THOMAS. >> JUSTICE THOMAS, WE'RE SITTING IN THE SUPREME COURT CONFERENCE ROOM FOR THIS CONVERSATION, DO YOU HAVE A MEMORY OF THE FIRST TIME YOU EVER WALKED INSIDE THIS ...

BUILDING. >> WELL, I DO. I WAS A HILL STAFFER IN THE RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING. IN THE EARLY 1980'S, BOB LEE, MAYBE EVEN AS EARLY AS 1979. AND I LOVED THE CITY. I WOULD WALK OVER TO THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS AND THEN THE NEW MADISON BUILDING. AND I POKED MY HEAD IN THIS BUILDING ONE DAY. AND WAS OVERWHELMED BY WHAT I SAW. AND I IMMEDIATELY LEFT. I ONLY GOT AS FAR AS THE GREAT HALL. >> WHY IS THAT? >> THE SUPREME COURT IS SPECIAL. IT WAS SPECIAL WHEN I WAS A KID. ...

IT'S SPECIAL FOR WHAT IT'S DONE, WHAT IT SYMBOLIZES. AND UNLIKE THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, I LOVE LIBRARIES. IT'S JUST INTERESTING. THE SUPREME COURT WAS -- IT WAS AWESOME IN A SENSE. THAT IT WAS SOMEPLACE MAYBE I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO BE HERE. AND I WAS RELATIVELY YOUNG. BUT THAT WAS MY FIRST FORAY INTO THE BUILDING. AND I DIDN'T COME INTO IT AGAIN FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. AND EVENTUALLY CAME TO A FEW EVENTS HERE. AND JUST BRIEFLY BEFORE I WAS NOMINATED, ONE OF MY FORMER LAW CLERKS TOOK ME ON A VERY, VERY BRIEF TOUR OF THE BUILDING. BUT THAT WAS ABOUT IT BEFORE I CAME AS A MEMBER OF THE COURT. >> AND DID ANY OF THOSE VISITS, DO YOU REMEMBER FEELING ASPIRATIONAL LIKE THIS IS THE PLACE I COULD -- >> OH, GOODNESS, NO. THIS WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT I COULD LOOK FORWARD TO OR THINK ABOUT. I HAD ACTUALLY NOT THOUGHT ABOUT BEING A JUDGE, THE EASTERNY WAS THAT I HAD BEEN APPROACHED ABOUT -- THE EASTERNY WAS THAT I HAD BEEN APPROACHED ABOUT BECOMING A MEMBER OF THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT. IN MY EARLY 30'S. AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS FAR TOO YOUNG. AND I DID NOT KNOW WHETHER OR NOT I WANTED TO BE A JUDGE. I DIDN'T THINK I DID. >> WHY DOES AGE MATTER WHEN YOU'RE A JUDGE? >> OH, I THINK AT SOME POINT MAYBE WE ALL MATURE AT DIFFERENT RATES. PROBABLY DO. ...

BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE ARE DECISIONS WE MAKE AT 40 OR 50 THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE MADE AT 20 OR 30. I THINK THAT YOU HAVE JUDGMENT THAT COMES FROM HAVING HAD EXPERIENCES. AND EXPERIENCE. THAT YOU DON'T HAVE IN THE EARLY YEARS. >> I WAS INTERESTED IN THAT -- THE TOUR THAT YOUR FORMER CLERK GAVE YOU OF THE BUILDING. ...

WHEN YOU TAKE PEOPLE ON TOURS, WHERE ARE THE PLACES THAT YOU LIKE TO TAKE THEM? >> OH, I DON'T DO TOURS. >> NOT EVEN FOR FRIENDS AND FAMILY? >> NO. I REALLY CAN'T SAY I DO MUCH. BUT THE WHOLE BUILDING IS SPECIAL TO ...

ME. THE PEOPLE IN THE BASEMENT OF THE BUILDING TO ME IS SPECIAL. EVERY ROOM IS SPECIAL. THE VARIOUS GARDENS AROUND HERE SPECIAL. I THINK THAT IF I HAD TO ENVISION WHAT A SUPREME COURT SHOULD LOOK LIKE, THIS IS IT. I WOULDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING. THERE ARE SOME TIMES WHEN -- PARTICULARLY IN MY EARLY YEARS, YOU HEAR LATE AT NIGHT, YOU DIDN'T HAVE ALL THIS CONNECTIVITY THAT WE HAVE NOW WHERE YOU'RE FREE TO WORK AT HOME. BUT YOU GET DRAINED. YOU'RE TIRED. YOU'RE KIND OF WONDERING WHY AM I DOING THIS? AND I WOULD JUST SIMPLY LEAVE THE BUILDING AND GO AROUND FRONT AND LOOK AT THIS INSTITUTION FROM THAT SIDE. AND IT'S HARD NOT TO GET GOOSE BUMPS OR IT'S NOT -- HARD NOT TO REALIZE THAT THIS IS MUCH LARGER THAN ME. I CAN REMEMBER WHEN I FIRST GOT HERE AND I WAS RELATIVELY YOUNG. IN THOSE DAYS. JUSTICE POWELL AND I WENT TO LUNCH. I BELIEVE AT THE MONACO. AND WE WERE RETURNING. AND HE LOOKED AT THIS BUILDING, OF COURSE, AT THAT TIME, HE HAD RETIRED FROM THE COURT AND WAS IN QUITE QUESTIONABLE HEALTH AND WAS RATHER FRAIL. BUT HE LOVED TO HAVE -- WE WERE THE TWO SOUTHERNERS ON THE COURT. SO WE LOVED TO HAVE LUNCH AND CHAT. AND HE LOOKED AT THIS BUILDING AS WE APPROACHED IT, AND HE SAID, ONCE YOU THINK YOU BELONG HERE, IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO LEAVE. THAT THIS INSTITUTION AND WHAT IT REPRESENTS AND WHAT WE DO IS MUCH LARGER THAN US. AND I THINK THE BUILDING REFLECTS THAT. IT SAYS TO EACH OF US THAT IT'S MUCH LARGER THAN US. >> COULD YOU SPOOK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT -- SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT -- YOU SAID THIS WAS THE PERFECT BUILDING BUT YOU VISITED STATE SUPREME COURTS AND COURTS IN OTHER COUNTRIES, WHAT IS IT ABOUT WHAT THE ARC TECH -- WHAT THE ARCHITECTS THAT CAPTURED IN THIS BUILDING THAT SYMBOLIZES THIS COURT? >> I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT OR -- >> BUT SOMETHING APPEALS TO YOU. WHAT IS IT? >> SOMETHING THAT TRANSCENDS JUST THE MUNDANE PART OF THE JOB. ...

