in his early years, there was no justice with him he disagree more often than justice brennan. justice scalia considered justice brennan his best friend on the court. >> this is a tradition that was nearly pushed by justice o'connor when she is on the court. it stuck. >> justice o'connor insisted that we have lunch everyday when we were sitting. now clarence, you should come to lunch. she was really sweet. i came to lunch. it is one of the best things i did. it is hard to be angry or bitter at someone and break bread and look them in the eye. it is a fun lunch. very little work is done there. it dishes nine people or eight people having -- it is just nine people or eight people having lunch. >> i try not to miss the post argument lunch. you never know what my colleagues will be talking about. let's it is the role that we do not talk abut the cases. >> we will talk about the offer. some of us will talk about the baseball game or the golf tournament. some will talk about the good movie they had seen. it is the kind of things that everybody would talk to their colleagues about at

i miss a lot of my former colleagues on the court from byron white to bill brennan, but that's the process. they go and new people come on. >> it's different. it's different today than what it was when i first got here. and i have to admit you grow very fond of the court that you spend a long time on. there was a period there with chief justice rehnquist and justice o'connor when we had gone, we had a long run together and you get comfortable with that and then it changes. and now it's changing again. >> it's a new court. when i was trying jury cases, usually 12, if a juror had to be replaced because one was ill or something, it was just a different dynamic. it was a different jury. the same way here, this will be a very different court. and it's stressful for us because we so admire our colleagues, wonder oh, will it ever be the same? i have deteriorate admiration for the system. the system works. >> i think it's healthy for the court to have members with different backgrounds. i saw a television program recently when somebody said there should always be someone who had served in the arme

it was called coffee with brennan. until 1:30 in the afternoon. by the time you sat down to write something, you had talked it through so much that you were just holding the pen. one time when i was writing something for justice stevens, i was sitting at coffee with brennan and he was writing the other side. i said i should leave the room because i working on the others. he said, no, sit down. i want john to know exactly what i think. on the other hand, justice stevens wants hand me an opinion, a draft. it was an obscure case. he said, i think this is pretty good but you can work on the footnotes. [laughter] which i thought was a pretty clear signal. they were different but i don't think they were different in how they treated their clerks. i don't know anyone who clerked for brennan or stevens who has anything good to say. you will hear from judge wood later but judge blackman was the opposite. they would produce 30 page bench memos and the brennan clerks would just sit around and have coffee. [laughter] foron: jane, you clerked two justices who

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 o'connor when she was on the court. and it stuck. -- justice o'connor 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 don't 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

why is it you think brennan's focus may prophetically, to be embraced by the court of the future? >> well, he was opposed to the death penalty for white and black. he thought it was barbaric and constituted cruel and unusual punishment, to which the majority responded it was accepted by the framers and, therefore, by an originalism view there's nothing wrong with it. it's the difference between the originalists and those who advocate a living constitution, that you have to interpret the constitution in today's day and age. you start with what the framers intended to try to see how that applies to the current day. there were two things he was doing in that case. one was protesting against how black defendants in capital cases are being treated. the second thing was protesting against the death penalty itself. the third case was ruth bader ginsburg dissent in the affordable care act, in which she just lacerated, i think, chief justice roberts interpretation of the commerce clause. she went back and showed how the commerce clause had developed, how it had been interpreted over time,

i miss a lot of my former colleagues on the court, from byron white to bill brennan. but that is the process. they go and know people come on. >> it is different. it is different today than when it was when i first got here. i have to admit -- of the court that you spend a long time on. there was a period there when chief justice rehnquist and justice o'connor, we had a long run together. you get comfortable with that and then it changes. and now it is changing again. >> it is a new court. when i was trying if a juror had to be replaced, because one was ill or something, it was just a different dynamic, it was a different jury. this will be a very different court. and it is stressful for us because we so admire our colleagues. we wonder, will it ever be the same? i have great admiration for the system. the system works. >> i think it is healthy for the court to have members with different backgrounds. i saw a television program recently when someone said there should always be someone who served in the armed forces on the court. i think there should always be someone

