and. >> and on road to the white house michele bocachmann campaigning. >> john paul stevens of back at his 34.5 years on the board and speaks about his new book.

>> you have a book called "five chiefs: a supreme court memoir." why? >> it is about the chief justice of the united states. at that personal contact. -- i have that personal contact with the most recent five. >> let me put a slide that shows these by the names and the times that they were serving. this starts with fred. 17.en burgreer, john roberts, 6 years.

starting with fred vinson. what did you write about 10? >-- about him. >> two parts. there is the discussion of his appointment and about his work. it is partly about the observations. we were born from the same days. we have a lot of reasons to be friends. is save me some things in the book. it the second source was the year ahead when i was working

for another justice. i had some chances to come in contact with chief justice vinson during that period i s. i speak about those i have personal contact with and some of the opinions he wrote, particularly in year i was in the court. >> what year did you clerk at the court? >> october 1949. i said sometime in september of 47. i was there until june or early july. >> that year you were there, what did you take away? >> we took away some wonderful

friendships with those in other chambers. i learned a lot about the law and working at the supreme court. things are still pretty much the same. it was very rewarding. >> how did you get that? >> that is a long story, too. the congress authorized a second clerkship. it was the summer of 1947. justice rutledge decided to hire a second clerk. he was approached by two members of the faculty in in northwestern. -- of the faculty in northwestern. he had worked for vinson when he

was a court of appeals judge. he asked simpson and rutledge to take advantage of the opportunity and statutes. they persuaded them that two northwestern graduate to be well qualified. the two that were qualified for my good friend sieger and i. both of us wereose of qualified. later in the spring, they had a meeting with us at northwestern and told us that they thought the scholarships were certainly available. they were not sure which one should go for which the job. they suggested they would like us to make that decision.

as it turned out, at the correct ship with rutledge was available the following year -- the clerkship with rutledge was available the following year and the one let vinson the following year. we both felt we were ancient citizens because we had experience in in war and we thought we were older than we were. we were both anxious anto get into the professional world. it might be better job. it's gonna like flipping a coin.

other members of the faculty supported application and supported thepersuaded the othet we were qualified. >> [inaudible] >> i took labor law from him. >> is your friend arch still alive? >> yes. >> you have lived a long time. 91 years? >> yes. art and i were born on the same day. >> what have you to done that has kept to a live? >> this was exercise. we have good advice from our respective spouses.

>> where does he live now? >> go back to fred vinson. was he a big man? where did he come from? >> he was not a big man. he was heavy. he was a heavy man. this was one of the instances i worked into their. it was back to the hotel where he lives. i would occasionally have to drive home in this beat up old force. he was heavy. he remembered driving up and the

doorman seeing his car. until he saw the chief justice's teaches them in a much more cordial way. >> he was there for seven years. do you remember what significant impact he had on the board and how it ran? >> as far as i could tell, it ran well. there was some feeling in year or two before that there was some friction with in the court, particularly jackson was concerned that he did not become chief himself. there was some feeling that there might have been some antagonism between jackson and hugo black. i never actually witnessed

anything like that. there has been a lot of writing about that. i mention it because there was a sense there might be some antagonism within the course at the time. i found entirely different. i remember at a conference of around 1970 or so, throw good marshall went to chicago. there is impossible antagonism.

good is an honorable man. it turned out to be true. it is a very personal relationship. those are really excellent. that was true during my entire tenure. >> what impact did vinson have of brown versus the board of education? >> he was the chief during the first argument. he died before they were able to decide it. they know exactly what the whole role in the process was. i think he was the chief. he makes this on historical issues. he has read a lot of reading

about the history. it is what about the sponsors of the amendment were. a lot of that was suggested. a lot was to have the role in the deliberations. this is when it was decided. this had very little to do with it. >> a want to scream -- i want to scream at some other statistics. -- screen some other statistics. there are 112 justices. william douglas are the longest.

-- served the longest. he served 12,611 days. you were three days short of been the second-largest serving in history. did you know that? >> i really did not. people often ask me if i was trying to set a record. i particularly did not want to be remembered for the length of my service. it is a testament to the quality of the service or its importance. icing may be i may read it i think i may have performed -- i

think i may have performed more. >> people that did that, william douglas became the no. 1. >> i preceded him. he served much longer than i did. >> over 700 days. >> when did you retire from the court's? >---- cour? t? >> the day after the last day. the next justice that you write about is general warren. let's watch this. this is a 1952 clip. this used to run on television. he was the governor of

california. listen to what he had to say. >> i do not believe we can continue to travel the road to insolvency by piling up a national debt year after year in time of peace. there's almost always a day of reckoning. i believe that we can and we must restore integrity in government. >> he was a member of the tea party. when did you first meet him?