THAT THERE'S AN IDEAL THAT IS BEYOND JUST THE DAY TO DAY, BACK AND FORTH, THE DISAGREEMENTS, THE OPINION WORK, READING THE BRIEFS. I REMEMBER WHEN I FIRST GOT HERE, SENATOR DANFORTH CAME OVER, THE CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST SWEARING ME IN. AND HE LOOKED AT THE ROWS OF BRIEFS THAT HAD TO BE READ. AND THE JOINT APPENDECES, HE SAYS CLARENCE, THIS LOOKS REALLY BORING. MAYBE THE MUNDANE PART OF IT IS. BUT IT'S FOR A GOOD REASON. AND I THINK THE -- THIS BUILDING, YOU CAN JUST LOOK AT IT. THE ARCHITECTURE, THE ROOMS, JUST THE ATMOSPHERE, HOW QUIET IT IS, HOW SERIOUS IT IS. IT SAYS TO YOU THAT THE WORK IS IMPORTANT. I THINK THE DANGER IS THAT SOMETIMES YOU CAN COME INTO A BUILDING LIKE THIS AND THINK IT'S ALL ABOUT YOU. OR THAT YOU'RE IMPORTANT. AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I DON'T THINK WORKS WELL WITH THIS JOB. AND I THINK THAT'S THE POINT THAT JUSTICE POWELL WAS MAKING. BUT AS FAR AS THE ARCHITECTURE AND THE SPECIFICS OF THAT, I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT ARCHITECTURE TO TELL YOU. IT'S JUST -- IT GIVES YOU THE SENSE OF THE AWESOMENESS OF THE INSTITUTION AND THE WORK. >> WELL, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE WORK. WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR REFLECTIONS ON THE ROLE OF THE COURT IN OUR SOCIETY TODAY. >> ...

OH, I DON'T KNOW -- I HAPPEN TO THINK THAT OUR JOB IS TO DECIDE CASES. WE'RE ARTICLE THREE JUDGES. AND MAYBE SOMETIMES THAT THERE'S SO MANY PROBLEMS THAT COME OUR WAY, AND THE ISSUES AND QUESTIONS THAT COME OUR WAY THAT WE HAVE A LARGER ROLE THAN THE FRAMERS ENVISIONED. BUT IT'S CERTAINLY ONE. THREE -- BUT IT'S CERTAINLY ONE OF THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. BEYOND THAT, DECIDING IMPORTANT THINGS ABOUT OUR SOCIETY. AND I DON'T HAVE A PARTICULAR VIEW THAT WE'RE LARGER THAN LIFE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. >> CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT YOUR JOB? >> WHICH PART? >> WELL, TELL ME -- DESCRIBE WHAT YOU DO. >> I DECIDE CASES. THAT'S IT. >> BUT THERE'S A LOT OF PROCESS THAT GOES INTO THAT. >> WELL, THERE IS, THERE IS, YOU'RE RIGHT. ...

