justices in their own words, including one-on-one interviews in the paster few months with justices kagan, thomas, and ginsburg. there's also a calendar for this term, a police officers all awe current justices with links to see all their answers on c-span. as well as many other supreme court videos available on demand. follow the supreme court at c-span.org. tonight on c-span2 2. a memorial for supreme court justice antonin scalia. then candidate debates in south carolina's senate race, and the illinois tenth district house race. >> today in the supreme court building's great hall the late justice an ton anyone scalia was honored with a memorial at a special meeting at the people court bar. speakers included some of his former law clerks and acting solicitor general ian

gershengorn. justice scalia died at the age of 79 after nearly 30 years on the supreme court. this is an hour. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] ladies and gentlemen, can i have your attention, please. good afternoon and welcome to supreme court of the united states. all electronic devices must be turned off at this time. once again, all electronic devices must be turned off at this time. photography is prohibited at the bar meeting and inside the courtroom. at the conclusion of the bar meeting, please remain seated until you're directed to go inside the courtroom. please have your color coded seating card available to show the ushers before you go into the courtroom. thank you very much.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> good afternoon. members of the scalia family, members of a the court, member's the bar and friends, this meeting of the bar of the supreme court of the united states has been called to honor the memory of an thon anyone scalia -- antonin school use who serve as an associate justice of the supreme court from 1986 to two 2016. in addition to his time on the court, justice scalia served his country as a judge on the united states court of appeal for the district of columbia circuit and in the executive branch where he was among other things assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel at the department of justice. over the course of his decades of service, justice scalia made a profound contribution to the nation and to our legal system, affecting the way generations of lawyers, judges, professors and citizens understand the law. he was a man of deep faith, blessed with a towering intellect, a wonderful sense of

humor, and an abiding respect for the constitution. he was a devoted husband, father, and grandfather, a valued colleague, and an inspiring teacher and irreplaceable mentor and a loyal friend. we all miss him greatly. i want today to express my appreciation to christin lint si and jed whalen who corps chaired the arrange. s for the meeting and anthony ball ya, richard bernstein, paul capuccio, mark phillip, chris jean joles. adam kline, christopher landau. and evan young. i also want to express my deep, deep gratitude to judge jeffrey sutton and paul clement who corps chaired the resolutions committee and the members of the committee.

also want to thang jean scalia nor all of his wise counsel during the process each meeting today will bell chair by paul capuche cho, and scott harris is the secretary and i turn the podium and meeting over to paul capuccio. >> thank you, mr. solicitor general, thank you, mr. chief justice. associate justices, justice stephens, madam attorney general, and each of and every one of you who are here today to help with what seems like a

nearly impossible task, to pay adequate tribute in a few speeches and resolutions to the extraordinary life, career, and impact of justice antonin scalia. ran tonin scalia was born march 11, 1936, in trenton, new jersey. he was raided in queens, new york. he is the son of salvatore eugene scalia, an immigrant from sicily, who katherine louise scalia, from trenton, new jersey. both of his parents were teachers. and while a relatively modest financial means the household in which the future justice was to be raised was by all accounts very wealthy in faith, in values, and in the love of and dedication to learning and to teaching. so let us not forget today to remember and to thank justice

justice scalias where parent whose gave our country and the law such a tremendous gift in the person off their only child. as you will hear presently, justice scalia has had a nearly unrivaled impact on the courts, the law, legal education, and the legal profession. as well as on generation of people in these fields. i like to think of justice skill ya's impact as gravitational. in the way that term is understood by mod term science. he is like a bright star whose intellectual mass is so weighty that it literally bends space in a manner that curves the path of any celestial body that comes anywhere near it. some of us, end up in his orbit and i may say proudly so. and others simply hat the trajectory of their thinking forever altered. but everybody in the courts, the academy and the legal

profession, felt the pull and was affected by the weight of his insides and intellect and the force of his argument. now issue should probably add that i wons used this gravitational description of his legacy on a panel that justice scalia and i were on together. when i finished he looked at me, with that look of equal part slyness, contempt, self-satisfaction, and affection, and simply said, you're one to be describe neglects as a large mass. -- describing me as a large mass. [laughter] >> you can hear itself, right? justice scalia was also a treasure in a way that become all too uncommon today. when he believed he was right, he was uncompromising. and his pen as we all know, often took no prisoners. but he was always uncompromising

in his genuine affection for people who disagreed with him strongly. his deep friendship with and great affection for his colleagues, is of course well nope but that is not the exception. for justice scalia, it was the rule. his life was rich with the seemingly never-ending and expanding list of people with whom he disagreed in broad, fundamental, and sometimes even sharp ways, but whom he nevertheless respected, enjoyed and just plain liked a great deal. i never asked him about this but i suspect if i had he would have shot back with that signature grin of his and said something about hating the sip and love -- hating the and inloving the sinner. of course this quality, the ability to disagree strongly, while maintaining genuine respect for and affection towards each other, is perhaps one of the greatest hallmarks of this court. but its nonetheless a great loss to all of to us witness the

