Bruce Guthrie Photos: DC -- Supreme Court Building -- Exhibitions

DC -- Supreme Court Building -- Exhibitions -- Notes:

Bruce Guthrie Photos Home Page: [Click here] to go to Bruce Guthrie Photos home page.

Description of Pictures: Various exhibitions including:

Sandra Day O’Connor, First Woman on the Supreme Court:
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan, and served from 1981 until 2006. Beginning with her childhood growing up on her family’s ranch, the exhibition recalls her life before joining the Supreme Court, her service and accomplishments on the Court, and her continuing legacy off the Court.
Following her retirement from the Court on January 31, 2006, Justice O’Connor has continued her judicial service by hearing cases in the United States Courts of Appeals. In recognition of her lifetime accomplishments, President Barack Obama awarded Justice O’Connor with the Nation’s highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, on August 12, 2009. This medal, along with portraits, sculpture and personal items such as her Bench chair and judicial robe, help illuminate her story.

The Curious Courtroom Sketches of Harris B. Steinberg:
On April 22, 1949, attorney and amateur artist Harris B. Steinberg sketched the Justices on the Bench while waiting for his case to be heard before the Court. At the end of the day the Marshal requested the sketches and they have remained unseen in the Court’s archives until now. These are the only known drawings made of the Justices from the perspective of a lawyer about to participate in oral arguments.

Recognize anyone? If you recognize specific people (or other things) in the pictures which I haven't labeled, please identify them for the world. Or fill in any other descriptions you can. Click the little pencil icon

underneath the file name (just above the picture). Spammers need not apply.

Slide Show: Want to see the pictures as a slide show? [Slideshow]

Copyrights: All pictures were taken by Bruce Guthrie who retains copyright on them. Free for non-commercial use with attribution. See the Creative Commons definition of what this means. "Photos (c) Bruce Guthrie" is fine for attribution. If asked for permission in advance, I'll usually waive the non-commercial clause unless it's for people trying to sell the photos. A free copy of any printed publication using the photographs is requested. Descriptive text, if any, is from a mixture of sources, quite frequently from official signs at the location or from official web sites; copyrights, if any, are retained by their original owners.

Help? The 0640x0480 links are for screen viewing and emailing. You'll want bigger sizes for printing. [Click here for additional help]

Share: Facebook Twitter Digg del.icio.us
[1] SCX_130208_001.JPG 0640x0480	[2] SCX_130208_004.JPG 0640x0480	[3] SCX_130208_008.JPG 0640x0480
[4] SCX_130208_012.JPG 0640x0480	[5] SCX_130208_021.JPG 0640x0480	[6] SCX_130208_026.JPG 0640x0480
[7] SCX_130208_033.JPG 0640x0480	[8] SCX_130208_041.JPG 0640x0480	[9] SCX_130208_046.JPG 0640x0480
[10] SCX_130208_052.JPG 0640x0480	[11] SCX_130208_058.JPG 0640x0480	[12] SCX_130208_066.JPG 0640x0480
[13] SCX_130208_070.JPG 0640x0480	[14] SCX_130208_076.JPG 0640x0480	[15] SCX_130208_082.JPG 0640x0480
[16] SCX_130208_090.JPG 0640x0480	[17] SCX_130208_091.JPG 0640x0480	[18] SCX_130208_098.JPG 0640x0480
[19] SCX_130208_103.JPG 0640x0480	[20] SCX_130208_109.JPG 0640x0480	[21] SCX_130208_116.JPG 0640x0480
[22] SCX_130208_121.JPG 0640x0480	[23] SCX_130208_127.JPG 0640x0480	[24] SCX_130208_132.JPG 0640x0480
[25] SCX_130208_138.JPG 0640x0480	[26] SCX_130208_144.JPG 0640x0480	[27] SCX_130208_149.JPG 0640x0480
[28] SCX_130208_168.JPG 0640x0480	[29] SCX_130208_173.JPG 0640x0480	[30] SCX_130208_181.JPG 0640x0480
[31] SCX_130208_185.JPG 0640x0480	[32] SCX_130208_191.JPG 0640x0480	[33] SCX_130208_196.JPG 0640x0480
[34] SCX_130208_206.JPG 0640x0480	[35] SCX_130208_215.JPG 0640x0480	[36] SCX_130208_219.JPG 0640x0480

