Transcripts For CSPAN2 Joan 20240705

Im melissa caen. Im political analyst, a lawyer and a cohost of the pod podcast. Get out the bet. Its my pleasure to introduce today Joan Biskupic shes the Cnn Supreme Court analyst and the author of this book nine black robes inside Supreme Courts drive to the right in its historic consequences. Now, before joining cnn, joan was the editor in charge for Legal Affairs at reuters and was a Supreme Court correspondent for Washington Post and usa today. She holds a degree from Georgetown University and, has written several books, including biographies of Supreme Court justices john roberts, Sandra Day Oconnor, Antonin Scalia, sonia sotomayor. And weve just talked about your illustrious history of writing autobiographies of Supreme Court justices. You just start by telling us why this one is a is more of a comprehensive Group Picture of the the Supreme Court. Thanks, melissa. Its great to be with you. And with everyone else from the commonwealth club, its such an exciting time for the Supreme Court and could at some point maybe within just like whats going on right here now in washington, d. C. , involving court and issues percolating this way that im sure would be of interest to your audience. I had begun with Justice Oconnor back in 2005, very interested in her and then went to judge scalia, then a political history of sonia sotomayor. Finally, in 2019, i wrote the chief, and i was as i was casting about for my next project, because clearly i addicted to writing about this court beyond just my daily journalism i thought, you know who but was no person thats struck me as someone who was far along in his or her career that i could actually and someone who thought would be interesting enough for audiences like yours, you know, there are some people whove been around for a while, but i thought, oh, i dont know how much more people want to know them. So i, i got the idea of a Group Portrait and. What reinforced my idea of Group Portraits was what i started to detect in terms of what was going on behind the scenes because of the trump on the court. So i in late 2019, early 20, 20, i pitched a proposal that to new publishers that essentially would look these justices as a group and but also their inside stories woven through look at relations whos up whos how that affects rulings. But i really thought id have a much more interior look because i didnt expect any real bombshells in rulings come. Well i mean that was and then of course this was before also so not only cogan happen but then Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg dies in september of 2020 after i signed this contract. Suddenly we have just as Amy Coney Barrett on and just she comes on in late 2020 and by may 2021 theyve agreed to take the big abortion case. The dobbs and thats when i contacted my and said, no matter what deadline you might have thought i was going to make, we have to put this off for another year because i have see what they do with abortion. And that also became such a part of the story. Alissa right. Well, you know, one of the really interesting things about it, there are many interesting stories in the book, but i just i love how you kind of take us behind scenes. There are some big picture that you cover, but also really intimate details about what its like on the Supreme Court, which, as you point out, is such a secretive branch of the u. S. Government, sort of, broadly speaking. And you talk about conferences, sort of how those work and even for those of us who i mean, im an attorney myself, but, you know, we just dont get that kind of information can talk a little bit about how how sort of sausage gets made that that you bring to bear in the book. Sure. And you know, a lot of people have no idea what goes on in that room because, first of all, only the nine justices are allowed in there. There are law clerks, secretaries any assistants are not allowed in. So its nine sitting around a rectangular table there in these big black leather chairs with a little brass nameplate down the back. The room is actually kind of small. Its distinguished by black marble fireplace with a portrait of the great chief justice john hanging above it and u. S. Reports, as you know well, those books line the walls. So its kind of a tight place and i have i have worked very hard the decades to find out exactly what goes on in there and then also to find out what happens in the process afterward when, you know, the justices will take a preliminary vote after hearing oral arguments in a case and theyll take a preliminary vote going by around the table. And then, though, the real action. But its hardly kind of action that it like cinematic cinematic. Its a conversation through exchanged written drafts of opinions thats how they keep most of their going. There are a couple justices do like to buttonhole each other in the in the corridors or drop into offices, but mainly they are sending around draft opinions, theyre sending around memos. Theyre negotiating over paragraphs and theyre mainly doing the kind of work that any of are familiar with to produce any kind of written to try to get at least five people on board. But the interesting things happen when suddenly somebody might want to switch a vote. Somebody persuaded somebody to add something that would actually make an important difference in the ruling. And those kinds of actions. I especially like to ferret out. Well, the other thing that goes on, i mean, in addition to this, these conference meetings are very secretive is the you write about the clark network that really allows a lot of sort of communications to happen justices and and sort of allows certain things to take shape can you talk a little bit about that . Is that was really fascinating part of the book . Sure. You know, and you might have many lawyers in the audience as you are a lawyer, these these young law clerks are generally the cream of the crop. You know, they have there are people who went to, you know, premier law schools, mostly Ivy League Law schools. Theyve been law clerks to lower court. Theyve lot of Young Lawyers consider this the Golden Ticket of the profession for a certain kind of practice was mostly, you know, along the silk corridor, as its called out here, you know, the east coast, but also also in big cities out west, too. You know, people like to, you know, tout credentials as a former Supreme Court law clerk. So its a very Competitive Position in each know. Yeah, yeah. Each justice gets for law clerks and they count on those clerks to help do Research Help write opinions, help come with different legal ideas. But they also get into your question about the network. They count on them to their ear to the ground and some justices like clark intelligence more than others and just loved one one episode when i was reconstructing what happened in the title seven case known as bostock versus clayton county, that was the one in which the justices decided by a63 vote to expand the reading of title of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to cover gay and transgender workers. So that was that was a big ruling