passing of one who passed so thoroughly this balance of spirit that is so essential to our republic. this morning we are real hear from four speaked each a former clerk of the justice, one from private practice, one from academia, and one from supreme court advocacy and one from the bench about how our great mentor, kole league and friend, affected them as well as their professions. after that, rachel barko, also a former clerk, will join us and add a few words and move the resolutions. our first speaker today will be kris step lindley, who clerked for justice scalia in the 1989 term. krista. >> thank you, paul. i wilshire some thoughts about

what we learned about clerking for justice aland his influence on the legal profession as well a few reflections on miss faith. justice scalia had been on the court only three years in 1989 when my co-clerks and i had the good f. to work for hem. hi just again the process of trying to persuade this colleagued to rethink have the way they approached the law, both statutory constitutional. in discussing draft opinions from other chamberses that term, he would rail against the common phrase, we begin as always with the text of the statute. what do you mean you begin with the text, he would say? why not begin and end if with the text. he insisted on writing separately in the cases where the main opinion relied on policy, fairness, or worst of all, legislative history and would refew to join a lone paragraph, simply because the author cited a passage from a house report, or a senator's statement from the floor. he would write that the only

legitimate statutory law is that passed by conditioning kind by the president. not hidden meanings snuck in through such unpredictable and easily manipulated sources. it soon became clear to us clerks that justice scalia's adherence to the text was not mere formal limp but was an proven compelled by our constitutional structure of government. when justices or judges read statute tattoos in light of purpose odd policies no found in the text they impoorly alter at the constitutional balance and transfer legislative power aaron from congress, either to the staffer who wrote the house report or the lone senator or to unelected judges. if that mean wed must give affect to awkward language was the product of a legislative compromise so be it. it was not the judge's job to gloss the lange officer and change the enacted law. justice scalia's strong screws on constitutional struck were

war by in means tentative or still in formation when we began our clerkship, or even when he became a justice a few years earlier. rather, they were already deeply ingrainedded and affect aid every case he encounters no matter holiday mundane. we read his dissent, one of miss most memorable riteings to this tray, that was filled with quotable maximes including my own personal favorite, he who lives by the -- dies by the -- but these pithy scaliaisms mattered more because they captured a profoundly coherent vision of the constitutional balance of powers. and no one articulated that vision with more passion and lucidity on cases large and small than did justice scalia. as clerks early in the justice's tenure with thought his constitutional vision play out in many ways. he insisted that the constitutional words and structure must control. not the views of a majority of justices.

in that if any further elucidation is needed it should come from the historyam context of the relevant phrases. this meant that if a right was in the constitution it should be given effect and not watered down or ignored because of new social mores or technology. likewise itself i was not enumerated the court show notband the words of existing lawses to include it. no matter how desire table the claimed right might be this. approach reflects his respect for the texts, the limited role of federal judges and the responsibility of the legislature to make the law. after my clerkship, i entered the practice of law with support from justice scalia. he had worked for several years at a well-regarded law firm and encouraged us in his fatherly way to spend time in the practice before going into teaching or other pursuits. if nothing else, he said, you'll gain a practical understanding how the law actually works and have a professional home if academia and government don't work out.

i decided to stay in the practice, and over the past 26 years i've seen justice schoolie's strong influence on the profession. at a high level the court's sift shrift to a more textual approach has greatly simply identified and i would say improved the practice of law. especially in sauter to case -- statutory cases. before justice scalia lawyers would have to analyze volumes of legislative history no search of clues to congress' purpose, gathering passages from them congressional record to support their preferred reading. this was done at significant cost to clients and rarely the tangible helpful results. bree of an argue. focused on policy and now lawyers focus much more on the text and structure of the relevant statutory scheme, contract, or constitutional provision. this shift can be tariffed to justice skill ya in several ways. the first is his influence on legal teaching, shamed by among

other things the fact that law professors across the board would find his points as important statements of the law even if they disagree with his conclusions. when i was a law student, most law schools now teach statutory interpretation and legal instruction followed the a far more textual and structural approach. the result is that emerging young lawyers, what their political stripe, are more inclined to focus on legal text and the proper function of judges went i wasn't our constitutional struck too and as more and more lounge lawyers are trained in this way the profession naturally shifts as well. this pair hill change inside the judiciary. good lawyers always shape their argumented to what judges find persuasive and judge inside the post scalia world are less likely to be influenced by policy considerations, general notions of congressional purpose, or legislative history, and more likely to focus on the text given enactment, contract or constitutional provision. all of this has affected the profession.

