Minds today as we pray in your new message of energy production. Major producer of petroleum product and cool. Dedicated to discovering the many things for better day thing....

The you're coming up next on C.-SPAN an interview with Paul Duke's senior correspondent and host of the P.B.S. program. Washington's Week in Review. He joins us to discuss the new P.B.S. documentary. Screen course. Titled this honorable court....

Paul did senior correspondent for Public Broadcasting. What do you hope that people come away with. When they watch the news story of the trip I experience it for and this week. On the honorable quite. I hope they come away knowing a little more about the Supreme Court. And the important role it's played in American history. I think the court has been off limits to too much of the public. Too much of the public regards it is a big far off. Institution. The story is remote. They're not supposed to trust to speak on certain boundaries. I think we've succeeded. Least I hope we've succeeded in breaking down some of those boundaries and making this very important institution. Understandable. And even more significant comprehensible to a lot of people. Because we talk more about the court tell us about the ferry for people who may not have seen the first part and may be interested the thing the second part. It's a two part documentary series. The first program which went out on the P.B.S. Network. Last Monday night. P.B.S. stations however have the option of carrying it whenever they like most stations I think Carrot it last Monday night but there will be repeats in various cities and other cities are carrying it at different times. First program. History of the court from its very first day is when the U.S. Capitol was temporarily in New York City. Down through modern times with the court. Occupying them our temple across from Capital Square. The second program is the history making program as far as I'm concerned because we've been able to take our cameras inside the marble temple. Show you what goes on there. Show you the justices at work. Show you the law clerks at work. And some interesting side life at the capital such as the fact that there's a basketball court. Interesting life at the kava court I should say a basketball court called the highest court in the land where the staffers and a lot perks frequently play during lunchtime....

Why do you think that people do not understand the court. If indeed the premise was to get them to mourn to stand it. I do think as well I think the court has been has really been off limits to a large extent to the to the press and more specifically to television. I mean television cameras with rare exception. Have not been permitted. Inside the court. The courtroom. They've not been permitted to show the justices you just can't bring a camera in roll it into the office of Justice Scalia and do an interview with him the way you do with a with a senator or even with the president. And consequently a great many people just have had no chance to really see what does go on no real contact now certainly Conny they've seen. Reporters for the commercial networks and and others standing out in front of the court doing their stand up for telling the people what happened when the court made a certain ruling. But that's vastly different from being able to convey a feel. And a sense for the action. For what goes on for how the justices perform their duties and responsibilities. And that was our goal to really try to convey to people. People in Kansas or people in the West Coast or people all over the country. Some idea of how this important branch one of the three basic branches of our government. How it performs its its responsibilities. How do you get from the idea then to what's on tape what people actually feed it to convey that sense that feel. Well it's a lot of hard work. We worked on this project for a year. Luckily we had the cooperation of Chief Justice William Rehnquist who was a dream to work with incidentally. Because he he felt as we did that. That it was time for the court to really open its doors to a certain extent and to show the public what was going. We had cam. Or a cruise up there for about six months not every day but often on it various periods. To show functions in the justices at work whether law clerks We have film of the justices talking about how they go about their work. How they conduct. Oral arguments in the courtroom. How they how they conduct their secret conferences when the doors are closed and only nine nine people are sitting around a table to make the decisions which are eventually handed down. And we show. Slices of court life. There's one of the. There's one scene which is which I just love. And that is at the annual Christmas party. At the court we show the justices. Singing Christmas carols. Which each Justice Rehnquist leading the way. Is there a problem that these nine people who sit on the court did not have a human element to them. In terms of the people around the country. I think there has been a perception Conny that the justices somehow reside on Mt Olympus....