and, you know, chief Justice John Roberts went with the majority the outset. And that one, he had a couple of misgivings on some parts of the decision, but he basically wanted to expand the interpretation of title seven. And i asked justice how how aware. They were about this. And i out that it was the clark network who passed on that his clerks were saying, the chief is open to this. By the way, just caught myself as i was trying to something. Ill explain why i caught myself. I try to avoid pronouns of these justices and ill tell you why. There are only nine of us. Nine of them and all females are, of course, on the left. And weve got five males and one female on the right and sometimes, you know, i have access to many of the justices is under lots of different terms. But often the terms involve not revealing who told me what so i tend to be very about if i if im referring to an unnamed justice watching my pronouns because i could give a lot away given given given the make up of male and female and also left right Everything Else up there, theres just, you know, some people want to expand the court, you know, for for reasons of ideology and politics. I wouldnt mind expanding that to expand my source base. Yeah. No. What we dont want to have any issues. Im sure it took you so long to get access to those sources and get them to trust you. We certainly wouldnt want to have any any impact on that. And. Well, so one of the things and i got a audience question about this and i have a question about this too is as were talking about this and, people do take this very, very seriously. Being a clerk, being a judge or so how . And then youve said before you didnt think that a clerk or justice the jobs decision. Whats your take on on what actually happened there and how did that impact . You read a little bit about that impacted the court and their cohesion. Great question. So why unlike many other people think it wasnt a justice or a law clerk, ive just known some know for so long and i consider them to be mainly rule followers you know and those have ways to exert public pressure on colleagues the that doesnt necessarily involve leaking a 98 page document and also institutionalists in in many regards so i just i just dont a justice did it and in terms of law clerks its the same thing melissa you know this is a crowd that got to where they are mainly by following rules mainly by doing what others thought was right to do theyre super smart people but they also were doing things you know, by the book, so to speak. And so thats one reason i think that the other reason, i think, is that its a big building. Its got a of people had access to that opinion, you know, probably more than 100 and it was probably copied a lot. Frankly, that was february 10th draft and it became on may 2nd. And i think i think politico got it, you know, at least a week before then. And i dont believe politico knows exactly how it got it. I mean i have never asked those reporters and i dont intend to because they they got something that was, you know, amazing. It was a sensational scoop. So and i wouldnt want to say exactly how did you guys it so i can trace it back, you know, like im not going to do it as the court itself course has had no luck figuring out who did it. They have many more than me, but i. I actually think it might have changed hands, might have gotten out through a different kind full Time Employee there. It could have been actual accidentally left somewhere. And someone the value of this document and got it into the hands of politico. And what i say is i dont know how it got out. I know i know just about as about how it got out today as i did on may 2nd. You know, i have lots theories, but none of which i could actually test. But i do not intend to go my grave not knowing, but but i do know what the effect was, the effect was to lock in five justices on the right and to secure the kind of language that Justice Samuel later was using. I did not think when i saw the draft on may 2nd, i knew that there were five justices who had voted. Way i had known it from my own reporting and i. But i also knew that the chief Justice John Roberts was trying to off a voter 2 to 4 his his decision uphold the ban on abortion at 15 weeks. But not to go so far as to completely overturn roe v wade. So i knew thats he was trying to do and and i didnt think he was making any headway. But when i was reporting on that, you know, just quietly behind the scenes, you know, we still had like six weeks left. And i think a lot of things had changed in june. June is a theres a lot of action behind the scenes in june. And but once everything was public. I think that it made it harder for him to make headway with either justices kavanaugh. Barrett and then the other thing that happened that also surprised me was the tone of the rhetoric. I do think Justice Alitos tone was strong, more strident than i think that justices Kavanaugh Barrett have definitely would have written. But i thought maybe they might have bargained for a different kind of language, though they were ready to overturn roe v wade, but that didnt happen either. And of the reasons it might not have happened is that they felt, well, the things public will look like we caved to public pressure in any way if there are you know switch or if our or the tone of the opinion changes so it basically. And may 2nd what was what had gone on up to that point and did not allow any real behind the scenes through to june 24th when the decision was released. Well we have a question here and lets give you sure lets say youre a starbucks near the Supreme Court building and you recognize a clerk. And, you know, maybe you wave and theyve got their coffee and then they get up and leave and they but they leave a holder behind and in that there is a draft of the jobs decision. Do you report on it . We have a question if you did get an early decision draft, would you report it . Would you it public, especially now that you know what it would do . We know. Well, i love them. I that question i love that question because talked about it here now i have early information over the years but i tended to but never gotten anything as extensive as that but i tend to use my early information to then reconstruct the case because. Im so aware of how much votes can shift. So sometimes ill write that, you know, the furthest ill go, it looks theyre leaning this way but that, you know, there are more weeks to come. But i want to tip off readers to where i think things are going. But but also now just hold my fire. Ill just hold what ive gotten because because i want to then use it to tell people, okay, we know how they ruled. Let me show you how they got there and let me show you how example the chief switched wrote. So me show you who was persuaded this way. That way. So so thats how ill use it. And my bosses with whom ive worked on those kinds of stories we at times had to weigh whether we when we when we come in with information, if weve gotten something that no one else has, when do we use it . And as i said, weve tended to wait now. So say i got access to that opinion say i was