In what the architect called the central node of the structure it was adorned with red drapes and special columns made of marble imported from italy and spain. But tafts wish called for more than just a new courtroom. Just outside the space are rooms added to help both justices and attorneys prepare for oral argument. Lounge, thewyers clerk of the court and deputy and it is a fun place to be before going into the courtroom because theres camaraderie and you get to meet your opposing counsel if you have not met them before. It is friendly. There is a lot of Nervous Energy but it is friendly. It is designed to calm lawyers down that is doing their arguments for the first time, to make sure that theyre not faux pas and attempt to tell jokes during their oral arguments and not refer to their familiarity with one of the justices. That indeed they will survive the experience. They ought to see it as a place where they could make their best case and the court will hear them and they will get a fair decision. We want them to enter the courtroom prepared and ready and both sides have a chance to win the case. The entireties the attorneys are instructed to be there at 9 15 in the morning. The regulars know to come there. Sometimes you dont know your opponent. It may be new york and california. This is a national court. It is not just a bunch of attorneys that hang around the same courthouse. It is different. They Exchange Greetings and glad to see each other. They take their seats and go over the events that will occur that day. Let them know if the opinions come down and how many motions for admissions. The absences of justices who may be recused. Answer any questions they may have and offer them cough drops or aspirin or anything they may need. To make them feel more comfortable. The attorney feedback i got over the years is they like it very much. As the attorneys get the lastminute instructions before entering the courtroom, the justices are preparing for the experience in their own way. First of all on days of oral, a buzzer is sounded in each chamber about 10 minutes ahead, reminding you that in 10 minutes youre supposed to be on the bench. At that point, you need to go down to the robing room to get your robe on and be ready to go into the courtroom at the appointed hour. Chief justices dont like to be late, as you can imagine, into the courtroom. The robing room has narrow sections of a larger cabinet in which the justices robes or robe are hung and your judicial collar, if you have one, can be on the shelf. You know the standard robe is made for a man, because it has a place for this shirt to show and the tie. So Sandra Day Oconnor and i thought it would be appropriate if we included it as part of our robe, something typical of a woman. So i have many collars. Im sure we could do our work without the robes. We could do our work without this glorious building. In the ropes and building part to the people who come here is the significance, the importance of what goes on here. I think that is a profound symbol that kind of plain black robe that says im going to try to, to the extent i can, not to be guided by any personal experiences or personal characteristics, but to apply the law in the fairest way i think is possible. Those traditions anchor us in a process that is greater than ourselves. They remind us that the role that were playing is not a personal role. Not a role that should have a personal agenda, but one that has an institutional importance and that institutional importance is bigger than us. As we enter the robing room, or if we on the late side, the conference room, the first thing we do is go around the room, each justice shaking hands with every other. That is a symbol of the work that we do as a collegial body. You may be temporarily miffed because you received a spicy dissenting opinion from mainea from a colleague, but when we go to sit on the bench, we look at each other, shake hands, and it is a way of saying were all in this together. When all nine are there and accounted for, the chief justice says it is time to go and so you line up in order of seniority, cross the hallway to enter the back of the courtroom , and they divide three justices on the left, three in the middle, and three on the right. The honorable, the chief justice and the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. All persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court one of the Amazing Things is thehe courtroom, splendor and intimacy of it. On the one hand, it is not that big of a room. But the real intimacy comes in the relationship between the lawyer and the court he is arguing to. If you stop to think of it, you will see if one of us leaned over the bench as far as we could lean and the lawyer arguing at the podium leaned toward us, we could almost shake hands. That is a very important thing, because it means that when the arguments take place, you are physically and psychologically close enough to each other so theres a possibility for real engagement. Were not just a bunch of people talking in microphones with a big space between us. The happy paradox of that room is that it is a grand room in which a very intimate process takes place. It is the kernel of a very grand building which has very intimate results for every american. The aura of the place is always present. This is the chamber where brown v. Board of education was decided. This is the chamber were the big steel seizure case was decided. The most important decision in our history which decided president ial power was decided in that room by human beings sitting on the bench after having listened to argument by other human beings. Most cases have one hour per case. Half hour per side. When you tell that to people, they think, is that all . And other jurisdictions have more. A lot of the argument has been laid out in writing. The lawyer does not expect it and even if they expect to, they wont have a chance to give a speech. Most of the argument is devoted to justices questions. It is very intense. Thats what