Limiting Text: You can turn off all of this text by clicking this link: [Thumbnails Only]
AAA "Gem": AAA considers this location to be a "must see" point of interest. To see pictures of other areas that AAA considers to be Gems, click here.
Specific picture descriptions: Photos above with "i" icons next to the bracketed sequence numbers (e.g. "[1] ") are described as follows:
1. SCX_130208_001.JPG: From the Collection: Presidential Campaign Buttons: To date, only one person has served both as President on the the Supreme Court: William H. Taft. He was President from 1909-1913 and later Chief Justice from 1921-1930. However, as national figures, several other Justices have been involved in presidential campaigns. Associate Justice Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court to run as the Republican candidate in 1916, narrowly losing to Woodrow Wilson. He returned to the Court 14 years later to serve as Chief Justice. The 1948 election saw Associate Justice William O. Douglas consider a campaign for the Democratic nomination, but he quickly declined to run. In 1952, Earl Warren ran as a Republic candidate for president but lost the party's nomination to Dwight D. Eisenhower. The following year he joined the Supreme Court as Chief Justice. Sometimes support for Justices to run for President emerges without their involvements, such as this 1984 button promoting the idea of Sandra Day O'Connor for President.
2. SCX_130208_026.JPG: Administering the Presidential Oath: At the request of the President-elect, a member of the Supreme Court has administered the oath of office at every official inaugural ceremony since 1793. The Chief Justice has performed this duty since 1797. The oath taken by the President is defined by Article II, Section I, of the Constitution: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Only Chief Justice John Jay (1790-1795) and John Rutledge (1795) did not have the honor of swearing-in a president. Chief Justice John Marshall administered the oath the most -- nine times during his 34-year tenure.
3. SCX_130208_058.JPG: Sandra Day O'Connor: First Woman on the Supreme Court: Growing Up on the Lazy B: Sandra Day O'Connor's sense of independence, self-reliance, and pragmatism may be attributed to her classic western upbringing. She was born on March 26, 1930, in El Paso, Texas, to Ada Mae and Harry Day, but she spent her formative years on the Lazy B, a 198,000-acre cattle ranch straddling the southern Arizona and New Mexico border. In their memoir, Lazy B: Growing Up on a Cattle Ranch in the American Southwest, O'Connor and her brother, Alan Day, lovingly recall how life on a cattle ranch without electricity or indoor plumbing posed many challenges, but instilled in them a strong work ethic. Her parents enjoyed reading and emphasized a well-rounded education, sending young Sandra to live with her maternal grandmother in El Paso to attend Radford School for Girls. The future Justice, however, was often homesick and always looked forward to returning to the Lazy B, where she rode with the cowboys, branded cattle, and fired a .22 caliber rifle. Many years later, she would be inducted into the National Cowgirl Hall of Fame. Defying the Odds: While completing high school, Sandra Day applied to Stanford University, where she was accepted into the 1946 freshman class at the age of sixteen. Sparked by her experience living and working on the Lazy B, she elected a course in economics and received her degree in 1950. Inspired by one of her professors, she enrolled in Stanford Law School as one of five women in her class. Among her male colleagues was William H. Rehnquist, with whom she later served on the Supreme Court for almost a quarter of a century. Her academic success in law school was marked by her induction into the Order of the Coif, a prestigious legal honorary society, as well as her service on the Board of Editors of the Stanford Law Review. While working on the Law Review, Sandra Day met her future husband, John J. O'Connor III. "Beware of proofreading over a glass of beer," she once said. "It can result in unexpected alliances."
4. SCX_130208_066.JPG: Hitting the Glass Ceiling: Although graduating near the top of her class in 1952, no law firm in California was willing to hire O'Connor as a lawyer due to her gender, not an uncommon experience among women lawyers of her generation. The only job offer she received was as a legal secretary at a Los Angeles-based firm. She persisted in her job hunt, however, and eventually contacted the County Attorney for San Mateo County, California. He told her his office was not funded to hire another deputy. "I wrote him a long letter," recounted O'Connor, "explaining all the reasons why I thought I could do things that would be useful to him in the office." She offered to work for nothing if that was necessary. As a result of her letter, she was offered a position as a deputy county attorney. While her husband was stationed in Frankfort, Germany, with the Army Judge Advocate General's Corps, she served as a