she writes historical record does not reveal any instances sense 1900 of the presidential -- to nominate or the senate failed to confirm the nominate in a presidential election year because the impending election. they are using one inappropriate statement or excuse after another to explain why they shouldn't have to do their jobs. taxpayers sent them here to washington to do that instead of making excuses wouldn't it be easier to do the right thing? the right thing would be to give president obama supreme court nominee a hearing, a meeting before that. simply we are saying they should be doing their jobs. some republicans already starting to see the light. last week the republican senator from maine ripped the political

leader for -- on aftermath justice scalia's death. again republican senator from maine. here's what she said among other things. i thought it was a shame instead of honor his life and legacy and extend our condolences already where in a political fight. new jersey governor chris christie went a step further urging the committee to hold hearings. governor christie said i believe absolute right thing to do is to have hearings. people can't vote up or down they choose the hearings should be held. there is no reason for them to not take on this nomination. governor christie this right. there's no reason for the supreme court nomination not to have a full hearing and a vote. there's a resource or republicans not to give a nominee to the supreme court and

the income hearing and a vote. all we're saying is do your job. one republican congress and republican i repeat published an editorial in one of the largest newspapers in the entire state urging republican leaders to give president obama's nominee all due consideration. republican senator from montana it's unfortunate partisanship took over the conversation even when the justice was laid to rest. partisan bickering and demands echo the constitution and unfolded address. his death is an affront to his legacy. he dedicated his life to serving the constitution. it's time for the senate to carry out the constitutionality, mandated, advice and consent. the cost of tuition -- have an obligation to provide advice to the press on nominees.

so i urge others to look at what the congressman from montana said. the senior senator from maine said, what governor christie said. i agree with them. the constitution reads supreme simply insane do your job among other things. in this situation there so question that the constitution mandates in times of supreme court vacancies. article ii, section two of our constitution clearly outlines the presence legal authority to nominate justices to the supreme court. it defines the central which is to provide its advice and consent it by denying committee republicans are refusing to do their job. senate republicans should give president obama supreme court nominee a meeting, hearing, and a vote because governor christie said there's really no reason to do so.

>> family, former law clerk for supreme court justices ruth bader ginsburg and clarence thomas take part in a memorial service for justice antonin scalia who died february 13. live coverage starts at 1:15 p.m. eastern. >> associate justice antonin scalia in the simplest of terms would you explain what the role and responsibilities of the supreme court associate justice our? >> to try to come out the right way on cases that the court has agreed to hear. and also, secondly, this isn't the only respect in which the job differs from the job of a court of appeals judge, to decide on what cases the court should agree to hear. essentially two functions. the latter is prior refers will decide what goes onerous pocket

and secondly to try to get it right. >> what role do you see the sprinkler playing in society today quick second question, has it changed over your senior? >> i think the same role is has always played. i don't think it's changed. its proper role is in a democracy to give a fair and honest interpretation to the meaning of dispositions that the people have adopted, either congress in statutes or the people when they ratified the constitution. simple as that. no more, no less. i don't think we are a leader of social causes. we are not pushing the society ahead. we are supposed to be interpreting the laws that the people have made. >> what do you like best about the job? >> what do i like best cracks

under in -- what do i like best? i like figuring out the legal answers. that everybody does. i think some people who lost to become an appellate judge fined the job really quite unsatisfying when they get there. you have to a rather warped mind to want to spend your life figuring out the amateur to legal questions. it's a very isolated job. the only time you see in connection with your work people from the outside and we you are listening to argument from celtic other than that it's very disembodied in intellectual work you're probably most closely resembles the work of a law professor, which is what i was before i was here. i am no more unhappy than it was

before. >> after two decades been doing it is a aspect of the job that if you have a choice you would prefer to pass on to someone else to do, or avoid? >> i think undoubtedly, to my mind, the most complex shall i say, onerous and for the most part i'm interesting part of the job is -- uninteresting part of the job is really on all the cert petitions and to increase in homeless and the time i have any. i think when he first arrived i think if i'm correct it was something, i think it was about 5000 a year. now it's approaching 10,000. and every one of them we have to consider, if not by reading the actual petitions, we rarely do that, by reading summaries of the petitions of all clicks are prepared. 10,000 of those a year, that's not a lot of fun.

>> with the increasing number of petitions, why only 80-100 cases a year our? >> less than that. we've been averaging 75 recently. that number by the way is not out of line with what other supreme courts and other jurisdictions do. i think we could do more than 75. we can do 100. i don't think we can do what we're doing when i first came on the court, 150. i don't think we could do 150 well. why? your guess is as good as mine. i certainly have not changed my standard for deciding which cases we should take, and i don't think my colleagues have. if i had to guess i would say that what has happened is in my early years on the court, 20 some odd years ago, there was a lot of major new legislation that had recently been impacted,

new bankruptcy code, erisa. there's not been that much major legislation in recent years. and new legislation is the principal generator of successful cert petitioned. because it takes 10 years or so to get all of the ambiguities in the statute resolved. and that's our main job of course. we don't take cases because we think there were decided wrong. very rarely would but take a case for the reason. identities we would. but we usually take cases because the analysis of the courts below reflect a disagreement on the meaning of federal law. you can have two different federal laws in different parts of the country so we'll take one or both of those cases. as i say those disagreements have been centered on

significant questions. have been simply more rare in recent years. it's not as the we sit down at the end of the term and say okay, how many cases you want to take? let's take 120. that's not what happens. they trickle in week by week and would vote on those that we think are worthy of our consideration. the last few years, at the end of the term they've been adding up to about 75 or so. >> when you make those decisions are you aware at the time which ones will be the blockbuster cases? >> usually. i think you can usually tell which ones pertaining to a major piece of legislation and legislation that is a major impact on society, short. >> doesn't affect the decision process to? >> not mine. i don't think it does. look, i put in as much blood, sweat and tears on the bookcase as i do on the big ones. if someone asked me what's the

hardest case you ever decided, you would want to know because it is a relatively insignificant case but it was very hard to figure out. there's no relationship whatever between how important it is and how hard it is. >> so can you tell me now that you described? >> you don't want to know. >> we put so much in talking to the justices about clerks but i'd like to ask you about their role in what you do. you that many of them over the years. do you stay in touch with them after they've worked for you? >> i do in the. we have an annual clerks reunion every year. it's good to see them. is actually one of the most enjoyable parts of the job. you work very closely with four young people every year. there are new ones every day. they are full of vim and vigor. they are not jaded.