fortunate enough to have it delivered to a secure dropbox of sorts or find at the starbucks whatever. And i brought it back. I said, look at this. And was able to tell my bosses this looks real based on some of the intelligence gotten from people inside court. What do we do and what we have decided . Even though it mostly weve always stuff until we knew exactly how everything we we have said to ourselves that we have run it because we feel like and i think politico made the right decision know i know what happened and i know what the effect of it was. But, you know, were in the News Business and this was such big news. It was just big news. What they were going to do and that it would have it if it would have been hard not to run it. Honestly, i thought it was fake. I first heard about it. I was like, that can be real because its so unprecedented to have this happen. And, you know, you just you just like to think that that theyve got really good security protocols. But at the same time, my experience with judges, probably yours, too, is that theyre not lovers of technology, just they dont they dont like a lot of passwords and like, know the kind of authenticator apps and stuff like that. So in some ways its surprising something hadnt gone now before with everyone drafts back and forth, you know, you just nailed it. First of all, i do have to say that before i got on this call with you, i had one of the younger people in the office come in here with me. I said, just help me get set up. Okay . I just have to make this work. Its just been such a big day there. Million stories going on. Can you just help me get on and and i am sure justice after justice. After justice does stuff like, you know, i dont want to i used to not be old as some of the justices, but now that theyve gotten so young, i am as old as some of the justices. But still, i know exactly youre talking about and you know, theyre crazy. Still ready with quill pens. I mean, they do know to they do know how to do basic processing. But youre right. Just think its kind a younger persons game in terms of tech, with the exception, i should say, of all people, Clarence Thomas, who is right now the of the group. He actually is very tech savvy, very tech savvy. He the first one to telecommute. Yeah yeah. To say that his aware of with your contacts in the Supreme Court have they told you about additional security measures being put in . Well, yeah, theyre definitely know. Theyre definitely trying to make sure this doesnt happen again. Can you imagine . You know, i recreate, as you see at the start of that final chapter, that moment where all had to sit on camera in front of so many people for the John Paul Stevens memorial, just within days of when they had found out about this leak draft and before it was public and they had to act like everything was okay. And i think how could they have done that . You know how but they immediately right as soon as they found out about it like a few days before politico published it, they immediately tried to lock down computers and, do different things. And in the marshals that she put out in january about, you know, some the very loose this practice that they had going about bird bags and number of copies and tracing copies and all that they have tried to fix. Okay. Well, thats thats really good to know. I know some of our viewers are are concerned. And but you also talk about the collegiality. The justices, i think, is so important. Believe with sotomayor. I could be wrong about this. Who you quoted saying something. You know, ive got to work with these people for the rest my life, essentially. So you know, they do try to to get along personally. But things like a leak cabal, you point out there are some strains on some of those relationships. Can you talk a little bit about the you know, the need for them and the history them and whats happening currently . Sure. And i think thats a great question because look at, you know, think of small groups that were all part of and how, you know, we spend more time with some of colleagues sometimes than with our family and and they always say they are the only nine individuals who understand the of this job. You know, the last stop in terms of determining the law of the land, the outside pressure is the people guessing them. So they have of a fellow feeling that way and also the fact that theyre appointed for life they know that they have to but you know as Clarence Thomas himself said after the dobbs leak the justices were over each others shoulder and then he drew a contrast between the Rehnquist Court that he had served under for several years and the roberts court. He said, you know, that they used to feel like a family, a dysfunctional, he said, but more like family. And remember, justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia had this fabulous friendship, their differences on the law and you just dont have as much of that anymore. Justice Sandra Day Oconnor was a great as real social glue, trying to always get the justices to go on outings together, bridge together. She was the one who started the practice of having lunch together every day after oral arguments. She was just and you know, she came to the court as after being a politician in arizona, a state legislator, and she sort of she understood the importance of personal connections. Right. I mean, you could go all the way back to, you know, John Marshall with, you know, making sure the justices live together essentially. And so we get even in some of the more landmark decisions like marbury versus madison people forget it was unanimous. You know i mean he really worked you know, ideally theres this theres a great bedrock of justices getting along. But you write about how the telecommuting actually prevents that personal personal interaction. That really helps. You know, the justices to to stay connected. Thats right. And, you know, even now, though, theyve returned to bench and theyve returned to their chambers just like a lot of other workers, they some of them have gotten accustomed to not coming in as regularly and thats i think that has diminished some of the the collegiality. Well, one of the things one of the times that we saw maybe was collegiality, maybe was Something Else was around the issue of thomas and there were theres a lot of reporting around support for donald trump in various ways and people calling for clarence to recuse himself and for new ethics rules, etc. And it seems like the justices really of circled the wagons there and, you know, really, you know, said nothing to see here, were not going to go after our fellow justice for this or were not going to create these things. But now weve got issues regarding. Clarence thomas personally and trips that he took with with friend, who also happens to be very, very wealthy that have come out in propublica do you make of how the justices might approach that issue and are really getting to the limits of what theyre willing to do or stay quiet on when it comes to the actions of their fellow justices. Yeah you know so many people say we dont want this pressure. The court or Justice Thomas to do