civilian attorney with the United States Army Quartermaster Corps. The O'Connors moved back to the United States in 1957, settling in Phoenix, Arizona, where she was admitted to the bar and started a neighborhood law office with a colleague in a shopping center. The O'Connors' three sons, Scott, Brian, and Jay, were all born within the next six years. With the birth of her second son, she left the law practice to concentrate on raising her family, but became very involved in local politics and community service. From Statehouse to Courthouse: In 1965, O'Connor returned to work full-time as an assistant state attorney general, while continuing to play an active role in Republican Party politics. When a seat in the Arizona State Senate became vacant in 1969, she was appointed to fill it. She was twice reelected, quickly rising in prominence. In 1972, she became the first woman in the Nation to hold the post of majority leader in a state legislature. As a legislator, O'Connor worked towards changing various state laws that discriminated against women. She helped repeal a 1913 Arizona statute prohibiting women from working more than eight hours a day, which had been used to prevent women from seeking and keeping jobs. In addition, O'Connor sponsored legislation giving women equal responsibility in managing property jointly held with their spouses. In 1975, she ran successfully for trial judge on the Maricopa County Supreme Court, a position she held until 1979 when Governor Bruce Babbitt, a Democrat, appointed her to the Arizona Court of Appeals. This appointment was made possible by a new system of merit selection for judges, which she had helped shepherd to approval by Arizona voters. Committed to strengthening the rle of women in the American judicial system, she supported the foundation of the National Association of Women Judges, established the same year.
5. SCX_130208_090.JPG: Gavel used by Judge O'Connor while serving on the Arizona Court of Appeals.
6. SCX_130208_091.JPG: "Let's play Supreme Court. You be the old guys and I'll be Sandra Day O'Connor."
7. SCX_130208_103.JPG: Her Honor: Already a trailblazer having served in the three branches of state government, O'Connor was about to make an even more profound mark on history. During his 1980 Presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan made a commitment to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court of the United States. When Associate Justice Potter Stewart retired in 1981, President Reagan fulfilled that promise by nominating O'Connor, noting that she was a "person for all seasons." The Senate unanimously confirmed her appointment on September 21, 1981, and four days later she took her seat on the Bench. One of the people who ushered O'Connor through the nomination process was Attorney General William French Smith, who had been a member of the law firm that offered her a secretarial position nearly 30 years before. During her nearly 25 years on the Court, Justice O'Connor was often at the center of the Court's deliberations. While personally disdaining the label "swing vote," O'Connor frequently found herself referred to as such by the press because her pragmatic approach to judging sometimes resulted in her vote being cast among the majority in 5-4 decisions. She authored 676 opinions in her career, 301 of which were the Opinion of the Court, touching on a wide range of issues. "Being a member of the Court," she once said, "is a little like walking through fresh concrete. We look back and see our footprints in those opinions that we've written and they tend to harden after us."
8. SCX_130208_121.JPG: Accomplishments Off the Court: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retired from the Supreme Court January 31, 2006, but in many respects she remains as active in retirement as she was while on the Court. She continues her judicial service by hearing cases in the United States Courts of Appeals. In addition, she is a tireless advocate for judicial independence and the Rule of Law throughout the world. She served on the Iraq Study Group as is a board member for the American Bar Association's Central European and Eurasian Law Initiative (CEELI). Among her other activities, she serves as Chancellor of the College of William and Mary, as a Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, and as a board member of the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, the National Constitution Center, and the William H. Rehnquist Center. Most recently, she recruited experts in law, history, education, and technology to develop "iCivics," a web-based education project aimed at engaging middle school students in civics (visit www.icivics.org). In recognition of her lifetime accomplishments, President Barack Obama awarded her the Nation's highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, on August 12, 2009 (see medal in case to right).