it's all new to them and their enthusiasm rubs off on you. the work close with him during the year. you really become very close, and then they go off. it's like acquiring for new nieces and nephews every year. not the film will be a failure. and i'll go off to do very significant things. and it's fun to follow their later careers. >> and you do in fact other than -- >> sure. >> how to use them in your java? >> i mean, i think is how i do it. what i do is not necessarily what the others do. i let them take the cases they want to work on, sort of like an nfl draft. they have first pics, second pick. i figure they're likely to do this work on the cases they are most interested in so they do the of the cases, and then i usually discuss the case very

briefly with a law clerk who has chosen it before oral argument. and then after oral argument i sit down with the clerk and with the other three who know something about the case, although not as much as the clerk who really is responsible for it. and we kick it around for as long as it takes. could be in our, could be two hours. and if i happen to be assigned the opinion over the dissent, the clerk will normally do a first draft of it. i will tell them what's supposed to be in it but he will write it out and then i will put it up on my screen and take it apart and put it back together. so, i kid you not, i tell them at the reunions, i am indebted to my law clerks for a lot of the quality of the work that comes out of my chambers. i couldn't do as well without

the assistance of really brilliant young people. >> in a week when the court is in session how many hours do you spend in this building in a typical week speak with i have no idea. >> is a 40 hour a week job, 60 hours a week job? >> one of the nice things about the job or one of the not nice things about the job is you don't have to be here to be working. i could edi adding some judges n the court of appeals do only come into court when there's oral argument. i could do this job from home. the main think it would deprive me of is consultation with my law clerks and would deprive them, too. so i do like -- that is a relationship how many hours i put in. i've never counted the hours in a week but i most always work weekends are not all weekend at the weekend, but some of the weekend every week. >> is there ever really a break

in december to? >> yes. summertime is a break. we clean our plate before we leave at the end of june so it's really a summer without guilt. the only work we have to do over the summer is stay on top of certifications because there's a monster conference at the end of the summer to vote on all of the cert petitions that have a cumulative over the summer so have to stay on top of them but that's a manageable job. but for the rest of it, we have continued to function the way all three branches of the federal can use to function in this town. used to be deserted in july and august. nobody was here. now we are generally not prevent in july and august, and come back in september to get ready for the arguments in october. but during the summer you have time to do some of the reading that you didn't have time to do

during the court term, and to sort of we generate your batteries. >> you mentioned that the court has retained some of the traditions that the other branches used to have in the summer here but the court also are quite well known for many of its other traditions. i do for driving down a few that came to mind including in the courtroom itself the quill pens, the solicitor's formal draft. the institutions in the courtroom that i wonder why they matter to the process and why they are retained in 2009? >> i think traditions in the way define an institution. an institution is respected when it is available with traditions. and certainly one of the remarkable things about the court, been doing this job ever

220 years. i think traditions remind people of that fact. i guess we could sit and a bus station and not wear robes but just business suits or even tank tops. but i don't think that creates the kind of energy went for the supreme court of your country. >> on the road, was looking at all bit of history before you came in. the earliest chief justice is depicted or didn't wear them spent didn't wear robes? >> begin around 1800 according to -- >> john jay over your right shoulder was the first chief justice and that was before 1800. at in that portrait he is wearing a glorious robe. not just a black to black and red. what you just told me is news to me. >> i'll go with john jay but

let's say it is now 2009 and 10 tops a site, what's the symbolism behind the rope and why is it important for members of the judiciary to continue to wear them in our society? >> i think we could do our work without the robes. we could give our work without this glorious building that you're deciding to have this conversation in. what the robes like the building in part to the people who come here is the significance, the importance of what goes on. that's nothing new. public buildings always don't look like bus stations, and they shouldn't. >> this building itself, justice breyer yesterday called it a symbol of the american judicial process. international. when you come to work here are you conscious of that as you

drive up after doing for such a longtime? >> conscious of? >> it being a symbol of the american judicial process. >> i can't say it's in the middle of my mind. usually think about whatever case i'm going to be working on that day. you get used to it. i mean, you get to take stuff for granted that maybe you shouldn't take for granted. i take for granted working in this glorious building. i take for granted wearing a robe when i go out on the bench. >> when you have the opportunity comes when it is quiet around other special places that you by coach reflect on the history of the court and other predecessors? >> no. not really. i hang out in my chambers most oof the time. the center of the building, what is really the reason the building is here is the audience chamber where we all are. as the august nature of the chamber suggest, it has a ceiling so high you can hardly see it from the ground.

this is the center of the court of course. >> let's talk about what goes on in that room. can you talk about how you use oral argument and why, in fact, when there's so much paper before and i make it all the cases, oral argument is even needed? >> a lot of people have the impression that it's just a dog and pony show. in fact, i met a 60 page brief by the petitioner, a 60 page brief by the respondent, a 40 page reply brief, some very often an amicus brief by the solicitor general, sometimes dozens of other amicus briefs not all of which i will read, i've underlined significant passages. i have written at best nonsense in the margin. what can somebody tell me in half an hour is going to make a difference? and injured is that it is probably quite rare, although

not unheard of, but oral argument will change my mind. but it is quite common that i go in with my mind not make a. a lot of these cases are very close and you go in on a nice edge. persuasive council can make a difference. there are things you can do with oral argument that cannot be done in a brief. you can convey the relative imports under various points but sometimes, say you have four points and one of them is very complicated it's not your most important one. it takes a third of your brief. if i read your brief a week ago at the come in, i have a misperception of the nature of your case. you can set the right in oral argument. and very often that third point, difficult point, may be the first point you address in your brief because that's the logical

order. you don't put jurisdiction last. it has to go first. but, in fact, that's not just on this point even though you discuss it first in your brief and even though it takes more of your brief and anything else simply because it's the most complicated. get up in oral argument and say your honors, we have five points in a brief, we think they're all worth your attention. that really what this case comes down to is boom, you get your big point. that can make a big difference. and the brief cannot answer back what i write nonsense in the margin. you can ask a council, council come is a summary like this point is not nonsense? they can sometimes tell you. so i am a big proponent of oral argument. i think it's very important and you would be surprised how much probing can be done within half an hour. an awful lot. >> what's the quality of counsel who come before you? >> well, you know, two chiefs

ago, chief justice burger used to complain about the low quality of counsel. i used to have just the opposite reaction. i used to be disappointed that so many of the best minds in the country were being devoted to this enterprise. unit, defense, public defender from podunk, and this woman is really brilliant. why isn't she out infiniti automobile, doing something or to give our society lacks lawyers, after all, don't produce anything. they enable other people to produce and to go on with their lives efficiently and in an atmosphere of freedom. that's important but it doesn't put food on the table.