it is really like. You are seated right next to the podium. You really just stand up and slide over a few inches. The first thing you have to say under Court Etiquette is mr. Chief justice may it please the court. The 10th circuit in the case correctly held that stone could not share in the award given by the jury unless he was and then you have to you have a few sentences, usually that you have chosen to deliver the court but you will start getting questions usually within the first minute or two. Each of the justices have their own unique style about questioning. We have some people who like the rapid fire style, others who like to spin out long hypotheticals. I dont want legalism, i just want the conclusion. A minute has passed before he says yes. Has that changed everything and it becomes lawful . Will you explain again why it was irrelevant whether the gun was operable or not . With the hypothetical, the government came in and said in order to run the hospital, you have to disclose certain facts, otherwise were going to shut it down. It is the first time we learn what our colleagues think about a case. We dont sit down before argument and say this is how i view the case. We come to it cold as far as knowing what everybody thinks. So through the questioning, were learning for the first time what the other justices view how they view the case. That can alter how you view it right on the spot. If they are raising questions about an issue, you could look into that issue during the questioning a bit. It is a very dynamic and very exciting part of the job. There are nine people up ande and i am with them were talking. This is a conversation. I have no awareness of the courtroom, the people in the courtroom, any physical movements that may be going on. It is quite remarkable. My philosophy is to ask questions when i think the answer may give me help in deciding the case. I dont view the participation of a justice as an opportunity for the justice to advocate one point of view. I think rather, the questioning should be designed to help understand what the arguments on both sides are in order to enable the justice to reach a decision. To sit on the Supreme Court and listen to the questions of your colleagues is somewhat humbling. The moment that i sat down and was able to look out and see all of the people in the audience, thats probably the moment i will most intensely remember. Because there were lawyers who i have known for years sitting at the table in front of us ready to argue. But then watching the intensity of everyones face and i how much people believe and know that theyre affected by the courts decisions. Every question i ask has a purpose. It has some importance to something that is troubling me or that im curious about. As an attorney, i welcomed questions from the bench. I know that some lawyers regard questions as an interruption in a speech theyre prepared to make. But an advocate wants to know what is on the judges mind. So she will welcome questions as a way of satisfying the judge on the matter that the judge might not resolve as well without counsels response. It is about filling the questions and using the time. It is central to answer the questions. Fielding the questions and using the time. It is central to answer the questions. You cant persuade a justice if you didnt answer what they have asked. Theyre very demanding, as they should be. Thats their job. Very challenging exercise. 2 Critical Mass . I dont think so. 4 . No. You have to pick a number. 8 . Does it stop being a quota because it is somewhere between 8 and 12 but it is a quota if it is 10 . A lot of people have the impression it is just a dog and pony show. What could somebody tell me in half an hour that going to make a difference. And the answer is that it is probably quite rare, although not unheard of, that oral argument will change my mind, but it is quite common that i go in with my mind not made up. A lot of the cases are close, and you go in on the knifes edge. Persuasive counsel can make the difference. I once had an argument where i think they asked 56 questions in 30 minutes. It is a lot of questions. They interrupt each other even. It had been my practice on the court of appeals to wait for the end of the lawyers paragraph before interrupting with a question. Here i learned if you do that or even if you are in a hot case, if you wait until the end of the sentence you will never get a question in. You have to interrupt to make your voice heard. The argument is for us to say, yeah, we read the brief. We know what you think of the case, here are the questions that inspired in us. Here are the concerns we have. Here are the uncertainties that you left open. And use oral argument to do that. I view oral argument differently. I think it is an opportunity for the advocate, the lawyers, to fill in the blanks. I think it is hard to have a conversation when nobody is listening. When you cant complete sentence or answers. Perhaps thats a southern thing. I dont know. I think you should allow people to complete their answers and their thoughts and to continue their conversation. I find that coherence you get from a conversation far more helpful than the rapid fire question. I dont see how you can learn a lot when there are 50 questions in an hour. One of the bad signs of an oral argument is when the questions stop. It means that, you know, you have either not persuaded them or they figured it out already and theres nothing more you could add. A white light will go on when you have five minutes remaining, and when your time is expired, a red light goes on. When the red light goes on, youre supposed to stop. It is an exciting part of the process. Im going to learn what my colleagues think about a case that i have been studying for a long time, from the very first time. Im going to hear what the lawyers have to say. It is an exciting day. Sometimes i say to myself, and i really there or is this all a dream . It is one of the most beautiful courtrooms in the world. Theres a hush that comes over people