but with one caveat from justice cal ya himself. as he was quick to tell us with a smile, not all judges share all of his views, and ultimately a lawyer's duty is to heirs or heraclines not to advance that's law are lawyer's view of what the law should be. so he would say even if he would not accept an. a on -- you got to make the argument. justice scalia also changed lawyering by pressing lard for clarification of the underlying law. over the years he left his mark on virtually every subject covered with federal law, including copyright, taxationings securities, class-action, and other areas he would try to clean up by returning there tome their are their textile roots. one quick example in the field of bankruptcy. before justice scalia bankruptcy courts was seen as courts of equity. not surprisingly the field was highly specialized and only

certain lawyers were seen as qualified to navigate the unique and often unwritten ruled that governed in those courts. justice scalia resisted this view, think can that after all, bankruptcy laws are statutes like any other, and should be subject to the same methodology. over the years the influence of justice schoolie's textual approach has made the bankruptcy practice more predictable, enhandded and open to participation by non specialists. the same is true in most other contraries of federal law as many practitioners in this roomening attest. i am deeply great follow have had the chance not only to to assist justice scalia and this court professionally but to become part of his extend family. justice scalia had scores of children good grandchildren to dote on but somehow he found the time and energy to become a father figure to his 100 plus clerks. re joyces at our discusses, reaching out in times of difficulty, and generally relishingsing the company of what he affectionately called

his arotti and we have been blessed to know mrs. scalia who has welcomed into the extended scalia family us clerks and our children, group the justice sometimes called the grand clerks. my three kid still talk about the day when we visited chambers mrs. scalia served them brownies she made for. the at home. while justice scalia let them sit at his huge desk and grilled them about their ambitions and interests. one unexpected area in which the justice influenced me was on matters of faith. during our clerkship the issue of personal faith was rarely if ever discussed. it certainly never entered into our discussion of cases even though such sass employment division versus smith, that involved the religion clauses of the constitution. justice scalia approached these cases just as he did any other. by reference to the text and the history of the relevant constitutional provision.

but later i came to appreciate that justice's faith through other means. my own spiritual path led me to catholicism. having learned from him on matters of legal meaning i began to understand the depth and breast of his faith, and -- bracket of this fight and the fact eh wrote the say. intel almost talk to passion to such matters and as he did to legal fishes and although this faith never affected hid judicial reasoning there were certain parallels most notely blow central justice of texts, deep intellectual tradition, a belief in right and ongoing and existence of objective truths, and the richness and relevance of historical tradition. the strength of justice schoolies faith like that is out if intellect and legal vision was profoundly humbling to me and others who engaged him 0 on that topic. aspect of his faith is relevant to his passing, so i wanted to

share it with this group. justice scalia always said that he knew his life on earth could end in an instant without warning, poof, it's again. he would say. it's faith taught him to be prepared for that moment. it was his job to be ready when the time came and if he was ready, he had no need to fear. for that reason, what he would ask from us is not to fight against this passing but to pray for him and take solace in his faith. that salas is welcome for the member odd his clerk family who have morn are mourned his loss as that of a parent as well as a beloved legal hero and mentor. although we miss justice scalia greatly, we clerk arotti are strengthened by miss legacy, memories and bond width each and with the scalia family, and the knowledge that his deep and avoiding faith will guide him from here. thank you.

>> thank you. our next soaker is professor brad clark. who is the william crans professor of law at the george washington university school of law. brad also is law clerk from the 1989 term, the same term as kristen. brad. >> thank you, paul. i clerked for justice scalia during the 1989 terms, as paul said and i'm here too represent the justice's clerks who became professors. of whom there are many. in fact, no fewer than 28 of us now teach at law schools around the country, including harvard, yale, columbia, nyu, michigan, virginia, vanderbilt, notre dame, and i could go on. at first i was surprise by how many of us chose this path.

but at the risk of scaring off hiring committees that might consider scalia clerk in the the future i suspect our numbers reflect the justice's influence on us. before becoming a judge, justice scalia was a tenured law professor at both the university of virginia and the university of chicago. he loved teaching. perhaps because he loved ideas. and he understood their power. in fact, hi once toldel told me that law professors have their greatest impact through teaching rather than scholarship. justice scalia never stopped teaching. anyone who clerked for him knows this first hand. justice scalia loved to argue about law. to mix it up in the way that good law professors do with their students. in every case he would immediate meet with his clerks before and after overall arguments to discuss the issues. he didn't want us to come there and just agree with him. that wouldn't have been fun or helpful. he valued analytical rigor and

principled decisionmaking and encouraged us to push back when we disagreed with him. certainly, when he thought is wrong, he made it a teaching moment. showing us the error of our ways. sometimes he did it in latin. occasionally, however, we actually managed to convince him that his initial take on a indicate was mistaken. the these cases justice scalia didn't mind being proven wrong. the went uses to tess' test his views and help him get it right in process justice scalia taught us something else. that this was not personal. this was not about his ego or ours. that we should be open-minded, and that we should always go where written, earth rap succeed yhency took us. justice scalia's influence went far beyond what he taught his law clerks elm also taught generates of law students through this opinions.