AND THAT'S THE MUNDANE PART. YOU REMEMBER YEARS AGO THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL TV PROGRAMS ABOUT THE COURT. AND THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE SITCOMS. AND I JUST WONDERED WHO IN THE HECK IS GOING TO WATCH THAT. BECAUSE MOST OF IT IS RATHER SEDENTARY. YOU COME IN, YOU SIT. YOU GET YOUR WORK DONE. WHEN I FIRST GOT HERE, JUSTICE WHITE SAID THAT YOU HAVE TO GET A SYSTEM SO YOU DEVELOP A SYSTEM TO APPROACH EVERY CASE. YOU -- BECAUSE THERE'S NOBODY TO TELL YOU WHEN TO START. THERE'S NO GAME PLAN THAT'S SENT OUT BY ANYONE. THERE'S NO TIME LINE. YOU KNOW WHEN THE SITTINGS ARE. YOU KNOW WHAT'S IN THE -- WHAT THE CASES ARE GOING TO BE DEALT WITH. YOU KNOW WHEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR CONFERENCES. AND YOU MUST GET IT DONE. YOU MUST GET YOUR CERT WORK DONE, YOUR OPINION WRITING WORK DONE, ETC. I USUALLY DIVIDE THE WORK INTO THREE CATEGORIES. YOU HAVE TO DECIDE WHICH CASES COME HERE. YOU DECIDE THOSE CASES. AND THEN YOU WRITE OPINIONS. AND YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH OPINIONS. THAT'S IT. THE -- YOU CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR REVIEWING THE CERT PETITIONS. THOSE ARE THE REQUESTS. MOST PEOPLE THINK THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO COME TO THE COURT. FOR MOST PART, YOU DON'T. NOT THIS COURT. MAYBE -- THE COURT OF APPEALS, YOU NORMALLY DO. MAYBE THE STATE COURTS OF APPEAL AND FINAL -- THE COURTS THAT DON'T HAVE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION. THE COURTS OF LAST RESORT, MAYBE THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO GO TO THOSE. BUT HERE, MOST OF OUR JURISDICTION IS DISCRETIONARY. IN OTHER WORDS, WE DECIDE IF YOU COME. WE RECEIVE ABOUT 9,000 REQUESTS A YEAR. WE'LL -- IN THIS LAST FEW YEARS WE'VE TAKEN AROUND 80 CASES. NOW, THERE'S A PROCESS OF SORTING THROUGH THAT. AND I LIKE TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THOSE REQUESTS. WE DO THAT IN SHORT MEMORANDA. THEY'RE NOT SO SHORT. THEY'RE MEMORANDA WE CALL POOL MEMORANDA. TWO OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT ARE NOT IN THE POOL. IN OTHER WORDS, WE DON'T SHARE THAT MEMORANDUM WITH THEM. OR THE MEMORANDA WITH THEM. BUT I GO THROUGH ALL 9,000 OF THOSE. THAT'S JUST A REGULAR PROCESS. YOU DO THAT ALMOST EVERY DAY. AND DURING THE YEAR, I LIKE TO HAVE THAT DONE ON THE WEEKEND BEFORE THE CONFERENCE. WHICH IS NORMALLY ON FRIDAY. SO THAT'S A PART OF YOUR WORK DAY THAT YOU DON'T NORMALLY THINK ABOUT. IT'S ROUTINE. LIKE BRUSHING YOUR TEETH. AND IT'S CONTINUOUS. AS FAR AS PREPARING FOR ARGUED CASES, THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT WE'VE SAID WE WILL HEAR, THERE ARE TWO WAYS OF CASES -- TWO WAYS CASES ARE ARGUED. ONE IS IN WRITING AND THE OTHER IS ORAL ARGUMENT. MOST OF THE HEAVY LIFTING, MOST OF THE WORK IS DONE IN THE WRITTEN BRIEFS, THE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS BY THE PARTIES. THEY'RE USUALLY OVER 50 PAGES PER SIDE. WE HAVE DONE THIS BEFORE. AND WE'VE -- A LOT OF THESE AREAS WE'VE WORKED ON BEFORE. WHETHER IT'S THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, FIFTH AMENDMENT, WHETHER IT'S FIRST AMENDMENT. YOU'RE GETTING ANOTHER ITERATION OF AN OLD PROBLEM. YOU'RE GETTING ANOTHER VIEW, ANOTHER ASPECT OF IT. BUT IT'S NOT BRAND NEW. IT'S NOT PERRY MASON. THIS IS NOT SOME MYSTERIOUS THING GOING ON. WE KNOW WHERE THE LAW IS GOING AND THIS IS JUST ANOTHER PART OF IT. YOU READ THE BRIEFS. AND I HAVE WHAT I CALL -- WITH ALL FOUR OF MY LAW CLERKS, A CLERK CONFERENCE. SO WE ACTUALLY DEBATE IT BACK AND FORTH. OUT OF THAT WE PREPARE WHAT I CALL A DISPOSITION MEMORANDUM. THAT BECOMES SORT OF A DECISION TREE OF HOW THE CASE IS GOING TO BE -- MY VIEW OF THE CASE. WE HAVE ALL OF THIS BEFORE ORAL ARGUMENT. YOU GO TO ORAL ARGUMENT. AND I DON'T FIND THOSE AS USEFUL NOW BECAUSE I THINK THEY'RE -- THERE ARE FAR TOO MANY QUESTIONS. BUT WE ALL LEARN DIFFERENTLY. SO SOME MEMBERS, THE COURT LIKES THAT INTERACTION AND HELPS THEM LEARN AND PROCESS. WHAT THEY HAVE. BEEN THINKING OF. I PREFER TO LISTEN AND THINK IT THROUGH MORE QUIETLY. BUT EACH TO HIS OWN. AFTER ORAL ARGUMENT, I GO BACK AND MEET AGAIN WITH MY LAW CLERKS. AND AGAIN, WE THINK ABOUT IS THERE ANYTHING NEW FROM ORAL ARGUMENT TO ADD TO THE EQUATION? USUALLY THERE ARE A FEW THINGS. BUT NOTHING THAT TOTALLY CHANGES. WHAT WE'VE DONE BASED ON THE BRIEFS. AFTER THAT, WE WE GO TO FINAL ARGUMENTS. THE CASES THAT ARE ARGUED ON MONDAY ARE DECIDED ON WEDNESDAY AFTERNOONS. THE CASES THAT ARE ARGUED ON TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY TO DECIDE IT ON FRIDAY MORNING. I GO TO CONFERENCE WITH A DISPOSITION, AND THAT IS THE EXPLANATION FOR THE VOTE. THE SENIOR MEMBER IN THE MAJORITY VOTE, NORMALLY THE CHIEF JUSTICE, ASSIGNS WHO WRITES THE OPINION. YOU GET THE OPINION. NOW WHY ARE WE HAVEN'T OUTLINE, TOGETHER WITH MY NOTES FROM CONFERENCE. JUST LIKE WE WERE TAUGHT IN THE EIGHTH GRADE, YOU HAVE AN OUTLINE FOR THE ESSAY, YOU ALREADY HAVE AN OUTLINE FOR THE DRAFT, AND THAT IS BASICALLY THE PROCESS. YOU GO THROUGH THE DRAFT, IT IS CIRCULATED, AND THEN IS FINAL. O LEARN ...

MORE? >> YOU SURE CAN. >> LET ME START WITH PETITIONS CERTIORARI, CASES YOU WILL DECIDE TO HEAR. THE VOLUME VERSUS THE NUMBERS SELECTED, THE VOLUME OF PETITIONS KEEPS GROWING. IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THE NUMBER OF CASES HEARD CONTINUES TO LOWER SLIGHTLY EACH YEAR. WHY IS THAT? DOES THE COURT HEAR THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER? IN A TERM? >> WE HEAR WHAT'S CERT WORTHY. IT TAKES FOUR VOTES TO DECIDE WHAT COMES UP HERE. ...

WHEN I FIRST CAME ON THE COURT, WE HAD AROUND 120. BUT -- 110 OR SO. I LIKE THAT NUMBER. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD NUMBER. >> WHY DO YOU LIKE IT? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? >> IT KEEPS YOU BUSY. YOU HEAR FOUR CASES A DAY RATHER THAN TWO. IT'S SORT OF -- IT REALLY PUSHES THE PROCESS. ...