9. SCX_130208_132.JPG: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." -- Marbury v Madison, 1803 "A Constitution is framed for ages to come and is designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it. Its course cannot always be tranquil." -- Cohens v Virginia, 1821 "Let the end be legitimate. Let it be within the scope of the Constitution and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional." -- McCullough v Maryland, 1819 "-- Never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding." -- McCullough v Maryland, 1819 "The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will and lives only by their will." -- Cohens v Virginia, 1821
10. SCX_130208_138.JPG: Marbury v Madison, 1803 Widely recognized as one of the most significant in this history of the Supreme Court, this case arose from the political controversies swirling around the transition of power in 1801 from Federalist President John Adams to Republican President-elect Thomas Jefferson. The two factions were bitterly divided. Fearing the effects of the new Republican administration, Federalists pushed Adams to make last-minute appointments of judges and justices of the peace to secure these positions for those presumably more favorable to the Federalists. Among those appointments was a commission naming William Marbury of Washington as a justice of the peace. The commissions were turned over to John Marshall, who was still acting as Secretary of State, but they were not delivered. When Marbury was not allowed to assume his new duties, he went to court to obtain an order, called a write of mandamus, directing the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the commission to him. Marbury, however, did not go to a lower court, but directly to the Supreme Court, pointing out that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 had authorized the Court to issue such writs. Writing the opinion for the Court in this case, Chief Justice Marshall found that Mr. Marbury was entitled to his commission as justice of the peace. In addition, a writ of mandamus from the Court would allow him to enforce his right to receive it. Marshall then concluded, however, that the Judiciary Act of 1789 had unconstitutionally expanded the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction -- its authorization to hear cases that had not been heard by a lower court. In other words, Marshall interpreted the Judiciary Act to say that anyone who wanted a writ of mandamus could go straight to the Supreme Court. Under this interpretation, Marshall said, the Act violated the Constitution because the Constitution outlined the limited areas in which the Court could exercise original jurisdiction and issuing such a writ was not one of them. Thus, the Court held that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was null and void because no federal law or act could supersede the Constitution. This opinion has been scrutinized over the years because the Court did not necessarily have to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional to resolve the case. In fact, it appears that all of the authors of the 1789 Act (including many delegates to the constitutional convention) had meant to say that in a case properly before the Supreme Court, the Court could issue a writ of mandamus. Marshall, however, used his alternative interpretation to assert the Court's authority to strike down laws that contravened the Constitution. Thus, he said, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." He therefore made clear that it was precisely the role of the Supreme Court to decide whether a federal law at issue in a case was in conflict with the Constitution and, if so, to declare it void. This power of the Court has been known ever since as "judicial review." The Marbury decision also demonstrates Marshall's desire to avoid direct confrontations with the other branches of government, but to maintain a balance of power among them. In declaring that Congress could not expand the Court's original jurisdiction beyond that provided in the Constitution, Marshall was limiting the authority of the Court. Marshall avoided having to order the executive branch to deliver Marbury's commission, but established the power of the Court to exercise judicial review.
11. SCX_130208_144.JPG: McCullough v Maryland, 1819: In the early decades of the American republic, the lack of a single national currency was a continual problem. State chartered banks, some cities and towns, and even private companies issued currency, but the face value of the currency varied from place to place. The result was a constant threat of economic chaos. In an attempt to solve this problem, Congress issued a charter for the Second Bank of the United States in 1816; the first Bank had been allowed to dissolve in 1811. The new Bank would issue currency that it would back with gold and silver, presumably bringing order to paper money transactions. Regional branches of the Bank were opened in several states, but a series of bad loans in 1818 led the headquarters of the Bank to begin calling in loans, requiring payment in gold, silver or the notes of the Bank. Panic ensued as other banks refused to