as they walk in. Theres a reverence. This is important space. People look up and they see around the top of the courtroom theres an extended panel of sculptural frieze. Theres four panels in the frieze above the courtroom. The one in the back is the story of the allegorical battle of good versus evil. In the center is justice. Shes leaning on her sword. Shes ready for action if needed to protect the forces of good from the forces of evil. Among the forces of evil are despotic power, slander, and corruption. The forces of good on the other side are the defense of virtue and charity and peace. Behind the justices is a figure of divine inspiration which is holding the scales of justice in her hands. Out of that, you have the procession of the great lawgivers. It start with menes, an egyptian pharaoh who was thought to be the earliest lawgiver known in mankind. Then you have moses holding the 10 commandments. Octavian and then some of the and lawgivers. Then the other side, you come into modern times and you got justinian known for the code and king john with the magna carta and finally the most recent one, napoleon. Most people wouldnt think he was known for the law. He was instrumental in creating the civil code which is used in many european countries. It ends in the last figure where you have the majesty of law and power of government sitting on a throne with the tablet of the 10 amendments to the constitution, the bill of rights right in the center. An American Eagle spreading its wings there. On the one side, you have a group of citizens and theyre protected by a lawyer or a judge. Hes in a robe and holding a book of laws. On the other side, you have another group of citizens and theres a warrior in front of those. Theres the authority of the law, but then you need to have the strength to back up what the law needs to be enforced by. It is amazing when you walk in, the time it is. Even the two american flags that flank the bench that they sit up hang perfectly still. The Supreme Court is imbued in great tradition. We joke that the quills they give to the oral advocates is how they would write their opinions. There are justices that still write out in longhand on a legal pad rather than type at computers the way most people would do today. The Supreme Court, rich with tradition, is a very human institution. A newer custom takes place following oral argument. One encouraged by the first female justice. [bell ringing] it is a beautiful room. Very well furnished. But the food is not exactly haute cuisine. It comes from the public cafeteria. The justices eat the same things that any visitor to the court might choose for lunch. You will be surprised by the high level of collegiality. Justice scalia once commented in his early years on the court, there was no justice with whom he disagreed more often than Justice Brennan. And yet, Justice Scalia considered Justice Brennan his best friend on the court at that time. He thought the feeling was reciprocated. This is a tradition, eating lunch together, that was pushed by Justice Oconnor when she was on the court. And it stuck. Justice oconnor insisted we have lunch everyday when we were sitting. You should come to lunch. She was really sweet, but very persistent. I came to lunch. It was one of the best things i did. It is hard to be angry and bitter with someone and break bread and look them in the eye. It is a fun lunch. Very little work gets done there. It is just eight people, whoever shows up having a wonderful lunch together. It is wonderful. I try not to miss a post argument lunch, because you never know what my colleagues will be talking about. Usually in an argument day, most of the justices are there in the dining room. It is the rule there that we dont talk about the cases. My colleagues that go to the opera will talk about the opera. Some will talk about the baseball game or the golf tournament. Some will talk about a good movie they have seen or a good book they read. Something particularly interesting their family is doing. The kind of thing everybody would do at lunch with colleagues. Off the main justices dining room is a smaller room for smaller functions known as the John Marshall dining room. Thats due to a sculpture that was placed there of John Marshall. Chief Justice Warren berger wanted to make that the theme of the room. The court had been donated a portrait of william marbury. He was the famous litigant in the case of marbury v. Madison back in 1803. Chief Justice Burger said we need to get a companion portrait for that, so the great litigants are on the wall literally of the small dining room. Marbury v. Madison is probably the most famous case this court ever decided. The idea of judicial review for constitutionality, i think is implicit in the constitutional document. But John Marshall made it explicit in the great case of marbury against madison. And all of the Supreme Courts history, there is no one case that says as much to a justice about what it is like to be a justice. Because marbury v. Madison is the embodiment of judicial review. Theres no quotation in all of the history of Supreme Court writing that justices prefer to repeat than the phrase which says, it is emphatically the power and the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is. That is a quote from John Marshall in marbury v. Madison. We call him the great chief. He really was the first person to take the job seriously. He really established the court in a prominent position as one of the three coequal branches of government. The chief justices responsibility is to preside at oral arguments and at the conference where the justices vote on and decide the cases. That means i get to initiate the discussion and have some responsibility to make sure that all of the issues are adequately aired at conference. Theres a change when the new chief justice is presiding at conference. Each chief justice has his own method of presiding. The present chief justice is doing an excellent job. He has some virtues the others did not have. That pretty muc