And we don't dare. Approach them. They don't take that much part in the social life of Washington. As we now. But actually when you get to know them. They're remarkably human people they're real people as far as I'm concerned they're very down to earth and they take their responsibilities quite seriously as a group. I really found them very very likable. You have brought with you a clip from the second part of experience tell us what people will say well we have some historic footage in the sense that for the first time we were able to get the justices together in groups and. One of the scenes we had shows the justices talking about their secret conferences where they make their decisions. Another scene shows three of the justices talking about the oral arguments that take place in the courtroom before cases decided the opposing sides the opposing of our lawyers come before the court and they present. Cases they argue the case is before the court just as they would before a city court somewhere. We have it's. I might add that isn't Timothy to a lot of lawyers to come into this courtroom. The majestic Supreme Court. Very ornate. And to make arguments with these nine distinguished jurist sitting on the sitting on the platform. And they can interrupt. Anytime each each each lawyer gets thirty minutes to present his side his or her side. Anyway. We got just as why. Justice Byron why Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Lewis Powell has since left the court to talk about what goes on during oral arguments. And the excerpt that you'll see features. This trio talking about what actually happens during this period. Let's take a look at that will be right back with really the only big surprise oral argument is good theater. But some critics believe it's a waste of time. Justice White. Recently retired Justice towel and Justice Scalia. Disagree like. I thought it was essentially....

If not a dog and pony show at least not a very important part of the process I I was quite surprised at how much difference it makes. We have a little opportunity to prepare and what we do before we come on the bench. On Friday we vote on the cases I get on Tuesday and Wednesday. Again. You better be well prepared before you walk into this room that you know the argument. If you all know this case it's just you're just filled with what. What's the what's the real purpose of the oral arguments that all of these cases are hard cases are close. And it certainly is not rare for me to change my mind. Between the time I get on the bench the time I get off at least. We don't have. Well argument just to entertain counsel. We really all of us working on that case. And we use the lawyer to help us come to some final conclusion. I use it to give counsel and his or her best shot at meeting my major difficulty with that side of the cage. Here's here's what's preventing me from going along with you if you can explain why that's wrong. You have me. And I think all of us on the bench working on the cases. Trying to decide it is something that people maybe forget about they. They think maybe we're just there to learn and just to learn about the case. When we are learning that we're trying to decide to let's assume for a moment that that I'm a lawyer and I'm coming to for the Supreme Court. And I'm standing up here. Now what are you looking for from the. What would you like me to do what it vice would you give. I think every lawyer has some has has a something prepared. That if we never ask him a question. He would just. He would just give us his account of the of the case and emphasize what he thinks are the really important points in that case. But very rarely there's a lawyer. Get very far before he's interrupted then the. He may never get back....

Plans account. You decide the case on its merits of course not on the quality of the of the. The lawyer who presented it and not infrequently a lawyer who has really done a terrible job. Both with the book preventing or like you made. Wins the case and you know he's going to go back to his client and say you know. We did it for you again. And there's no market for quality of argument or quality even if you had better. The chief justice. Face Justice Burger always kept track a graded everything down so I started doesn't know. No I don't know where they are no way you can tell and experience lawyer at least one has been a long time as and they always crank that angle. Just to show that he knows that that sound that's the right of that side you see at the back burner or go up or down....

And sometimes when you get a very short person the chief justice will say. You made or elected Well you know that always tells a lawyer has been here but he wants to show that this is quite adequate there are citing want to tell you gentlemen when I came on to the court but the court of appeals here. As an electric wire act....

I don't get a sense. Arguing to a collective body. I get a sense of arguing to nine. Highly intelligent. Inquiring minds. And it's very difficult because you only have thirty minutes and you have to put together an oral argument that will attract the thought processes of nine people who are continually interrupting. To ask you questions. Not only to ask you questions but to make points I think to each other I mean sometimes when I'm up there I think. I think I'm like a post office I think one of the justices asked me a question to send a message to some other justice. And they are essentially arguing with each other through me when they're answering questions from individual justices. Then I think you do focus a little bit more on the you know is temperament. The last Friday and his style. It's very important for a lawyer to think not just how do I answer the question. At first then very quickly. Where's it coming from. Sometimes when you get a question from a justice. He knows damn well what the answer is and you know what the answer is and you've got thirty minutes. And if you go down the pathway with him that he finds intellectually be dialing. You can spend an awful lot of time. Now not the one which eight other justices have no particular interest and. I understand you ask a lot of questions just a school. That's what I understand. Doesn't seem like it at the time but I don't like is that is that your style where I guess it's guess it's the academic in me I fight against it but the devil makes me do it I suppose. A lawyer should welcome questions. But there is a point at which I think we should allow law....