there have to be other people who are doing that. i worry that we are devoting too many of our very best minds to this enterprise. they appeared in the corporate even the ones who will only argue ones that will never come again. i am usually impressed with how good they are. sometimes you get one who is not so good. know, by and large i don't have any complaints about the quality of counsel except maybe we are wasting some of our best minds. you shouldn't, how can i put it another way? law clerks, law firms spent enormous amounts of money to get the very, very brightest. that's about the difference between the gut and the next one, but it's worth it because the law is so complicated and so complex. legal system probably shouldn't put such a premium on them, but

it does. our lawyers are really good but i think lawyers generally are pretty smart people. >> moving on to the next stage conference, can you talk about conference and how it works? >> well, i can't talk too much about it but i can tell you we sit down together and there's nobody else in the room, and we -- i am not giving away anything because chief justice rehnquist wrote a book about the court in which he acknowledged that conference is probably a misnomer. it is really not an occasion on which we try to persuade one another. very few minds are changed in conference. each justice states his or her view of the case and how he or she votes. go right around the table. and is in the middle of somebody's presentation you disagree with something that

that person says, i mean, if when john stevens is speaking, he says wade, john, why do you say that? that would not happen. or if it did happen the chief justice would say you will have your turn. john is speaking. when we get all around, yes, at the end you can speak the second time embrace some of these questions but it is not really an exercise in persuading each other. it's an exercise in stating your views and the rest of us take notes. and that's its function. we take note that if you get assigned the opinion, you know how to write it in the way that will get at least four other boats beside your own. that's its principal function. >> with regard to the assigned the writing of opinions, the chief told us in our conversation that he works very hard to care about the dissipation of the assignment. you said earlier with your clerks that you tried to give

them the cases they're interesting because they would've the best job. are you able to lobby if you are deeply interested in a particular case? >> i haven't but i could ever wanted to. on very, very replication have i said i would like that case. i bet you not more than three times all the time i've been on the court. i pretty much take what i'm given. both of the chiefs that i served under have tried to be fair given the good ones and dogs. of course, sometimes what they think is a good opinion is not what you think is a good opinion but chief justice rehnquist used to love fourth amendment cases involving searches and seizures. i just hate forth and in cases. i think those things come it's almost a jury question whether this variation is an unreasonable search and seizure, variation 3542.

i will write the opinion but i don't consider it -- bill rehnquist used to consider it a plum if you did you do. i didn't much like that. >> you are invited to give written three books now, correct? >> know, too. >> but writing is something that seems you enjoy speed you don't want to be an appellate judge if you're not good at writing. >> my question is come in this part of the process you enjoy the writing of opinions and exchange of the precise words to make -- >> as i've often would i do not enjoy writing but i enjoyed having written. i find writing a very much difficult process. i sweat over it. i write, rewrite, rewrite again. before the opinion goes out, it's going out this afternoon,

read did one last time. i guarantee you every time i read i will change something else. so finally have to be rested from my grasp and sit down to the printer. i am not a facile writer but i think writing is a job that is worth the time you spend on it. >> has technology in the course of the time he made the process easier? >> we had word processors when i arrived so i can't say it's made it easier since i've been a. i had word processors when i was a law professor. that survey makes the job of writing especially writing when you're editing somebody else's first draft, enormously more simple than it otherwise would be. you don't have to write little balloons and whatnot. you just highlight the part you want taken out, bang, it's gone

and to put in the new part and bang, it's in. it makes it a lot easier. >> when you strongly disagree with someone's point of view how do you keep the opinion or defense from being personal? >> you just criticize the argument and not the person. an ad hominem argument is one that is addressed to the person rather than the argument. i feel quite justified in locking the argument, as hard as it deserves. that's not impugning the individual. spin do you have a preference for writing majority or dissent? >> of course. always want to write a majority. why would you want to write a decent? decisions are more fun to write. .com to say that because when you have a decent is yours. you say what you want in a summit is what to do it, who cares. don't want to join?

fine. is why what is a. when you're writing majority you do not have that luxury. you have to craft it ain't the way that at least four other people can jump on it. and actually did try to craft it in a way that as many people as possible job on which means accepting some suggestions, stylistic and otherwise every little thing is the best but nonetheless in order to get everybody on board, you take it. >> you and i are talking at a time when the court is about to say goodbye to a member and accept a new one. how does this institution changed during the process of? >> the institution doesn't change at all. i think the relationships change. you lose a friend and hopefully acquire another one. i will miss david souter. i will miss him a lot.

he has sat next to me for his full-time on this court when they go out on the bench. is always depended on which side of the bench i happened to be sitting on, he is to my were to buy right. but my rather constant companion and we chat back and forth sometimes during argument or pass a note back and forth. he's an intelligent, interesting, good man. so that changes. i miss a lot of my former colleagues on the court from byron white to bill britton. that's the process. they go and do people come on. >> in fact during her tenure i think there've been including the chief seven the arrivals. wondering when you welcome new justices in the system, when thethecompany appeals court is e an acclamation process even so he or?

>> not really. it's the same job. does the same job as being an appellate judge on a lower court. you hear the argument, three degrees, care the argument, you write the opinion. we have the added job of deciding what to decide, which court of appeals judge does not have the burden of that luxury. take whatever they bring you and you have to. but except for the additional part of the job it's the same. with maybe one other exception, and that is on the lower courts if there is a whole line of supreme court authority that you fundamentally disagree with, doesn't make it easy. but you said hey, i think it's stupid that that's what they say. eufaula. you don't have to worry about whether it ought to be changed. warehouse on the highest court if it is indeed a stupid line of cases, it's your stupid line of cases and have to decide do you

leave it alone, do you simply refuse to extend any further, or do you indeed try to get rid of the whole thing? in other words, stare decisis the you d have to worry about tt on the court of appeals. you do up here. >> we are out of time. enclosing the big picture question again, for people for whom the supreme court is just an item in the newspaper, i wonder what you' what you wouldo say to them about this place, how it functions and what they really ought to know about the court's? >> it's really not a point distinctive to this corporate it's a more general point that applies to this court and to all others. the really can't judge judges unless you know the materials that they are working with. you can't say this is a good decision and this was a good court simply because you like the result. it seems to have a person who deserved to win one.

