Transcripts For CSPAN Chief John Justice Roberts Addresses F

Success in both regards. Important very anniversary. Was the opening of the constitutional convention. Nowas a big day for what is the 4th circuit. Of course, George Washington was president of the convention. By nomination was secondeded rutledge, south carolina. Ashington included him among the six first appointees to the Supreme Court. He had a little bit of a chip on shoulder though to be fair. He thought he should have been the chief justice and felt over. D i dont know if it had anything resigned it, but he in 1791 without having heard a far e case to accept the more prestigious position of of south carolina. When john jay left to accept the far more prestigious position as governor of new york, president appointed rutledge to be the second chief justice. But Alexander Hamilton was his first joyce and washington hamiltonim the job but declined stott think if things had been different. Successful play on broadway could be a hip hop justice bout a chief which would have been a little different. Jay and i are not going to rap ct this interview in though and i think well get started right now. Thank you. [applause] chief, thank you so much for coming to our little gathering. Its just great to have you here. Back a long way nd we were together in the Justice Department during the reagan administration. At that tell you that point, the chief judgment was of mously respected by all us within the Justice Department that respectse and has only grown over the course the years. I know of course that the chief respected in atly the public at large but i think hat this conference is the Perfect Place to emphasize just within the se of us cherish and respect the quality of his leadership. Dignity and the character and wonderful sense of which the chief justice presides. Thats probably a good place to end right there. [laughter] its going to be downhill from there. [laughter] but just one more. Thing. Re i think that what binds us all nobodyep love of law and loves the law ive never met anybody that really loves the justice than the chief of the united states. The potential that law has to preserve our maintain order and to make more satisfying majority of all american citizens. He not only chairs our embodies them. And we really like that. Its so nice. And welcome, chief. Thank you. Thank you. You. s great to see mourn thet many of us scalia. F justice i was particularly pleased to see all of his colleagues on across the rom pay their respects to not just the jurisprudence but warm and magnanimous spirit that Justice Scalia exhibited particularly proud to gene ustice scalias son as a member of our fourth conference. Chief we didnt get a chance celebrate. You were talking in your remarks about anniversaries. Didnt unfortunately have because of the way the calendar have a chance to celebrate your tenth anniversary becoming chief justice. As you look back, i guess a a ade is a time to reflect little over a decade. What would you say has been the accomplishment for you in the course of your 11 years now . Whats the thing you look back the most satisfaction . I would say serving for ten years. [laughter] is the most it may sound facetious but the first thing i to point out is that its very difficult for any member of the court and certainly for a chief justice to single out any particular accomplishment as his own. We are very much a body in the sense, not simply in the sense of we get along with each other although we do but we as a group. And i think it be better to sort accomplishments of the court over the past ten years have been. Answer is really quite simple. We as a group i think have done job of protecting the role coequal branch a challenge that is marble on our courthouse of equal justice under law. You know, there are points where the court maybe has not been as good at doing that as it might have been. Typically those are occasions i dissented. We dont set out to accomplish great things. Think thats the responsibility of the political branchs. Simply to do is we can. As best as a youre nearing tend of term. The end of a term. Istorically most of the really big cases have come down toward and i get dong. The School Bell Rings and people are rushing out the door. Does the adjournment date, does it effect of the june opinions . Is there a rush to get things out that in some way leads to less scrutiny of those last opinions coming out the door . Chief Justice Roberts you know, i think that might have been true a generation ago. When i was a law clerk in 1980, the court issued 150 opinions in that term. Today, we issue about half that. There is a lot of debate about the reasons for that. Some of the reasons are interesting to talk about. But when you have 150 opinions you are try to get outcome i think maybe the answer is, yes. For lawyers working on briefs or other analyses, i would look at the date of the opinion carefully in that area. If the in that era. If the date is june 20, i would think to better look at it. You are right, the hard ones naturally tend to take longer. At least we know we have until roughly the end of june. So we focus maybe on the easier once before that. But i dont think they suffered quality. Of course, we dont have a fast deadline. We dont leave until all our work is done and sometimes it has pushed us to july. Sometimes, we have even gotten a day or two out early. You can imagine its hard if everybody worked on their own schedule with different priorities, nothing would come together and to the very las day. So we kind of have to sit down and say lets focus on these cases first and get it all done. If we are their past the fourth of july, that is probably my fault. Judge wilkinson you mentioned the fact that the docket has gone down from maybe 150 275. There are stash from 150 to 75. Chief Justice Roberts you are doing very well so far. We have four opinions out of the Fourth Circuit so far. You have been affirmed in three of them. I have to admit, i dissented in one of those three. Judge wilkinson keep up the good work. [laughter] speaking of opinions and everything. Every so often, we have occasion to look through the opinions of the 1930s and 1940s and 19 fifth. These and i and 1950s. And i am amazed at how short some of these are and the footnotes that some of these have. You look back at brown v board of education and others, they were monumental cases and they were written with very short opinions. But the modern trend has been toward longer and longer opinions with more and more footnotes than the 30s the 19 30s, 1920s, 1940s and 1950s. A lawyers most valuable asset is his or her time. Do these long opinions and i think the court of appeals needs to take cognizance of this as well are