my students always find his clear, vivid, and direct writing style to be breath gripping and ac settable. this is true -- accessible whether is this try whether they were inclined to aggrieve women him 'perhaps students are lush i rhymed opera disagreement with justice scalia his opinions routinely beat their spectates. they wowed students with common sense, their entertaining prose, and their commitment to principle. this is to true not only in the block putters but a in relatively mundane cases. how could someone ignore an opinion explaining that loose judicial balancing test is like asking whether a particular line is longer than a particular rock is heavy? students got his point. justice scalia's textualism and originalism reshaped legal conversations in the classroom and in the courtroom. when congress selects words to express its policies, he thought judges should follow those words. certainly that was better than

judge and their law clerks trying to imagine how 535 legislators and the president would have decided ocase they never contemplated. a constitutional case is less of a text precluded the politicalarchors from, a he saw no base in are the court to prefer its moral judgment over the people's elected representatives. the year i clerked for the justice in a case seeking to establish a right too die, he wrote that the answers to questions of life and death are not known to the nine justices of this court any better than they are known to the nine -- to nine people picked at random from the kansas city telephone directory. justice scalia changed the way we approached constitutional and statutory interpretation, and law professors who and i large did not like it, could not ignore it. they had to discuss justice scalia's views in class, and they wrote countless articles and analyzing and critiqueing

his opinions. academic criticism didn't fairs justice scalia and only reinforced hit resolve the strengthen, refine, and reconsider his ideas when appropriate. that if is not say that justice scalia saw no role for legal scholarship. he encouraged us to do the kind of sharp that might actually help lawyers and judge inside their work. law has meaning only in context, and he knew that the law's backgrounded principles and assumeses are easily lost or forgotten over time. and his view law professors could provide a valuable service to the court and the profession by recovering lovers context and meaning. many of is clerks have takenning this advice to heart. justice scalia also published lots of articles in books and he loved to visit law schools. i think he saw these visits a as an opportunity bypass normal channelss' speak directly with law studented.

these visits had an impact. we start teaching at george washington university i learned that in 1990, almost a quart are -- morn a quart are center agog, that justice had allowed to us record a lecture he gave on statutory interpretation. every year that lecture is still shown to students taking legislation. and every year, it provokes our students to rethink their long-held assumptions. when justice scalia visited laww schools he nothingth not only gave lectures in moot court competitions and meat a point to visit ordinary classed in these changes justice excel ya relished in the opportunity to mix it up with law studented. the approached them with openness, honest contract and respect. students always found his visits stimulating, educational, and while even fun. and after those visits, professors couldn't stop their students from talking about his ideas. no matter how hard they tried.

i can't believe he is gone. but i know that his ideas will long outlast his days on earth. in part that because he was such a powerful thinker. but it's also because he was such a great teacher. his firm belief that we shouldn't be ruled by judges, and his simple idea that the best way to interpret a text is to read it, will continue to shape the way students, lawyers and judges think about the law, well into the future. not up of his clerks who teach law are of one mind. we don't all share a common legal philosophy or agree with everything justice scalia believed but be all take with us his commitment to openness, to the power of ideas, to the value of debate and give agreement, to cherishing friends with whom we disagree, and to the idea that law, done right, is a matter of prim that's right ran expedience si. it falls upon all of us, then, to kind that spirit, justice

scale ya venezuela spirit, alive. >> thank you, broad, the next speaks ex-their honor paul clement, the solis at the general of the united states and currently a part never at the lawyer film which has argued over 80 indicateses in the court. i believe was the 1993 term. >> i had my first oral argument before justice scalia almost 25 years ago. and it did not go well. he summoned me down from law school to interview for a law clerk position. and after a brief exchange of pleasantries he began to pepper

me with questions mitchell answered needed a lot of work. with, i don't know issue hadn't thought of that, being among the most concise and truthful. but somehow, somehow, the justice hired me. the next oral arguments with the justice came in chamber monday what the called the clerk conferences during which the law clerks and justice would debate the upcoming week's cases, often loudly, always passionately, and usually punctuated by the justice's ineffect shouse loss. those were the highlights of the clerkship and why not? the justice took our views seriously, expected to us speak it when we disagreed with him, and taught us the a great deal about advocacy, law, and civil discourse. the results were contrary-altering for the law clerks. once you have had the opportunity to tangle with justice scalia, mano a mano, over difficult legal issues,

very few subsequent experiences in the law rank as particularly intimidating. it is perhaps no surprise, then, that so many of the justices' law clerks have returned to the court to present oral argument. in last term alone, 11 of the justices former law clerks presented argument in 22 different cases. meaning that the court heard from one of the justices' law clerks in about one out out every three cases. as law clerks we also had the incomparable experience of watching that amazing word smyth take our drafts and work his magic. he routinely was handed a stone and returned a sculpture. indeed their transformation what generally so complete that i often wondered why he bothered to the ask us for deaths at all. i strongly suspect is was because he had no idea how to format a new document on the computer.