>> and never would have the kind of informal meeting i had with the others. it my personal contact with him was the day i presented an the supremegument to court. even though i had witnessed a lot as a law clerk and a practicing lawyer over the years, when i got to argue, there he was. he is much closer than he appears here it is -- than he appears here. it is mentioned in the book.

it is the same service sensation than the first argument. it is very memorable. >> what happened to the case your are gearing -- you are arguing dax ended u.n.? >> i lost. it is not an earthshaking case. we did it was not an earthshaking case. it is under the cost justification. >> what has it been like for you since you left? >> it is a story that group by itself. when i left the court, i was invited to attend a fairly large amount of informal

sessions. there are groups in arlington and elsewhere. i was repeatedly asked what do you serve -- tell us how they were alike and how they differ? people seem to be interested in possible differences of the different chiefs. then i looked back further. it is not as intensive. the idea came to me that there may be a fair amount of interest in talking about the chiefs. i remember talking to john roberts about the same time. i thought the public did not have a full understanding of all the work. there are a fair number of additional responsibilities that might be of interest.

when we are deciding this, they're all equal. when your boating on the outcome, it is 1-9. it is a point. i can tell you it is equal our most important that both of those thought merited a discussion. these ideas came to me. i enjoy writing.

this was tended to replaced -- this tended to replace a lot of the work i did as an active judge. i also have a section at in there about the first world cheese. -- chiefs. they suggested this to be helpful. they did not steady in death. and give them a little background. >> what else did they have on the country? >> no.

i think the most important case was the board of education. he is responsible for for the unanimous opinion. i do not think the unanimity is as important as the boat itself. -- vote itself. i have never been one in here thoughts unanimity was required. as i often suggest in book, it sometimes improve the quality of opinions. everyone knows what arguments were considered. i have never been one that thought the unanimous character was the major chief.

it is correct. what is interesting is i think the decision is not a product of the history and historical research. i think a lot of that history suggests the people who adopted and ratified the 14th amendment did not anticipate it or it.lize it might meant a pa of this is a case in which the actual intent is the same result they produce. >> you are appointed in 1975 by gerald ford.

you served under warren burger. >> yes. >> but did not serve under anybody. that.body says it is perfectly ok. >> you talked about when he was the chairman of the bicentennial. we did an interview with him. here is a little clip to people who have not seen him can see what he looks like. >> we have 1600 in federal judiciary including magistrates and bankruptcy judges. there were 1000 life articles. we need more.

we have to have more machinery. >> what was that like serving with the chief justice warren burger? >> there are all sorts of aspects with it. i was a the presiding officer. who handled the public affairs. i do not think he handled the conference as well.

i think he was accurate. he assigned opinions to members of the court. their work for other colleagues. -- there were four other colleagues. he worked as a presiding officer. he was an excellent presiding officer in public. he was very fares to both sides. one was a necessity for more time to make arguments. he would frequently allow a little extra. >> the part of the court that the public knows little about is the conference. where is the conference room? who is in there when you are discussing the case? >> it is just east of the court

room and in the back of the building. the people in conference room are there and no one else. whenever it is necessary for someone to send a message, and they will not on the door. the junior justice has irresponsibility. he used to say -- has the responsibility. the keys to say he had the highest qualifications. i remember my first are second conference was paying very close attention to the discussion. i failed to hear the knock on the door. both got up and answer the door. it made me feel like i was about 2 feet high.

>> one thing you do discuss is the difference being in a conference. -- in a conference run by warren burger or bill rehnquist. can you explain the differences and how he changed what happened in the court about how you participate? >> >> i need to get this from actual knowledge or an actual list. i'm sure the changes in the order of voting. he talked about what would happen. he explains that the case would be discussed with the case -- with the chief justice's describing the case.

