. >> there is no rule. i learned when i got your deficit is a lot harder to get eight question on a bench of nine than a bunch of three. i learned if you do that in a hot case, if you wait until the end of a sense, you will never get a question in. you have to interrupt to make your voice heard. >> what would you tell a lawyer if they ask for device and arguing before the court -- if asked for advice in arguing before the court. >> what people know but tend to forget in the course of the arguments, the best advocates understand exactly where they want to go and have in mind alternative routes to get there. they can evaluate based on the questions whether route a is going to work, and if it is not, they will be open to route b, c, rudi. they are not rigid and certainly know where they want to go. less experienced advocates do not pick up the signals that they get from the questions. there are much more rigid in their approach. they lose opportunities by doing that. >> what is your sense after 16 years on the circuit court -- and you have been here about 3.5 years -- what is your sense of oral argument's importance? have you ever change your mind >> ♪ -- have you ever came to your mind? >> certainly. but sometimes on the bottom line, we do a lot of preparation. i will have read hundreds of pages and briefs. i've thought about the case pretty thoroughly. but still, here, particularly, i find it helpful. every case we get, even the ones that could be 9-0, are cases where there's a good argument on both sides. if you have a case like that where there are good arguments on both sides and you have skillful lawyers, and we really do have high levels of advocacy here. >> if you watch an attorney in front of you, is there any way to describe what you as a justice like and dislike in how they perform? the volume they use, all those little things? >> there is arguing a case to a jury, and sometimes in a court of appeals, we get that. everything we have done is on style,, and it is a mistake to argue before without seeing arguments if they have not before. the style is different. what is expected is different. >> in your lead-up to becoming a member of the supreme court, he did everything from arguing to working in the justice department -- you did everything from marketing to working in the justice department, u.s. attorney. were you the editor of the law review at yale? >> one of the editors. >> of all of those experiences, what was most important? >> the solicitor general handles all of the requests. any requests, it was a tremendous learning experience. >> you can explain this one. you hoped "to eventually warm a seat on the supreme court." >> i did write that, but it was like saying my ambition was to be the quarterback in the super bowl or the winning pitcher in the world series. it was a dream that i never thought i would come close to realizing. >> when did you first know you had a good chance of being in the court? >> i knew that it was a possibility. when i was first called out for the interview with the white house, in 2001 those people, i was among that group. >> how long from the first interview until it was public? >> and long time. it was in anticipation of the possibility that did not take place, the resignation. >> is it part of you, knowing that they are interested? >> in a way it is. because i told myself i it -- it was very unlikely would happen and i ate loved by job on the court of appeals. i would serve my career that way, and something else developed, that would be great. thinking that would happen, feeling disappointed. >> how long did it take for you to feel comfortable? >> i felt pretty comfortable with the substance of things. quickly. their oral and lot of little things about it. to get a feel for the dynamics of a nine-person group rather than a three-judge panel on the court of appeals. to get a feel for the difference in the docket, almost entirely discretionary. we choose almost all of our cases. there are a few that have right to appeal, but for the most part, we choose our cases. on the court of appeals, it is the opposite. almost all the cases are cases the party has a right to take to the court of appeals. very few are chosen. so it takes awhile to be used to that. but really, every single time is a learning process. i've been a judge 18 years and i learn something every year, and i hope i will continue. >> what is the difference between being a judge in the supreme court justice? >> the number of cases, the nature of the cases. on the court of appeal you have a huge number of cases. we have had a little under 300 a year each judge, and in some have almost 500 year. here we are around 80. the cases your much harder. the court of appeals is often kind of messy. many issues here. that is why we take them. complete. >> has your relationship with outsiders change, and what did they think they are doing? >> i did not think it has changed that much. i did not seem like colleagues -- see my colleagues as much. but i do not think my relationship with people i knew before has changed. a lot of people are very knowledgeable about what we do, but even people on the outside who are knowledgeable in not appreciate some ineffable aspects of this job. the simplest answer, and i think it is accurate, is the answer i saw on the website for where they had sample questions given to people who are taking the naturalization test, and i said, what is the role on the supreme court, and they had a nice, short answer, which was to interpret and apply the constitutional law of the united states. and that was it. in truth, it is not simple. it is not a mechanical process. no computer can take over what we do. but that is what we do. we have a constitution and the loss, and i think they mean something. they do not necessarily mean what i want them to in every instance, but they mean something, and the people of the united states trust us to interpret and apply those laws fairly and evenhandedly and objectively, and that is what the responsibility is that we have. >> what about this building? how does it feel in your life? >> it is a great building. i