Breyer asked future lawyers to remember that what's important in life is family, work, and community, and that "women are a force for good." He joked that he's "the oldest youngest" Justice, and despite having been on the Court for a decade, he still sometimes has to hold the door open if someone knocks during a judicial meeting. He told a short anecdote about recently bringing Scalia his coffee. "I've been doing this for 10 years," Breyer told Scalia. "I think I've gotten pretty good."

"No, you haven't," Scalia replied.

Breyer then magically summarized the Constitution in one minute, but I unfortunately couldn't write that fast. He praised "the rule of law" in the U.S., and said he strives to remember that "there's no view so crazy that someone in the U.S. doesn't hold it," adn that all those people show up in the Supreme Court to iron out their views.

He cited three cases that demonstrate what he means by "the rule of law" in the U.S. The first was Worcester vs. Georgia, the 1832 case in which the Cherokee tribe sued the state of Georgia after Georgia tried to steal the gold the Cherokee had found on Cherokee land. The Court found for the Cherokee, but President Andrew Jackson said something along the lines of: Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it. Then Jackson sent federal troops to Georgia, not to enforce the Court's decision, but to evict the Cherokee, hence the Trail of Tears.

The second case Breyer cited to illustrate "the rule of law" was the "second" Cooper v. Aaron, a desegregation case in which the Court told the Governor of Arkansas he had to desegregate the schools. (I'm not familiar with this case and I couldn't find it anywhere, so I must not have heard the name correctly. Anyone know which case this is?) The Governor refused, so President Eisenhower sent federal troops in to enforce the requirements of Brown v. Board of Education. "I like that case," Breyer said.

Finally, the last case Breyer suggested that illustrates "the rule of law" is any case you can think of. "Take your pick," Breyer said, and proceeded to list controversial cases such as "Bush v. Gore, school prayer, the abortion cases," and others. Take the most controversial case you want, Breyer suggested. "People feel strongly about these cases," he said. But, using Bush v. Gore as his example, Breyer said "what's remarkable is that, regardless of the decision, people follow it as a matter of course." In fact, that Americans will follow the decisions of the Supreme Court is "so obviously true, we don't even think it's interesting," Breyer said.

Mini editorial: It ma just be me, but it sounds like Breyer was saying that the great thing about the rule of law is that "we," meaning the Supreme Court, can do whatever the hell we want, and people will obey like sheep. Yeah, I guess there's some beauty about that. It's great to be king, isn't it? /Mini editorial.

Breyer went on to say that the most important part of the Constitution is what that document is basically about: democracy. He said the Constitution is great because it's a document that doesn't make decisions, but one that creates a structure that lets people make decisions for themselves.

To the common complaint that the democratic process isn't working, Breyer recommended we pull our noses out of the daily news (which he admitted is rather discouraging) and look at the big picture. For example, he asked: How will we reconcile the rights of privacy and free speech in a world where cameras and recording devices are everywhere capturing everything we do and say? He doesn't have an answer, but he's encouraged that "we're trying to find the answer with conversation" in law review articles, discussions, and through ABA committees. ("I love the ABA, with its 4,000 members and 8,000 committees," Breyer said. Everyone laughed.)

Breyer thinks that when tough issues like this arise, the Supreme Court generally waits until others have made up their minds about them, then the Court merely checks to see if those decisions are ok. He described this as "a process where law bubbles up from the bottom, it's not imposed from the top."

Editorial: What a quaint and happy little fantasy! /Editorial.

Breyer recommended we think about this process and we won't be as discouraged as he gets when he just reads the newspaper everyday.

Breyer also discussed what he considers the most important case he's sat on since he's been on the Court: Grutter v. Bollinger, the affirmative action case from the summer of 2003. He said that case involves an interpretation of the equal protection clause. According to Breyer, there are two ways to interpret that clause. One, you can interpret it strictly, or purposively, as a clause designed to prevent invidious discrimination only. Or two, you can take the "color-blind" approach that says that race is out, it shouldn't be considered either positively or negatively, and that any other view is too dangerous. Breyer suggested there are three bases for choosing between these two views of equal protection: There's a lot of discrimination to make up for, and we should do that. This affirmative action program (at the University of Michigan in the Gruder case) involves universities, and they have a 1st amendment right to choose who to admit to their school. The court's approach: Let us have affirmative action. Breyer said the Court was told by people everywhere—in business, the military, education, etc.—that America needs affirmative action, and that it needs to be managed carefully, "but if you tell us to be color blind, we will not be able to function." Breyer said the Court heard from people everywhere that "the race-blind approach is divisive, and the other approach is inclusive."

Is that a legal or a moral or a practical argument, Breyer asked. Breyer argued that it's a legal argument, because it's an argument that further's the Constitution's purpose, whihc is to create a workable democracy. Democracy won't work if large groups of people think democracy is theirs, while others think they're excluded. Breyer suggested that if we could ask the people who wrote the Constitution if they'd like a Constitution that works, or one that doesn't, their answer would be unequivocal: "Work! Work!" Breyer said the Gruder decision ensures that people can work together.

In conclusion, Breyer said, "Out of 10 years, the one clear conviction I have is that the Constitution is a document that must work, and it can't work unless people participate." The Constitution allows us to make our own decisions, but it still won't work unless we (as attorneys, presumably) get out of our law firms from time-to-time and participate. ("And thank you law firm people for being here," Breyer joked.)

Breyer's last statement was a call to action: He called on attorneys to participate in their local school board, or even a bowling league—there are millions of ways to participate; just do something. "That's what this document tells me."