that's not the basis of judges are in. we don't secure to make the law, to decide who you want to win. we decide who wins under the law but the people have adopted. and very often if you're a good judge you don't really like the results you are reaching. he would rather the other side have one. it seems you a foolish law. in this job it's garbage in, garbage out. if it's a foolish law you are bound by oath to produce a foolish result because it's not your job to decide what is foolish and what isn't it gets the job of the people across the street. so don't judge judges unless you really take the trouble to read the opinion and see what provisions of law were at issue and what they were trying to reconcile and whether the they t an honest job of reconciling it. and of interpreting the words of the law in a fair fashion. that's what counts. unless that's what you want your judges to do, you have a

judiciary that is not worth much, a judiciary that is just making the law instead of being faithful to what the people have decided. so that's my main advice, be slow to judge judges unless you know what they are working with spirit of justice antonin scalia, thank you for spending time with c-span. >> my pleasure. live coverage start in about 15 minutes at 1:15 p.m. eastern. until that begins here's a portion of the "washington journal" segment focusing on justice scalia's legacy. >> host: jointness is "wall street journal" supreme court correspondent. thank you very much for being with us. a lot to talk about the first your own personal recollections about justice scalia and the impact he had on the high court. >> guest: within it seems very

much what you see is what you get. he was garrulous, sometimes jovial, sometimes extremely content. the person eyes on the bench when justice scalia was conducting or art which will with the same what i saw when it indicated when the lunch occasionally. the guy was very i was the authentic in a place with some people are not. he was incredibly i would say he was one of the most complete lines on the corporate he was a true intellectual but he was in the way pretentious but he was actually down-to-earth as a person. you like to try to draw a connection between i think the human scale of what he was doing and the kind of larger ideas that motivated his writing. someone who was completely unapologetic, always someone who

is 100% sure he was right, someone who i think as a reporter had a fantastic gift of being quotable in almost any circumstance. justice scalia with someone who wrote to be quoted. he wrote his opinions hoping that people would read them, pick up the important lines and the road for many audiences at once. he wrote for the soundbite that you might get on television or we could use in a story. he wrote for law students know that his opinions would be usurped and casebooks. he wrote for the lower courts and for law professors. but one thing that he was not know was a compromise. he didn't look at his role as making incremental changes in the law. and i think had an effect on the sort legacy that he leaves us. >> when you got the news yesterday afternoon he had passed away he was in texas for a weekend hunting trip. as you indicate a moment ago

before we went on air he been traveling extensively the last couple of weeks. what have you learned? >> guest: he was on a 12 day trip to asia visiting university of law schools in hong kong and singapore with bryan garner who is a legal writer professor at southern methodist university and to have written several books about the law and legal interpretation and they were lecturing on this topic. they've done that around the country and around the world. i spoke to mr. garner yesterday as soon as i heard the news. he told me that justice scalia had been apparently in fine health on the trip, that they've been quite vigorous and there was no sign in his mind that there was anything wrong with them. this was a complete shock to me and i think to watchers of the court have seen him in recent weeks being his vigorous self, and sometimes i think about just over 10 years ago the last

justice who died in office was chief justice rehnquist. chief justice rehnquist had a long debilitating illness for months and months. he had thyroid cancer was a lot of speculation for months about whether he would resign. he decided not to. he would continue on. he believed his prognosis was good but, unfortunately, he died. so that was less of a shock for us. this was a bolt out of the blue everything from a people who watched the court for many years it's almost inconceivable to imagine it without him after. >> host: and yet you look at justice kennedy and breyer late 70s. just as ruth abeyta ginsburg 82 years old. so we could see some more changes if there are retirements on the court. >> that's triggered by a then justice john paul stevens still apparently doing quite well. he's 95 talking, writing quite out of there. so i think he is, all are at the age we don't know what could happen in the next moment that

the odds, concerned increase as we get older. justice ginsburg, justice kennedy and breyer could be there for years. they could be there for much but that is really true for all of us. but, of course, it does bring attention to the edge of the court. i think back to the late 1960s, early 1970s when there was sort of a big burst of vacancies on the court. first the resignations of chief justice warren and then shortly into president nixon's term the resignations was appalled by the death of justice hugo black and justice john marshall harlan. that's what is not a president we know our will not happen but it's a quartet of windows will be undergoing some changes in the years if not months ahead of the we are talking with jess bravin who covers the supreme

court for "the wall street journal." did it surprise you in a statement by the president in the status by congressional leaders and presidential candidates of course thing to do justice clear but then almost immediately talking about the battle to replace in? >> guest: i was surprised at that. normally there is at least a 24 hour period with a focus is on a great figure who has passed. it seems a bit crass to immediately begin discussing his successor. as they say, he hasn't been a funeral, we don't even know what the official cause of death. we haven't had a chance to hear from his family. it seems in some ways to reduce his legacy to turn them into just sort of a vote on the court has to be placed by one side or the other. i was surprised personally that the first out of the box was the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell who said that the seed shouldn't be filled at all.

and i thought back to other vacancies when there were elections upcoming and lost some of those nominees had been fought by opposition party in the senate, usually in fact every time i can think of there was an actual candidate who they objected to. it wasn't anybody this president picks is illegitimate or isn't worthy of consideration. that i haven't seen before. that seemed to obama responded we then spoke later in the day saying after praising justice scalia's delight and so forth that he would move forward to fill the seat. >> host: justice kennedy was confirmed in 1988, election year he was nominated in 1987 but so we had this argument it's been 80 years from italy hasn't, hasn't? >> guest: well, i haven't counted all of the years but i do know those precedents would mean anything.

it's in some ways a political decision for the elected branches to make about filling or not filling th these seats ae who disliked to be in them. one thing to remember about justice kennedy is that he was at the third choice of president reagan to fill that seat. and by the time that he turned to justice kennedy his first nominee, robert bork comment been rejected by the senate at the second nominee withdrew under some controversy. and the reagan administration knew that the clock was ticking and that their time was counting down the justice kennedy was not as conservative as the reagan folks would have liked but to recognize that a democratic senator to be basically picked the most conservative guy they thought would get through the democratic controlled senate. so he was a compromise candidate and his votes in the ensuing decades show that. they show that he has not been as doctrinaire as the other

conservatives, those notably gay rights and same-sex marriage. >> host: the ranking democrat with the democrats in the minority as patrick leahy of vermont had issued a statement praising justice scalia and his work on my court and said the following -- should get to work without delay. guest: in this instance, >> guest: in this instance president obama has already killed two seats on the court. so his administering its money with a process. they have begged other candidates and we know who is on the shortlist before. we know who was interviewed before. surely they assumed it was so with people you look at as well as who else might enter the field since then. to the extent they were preparing for a vacancy i suspect they were more like look at who might succeed with better ginsburg. there've been some pressure earlier in obama's term for her to step down so he could replace a like-minded or appoint a

like-minded successor. the administration now though with the republicans think we don't want to hear any, we will not consider anybody that obama nominates i guess we have to see how serious that is. if obama is convinced that anybody puts out is going to just not even get a hearing, i suppose they have to make, even greater political calculations that typically take place in supreme court nominations. so-called optics of a candidate walking up the senate steps at the door being closed or what have you. does obama pick someone who he thinks is a very provocative choice, or does he go with a more moderate course? my sins look at the previous nominations, look at how the administration have vetted candidates, obama will probably seek to find a candidate whose record is very solid, sort of a