think we're indebted to chief justice taft, whose purpose is behind do -- portrait is behind you. he became chief justice and was a moving force in constructing a separate building for the supreme court. it is very impressive to visitors, to lawyers, to people who come to hear the arguments. it is impressive to me. i experienced the building into a waste. most of the time, it is the place we're going to work, so i drive to work and the grosz, it is like the other places where i have worked on today-to-date basis, coming in and the morning. when i go home, it was vacant and dark and i walked to the great hall on my way to the elevator and looked around at the pillars, and the building impresses upon me the importance of the work that we're doing. as many times as i have worked for that call, it never ceases to have that impression on me. >> what about this job is not what you expected it to be? >> it is a much more public job than my old job on the court of appeals i do not think that that i had thought about that. we are now out in public confering with constituents, but still, there is a lot more public attention focused on what we do than i was used to in my previous position. >> you read about the court and it is portrayed as right versus left, conservative versus liberal, republican versus democrat. what does it feel like inside? >> many of the cases do not break down along the so-called conservative-liberal lines. the public and media tends to understandably focused on most controversial cases, but those are just one part of our pocket, and most of our cases involve interpretation of the constitution and cannot involve hot button issues. there are plenty of issues where the court divided make up the majority and the dissent is not what anybody would have expected. >> do you have a pet peeve about how this institution is portrayed by outsiders? >> it is what i just mentioned. it is understandable but i think that people do not appreciate the full breadth of what we do. unfortunately, and lot people -- a lot of people think that we are deciding what the rules should be. i have talked to a lot of school groups, high-school kids, college kids, some elementary school kids. they usually think of questions before coming in, and particularly high school kids. they will ask me what do you think about this or what do you think about that, all of the most controversial issues, as if that is what i am doing, confusion in the minds of people between what we do an elected murdered years ago. see it live tomorrow if you're on c-span. -- here on c-span. this is c-span's america and the courts. wednesday, the supreme court heard oral argument in salazar v. buono. we spoke about the oral arguments. >> we are joined by lyle dennison, and the supreme court heard oral argument in salazar v. buono wednesday. what is the case about? >> it is about a cross on public land owned by the federal government in this giant, 2500 square mile preserved in southeastern california. the monument has been there since 1934, but it is fairly recently been challenged by a former parks service officer offended by this display, particularly because the park service would not allow representatives of other religions put up their own monuments in the preserve. buono is a former assistant superintendent of the mojave national preserve. he lives in oregon now but contends that he intends to visit there and while he is a roman catholic, he is not offended by the cross, he also says he is not even offended if there are crosses on public property. what bothers him is that only a christian symbol is allowed on the park grounds, and he thinks that that is a discrimination against other faiths. the government's argument is basically that the congress has cured any problem of the existence by passing a law in 2004 to transfer the ground on which to cross sounds to a local chapter of veterans of foreign wars, leaving them to decide whether they want to have a cross. but the government also defends the cross itself, not as a religious symbol, but as a war memorial to the war dead of america's foreign conflicts. so they are also trying to make an argument that the case should not have been allowed in court at all because buono cannot demonstrate that he is personally harmed by the presence of the cross. >> you heard the arguments. what were the main concerns for justices? >> it is an unfortunate thing, because we've all been counting on this as being a major case, but the time the argument was over, the question of constitutionality of the monument appeared to have dropped out of the case. also the question of whether or not frank buono has the right to bring this challenge seems to have dropped out for what are really quite technical, procedural reasons. so what is left in the case is simply whether or not the specifics gift to the congress made for the problem did succeed in doing so, and even that was discussed in such a narrow detailed focused that it appears there's a least a strong chance we will not see any major new pronouncement on the question of the constitutionality of putting religious monuments in government parks or other public spaces. >> does the government see the cross on public land as an infringement of the establishment across -- clause? >> most of the justices today believe the issue is no longer in the case because at an earlier stage, when the federal judge ruled that it was a violation, the government did not bring the issue on appeal, and so it is now suggested that the government forfeited that issue. so that may not be decided at all in this case. among other outcomes, the most extreme decision would be the court would simply announce that they are not going to decide this case, and to dismiss it because of the question of the remains, is it not really worthy of the court's time. that is probably the most unlikely outcome, but i suspect that what the court may well do is to conclude that this is a problem that is so easily solved by the national parks service, and finding another way to deal with it that the lower-court decision will not be overturned and the government