAINLY EARNED THE ACCOMMODATION THAT THEY RECEIVED LAST SEPTEMBER FOR THEIR EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS. WHEN YOU LOOK OVER THOSE 60,000 PAGES THEY COVER A VERY BROAD RANGE. THERE'S CAREFUL CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF LEGAL QUESTIONS. AND SOME MUSINGS ON SUBJECTS LIKE WHETHER JUSTICES ON THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE LIFE TENURE. AND A FEW WHAT ARE BEST DESCRIBED AS IDIOSI ACCURATIC COMMENTS ON POPULAR CULTURE FIGURES. SOME DAYS IN THE COUNSEL'S OFFICE WE'RE BUSIER THAN OTHERS AND MANY OF THE MEMOS CONCERN MATTERS THAT ARE VERY, VERY MUNDANE. WHEN I WAS LOOKING OVER THESE DOCUMENTS I REMEMBERED SOMETHING JUSTICE ROBERT JACKSON LIKED TO TALK ABOUT, A PARTICULAR STORY THAT HE LIKED TO TELL OF THE THREE STONE MASONS. THE PASSERBY CAME UPON THREE STONE MASONS ALL DOING THE SAME THING. AND HE ASKED THE FIRST ONE WHAT HE WAS DOING AND HE SAID, I'M MAKING A LIVING. AND HE ASKED THE SECOND ONE WHAT HE WAS DOING, AND HE SAID I'M LAYING THE BRICKS ACCORDING TO THIS PATTERN. AND HE CAME TO THE THIRD WHO WAS DOING THE SAME THING AND HE SAID, WHAT ARE YOU DOING? AND THE MAN LOOKED UP AND HE SAID, I'M BUILDING A CATHEDRAL. AND JACKSON'S POINT WAS ONE THAT WAS BROUGHT HOME TO ME WHEN LOOKING OVER THESE MEMOS IS THAT MANY, MANY MUNDANE TASKS GO INTO GREAT ENTERPRISES. MANY OF US ON THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF, MAYBE MOST OF US, SPEND A LOT OF TIME DOING VERY MUNDANE THINGS. WE WERE LAYING AN ALL OF LOT OF BRICKS BUT -- AN AWFUL LOT OF BRICKS. BUT PRESIDENT REAGAN NEVER LET US FORGET THAT WE WERE BUILDING A CATHEDRAL, THAT WE WERE PART OF A GREATER ENTERPRISE. IN REVIEWING PRESIDENT REAGAN'S SPEECHES IN PREPARATION FOR TONIGHT, I CAME TO THE VIEW THAT HE VIEWED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN MUCH THE SAME WAY AS THE MORAL OF JUSTICE JACKSON AS THE STORY OF THE STONE MASON. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THOSE SPEECHES ONE CONSISTENT THEME THAT COMES THROUGH IS THAT PRESIDENT REAGAN APPRECIATED THE EXTRAORDINARY NATURE OF ORDINARY PEOPLE. YOU SEE IT IN HIS FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS WHEN HE ASKED THE QUESTION, IF YOU REMEMBER, WHERE ARE OUR HEROS? AND HE TOLD US WE COULD SEE OUR HEROES GOING IN AND OUT OF THE FACTORY GATES EVERY DAY, WE COULD SEE THEM WORKING ON THE FARMS EVERY DAY. IT'S A THEME THAT HE CARRIED THROUGH, IT WAS IN HIS FAREWELL ADDRESS WHERE HE TALKED ABOUT THE EXTRAORDINARY POSSIBILITIES THAT LIE WITHIN SEEMINGLY ORDINARY MEN AND WOMEN. AND THERE WAS A PARTICULAR CATCH PHRASE THAT HE USED OFF IN HIS SPEECHES. HE USED IT OFTEN ENOUGH THAT WHEN YOU REVIEW THEM IT ALMOST COMES OUT AS A SIGNATURE ABOUT WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. WE, THE PEOPLE, WAS IN HIS FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS. IT WAS IN HIS FAREWELL. HE BUILT ONE SPEECH AROUND IT IN BETWEEN AND IT'S OFTEN THERE. HE LIKED THE PHRASE "WE, THE PEOPLE" TO MAKE THE POINT THAT OUR COUNTRY WAS FORMED, NOT BY A FAMILY OR A PLAN, OR BY CONSTITUTION, BUT BY WE, THE PEOPLE. AND IT WAS NOT LOST ON THOSE OF US WHO WERE THE LAWYERS WORKING WITH PRESIDENT REAGAN THAT THIS PHRASE THAT WAS SO FULLED OF MEANING FOR HIM CAME FROM, OF COURSE, A LEGAL DOCUMENT. FOR OUR CONSTITUTION, UNLIKE MANY CONSTITUTIONS IS NOT SIMPLY A POLITICAL DOCUMENT, IT'S A LEGAL DOCUMENT AS WELL. AND IT CONSTITUTES THE POLITICAL ORDER OF OUR SOCIETY, AS ALL CONSTITUTIONS DO. BUT IT IS ENFORCEABLE IN COURT BEFORE INDEPENDENT JUDGES WHO HAVE THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW, AND IN THAT RESPECT IT'S UNLIKE MOST CONSTITUTIONS. THAT WAS THE POINT CONFIRMED BY ONE OF MY PREDECESSOR, CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL 203 YEARS AGO IN MARBURY VS. MADISON. IT'S WHAT WE MEAN WHEN WE SAY THAT WE LIVE UNDER A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS AND NOT OF MEN, BUT BOTH THE GOVERNMENT AND THE GOVERNED ARE UNDER THE LAW, ENFORCEABLE IN COURT. MY IMMEDIATE PREDECESSOR, CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST, REFERRED TO THIS AS THE GREATEST CONTRIBUTOR OF THE AMERICAN FOUNDING TO POLITICAL SCIENCE, THE NOTION OF THE RULE OF LAW AND JUDICIAL REVIEW. AND WHEN YOU LOOK THROUGH PRESIDENT REAGAN'S SPEECHES YOU SEE THAT HE APPRECIATED THAT, HE ALWAYS LINKED HIS DISCUSSION OF FREEDOM WITH THE NOTION OF THE RULE OF LAW. IT WAS 23 YEARS AGO TODAY THAT PRESIDENT REAGAN STARTLED THE WORLD BY THE SIMPLE ACT OF SPEAKING THE TRUTH WHEN HE REFERRED TO THE SOVIET UNION AS AN EVIL EMPIRE. IN MY MIND THAT STATEMENT WAS NOT BORN OF HOSTILITY OR PROVOCATION, BUT BY THE PRESIDENT'S ABIDING BELIEF IN HUMAN FREEDOM, AND HIS DEEP COMMITMENT THAT THOSE WHO LIVED UNDER TOTAL TARIAN RULE WOULD ONE DAY FIND FREEDOM UNDER THE RULE OF LAW. HE ALWAYS LINKED THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM AND THE RULE OF LAW. ONE OF HIS SPEECHES HE SAID, WE KNOW WHAT REAL DEMOCRACY CONSTITUTES, WE UNDERSTAND ITS IMPLICATIONS, IT MEANS THE RULE OF LAW FOR THE LEADERS AS WELL AS FOR THE PEOPLE. IT INVOLVES LIMITS ON THE POWER OF THE STATE OVER THE PEOPLE. OR AS HE PUT IT LATER IN THAT SPEECH, OUR HERITAGE OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY IS DEPENDENT ON THE RULE OF LAW. IT WAS VERY INSPIRING FOR ME TODAY TO GO OUT AND SEE A PORTION OF THE BERLIN WALL THAT HAD BEEN TORN DOWN. AND IT WAS TORN DOWN, BY THE WAY, IT DIDN'T FALL, IT WAS TORN DOWN. ONE OF THE PRESSING NEEDS THAT REMAINS IN THE ONGOING BATTLE FOR FREEDOM AROUND THE WORLD SINCE THE BERLIN WALL WAS TORN DOWN IS TO ESTABLISH THE INDEPENDENT LEGAL INSTITUTIONS THAT CAN GIVE EFFECT TO THE RULE OF LAW IN EMERGING DEMOCRACIES. IT'S A DAUNTING CHALLENGE AS WE'RE FINDING OUT ON A DAILY BASIS TO ESTABLISH AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY THAT WILL BE ABLE TO APPLY THE RULE OF LAW TO THE GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS TO THE GOVERNED IN SOCIETIES THAT HAVE NOT KNOWN SUCH A FORCE FOR GENERATIONS, IF AT ALL. BUT THE RULE OF LAW IS A CATHEDRAL THAT WE HAVE TO BUILD, BRICK BY PAINSTAKING BRICK. I'M VERY HAPPY THAT MANY JUDGES AND JUSTICES ARE ACTIVE IN THAT EFFORT, IN THE COUNTRIES OF THE FORMER SOVIET BLOCK IN EASTERN EUROPE, AND ALSO PLACES LIKE CAMBODIA, AND ECUADOR AND THAILAND AND MEXICO. JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR WAS VERY ACTIVE IN THE EFFORT THROUGH THE AUSPICES OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, CENTRAL EUROPE AND THE LAW INITIATIVE. AND IT'S NOT JUST OUR JUDGES AND JUSTICES GOING OVER THERE, THE EXCHANGE WORKS THE OTHER WAY AS WELL. SINCE 2001 700 RUSSIAN JUDGES HAVE COME OVER TO THE UNITED STATES TO OBSERVE HOW THE INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY WORKS IN OUR SOCIETY UNDER THE AWE PISSES OF THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS OPEN WORLD PROGRAM. CHIEF JUSTICE FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, VISITED THE SUPREME COURT LAST YEAR, AND I MET WITH THE CHIEF JUSTICE FROM COAST KOSOVO. -- KOSOVO. AND THESE MEETINGS ARE INSPIRATIONAL. THEY'RE NOT NICE DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES. FORGIVE ME, SECRETARY SCHULINGTS. FOR A SIMPLE REASON. I'M NOT A DIPLOMAT. THE OTHER JUDGES AND JUDGES AREN'T DIPLOMATS EITHER. I RECALL ONE EXCHANGE IN PARTICULAR. I'M STILL ON THE COURT OF APPEALS MEETING WITH A JUDGE FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY AND WE'RE TALKING THROUGH A TRANSLATOR AND HE ASKED THE QUESTION, DO YOU EVER RULE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT? AND I WAS A JUDGE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, WE RULED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT THREE TIMES BEFORE BREAKFAST TO JUST LOOSEN UP. [LAUGHTER] AND I TOLD THIS -- I DIDN'T SAY THAT, BUT I EXPLAINED TO HIM, YES -- [LAUGHTER] >> I DID, AND HE LEANED FORWARD AND ASKED ME A QUESTION AND IT HAD TO BE TRANSLATED, BUT I COULD TELL WHAT HE WAS ASKING AND SURE ENOUGH THAT'S WHAT THE TRANSLATION WAS. HE ...