THE PROBLEM IS THIS. WE ONLY TAKE WHAT WE CALL CERT WORTHY. THERE HAS TO BE A SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL ISSUE. THERE IS USUALLY SOME CONFUSION WITH THE LOWER COURTS, WITH COURTS OF APPEALS OR THE STATE COURTS OF LAST RESORT. I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THERE MAY BE ONE OR TWO THAT I WOULD QUIBBLE WITH PER TERM. BUT THERE ISN'T SOME HUGE LIST TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE. THE NUMBER REFLECTS WHAT'S CERT WORTHY. MAYBE IT'S THE COURTS OF APPEALS ARE MORE IN AGREEMENT. MAYBE THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY MAJOR LEGISLATION THAT CHANGES THE LANDSCAPE. WHEN I FIRST CAME ONBOARD, YOU HAD THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. YOU HAD ARISA. -- YOU HAD ERISA. BUT NOT SEA CHANINGSE GOING ON OUT THERE. -- CHANGES GOING ON OUT THERE. OUR MANDATORY JURISDICTION HAS BEEN BASICALLY ELIMINATED. WHERE IT'S MINIMAL NOW. SO YOU DON'T HAVE THAT BIG POCKET. SO I CAN'T EXPLAIN IT AND I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN AND ANYTHING WE SAY WOULD BE SPECULATION. THERE IS NO DESIRE TO REDUCE THE NUMBERS ON MY PART OR TO MY THINKING AND ANYTHING I'VE SEEN ON THE PART OF ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES. >> SOME OF THE OTHER JUSTICES WE TALKED TO HAVE PARTICULAR AREAS OF REVIEW THAT THEY FIND IT MORE INTERESTING, STIMULATING, INTELLECTUALLY CHALLENGING. DO YOU? ARE THERE CERTAIN PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT YOU LOVE TO DIG INTO AND GET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT WITH A CASE? >> IT GOES AGAINST MY NATURE TO WANT TO MAKE BIG DECISIONS ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S ...

LIVES. THAT'S MY JOB. I DO IT. SO I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT I LOOK FORWARD TO WADING INTO THESE EXCITING AREAS. I LOOK FORWARD TO WATCHING MY NEBRASKA CORNHUSKERS. BUT I'M NOT GOING TO SAY I LOOK FORWARD. THIS IS ABOUT OUR COUNTRY AND OUR CONSTITUTION. AND I GET SORT OF MY GAME FACE ON. THAT THIS IS OUR JOB. THE CASES THAT I AM PERHAPS MOST EXCITED ABOUT ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE THE LEAST IMPACT ON PEOPLE'S LIVES. THAT THEN RELIEVES YOU OF SOME OF THAT BURDEN. THE WAY I TRY TO DO IT IS NOT SO MUCH TO GET SOME EXHILARATION FROM IT. BUT TO BE FAITHFUL TO THE CONSTITUTION, TO BE FAITHFUL TO THE OATH THAT I TOOK, TO UPHOLD IT AND TO INTERPRET IT. AND THE EXHILARATION I GET IS THAT THE -- AT THE END OF EACH TERM TO BE ABLE TO SAY I GAVE IT MY BEST SHOT. >> WILL YOU TALK ABOUT THE RECOGNITION THAT YOUR WORK AFFECTS PEOPLE'S LIVES, WHAT YOU JUST SAID, THE CASES -- THE CASES THAT YOU DON'T DIRECTLY HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE WAY THAT PEOPLE LIVE THEIR LIVES, WHY IS THAT? AND LET ME UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THERE. >> WELL, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR COUNTRY, THE -- SOME OF THE THINGS, DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE AND -- IN INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION, PEOPLE WIN, PEOPLE LOSE. ...

IF THEY HAVE -- THEY HAVE TREMENDOUS IMPACT. . YOU HAVE CASES INVOLVING EXECUTION OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS, YOU HAVE CASES INVOLVING CRIMINAL JUSTICE, FIRST AMENDMENT, WHAT CAN BE SEIZED FROM OTHER HUMAN BEINGS, FELLOW CITIZENS. I DO NOT GET JOLIE OUT OF MAKING DECISIONS LIKE THAT. WHAT I DO GET FULFILLMENT FROM IS LIVING UP TO THE OATH TO DO WITH THE RIGHT WAY AND TO KNOW THAT ON BEHALF OF MY FELLOW CITIZENS, I HAVE TRIED TO BE FAITHFUL TO THEIR CONSTITUTION, TO OUR CONSTITUTION. THAT IS WHERE THE EXHILARATION COMES, LIVING UP TO THE OATH THAT I TOOK AND THE OBLIGATIONS THAT I HAVE UNDER ARTICLE 3. >> ...

LET ME MOVE TO ARGUMENTS. HE RECORDS THE FACT THAT YOU LISTEN TO THE ARGUMENTS. WE HAVE READ AND HEARD FROM OTHER JUSTICES THAT SOMETIMES THE ARGUMENTS ARE USED FOR THE JUSTICES TO COMMUNICATE WITH ONE ANOTHER. ...

DO YOU FIND THAT HAPPENING ON LOT? >> I HAVE NO IDEA. >>

DO YOU PICK UP CUES FROM OTHER JUSTICES ABOUT WHERE THEY ARE GOING IN A PARTICULAR CASE? >> NOT REALLY.

NO CARRIER I THINK IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE ADVOCATE, THE LAWYERS, TO FILL IN HIS LIFE, TO MAKE THEIR CASE, TO POINT OUT THINGS THAT WERE PERHAPS NOT COVERED IN THE BRIEFS OR TO EMPHASIZE THINGS OR TO RESPOND TO SOME CONCERNS, THAT SORT OF THING. IN OTHER WORDS, TO FLESH OUT THE CASE A LITTLE BIT BETTER, TO GET INTO THE WEEDS A LITTLE BIT MORE. I THINK WE ARE HERE, THE NINE OF US, AND WE CAN TALK TO EACH OTHER IN A TIME THAT WE WANT TO. SO I JUST WOULD NOT USE THAT 30 MINUTES OF THE ADVOCATE'S TIME TO DO THAT, TO TALK TO EACH OTHER. BUT AGAIN, AS I SAID EARLIER, WE ALL LEARN DIFFERENTLY. MY BRIDE WOULD LEARN AND WHEN SHE WAS IN SCHOOL THAT SHE IS MORE INTERACTIVE. I AM NOT. CONNECT 1200 >> I LIKED IT THAT WAY BECAUSE IF LEFT BIG GAPS SO YOU COULD I THINK IT IS HARD TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WHEN NOBODY IS ...