we imposing an undue burden on the time of an issue with the length of our opinions . Simply what we require, lawyers and District Court judges and others to read, is that a problem . Chief Justice Roberts yes and no. Some of the examples you gave have particular reasons. You know, brown can i guess, was less than 10 pages. And brown 2 was even shorter than that. Burrell war and earl warren it was important to have a unanimous opinion. If he had taken one more page were two more. Or two more pages, then the agreement would have served to unravel. So that was important. I think he wanted it to be short enough so everyone could read it, not just the legal profession. The commentators and the reporters would not really have the opportunity. It would be right there. You could look at the New York Times and it is right there. So he had reasons for keeping it short. I agree with you on the length of opinions and footnotes. I think i have the fewest number of footnotes of any of the justices in my opinions. As you say, we get busy and you dont often read them. Why should i write them if no one is going to read them. But i do think it is a problem. You said 1930s, i guess, will it is almost a hundred years since then. The statutory production is not what it is now. You didnt have. Frank. It takes a few more pages to find your way out of the forest in those cases. So that might be part of it. Technology is part of it. It is easy to write things and change them. Here is for paragraphs about this issue. In the older days it was harder to make revisions. One reason that has been there are fewer conflicts among the lower courts and Everybody Knows what everybody else is doing now. And say thisa long and not to know that the supreme come out theeady other way. Now you push a button and you know every case on everything. Judge wilkinson change is occurring on every front. The size of a opinions and everything. Another big area of change, i think, has been the nature of the Supreme Court appellate bar. I remember Justice Powell used to complain a little bit that there were all too many people i coming up and arguing Supreme Court cases, because some of the advocates were way in over their head. Now the complaint is that we have all too few, and that it is a lower calabar, especially in the private civil cases. And there are too many repeat players. It is sort of, hey, lets give somebody else a chance. Is the appellate bar becoming to elite and too ingrown in your judgment . Chief Justice Roberts at that time, he talked about the very trend. You go back to 1980 i dont remember the numbers, but adding aside the governments lawyers, i think there were two or three people that argued more than one case that term, maybe a couple more. Now it is premature teen. The lawyers we see quite often in a single case. One has done 10 arguments. One has done 30 arguments. That was unheard of back then. So it is a change. The bar is more specialized. I think the Supreme Court advocacy was not recognized as a specialty until fairly recently. In many ways, it is quite a good thing. It is not like even arguing before the court of appeals. Is good to have people who know that and have done it before and understand when we ask hundred questions in an hour, which has happened. Although a case involves a bankruptcy statute, it is probably not in the Supreme Court because of bankruptcy issues. It is there because of how we view statutory interpretation. It is good to have people who know that. It is good to have repeat players, just as in any other court. They know that they are going to be up there again later, so they will be a little more circumspect about how they analyze the record and explained the cases to you. Having said all that, i think i and many of my colleagues sort of miss the opportunity of a mr. Smith comes to washington moment where you have a sole practitioner with a battered briefcase and shares what his practice is like and his understanding of what the court is like. And they often do a very good job. But it is just so hard. You for months focus on a Supreme Court case. To that extent, i think it is disappointing them. You lose a little bit of the color and texture of an argument when it is the same people. Although, we benefit a great deal from having experts before us. Judge wilkinson yes, it is less and less a place for amateurs. I remember one of the comments Justice Powell had made. They dont even know our names. And they would be calling one justice the name of another justice. [laughter] at least with the repeat players, they are going to get the names right. Chief Justice Roberts you would have thought so, but our last case, a mistake happened. Justice ginsburg was referred to as justice oconnor. [laughter] by a repeat player. Sometimes people ask what advice i have for advocates and i always say dont use their names. [laughter] judge wilkinson thats probably true. I have a hard time thinking of any area touching the Supreme Court where there isnt change. One of the big areas of change involves law clerks. It used to be of course, the numbers of clerks have increased. People keep reminded me reminding me that John Marshall wrote with hardly any law clerks, how did he do it . [laughter] in addition, it used to be that clerks would go right from law school to the Supreme Court. Now we have a situation where a larger number of law clerks are a hired actor, a year or two or more of government service. You have it flipped around. We used to be training in the Judicial Branch law clerks for private practice. They see folks in private practice training lawyers to serve as law clerks. Is this a good trend . Part of the value of a clerkship was at least partly a sentimental value. I know you felt this way about your clerks. This was our first formative professional experience. So we held it in particular sentimentally throughout the rest of our professional lives. It wasnt just another stop. In my right about the trend . And is it a good idea . Chief Justice Roberts well, you mentioned John Marshall not having any clerks. It sort of ties into your earlier question. I suspect one of the reasons that these opinions or longer is that there are more clerks working on things. I suppose it would be a waste if you didnt put this in somewhere. [laughter] so that might be a part of the problem. I sometimes think it would be better if we had two clerks or fewer. But you are right. There is a trend of hiring people with outside experience before coming to the court. I know ive done some of that. I would say most of my clerks are still hired out of the Appellate Court clerkship. I think the jury is still out. I think there are disadvantages from having somebody who has been in practice for a while. Without