SAID, WHAT HAPPENED? AND THAT WAS AN EXTRAORDINARY QUESTION. AND I GAVE THE WRONG ANSWER, IT WAS CONFUSING. AND I SAID, WELL, NOTHING HAPPENS. AND HE SAID, YES, THAT WOULD BE THE CASE IN OUR COUNTRY AS WELL. AND I SAID, NO, NO, THE GOVERNMENT, OF COURSE, COMPLIED WITH THE RULING OF THE COURT. AND THESE MEETINGS BETWEEN THE JUDGES ARE EXTRAORDINARILY INSPIRATIONAL. I THINK THAT MANY OF THE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN WHO COME HERE TO STUDY OUR INSTITUTIONS LEAVE WITH RENEWED CONFIDENCE IN THEIR EFFORTS TO BUILD AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY IN THEIR COUNTRY. WE WORRY ABOUT THREATS TO JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND WE SHOULD. A THREAT TO JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE FOR THEM IS BEING TAKEN TO JAIL OR WORSE. THEY'RE DOING BRAVE WORK IN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM IN THE AREAS THAT PRESIDENT REAGAN FREED FROM SOVIET DOMINATION. BUT THEY'RE INSPIRATIONAL MEETINGS FOR ME AS WELL. WHEN A JUDGE CAN ASK, WELL, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU RULE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, AND YOU FIND IT A CONFUSING QUESTION, IT DEMONSTRATES THAT WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL TO NOT TAKE FOR GRANTED THE INSTITUTION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW THAT HAS BEEN SUCH A GREAT GIFT TO US FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS. IN CONNECTION WITH THESE JUDICIAL EXCHANGES WHICH I THINK ARE AN IMPORTANT PART OF CARRYING FORWARD PRESIDENT REAGAN'S WORK, THE STORY IS TOLD BY A RUSSIAN JUDGE WHO WAS PART OF THESE EXCHANGES. A STORY THAT I THINK PRESIDENT REAGAN WOULD HAVE APPRECIATED. HE WAS AT A MEETING IN WESTERN EUROPE. AND THEY ASKED HIM, WHICH JUDICIAL MODEL ARE YOU USING FOR JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION? AND HE SAID, THE AMERICAN MODEL. THIS DIDN'T GO OVER TOO WELL IN WESTERN EUROPE. IN FACT, ONE OF THE PARTICIPANTS SAID, ACCORDING TO THIS RUSSIAN JUDGE, WELL, IF ALL YOU WANT IS A CAN OF COKE, YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO COME TO EUROPE TO GET IT. AND THE RUSSIAN JUDGE SAID, I DON'T MUCH LIKE COKE. HE SAID, I LIKE MY WINE FRENCH, I LIKE MY BEER GERMAN, AND I LIKE MY VODKA RUSSIAN, AND I LIKE MY JUDICIAL INSTITUTIONS AMERICAN. [APPLAUSE] >> NOW, THE RULE OF LAW WAS NOT AN ABSTRACTION FOR PRESIDENT REAGAN. THERE WAS AN EVENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE, SEPTEMBER OF 198 IS FOR JUDGES AND JUSTICES. -- 1981 FOR JUDGES AND JUSTICES. AND THE PRESIDENT USED AT THAT EVENT AN EXTRAORDINARY PHRASE THAT STUCK WITH ME EVER SINCE. HE SAID TO THE ASSEMBLED JUDGES AND JUSTICES, HE SAID, BEING A JUDGE SOMETIMES REQUIRES THE LONELY COURAGE OF A PATRIOT. THAT'S AN UNUSUAL DESCRIPTION OF WHAT JUDGES DO. I DON'T THINK THAT MANY OF US IF ASKED TO DESCRIBE WHAT DO YOU NEED TO BE A JUDGE WOULD SAY THAT YOU NEED THE LONELY COURAGE OF THE PATRIOT. BUT THAT'S HOW PRESIDENT REAGAN DESCRIBED IT AND I THINK THAT IT SHOWED HIS APPRECIATION FOR WHAT JUDGES ARE SUPPOSED TO DO AND HAVE TO DO UNDER OUR SYSTEM. THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE COURAGE TO STAND WITH THEIR CONVICTIONS OF WHAT THE LAW MEANS EVEN IF IT'S CONTRARY TO POPULAR PREJUDICE PASSION OR THEIR OWN PERSONAL INTERESTS. BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO STAND WITH THE LAW AGAINST POPULAR PREJUDICE OR PASSION, PRESIDENT REAGAN RECOGNIZED THAT WOULD BE A LONELY COURAGE, BUT HE RECOGNIZED ALSO THAT IT WAS A LONELY COURAGE OF A PATRIOT, BECAUSE WITHOUT CONSTRUING THE LAW ACCORDING TO ITS PROPER INTENT AGAINST POPULAR PREJUDICE IF NECESSARY, OUR AMERICAN FREEDOMS WOULD NOT ...