then the justices talking about it. he went to the end of the line. then the voting began with the dinner justices. i know that was a practice when rutledge is on the court. he said it was a second to vote. when i got there, i was surprised to find that the chief not only discussed the case but also voted. that is what happened. it was in order of seniority. i remember talking to bill rehnquist. we both exchange the duke that we per bird -- we prefer the earlier practice because it gave

the jr. justices a better opportunity to persuade seniors if they had not committed themselves. when he became chief, and his views changed. he went along with that. >> explain the difference between being chief justice. what is their responsibility? >> the chief has the responsibility. you do not have to do it. these are the issues he needed to be decided. he explains how he would vote. as i think i say in book, warren burger was not as articulate and

skillful with the issues in concise manner. he was a really brilliant lawyer, he would state the case all over again. he would state the issues in a more neutral fashion. and then the discussion would proceed. that is one of the things in which i think burger was less skillful than some of the others. i do not mean to suggest that he was not a good lawyer. he was a very good lawyer. he argued cases in the courts ahead of the department of justice after eisenhower was elected. >> you say in your book about warren burger that although he upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, he personally

was against it. >> definitely. on many occasions, i heard him say, this is not what i think ought to be the case. it is a matter for democratic process to decide. his role as a judge was not to put forward his own views. >> did she ever say that publicly? >> i would assume -- did he ever say that publicly? >> i do not know. >> how often will aid justice ruled one way when he or she disagrees? >> very often. >> can you give us an example of when you did that? >> it happened to many, many times. i do not have one of the top of

my head. i will tell you one, sure. the case involving the enforcement of the federal narcotics laws against the users of medical marijuana in california want to grow it on their own premises. under the commerce clause, the federal government had the power to enforce that statute. i thought it was quite clear the federal government could do just what it was -- i thought it was a very unwise policy. clear mismatch between policy might -- might policy views and my view of what the law is. >> you also mentioned that you and david had an agreement that he would tell you when it was time for you to quit. >> that is exactly right. i have the same agreement with

john hastings on the seventh circuit. he had asked me to let him know if i thought he was not performing the same quality work as he had in the past. by the way, he was also a man that wrote out the first drafts of his own opinion. i remember that when i went on to the court. when david came, i asked david if she would tip me off. it is something that every judge gets on and years and has to realize, you have to appreciate the views of others. >> did he ever tip you off? >> no, he never did. he left before i did, so i did not have this protection anymore. it was a serious breach of contract on his part to resign

before i did. >> you sent a letter to the white house in advance telling them that you were going to retire. >> yes. >> how much time did you give them? >> i do not remember. it is all a public matter, i think. didn't they announced a letter the same time that i send it? >> i do not remember. >> i think sometime in june. >> what triggered it? do you remember the moment he said, i am getting out? >> it was a process. i was asked this in another interview recently and i think i misspoke about the details. i began thinking of it more seriously as the years went by. i do not know for how many years, on more than one occasion, i may have mentioned that i should be given thought to that, did they have any suggestions?

they were very office difference in -- vociferous in trying to get me to stay when i did raise it. maybe it was the year that david retired, the year before i did retired, i decided just to hire one law clerk. that was publicly known. i was obviously seriously considering that i would -- that would be my last year. but i did that, -- when i did that, three out of the four law clerks told me if i change my mind, they would work for me and the following year. it was not as though i made an irreversible decision. obviously, i was thinking seriously about it. i guess the event that really sealed the decision for me was

when i had to -- when i decided to announce my oral dissent in the citizens united case. for some reason, i had trouble making the announcement. i stumbled with some of the presentation, which i felt was unusual. i thought i was reasonably articulate over the years before. i did not do a very good job on that particular occasion. i decided that very day that may be giving a little thought to changing my career. >> have you sat on any circuit court -- >> in no, i have not. one of the important bits of information about retirement that i learned from -- i am

entitled to keep my chambers and my law clerk and my secretary, even if i do not sit on cases. if i do not sit on cases, i will not be qualified for a raise in pay. i think the court is untitled and deserves very pay, but i will not lose any sleep over the likelihood that there will be a raise in pay. >> today, we do have a system in which first 5, 6, 7, now a of the justices pool their law clerks. that did not exist when i was a law clerk.

we divided of 1200 cases between ourselves. we wrote little memos to him. still operatess that way. >> was that true? you did not operate as part of the pool? >> that is true. he is exactly right. you might be interesting in knowing that justice toledo, although he was a member of -- has decided to operate independently. for a while, there were nine members. >> that was reported some years ago and there were 5000 cases presenting every year. now there are 9000. chief justice roberts was there something like 9000. you changed your -- have you changed your mind at all about how the cases are decided?

you talk about the fact that there used to be a lot more cases argued and it was justice berger that reduce the time to 30 minutes on each side. >> i think that is right. >> you suggested that they should go to longer oral arguments. >> i think they should go to lunker arguments on a -- should go back to long for arguments on a fair number of cases. there are two different reasons. one is, having a smaller dockage gives you more time. -- dr. it gives you more time. the time available is four hours. it used to be two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon. now they rarely sits in the afternoon. they have the time available. the second change is that particularly in cases with multiple issues that are rather

divisive, that there is an awful lot of time taken up with questioning. i think that more time is taken up in questioning these days than it was when i first joined the court or when i was a law clerk. i think so much time that is taken up, sometimes the loggers really do not get an adequate opportunity to say everything that they plan to say. i think that in those cases, more time would be more fair to the lawyers and more helpful to the court. the whole process would be -- i do not think they have to do it in every case. >> what about chief justice rehnquist? >> many, many things i remember about him. having watched the redskins on sunday, i think i would have won $2 from him. we bet on virtually every game.