will not be authorized to go ahead with the transfer. then we will have to find an alternative solution. >> if the court does side with buono, what is the potential impact? >> only if the court undertakes to say something of significance about war memorials that take the form of religious displays. and there are not very many of them that are like this one where it is a stand-alone christian cross with no other symbols in the area around it. and of the arguments still wire for buono made today is that in arlington national cemetery, there are 38 different kinds of symbols that the government regulations allow people to put on their graves as commemorations of military service, so -- as religious identification. so it may well be that this case will not have a wide impact on war memorials elsewhere, very few of which really do include religious symbols. >> while denison covers the supreme court for scotusblog. thank you. shortly after the hearing, attorneys on both sides of the arguments spoke with reporters outside the supreme court. >> hello. i am chief counsel for the american center of law and justice. i did the argument in the previous case, involving the 10 commandments. our organization filed a brief on this case on behalf of the united states, requesting that the monument be allowed to stay. we represent congressman randy forbes and others. they will make comments in a moment. the court has faced an important issue, and that is, does a religious emblems have a place in war memorials. that is what is significant here at the end of the day. we think that the answer as to be yes, and chief justice roberts statement where he specifically said that in this case to require a warning sign that you are approaching a religious symbol would be ridiculous, and we're hopeful that at least a majority of the court will have that same conclusion. so again, the key situation here is, do we have a constitutional crisis over a five-foot wooden cross in the mojave desert, and the answer to that should be no. >> many members of congress joined in this brief, because we're seeing an erosion across the country today of many of our historical space issues, and this represents one major one. i think it is important we hear the court come back with as we watched these arguments, and we're concerned because in almost every facet of government today, we're seeing the government or rode in the history of faith in the country. this is an export crops, representing some much to many of our veterans. it would be a shame to take this down. we're hopeful that the court mixed right decision here today and make sure that this cross continues to represent the things it has represented to sell many of our veterans are around the country. -- so many veterans around the country. >> i am in world war two veteran. i filed a brief for faith in action and others in this case. to me, the answer is very simple. we had a declaration of independence that recognized god as our creator for where our rights came and hour laws came, and to that statement, the founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. to spend time and money in a baking mouse injunction, it is boyd from the beginning because it violated the declaration. here is what you have. if these cases continue to claim that there is a violation of an establishment clause, do you know what that does, it is unconstitutional. let's start thinking clearly. we have a major problem in this country, and we said to god, you know, we do not want anything to do with you. that is not what the founders did when they pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. that is now with veterans did when we fought for this nation to preserve it as a free land and the land under which we can worship god and where the government is recovered -- required under the declaration of independence to recognize it got. -- recognized god. >> kelly sanford from the legal institute. >> i am chief counsel of the liberal illegal institute. -- liberty legal institute. we represent the american legion, the order of the purple heart, an american ex-prisoners, as well as the caretakers of this memorial for the last 25 years. service, honor, sacrifice, and remembering. that is what our veterans memorials are all about. the memorial at the center of this case was erected 75 years ago by world war one veterans to remember those who had given their lives for our country. as we stand here right now, that memorial ison%ba'á and i will have a leader of each of the groups say short word, and then we are happy to answer questions. >> i am craig roberts from the american legion. i found it two rays of hope today in the chambers, in the supreme court chambers. one was from justice scalia, who pointed out that a cross in the desert is not necessarily to be regarded as a religious symbol, but rather a war memorial, as designated. and as such, it is a symbol of sacrifice, rather than pointing to any one religion, which is part of the argument here. the other was what i would call the ginsberg solution, the offering of that. she did not offer this solution, but it is a good one, and she did embrace it. it is to tear down across and transfer of land from government ownership to private ownership. if it works from a legal standpoint, i think it is a good idea. >> i am jim sims, the national commander of the military order of the purple heart. all of our members are veterans who was wounded in defense of our country. it is every a memorial to veterans, whether it is in my home state of washington or hear on the washington mall throughout the country. the veterans deserve it, whether it is a cross, crescent, or star of david. they should be honored. there's only dependent on each other. there is a love of country. >> i'm joe davis, representing the veterans of foreign wars. with the proper supreme court judgment, it will be my members who will take care of this memorial in perpetuity. memorials are there to remember the service and sacrifice of a past generation, and that is what this memorial was about, it was there to remember the service and sacrifice of those who