ENDURE. THERE'S ANOTHER THING THAT PRESIDENT REAGAN DID THAT MADE A GREAT IMPRESSION UPON THE LAWYERS THAT WORKED FOR HIM. HE INSTITUTED THE PRACTICE WHEN HE NOMINATED SOMEONE TO THE FEDERAL BENCH OF CALLING THEM. IT HADN'T BEEN DONE BEFORE. HE APPOINTED SOME 364 LAWYERS TO THE FEDERAL BENCH, AND CALLED EVERY ONE OF THEM, AND TO THIS DAY JUDGES APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT REAGAN WILL TELL YOU WHERE THEY WERE WHEN THE CALL CAME THROUGH. IT SHOWED, IT ELEVATED THE PROCESS OF BEING NOMINATED, AND IT SHOWED PRESIDENT REAGAN'S APPRECIATION OF THE IMPORTANT ROLE THAT THE JUDICIAL BRANCH PLAYED IN DEFENDING FREEDOM WHICH WAS SO IMPORTANT TO HIM. TWO JUDGES, JUSTICES, WHO GOT THE CALL FROM PRESIDENT REAGAN DEPARTED THE SUPREME COURT IN THE PAST EIGHT MONTHS. FIRST, OF COURSE, MY PREDECESSOR, CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM REHNQUIST PASSED AWAY LATEST SEPTEMBER. HE HAD BEEN ELEVATED TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE POSITION BY PRESIDENT REAGAN. WHEN I AND OTHER REHNQUIST CLERKS WERE ACTING AS PALLBEARERS AND CARRYING HIS CASKET UP THE MARBLE STEPS OF THE PROURT SO -- SUPREME COURT TO LAY IN STATE, WE SAW THAT IT WAS PLAIN PINE, AND OVER IT WAS DRAPED THE AMERICAN FLAG, AND A NUMBER OF US THOUGHT THAT WAS VERY APPROPRIATE BECAUSE CHIEF REHNQUIST WAS TOTALLY UNAFFECTED AND A PATRIOT TO THE CORE. HE FIT PRESIDENT REAGAN'S DESCRIPTION OF WHAT WAS REQUIRED OF A JUDGE. EARLY IN HIS YEARS HE STOOD ALONE IN HIS VIEW OF THE LAW TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT HIS LAW CLERKS BOUGHT HIM A LONE RANGER DOLL. IT STAYED ON HIS MANTLE UNTIL THE VERY END. AND IN THE LAST YEAR OF HIS LIFE, OF COURSE, HIS DEDICATION TO DUTY IN THE FACE OF ILLNESS WAS AN INSPIRATION TO US ALL. HE CERTAINLY EXHIBITED THE LONELY COURAGE OF A PATRIOT. JUSTICE ACONNOR ANNOUNCED HER RESIGNATION FROM THE COURT ON JULY 1 AND WAS EFFECTIVE JANUARY 31 WHEN JUSTICE ALITO WAS CONFIRMED. IF YOU GO THROUGH THE PAPERS THAT WERE RELEASED FROM MY JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DAYS YOU WILL SEE A MEMO THERE THAT INDICATES THE VERY FIRST PROJECT THAT I HAD ON MY VERY FIRST DAY AS A SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM FRENCH SMITH WAS TO HELP WITH THE GROUP ASSISTING JUSTICE OH, CONNOR FOR PREPARING FOR HER HEARINGS. SHE TOO HAD THE COURAGE OF A PATRIOT THROUGHOUT HER CAREER. ENCOUNTERING DISCRIMINATION WHEN SHE CAME OUT OF LAW SCHOOL SHE EASILY COULD HAVE FADED INTO BITTERNESS, BUT INSTEAD EMBARKED ON A PATH WITH RONALD REAGAN AND CHANGED THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY FOR BETTER AND FOREVER. AND THIS IS A VERY LEARNED AND EDUCATED AUDIENCE. BUT I WOULD BET THAT THERE HADN'T A HANDFUL OF YOU WHO CAN TELL ME WHO THE CHIEF JUSTICE WAS 100 YEARS AGO TODAY. 100 YEARS FROM NOW EVERYONE WILL KNOW WHO JUSTICE O'CONNOR WAS. IT'S MELVILLE FULLER, BY THE ...