something. And as much as this latest episode about all the lavish trips he took as a dime of republican billionaire harlan crow. I its gotten everybody talking its gotten everybody scrutinizing the court more but i just wonder what will happen. First of all they have kind of a hands off approach to each other on this topic Clarence Thomas even put out in his he said he talked to some colleagues. They advised him to not report those trips. The chief justice has said nothing about that episode. Members of congress are clamoring about it, say this is this is ridiculous. You take these really fancy trips and all this great food lodging travel on super yachts and private jets. And you dont think you need to report that. So you know that will change in in part because the judicial conferences recently clear that those things should should be documented on annual Financial Disclosure reports. But you know the justices answer to no one as the chief justice has said, they are different from political branches in that they are appointed for life. And the only way to get rid of them is through impeachment by the us house and by the senate. And that has never happened. So i think the only time as some of the audience remember, are know of in 1969, a fortas was pressured to resign because of some allegations financial irregularities. But thats the only time. Only time in more than two centuries. So i think things will continue. You know, the chief is concerned about the appearance of the court, but he cant put out a set of rules or ethics code that will apply to only five of them. And not for others, you know, like you just they have to be. I they are trying be unanimous on something and maybe they will come up with with with some sort of new practices that are formal, you know, just just so your viewers know they they they abide by the code of conduct the that Lower Court Judges are covered by. But you know theyre the only ones who police themselves. If you made a complaint like if you as a lawyer melissa had seen that one of the justices did and you wanted to file a complaint. They have absolutely no mechanism. Agree, no grievance mechanism for any claim against justice. The way you could have against a lower court judge. Well, i mean, with such an important focus being the legitimacy of, the court itself, its not clear how long thats going to stay. The status quo. It seems like there are concerns. You read a lot about justice, especially being being concerned about the perception of the court and about how even over time that has changed. Can you talk little bit and you do talk about the gallup polls and just generally Peoples Trust in the court and how that is that is really front and center in a way that havent seen for quite a while. Yeah, lots of polls led by gallup, you know, and others that are regular both have documented real plummeting of public approval for the Supreme Court. Now the chief says, oh, just because they dont like some of our rulings. But i think i think its not quite the whole story there because, you know, its enough that its not just a bunch of liberals who might not like the Dobbs Decision or independents or centrists who might not like the Dobbs Decision, the abortion decision. I think people you know, feel like the court has grown so political polarized. Donald trump said was going to name justices who would overturn roe and he named three justices who voted to overturn roe. The the alignment right now between justices on one side another and there their political ids is just a little too neat for people. I think, you know, the three liberals were appointed by democratic president s that the conservatives were appointed by republican president s. And it used to not be that way. You know, justice John Paul Stevens, who down in 2010 had been appointed by gerald ford in 1975, and he and Justice Stevens turned to be quite the liberal. Well, you do talk about i mean, you just were mentioning difficult if not impossible. It is to to remove a justice. But there is issue and maybe the justices are more aware of it now that we had the issue with was Bader Ginsburg and her untimely death and how that impacted the jobs decision. And and really at the end of what people had some people even maybe president obama had been trying to do earlier so if you get a liberal in her place, can you you get very touchingly about justice ginsburg. Can you talk little bit about that process and maybe how that is impacted the way other justices are viewing their own tenure on the court . Yeah, no, that is a thats going to be a lesson that theyll all remember. Okay. So ill just tell people what happened in 2013 by then, ruth bader has just turned 80 years old. Shes just turned 80 years old and shes been on court since 1993. So shes had a long run and president obama invites her to launch a private lunch. And i got a tip about that so i followed up with her. And at first i could tell she was reluctant. Talk to me about it. But then she said something about. Well, i suppose the white house logs might be available. And i thought and im sure they are for this one. But go ahead, tell me now anyway. And she said, you know, so he her over she starts describing the soup they had the fish they had that they ate and it was you know this is just typical ginsburg who i cannot imitate her on the list. She talked so slowly and deliberately that i been in a way that i admired but that theres no way i can mimic but as she was talking to me, she mentioned that she hardly finished her soup when the president had basically finished his entire meal because she was eating so slowly and she then she said, i guess i was done because he had Better Things to do anyway. But the meal as i do you think he was fishing for information about your retirement . And she said no, dont think he was fishing. I think he invited me because i like him and he likes me. I found out later that that indeed he was interested in her retirement plans but just did not have the courage to say, what are you going to do . What are you going to do . And you need a little knowledge and is there anything else youd like to do . You know youre going to be what are you youre already, you know. Anyway, i could help you here, you know, and so what happens that was in summer of. Oh, no, that was, you know, in 2013. And then what happens 2014 . The republicans take back the senate and, you know, and you have a republican through to all of Donald Trumps tenure. And i, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, like many people. Well, she just had to hold on till the end of 2016 because Hillary Clinton surely will be donald trump. And of course, that didnt. So then she had to hang on until the end of 2020 and she almost got there. But in september. Thats when she died and just what 55 days before the before the end of the the Trump Administration. I mean, really just at the time right and time to to potentially change the jobs decision, if i remember. Oh, thats exactly right. One thing to go to, the first part of your question about how other justices recall this and, you know, just how how sick it has been for