eastern, and at 5:30 p.m., we will be at a town hall meeting with republican presidential candidate and former massachusetts gov. mitt romney. both events will be live on c- >> this week on "q&a." former supreme court justice john paul stevens looks back on 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. i have that personal contact with the most recent five. >> let me put a slide that shows these by the names and the times -- these tive names -- five names and the times that they were serving. this starts with fred vinson. warren burger, 17 years. john roberts, 6 years. starting with fred vinson. what did you write about him? >> two parts.

appointment and about his work. it is partly about the observations. we were born from the same days. friends. this 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. i talk in the book a little bit about -- i speak about those i

have personal contact with and some of the opinions he wrote, particularly in year i was in the court. the court? >> october 1949. i said sometime in september of 47. i was there until june or early july. of 1948. >> 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 court. things are still pretty much the same.

as well as things that have changed over the years. it was very rewarding. >> how did you get that? >> that is a long story, too. clerkship. it was the summer of 1947. if i remember correctly. justice rutledge decided to hire a second clerk. he was approached by two members of the faculty in northwestern. the person he became secretary of labor. and then another. was a court of appeals judge. opportunity and statutes.

they persuaded them that two northwestern graduates could be well qualified. the two that were qualified for qualified. later in the spring, they had a meeting with us at northwestern and told us that they thought the scholarships were certainly should go for which the job. with rutledge was available the following year and the one with vinson the following year.

citizens because we had experience in in war and we were. we were both anxious to get into the professional world. coin. i got the coin flip. i had the privilege. other members of the faculty supported application and persuaded the other judges that

>> [inaudible] did you have him in class? >> i took labor law from him. alive? >> yes. >> you have lived a long time. 91 years? >> yes. art and i were born on the same day. has kept to a live? -- that has kept you live? >> this was exercise. we have good advice from our respective spouses. " we have had interesting lives and happy lives. that makes a big difference, too. >> where does he live now? >> charlottesville, virginia. >> go back to fred vinson. where did he come from?

how did he get on the court of the chief justice? >> he was not a big man. he was heavy. he was a heavy man. worked into there. on occasion, there was is messenger that would drive him to work and back. he lives. i cannot remember the name of it right now. drive home in this beat up oldhe was heavy. doorman seeing his car. he was trying to shoo him away. in front seat, teaches them in a much more cordial way.

then he would with some difficulty get out of the car. how it ran? there was some feeling in year or two before that there was particularly jackson was chief himself. antagonism between jackson and hugo black. i never actually witnessed anything like that. there has been a lot of writing about that. i think there is some merit to it.

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, thurgood marshall went to chicago. answering questions from the audience. he was asked about antagonism in the court. there is impossible antagonism. thurgood is an honorable man. it turned out to be true. when i joined the court in 1979, i was wondering. it is a very personal relationship.

those are really excellent. that was true during my entire>> what impact did vinson have education? >> he was the chief during the first argument. and during the early deliberations. he died before they were able to decide it. they know exactly what the whole -- it was difficult to 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. and the attitude of the sponsors of the amendment.

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. after oral warren got there. -- earl warren got there. this is when it was decided. it. >> i want to screen some other statistics. let's put them up there. these are the longest serving justices in history. there are 112 justices. william douglas served the longest. stephen johnson field, he served 12,611 days. you were three days short of been the second-largest serving in history. did you know that?

trying to set a record. or anything like that. 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. i had been told or had read somewhere that you really should not get that many, because the last few months of this service, he was sick or something. more. active, constructive service on the court than he did. >> i preceded him.

-- i succeeded him. did. >> over 700 days. yes, years. >> when did you retire from the court? >> the day after the last day. the next justice that you write about is general warren. -- earl warren. let's watch this. this is a 1952 clip. a program, this used to run on television. this is in black and white. he was the governor of california. listen to what he had to say. about the world in 1952. >> 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. and i believe that we have to do that. government. and the confidence of people in the integrity of their government. party. [laughter] >> 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 oral argument to the supreme court. which i still remember vividly. 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. i had this vivid memory of being this close to the chief justice, which is the experience you do not forget. it is mentioned in the book. i have talked about with others, justice roberts, elena kagan. it is the same service sensation than the first argument. it is very memorable. >> what happened to the case

you>> i lost. no, i lost. it is not an earthshaking case. justification. >> what has it been like for you since you left? and why did you write the book? >> 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. like the rotary. there are groups in arlington and elsewhere. i was repeatedly asked tell us

differ? it just stuck. people seem to be interested in possible differences of the different chiefs. then i looked back further. and looked back, and i had some contact. 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. i thought it would be good to talk about some of the things that he does that is different.