died regardless of origin, the war to end all wars. unfortunately, we are still at war. we cannot tear down these morals because somebody basically says the establishment clause is a violation. the establishment clause says that the government will not have national religion and it will not favor one religion over another. this is a cross to honor our war dead. it is in the shape of a cross because that is what we do. do not share this crosstown. >> any questions of -- yes? >> the court seems to except that the cross is an establishment violation. the question is now, what is to be done? >> we have to look at whether the transfer is a violation of the establishment clause. veterans will be pleased to tear the box office this memorial, and that would be a victory. it might not answer the ultimate question, which is that these memorials are being attacked across the country, and really, the real goal, the goal of the veterans' group, is to stop this disgraceful conduct of having war memorials that have been up 75 years becoming under attack because of political correctness or never mood of the day. this was not put up by the government. it was put up by veterans. this is a symbol they chose. as henry and wanda said, if they had put up a star of david, they would be caring for that. it is a matter of respecting veterans and what they do. there's a possibility. if they do not, we will keep fighting until the attacks on or memorials stop. there are a number of across the country, certainly not so bad, which has been up and down and still going. i heard the council trying to make a distinguished man today for memorial cemetery, talking lacrosse is on people's graves. we're not talking about crosses on people's graves. the cross of sacrifice is 24 feet tall. it is not on anybody's great. our government accepted it and displaced it. the art on crosses the same. huge implications on veterans memorials, and we can try to soft pedal that now, but it would have large opportunities for anything with religious imagery, coming down. thank you. >> i just wanted to make three quick points based on this oral argument. based on veterans of foreign wars, this was a total sham and the two lower courts that indicated it. if the courts get their way in this case, what is next? there is no way to stop these sales unless it stops here. across has no historic significance, no secular significance. it is a powerful symbol of the predominant religion in this country, and as such it has no business being in the lobby reserve. there is not one reasonable person who drives on those roads and sees 1 acre who does not think that this acre is controlled like the 1.6 million other acres by the federal government for people of all faiths, no faith of all political and ideological persuasion. thank you. >> the problem cannot be cured by and declaring it a memorial and having it read cleared -- re-declared privately? >> there's nothing to government can do that involves keeping across their that cures a serious, long can sting constitutional defect. absolutely. >> you just heard the veterans say that this is just a wedge for all of the other attacks on memorials. you say something contrary to that, which is that it is untrue. >> i am representing mr. buono in the case. the idea that the case represents a wedge, with the tombstones in arlington, is simply untrue. you have to take appropriate steps of honoring our veterans either by allowing the symbols of 39 different lease on the tombstones, or sacrifice of all the men and women dying for their country. but my grandfather was a jewish veteran in world war one, and to say across represents the sacrifice of the 250,000 jews who fought in this country in world war one is not true. it is rare that government chooses the predominant religious symbol of one religion and puts it fourth. dishonors us all. it is a national memorial in michigan, honoring a major explore the upper midwest. he was a priest, and the statute recognizes that by having him holding a cross. he is surrounded by all sorts of other indications that he was an explorer. the memorial is not pretend he was not a priest, but it honors him. he was in one of 49-the memorials. i do not know who fathered the ft is. >> is a problem that you cannot have a religion displayed on federal land surrounded by private land? if the private owners got the land and it was not a memorial, which you have a problem? >> it depends on the way to transfer it. in this case, they denied people who wanted to come on and put up another religious symbol, and when the transfer of the land, they gave the same favorable access to the group always had a favorable access. but if the group had a neutral process, they would go to the highest better. that is fine, and as it should be. we always fought for the right of private owners to engage in speech, to put up symbols on their own property. but that is not the case, because you have an already indicated violation, and when you say that you will favor the very people who get favored in the first case, that is not appropriate, especially when the cross is designated and national memorial. >> you're saying that if there is a religious symbol that is put up on government land, you have a history, you cannot cure that problem by selling the land? >> the government has said you cannot put up another symbol. but this person got favorable access and therefore you cannot then and the violation by getting the person or entity the same favorable access as they had in the beginning. >> chief justice roberts said it was in the middle of nowhere. >> that is a clever phrase, but the reality is about 100,000 people a year see this. we do not measure the clause by violation. the reality is that the government has the same obligations being a small town or in the national preserve. i think more importantly, if this were insignificant and trivial, we would have to ask ourselves, why did congress designated one of only 49 national morals and the united states? -- 49 national memorials in the united states? we have to ask ourselves, why is it a national memorial? >> did you say that