especially liberals, what the fate of justice ginsburg. You know, theres theres certain degree of anger out there about her decision to stay on. And because because it has been so consequential, the fact that she died and was succeeded by someone who is very strongly a conservative, the opposite of Ruth Ginsburg, and that has affected dubs has affected more than just the jobs, abortion, plenty of rulings, but as to the jobs one, youre exactly right that mississippi appealed. All the papers came in in september 2020, while Ruth Ginsburg was alive. They werent to take up the petitions, the petition, until the of the month. And by that point she was gone and they postponed consideration of it for several weeks. And then in may of 2020, with Justice Barrett now, sitting in one of those big black leather chairs, the little brass nameplates beside, and take the mississippi case and rest is very consequential history. And you describe a lunch with Justice Breyer a very, very vivid i can picture it in New Hampshire where you you went to visit him and you had had a chat about you and. He was he seemed to be very conscientious, making sure he did. Yeah further change the makeup of the. Thats right. Thats right. And so were in 2021 and a lot of people were pressure on him to leave then. And he just he felt he had years at least because he thought he had until 2022, before the set of makeup changed. And it turned out the democrats held the senate. But you he didnt want to take a chance on that, but it was 2021 and he was under a lot of pressure. And i i loved doing i just flew up to see him in New Hampshire in his summer home. I was very excited about getting him to talk to me because he was very helpful in many regards. He i remember he clearly got could he we had enough time and he he bet and he bet correctly she she did not her bet did not come in. You know, i mean she lost that bet. Obviously the conditions changed from when she first thought she was taking a risk but Justice Breyer wasnt going to take a big risk. He took maybe a small risk, but i dont know if you remember right away, january of 2022 is when he announced his retirement. So he wanted to make sure that he gave President Biden plenty of time find a successor as he did, and potentially brown jackson, a former breyer clerk. So that won that one, worked out. And i think i actually think Justice Breyer was fine about how long he stayed. It was a really tough last term for him because. He lost on everything but hes now, you know, teaching, writing, traveling and having a pretty good life. Excellent. Yeah. So its a really its a real funny story about just sort of him and chief justice just going down to their to the restaurant its such a great visual and so do have some questions here from the audience of one person wants to know and this is actually a question i had for later but well go and ask it now its is asking what concerns you most about the future of the Supreme Court because you make it clear in the book that as the dissenting justices in the decision you dont think that the court is done with overruling prior precedents and doing other things. So a little bit about whats actually coming or what and what you think might be coming later here and. I think these are things that some in your audience can for. They right now are considering a major decision, a major case involving racial affirmative action on campuses from harvard and university of north carolina. And thats an area where i think were going to see a reversal of precedent there also. So thats a big case. We still have some religious discrimination cases coming down the pike, more Voting Rights cases. Whats interesting. We are in april and we have gotten no big rulings, nothing major and nothing like the better than really small minor mean they are so behind on decisions and i think its because i you know thats a good and i think its because theyre really at odds i youre just youre just im sensing much more dissension the scenes i think june is to be brutal for them but they have issued so few so few opinions of and one thing that was very much me today and by the time many people see this video maybe the case have resolved itself. But right now moving toward them is this over medication, abortion judge because merrick in in texas ruled on just a few days ago from when were taping this to say that the fda approval. One of the drugs that go into two part medication abortion. Was was not properly approved by the food and drug administration. It was just an incredibly strong opinion against the government. The government has appealed to the fifth circuit. For those of you watching here live now that just happened like just an hour ago and was telling me up significantly. But but thats just one piece of whats about to happen that case was is headed toward the Supreme Court and what i was going to say is that the justices could maybe handle that without hearing arguments. But lately they have been trying to actually not use their shadow docket, emergency docket much and actually hold hold arguments and get full briefing on cases of magnitude as medication. Abortion surely is. Did you get a sense that thats done because there was such a public outcry over. I think so. I think so. Public outcry. And then some of the themselves justice. Elena kagan complained to her colleagues in an opinion about that this quote, shadow docket and know basically saying were were making Big Decisions without the transparency of oral arguments and full briefing and in such a rushed fashion. Who wants to make any decision in such a rushed fashion, especially one that has could have such consequences . Okay. Right. And you do write in the book for those of you all listening and watching there, theres some great discussion in the book, the justices approach to gerrymandering and those issues that are probably going to become more and more important as we get closer and closer to the next election, they may be weighing in on several of those as well. That could also be really controversial. Another question here, when started covering the Supreme Court, what surprised you the most . Gosh, it has a last many, many years ago. You know, i loved going up there. I mean, again, you know, just as much as im addicted to writing these books, i, i keep changing news organizations but never changing because i just really enjoy the the atmosphere. The Supreme Court trying to figure out the stories behind the stories of, the cases. When i first started, i think the very oral argument i saw might have been in late 87, early 88, and it was such a different court. I remember thinking, god, i cant, you know, some of these old men, i cant tell from each other, you know, you just it was now weve got such a diverse bench its its easy to keep them straight, but its, you know, in such history that i can appreciate and i, i like that one case bill was built. Another case builds upon another case. So i enjoyed that about it too. I guess in terms of surprises. Know how fluid i learned, how fluid the process is behind the scenes. I also learned how no matter how much i find out theres so much