LISTENING, WHEN YOU CANNOT COMPLETE SENTENCES OR ANSWERS. PERHAPS THAT IS THE SEVENTH THING, I DON'T KNOW. BUT I THINK HE SHOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO COMPLETE THEIR ANSWERS IN THEIR THOUGHT, AND TO CONTINUE THEIR CONVERSATION. I FIND THAT COHERENCE TO GET FROM A CONVERSATION FAR MORE HELPFUL THAN THE RAPID-FIRE QUESTIONS. I DO NOT SEE HOW YOU CAN LEARN A LOT FROM 50 QUESTIONS IN AN HOUR. >> LET ME MOVE TO THE PROCESS OF CONFERENCE, BECAUSE IT STILL FEELS MYSTERIOUS. ...

ALL OF YOU ARE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, AND NONE OF THE REST OF US EVER GET TO SEE. CAN YOU TELL US WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT ROOM? >>

IT SHOULD BE MYSTERIOUS. I CAN STILL REMEMBER THE FIRST TIME I'VE STEPPED FOOT IN THAT ROOM AND THOSE DOOR CLOSED -- THOSE DOORS CLOSED. IT IS DAUNTING THE FIRST FEW TIMES, BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE THE ACTUAL WORK AND THE DECISION MAKING TAKES PLACE. IT IS JUST THE NINE. THERE IS NO STAFF, NO RECORDING DEVICES, AND WE VOTE IN DESCENDING ORDER OF SENIORITY. IT IS A PROCESS, NORMALLY WHEN I WAS A STAFFER, HE ALWAYS HAD A SYSTEM -- ASSISTANTS BROWN. PEOPLE ARE ENGAGED IN A TALK ABOUT THE CASE. THEY ACTUALLY TELL YOU WHAT THEY THINK AND WHY. YOU RECORD THE VOTES AND THERE IS SOME BACK AND FORTH. CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST MOVED ALONG VERY QUICKLY. NOW THERE IS MORE BACK-AND-FORTH AND MORE DISCUSSION. WE NORMALLY HAVE ONE BREAK, AND THERE IS MORE DISCUSSION OF TO DECIDE ABOUT CASES. TO SEE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING THEIR BEST TO DECIDE HARD THINGS AND FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT THEIR VIEW, IT IS FASCINATING. THE THING THAT HAS BEEN GREAT, AND I JUST FINISHED MY 18TH TERM, AND I STILL HAVE NOT HEARD THE FIRST UNKIND WORD IN THAT ROOM. THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE DECIDED , LIFE AND DEATH, ABORTION, EXECUTION, WAR AND PEACE, FINANCIAL RUIN, GOVERNMENT RELATIONSHIPS, YOU NAME IT, WE HAVE DECIDED IT. AND I STILL HAVE NOT HEARD THE FIRST AD HOMINEM IN THAT ROOM. IT IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT DECISIONMAKING WOULD BE AT THE HIGHER LEVELS OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT IN ALL PARTS OF OUR COUNTRY. >> WHAT ENSURES THAT DECORUM? >> THE HUMAN BEINGS ON THAT COURT, AND PEOPLE WHO, IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, TO ONE DEGREE OR ANOTHER, UNDERSTAND IT IS NOT ABOUT THEM. ...

IT IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, OUR COUNTRY, AND OUR FELLOW CITIZENS. THEY DO NOT TAKE THEMSELVES SERIOUSLY AS THEY TAKE THE WORK OF THE COURT. >>

WE HAVE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT THE MANY CONDITIONS THE COURT PASSES DOWN FROM COURT TO COURT. SOME OF THOSE HAPPENED IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM, SUCH AS THE HANDSHAKE. HOW IMPORTANT ARE SYMBOLS AND TRADITIONS TO THE PROCESS THAT HAPPENS HERE? >> I THINK THE ...

HANDSHAKE, WHETHER YOU ARE IN SPORTS OR CHURCH OR OTHER ACTIVITIES, IT MEANS SOMETHING. WE CAN SENSE WHEN SOMEBODY IS PHONY. THESE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM ARE GENUINE. IT IS WARM AND PROFESSIONAL. THERE IS ALWAYS A HANDSHAKE BEFORE WE GO ON THE BENCH, WHEN WE SEE EACH OTHER FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING THE DAY, WE ALWAYS MAKE SURE WE SHAKE HANDS, WHETHER IN PUBLIC OR PRIVATE. THERE IS A SENSE OF COURTESY AND DECENCY AND STABILITY. ON THE DAYS THAT WORK, WHETHER WE ARE ON THE BENCH OR IN CONFERENCE, WOULD GO TO LUNCH TOGETHER. IN THE EARLY YEARS, WHEN I FIRST CAME HERE, WE HAD THAT LUNCH IN A SMALL ROOM OFF THE DINING ROOM. JUSTICE O'CONNOR INSISTED THAT WE HAVE LUNCH EVERY DAY WHEN WE WERE SITTING. "NOW, CLARENCE, YOU SHOULD COME TO LUNCH." SHE WAS REALLY SWEET BUT VERY PERSISTENT. I CAME TO LUNCH, AND IT WAS ONE OF THE BEST THINGS I DID. IT IS HARD TO BE ANGRY OR BITTER AT SOMEONE AND BREAK BREAD AND LOOK THEM IN THE EYE. IT IS A FINE LUNCH. VERY LITTLE WORKED ITS DONE THERE. IT IS JUST NINE PEOPLE, EIGHT PEOPLE, WHOEVER SHOWS UP, HAVING A WONDERFUL LUNCH. SO THE TRADITIONS I THINK ARE IMPORTANT. IT IS LIKE TRADITIONS IN OUR SOCIETY, THEY DEVELOP OVER TIME, AND IT HELPS SUSTAIN US IN THE OTHER WORK THAT WE DO. >> ...

THE CHEEK MAKES THE ASSIGNMENT AS TO WHO WILL WRITE THE OPINION -- THE CHIEF MAKES THE ASSIGNMENT. HE TOLD US THAT HE TRIES TO BE JUDICIOUS IN HANDING OUT THE ASSIGNMENTS. DO YOU EVER HAVE A SENSE OF OR A LOBBY THAT THIS IS ONE YOU WOULD LIKE TO TACKLE? >> ...