moderate democrat who there are very few substantive complaint but other than the fact he was chosen by barack obama. that's my hunch about who the administration is going to look for. >> host: i ask this only but it could be a member of the senate or potential given the vice president? >> guest: this is an interesting question but for example, among the potential compromise approaches as the discussions continue, could be a sort of caretaker justice. probably the republicans would be less opposed to someone who is likely to serve a much shorter term on the supreme court. that, of course, will be the vice president who is in his 70s i believe. or a senator. senators didn't have a lot of sympathy for people in the condition. that is, having been senators. traditionally they move through with alacrity. there hasn't been a senator

appointed for more than half a century but that is a possibility. so if the rhetoric toned down a bit and obama look at his own terms winding down makes some sort of arrangement to have a de facto caretaker justice, that could in a sense leave the seat likely to reopen for the next one or two presidents to fill. >> host: want to share this tweet from republican senator roger wicker say i think antonin scalia and james madison are having the damnedest to visit right now. let's get to your phone calls. jess bravin is joining us in the studio. he covers the supreme court for "the wall street journal." look at the legacy of justice clean and the battle ahead for >> caller: good morning and thank you for allowing me to speak this way. i just wanted to thank justice

scalia and offer my condolences to his wife, ma maureen, in december. and i also want to say that i think this is what bernie sanders meant when he talked about a political revolution. because you have mitch mcconnell already coming out talking about president obama don't even need to attempt to fulfill his constitutional duties. and i think what bernie sanders is a that all of the democrats and all over the united states and all the republicans who are representatives by the republican senators need to call them and demand that allow the president to do his constitutional duties and they need to stop being obstructionist. that's what i see as a political revolution that bernie sanders talked about. it's very difficult for a president to do that job speed you can see more of this interview at c-span.org. we take you live as family and

friends pay tribute to supreme court justice antonin scalia's life and career. justice scalia died on february 13 and spent 30 years on the high court. live coverage on c-span2. >> this memorial is an opportunity to do two things we didn't have the chance to do at the beautiful funeral mass earlier this month. first two years more to contribute to my father's life and career. and second, for family and friends to spend some time together in the reception afterwards. i couldn't begin to convey my thoughts about my father and a small amount of time that i've allowed myself for this introduction. so i thought i would limit myself to just one recollection which is again a party my parents had years ago. the guests had just let them guests had just left and my father and i were standing in

the front hallway, and my father looked at me and he said, gene, that's why you need to work hard. so you can have friends like bob bork. [laughter] of course was referring to judge bork. i want to be clear very quickly that my point in telling you this story is not to underscore that he's not mention any of the people in this room today. [laughter] the point instead that he was referring to many who are here today, and many other friends as well. this was a father telling his college aged son why it was important to work hard, why it was important to succeed but he wasn't talking about power. he was also not talking about material gain, although that's less of a surprise since as my mother used to occasionally point out, this was meant to seem to spend so much of his career looking for a job that would pay less than the one he had at the time.

[laughter] so instead, my father was speaking to me of the reports of friendship, of collegiality and camaraderie. he was speaking of people who could keep pace with them keep pace with him, educating, entertaining entertain them, humor him, challenge him, and press him to be better. people like my mother. he was speaking of people like his law clerks who were very important to my father and mother, and are like family to us today. and he was speaking of people like those with agreed to speak this afternoon. after a prayer by father scalia, and i should say to his -- but he is father scalia. afterbirth we'll hear from justice thomas. and then from judge silberman of the court of appeals here in washington who unfortunately will have to leave immediately afterward to teach a law school

class. we will then hear from my sister catherine come from justice ginsburg and from two of my father's former clerks, john many banana teaches at harvard law school, and justice john larson of the michigan supreme court who also spent a professor and practitioner. and then as often is the case my sister mary will have the last word. [laughter] >> i should be careful. we will have a reception immediately afterwards. thank you again for coming this afternoon. [applause] >> if i could ask you all to please stand as we begin with prayer. almighty god as we gather here to remember and honor your

server and antonin scalia we ask not your blessing. make us mindful that every good gift comes from you, that we see in attendance gets in your life as coming from a good is intended for your glory. so that in honoring him we honor you, his creator and redeemer. me his example of public service unite all of us more closely in our pursuit of the common good for our nation. and conscious also of his imperfections, we ask you in your mercy to gather antonin quickly to yourself, that he may rejoice in your presence. we pray this as you live and reign for ever and ever. amen.

>> for this i feel quite inadequate to the task. and i find this very difficult. thank you for prayer, father. maureen, our thoughts and prayers remain with you and your family. we pray that god will bring comfort and peace to you, to each of you. i was truly blessed to have had nino at the court when i became a member in 1991. and i was blessed many times over the almost 25 years that we served together. they were countless chats walking to chambers after a sitting or after our conferenc conferences. those very brief visits usually involve more laughter than anything else, a joke, a funny

word, a memory. and there were many bought each other up visits. too many to count. [laughter] there were many checking on one another after one of us had had an unpleasant experience, daily. [laughter] and there were calls to test an idea or work through a problem. i treasure the many times we had lunch with our law clerks where he invariably had an anchovy pizza. by clerk family and i will continue this tradition by always toasting nino as we

gather, which is pretty regularly. but no anchovy pizza. [laughter] i love the eagerness and satisfaction in his voice when he finished a writing with which he was particularly pleased. clarence, you have got to hear this. [laughter] it is really good. [laughter] whereupon he would deliver a dramatic reading, after fumbling with his computer for a while. [laughter] he worked hard to get things right. the broad principles of the details of law, grammar, syntax and vocabulary. he was passionate about it all. and it was all important to him. none was beneath him, and all deserve and received his full

attention. in sports parlance he gave everything, 110%. for the past few years my place on the bench has been between nino and our friend steve breyer. i loved the back and forth that took place, especially the passing of notes from steve to nino, and nino to steve your and the whisper or martyred or more appropriately monitored commentary. when nino wanted to talk quietly with me about something, he would lean far back in his chair and state and the almost endearing tone, brother clarence, what do you think? and, of course, he would offer his opinion on various matters. on one occasion he commented

that in typical nino fashion, that one of our opinions that have become an important precedent was, and i quote, just a horrible opinion, one of the worst ever. i thought briefly about what he had said and whispered, nino, you wrote it. [laughter] in a sense, it is providential and certainly not probable that we will would serve together. i only knew of him, but had never met him. he was from the northeast while i was from the southeast. he came from a house of educators, and i from a household of almost no for-educa household of almost no formal

education. but we shared our catholic faith and our jesuit education, as well as our sense of vocation. for different reasons and from different origins, we were heading in the same direction. so we walked together and worked together for a quarter-century. and along the way we developed an unbreakable bond of trust and deep affection. many will fittingly, deservedly and rightfully say much about his intellect and jurisprudence, but there is so much more to this good man.