WAY. [LAUGHTER] >> I WONDER IF YOU RECALL THAT IN HIS FAREWELL ADDRESS PRESIDENT REAGAN INCLUDED A WARNING. IT WAS DELIVERED ON JANUARY 11, 1989, JUST BEFORE HE LEFT OFFICE. AND IN THE TRADITION OF FAREWELL ADDRESSES IT HAD A WARNING. PRESIDENT REAGAN NOTED THAT THE PAST EIGHT YEARS HAD REKINDLED AMERICAN PATRIOTISM. BUT HE SAID, AND INFORMEDPATE -- AN INFORMED PATRIOTISM IS WHAT WE WANT. ARE WE DOING A GOOD ENOUGH JOB TEACHING OUR CHILDREN WHAT AMERICA IS, AND WHAT SHE REPRESENTS IN THE LONG HISTORY OF THE WORLD? HE WENT ON AND SAID, IF WE FORGET WHAT WE DID, WE DON'T KNOW WHO WE ARE. WELL, THE YEARS OF THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION ARE NO LONGER CURRENT EVENTS. THEY ARE NOW PART OF THAT HISTORY THAT PRESIDENT REAGAN WAS TALKING ABOUT, THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN FREEDOM AND ITS EXPANSION THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. WHEN I MEET WITH STUDENT GROUPS I TRY TO DO THE MATH IN MY HEAD AND FIGURE OUT HOW OLD THEY WERE DURING THE REAGAN YEARS. WE GET A GROUP FROM HIGH SCHOOL AND YOU REALIZE THEY WERE NOT BORN UNTIL AFTER PRESIDENT REAGAN LEFT OFFICE. THESE STUDENTS NEED TO KNOW THAT AMERICA HAS FACED CHALLENGES BEFORE AND SURMOUNTED THEM. NOT JUST 230 YEARS AGO, NOT JUST 150 YEARS AGO, BUT DURING THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION. AND THAT'S WHY THIS LIBRARY, I THINK, IS SO IMPORTANT. I HAVE TO SAY, MY EXPERIENCE OF THE LIBRARY WAS NOT WHAT I EXPECTED. IT WAS NOT PRIMARILY NOSTALGIC. RONALD REAGAN DOES NOT CAUSE YOU TO LOOK BACK. THAT'S NOT HIS NATURE. HE CAUSES YOU TO LOOK FORWARD, WITH RENEWED CONFIDENCE. HE ONCE SAID NOSTALGIA HAS ITS TIME AND PLACE, BUT NOSTALGIA ISN'T ENOUGH. THE CHALLENGE IS NOW. HE USED TO QUOTE A DIARIST JAMES ALLEN AND HE SAID THAT HE WROTE IN HIS DIARY, MANY THINKING PEOPLE THINK THAT AMERICA HAS SEEN HER BEST DAYS AND THEN HE WOULD GET THAT TWINKLE IN HIS EYES AND HE WOULD TELL THE AUDIENCE THAT WAS WRITTEN JULY 26, 1775. ONE REASON FRED MENTIONED THAT MANY YOUNG PEOPLE WERE DRAWN TO THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION, AND I THINK THAT ONE REASON MANY OF US WERE, IS BECAUSE PRESIDENT REAGAN TOLD US AND EXPLAINED TO US THAT AMERICA'S BEST DAYS WERE AHEAD OF US. IT'S A MESSAGE THAT YOUTH NEEDS TO HEAR. PERHAPS THE PRESIDENT'S WORDS THAT MOST DIRECTLY AFFECTED ME PERSONALLY WERE IN HIS FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS. I QUOTED FROM IT OFTEN ENOUGH THAT YOU WILL APPRECIATE THAT I THINK IT'S A SPEECH OF HIS THAT WILL ENDURE OVER THE AGES. I WAS IN WASHINGTON WHEN IT WAS DELIVERED AND I WAS CLERKING FOR JUSTICE REHNQUIST AND I WAS TRYING TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO NEXT. AND THEN HE SPOKE THESE WORDS, AND LIKE SO MANY OF THE PRESIDENT'S WORDS I FELT HE WAS SPEAKING DIRECTLY TO ME. HE SAID, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN A FATE THAT WILL FALL ON US NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. I DO BELIEVE IN A FATE THAT WILL FALL ON US IF WE DO NOTHING. AND THAT IS WHAT RONALD REAGAN WAS AND IS, REMAINS TODAY TO ME, A CALL TO ACTION. A VISIT TO THIS BEAUTIFUL FACILITY REMINDS US THAT EVERY DAY IN PRESIDENT REAGAN'S WORDS IS A TIME FOR CHOOSING, EVERY DAY IS A NEW BEGINNING, AND EVERY DAY WE HAVE IT IN OUR POWER TO BEGIN THE WORLD OVER AGAIN. MANY OF MY DAYS LAST SUMMER BEGAN THE SAME WAY. A WHITE HOUSE LAWYER WOULD PASS A DOCUMENT ACROSS THE DESK TO ME, A DOCUMENT NEWLY RELEASED FROM THE RONALD REAGAN LIBRARY ARCHIVES. AND HE WOULD SAY WITH VARYING DEGREES OF FOREBODING, DO YOU REMEMBER THIS? [LAUGHTER] >> WELL, ONE DAY LATE IN THE SUMMER THIS DOCUMENT WAS PASSED OVER. ...