normally, we made a dollar back. >> to one the most? >> bill won a good deal more than i did. >> what impact did you have on the running of the court? -- did he have on the running of the court? >> he was a more efficient presiding officer, both in conferences and in open court as well. perhaps he may have spent too efficient in open court. he was very, very firm. when the red light goes on, the argument is over. i think there are times when he might have been wise to give a little more time. on the whole, he did an excellent job. he was totally impartial. he treated all litigants exactly alike. >> you mentioned when you were

talking about that, a man that everybody knows, former senator arlen specter. he tried to get a couple of words and when he was in front of the court. >> yes, he was arguing a case. representing a client, i cannot remember the details. he wanted to continue argument. his time was up and the chief insisted that it was over. i think the senator has never forgiven him for that. >> he appears not to have forgiven him, but he introduced legislation to force the court to go on television. >> he believed very firmly that the court should go on television. >> what was your reaction? >> that is a difficult issue. it is not one i discussed in the book. on the one hand, televising the court would be good for the

court and for the country because, i think, people would realize that the justices are very thorough and preparation for arguments and their understanding of the cases. they ask intelligent questions. people are favorably impressed when they see the court at work. that is a very strong plus. that is what the senator interest was end. the other side of the coin is that television also has the unintended consequences. you are never 100% sure that it might not cause a change in the procedure and have an adverse effect. you mentioned football a little earlier. i remember going to a game, sitting in the stands, and the players -- you realize, it is a commercial. it changes.

the televising of legislative proceedings, it would have an adverse effect on the quality. you never are 100% sure of what the consequences of televising would be. i think most members feel more strongly than i do, but they're very concerned that televising might have an unforeseen adverse impact on both lawyers and an occasional justice might be a differently than he would if he would not being televised. >> what is your guess as to what will happen over the years? for instance, just yesterday, but we recording this, the pennsylvania state supreme court made -- had a public meeting and then went on television for the first time. now all of their proceedings are on television. >> florida supreme court was one of the first to do that, too.

basically, the experience has been -- has not been adverse. in fact, they have a library, i think, in which lawyers can go look at prior argument and learn a little bit more about the best way to proceed. from what i eat and understand, i do not think they did from what i understand, i do not think that it has had the adverse effect. it is not the most popular program in the world. i do not think there is a tremendous audience for the everyday argument of every state supreme court decision. i think the audience would probably be larger if it was the united states supreme court. >> the thinkable ever go on television? >> effort -- do you think it would ever go on television? >> forever -- albert is a long word. -- ever is a long word.

>> chief justice rehnquist had before stripes on his robe. what did you think of that idea? >> i am not 100% sure, to tell you the truth. at one time, before he had his own robes decorated with the stripes, he did make this suggestion to all of us in an informal gathering that he thought the rope -- robes of some foreign dignitaries were very impressive, and we ought to give thought to it. i think i remember sandra o'connor that his suggestion reminder of president nixon suggestion that he should have the military personnel at the white house in why uniforms. she thought it was -- it would

be a bad idea to depart from the very conservative black robes that we have always followed. i do not think the chief needs a special formal dress to identify himself in the courtroom. >> could you have pushed for stripes on your robes if you wanted to? >> i assumed i could. >> could the other justices could have prevented the chief from putting four stripes on his robe? >> that is an interesting question. i do not think so. i do not know. i suppose if we felt strongly enough about it, and as a majority, asked him not to do it, he probably would have respected that. that is the kind of thing that each member of the court pretty much respect the judgment of the

member. >> held the get to choose your office? >> -- how do you get to choose your office? >> a lot of these things just happened. they have never been changed. it has been part of the practice and the tradition throughout the court. the first chief, i guess, was the designated chief by president washington. i do not think there is any law that would prevent the members of the supreme court trading that office as other state appellate courts do. i do not think there is a statutory provision in the constitution of which i am aware that specifies that the president shall nominate the chief. he has always done it, we have