context does matter? could this be done in front of the memorial? what do you now say, and how you reconcile that, that we do not measure the establishment clause by that fact? >> population does not matter. context matters, because in washington d.c. there is such an inexplicable link to the government that it is harder for anyone to think it is not linked to the government. but even if it is in the desert, when it is designated national the context is such that it is clear the government is embracing this symbol. the government does not designate symbols as-a morals when they disagree with the message. >> if the group was to raise a star of david and designate it as a memorial, that would be unconstitutional? >> it depends on the situation. when the court asked, what about arlington, i responded that there has been a religious symbol, it was bought a problem -- not a problem. but it would be a problem if the government said we will not accept a star of david, we're only interested in cross is here. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> can afternoon. brent walker, executive director of the joint committee for religious liberty. we filed a brief in this case on behalf of mr. buono on the argument made that mr. buono did not have standing to bring this case because he is a catholic, and catholics like crosses, sophie was in no sense injured. that is a wrongheaded approach to this case. it is not just the buddhists, a jew, hindu, or eight the as to his injured by the -- or the atheist who is injured by this religious tradition. all people of faith are injured by such an act to entitle them to come forward and bring a case for the constitutionality of that practice. it is not government's business to slice and dice and evaluate theological positions or say that because someone is a christian that person cannot have difficulty with the constitutional issue here. as important as that issue is concern in the cross, equally important is the question of who can bring the case, because it to cut back, you are also cutting back the substantive protections to protect religious liberty for everyone. i was very surprised at how little it was dealt with, and to the extent it was dealt with it was usually a matter of whether it could be raised in an earlier committee. so it was not dealt with, but it was in the breeze, and that could be a convenient way for the court to decide the underlying issues for the standing. just two years ago, the court cut back on taxpayer standing to challenge the expenditure of money for religion. unfortunately, they are saying here, do not do the same thing when it comes not to what the government does with its checkbook, but what it does with words and symbols. there is a need to keep standing rules reasonable so people can adjudicate these claims when necessary. thank you. >> you can read the supreme court oral argument transcript or learn more about the case on the "america and the courts" website. you are watching c-span's "america and the courts." the postal service honored former justices last month. john roberts spoke at the ceremony. >> thank you very much for that kind introduction to all of us and those visitors here with us today. i'm happy to be here to join all of you today in a ceremony marking the first date issued of the supreme court justices stance. i would love to send a warm welcome to everyone present to this morning. i particularly would like to welcome my former colleague, justice o'connor, who was at my side my first day on the bench, and my newest colleagues, justice sotomayor. [applause] i am very delighted to have your many distinguished officials from the postal service, including john carter and postal service governors thurgood marshall jr.. eyases especially pleased -- i am especially pleased to have family members of the justices we are honoring today. i hope you feel cents a pound coming at this great institution. -- a sense of homecoming at this great institution your ancestors have spent so much to make. as stamp collectors know, postage stamps capture the imagination at the same time they bring all corners of the world within reach. everyone of you collectors is the curator of the miniature and personal museum. i have heard justice souter, who collected stamps as a boy, warmly recalled the issue in 1950 of a stamp when he was 10 years old. the stamp left a vivid impression upon him that portrayed the supreme court building at a time when he could not imagine working in its walls. the time is today where i cannot imagine him not working in its walls. we miss him very much. my predecessor, chief justice rehnquist, was an amateur stamp collector, and he participated in three of the ceremonies, including the 2003 ceremony marking the issuance of a stamp honoring his former colleague, the great associate justice, thurgood marshall. chief justice rehnquist was never one to mince words on matters of public importance. he pointed out that he enjoyed the issuance ceremonies because they provided him with an opportunity, in his own words, to complain bitterly to the postmaster general about the sparse representation afforded to justices of the court on our country's postage stamps. i think he said those words in jest, but with him, you could never be completely sure. in any event, i am in no position to complain. it is my role today to simply say thank you. over the years, the postal service has honored the court with commemorative stamps featuring nine justices, beginning in 1894 with a remarkable five-dollar stamp bearing the image of the great chief justice john marshall. if you look at our display today, it only identifies eight justices. i would also include howard taft, even though stamps honoring him seem to focus on some other job he held. by my count, the total is 13. the four distinguished justices portrayed today, brandeis, frankfurter, brandon, and story, each served in a distinct period of our country's history, but they are united in their dedication to protecting the constitution and strengthening rule of law, and each would take great pride in the stamps the post office