-hour of this memorial, this memorial gathering here today as i read the eulogy of bob harland, with apologies, i borrow from it deliberately and quote it you sleaze. with him, a piece of my own life is carried to the grave, yet -- yet our eyes are positive.

we believe in the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the body and the life everlasting. we give thanks to god for the suffering, the witness of our brother whose friends we were privileged to be. we pray god to lead us through his discipleshipped from this world into his head and making them to fulfill in us that other word that was used. [speaking latin] >> while in god confiding i cannot but rejoice. god bless you, brother nino, god bless you. [applause]

>> thank you, clarence. distinguished guests. a number of scholars and practicing lawyers have spoken at length about justice antonin scalia's extraordinary impact on america. although i have been an admirer of his judicial opinions his entire career, except for the rare occasions he voted to overturn one of my opinions. [laughter] >> there is no need for me to add to this outpouring of praise. instead i speak as one of his oldest friends. in 1974 after a the notorious

saturday night massacre, and i came in to the justice department as deputy attorney general under bill sacks become a former senator, the apartment was largely cut off from the white house. we were obligated to carry out the president's policy except insofar as we were bound to support special prosecutor's investigation of the president. surely that as the most extraordinary task of any justice department and american history. i found many of the senior appointees, presidential appointees in the justice department in shock and understandably rather jumpy. the most important attorney-general's position at that point was the one in charge of the office of legal counsel. the incumbent was played out having to navigate through

watergate weeks, needed to be replaced, we needed a brilliant lawyer with steel nerves. i was charged with finding a successor. the list of candidates as compiled, the first person i interviewed was antonin scalia, who occupied a role as chairman of the administrative council. i have never been so impressed. when i offered him the post subject to the attorney general's approval, white house approval in those days was perfunctory given the president's weakness. antonin scalia was nominated by richard nixon but appointed by gerald ford. almost the immediately nino was plunged into the most delicate task. stopped the white house from allowing a moving truck from carting off the former president's papers until we formally applied as to whether he owned them. nino fashioned a brilliant opinion based on historical

precedent establishing nixon's ownership when congress intervened, extensive litigation before he was sustained. i was enormously impressed. then came a less serious legal issue but an intensely personal one. the deputy secretary of treasury, an enormously wealthy man, was designated energy czar by president ford and he issued an order, all department deputies of their car and driver. i plan to resign because i was so financially strapped the couldn't afford to buy another car. to my astonishment nino devised an exception for me. he arranged for my car to have a police radio in the back and

obtained a gun permit for my chauffeur. that qualified my car as a law enforcement vehicle. i could see he would be sound on the second amendment. i immediately began to think of him as the supreme court nominee. in any event we became close friends. after we left government, went to where we enjoyed brown bag lunches with a group of distinguished mostly conservative intellectuals and plotted legal carefulrhetoric -- revolution. we stayed in constant touch when he returned to academia, chicago law school in the private sector. in 1980 as chairman i recruited

a jury of law professors supporting ronald reagan. as i recall my committee included everybody who ultimately became a judge. after the election i recommended nino for various posts including one he accepted, a seat on the d.c. circuit fitted for administrative law experts. we often turn to each other for career advice. when he was subsequent offered solicitor general post i advised him strongly to turn it down. i contended that his choice, his chance at a supreme court nomination would be reduced if he took that post because of hot-button social issues with which the solicitor general would have to contend. he agreed india later returned the favor by talking me into joining him on the d.c. circuit. in 1986 i was thrilled when he

came to my office to tell me privately he was to be the supreme court nominee. he asked me to represent him which i immediately agreed to do. he asked me for two reasons. he thought the likeliest issues involved proper limits and confined that judge's answer to a final question from senators and secondly of course i was free. [laughter] >> for a brilliant judge he was hopelessly impractical. as i was going through his papers i saw at&t owed him a substantial amount of money. i was stunned. it turned out he had done legal consulting work before he was a judge and had forgotten to send a bill. if you ask me, he asked me if he should clean up his account by sending the bill now. i told him sadly city would be

awkward if at&t sent him money after his nomination. then before the hearings were even started he came to me concerned about what he thought might be an ethical question. senator bird, the powerful west virginia senator, had invited me know to jo lin king inert columbus day parade in charleston long after the hearings would be over. i whacked and told him that money was going to be confirmed regardless of the hearing as the first italian american on the court. we tease each other constantly about our different ethnic backgrounds. he always tweeted me, as a new yorker he understood jewish culture better than i did. which was true. [laughter] >> but i could be defensive. we were both invited to a small dinner party of harvard graduates to meet the new president of harvard, dale

rubinstein, who happened to be half italian and half jewish. we were both concerned about the sweep of political correctness on campuses. he spoke indented questions for over an hour. afterwards as we left we agreed he sounded good only about half the time. [laughter] >> then we got into a fierce argument with historical allusions whether the good half was italian or jewish. recently i was drawn to a new techniques developed by various organizations to explore one's genetic background. my wife bought a test for me and to my astonishment i turned out to be much more finish than jewish. i told me know and he was anxious to take the same test. lorayne was quite apprehensive. she was worried that her irish

superiority over italians could be jeopardized. all well i don't feel free to disclose the complete scalia report, sure enough, nino turned out to be at a healthy dose of irish jeans. although much of the advice we gave each other remained private, one issue we discussed is only in the past few days became public. in 1996, bob dole was winning the nomination battle, nino called me with momentous news. he had been approached by congressman john boehner apparently on bob dole's the have to inquire whether he would be willing to be the vice-presidential candidate. i knew he loved his time on the course but he could not help but be flattered and if bob dole were elected to knew what a vice presidency could lead to? and it was a shrewd notion. you all know he had enormous

charm. indeed it had been thought when he was nominated his charm would be employed to call to get the conservative majorities in the court, much like william brennan forged different kinds of majorities. that was an illusion because nino cared more about judicial reasoning than judicial results. the latter will be former the former. only justices less concerned with reasoning could bargain so effectively. although i told him i thought he would be an enormously effective politician i was brutally honest. i asked if he wanted to return to law practice or teaching. that took him back. i explained i was for originally certain bob dole would lose. the declines. i should include a description of one of the most frightening days of my life. need no, two tickets to a baltimore orioles game invited me to join him.

most human beings have an inboard computer gene that prevents him from driving at high speed too close to the car in front of them so there is sufficient room to stop. nino apparently liked that gene. by the time he reached the stadium i was sick to the stomach. i have no where in the background. i sat in the orioles' section of the stadium, in the midst of a group of rather large beer drinking orioles fans. nina lowe began to bellow supporting encouragement for the yankees. combined with loud criticism of the umpires. after several innings, one of the largest and ugliest orioles fans captain on the shoulder and said if you don't shut up i am going to punch you in the nose.

nino turned to me. should i tell him who nino was? i said no. it was more likely to get a sponge. [laughter] also over the years we played poker to get there, bought shotguns together at club, most notably every few months we lunched alone invariably over pizza and red wine. i had lunch with nino a few weeks ago at a new pizza joint, we discussed the present political chaotic situation. and i wish i could relate our views. of course it would be improper. i will leave it to my memoirs. i hate to contemplate the end of those lungees. i es. i will miss nino terribly.