I REMEMBERED IT. DATED APRIL 10, 1986. IT'S TO THE PRESIDENT AND IT'S FOR ME, IT'S MY RESIGNATION LETTER. I HAD PLANNED TO SPEND A COUPLE OF YEARS IN THE ADMINISTRATION AND ENDED UP SPENDING FIVE. COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT HAD MOVED ON, AND I THOUGHT THAT THE NEW COUNSEL OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO CHOOSE HIS OWN STAFF. BESIDES, I HAD THIS IDEA IN THE BACK OF MY MIND THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ARGUE CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT. IF I WAS GOING TO DO THAT IT WAS TIME TO MOVE ON AND GET ON WITH IT. AND THIS IS WHAT THE LETTER SAID. IT SAID, YOU ONCE WROTE THAT LAW AND FREEDOM MUST BE INDIVISIBLE PARTNERS. AS A LAWYER IT WAS A SOURCE OF GREAT SATISFACTION TO SERVE A PRESIDENT WHO APPRECIATED THE FRAMER'S VISION OF A LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF LAWS, NOT MEN. THE LETTER WENT ON, MY YEARS IN YOUR SERVICE WILL ALWAYS BE VERY SPECIAL TO ME. THE INSPIRATION THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN ME WILL BURN BRIGHTLY IN MY HEART LONG AFTER I HAVE LEFT THE LIGHTS OF THE WHITE HOUSE BEHIND. NOW IT CAN'T BE SAID OF MANY OF MY WORDS, BUT THOSE WORDS, THOSE HAVE STOOD THE TEST OF TIME. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. [APPLAUSE] >> THANK YOU VERY ...

MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU SUBMITTED QUESTIONS AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER THEM. >> YES, YOUR HONOR. [LAUGHTER] >> WE GOT A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS. THE FIRST ONE WAS, WHAT WAS THE MOST DRAMATIC CHANGE FOR YOU FROM BEING A FEDERAL JUDGE TO CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE ...

LAND? >> YOU KNOW, IN MANY RESPECTS THE JOB IS THE SAME. YOU'RE APPLYING THE SAME BODY OF LAW, YOU'RE WORKING WITH OTHER JUDGES. BUT IT'S DIFFERENT AT THE SUPREME COURT. FIRST OF ALL YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE SAME OTHER PEOPLE ON THE PANEL, THE OTHER EIGHT JUSTICES IN EVERY CASE. THE COURT OF APPEALS YOU SIT IN GROUPS OF THREE AND THE DIFFERENT JUDGES ALL THE TIME. AND SO YOU DEVELOP MORE OF A RELATIONSHIP AND UNDERSTANDING WITH THE OTHER JUSTICES THAN YOU HAD ON THE COURT OF APPEALS. AND, OF COURSE, AT THE SUPREME COURT, YOU KNOW, IN THE COURT OF APPEALS WE SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME TYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE SUPREME COURT -- TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE SUPREME COURT MEANT. ON THE SUPREME COURT -- [LAUGHTER] >> WE DON'T SPEND AS MUCH TIME WORRYING ABOUT THAT. [APPLAUSE] >> ...

RONALD REAGAN IS DEFINITELY LOOKING DOWN ON US. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SHARE WITH US YOUR THOUGHTS OF THE FIRST DAY AT THE SUPREME COURT? >> IT WAS A BUSY DAY, I WAS CONFIRMED ON A THURSDAY, AND THE FIRST MONDAY IN OCTOBER WAS THE NEXT ...