chief justice rehnquist, justice marshall, all of them, justice brennan. they all gave me sage advice, but in the end, the closest person who made it doable was justice scalia. >> tell us what has changed during your tenure on the court. >> god, i am older. [laughter] the courts change. you know, it is really interesting. i have to take my hat off to people like john stevens, justice rehnquist, people who have been there a long time. after you have been there a while, you sort of come of age with the court and you get used to that. then it changes. new colleagues come on and you make adjustments and they become your family. it is a different court. you have different colleagues. they are good people, all of them. we have been enormously fortunate. justice alito is there now and we were at yale together. [applause] he and martha ann have become family. you meet new people and you get new colleagues and friends. but i have to say that, with all of that, i look back on the days that i came of age as the years that i will treasure. they were really, really har

but there's very little sense he's acting like justice brennan or someone who is really enjoying the politics of the institution and trying to persuade people to do -- take positions that holmes would endorse. holmes goes his own way. so, i -- i mean, i realize that i'm, perhaps, in a minority among the holmes scholars but i resist the pragmatic label. >> so, i want to go back to the civil war a little bit. there's been a recent book, which i know you're aware of. it's called "harvard civil war" about the massachusetts regiment by a historian named richard f. miller. what he shows in that book about the 20th regiment is that it was really divided along both ideological lines and along class lines. so, you had most of the officers being these sort of harvard gentlemen. you had german troops in the unit, and then you had these nantucket whalers. >> and some irish. >> and some irish in the unit. and then there was the other division among class of abolitionis abolitionists, which holmes was at the beginning and not at the en, and the nonabolitionists led by henry abbott. i was just sort

they were finally going to get someone really bright, really articulate, which he is, defied william brennan. they sought as even after the court had majority of appointees by republicans was still pulling majority opinions out of a hat. it didn't work out that way. it turns out that scalia's is much more like william o. douglas, the most liberal member of the 20th century and douglas said the only soul i have to say this mind so he never tried to get people to join his opinions. he never tried to build coalitions. he didn't care if somebody signed on to his opinion and scalia's been the same way. so instead of forming a conservative block that was strong and for which he was an intellectual spokesman take a look at what happened last year. conservatives were all over the place. and linda greenhouse who is the former "new york times" court reporter has said that this nastiness is seeping down into the lower courts and she cited some lower court cases where the dissent essentially said that scalia's can be nasty so can i. i don't know that answers your question completely. you are next, maam.

another one was william brennan in the capitol punishment case. the 3rd was ruth gator ginsburg and the affordable care act case. >> deleo was here in philadelphia at the union league. why was that so influential in prophetic? >> as it turned out congress did not renew the act. school year can drive you crazy sometimes with his insistence an original was. but he is fairly consistent in trying to find out what the framers were looking for and in that case nearly as involved he wrote a powerful dissent and there is no flamboyance, no nastiness, nothing. it is a good comeau well written dissent there will be cases coming up involving separation of powers and he wrote a lot. >> inclined to renew the act >> a case where statistics showed in capital cases black defendants receive the death penalty at a far higher rate than white defendants end of the far higher rate than their proportion of the population in that group and the majority said we decide individual cases we find no fault in very rights and extremely eloquent dissent questioning not only the

finally going to get someone really bright, which he is, really articulate, which he is, to fight william brennan who they saw as the eminent -- who even after the court had the majority of 20s by republicans was still pulling majority opinions out of a hat. it didn't work out that way. turns out that scalia's is much more like william o. douglas and most liberal member of the 20 century. douglas said the only so i have to say this mind so he never tried to get people to join his opinions and build coalitions. he didn't care somebody signed on to his opinion and scalia's been the same way. instead of forming a conservative lock that was strong for which he was the intellectual spokesmen take a look what happened last year. conservatives were all over the place. and he -- linda greenhouse the former "new york times" reporter has said this nastiness is seeping down into lower courts. she cited some lower court cases where the dissents said, essentially said that if scalia's can be nasty, so can i. i don't know if that answers you completely. you are next command. you are next. >> okay, i am not a l