[applause] >> welcome, family, friends, father, paul, we are gathered here because of one man, a man who is the only son, called father by many, of reviewed by believers, disparaged by others, a man who espouse justice and truth, that man is antonin scalia. [applause] >> since dad died my siblings and i have been compiling a list

shooting them off to each other as they pop into our heads. a couple days ago when i lamented to my brother that i didn't know what i was thinking when i said i could speak here today he encouragingly reminded me that you are not everybody else. you are a scully at. then he quickly followed up with another of our favorites, don't screw it up. i hope dad will forgive me if i do screw it up. he might ask is if this of general interest? yes, it is. as one of the minority in his 5-4 split of his nine children. [laughter] >> i want to share some of what my father was to me. i was at the top half of the batting order, another nine member american institutions sell for the first decades of my life dad was a justice department lawyer or a law professor who couldn't seem to

hold down a job. during those nomadic years the screen jones date in cleveland and dad's appeals court in washington we moved eight times. there were new constants besides the likelihood there was a new baby on the way. one constant was mass on sunday and every hole lead day, even the one that fell in the middle of our beach vacation and another non negotiable was family dinner every night. as busy as he was and committed as he was to his work, dinner was up priority. if he could make the time we were expected to be there too. finally we had each other which was the greatest gift no matter where we lived. we worthy scalia family and we knew that was important. that is not to say it was easy being the daughter of antonin

scalia. he could be demanding. at times impatient even. he was a poor estimator of travel times. never allowing quite enough time to get to that mass which was 45 minutes away, not 30. he was a stickler about word pronunciations and grammar which wasn't always fun time. it wasn't always fun. cherry, not cherry, mary, not mary. john huddy, not dantonkey. could bluff his way for italian but he was fluent in another

obscure language, in ghana conversation in of was family pride. my name -- i cherish my mental snapshots of dad on all forces chasing us through the house as tickles monster blues a dollop of shaving cream on my nose when i went to say goodbye before school, belting out my uncle roasted a kangaroo or mr. fraud at the piano. waving his arms at the grill, commanding saturday hamburgers to be juicy. reading fairytale, not disney's run pencil or the little golden book version of snow white. he was an original list after

also our bedtime stories were the brothers grimm. an old box clock hardcover edition. i will let the legal world discuss his judicial legacy. for me one decision stand alone above all others, the landmark decision of 1960 to mary maureen mccarthy. she was the perfect foil. anyone who knows mom knows she is as smart as, dare i say smarter and dad. i can tell you for sure, helping with math homework, you wouldn't go to him. as he used to say, he did the constitution and she did everything else. the day-to-day running of the business that was a large family fell to mom but he never made her work seem less important than his own and he gave her credit for it. he used to jokingly say she was

a wonderful little woman and we all knew that deep down he meant it, packing up a huge household for each of those moves making sacrifices to stretch the public service salary to feed and clothe a large family, fighting to raise as in the catholic faith in an increasingly secular world. she supported him and stood by him so he could focus on what they both saw as his vocation. i am grateful i was given the opportunity to travel with mom and dad a few years ago to galway. for the first time and with a little unexpected help i got to appreciate what i had never noticed as a kid. his zest for life going at full speed, trying to see it all and cram it all in and his partnership with mom. he taught a class each morning at the new england school of law for a quick lunch and hit the road. mom was the tour guide.

she had a book with turned down pages and the posted notes and read out the itinerary as he took the wheel. what old church are we going to see today, he would ask, and he would complain about the clouds we always seemed to be following, that this was really out of the way it plays, that bikes should not be allowed on the roads in ireland and it is best not to say what happened when he saw that european union flag. known nino, mom would say, he always end ed up doing what she told him to. this was their stick and it had taken me 40 years to see it. he the third to mom, respected her opinion and was happy following her lead when he knew it was important to her. the family was grateful for all the prayers, maris and

recollections from all of you and strangers over the last few weeks. i know for all of us and especially mom they have been a source of comfort and consolation and an affirmation that this was a life well lived and he will be missed. [applause]

>> in my treasure trove of memo reese, an early june morning, 1996, i was about to attend the second circuit judicial conference at lake george. antonin scalia, papers in his hand, tossing many pages on my desk, he said this is the penultimate draft of my defense in the b m i case. it is not yet in shape to circulate to the court, but i want to give you as much time as i can to answer it. on the plane to albany i read

the descent. it was a zinger. can't miss this page. [laughter] this is very strange. i have every other page. it must be -- it must be in the bag. anyway. it was -- a variety.

it took me to task on things large and small. the court refers to the university of virginia at charlottesville. there is no university of virginia at charlottesville. there is only the university of virginia. i wonder what your dad say the same thing today? thinking about getting responses through the weekend, i was glad to have the extra at day's to adjust the court's opinion, my final draft was much improved, thanks to antonin scalia's hearing criticism.

it another indelible memory, the day the court decided bush versus gore, december 12th, 2000. i was in a chambers, exhausted after the marathon review granted saturday, filed a sunday, oral argument on monday and completed and released on tuesday. note surprise, antonin scalia and i were on opposite sides. the court did the right thing, he had no doubt. i disagreed and explained why in a dissenting opinion. around 9:00 p.m. the telephone, my direct line rating. it was antonin scalia. he didn't say get over it. instead, he asked why are you still at the court?

go home and take a hot bath. good advice i promptly followed. among my favorites antonin scalia stories, when president clinton was mulling over his first nomination to the supreme court, antonin scalia was asked if you were stranded on a desert island with your new court colleagues, who would you prefer? larry or mario cuomo? justice antonin scalia answered quickly and distinctly, ruth bader ginsburg. [applause] >> and within days, the president chose me. among antonin scalia's many talents he was a discerning

shopper, together in 1994, a driver took us to his friend's conference shop, one red after another was tossed onto the floor and leaving me without a clue which to choose. need 0 point ated to one he thought maureen would like in north carolina. i picked the same design in a different color, it has sworn very well. once asked how we could be friends given our disagreements on lots of things, he answered by attack ideas, i don't attack people. some very good people have some very bad ideas. and you can't separate the two, you got to get another day job.