disparaging any of my clerks by saying that. Im trying to figure it had a phrase that. In a sense it could be that it is because they get to be too good at law. We want someone to find the cases on this issue and prepare that. We dont want something that is a little too polished, whether its drafts or memos. We always proudly say we are the only branch of government where we still do our own work. And if you get somebody who is a little too good at producing what you want them to produce, it makes it harder for you to find a way into the writing sometimes. Judge wilkinson i dont want to go to Justice Powell too often, but he is to complain that the clerk was way too green when he first came on the court. He was a managing partner of a major law firm. He had years of experience. But then as the years went on, he said it is a distinct advantage to have law clerks were green because they bring the experiences of their generation and the latest thinking from the law schools and everything. So he went a complete 180 on that. Chief Justice Roberts yeah. Judge wilkinson i wanted to ask a question on a more lighthearted vein. When chief rehnquist came to our court, he used to compare the cultures of the different circuit courts of appeal. He used to talk about the blacktie tradition. He would contrast that with what he called the white sandals of the ninth circuit. I guess in light of this contrast that was drawn, do you think the Fourth Circuit needs to lighten up . [laughter] chief Justice Roberts i think maybe the other circuits should tighten up a little bit. [laughter] [applause] one of the great things about my current job is that i do go to the other circuits. I come here, of course. And the d. C. Circuit is in my responsibility. And there is one other peer in you get a flavor for what they are like. The organizers here have a dress code and formal attire and evening banquet and business attire here. You mentioned the ninth circuit, no shirts, no shoes, no service kind of thing. [laughter] which makes sense. The last time i was there, the conference was on the beach in malibu and that is sort of the setting. It is the sort of federal system you see it reflected in that as well. You go to new york and the Second Circuit pride themselves in that everybody gives oral argument. Which means, literally, it is often five minutes. And you do get a real sense of new york. What do you get to say . Goodbye. And here, the culture is a little more genteel so it makes sense to have that kind of approach. Some of them i was just out at the eighth circuit a month or so ago. Their main characteristic is sort of goes from north dakota to arkansas. So it is their main characteristic is sort of you know, it goes from north dakota to arkansas. So it is it reflects our diversity. Judge wilkinson the Second Circuit, where they have five minutes of oral argument of people say to me, the red light isnt really red. They have argued in other circuits where the red light really did mean stop talking. It is traditional in our conversations that you will tell us what is on your Summer Reading list. And give us i know you will have a little bit of downtime, welldeserved, during the summer. What are you going to be reading and what should i read what should we read . Chief Justice Roberts i will give a little shout out to my colleagues. Im sure Justice Breyers new book the world and the court. I always read my colleagues books over the summer. Judge wilkinson do you agree with Justice Breyer . Chief Justice Roberts i wouldnt phrase it just like that. [laughter] i havent read it. It is on the last. To be honest, i think it is a phony debate. Everyone thinks that we ought to the at foreign law to extent that it has some invaluable to teach us. Nobody on the Court Disagrees with that. The issue comes up when you are looking at foreign law to directly informed the interpretation of the constitution, you know, to over simple five the fact that so many clerks have viewed the George Washington<\/a> was president of the convention. By nomination was secondeded rutledge, south carolina. Ashington included him among the six first appointees to the Supreme Court<\/a>. He had a little bit of a chip on shoulder though to be fair. He thought he should have been the chief justice and felt over. D i dont know if it had anything resigned it, but he in 1791 without having heard a far e case to accept the more prestigious position of of south carolina. When john jay left to accept the far more prestigious position as governor of new york, president appointed rutledge to be the second chief justice. But Alexander Hamilton<\/a> was his first joyce and washington hamiltonim the job but declined stott think if things had been different. Successful play on broadway could be a hip hop justice bout a chief which would have been a little different. Jay and i are not going to rap ct this interview in though and i think well get started right now. Thank you. [applause] chief, thank you so much for coming to our little gathering. Its just great to have you here. Back a long way nd we were together in the Justice Department<\/a> during the reagan administration. At that tell you that point, the chief judgment was of mously respected by all us within the Justice Department<\/a> that respectse and has only grown over the course the years. I know of course that the chief respected in atly the public at large but i think hat this conference is the Perfect Place<\/a> to emphasize just within the se of us cherish and respect the quality of his leadership. Dignity and the character and wonderful sense of which the chief justice presides. Thats probably a good place to end right there. [laughter] its going to be downhill from there. [laughter] but just one more. Thing. Re i think that what binds us all nobodyep love of law and loves the law ive never met anybody that really loves the justice than the chief of the united states. The potential that law has to preserve our maintain order and to make more satisfying majority of all american citizens. He not only chairs our embodies them. And we really like that. Its so nice. And welcome, chief. Thank you. Thank you. You. s great to see mourn thet many of us scalia. F justice i was particularly pleased to see all of his colleagues on across the rom pay their respects to not just the jurisprudence but warm and magnanimous spirit that Justice Scalia<\/a> exhibited particularly proud to gene ustice scalias son as a member of our fourth conference. Chief we didnt get a chance celebrate. You were talking in your remarks about anniversaries. Didnt unfortunately have because of the way the calendar have a chance to celebrate your tenth anniversary becoming chief justice. As you look back, i guess a a ade is a time