issues today. joseph was going only three years after america declared independence from great britain. at that time, the confederation post office, forerunner of the u.s. post offices, had just come into being, and the continental congress control postal rates. at the age of 32, he served 34 years. he was a close friend of john marshall and widely respected for his knowledge of the constitution. he wrote the very influential treatise often quoted today its print court opinions, "commentaries on the constitution," which shake -- shake the opinion of future lawyers. it is the job of government to promote welfare, and with facility, the post office conveys intelligence and transmit orders and directions, and money and negotiable paper to every part of the union. he made that observation 107 years ago, even before the introduction of the new flat- rate boxes. he was present in many respects, but i doubt even he could have imagined that his likeness might one day grace postage stamp. the postal service issued their first step in 1847, two years after the justice died. louis brandeis was going 1856, the first year that registered mail went from coast to coast and our country. he joined the court shortly after the first world war and retired for a plea for the second. he served on the court during a period of dramatic social change and innovation, saw the introduction of the automobile and the airplane, which not only transformed the nation but also the postal service. during his tenure, the postal service established a regular domestic air mail service and international air mail deliveries, so it is fitting that the service, which serves so many, he should honor the memory of louis brandeis and his unique legacy. felix frankfurter was going in vienna in 9 -- 1882, the first justice whose language was not english. he wanted to develop a large network of friends. he also produced an enormous output of letters. for chilly, while frankfurter was writing, the post office was taking advantage of and prevented road, rail, air transportation to establish daily residential deliveries, and in some cases, twice daily. justice frankfurter serve from the start of the second world war to the early-60's, and despite the court work, he found time to maintain correspondence. in 1954, the postal service delivered a letter to frankfurter from 12-year-old boy who was asking for advice print for a career in law. frankfurt took the time to reply. he advised, i would forget all about technical preparation. he told the boy to cultivate his imagination reading poetry and to experience the wonderful mysteries of the universe. and we take mail delivery for granted. but try to imagine how exciting it must've been to that club role when he opened his mail box and found a personal letter of encouragement from the justice. you cannot get that from email and twitter. william brennan was going in newark, new jersey, 1906. his father was a union leader, active in local politics. he served until 1990, writing landmark opinions and forceful dissent. i have the privilege of appearing before him as counsel and can personally attest to was not only in a thoughtful jurist, but also a gentleman. he had a distinguished time in the court. he witnessed the creation of five-digit zip codes in the 1960's and the creation of the zip + 4 codes in the 1980's. some of us are planning how to use those sunday. -- use those sunday. together, their careers spanned era that continued into the jet age. their appearance to the constitution and dedication to the rule lot of firms the court's role in government. the stamps are a tribute to justices dedicated much of their lives to serving the court, the constitution, and their country. let me repeat my thanks to the postal service for enlarging to 13 the number of justices portrayed on the nation's postage stamps, and let me close on a point that chief justice rehnquist must have made. 38 down, 19 to go. thank you. >> thank you. we appreciate your participation today. it is my pleasure to introduce the 72nd and current postmaster general, john e. potter. >> thank you for being with us here today. let me begin by first bank in new for your strong support of the program, and on behalf of the postal service, we thank you for the opportunity to dedicate these special thanks -- stamps and venue here. i want to follow about justice rehnquist. i can tell you that twice and spoke with him about honoring other justices on stamps. once when we dedicated the stamp for associate justice thurgood marshall, and again when i was delayed at an airport and spoke to him about his passion for stamps. i can attest to the fact that what justice roberts said is true. my year is still ringing. i also want to say that the postal service is honored for the opportunity to honor justices because of all that you have done over the years for the american public. as the smallest but arguably most powerful branch of the federal government, the supreme court bounces' powers of the legislature and executive branch. interestingly, the framers of the constitution set forth several important provisions in the constitution which are appropriate as we gather today. article 3, section one of the constitution provides that the judicial power of the united states should be vested in one supreme court. the constitutional coastal roads are the only reference today's judicial branch makes to the postal service. it is a pleasure to recognize another guest, the most recent appointee to the court, a highly-regarded jurist, but more important, felony yorker. and a fellow alumnus of spellman high school. associate justice sotomayor was my president at what i was a junior and out in high school, president of the student body. so you can say i have always looked up to her. we are also very, very privileged to have a former associate justice, sandra day o'connor, with us. thank you. [applause] an occasion like this one requires the efforts of many people deserving our recognition. first i would like to recognize members of the board of governors. jim miller, alan kessler, mickey arnett, thurgood marshall, as well as