finally going to get someone really bright, which he is, really articulate, which is, to fight william brennan who they saw as the eminent who even after the court had a majority appointees by republicans, was still pulling majority opinions out of the hat. didn't work out that way. it turns out scalia was much more like william o douglas, the most liberal member of the 20th century. douglas said, the only soul i have to save his mind. so he never tried to hit people to join his opinions, he never tried to build coalitions. he didn't care if someone signed onto his opinion or not, scalia has been the same way. so instead of forming a conservative block for which he was an intellectual spokesman, take a look at what happened lecture. conservatives were all over the place. linda greenhouse who is the former new york times court reporter has said that this nastiness is seeping down into lower courts. she cited some more court cases where the dissents have essentially set of scalia can be nasty, so can i. i don't know if that answers your thing completely. your next man. go. >> okay, i am not a la

first we have tim bishop and appellate lawyer in chicago and he clerked for william brennan justice of the supreme court. next to him, kerry is the chiefa counsel dedicated to the rule of law with the fair judiciary. as the clerk to justice clarence thomas next to her we have thera member of the supreme court appellate practice clerk who clerked for justice roberts and finally last but not least. the professor of law at indiana university in bloomington served as a clerk on the seventh circuit court of appeals. each has a topic or two relevant to president trumping future of the supreme court. i would ask that each speak in order that interests them for ten or 12 minutes time per permitting i will then ask for any reaction they have to the presentation and then finall fie go to you, the audience for questions. we have a new justice that has been there for three weeks. what we have to go on so far is his participation during the session. he didn't have time to prepare for these and it's differentt being on the supreme court withn other justices rather than on a panel of three in the ten

tim is an appellate lawyer in chicago and he clerks or william brennan, justice of the supreme court. next to him we have severino. she is the chief counsel and policy director for the judicial crisis network who stated commitment is to the constitution and the founder's vision of a nation of limited government dedicated to the rule of law with the fair and impartial jury -- judiciary. before joining she served as a clerk to justice clarence thomas next to her we have ramon martinez. ramon is a member of latham and and -- supreme practice group. he clerks first chief justice john roberts and last but not least we have dawn johnsen. she is the professor block them our school of law at indiana university bloomington. she serves as a clerk judge richard cudahy. each panelist has selected a comment or two relevant to the overriding topic of president trump in the future the supreme court. i have asked that each speak in the order i have introduced them for 10 or 12 minutes. time permitting and i suspect time will not the permitting. i will then ask them for reactions they have to each oth

the national postal museum, has dams that feature legal giants like justice william brennan, grand ice, and this very museum has a nice collection, the rogue saturday o'connor roe wore when she was sworn in as the first woman justice on the supreme court. the seismic shifts and our nation's history, have typically been characterized in part by struggle. the politics have been contested as this year's contentious unfolds it's good to remember that politics can and at the edge of a plate, this is because food brings us all together. it is communal, it is ritual food has always bound civilization as is evident in a centuries old phrase and tradition of breaking bread. one of my favorite variations of this term is, it's hard to remain enemies when you broken brought together. nothing exemplifies that sentiment more than the close relationship shared by justice, ginsburg and the late justice scalia. the picture of the two of them on top of an elephant in the trip to india for me was worth many thousands of words. these brilliant colleagues put any differences aside with or traveling the wor

appointed three of the great justices of the 20th century -- chief justice warren, justice harlan, justice brennan. but his appointees came from different backgrounds, no identifiable tendency in the way they thought about the constitution. so do you see yourself as one of those models, or something different from both? president obama: there's no doubt that in making my appointments, the values of the justice matter to me. and what i mean by that is not how they'd rule on a particular issue. in fact, we're very careful when i interview candidates not to ask them about a particular case or controversy that might make it seem as if i want a particular outcome. but what i've been consistently looking for -- and this is what i saw in justice sotomayor, what i saw in justice kagan -- is people who, number one, have intellectual integrity. and what that means is, is that they look t the facts and the law, and even if it's uncomfortable to hem, they don't like the outcome, they follow the law, and they recognize that that's their job. number two, that they bring a humanity to the job. and what i mean by