And there are a lot of lawyers who leave this court of very unhappy. I know I've talked to some sort of. So it isn't just an interchange between between counsel. And each of the individual justices. What is going on is also to some extent. An exchange of information. Among the justices themselves. You hear the questions of others and see how their minds are working in that. That stimulates your your own thinking and on occasion. It's useful to turn to the justice next to you and say you know do you think that or the other thing. I don't think that's a wasted. Wasted part of the process at all. This is what Justice Rehnquist says about you just as well you says. Byron White's gruff voice and penetrating questions still strike terror into the hearts of prepared attorney is arguing orally before the court the way he used to turn his football opponents. Doesn't sound like just Chief Justice Rehnquist and....

I just asked the questions I want answers to my boy says Graf I'm sorry. I don't think I can do about that talks that talk sense that way in conference.

Very attentively. There was like. You talked before the clip about it being intimidating for some lions to argue before the court was it intimidating for you to happen after a long time so you know if people. Absolutely because I had this view too and I guess we all to. You may become a hard bitten reporter here in Washington which you look across at the Supreme Court is not a fact one of the reasons I wanted to do this project was. I had been a reporter covering Capitol Hill. For many years and I used to look across at the Supreme Court as you can do. And I would think. Gee whiz. That place is so close and yet the U.S. Capitol is so open you can walk down the hall you can bump into your senator or you can engage in chit chat. You can go into one of the restaurants of the Capitol where you can bump into your congressman. It's. It's a friendly place. The Capitol is. But you go into the Supreme Court building and it's gone for never see the justices. You have a feeling almost as if you're visiting a mortuary or something. And I felt well this is such an important institution we should really try to convey some sense of what goes on here. But it was intimidating because I didn't know what these people were really like. But once I got to know them I found as I said. They're just real folks. They really are I mean justice Justice Brennan for example is such a charming. Down to Earth. Ari Schulman great dinner. Dinner partner for example he can talk about anything. Shakespeare whether Shakespeare really was Shakespeare not. Chief Justice Rehnquist. Old Shoe type. Comes to work sometimes in heist Papias goes to go strolling around the Supreme Court neighborhood with one of his lockers almost every day as he puts it the clear is mine so he can think more more clearer....

Thurgood Marshall. First block ever to serve on the court. Tells the greatest stories. I've ever heard. I went into his office one day. Met him. Really talked to him for the first time I spent an hour and a half the producer and I spent an hour and a half there. And he told us one. Great story after one great story was is just a marvelous raconteur Sandra Day O'Connor first woman ever to serve on the court. Very friendly very open. From the very first she thought this was a great project she thinks the court should be a much more open place. So they're just real people friendly convivial easy to work with can be had by this light. You know actually like this is why. Justice White person. He is somewhat standoffish personality. He was a great. All-American football player many many years ago at the University of Colorado. In a book which he wrote recently Chief Justice Rehnquist referred to the gruff personality. Of Justice White. Putting off lawyers and putting the fear of God in the lawyers when they came before the court. And when we sat down and talked about the oral arguments. I put the question to justice. Byron White are you really isn't timid a ting as you used to be to to the opposition football players is Justice Rehnquist and he said to Bill Rehnquist say that about me I can't believe you said that about me. It is one of the lighter moments. But he's a nice guy. And you know what he does he's a They've all got interesting little little habits and hobby is and Justice White's hobby is to play golf in his office. With this law clerks. He's got. There's a long haul eating from his office to to an office. At the. And obvious weed and what he's done is make a little golf course out of that on some days and they putt. And they put for pennies. I played him. Beat me get this guy....

Justice Scalia. He's. He too has a marvelous and whit. He struck me as as an exceedingly bright man. Exceedingly bright man. Always got a twinkle in his eye. How about that. Obviously he's going to be a major force on what you think that. Yes no question about it I mean he has a kind of intellectual mentality which just means at all times. Justice Stevens. Justice Stevens also a very very friendly very warm hospitable man. Great baseball fan you go into his office and there's a picture of Babe Ruth on the wall as you go into his office. Just the slack when I heard of the transplant. That's right....