MONDAY. I'M A -- TO SOME EXTENT, A SUPERSTITIOUS SORT AND I DIDN'T WANT TO BEGIN WORKING ON THE CASES UNTIL, YOU KNOW, THE 351ST VOTE HAD BEEN CAST. I THOUGHT THAT MIGHT -- 51ST VOTE HAD BEEN CAST. SO I HAD A LOT OF WORK TO DO TO GET READY FOR THE FIRST DAY. AND THEY HAD MY FORMAL CEREMONY THE FIRST DAY. IT'S A BIG DEAL, YOU BRING MOTHER AND FATHER DOWN AND ALL OF THE RELATIVES AND FRIENDS, AND THE PRESIDENT CAME OVER. THEY SIT YOU IN A CHAIR THAT WAS USED BY CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL BEFORE YOU GO UP. AND THE WHOLE THING TAKES EXACTLY 6 1/2 MINUTES. AND I WON'T TELL YOU WHO IT WAS, BUT THE SAME THING HAPPENED WITH JUSTICE ALITO, IT'S THE SAME CEREMONY, AND A JUDGE CAME BY AND SHE LOOKED AT ME AND SHE SAID, YOU KNOW, IF I HAD KNOWN IT WAS GOING TO BE THAT SHORT, I WOULDN'T HAVE HAD MY HAIR DONE. [LAUGHTER] >> WHICH CAPTURED MY SENSE AS WELL. ...

IT'S A LOT OF -- IT'S A LOT OF HOOPLA AND CEREMONY FOR A VERY SHORT PAYOFF. [LAUGHTER] >> AND THEN, OF COURSE, IT WAS DIFFERENT IN THAT AS SOON AS THAT WAS OVER WE TOOK ABOUT A 20-MARKET BREAK AND THEN I NOT ONLY -- 20-MINUTE BREAK, AND THEN I NOT ONLY HAD TO SIT ON THE BENCH BUT I HAD TO PRESIDE AS THE CHIEF JUSTICE. I WAS VERY NERVOUS THEY WOULDN'T DO THAT RIGHT AND I WOULDN'T CALL THE CASE RIGHT OR RECOGNIZE THE LAWYERS. ...

SO I WAS AMPINGSE TO GET THROUGH THE FIRST DAY -- ANXIOUS TO GET THROUGH THE FIRST DAY. >> TALKING EARLIER WITH

THE PEPPERDINE LAW STUDENT, IT'S A WONDERFUL STORY THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO SHARE WITH THE AUDIENCE HERE ABOUT YOUR SON AND HIS BEHAVIOR AND THEN THE SUBSEQUENT QUESTION HE ASKED YOU. >> OH, YEAH. WELL, WE DIDN'T KNOW THE NIGHT THE NOMINATION -- THE FIRST NOMINATION WAS ANNOUNCED, EXACTLY WHAT THE SETUP WAS GOING TO BE. AND THEY SAID WE SHOULD BRING THE KIDS AND WE SAID, GREAT. I ASSUMED THEY WOULD BE IN THE BACK WATCHING, WHICH WOULD BE GREAT. ...

BECAUSE IT WAS PAST THEIR BEDTIME AT THAT POINT ALREADY, AND THE SNABT BEFORE SHE HAD TO GO OUT -- INSTANT SHE HAD TO GO OUT WITH THE KIDS, THE PERSON AT THE WHITE HOUSE TOLD JANE YOU STAND THERE NEXT TO THE PODIUM. AND JANE SAID, OH, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. BUT YOU KNOW HOW THESE THINGS ARE SCHEDULED AND YOU'RE JUST WHISKED AWAY. AND IT WAS, IN RETROSPECT, ENDEARING, BUT -- [LAUGHTER] >> BUT I ASSURE YOU ONLY IN RETROSPECT. ...

BECAUSE I'M STANDING THERE AS THE PRESIDENT IS ANNOUNCING THE NOMINATION AND I'M TRYING TO THINK OF WHAT I SHOULD SAY, AND JACK IS DANCING IN FRONT OF THE SPOTLIGHTS. AND I'M LOOKING AT JANE AND SAYING -- WONDERING, JANE, WHY AREN'T YOU DOING ANYTHING? AND SHE EXPLAINED LATER, OF COURSE, IT WAS THE RIGHT DECISION. IF SHE HAD TRIED TO CORRAL JACK AT THAT TIME SHE COULD HAVE EASILY RAN AND UNTIED THE PRESIDENT'S SHOES OR WHATEVER. SO WE GOT THROUGH THAT. AND HAVING YOUNG CHILDREN IS GREAT TO KEEP THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE. THE FIRST QUESTION THAT JACK HAD WITH ME WHEN HE FOUND OUT I WAS GOING TO BE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HE SAID, DADDY, DO YOU GET A SWORD? [APPLAUSE] >> I SAID, ...

NO. AND IF GUTO THE SUPREME COURT, I WONDERED WHY HE ASKED THAT, IF YOU GO TO THE SUPREME COURT THE STATUE OF LADY JUSTICE OUT THERE IS HOLDING A GIANT SWORD, AND HE HAD SEEN THAT AND HE JUST ASSUMED IF YOU WERE A CHIEF JUSTICE YOU GOT A SWORD. SO HE'S NOT VERY IMPRESSED WITH ME. [LAUGHTER] >> THANK YOU. NOW THIS IS A BIT MORE MEATY. ...