make loans, businesses failed, and a crisis of confidence ensued that was blamed on the Bank. In some states, the legislatures began devising ways to drive the Bank of the United States out of their states. Maryland, as well as several other states, attempted to do so by imposing taxes on the federally chartered Bank. At the Baltimore branch, the new tax was purposely ignored. In response, the state sued the branch cashier, James McCulloch, and the state trial court and appellate court decided in Maryland's favor. In 1819, the Bank, through McCulloch, appealed the state court decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. Counsel for the Bank was the renowned lawyer and orator, Daniel Webster, who argued that the state was illegally attempting to tax the federal government. According to Webster, the power to tax involved the power to destroy and no state had that power with regard to the federal government. On the other side, Luther Martin, the Attorney General of Maryland, argued that Congress simply did not have the power to create the Bank in the first place. He said Congress had exceeded its powers because the Constitution did not expressly authorize it to create a bank. After nine days of argument, the Court adjourned to make its decision. Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marshall declared that Congress did, indeed, have the power to charter the Bank of the United States. The Constitution, he said, grants Congress certain specific powers, but it also gives Congress the power to make all laws "necessary and proper" for carrying out its specific enumerated powers. Congress had acted properly, Maryland had not, and the Court ruled that the state's actions were "unconstitutional and void." In the opinion, Marshall wrote, "we must never forget that it is a constitution were are expounding... a constitution intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." Although the decision reiterated the supremacy of the Constitution over the laws of the states, it did not end the debate over the Bank. President Andrew Jackson vetoed the recharter of the Bank in 1832, forcing it to close when its original charter expired in 1836. It should be noted that despite the Second Bank's controversial role, it was an important factor in the national economy during its twenty-year history.
12. SCX_130208_149.JPG: Cohens v Virginia, 1821: The issue of "states' rights" often dominated political discussions in the early years of the American republic. At various times, the debate took on ominous tones, and threats of dissolving the Union were heard in Congress and elsewhere. Emotions and political discord were reaching a fever pitch in 1820, as discussion centered on whether Missouri should enter the Union as a "slave state" or "free state." While the Missouri Compromise promised some relief, the reality was that sectional differences were increasing and many issues remained unresolved. In this highly charged atmosphere, a seemingly trivial and unrelated event led to a tense legal confrontation: the sale of lottery tickets. In 1819, the Virginia legislature passed a law prohibiting the sale of unauthorized lottery tickets as of January 1, 1820. The same year, Cohen's lottery firm, based in Baltimore, opened a branch office in Norfolk, Virginia. In June, Philip and Mendes Cohen were accrued of selling six tickets in the Grand National Lottery, authorized by the United States Congress under an 1802 statute that incorporated the District of Columbia. Convicted of breaking the new Virginia law, the Cohens were fined $100. In what was arguably a "test case" to see if the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear such cases, the Cohen brothers, represented by David H. Ogden and William Pinkney, appealed the Norfolk court decision directly to the Supreme Court. They claimed that their sale of lottery tickets was authorized by the congressional statute, which suspended the law of Virginia. On the other side, the counsel for the state of Virginia, Philip P. Barbour and Alexander Smyth, claimed that the Eleventh Amendment forbade the Supreme Court from even hearing the Cohens' appeal. In reality, Virginia was trying to use this case to continue the battle over the supremacy of the federal government over state sovereignty that had been central in the Court cases of Fairfax's Devisee v Hunter's Lessee (1813), Martin v Hunter's Lessee (1816) and McCulloch v Maryland (1819). Marshall's opinion, for a unanimous Court, reiterated federal judicial authority to decide federal questions. That is, Marshall found that state courts were free to interpret state laws, but when a federal issue arose, the Eleventh Amendment did not bar a federal court from deciding the issue, even when a state was a party to the case. The Cohens, therefore, had a right to be heard in federal court. In another example of Marshall's careful exercise of the Cohen's case. The Court ruled that Congress intended the authorization for the Grand National Lottery to apply only in the District of Columbia. The