when we are deciding this, they're all equal. when you are voting on the outcome, it is 1-9. it is interesting to tell people a little bit more about the work of the cheap as well as the associated -- associate justice. it is a point. i can tell you it is equal our most important that both of discussion. and then as i got in to writing it, these ideas came to me. i enjoy writing. i liked the work of writing opinions while it was a justice. judge.

there about the first world chiefs. that came from my agent. they suggested this to be helpful. they did not steady in death. and give them a little background. that i thought might be of interest. >> what else did they have on the country? the chief justice? >> no. was the board of education. he is responsible for the unanimous opinion.

as i suggest in the book, i do not think the unanimity is as important as the 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 realize it might meant it. this is a case in which the actual intent is the same result they produce. >> you are appointed in 1975 by gerald ford. >> yes. >> you served under warren burger. >> yes. >> but did not serve under anybody. >> that is exactly right. everybody says that.

>> you talked about when he was bicentennial. we did an interview with him. here is a little clip to people who have not seen him can see>> we have 1600 in federal and bankruptcy judges. there were 1000 life articles. we have to have more machinery. to take care of it. burger? >> there are all sorts of

aspects with it. he is a very likable man. he was judge sometimes as being pompous. i was the presiding officer. he had gracious public appeal. who handled the public affairs. i do not think he handled the conference as well. he did many fine things. i think he was accurate. -- i do not think he was as accurate as he could be. he assigned opinions to members of the court.

there were four other officer. in conference. 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 conference. >> right. >> 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 thethe people in conference room are there and no one else. whenever it is necessary for

someone to send a message, they will not on the door. -- knock on the door. the junior justice has the responsibility. he used to say he had the highest qualifications. -- he was the highest paid doormen in the country. i remember my first are second conference was paying very close attention to the discussion. i failed to hear the knock on the door. the one on my left, and the one on my right, both got up and answer the door. 2 feet high. that is one of the most important jobs of the junior justice is to remember that you are the doorman.

>> one thing you do discuss is the difference being in a conference run by warren burger or bill rehnquist. can you explain the differences in the court about how you participate? -- the change that i think he is responsible for, but i cannot testify from personal knowledge, but i am quite sure that the change is the change in the order of voting that he made. i'm sure the changes in the order of voting. he talked about what wouldhe explains that the case would be discussed with the chief justice's describing the case. then the justices talking about it. in order of seniority, explaining their general views of the case. he went to the end of the line. then the voting began with the

dinner justices. -- the junior justice and followed in reverse order. 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. i remember talking to bill rehnquist. from time to time. he was the second. we both exchange the view that we prefer the earlier practice because it gave the jr. justices seniors if they had not committed themselves.

when he became chief, his views changed. he went along with that. >> explain the difference between being chief justice. and the associate justice. what is their responsibility? >> the chief has the responsibility. you do not have to do it. these are the issues that needed to be decided. he explains how he would vote. so part of this is setting forth things for the further discussion.

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. 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 elected. >> you say in your book about warren burger that although he 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 democratichis role as a judge was not to put forward his own views. >> did he ever say that publicly? >> i do not know. >> very often. that is to of every member of the court on one or more issues. when you did that? i do not have one of the top ofi will tell you one, sure. the case involving the

enforcement of the federal narcotics laws against the users of medical marijuana in california. they wanted 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 my 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. i had the same agreement with john hastings on the seventh circuit. he was an excellent chief judge.

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 realize, you have to appreciate the views of others. on that issue. you are not the best judge. >> did he ever tip you off? >> no, he never did. he left before i did, so i did not have his protection anymore. 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. think. didn't they announce the letter the same time that i sent it? >> i do not remember. >> i think sometime in june. >> what triggered it? do you remember the moment you 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 to my law clerks that i should be giving thought to that, did they have anythey were very vociferous in trying to get me to stay when i did raise it.

retired, the year before i did retire, i decided just to hire one law clerk. that was publicly known. i was obviously seriously considering that that would be my last year. when i did that, three out of the four law clerks told me if i change my mind, they would work for me 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 decided to announce my united case. for some reason, i had trouble

making the announcement. 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 maybe giving a little thought to changing my career. >> you still have an office in the court. >> i do. >> have you sat on any circuit court cases? >> no, i have not. one of the important bits of information about retirement, i 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. and deserves pay, but i will not lose any sleep over the likelihood that there will be a raise in pay. >> here is another justice. let's look at the clip. >> today, we do have a system in which first 5, 6, 7, now 8 of the justices pool their law clerks. that did not exist when i was a law clerk. we divided 1200 cases between ourselves. we wrote little memos to him. justice stevens still operates that way.