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST'S APPROACH ME SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND SAID THAT I HAD NOT LOBBIED HIM FOR ANYTHING, WAS THERE ANYTHING I WANTED? I SET THE MISSOURI SALES TAX CASE I WOULD REALLY LIKE, BUT I TRULY BELIEVE THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS FAIR IN WHAT HE DOES. IT IS HIS JOB TO MAKE THE ASSIGNMENTS. IF WE ARE ON THE SAME SIDE, I WRITE THE OPINION, AND I TRY TO BE FAITHFUL IN DRAFTING THE OPINION. BUT I DO NOT LOBBY FOR OPINIONS. THE ONLY TIME I WOULD ASK FOR ASSIGNMENTS IS IF I HAVE WORK IMBALANCES IN MY CHAMBERS. OTHER THAN THAT, I DO NOT LOBBY. I WRITE THE OPINION BECAUSE I THINK I AM THE BEST PERSON TO WRITE IT. IT MAY BE ONE WHERE THE COURT IS A LITTLE BIT FRACTURED, AND I THINK HAVE A WAY OF PULLING US TOGETHER, BUT THAT IS NOT AN EGO THING. LET'S GET THIS DONE, AND MAYBE WE CAN GET EVERYBODY ON BOARD IF I TRY IT THIS WAY. IF YOU CANNOT, AT LEAST TO HAVE GIVEN IT THE COLLEGE TRY. BUT I DO NOT REALLY LOBBY FOR IT. >> ...

THE INTELLECTUALLY APPROACH THE WRITING OF AN OPINION DIFFERENT THAN A DISSENT? >> YES, YOU ARE AN AGENT OF THE MAJORITY WHEN YOU WRITE THE MAJORITY OPINION. THAT IS THE WAY I APPROACH THAT. WHAT YOU TRY TO DO, LET'S TAKE FOR EXAMPLE ...

THAT A LOAN, AND I WILL PUT IT UP -- NUMERICALLY SO IT IS EASIER TO FOLLOW. LET'S SAY I WOULD GO THE SAME DIRECTION AND I WOULD GO 80 YARDS. THE MAJORITY ONLY WANTS TO GO 60. I WOULD WRITE THE OPINION TO GO 60, AND NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT I WOULD ALSO GO THE OTHER 20 YARDS. IF I WERE WRITING A CONCURRENT DISSENT ON MY OWN, I WOULD WRITE THE OPINION IN A WAY THAT REFLECTS THAT I WOULD GO 80. SO WE ARE GOING THE SAME WAY. I WOULD NOT WRITE AN OPINION THAT WENT IN ANY DIRECTION THAT WAS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I ACTUALLY THOUGHT WE SHOULD GO. BUT YOU HAVE TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS IN THE APPROACH TO THE OPINION TO REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE MAJORITY. IF YOU CANNOT DO THAT, THEN YOU SHOULD NOT WRITE THE OPINION. >> ...

DID YOU READ THE MAJOR AND LONGTIME REPORTERS? >>

I RARELY READ ANYTHING ABOUT THE CURRENT EVENTS ABOUT THE COURTS. THERE IS A REASON WHY DON'T READ IT. I THINK THERE ARE WONDERFUL PEOPLE OUT HERE WHO DO A GOOD JOB LIKE JAN GREENBERGER, BUT I NORMALLY DO NOT FOLLOW CURRENT EVENTS. I MIGHT LOOK AT A FEW THINGS AT THE END OF THE TERM THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION, BUT I DO NOT WANT TO GET DISTRACTED. A LOT OF THE REALLY GOOD ATHLETES DO NOT READ PRESS CLIPPINGS. MY JOB IS TO DECIDE CASES. PEOPLE CAN WRITE WHAT THEY WANT TO WRITE ABOUT IT. THAT IS UP TO THEM. MY JOB IS TO DECIDE CASES. >> ...

IN THE YEAR SINCE YOU HAVE BEEN APPOINTED, WHEN A NEW ASSISTANT JUSTICE IS UP BEFORE THE SENATE FOR CONFIRMATION, DO YOU FOLLOW THAT PROCESS AT ALL? >> ONLY WHAT I CANNOT AVOID. ...

I DID NOT HAVE FOREIGN EXPERIENCES UP THERE, AND I JUST DO NOT WISH THAT ON ANYONE. SOMETHING JUSTICE WHITE SAID WHEN I FIRST GOT HERE HAS STUCK WITH ME. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW YOU GOT HERE, IT MATTERS WHAT DO AFTER YOU HAVE GOTTEN HERE. THAT HAS ALWAYS STUCK WITH ME. THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT APPOINTED BY A DIFFERENT PRESIDENTS, WHEN THEY WALK IN THIS BUILDING THAT BECOME PART OF THE NINE. WE WORK WITH THEM. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THAT THEY ARE GOOD PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSCIENTIOUS AND TRY TO DO THE JOB IN THE BEST WAY THEY CAN, CONSISTENT WITH THEIR OWN. I RESPECT THAT, AND I HAVE TO RESPECT THAT AND BELIEVE THEY WILL DO THAT. AGREEMENT IS NOT A CONSIDERATION. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME. I AM CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO AGREE WITH THEM JUST TO BE AGREEING WITH THEM. BUT I DO NOT REALLY FOLLOW THAT. >> THE COURT IS ABOUT TO WELCOME A NEW ASSOCIATE JUSTICE. ...

WHEN YOU WATCH INJUSTICES COME ON BOARD, HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE BEFORE THEY GET? >> I THINK WE ALL LEARN AT DIFFERENT PACES.

WHEN I CAME TO THE COURT, I ASKED THAT SAME QUESTION. IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR ME TO FIGURE OUT WHAT I WOULD GET MY SEA LEGS. THE COMMON NUMBER WAS FIVE YEARS, AND JUSTICE WHITE WOULD OFTEN SAY IT TAKES ABOUT THAT LONG TO GO AROUND THE FULL HORROR OF ALL THE CASES AND KINDS OF CASES THAT WE GET IT -- THE FULL HORN OF ALL THE CASES. IT DOES NOT MEAN YOU CANNOT DO YOUR WORK. IT JUST MEANS THAT THINGS ARE STILL NEW FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS. YOU MAY NOT HAVE HAD AS MANY OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CASES INVOLVING WATER RIGHTS ARE BOUNDARIES. YOU MAY NOT HAVE HAD A LOT OF ADMIRALTY CASES. SO YOU GET ALL OF THAT. WHEN I WAS COMPLAINING IN MY FIRST YEAR, I LOOK AROUND AND SEE PEOPLE LIKE JUSTICE REHNQUIST WHO HAD BEEN THERE FOR ALMOST THREE DECADES, AND JUSTICE WHITE TO IS LEGENDARY, JUSTICE O'CONNOR -- HE SAID CLARENCE, IN YOUR FIRST FIVE YEARS YOU WONDER HOW YOU GOT HERE. AFTER THAT, YOU WONDER HOW YOUR COLLEAGUES GOT HERE. I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THAT IS TRUE EXACTLY, BUT IT CERTAINLY IS AN INDICATION THAT A FIVE- YEAR PERIOD WAS FAIRLY WELL ACCEPTED AS THE BREAK-IN. >> WHAT AFFECTS THE TENOR OF ANY PARTICULAR ...