decision of the Norfolk court was affirmed, but not before Marshall had again declared the primacy of federal courts to decide federal issues. The debate over the Cohens case continued in the newspapers for almost two years. It was arguably one of the most controversial decisions handed down by the Marshall Court. Ultimately, the decision marked the decline of the "compact theory" supported by Virginia; that the Constitution was formed through a compact of the states. The opinion firmly supported the belief that it was the Constitution, derived from the will of the people, which created the Union of states. Marshall wrote, "The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will." The sectionalism underlying the debate surrounding the Cohens case continued, however, ultimately leading to the Civil War.
13. SCX_130208_173.JPG: On July 7, 1835, the day after John Marshall died, the Bar of Philadelphia agreed to commission a statue to be placed in Washington to honor the late Chief Justice. It was not until May 10, 1884, after the project had languished for nearly half a century that the statute was formally unveiled on the west plaza of the United States Capitol. It remained there until 1981, when the statue was moved for the first Presidential Inaugural to be held on the west side of the Capitol. The next year, the statue was relocated to the Supreme Court Building where it was rededicated on February 1, 1982. Originally, two marble reliefs with allegorical themes on the development of the Constitution were incorporated into the base of the statue (see below and across hall). The sculptor of all three pieces, William Wetmore Story, provided the following description of the relief below, "Minerva [the Roman Goddess of Wisdom] dictating to Young America, seated at a table, the Constitution, while beyond Minerva, to the right ate two seated figures representing Philosophy and Jurisprudence, and Infant America. On the other side are Commerce, Education bringing forward a young boy -- 8 figures in all." Today, the john Marshall statue and its marble reliefs stand as those who erected them intended: "In perpetual memory of the honor, the reverence, and the love which the people of his country bear to the great Chief Justice."
14. SCX_130208_185.JPG: On Friday, April 22, 1949, New York attorney Harris B. Steinberg arrived at the Supreme Court Building as co-counsel in the last case the Court would hear that day, Krakower v New York. An amateur artist, Steinberg decided to take advantage of the wait before his case was heard by making several sketches of the Justices sitting before him. His unusual activities drew the attention of the Marshal of the Court, Thomas Waggaman. When Court adjourned, the Marshal made the equally unusual move of requesting the drawings from Mr. Steinberg. Those drawings, exhibited here for the first time, are the only known sketches of the Justices on the Bench made by a lawyer who was about to participate in oral arguments.
Bigger photos? To save space on the server, photos larger than 640x480 are not loaded for previous years. If you need the bigger sizes of selected photos, email me and I can email them back to you or I can re-load this page temporarily with the bigger versions restored.
Directly Related Pages: Other pages here that have content directly related to this one: [Display ALL photos]
- 2013_02_08C_Supreme_CtX_Temple: DC -- Supreme Court Building -- Exhibitions -- America’s Temple of Justice (64 photos from 02/08/2013)
- 2013_02_08D_Supreme_CtX_IWAP: DC -- Supreme Court Building -- Exhibitions -- In War and Peace (1 photos from 02/08/2013)
- 2013_02_14C_Supreme_CtX: DC -- Supreme Court Building -- Exhibitions (15 photos from 02/14/2013)
- 2013_02_14G_Supreme_CtX_IWAP: DC -- Supreme Court Building -- Exhibitions -- In War and Peace (42 photos from 02/14/2013)
Generally-Related Subject Pages: Other pages here that have content somewhat related to this one:
- 2005_DC_Supreme_Ct: DC -- Supreme Court Building (28 photos from 2005)
- 2006_DC_Supreme_Ct: DC -- Supreme Court Building (6 photos from 2006)
- 2004_DC_Supreme_Ct: DC -- Supreme Court Building (4 photos from 2004)
- 2002_DC_Supreme_Ct: DC -- Supreme Court Building (8 photos from 2002)
- 1997_DC_Supreme_Ct: DC -- Supreme Court Building (4 photos from 1997)
- 2007_DC_Supreme_Ct: DC -- Supreme Court Building (11 photos from 2007)
- 2008_DC_Supreme_Ct: DC -- Supreme Court Building (49 photos from 2008)
- 2009_DC_Supreme_Ct: DC -- Supreme Court Building (27 photos from 2009)
- 2011_DC_Supreme_Ct: DC -- Supreme Court Building (14 photos from 2011)
- 2012_DC_Supreme_Ct: DC -- Supreme Court Building (1 photos from 2012)
- ...More (16 total)...
Same Subject: Click on this link to see coverage of items having the same subject: [Government] [Museums (History)]
2013 photos: So far, I'm mostly using my Fuji XS-1 camera but, depending on the event, I'm also using a Nikon D7000 and Nikon D600. Trips this year have been limited to a Civil War Trust conference in Memphis.
Photo Contact: Email Bruce Guthrie.