BUT IT COMES FROM EMILY WHO IS AGE 16, SO IT TELLS YOU SOMETHING ABOUT OUR KIDS OUT THERE. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON INTERPRETTING THE CONSTITUTION AS A LIVING DOCUMENT AS WELL AS IN THE CONTEXT, EXCUSE ME, AS WELL IN THE CONTEXT IT WAS WRITTEN? >> SENATOR -- OH, ...

WAIT. [APPLAUSE] >>

IT'S A PHRASE LAWYERS AND SCHOOL ARS USE, A LIVING DOCUMENT. IT'S A LEGAL DOCUMENT. IN SOME SENSE IT DOESN'T MAKE TOO MUCH SENSE TO SPEAK OF IT AS DEAD OR ALIVE, IT'S A LEGAL DOCUMENT. AS I MENTIONED IN MY REMARKS I MEAN, ONE OF THE REMARKABLE THINGS ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTION IS THAT IT'S NOT JUST A POLITICAL DOCUMENT BUT A LEGAL DOCUMENT. I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED ACCORDING TO ITS TERMS. IN DOING THAT WE NEED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE WISE MEN WHO DRAFTED THE CONSTITUTION KNEW THEY WERE DRAFTING A DOCUMENT THAT WAS GOING TO GOVERN SOCIETY FOR THE AGES TO COME. AND NOT JUST FOR THEIR OWN PARTICULAR TIME. MANY OF THE PHRASES THEY USED IN IT ARE PHRASES THAT HAVE TO BE GIVE CONTENT. BUT THE OVERRIDING OBLIGATION OF THE JUSTICE AND A JUDGE IS TO INTERPRET THE DOCUMENT ACCORDING TO THE INTENT OF ITS FRAMERS. >> THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] >> SOMEONE'S CELL ...

PHONE. I'M HOPING THAT YOU CAN ANSWER THIS, I'M NOT SURE THOUGH. AGAIN, THIS CAME FROM THE AUDIENCE. IF YOU COULD HEAR ONE CASE FROM A PAST SUPREME COURT SESSION, WHAT WOULD IT BE, AND ...

WHY? >> YOU KNOW, THAT'S A FASCINATING QUESTION. IT IS, BUT BECAUSE YOU THINK BACK HISTORICALLY, AND MY FIRST REACTION WAS WELL, YOU WOULD WANT TO HEAR THE GREAT CASE THAT ESTABLISHED THE PRINCIPLES THAT WAS TALKING ABOUT. MARBURY VS. MADISON. BUT IN FAIRNESS JOHN MARSHALL DID A GOOD ENOUGH JOB WITH THAT ON HIS OWN, SO WE DON'T NEED TO REHEAR IT. I WOULD WANT TO HEAR THE DREAD SCOTT CASE BECAUSE IT WAS CLEARLY THE ONE CASE WHERE THE COURT NOT ONLY GOT IT WRONG BUT INFLICTED A WOUND ON ITSELF AND THE COUNTRY. AND YOU WOULD HOPE TO DO A BETTER JOB WITH IT THAN THEY DID. [APPLAUSE] >> ...

THANK YOU FOR YOUR FRANKNESS ON THAT. AND THE FINAL QUESTION, IF YOU COULD LEAVE US WITH ONLY ONE LESSON THAT YOU'VE LEARNED IN YOUR SHORT TIME AS CHIEF JUSTICE, WHAT WOULD IT BE? >> YOU KNOW, TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST, I DON'T THINK THAT I'VE HAD THE TIME TO SORT OF SIT BACK AND REFLECT ABOUT LESSONS THAT I'VE LEARNED AS CHIEF JUSTICE. AND IT WOULD BE PRESUMPTUOUS OF ME TO TRY TO DO ...

THAT. I MAY TAKE THE LIBERTY OF REPHRASING THE QUESTION, AND THE MAIN LESSON -- I LEARNED MANY -- I WAS PREPARING FOR TONIGHT TO THINK OF WHAT I LEARNED FROM PRESIDENT REAGAN. AND THERE WERE MANY THINGS. I TRIED TO TOUCH ON SOME OF THEM TODAY. HIS ETERNAL OPTIMISM, HIS BELIEF THAT THE BEST DAYS FOR OUR COUNTRY ARE AHEAD OF US. BUT MORE THAN ANYTHING PERHAPS HE TAUGHT US THE IMPORTANCE OF IDEAS, THAT IDEAS MATTER. PEOPLE TALK OF HIM AS THE GREAT COMMUNICATOR. I WAS TALKING WITH THE PEPPERDINE STUDENTS EARLIER AND HE WAS, OF COURSE, A GREAT COMMUNICATOR BUT THAT DETRACTS FROM WHAT HE WAS. HE WAS A GREAT COMMUNICATOR BECAUSE HE COMMUNICATED GREAT IDEAS WITH A SINCERITY OF A DEEP-FELT AND -- [APPLAUSE] >> ...

A DEEP-FELT AND ABIDING BELIEF IN THOSE IDEAS. WHAT I TOLD THE STUDENTS IS WHAT