COURT MORE, THE COMPOSITION OF NEW JUSTICES COMING IN? >> THE CHIEF IS THE CHIEF.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST'S STYLE WAS DIFFERENT FROM CHEESED UP THIS -- FROM CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS' STYLE. CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST COULD HAVE BEEN MY FATHER FROM THE STANDPOINT OF AGE. HE WAS MORE, LET'S KEEP THE TRAINS RUNNING. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS DOES NOT PUSH LIKE THAT. AS FAR AS THE COMPOSITION, YOU ARE BRINGING IN A FAMILY MEMBER, AND CHANGES THE WHOLE FAMILY. IT IS DIFFERENT TODAY THAN WHAT IT WAS WHEN I FIRST GOT HERE. I HAVE TO ADMIT, YOU GROW VERY FOND OF THE COURT, SINCE SHE'S BEEN SUCH A LONG TIME. THERE WAS A TIME WHEN CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST AND JUSTICE O'CONNOR, WE HAD A LONG RUN TOGETHER. YOU GET COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, AND THEN IT CHANGES. NOW IS CHANGING AGAIN. SO THE INSTITUTION OF THE NINE IS DIFFERENT. THE REACTION IS DIFFERENT. YOU HAVE TO LEARN EACH OTHER AND START ALL OVER. THE CHEMISTRY IS DIFFERENT. >> ...

ARE THERE ANY THROUGHOUT HISTORY THAT YOU FIND THAT YOU REFERRED TO FREQUENTLY AS GIVING GOOD GUIDANCE, GOOD INTELLECTUAL DIRECTION? >>

I FIND PEOPLE I HAVE SERVED WITH, AND THE MEMBER OF THE COURT I REFER BACK TO WAS THE FIRST JUSTICE HARLAN. I JUST -- HE ADMITS HIS OWN BIASES BUT INSISTED THAT THE CONSTITUTION KNOWS NO CAST. I MIGHT HAVE A BIAS, BUT NOT THE DOCUMENT. THAT, TO ME, IS JUDGING, TO ADMIT THAT YOU MAY HAVE A WEAKNESS OR A PROBLEM, BUT WE CANNOT READ THAT INTO THIS DOCUMENT. THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT WITH WHOM I HAVE SERVED HAVE BEEN WONDERFUL TO ME. YOU LEARN FROM PEOPLE. THERE IS NO SADDER DAY THAN WHEN A MEMBER OF THIS COURT LEAVES. WHEN JUSTICE SOUTER ANNOUNCED THAT HE WAS LEAVING, REMEMBER I SERVED 18 YEARS WITH HIM. HE BECOMES YOUR FRIEND. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO AGREE, BUT HE IS YOUR FRIEND. WHEN YOU HEAR ONE OF YOUR COLLEAGUES IS SICK, IT IS ONE OF YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS WHO IS SICK. SO MUCH IS MADE OF WHETHER WE AGREE OR DISAGREE. CAN YOU THINK OF ANY HUMAN BEING WITH WHOM YOU AGREE ON EVERYTHING, LARGE OR SMALL? IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. BUT THEY ARE PEOPLE YOU FEEL A CLOSENESS WITH, PEOPLE YOU HAVE DONE A JOB WITH, PEOPLE YOU HAVE BEEN THROUGH DIFFICULT DECISION MAKING PROCESSES WITH. YOU FEEL A CLOSENESS, AND YOU HAVE DONE IT IN A WAY YOU THINK HAS BEEN RESPECTFUL TO EACH OTHER AND TO THE INSTITUTION AND TO YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS. >> ...

THAT WE MOVE TO THE COURT AND THE PUBLIC. WE JUST RECENTLY HAD A SURVEY OF A THOUSAND PEOPLE. A MAJORITY OF THE RESPONDENTS COULD NOT NAME ONE SITTING JUSTICE. WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO THAT? IS THAT APPROPRIATE? >> THAT MAY BE A REFLECTION ON THE WAY WE TEACH CIVICS, BUT I DO NOT THINK THAT EVERYONE HAS TO KNOW WHO WE ARE. ...

I THINK WOULD PREFER THAT THEY KNOW A FEW OF US WHO ARE MAKING BIG DECISIONS THAT AFFECT THEIR COUNTRY AND THEIR LIVES. WHEN I WAS A KID, WE TOOK SIX AND WE WERE REQUIRED TO LEARN THOSE BASIC -- WE TOOK SIX, AND WE WERE REQUIRED TO LEARNIT THINGS. -- WE TICK CIVICS. I WOULD PREFER THAT THEY KNEW LITTLE MORE ABOUT THE COURT. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF THOSE PEOPLE ALSO KNEW WHO THEIR CONGRESSMAN WORK. -- TO THEIR CONGRESSMEN WERE. I DO NOT THINK IT IS NECESSARY TO GET INTO EVERY ASPECT OF THEIR LIVES. MAYBE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT KNOW WHO ALL THE FEDERAL JUDGES ARE IN THEIR DISTRICT. MAYBE WE SHOULD NOT BE ANY MORE VISIBLE THAN WE ARE. WE ARE NOT POLITICIANS. I DO NOT THINK WE HAVE TO BE THAT PUBLIC. WE SHOULD DO OUR JOB IF WE SPEAK AS AN INSTITUTION. THEY ARE AWARE OF THE SUPREME COURT. MAYBE THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH. I AM THE 106TH MEMBER OF THE COURT. I THINK SOMETIMES WE MAKE TOO MUCH OF WHO IS HERE NOW, BECAUSE WHEN YOU GO BACK, IT IS HARD TO REMEMBER WHO WAS HERE BEFORE. YOU CHALLENGE PEOPLE TO NAME THE 20 DEAD MEMBERS OF THE COURT. THEY WOULD BE HARD PRESSED, EVEN PEOPLE WHO CONSIDER THEMSELVES COURT FOLLOWERS. >> TO THAT END, THE MINORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF RESPONDENTS WHO COULD NAME ANY JUSTICES, THREE WERE NAMED, AND YOU WERE AMONG THE THREE. ...