to reflect little over a decade. What would you say has been the accomplishment for you in the course of your 11 years now . Whats the thing you look back the most satisfaction . I would say serving for ten years. [laughter] is the most it may sound facetious but the first thing i to point out is that its very difficult for any member of the court and certainly for a chief justice to single out any particular accomplishment as his own. We are very much a body in the sense, not simply in the sense of we get along with each other although we do but we as a group. And i think it be better to sort accomplishments of the court over the past ten years have been. Answer is really quite simple. We as a group i think have done job of protecting the role coequal branch a challenge that is marble on our courthouse of equal justice under law. You know, there are points where the court maybe has not been as good at doing that as it might have been. Typically those are occasions i dissented. We dont set out to accomplish great things. Think thats the responsibility of the political branchs. Simply to do is we can. As best as a youre nearing tend of term. The end of a term. Istorically most of the really big cases have come down toward and i get dong. The School Bell Rings<\/a> and people are rushing out the door. Does the adjournment date, does it effect of the june opinions . Is there a rush to get things out that in some way leads to less scrutiny of those last opinions coming out the door . Chief Justice Roberts<\/a> you know, i think that might have been true a generation ago. When i was a law clerk in 1980, the court issued 150 opinions in that term. Today, we issue about half that. There is a lot of debate about the reasons for that. Some of the reasons are interesting to talk about. But when you have 150 opinions you are try to get outcome i think maybe the answer is, yes. For lawyers working on briefs or other analyses, i would look at the date of the opinion carefully in that area. If the in that era. If the date is june 20, i would think to better look at it. You are right, the hard ones naturally tend to take longer. At least we know we have until roughly the end of june. So we focus maybe on the easier once before that. But i dont think they suffered quality. Of course, we dont have a fast deadline. We dont leave until all our work is done and sometimes it has pushed us to july. Sometimes, we have even gotten a day or two out early. You can imagine its hard if everybody worked on their own schedule with different priorities, nothing would come together and to the very las day. So we kind of have to sit down and say lets focus on these cases first and get it all done. If we are their past the fourth of july, that is probably my fault. Judge wilkinson you mentioned the fact that the docket has gone down from maybe 150 275. There are stash from 150 to 75. Chief Justice Roberts<\/a> you are doing very well so far. We have four opinions out of the Fourth Circuit<\/a> so far. You have been affirmed in three of them. I have to admit, i dissented in one of those three. Judge wilkinson keep up the good work. [laughter] speaking of opinions and everything. Every so often, we have occasion to look through the opinions of the 1930s and 1940s and 19 fifth. These and i and 1950s. And i am amazed at how short some of these are and the footnotes that some of these have. You look back at brown v board of education and others, they were monumental cases and they were written with very short opinions. But the modern trend has been toward longer and longer opinions with more and more footnotes than the 30s the 19 30s, 1920s, 1940s and 1950s. A lawyers most valuable asset is his or her time. Do these long opinions and i think the court of appeals needs to take cognizance of this as well are we imposing an undue burden on the time of an issue with the length of our opinions . Simply what we require, lawyers and District Court<\/a> judges and others to read, is that a problem . Chief Justice Roberts<\/a> yes and no. Some of the examples you gave have particular reasons. You know, brown can i guess, was less than 10 pages. And brown 2 was even shorter than that. Burrell war and earl warren it was important to have a unanimous opinion. If he had taken one more page were two more. Or two more pages, then the agreement would have served to unravel. So that was important. I think he wanted it to be short enough so everyone could read it, not just the legal profession. The commentators and the reporters would not really have the opportunity. It would be right there. You could look at the New York Times<\/a> and it is right there. So he had reasons for keeping it short. I agree with you on the length of opinions and footnotes. I think i have the fewest number of footnotes of any of the justices in my opinions. As you say, we get busy and you dont often read them. Why should i write them if no one is going to read them. But i do think it is a problem. You said 1930s, i guess, will it is almost a hundred years since then. The statutory production is not what it is now. You didnt have. Frank. It takes a few more pages to find your way out of the forest in those cases. So that might be part of it. Technology is part of it. It is easy to write things and change them. Here is for paragraphs about this issue. In the older days it was harder to make revisions. One reason that has been there are fewer conflicts among the lower courts and Everybody Knows<\/a> what everybody else is doing now. And say thisa long and not to know that the supreme come out theeady other way. Now you push a button and you know every case on everything. Judge wilkinson change is occurring on every front. The size of a opinions and everything. Another big area of change, i think, has been the nature of the Supreme Court<\/a> appellate bar. I remember Justice Powell<\/a> used to complain a little bit that there were all too many people i coming up and arguing Supreme Court<\/a> cases, because some of the advocates were way in over their head. Now the complaint is that we have all too few, and that it is a lower calabar, especially in the private civil cases. And there are too many repeat players. It is sort of, hey, lets give somebody else a chance. Is the appellate bar becoming to elite and too ingrown in your judgment . Chief Justice Roberts<\/a> at that time, he talked about the very trend. You go back to 1980 i dont remember the numbers, but adding aside the governments lawyers, i think there were two or three people that argued more than one case that term, maybe a couple more. Now it is premature teen. The lawyers we see quite often in a single case. One has done 10 arguments. One has done 30 arguments. That was unheard of back then. So