Justice Blackmun as well the thing that really surprised me about Justice Blackmun. When we sat down and we did our filming. What goes on at the. At the justices conference. Conferences where they make their decision. There was Justice Brennan Justice O'Connor and Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Blackmun. And what really amazes me was the Sparkle which black one provided to that I always thought that block when it was a rather drive man but he's got a great sense of wit and he just I'm alive in those sessions. What about nice man Justice Kennedy did you get a chance to spend much time I didn't because we had finished our basic filming and we had a production schedule to meet. We have Justice Kennedy in the final scene of the first program right after he'd been sworn in. You also include in a portion of the series. The reporters who cover the court. And what it's like to be up there why did you include that. What we did Conny in the first program. We used the vehicle. Of a petition being filed. At the court. To tell the story of what happens I'm sorry the second program. To tell the story of what goes on at the court and how the court. Handles petitions and cases. And it was a case from Louisiana....

We covered that case from the time the petition came to the court. All the way through. And the final scene is the hectic moment when the court announces the decision. And it's an important one and the reporters grab it and they've got to work very very fast and getting. Out and we show the Bedlam which takes place in the press room. During that time and so we just thought that that would be a fitting end. Now that would put us do not know when decisions are coming down. How did you know what day to go after count. Well. We had some indication that it was going to come down on one of two or three day is. And luckily for us the first day that we filmed. It came down. But we had no actual knowledge that it was coming down. You mentioned that there were you had filmed actually in the court about a year. At the beginning of this project goes back much further than that right. It goes back several years because actually. Actually I began to think about it. When I was still doing a lot of stories on Capitol Hill. And I had some correspondence with Chief Justice Warren Burger. Far back as one nine hundred seventy seven. And then about. I couldn't get any interest on the part of the court. And I talked with the court's press officer and I had some communication with Chief Justice Berger who did who did not encourage me. And the press officer certainly didn't encourage me. But about once a year we'd have lunch and I talk about it and gradually I think they became where aware of the fact that it might be an interesting project. And it would be in my whole approach was to make it an educational enterprise so people would know a lot more about the court. Gradually I began to break down these barriers and in one thousand nine hundred eighty five Chief Justice Berger began to relent and indicated that he might be willing to approve the project. Eventually under certain restrictions. He did in Dorset. And then he left the court. He retired and....

Bill Rehnquist became the chief. And I want to see Chief Justice Rehnquist and he endorsed at the meeting he had no qualms about. And as a matter of fact he removed most of the restrictions which had been imposed by by Warren Burger. So in a way it was a lucky break for us. That burger. Burger retired and Rehnquist became the chief. What were some of the most difficult things to do in terms of this period. I guess. Access is the most. Thing that come to tap on my mind. When did you have it would have a lot of requests you had that were turned down by just like sure we didn't get everything we wanted we would love to have filmed an argument and actual argument taking place in the court. We didn't get that we would love to have filmed the justices....

Making speeches or meeting with groups. At at the at the court. And a lot of those they turned down. There were little things there were some little things that we wanted to get such as the swearing in of Justice Kennedy and. We were not permitted to do that. So we certainly didn't get everything we wanted by any means but the fact that we were permitted to go inside the halls and to show the justices working with their law clerks and to show various scenes of them and to show them together and able us to get enough to really put it all together and to come alive. Everybody else aside what did you personally know you've been on the hell you said for quite some time. What did you learn. THE COURT. It's been a real education from economy. No question. I come away with a greater appreciation for the court. I think that the justices are really. Conscientious public servants. I think they take their job. Really quite seriously. I think the press sometimes makes much ado too much of a liberal versus conservative split. I don't think they think in those terms by and large. Even though there is it is a logical division on the court. And there always will be. I also come away with the feeling having studied the court. That over the years the court buying are just serve the country well they were. Some periods when the court didn't. And the third thing I come away with is a great appreciation for Chief Justice John Marshall. The first great justice. We were so lucky to have had that man. To serve a thirty four years because during that period. There was a great struggle in this country. As to whether the national government was going to be supreme or the states were going to be supreme. And in Decision after decision. Marshall was able to well. The court as a great force for national supremacy. And there might not be a United States of America today. If it not been for John Marshall. With me he is right up there in the pantheon of heroes. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. I just have such a such a great appreciation today. But John Marshall. What it cost thirty. It cost us. Roughly....

A little less than a million dollars to do it worth it to me it was to me it was because it is never been done before. And as you