you don't want to be a judge like on not multi member panel. a well-known illustration, antonin scalia was fond of justice brennan as justice brennan was of antonin scalia. i will miss the challenges and laughter he provoked, imminently quoteable opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader's grass. the roses he brought me on my birthday, the chance to appear with him once more at the opera. in his preface, justice antonin scalia described his days in d.c. an evening in 2009 at the opera ball at the british

ambassador's rat residence when he joined two opera tenor is at the panel for a medley of songs. he calls it the famous three tenors' performance. he was indeed a magnificent performer. how blessed i was to have a working colleague and deer friend of such captivating brilliance, high spirit. in the words of a duet, we were different, yes. in our interpretation of written text. in our reverence for the court and its place in the u.s. the

system of governance. [applause] >> my fellow law clerks and other distinguished guests, i was one of antonin scalia's early law clerks and i will say a few words about what it was like to clerk for the great man and a bit about his larger impact on all. let me start with the clerkshipped. antonin scalia's chambers were rocky. believe it or not, some people

think of conservatives as formal and hierarchical. antonin scalia was anything but that. although he was, as he joked, the supreme justice. and we were but five youngsters fresh from law school, he made it clear no argument was out of bounds. web reseeded the conferences of the court it was basically a free for all. all the clerks would argue with one another, strongly and passionately, often embarrassing leak loudly. and completely without fear that we would offend the boss. three of us were conservatives and two word liberal, our differences in those conferences rarely split along political lines. that was not what the job was about. his job was to apply legal methodology that he thought appropriate to a light tenured

judge in a constitutional democracy and our job was to help him do that, period. there was an openness to all of this that made us feel perfectly safe to disagree even sharply at times. i am not saying we didn't have our moments of doubt. as anyone who clerked for him could tell you sometimes he would be making a point and he would sort of make a face. he would tilt his head, he would throw his brow and he would stare into space for what seemed like an abnormally long time. it was disquieting. but we soon figured out that was just his thinking face. what it meant was he was actually thinking hard about what we were saying and about

the only time he overtly pools rain was when one of us got a little overinvestor and he would have to say remember, it is my name that has to go on the opinion. especially with me for some reason it was followed by a further observation and i am not a not. [laughter] >> the whole thing was unforgettable. the experience changed my life. his openness, his enthusiasm, his clarity, his playfulness, his common sense, his commitment to principle. all of this made the blandest legal issue seem human and consequential. it is simply not natural to feel as strongly as he made us feel

about legislative history, the harmless error doctrine, the borrowing of statutes of limitations, the level of generality of some ancient common law tradition. indeed i confess that it may not be perfectly healthy to feel as strongly as i do about the chevron doctrine to this very day. but i am working on it. that was antonin scalia's gift. he took the boring, mundane, technical, everyday work of the law and showed us what was at stake for a constitutional democracy. maybe that is why he got so much done. think about statutes, very easy to forget how different the world was before antonin scalia, how much the court leaned on legislative history, how readily the court enforced the spirit

rather than the letter of the law. these practices had gone largely unquestioned regenerations and in some cases for centuries. in no time at all, antonin scalia changed the terms of the debate. he showed it was all about the allocation of power. is resistance to legislative history was not formalism but checking the transfer of legislative power from congress and the president to committees, legislators, staff or lobbyists. his preference for a letter of her spirit was not just a better way of finding legislative intent, it was about protecting american democracy against the self aggrandizing presumption that judges could or should gloss over the awkward compromises that are the staple of our legislative process and by extension our democracy itself.

all of this was exhilarating. in fact it is what inspired me to go into law, teaching. many times antonin scalia visited in the years since i have been there, he inspired my students as well, he inspired them with plainspoken this, and openness, willing to take a furiously the criticisms of legal offices he did not know and would not see again, his acknowledgment to total strangers that he did not always get things right, his sense of humor, generosity of spirit and the simple power of his ideas. he was a force of nature and year after year i had the experience of one or more people coming up to me looking stricken and saying to me professor, i am a liberal. is it ok that i agree with

antonin scalia's opinions? i do my best to reassure them there is nothing wrong with you. it is hard to believe he is no longer here but i cling confidently to the thought that antonin scalia will keep students long into the future, because of his clarity, is a commitment to principle and his courage, his ideas would long outlive his days on earth. i myself will try to honor his memory by always remembering his lesson that one's commitment to principle is testily when it hurts. antonin scalia was a great justice. he was a wonderful husband, father and grandfather, he was also a wonderful friend. he was kind and funny and

generous. i can never repay the debt i owe him. like so many of us here today i would not have the life i have, a life i loved had it not been for antonin scalia, thank you. [applause] >> you have been watching a memorial service for antonin scalia and our coverage continues online at c-span.org, plus you can see the entire memorial service tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> so many of my former books were horizontal studies. many across a whole region. the ends of the earth, covering a minimum of six countries. here i look at one country and i

use it to explore great themes. i think great themes. holocaust, the cold war, the challenge of vladimir putin, moldova as a logger border with ukraine and poland has. to study romania is to study the legacy of empires. >> sunday night on q&a, the author of in europe's shadow:two cold wars and the 3-year journey in romania and beyond talks about the history of the balkan states and romania's struggle to gain democracy since the fall of communism. >> romania was a corrupt country, extremely corrupt and had weak institutions that were very -- based on bribes and double dealing and what this shows is nothing new. the romanian population has

grown up and become far more sophisticated and demanding a clean government, it's number one demand. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> every weekend on american history tv on c-span3 feature programs that tell the americans will lose some of the highlights for this weekend include saturday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. eastern the association for the study of african-american life and history host their 92 anniversary by the park service director and a keynote address by loyal univ. maryland professor white head. >> commitment lace passion. i think of the 1992 olympics as some of you might remember with me. i don't remember who won. i don't remember anything -- on the first he snapped his hamstring and got

up to begin the hobble around the track. taking to help him and he waved them off and a man came to the stance, his father, and put his hand over his shoulder. they asked why didn't you stop? he said because i came to barcelona to finish a race, not just start one. >> at 8:00 p.m. on lectures in history. emporia state university professor brian craig miller talks about confederate veterans during reconstruction and how many southern organizations founded to area veterans put their money towards large war monuments and pro confederate propaganda. sunday afternoon at 5:00, persian gulf war veteran and author recounts his participation in operation desert shield and desert storm and describes soldiers day-to-day activities, harsh conditions and wartime pressures. >> we began digging frantically. we were just a few miles from

the border from where these iraqis were going to come across. we started digging as fast as we could. about this far underneath the ground was shale. so the sinking feeling came across, we are digging positions six inches in the ground to withstand the iraqi onslaught. >> at 6:thirty on road to the white house rewind, the race for the 2004 democratic presidential nomination between john kerry and north carolina senator john edwards. for the complete american history tv weekend schedule go to c-span.org. >> the u.s. senate gaveling back-and-forth continued debate on apps and drug abuse bill that would authorize funding for g