the justice's great gift as a writer was that his memorable turns of phrase were not just memorable but they so perfectly captured the seeps of the legal point -- the essence of the legal point he wanted to make, central point of her morrison disease are dissent was the independent council statute was a frontal assault on the separation of powers. hence, this wolf comes as a wolf. and this was a gift he always had. i recently came across an article he wrote as a young associate professor on the subject of sovereign immunity in nonstatutory review of administrative action. a potential live dry topic in the wrong hands. but not in his. in making the point that two phenomena at odds were actually mutually reinforcing he evoked, quote, a childsry son issuement at watching a tightrope walk for

the first time. how marvelous he ooh not only walk along such a anywhere rove wire but carry and balance a long stick at the same time. the justice worked hard in chambers but made plenty of time for other pursuits. his appetite for travel was legendary. one of my first calls from hill at a law clerk came from india. and he would occasionally emerge from his office in black tie, ready for an evening of socializings. while i was privileged to be the justice's elbow clerk, was also his designated racket clerk. at such he would frequently drop by my text in afternoon, react in hand. we occasionally played squash a few blocks from the court. but his favorite game was tennis, and his favorite venue were clay courts near his home which were dirkly conducive to a self-described sicilian drop shot. since at the courts were near

his holm i would other drive there separate and although we left the building at the same time he invariably arrived there first. when it dame to the posted speed limited he was no strict textualist. we happen few char privileged to clerk for the justice were transformed by the experience. but his influence went far beyond the clerk -- arotty. the justice had a transformative effect of the supreme court and the with a itself decides cases. his impact on statutory construction which is the bread and burt've what the court does was nothing short of with the center of attention returned to the text. he like weiss championed a focus on the text and average public mean of the constitution and strode mightily to ensure that his methodology for interpreting both statutes and the constitution produced predictable legal results even when they did not comport with his policy preferences. this votes to victim rick indicate the first amendment rights of flag burners are

famous examples but perhaps no area of justice scalia's juris prudence give gave rise those knockan more often than criminal law. on a permanent level, aenton anyone scalia, an appoint ethnicson, ford and reagan was a law and order guy and sometimes that's description fit is in constitutionals elmly nod love for the exclusionary rule. but vary often justice scalia's commitment to text to allism put him in the criminal defendant residents camp. his opinion in crawford vie vital a's the confrontation clause, fueled by fifth amend due process concerns heron thread court's charge to eliminate the concept of honest services fraud and justice schoolie's belief the sixth amendment's injury trial guarantee led him to join a host of opinions revolutionizing criminal sentencing. one such okayed involved a government effort to overturn a riced sentence.

the lower courts substantially rulessed the defendant's sentence, and so the defendant was able to attend the supreme court argument in person in the gallery, and at one point when justice school ask was peppering the government lawyer with questions, the defendant tugged on his lawyer's sleeve, pointed up to justice scalia and whispered to he so gets me. frsh indeed, while antonin school ya, law and order guy might not have government the defendant, justice scalia interpreting the text of his sixth amendment most certainly did. justice scalia had a prooffend impact not only on the court's decisions but on the wait conducted oral argument. in the 1970s and early '80s it was common for freeman or the cao advocated to be asked only a handle of questions. that changed when justice scalia joined the court. indeed it changed on day one. the justice had obviously been told there was something of a

tradition that a new junior justice would allow more senior colleague toads leafed off the question while it took enormous self-discipline the waited a good 15 minutes into the argue. before asking his first question. he then asked the next ten. and the total of 28 in that first argument as a justice. other justices followed suit,lets the new guy have of have all the fun. things have the never been the same for the accurate or advocates. argues become the supreme court it now the art of answering question. moot courts nor longer optional. justice scalia's questions were point it and asked in his style and the combined effect of this forceful presence and juris prudence created unique challenge ford ooral 15ed a oit could. if the legislative heist favored a client residents indicate the advocate no coo not omit discussion of the favorable committee report for floor statement but provide prepared

for the onslaught that was coming. did the president himself signed the committee report? how many menned of congress actually heard that floor statement? you could not predict the precise form of theque but you knew the question was coming. his distinction juris prudence meant that having the jilt on your side did not necessarily mean that you would be spared tough questioning, especially if you were urging an alternative means to the same end. in indicate where the government urged the court to deny taxpayers standing without squarely overruling flats v cohen, justice schoola, they ever court's for moe opponent of tax pair standing, asked the government no less than 20 questions because he found the government's middle ground position incoherent. the jilts who actually disagreed with the government residents bottom line had to work hard to get a word in edgewise. at the same time he made oral argue amount lively affair he made clear it need not be dour. he injected humor into this

colloquies with counsel and asked men questions with a twink until his eye and was routine live average are ranked the court's funniest justices as judge by therefore court reporter's need to note laughter in the oral argument transcript. in the months that followed his passing. i made my first arguments to a supreme court that did not include justice scalia. he had been on the court for each of my previous arguments. his absence from the bench was palpable. as i prepared answers he would not hear, and wrote briefs that he would not read, i was struck by how much over the years that i and other lawyers were writing and preparing for him. and that will not stop. just as his opinions will continue to shape the way the law is taught and understood he will continue to shape the way briefs are written and the way advocates prepare for oral argument. let me close with my favorite exchange with justice scalia at oral argument. the case involved whether the court should extend an implied

cause of action. the justice was not a fan of implied causes of action or implied anything for that matter. and he credit seated the court's practice in mat he labeled the bad old days of inferring causes of action that appeared nowhere in the enacted text. there was some confusion at argue. whether a particular court precedent was a product of those bad old days. and justice scalia asked me when if thought the bad old days ended. my answer then and now was of course the bad old days ended when you've got on the court, mr. justice scalia. the justices nearly 30 years of service on this court were good day indeed both for the court and for everyone privileged enough to interact with justice antonin scalia. thank you. >> thank you, paul.