WHEN YOU GO OUTSIDE THIS PLACE, OR YOUR FREQUENTLY RECOGNIZED? >> YES, THE ANONYMITY IS GONE.

THAT WAS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MORE DIFFICULT THINGS TO ACCEPT , THE LOSS OF ANONYMITY, THE ABILITY TO WALK DOWN THE MALL AND NOTICE OR TO GO TO HOME DEPOT AND NOTICED. >> BECAUSE OF THE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS? >> NO, THOSE HAVE BEEN 18 YEARS ...

AGO, BUT STILL, I AM THE ONLY BLACK GUY UP HERE, SO I AND EASIER TO RECOGNIZE. JUSTICE O'CONNOR WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO IS EASIER TO PICK ONE PERSON OUT WHO IS DIFFERENT. I THINK HAVE ENJOYED SUCH POSITIVE PRESS AND NOTORIETY, SO I THINK THAT MAY BE A PART OF IT. I HAVE NO IDEA. >> WHEN PEOPLE COME UP TO YOU, WHAT ARE THE INTERACTIONS LIKE? >> THEY ARE ALWAYS VERY PLEASANT. ...

THEY ARE NICE PEOPLE, BUT PEOPLE ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENS UP HERE IS WE TEND TO BE VERY HEAVILY NORTHEASTERN IN OUR MENTALITY. EIGHT OF THE NINE OF US ARE FROM IVY LEAGUE SCHOOLS. THIS COURT DOES NOT REPRESENT ALL REGIONS OF THE COUNTRY. THERE IS A TENDENCY, AND EASIEST TO SORT OF STAY -- TO BE ALMOST CLIQUEISH IN THAT REGARD. I LIKE GETTING AROUND OTHER CITIZENS IN THE COUNTRY, THE PEOPLE WHO PUT OUT FIRES, BUILD OUR HOMES, AND FIGHT OUR WARS. I LIKE BEING AROUND THEM. I ALSO LIKED THE IDEA THAT THEIR KIDS CAN COME UP HERE AND CLARK, THAT THEY CAN BE A PART OF ALL THIS. SO I HAVE LOST THE ANONYMITY, AND I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE THAT BACK, BUT THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. BUT THE GOOD PART IS TO HAVE PEOPLE -- REGULAR PEOPLE, AND TALK WITH ME. THERE ARE SOME WONDERFUL EXCHANGES. I TAKE MY CLERKS TO GETTYSBURG YEAR. A GENTLEMAN CAME UP AND WAS OUT OF BREATH. HE HAD A MARITIME COMMISSION CASE. HE HAD MY OPINION AND SAID WOULD YOU SIGN THIS FOR ME? OR YOU HAVE SOMEONE WHO COMES UP AND SAYS THANKS FOR WRITING YOUR OPINIONS IN A WAY THAT I CAN UNDERSTAND THEM. HE DID NOT SAY HE AGREED, BUT HE CAN UNDERSTAND THEM. IN OTHER WORDS, THE CONSTITUTION HAS BECOME ACCESSIBLE TO HIM AGAIN, THE LOSS ABOUT HIS CONSTITUTION ARE ACCESSIBLE TO HIM. THAT IS WHAT WE TRY TO DO, TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE PEOPLE WHO COME UP TO YOU HAVE A PART OF THIS INSTITUTION AND FEEL PART OF THIS INSTITUTION. SO IS NOT ALL MYSTERIOUS. >> SO THE IDEA THAT WHEN YOU GET INTO THAT MOTOR COACH YOU ON AND GO AROUND THE ...

COUNTRY, -- 9 >> THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS I WANTED TO GO AND RIDE AROUND. SOMEONE SAID THE NICEST PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY ARE IN RV PARTS. I HAVE DONE NOTHING TO DISAGREE WITH THAT. THEY ARE NICE AND NEIGHBORLY AND FRIENDLY. THEY ARE GOOD PEOPLE. WE SEEM TO BE AT EACH OTHER'S THROATS IN THIS TOWN. THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE OUT THERE YOU CAN SIT DOWN AND HAVE A CUP OF COFFEE WITH AND TALK ABOUT THE GAME OR THE WEATHER OR HOW GOOD THE COUNTRY IS, PROBLEMS THAT WE ALL HAVE, AND MAY BE LITTLE MORE CIVIL WITH EACH OTHER. I THINK MY FOCUS IS MORE ON REGULAR CITIZENS. IT IS NOT ON WHO WRITES ABOUT US OR RIGHTS LAW REVIEW ARTICLES. IT IS ON THE GUY WHO CAME UP TO ME AT GETTYSBURG, OR THE MAN WHO YOU RUN INTO AT HOME DEPOT, OR THE PERSON WHO HAS JUST RETURNED FROM A WAR, OR THE PERSON WHO TEACHES YOUR KID. THESE ARE A EXPERIENCES IN THE TRUCK STOPS, REST OF US, THE THINGS THAT STAY WITH YOU. YOU ASK ME ABOUT THE OPINIONS THAT YOU ARE EXHILARATE ABOUT. WHAT EXHILARATES ME, MEETING THOSE PEOPLE AND LETTING THEM KNOW THAT THIS MEMBER OF THE COURT ENJOYS THE SAME THINGS THAT THEY ENJOY, AND THIS MEMBER OF THE COURT IS WILLING TO BE WHERE YOU ARE IN THIS RV PARK, ENJOYING THE SIMPLE THINGS ABOUT THIS COUNTRY AND IS WILLING TO LISTEN TO WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY, NOT ABOUT THE CASES, BUT ABOUT OUR COUNTRY AND THE THINGS WE HAVE A MUTUAL INTEREST IN. >> ...