it is a change. The bar is more specialized. I think the Supreme Court<\/a> advocacy was not recognized as a specialty until fairly recently. In many ways, it is quite a good thing. It is not like even arguing before the court of appeals. Is good to have people who know that and have done it before and understand when we ask hundred questions in an hour, which has happened. Although a case involves a bankruptcy statute, it is probably not in the Supreme Court<\/a> because of bankruptcy issues. It is there because of how we view statutory interpretation. It is good to have people who know that. It is good to have repeat players, just as in any other court. They know that they are going to be up there again later, so they will be a little more circumspect about how they analyze the record and explained the cases to you. Having said all that, i think i and many of my colleagues sort of miss the opportunity of a mr. Smith comes to washington moment where you have a sole practitioner with a battered briefcase and shares what his practice is like and his understanding of what the court is like. And they often do a very good job. But it is just so hard. You for months focus on a Supreme Court<\/a> case. To that extent, i think it is disappointing them. You lose a little bit of the color and texture of an argument when it is the same people. Although, we benefit a great deal from having experts before us. Judge wilkinson yes, it is less and less a place for amateurs. I remember one of the comments Justice Powell<\/a> had made. They dont even know our names. And they would be calling one justice the name of another justice. [laughter] at least with the repeat players, they are going to get the names right. Chief Justice Roberts<\/a> you would have thought so, but our last case, a mistake happened. Justice ginsburg was referred to as justice oconnor. [laughter] by a repeat player. Sometimes people ask what advice i have for advocates and i always say dont use their names. [laughter] judge wilkinson thats probably true. I have a hard time thinking of any area touching the Supreme Court<\/a> where there isnt change. One of the big areas of change involves law clerks. It used to be of course, the numbers of clerks have increased. People keep reminded me reminding me that John Marshall<\/a> wrote with hardly any law clerks, how did he do it . [laughter] in addition, it used to be that clerks would go right from law school to the Supreme Court<\/a>. Now we have a situation where a larger number of law clerks are a hired actor, a year or two or more of government service. You have it flipped around. We used to be training in the Judicial Branch<\/a> law clerks for private practice. They see folks in private practice training lawyers to serve as law clerks. Is this a good trend . Part of the value of a clerkship was at least partly a sentimental value. I know you felt this way about your clerks. This was our first formative professional experience. So we held it in particular sentimentally throughout the rest of our professional lives. It wasnt just another stop. In my right about the trend . And is it a good idea . Chief Justice Roberts<\/a> well, you mentioned John Marshall<\/a> not having any clerks. It sort of ties into your earlier question. I suspect one of the reasons that these opinions or longer is that there are more clerks working on things. I suppose it would be a waste if you didnt put this in somewhere. [laughter] so that might be a part of the problem. I sometimes think it would be better if we had two clerks or fewer. But you are right. There is a trend of hiring people with outside experience before coming to the court. I know ive done some of that. I would say most of my clerks are still hired out of the Appellate Court<\/a> clerkship. I think the jury is still out. I think there are disadvantages from having somebody who has been in practice for a while. Without disparaging any of my clerks by saying that. Im trying to figure it had a phrase that. In a sense it could be that it is because they get to be too good at law. We want someone to find the cases on this issue and prepare that. We dont want something that is a little too polished, whether its drafts or memos. We always proudly say we are the only branch of government where we still do our own work. And if you get somebody who is a little too good at producing what you want them to produce, it makes it harder for you to find a way into the writing sometimes. Judge wilkinson i dont want to go to Justice Powell<\/a> too often, but he is to complain that the clerk was way too green when he first came on the court. He was a managing partner of a major law firm. He had years of experience. But then as the years went on, he said it is a distinct advantage to have law clerks were green because they bring the experiences of their generation and the latest thinking from the law schools and everything. So he went a complete 180 on that. Chief Justice Roberts<\/a> yeah. Judge wilkinson i wanted to ask a question on a more lighthearted vein. When chief rehnquist came to our court, he used to compare the cultures of the different circuit courts of appeal. He used to talk about the blacktie tradition. He would contrast that with what he called the white sandals of the ninth circuit. I guess in light of this contrast that was drawn, do you think the Fourth Circuit<\/a> needs to lighten up . [laughter] chief Justice Roberts<\/a> i think maybe the other circuits should tighten up a little bit. [laughter] [applause] one of the great things about my current job is that i do go to the other circuits. I come here, of course. And the d. C. Circuit is in my responsibility. And there is one other peer in you get a flavor for what they are like. The organizers here have a dress code and formal attire and evening banquet and business attire here. You mentioned the ninth circuit, no shirts, no shoes, no service kind of thing. [laughter] which makes sense. The last time i was there, the conference was on the beach in malibu and that is sort of the setting. It is the sort of federal system you see it reflected in that as well. You go to new york and the Second Circuit<\/a> pride themselves in that everybody gives oral argument. Which means, literally, it is often five minutes. And you do get a real sense of new york. What do you get to say . Goodbye. And here, the culture is a little more genteel so it makes sense to have that kind of approach. Some of them i was just out at the eighth circuit a month or so ago. Their main characteristic is sort of goes from north dakota to arkansas. So it is their main characteristic is sort of you know, it goes from north dakota to arkansas. So it is it reflects our diversity. Judge wilkinson the Second