>> was that true? you did not operate as part of the pool? >> that is true. he is exactly right. you might be interested in knowing that justice alito, independently. for a while, there were nine members. >> that was reported some years ago and there were 5000 casesnow there are 9000. >> is that the number? >> is something like 9000. have you changed your mind at all about how the cases areyou talk about the fact that there used to be a lot more cases argued and it was justice burger that reduced the time to 30 minutes on each side. >> i think that is right. that is right. >> you suggested that they

should go to longer oral arguments. >> i think they should go back to longer arguments on a fair number of cases. there are two different reasons. one is, having a smaller docket 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 sit in the afternoon. they have the time available. the second change is that particularly in cases with multiple issues that are rather of time taken up with questioning. i think that more time is taken up in questioning these days the court or when i was a law clerk. or when i was a law clerk.

i think so much time that is really do not get an adequate opportunity to say everything that they plan to say. more time would be more fair to the lawyers and more helpful to the court. what do you remember? >> many, many things i remember about him. sunday, i think i would have won $2 from him. we bet on virtually every game. normally, we made a dollar bet. >> who won the most? than i did. i think i tended to let my

desire for someone to win it to influence me more than it should. >> what impact he have on the running of the court? >> he was a more efficient presiding officer, both in well. perhaps he may have been 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. excellent job. he was totally impartial. alike. arlen specter. >> yes. >> he tried to get a couple of words in when he was in front of the court. >> yes, he was arguing a case. representing a client, i cannot

argument. i cannot remember the details right now. his time was up and the chief insisted that it was over. i think the senator has never forgiven him for that. forgiven him. he introduced legislation to 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 in preparation for arguments and their understanding of the cases.

they ask intelligent questions. people are favorably impressed when they see the court at work. and so, that is a very strong plus. that is what the senator's interest was in. the other side of the coin is that television also has 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. colini remember going to a game, players standing around -- 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 might have an unforeseen adverse impact on both lawyers and an occasional justice might act differently than he would if he were not being televised. >> what is your guess as to what will happen over the years? with television? for instance, just yesterday, recording this, the pennsylvania state supreme court 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 not been adverse.

in fact, they have a library, i think, in which lawyers can go look at prior arguments and learn a little bit more about the best way to proceed. from what i understand, i do not think that it has had the adverse effect. i think one reason for the, it is not the most popular program in the world. i do not think there is a everyday argument of every state supreme court decision. united states supreme court. >> do you think it would ever go on television? >> "ever" is a long word. but i would not hold my breath, that is for sure. >> chief justice rehnquist had four stripes on his robe. what did you think of that idea?

and did you ever tell him what you thought 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 robes of some foreign dignitaries were very impressive, and we ought to give thought to it. i think i remember sandra o'connor saying that his suggestion reminded her of president nixon's suggestion that he should have the military personnel at the white house in white uniforms. she thought 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. i do not know. >> could the other justices could have prevented the chief from putting four stripes on his robe? 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 havethat is the kind of thing that each member of the court pretty much respects the judgment of the member. >> how do you get to choose your office? 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 treating 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 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 a beautiful spot. 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 -- assigned warren burger used it when he retired. when i joined the court, he wanted to keep his chambers, and i did not want to make an issuei 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. i went to his chambers for two

or three years. 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. all sorts of changes in the court were made. when the justice chambers were remodeled, the justice had to take temporary quarters elsewhere. when they 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. who were you the closest to personally? >> i should have an answer to that question. lately.

i was very fond of all of them. i felt very strongly about potter stewart. we were all friends. elevate one over the other. >> you talk about sitting on the bench next to justice alito, and there was one point, he leaned over to you in the middle of an argument and said, "must be dumb defendant day." >> he is a delightful guy. a wonderful sense of humor. he is very brilliant.

on one occasion, when i was very happy to be the beneficiary of one or 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 continue to pour through those 9000 petitions. you have got to keep up with those. we get 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. >> 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 himwe were good friends. court? 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 in 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 who are 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 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 three jews in the court. now that you have gone. 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 ruth has that now. i am the last wasp.

i do not think it makes a difference. it is totally irrelevant in 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 it 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 would ask my law cou -- clerk, and 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 media copy on the way you made your decisions and whether or not jerry ford was happy with your political positions on the different issues. did you and president ford ever talk about that in private? >> no, never. not before i was appointed or after i was appointed. 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? >> from the book? >> yes. >> 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 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. and i think, perhaps, there are some members of the general public will think i have too much discussion of cases in there. there are others who would feel otherwise. it is hard to say because it is something that just kind of grew as i worked on it. >> we are out of time. justice john paul stevens. the name of the book is called "five chiefs." thank you very much for joining us. >> thank you. you have been very kind to me. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program, visit us at qanda.org. q. and a. programs are also available as c-span podcasts. >> next, british prime minister david cameron speaks at the conservative party conference. after that, republican presidential candidate, minnesota representative michele bachmann in minnesota. and former house speaker newt gingrich at the value voters conference. tomorrow on 40 journal damen and cindy shell from the american cindy shell from the american petroleum institute