as both paul and brad mentioned, i don't think any member of the clerk arotti as theurgy liked to call us, will or at least should ever forget the honor of the lifetime to be in that room with him, locked in his private chambers, arguing about cases. it was a place where the only sense of horror was that of law and of reason and of the best arguments and we were all very honored to be part of those sessions. our next speaker is the honorable jeffrey sutton, the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit, and jeff i believe was a clerk in 1991.

>> justice skill ya would have been grateful for today's ceremony. i wonder if would haven't of have noted with his wry smile one potentially awkward feature of it. isn't what we are doing with these remarks, this resolution and this meeting of the bar, comfortably close to one his favorite targets in life, after the fact legislative history. might he not accuse of us of trying to smuggle a friendly set of commissions me u.s. report tuesday or order to varnish this or that part of his life to make it look like it was something it was not. happily for us there is no surfing risk there if there is one point on which we can all agree it's that justice scalia led and an ambiguous life. there's so much evidence, so much text where the stood on just about everything. want to know what he taught.constitutional statutory interpretation? check out a matter of interpretation.

want to know his views about the cannons of construction? read, reading law. want to know his views about she by action of faith and law in check out his speeches on the topic. and then of course there are his 870 opinions. for pete's sake there's even been an opera written about him and justice goods are ginsburg so this is lit raul for lawyerly construction or deconstruction or even an original song but there is plenty of room for gratitude and admiration. start with the gratitude. lucky for me no one in this hall knew he before i worked for justice scalia. let's just say i was not a promising candidate for arguing cases in this court or deciding case inside the court of appeals. i am indebted to justice scalia for giveling in the legal and i wills and inspiration to reach for what should have been unreefable jobs. but i most grateful to him for something else. that i've enjoyed every john i have had in the legal profession.

how life changing, how much fun to come across someone with such a spirit of curiosity, such a remarkable wit and fearless character. opposite you had a drink at that well there was no turning back. if anyone knew how to inspire a young person to t. are turn law into a calling it was justice scalia. let me turn to admiration. the last 227 years confirm, it's tricky business to astaire a government of laws and not of men, and yet permit a small group of men and women of the hey final say over cases that decide he meaning of the constitution, and the rest of federal law. justice scalia took that dilemma head on and devoted a career to trying to reconcile the x competing considerations. if there was one expect of justice schoolie seered into by mind it is the value he placed on ideas. at the proper currency of law in his world was reasoned interpretations, not adding up

to five power. it followed the good ideas not the station of the judge or the advocate who came up with them, drove his purchase to the court's work. that's not a bad thing for lower court judge or for a legal system. it means that everyone has a chance to influence the process, and it means that legal culture that must be hierarchical in one way need not my hierarchical in all ways. a feature of judiciary that healthy and sequence equipment send chalet american. all lower court judges appreciated the 0 so clear exalt of a justice scalia opinion. there are 851 authorized federal judgeships and it's a truth not often uttered in this building that 842 of those judges do a good part of the work. holiday help follow have the a scalia opinion in hand in addressing our case load. you knew where the law stood when you read a majority opinion by justice scalia. with his clarity of thought and

facility with language came transparency of method. to his everlasting credit, justice schooliesry opinions let the world know how he should be judged. the justice left little doubt how the school ya score card work, what the bench marks for for a fair decision in a case at hand and for equal treatment between that case and the next one down the road. it's one thing to say, justice is blind. it's another to prove it. by treating seen and unseen cases alike. while justice school where was no-no nonsense about doing his best to decide cases impartially the proved that the texas need not be dull. trying being a court of appeals judge with the constitution might have called the superior inferior judges. there's plenty of repetition and every you do something interesting, it's subjected to review here. how refreshing to have a scalia opinion to comfort and startle you. say what you will about the justice, his opinions never put

anyone to sleep. some of miss most engaging opinions, best lines, name the most run of the mind cases. but a powerful example. instead of wondering what i had done to deserve the fate of desing a dry case, scalia opinion on the topic reminded threat was nothing of the sort. no matter the stakes he prized coherent always, and his mind never seemed to come to rest until each string of thought had come into tune. his commitment to the technical controversy show that all cases, great and small, deserves the same rigor and care. all this came easily to him, i suppose because vibrant debate came naturally to him. i like to think of him as the chessmaster who comps the park on saturday morning and is disappointed to see upten other chase players willing to take him on. even his first book, a matter of interpretation, is done most revealingly in a day bait formal. he chose not to write a book

about his views alone, he presented a theory of judging, then asked several prominent professors to challenge him. signaling confidence, humanity and transparent -- humility and transparency at once. the eat soot important example. he invested anytime friendships with colleagues, including those with whom he sometimes disagreed. even vigorously. it makes me happy that most lawyers in this country in nearly every judge knows that justice scalia attended one opera after another with justice ginsburg and taught justicing aing a how to hunt. speaking strictly for myself, by the way home not schur was the greater example of good faith collegiality and during 35 years worth of long, devil to follow on practices or torching a potentialed a very sears how to use a gun. -- adversary how to use a gun. said some nice thing beside justice scalia and i can add a few more.