more i dont know and theres so much more that the justices themselves dont know. Melissa, did you read it . You know that there are a couple of instances where i talk about switch. So perhaps between certain justices. And those are very hard to ferret out. And you know sometimes i can get information from former clerks, sometimes i get information from justices. But i found that sometimes these pacts are made just between two justices and the others dont know quite why they agreed the way they agreed. And when i discovered the double switch votes in that chief Justice John Roberts engaged in four in the obamacare case of 2012. You know i, i remember talking to many justices about that because that a case that really wanted to recreate after the after the fact and there was a lot of bafflement still on the part of some of the justices about what exactly had happened and. Why so you know, i dont know much about you know, you think you dont know going on. I know i dont know the full story of whats going on but of the justices themselves are either like what happened. Yeah. Are they unnecessarily i mean you you do write how theyre you know, its you know, you ask what kind of postits do you use and theyre like, now were im i make it better. We use language almost like that. Yeah. Yeah. The easiest questions i can see why they would want the specific sort of deliberative process to be released. And i get that. I get that especially we saw what happened with that. I understand entirely, but Little Things like exactly what kind of format are you going to use for teleconference oral arguments now that youre in called it, you know, what are you going to do . I cant tell you that. How many votes does it take to summarily reverse it . You in a Lower Court Decision without oral arguments . And, you know, i had i found out that was six you know, i find out things but you know, whats it why cant people know that why wouldnt you know whats so hard about that or the other thing that that really can hurt me and my colleagues is they dont want to tell you ahead of time where theyre going to be speaking like youre out, youre and about. So and we really want to see you so at least give us a heads up. So we can buy a plane ticket, you know, so so those kinds of things that i think i dont know i actually dont understand why they dont want to be more helpful on the easy stuff because it would just them a little bit more goodwill. I dont think they are that many of them just feel like if they had heard me say one thing, why arent they interested in obtaining more goodwill . They think were not in the business of getting more good. Well, were not in the business of trying to educate you or others. Were in the business of deciding cases, end of story. Thats how i think many of them feel. But they are thing. I mean, you know, i think they dont have an army, you know, like what exact. Thats what i think. Why dont you know, why dont you want to help public understanding of what youre about . Why dont you, you know, engage more and youre always going to youre not going like the critics on both ends. Youre not going to like a lot of the people in the media. You dont even have to like someone. Me, i get that. But can you just answer the most basic question that people dont get things wrong. You know, i always ill put it in story i like when i you probably saw that cnn. Three of the kind of scooping sections the book, you know we did a lot of tv and digital attention around those. And in the one about justice this is the chief justice working with Anthony Kennedy on a pair of gay rights like i included a paragraph that said it is to find out what really happened and this is this is how we find out and its limited because you have to you know, because some other justices might not know. And im always very about being too chamber centric, you know, getting information from one or two chambers and not the others. So, you know, we often will we we make clear to when we can that the limitations. And, you know, if i had a nickel for every time i put in the story, you know, the court declined comment. The court declined comment. Chief Justice John Roberts declined to comment. Thats why when we did hear Clarence Thomas, his explanation on the travels with harlan crowe was at least a step forward. But was interesting that he said, you know, they essentially me not to report them but who you know then if you go back, you say, okay, well, who exactly . Well thats all were saying about that. You know, using. Yeah right. Whos they who they is. Exactly right. You probably saw it in my acknowledgments i sort of mentioned you know in addition to thanking all sorts of people in my life indulge this pastime of mine. I mentioned how ive always had mantra about the Supreme Court. This is your Supreme Court. But there was another mantra that had that more recently has been swirling my head or another of line that i thought of and that from when a Court Official to me, when i was asked an incredibly easy question, all things considered, if we had wanted you to know that we would have told you that, and it wouldnt like. Why have that added . You are you are part of the government. You are you know you have a public so anyway you but as i always do say they it one thing that will get them together they will close ranks against precedent queries. The one thing they can agree on sadly. Yes. Right, right, right, right. Well, we do have a question here about about justices and harassment mean. So there is i mean, to some degree you know, i dont blame them for not wanting to talk to public. It has not gone particularly swimmingly every time had interactions. And im thinking in particular or the attempt on Justice Kavanaugh and you know said that he received Death Threats as well after after their decision the decision was leaked and there was you know this idea of among you know, maybe some certain handful of folks that you could you could staff ruling by, you know, by eliminating or attacking one of the justice as to to change then the decision lines. And so i remember seeing video of Justice Kavanaughs and and i was surprised at that just sort of walk out the front door and there is this idea i remember thinking like you should be living in a volcano, you know, inside of a mountain, you know, like, i dont know, its kind of a and i dont know why i should be so surprised. But but they actually, you know, are somewhat have traditionally at least been able to sort go through the world stop by a starbucks. But that seems to be changing. Yeah. You know, a lot people didnt know what muslim looked like either during bush v gore a of people kept saying to me, i just saw chief justice rehnquist. I decided to distinguish, you know, like because he looked pretty regular. People would mix them up and many of the justices, you know, could go about the World Without being noticed. But not not now. And after. Dobbs and i would not minimize the public threat that was to justice and that the other justices do. And they live. You know, i because i live in the northwest part of d. C. , im close to where chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Kavanaugh live and. You know, were talking can a normal resident feel areas most a live you know a few of them we live a little bit further out and have enough property that they can theyve you know defensible there you know but but some of them just live in old homes and you know justices kagan and sotomayor and folks, theyre into the city, you know, so you just have people trying to go about their lives and many of them still can about their lives. But obviously, theres just been there was constant and demonstrating at homes of justice alito. Justice barrett Justice Kavanaugh the chief to some extent, and im not sure i actually not sure if neil gorsuch got as much it was a little bit further out. Okay, interesting. Well, i mean do they have secret Service Detail or is that secret service . But they do have court detail . And now i think its like 24 hours. Yeah. Around the clock. Yeah. They definitely they they had tight security before the jobs leak, but now they pretty consistent nonstop security. Yeah. Good to know. And well one of the things you do talk about in the book to get to the horse trading issue and sort of how interesting and difficult it is to kind of untangle. There are a number of her stories around justice chief justice roberts. And but does he still is he still able to do that now that hes sort of outnumbered . I mean, now youve got Amy Coney Barrett really changed the dynamic of him being the middle, as it were. I mean, i know hes not a centrist, but at least he was in a position to really swing things. And now can, as weve seen him be outvoted, what does that done to the ability of the justices to kind of negotiate and the chief justice to try to do what he feels is right. Yeah know he had a very strong hand especially the months between when Justice Kennedy stepped down in 2018 and Amy Coney Barrett came in late 2020 because he was right smack the center. And, you know, hes got the power of to and hes a very persuasive individual. He had argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court just has a very smart, strategic in dealing with people. But he still has all those things. But he has five to his right. So he has to essentially join them to work them. He doesnt want to be a consistent dissenter. Thats for sure, because if hes if he dissents, he cant control the assignment of the opinion. So if he is in the majority, at least he gets to assign the opinion and he can try to work with his colleagues to maybe not go as far as they want to go, but or maybe it will encourage him to go further than he might have been. Another. So he still has tools but not as many as he had before. And certainly as we saw on such a culture war issue as abortion rights, those tools failed him and we know that the three of the justices that you write about were appointed by donald trump, and hes got his own issues, issues for. Now, its a little bit complicated there, right . Because they have sided with the president on certain things, but certainly not when it came to say, the january six issues and another election related issues. And in 2020. So can you talk little bit about sort of how that how that has shaken out, though trump has made my justice. Yeah he okay so in the early years of the Trump Administration his his policies were affirmed by this court by what was then five justice majority. But in part that was because they were conservative policies these the conservative majority wanted. And i think that individually they might not have been crazy about donald trump even those three who were named by him but that they liked he was coming from on issues of cultural and social policy issues as well as the strong emphasis donald trump and don mcgahn, his white house counsel, had to roll back the socalled Administrative State to diminish regulations. And they were they were definitely on with that. So they were siding with the Trump Administration, but they were mainly advancing their own their own idea of what limited government. So i think that the Donald Trumps arguments were embraced for a long time. Now, donald trump, the person, especially after the election, when it clear that he did not win, they were not they were not going to be in the camp that went down with him, thats for sure. And weve seen him mean. Do you write about this, though . Weve seen and again even the daily about how his you know Donald Trumps approach to legal issues is to just go for the judge when exactly. Yeah as as people remember you know the indictment up in the manhattan grand jury is fairly fresh right as we speak. And one of his first complaints was that the judge hates me and hes used to such personal language. I remember one time when the Supreme Court ruled against his administration. He tweeted, do you get the impression the Supreme Court doesnt like me. And then you know, this thing with the manhattan judge where he said, this judge hates me, you know, of how the judge had handled i Trump Organization case. So you know, its all personal to him and then he goes people personally. Yeah and but does it work . I mean, it seems to me this is his m. O. And he in mind this is the right approach. And either he has a sort of changed this taxes you know his earliest days going after a mexican judge who is of mexican heritage i mean its years ago and now he here we are still doing the same thing is there what is a win for in this this . I dont think theres a win for him, but theres loss all around because. As the chief will say, that that that thing gets into public atmosphere and people start to think that judges are ruling based on politics, personal preference ethnicity, whatever, you know, hes hes so persistently tried to undermine the independence of the judiciary in part with some appointments, but also that rhetoric. And i that it has a cost that. First of all, i do the court has ruled in a way that makes people doubt. This kind of non partizan neutrality, that people really feel like politics has infected the court. But then you also have the rhetoric. A man who lots of people still in donald trump saying essentially you really cant look at these people as neutral arbiters. They are motivated by politics. Theyre motivated by their dislike of me. Theyre motivated by things that are not the law and the of the case. And i think thats definitely out in the atmosphere, you know each time donald trump, you has some episode where hes more and more in the eye and people think, you know, now what will happen now, what will happen. But still has a lot of supporters. His message that a lot supporters keep listening to this drumbeat of the judiciary is not independent. The judiciary is not the judiciary is just bunch of political types, mostly who are against me as would say, and and i think that that gets communicated. In the media that i mean, is it is it important to emphasize and, you know, lots of decisions that arent the dont read neatly along party lines. I think the vast majority dont its certain you know very high level ones that i think that people are really paying to and sort of has this drama around them. But a lot them are