Circuit<\/a>, where they have five minutes of oral argument of people say to me, the red light isnt really red. They have argued in other circuits where the red light really did mean stop talking. It is traditional in our conversations that you will tell us what is on your Summer Reading<\/a> list. And give us i know you will have a little bit of downtime, welldeserved, during the summer. What are you going to be reading and what should i read what should we read . Chief Justice Roberts<\/a> i will give a little shout out to my colleagues. Im sure Justice Breyers<\/a> new book the world and the court. I always read my colleagues books over the summer. Judge wilkinson do you agree with Justice Breyer<\/a> . Chief Justice Roberts<\/a> i wouldnt phrase it just like that. [laughter] i havent read it. It is on the last. To be honest, i think it is a phony debate. Everyone thinks that we ought to the at foreign law to extent that it has some invaluable to teach us. Nobody on the Court Disagrees<\/a> with that. The issue comes up when you are looking at foreign law to directly informed the interpretation of the constitution, you know, to over simple five the fact that so many clerks have viewed the Death Penalty<\/a> as inconsistent. Does that tell you how you should interpret the eighth amendment here . Thats a more controversial point. What i understand to be Justice Breyers<\/a> basic thesis, and the world is a more interconnected place and we need to keep that in mind and understand more how our legal interpretations fit with a broader body of law, i think that makes sense and im looking forward to reading the book. The challenge is you cant just say the world has a view on law. English, nown the the english Supreme Court<\/a>. Their legal system is different from the law in iran or iraq. Judge wilkinson i was thinking it would become harder for a lawyer is if they were responsible for not domestic law but also for law. It seems to me there is some danger running at the meter and legal bills if lawyers have to be prepared for the fact that this case in this country may play a role in a Supreme Court<\/a> or a court of appeals opinion. I just think it may increase the challenge of an attorneys job in preparation. Is that a difficulty . Chief Justice Roberts<\/a> i guess it does. Theres always had a challenging job frankly in translating what is going on for the justices and for the judges. I dont think we live in an ivory tower and all of this is foreign to us. But some of it is quite a challenge. What you see a lot these days is not for lava technology. More and more, we have cases that involve whether the antitrust area or the Fourth Amendment<\/a> area or the First Amendment<\/a> area. What do you do the new technology . It is partly generational. We have had cases where it has been a real responsibility, a challenge for the lawyers to spy to us this is how this works. So it is just another challenge. But last time i looked, they make more money than we do. So [laughter] judge wilkinson i want to allow a little time here for questions from the audience. I will make one cautionary note. You understand, of course, we should not question the chief justice on pending or recent cases or political questions or questions bearing on confirmation controversies. There is prone there is plenty of other things to talk about without wading into that kind of subject. So anybody that would like to ask a question of the chief justice, please feel free to. [indiscernible] explain details of the virtues of [indiscernible] chief Justice Roberts<\/a> i dont know if you can hear in the back. The question is we talked often about the need for diversity, the benefits of diversity on the courts. And the question is do i find it problematic that all the justices went to to law schools and that there are no protestants on the court. At least with respect to the first of those things come i think the answer is yes. I think it is unfortunate. You know, different president s and different parties sort of think who they take sort of pick who they think are all if i are qualified. In many respects, it is an unrepresentative sample. In what way . Does that mean we bring different views in how to look at the law . If you went to a big state law school as opposed to harvard or yale . I dont think so. It is kind of hard to say they will have a different view. But on the other hand, its a big country. There are a lot of law schools. You would think there would be more diversity. I cant articulate to you why or where that is reflected or what. Parts of the country is another thing. When Justice Stevens<\/a> and i served on the court together, we felt a little bit of a special bond in that we were from the only ones from the middle of the country, the midwest. Everybody else was either from the east coast or the west coast. And again, it is hard to articulate it. We were just talking about the circuits. If you sit in a room with people from new york and california the south, you kind of get a sense you would be able to tell a little bit, ok, i can guess where you are from. I do know, a general way of dealing with people. 10 again, to be honest, it is hard to figure out does that mean that the court if you have sort of an eastern seaboard bias, what does that mean . How does that reflect itself . I cant say. As far as the religion goes, ive certainly not seen any evidence that its made an impact. It is kind of unusual. With nine people, you would think that is the religious makeup. So i guess the short answer to your question, it is kind of strange, think. Maybe it is some thing to worry about, but i cant quite put my finger on how the difference shows up. Judge wilkinson . Yes, sir mr. Chief justice yes, sir. Mr. Justice, you mentioned brown the board of education. How would you compare it to the styles of some of your favorite chief justices in our history . Chief Justice Roberts<\/a> well, it is interesting. There is a great benefit that brown was a unanimous opinion. But there was another side to that. It was unanimous in many respect because they left a lot of things undecided. There was a generation of litigation trying to figure out what does this mean and how does this work out, where does the obligation of client on what basis. So unanimous was a good thing. And i understand chief justice warrens reasoning, but it was subject to criticism. Lets get some of those things resolved so people know how to implement this. Do implement this. So there are pluses. There are minuses. Sometimes, one we have written opinions, people have said, particularly for the lower courts, they often pay the price for that. How exactly do we do this . Couldnt you have spent five more pages giving us a little more guidance . I tried to