he wrote like jackson and holme, thought lie frankfurter and saw the long term stakes like chief justice marshall but all of these talent wood have before worthless, truth be told potentially danery russ they've oft tall there was the justice. the indid expensable thing to say about justice skill ya is he passed the test of judicial, which. he respected the line between law and personal opinion. that was never going to be an easy road to travel and not just because the justice had a few ideas about how the world should work. surely someone as mart as justice schoolie now hugh hopeful it would have been to his legacy to bend this views to accommodate public opinion or to be the go lock to get long judge that, well he most assured i was not. sure live he knew how difficult it would be to pervade the public there's a difference between what a previously enacted text requires and what today's public prefers.

the judge who traveled that road well by misunderstood and will suffer a double dose of misan apprehension. praise he do not wasn't from in quarters andie simple he does not deserve from others. it's easy is noing else about the justice. he did not work alone. there is no justice scalia without mrs. scalia, and men howed a to that his devoted family and his abiding faith it becomes clear why he was able to retain the courage of his convictions and the conscience to know when they were at risk. several years ago justice scalia gave a eulogy in which he said a mentor of his had run a good race. in n a replying that ideas to justice i must concur in judgment but not the reasoning. oh, sure, the justice ran a great race, covering ground with pace, character, and flare, but instead of thinking of has life as a completed race i prefer to think of it as a critical leg of a relay. warm mist that's right think of

the many people who have been, and will be inspired by justice scalia in will pick up where he left off in ways large and small. it warm mid that's right think of an argument at this court decade from now when justices will be asking questions and advocates will be answering them in ways influenced by things justice scalia did that seeped into the deepest fabrics of american law. so deep that no one that day will know why they are doing what they are doing. in it warm mist that's right think of perhaps his most lasting legacy. we americans tend to be obsessed with winning and losing, making attachmenting to measure a judicial career solely by how often a justice won or lost the cites of the day. i can't deny the importance of wins and losses, or that the winner sometimes try to write the history, but i can say that questions can be just as important as answers over the long term, and the questions justice scalia relentlessly

posed will by with is for a long time. of the questionses framed by a confident man, reduced to the most hum bale judge can ask. that the people in power to resolve this dispute, if so, on what grounds is it permissible to do so. so i give thanks to justice scalia served his country faithfully and well, taught us never to loose south of thieves essential questions and offered us the most admirable way of answering them. thank you. >> this miss new interviews regimen, up down, starting slowly. well, thank you, judge sutton. before we come to the adoption of the resolutions i want to adder just one last observation about justice scalia. for all of his stature, his tremendous abilities, and his

nearly unrivaled impact, the justice scalia was a fundamentally and deeply humble man. that humility lay at the center of his constitutional and statutory juris prudence but his hugh until was roadded in significant part in his unwavering faith. nothing, other then this family was as important to justice scalia and has than his faith. it i equally true that his faith in god was much more important to him than his job was. he said on more than one occasion publicly that the two ever came into n district conflict he would resign. and also he would never allow this faith to alter his duties as a justice in deciding a case according to the governing law. for justice scalia, both his

faith and his job were never about him. but rather about a creator or about the documents of the creation of our republic. there were far more important than he was. at least to him. as i stand here today, i can hear his voice in my head. clear as day. echoing his persistent dislike for eulogies or praise of an individual. that voice is saying to me next effect, operates not me, but pray for me. for my family, for my friends and for the rest of us. and focus your earthly praise insetted on the institution of the supreme court, on our exquisite stucks and -- constitution and the on the republic our founders set up for us, all of which we must stride to protect. and for heavens sake get on with it.

in that spirit, i'd like to invite rachel who is the professor of law in policy as well as the faculty director at the center for administration of criminal law at the nyu school of law to join me to move the adoption of the resolutions to be presented to the court. --...