either unanimous or have, you know, different alliances. I mean, is there an obligation there to try and emphasize and cover those cases as vigorously . You know, to remind people that there actually a lot of agreement and . Its not so cut and dried at the court . Well, thats a good question. And the justices themselves are always saying, you know, just look at the percentage of how were unanimous. Well, i bet when we get to the end of this term, that percentage will have a lot. And the reason dont spend as much of our air on those decisions, even though we acknowledge them, is because those are the ones that are more cut and dried and, that they dont they dont inspire the same public passion. So they might not be as consequential like, lets just take medication, abortion, that kind of ruling. Right now thats so diverse about in the country is worth writing about and talking so people understand what close call that might be. Just the, you know, the abortion dogs decision, whereas a case thats unanimous is unanimous because it involves tax law is important to. But it might not be as important for how people are living like each corner of, your life is going to be affected. A ruling on tax or ruling on patents or you know, those those rulings are important. And, you know, when they out unanimous. Thats great but its not where the rubber really the road for this court matchup. Okay well we are we are still getting lots of Great Questions coming in. Weve got this. How many minutes do we have . Just so i know we have like 7 minutes left. So okay. Im going to get you like two more questions. A question here. Sorry. This is a little difficult to switch gears a little bit. Its a little more personal. If you had the opportunity to interview a past or present Supreme Court justice, who would it and what would you ask them . Whos your your dream . Supreme interview . Oh, wow. That would be many. I mean, a bunch of names just popped into my head. You know, like obviously great chief justice John Marshall. Wouldnt that great. But then mark and temporary jobs because theyre gone through his papers a lot is William Brennan who i knew briefly but then he he left the court in 1990 so i was basically just coming in around then. But gone through a lot of his papers and hes fascinates me because he was so aware of counting votes. All he did was count votes. He just thats what his life was like. So hes interesting. But know louis powell, ive done a lot of work in his papers. I knew him cordially, but i would have loved to have spent more time with him. I was lucky enough spend time with chief Justice William rehnquist when he was chief and, you know, in earl warren, you know, so like i have no again, probably i thinking thinking someone like like John Marshall or, chief Justice Charles evans, whos who handled the the whole Court Packing thread back in thirties. So those historical figures would be fine for the historical but then for like get into the nitty gritty of cases like. Someone like bilbray, but he has left behind a trove of great papers. So i loved going through those. So an excellent yeah. John marshall. I would i dont even know if i have a question for him. I just kind of want to be in his presence and hang out. Right, right there. I just want to thats thats good. This person says you covered the Clarence Thomas hearings with joe biden as of the Senate Judiciary committee. Any thoughts on that . Looking back from today . Thats a great because i have written that story a million different ways because i was right there covering it at the time and i was pregnant at the time, my daughter, who is now 30 years old, was me in utero. And has a real fascination. The Clarence Thomas hearings, even though she has no interest in law journalism and shes a theater kid and but she thinks its because she was like there at the same. So i remember those hearings wrote about them and then and then continued to write about them and up through joe bidens president ial campaign, because i wanted to remind people what he had done. You know, it comes up a lot. And he has said that he has misgivings for how we handle this. But it is just because he he didnt he didnt have other women testify. And the nature of the questions to anita hill were just, you know, kind, crazy, probing in some ways. And, you know, so so theres a lot there was a lot of a circus spectacle to those hearings as Clarence Thomas said. But everybody had missteps there. But it but joe biden was in the chair. Probably did the best he could for that moment. But certainly lots people remember it. And as i said, it did come up in his campaign. And i think that in the you know, he in the end calls, anita hill around the time that running for president. And i think i forget i know you know she had written plenty about how she felt about his stewardship the committee during that. But in the end, i think faced with donald and joe biden, we know where she would have cast her vote. Well, i mean, those videos are kind of hard to watch, mean cspan. If those out there listening, everything, you can go look it on cspan. I, you know, a few years ago and i was like, oh, gosh, this is really this is really something. Okay, so we have time for one more question and the last question is from one of our viewers. And they want to know, do you think we will ever see an increase in the number of justices on the supreme . I dont. I dont. And its because despite fact that a lot of progressives would like to expand the number of seats or even you know, impose term limits. Theyre just isnt the political will for that. Even President Biden knew could potentially have an interest in having a larger court, more appointments and not so lopsided conservative is against it. And i think there just is not the political momentum it it would take act of congress to expand the number of seats. An act of Congress Certainly is easier to get than an amendment to the constitution and arguably it would take an amendment the constitution to impose term on the justices who are appointed for life. So right now generally senator, i can think of as if there was some kind of agreements to have, you know, say democrats appoint one and republicans appoint one. And so there is you know, you say, okay, well have 11 and each of us gets. Gets one because nobody knows whats going. Let the other get elected. So then what would you accomplish. Well, it just you know, we do know that they get far more petitions than they can ever really rule on in year would actually be more of a more of an issue related to workflow and just sort of the amount of decisions they can in the questions that are coming. And so and so it would you just accomplish more and stuff getting done more decisions, getting done. But that would be the only for something for people. Talk to me. Yeah. Yeah, exactly more stories to cover. More confirmations for you to. Well, joe, thank so much for taking time out of what i know is probably very, very busy day and busy week and busy for you over there covering the Supreme Court. We want to thank you so much. She is the author, Joan Biskupic, the author of nine black