achieve as much consensus as i can. Again, that is not something i can do on my own. You kind of have to have a commitment as a group to do that. I dont want to speak for the others, but i think we spent a fair amount of time i think a little more than others may be in the past, talking about things, talking that out. It sometimes brings you a little bit closer together. But its been subject to some criticism that it puts things off and say lets not deal with this issue. It has something to do with judicial philosophy. I think we should be as restrained and only decide issues when it is necessary to do so. I think that is part of how i look at the job of a judge in our system. So how it relates to others, you know, im not quite sure. Big chunks of our history John Marshall<\/a>s era, you could not dissent. I think it was a lot to do with John Marshall<\/a> and the force of his intellect and his gregarious nature. The first decision he made was, when we get to washington, we are going to all live in the same boarding house. They had obligations outside of washington, so they did not have a permanent residence there. And they pretty much function does a group. If you look at history, it was not because marshall imposed his will on the others. The other views were considered and often became part of the unanimous opinion. Judge wilkinson so with respect to the question, the last question, which i think is very good one, Warren Burger<\/a> and William Rehnquist<\/a> had very different management styles. With berger, the conferences went on at great length as the justices discussed about cases among themselves. But with chief Justice Rehnquist<\/a>, the conferences were much shorter. Lets say our roads and the differences of the discussion will come out in the writing. Do you have any thoughts about these very different management styles with chief Justice Burger<\/a> and chief Justice Rehnquist<\/a> . And whether you have a preference for orally extending the conference and irony views that way or whether we should just leave it for the writing . Chief Justice Roberts<\/a> well, you know, if you think chief Justice Burger<\/a>s were too long and chief Justice Rehnquist<\/a>s were too short, maybe this is a goldilocks moment and we are just right. [laughter] i think it is important. It is probably true that we discussed things a little bit more than we did under chief Justice Rehnquist<\/a>. I think that helps move things along. You do get to i appoint that is you do get to a point, that is a phrase we use, you leave it to the writing. When you get to the small details, it is hard when you get nine people talking about what does this curly q in the regulation mean . You have to get it on paper so that people can focus on it more. Judge wilkinson do we have one more question . Time for one final question. If not, i would say chief Justice Roberts<\/a> i think we have one out there. [indiscernible] chief Justice Roberts<\/a> the mike is right behind you. That will help. Yes, you mentioned earlier that the court deals with technology now, which is a growing area of the law and in science. I was curious, with other scientific and technological issues, whether it is biology or Climate Science<\/a> or [indiscernible] what kind of science backgrounds do the sought to the justices have, and where do they go to for expertise . Chief Justice Roberts<\/a> that is a very good question. I think the short answer is varied backgrounds. Justice thomas is the most technologically sophisticated of us on the court. He is also advising us you got to get this, youve got to get that. And who knows what those machines are doing. And its not necessarily by age. Some of the more junior ones may not have as much experience as some of the more senior ones. I know Justice Scalia<\/a> was experimenting with some of the new gadgets. In dealing with research and drafting and all that. Who do we go to . You know, that is a good question and i think there is some controversy around it. It is so easy to say what it is and go online and see. But should that be part of the record on how you are viewing it . I think that is what the case is about. Our law clerks are so much more adept at the technology than we are. We can ask them. But its a great challenge and it is a very just in question. I think we do need to be very careful. Conducting our own research on law is what we are supposed to do. But to the extent that technology is a factual issue in a case come on a panted, whether this works or doesnt work, i think we have to be very careful is a factual issue in a case, in a patent, whether this works or doesnt work, i think we have to be very careful. There are two sides to the story. I know we mentioned it, but maybe it is a little exaggerated. Its like in sports. If you say, ok, who are the 50 best baseball players. You look at it and they all played in the last 30 years, thats because that is what we know. I remember president reagan used to talk about it. His generation went from getting around on horses to going to the moon. That is a big technological change right there. And i think it can be subject to debate whether that was more significant or whether what is going on in our era was. So i think we tend to see things from our own perspective. Chief Justice Roberts<\/a> you look at amicus briefs on technology judge wilkinson does it help to look at amicus briefs on technology . Chief Justice Roberts<\/a> it does. If it is a case about Fourth Amendment<\/a> issues and how they apply to iphones or something, it is really great if you go to an amicus brief and says what we are going to do is expand to you how these work. Is as opposed to im going to give you the same legal analysis you get in the parties brief. This brief is devoted to the history of this particular legal provision or something. Those are very helpful. Ones that are kind of me, too, briefs so they can say they won a case when he comes their way, those are less helpful. Judge wilkinson thank the chief justice for being here. [applause] chief Justice Roberts<\/a> thank you. [applause] judge wilkinson that is so helpful. I really enjoyed it. Chief Justice Roberts<\/a> thank you. Thank you very much. Judge wilkinson we will allow the chief justice to exit. [indiscernible] [laughter] judge wilkinson i wouldnt put it that way. Thank you very much. Two things i want to do real quick. These conferences dont just happen. They do not occur by themselves. There are two people here i want to particularly thank. Sam phillips our circuit executive. Write down in the front who has run this thing. Unfortunately, the people from our office in richmond had to leave. I would appreciate it if you would join me in giving them a round of thanks for what they have