always been happy with it. no one has even thought about it, as far as i know. >> how many different offices were you and? >> -- you in. >> four different offices. >> and you move according to seniority? >> yes and no. i first started in the office that i am occupying right now. it is on the west side of the building where i have a beautiful view of the capital. as i understand it, it was originally thought to be a sign for the retired chief justice. warren burger used it when he retired. when i joined the court, he wanted to keep his chambers, and i did not like to make -- i did not want to make an issue out of it. i first moved into the location at the front of the court. and then i was able to leave

that office and moved halfway down the hall when tom clark died. he had chambers on the side. when potter stewart retired, i moved into his chambers on the corner, which was a beautiful office. i stayed there until they did the serious redecoration three or four years ago. justice is chambers remodeled, the justice had to take temporary quarters elsewhere. when a remodeled my chambers, i moved into justice o'connor's chambers and i liked them, so i just stayed there. i was there until i retired. >> you served with 19 of the 112 justices over the years. gore did the closest to personally?

>> -- who were you the closest to personally? >> i should have an answer to that question. i have been digging about it lately. -- i have been thinking about it lately. i was very fond of all of them. i felt very strongly about bought -- about potter stewart. we were all friends. it is really difficult to elevate one over the other. >> you talk about sitting on the bench next to -- there was 1.40 lead over to you in the middle of an argument and said, must be done defendant day. -- dumb defendant day.

>> he is a delightful guy. a wonderful sense of humor. he is very brilliant, but he comes up with on very short notice. on one occasion, when i was very happy to be the beneficiary of water more of his remarks, i cannot overstate. >> here is your fifth chief justice. >> justice brandeis said he could do 12 months worth of court in 10 months. he could not do it in 12 months. it is good that we get something from each other. we have worked the we continue to do. we continue to pour through those 9000 petitions. he got to keep up with those. we have emergency matters from time to time. we do get out of washington. the workload is significantly

reduced. we get to spend a little bit more time with my family. as is always the case during the city. >> what is the relationship -- you are considerably older than john roberts. what happens when a young man like that comes into the court? >> if i see him today, i feel more comfortable calling him chief. it would not bother him in the slightest if i called him john. we were good friends. it is one of those traditions and part of the court that to sticks with me. >> what is its impact on the court? policy affected the operation? >> he husband -- how has he affected the operation? >> he has continued to do a fine job in conferences. he is an excellent presiding

officer. he may be the best -- i cannot really evaluate warren. he was very highly regarded the way he handled public affairs, too. john is an excellent presiding officer. he is good in public affairs where he might have to be talking to a group of judges from a foreign country or paying a visit to the courts and explaining what is going on. he always would have something interesting to say about the history of the court that they could understand and appreciate. he is a very attractive person. >> out of the 112, let's pick on the ones that you did not serve with. who would you like to have known? >> that is a wonderful question.

i guess the three that come most immediately to mind are the three that are regarded as heroes when i was a law student. brandeis and holmes. >> brandeis was the first jewish member of the court. >> i think that was right. >> i believe there is something like six catholics and three3 jews in the court. does it matter when people look at the court from the outside and see that, does that make a difference as to how they make a decision? >> i do not think it makes a difference at all. although at one time, it was thought to be important. it was considered to be a jewish seat on the court for a while.

i do not know whether steve or roof -- ruth has that now. i am a last wasp. i do not think it makes a difference. it is totally irrelevant and the discussion. there may be an occasion where a religious holiday is given particular significance by a member of the court. other than that, it is totally irrelevant. >> how did you do this book? >> i did the same way i write opinions. i had ideas and i would write them out. and then i would do more, and when i got to a certain point,

i got excellent suggestions as i went along. my agent suggested the chapter about the earlier chiefs. i wrote most of it at home, some of it in the office. >> i am sure that over the years you read me a copy on the way you made your decisions and whether or not jerry ford was happy with their political positions on the different issues. did you and president ford ever talk about that in private? >> no, it never. he did write me a letter that i am very proud of. it is on my wall. it indicates an agreement with my judicial work. i do not remember ever discussing any legal issue with

him. >> what is the thing you want people to take away from the book? >> i do not know. in a way, it is a mishmash because it is a mixture of personal recollections and comments on different aspects of a lot and different people. -- of the law and different people. i just do not know. i do not expect it to be a valued very highly by scholars because it is not directed at scholars. some members of the general public will think i have too much of discussion of cases and there. it is hard to say because it is something that just kind of grew as i worked on it. >> we are out of time. the name of the book is called "five chiefs."

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> for a ddt copy of this program -- for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program, visit us at q & what's next, a british prime minister david cameron speaks at the conservative party conference. the republican president to look at it, michele bachmann in new hampshire. -- another chance to see q&a with john paul stevens. with john paul stevens.