U.S. Supreme Court Clerk Bill Suter was sharing a table with actor and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson at a Washington, D.C. luncheon when someone asked the senator what the difference was between residing in Hollywood, Calif., and the nation's capital.

"You know, living here in Washington," Thompson mused, "sometimes I miss the reality and sincerity of Hollywood."

The hearty laughter following Suter's tale set the tone for his jovial and illuminating talk on "The Supreme Court Today" held Thursday, April 14 at Sweet Briar College's Florence Elston Conference Center. The SBC Center for Civic Renewal (CCR) invited the retired U.S. Army major general to share his experiences at the nation's highest court and receive the CCR's 2004-05 Public Service Medal.

CCR director Barbara Perry presented the award to Suter before he addressed the audience of about 100 people. Suter is the second person to receive the medal, which last year went to Elaine Jones of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.

"He has been a mentor to me and to Sweet Briar students," Perry said of Suter. "I am glad to call him my colleague and friend, and the country is blessed to call him a dedicated public servant."

Accepting his award, Suter was equally generous in his praise for Perry and Sweet Briar. "Sweet Briar is blessed to have Barbara on the faculty of this school," he said.

He has enjoyed a distinguished career in the military and served in numerous positions of responsibility around the world. A graduate of Trinity University in San Antonio and Tulane University School of Law in New Orleans, Suter in 1991 became the 19th person to hold the position of U.S. Supreme Court clerk.

Despite the drama that often surrounds the better-publicized cases, he stressed that much of the court's time is spent on the mundane: deciding which cases to hear. Most of the 8,000 or so petitions that come up from lower courts each year on appeal are, in fact, rejected, resulting in a yearly caseload of about 80.

"You read about us in the paper," he said, "beneath all that a lot of [other] stuff is going on ... The justices, the law clerks spend a lot of time to make the decision, 'Are we going to hear the arguments?' A lot of our work is sort of just churning and churning and churning, and you don't see it," he said. "The court may deny the petitions of 300 cases in one day."

Beyond the one percent of cases the court chooses to hear, many are settled before they make it to the high court, he said. Suter told an amusing anecdote about a lawyer friend from Arkansas who confided to him in a case where both parties wanted to settle but were afraid to tell the court.

"I said, 'Just fax me a handwritten note that they've settled and I'll sign an order and send it back to you myself,'" Suter said. "'Bill,'" his friend replied, 'Could you make it a little harder? I'm billing these guys by the hour.'"

When the court does agree to hear a case, it is for one of two reasons, Suter said. The first type involves important federal questions that have never been answered: often emotionally charged issues such as the prohibition of assisted suicide or partial-birth abortion. The second instance results from a split in the lower circuit courts on a federal question, such as the Internal Revenue Code. The Supreme Court would take the case to establish uniformity of law. In other issues, such as prayer at public sporting events, the court may temporarily demur.

"The press will say, 'Oh, they're surely going to take it.' But the court won't take it," Suter said. "They want it to percolate a little bit and see if any other circuit comes up with a contrary result.

"And that's why we have the 9th Circuit out in California," Suter quipped. "They seem to have a real knack for coming up with the opposite result."

On the issue of whether to bring TV cameras into the court, he recalled a Congressional Budget Committee meeting where two justices weighed in with nuanced viewpoints on the topic. An exception was Justice David Souter, who declared with a stern, deliberate cadence, "I'll be brief. When they bring cameras into the Supreme Court, they'll go over my dead body."

Suter essentially concurs with the Justice. "The presence of cameras would demean the law," he said.

Regarding the court's political leanings and decision-making process, Suter sought to clear up some popular misconceptions. Questioning claims that the court "leans left" or "leans right," he noted that 40 percent of the current body's decisions have been unanimous. "How do you get nine people to agree" that often? he asked.

He cited recent cases in which the court upheld racial preferences in law school admissions, prohibited organized prayer at public high school graduations and football games, and outlawed capital punishment for juvenile offenders as examples contradicting the popular "Rehnquist Court is conservative" notion. Rather, he sees today's body as "a moderate court that's doing its job."

Calling himself an "administrator," Suter said he is perfectly content in his role as a "low-level public servant."

"I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions," he said. "It's hard work."

— By Shannon Wells, SBC staff writer