done. [applause] with regard to your trip back come i just want to share a story that was told to me this morning by my waiter. I was talking to him and he said, you know, i know you all are heading back. I want to tell you about the expense i had. The experience i had. I was driving toward virginia the other day. It was a sunny day, skies were blue. He said i got carried away and i was going 80 in a 70 mile per hour zone. I left West Virginia<\/a> and came into virginia and come as soon as a got into virginia, there was a trooper on the side of the road. It was too late to slow down. The trooper pulled in and started following me. I was are going 80 so i kept going 80. And he says, sure enough, the guy turns the blue lights on and pull them over and he said the trooper walked up and said, sir, can i see your drivers license . The trooper said, you know, i am a good mood today. If youve got a good reason for why you are speeding, i will probably let you go. He said, i looked at him and said, you know, ill tell you the truth, officer. My wife ran off with a state trooper and i was scared you are him bringing her back. [applause] [laughter] everybody drive safe going home. We are done. Today on cspan, a look at first ladies influencing public policy. Former chief of staff Hillary Clinton<\/a> describes Nancy Reagans<\/a> behind the scenes influence on the of ministrations approach to dealing with the soviet union. Here is a preview. There were many around president reagan who wanted him to take a hard line against gorbachev and what was happening. I have some friends that were advising at the time and they said that one day nancy reagan in excess of eight and said why aes everybody assume i was warmonger . And they really wanted to seize that moment, as did others in his administration, because there was huge tension in the administration over it. George scholz was on one side, others on another side. Her knowingitivity, where her husband wanted to go in history on the issue i think was extremely dispositive. Very little credit when she was at least first lady for to help him navigate all of that. In many ways she was reputed to be able to call a spade a spade more in terms of people than he was. And that got her into some hot water. But she played some important roles in history. Obamas current chief of staff plus two other chiefs of staff. Atough the entire event seven eastern, then at eight former president jimmy carter in conversation with ugandan war refugee, the event at the Carter Library<\/a> focuses on civil rights and individual freedom. Thats 98 discussion on the latest Technology Trends<\/a> with former google ceo eric schmidt. He now serves as executive chairman of googles parent company. The event moderated takes place at Economic Club<\/a> of new york. That is here on cspan. Huddles returns to cap to capitol hill to debate gun legislation. With formal debate on guncontrol bills beginning as early as wednesday. We will have live coverage here on cspan. And the Senate Legislative<\/a> business resumes wednesday with a vote on the judicial nomination. Live Senate Coverage<\/a> on cspan two. Tonight on the communicators, Senior Vice President<\/a> at verizon and the new head of public on the key issues in telecom like that neutrality and the need for more spectrum. There is some characteristics of the spectrum that make it complicated in that environment. That is a very narrow line of sight. There are some issues with that. Complexa lot of engineering development. There is a way to adjust for that kind of issue with the spectrum that will make it more usable in that kind of environment. , watch the communicators tonight at 8 p. M. Eastern on cspan two. A panel of Investigative Reporter<\/a>s on trying to get government records for stories, including nsa emails, red cross records from superstorm sandy, fbi records and Hillary Clinton<\/a>s emails. This hour and a half event was sponsored by the Deadline Club<\/a> in new york city. [applause] i am viceello, president on the board and the event chair. Welcome to everybody. And honored to have an illustrious panel of investigative journalists today. This is ethics week at the society of professional journalists, which is the National Version<\/a> of the Deadline Club<\/a>, which is the new york chapter. On inis a lot going freedom of information, it is anniversary of the freedom of information act. One thing our National Society<\/a> is proud of and we think is important is our Legal Defense<\/a> fund just gave a 10,000 grant to a Nonprofit Organization<\/a> in new orleans which has been consistently not giving over public records on public purchases. That is the kind of battle that is going on. You may know that under the obama administration, while president obama has promised incredible transparency, in fact there have been a Record Number<\/a> lawsuits under his administration. They have doubled this year from when he first took office. That is something our panel will be speaking about both on the national and local level. And you will be hearing about especially fights with new york city and new york State Government<\/a> entities that do not want to give over records. Nypd and thecially department of corrections, which we will be hearing about. It is an honor to introduce our board member of the Deadline Club<\/a> who put this entire panel together. He is an investigative journalist with many awards under his belt with thomson reuters. Take it away. On a note, cspan is here so please use the microphone that. Ill go around as jessica mentioned, open records are important for journalists, but it is an underutilized tool. It can often take months or even years to get records, data, or documents. As i was saying it was a largely underutilized tool because it is so difficult, requested language for months and even years. They often arent in the format you asked for. Something i experienced a few days ago with a federal agency. We are going to talk about specific horse stories we all experienced in dealing with certain agencies, but also more withal strategies successful open records requests. Lead toake time, it can some amazing stories. Let me introduce our panelists going from right to left. We have an Investigative Reporter<\/a> focusing on data with the New York Times<\/a>","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia800506.us.archive.org\/25\/items\/CSPAN_20160704_192200_Chief_John_Justice_Roberts_Addresses_Fourth_Circuit_Judicial_Conference\/CSPAN_20160704_192200_Chief_John_Justice_Roberts_Addresses_Fourth_Circuit_Judicial_Conference.thumbs\/CSPAN_20160704_192200_Chief_John_Justice_Roberts_Addresses_Fourth_Circuit_Judicial_Conference_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240625T12:35:10+00:00"}