>> >> you have before you the product of the committee on resolutions. on behalf of the committee i have the honor. >> of resolutions are up for adoption. adopted and will be presented to the clerk by the solicitor general and not put them to a vote. all in favor to adopt the resolution place signify any opposed?

good. [laughter] hearing opposition i declare the resolution adopted. this completes our work here we will now head you will be assisted by the court staff. but before we move five would like to think everybody in the court to help to make this possible. and others that i may have forgotten. given their language it is fitting particularly in did latin that we close with a customary declaration, we are encouraged.

one negative adjourned

>>

[applause] i want to give you the same opportunity to talk about an issue of your campaign and actually talk about some of the same issues. now you have talked on education during a time in congress. what about this issue? scott: wine talk so much about education as a kid in a single-parent household. and then to toxic san politics spanish and english nobody calls you bilingual.

again is a new cast speak any language. [laughter] all 74 different elementary schools. because we do have for there's a lot. issue of education at my grandfather could not be. but i would love to see the federal government to give more options for families. almost $700 billion designation we may not have control of education there are hundreds of funding streams into each district.

to create avenues to have more options of education the greater the chance of the child does not determine the success academically. academic success will have a large role to play in your profession. dixon: as the good senator explained a lot of your platform has spent school choice. but the reality is it eliminates a portion of those who cannot afford to pay for school. so that eliminates a large

segment from the quality education. and tell me understand that every child deserves a public education to set up the children across of pipeline. and that has been proven to lead to a more productive chou the did the educational system. by ensuring that in the public-school system that every child has access to a quality public education then we can save money money, produce greater productivity going from the elementary level and have a

stronger society because we are invested of our children from a quality education. i definitely a understand that. but when we look at school choice, it is a strong possibility because he competes with the subject of school choice. he was not part of the certain ethnic group we cannot go back to that time we just need to move forward. regardless of color or race or creed. [applause] >> no doubt my grandfather passed away into your area 94 years old.

the access was not available . no doubt about that but i think god that we have evolved tremendously so much to be proud of here in south carolina. so the last education bill over the last seven years did not see the light of day. and also with this cycle to allow for the pre-kindergarten funding. if you were in that cisco blind and you have access according to the latest school district to use some of your title one funding for pre-k.. second the adn that we are

on the university's standards at a private school to receive public money so why is it we're okay with colleges said universities for those to grow up in my neighborhood may not have a quality choice in their neighborhood and never have the opportunity. >> another question is the next-generation of choice. they are called charter schools. magna's schools. virtual schools all of these are in the apparatus of education.

catchment is when the charter school becomes the actual school for a neighborhood. there are those that we grew up with now today they can take the place of those that are failing. if we give the parents more public options i call that a victory. so although colin dexter while without any question and to be better than that public apparatus today. but the question is to make them as the answer is the most clear. often the answer is no. [applause] dixon: and that is where the legislators have let them

down. we are smart enough and clever edf to find the money to educate our children and well versed enough's for those taxes that can be utilized within the public school system but talk about charter schools the right their starting off the did about -- wound up being 90 percent. the that is not the exception. is the rule. what we need to do is going around on the issue but the solution will be continually every child in america

deserves a quality public education and i am not discount saying the fact that those who can afford private schooling to take advantage of school choice i fully agree with that but we cannot overlook the of some who are not just as disadvantaged. >> and don similar pages. but here is what i suggest. it is not working. eric is a reason why in charleston county that their graduation rate is around 40 percent there is a reason why where we both with our

old most segregated schools again. and then to have that segregated schools is already reinforced by the schools in the area. and then to study the issue. so to be in philadelphia uh the harder the city it is the neighborhood school they are excited about this. success academy in new york city at of those 4,000 public-school slug success academies are 93 percent african-american and of

those five best schools in english three ratified in now. and 97 percent of the kids are proficient in science. so all kid scheme learn. so whenever it takes to make sure the good quality education is it in the backyard. >> what to me say to the kids? >> the least we can do is give more options to the parents we will find ourselves with better statistics. >> once again i find no problem but we need to wear

a shirt that there is not old for those to set did to those options. let me put it this way. i have not been able to afford this place or that place but consistently over the quality of education with the same children that they have talked about with these buildings schools. and i know for a fact with did put into the schools is substandard. from what we have heard until we see people treated the way they should be treated they have not done their job to insure the school district receives a great education as a matter of fact last time they lost

$18 million. taxpayer money but then the chief financial officer has no accountability whatsoever because we know that a promise into schools that they will be more successful now i will let you talk. >> by would suggest if you look at the apparatus the vegetation has and a nation summit ended billion dollars in did those high-income countries with math and science and reading our schools are feeling the poorest kids. with those outcomes with the poverty levels. we have to do better.

and ordering those taxpayer incentives to subsidize. >> we have got to find ways to insure we don't have students to be released from eight grade with the third grade reading level that is ridiculous and america. the answer is not free segregation that is exactly were talking about with school choice. >> unfortunately it heiress city there already segregated. so remember that charter schools receive less than half of the money of a public-school. the options are very clear. if you are in a feeling public school and that is more options than the public

apparatus. you have to have a charter schools and school choice to succeed talking about america's education the average student is $22,000 per pupil and a graduate 56% of the time. school choice 93% among african-american rate graduating 93% of the time. ninety-one% they go on to higher education. that is 40 percent of the cost. such a have a higher quality education in of that waiting list for those charter schools.

dixon: my last comment. washington d.c. organ york city or all of those white are we number 42 added 50? parted the answer by the way because between 44 of the dollars goes to the classroom the average nationwide is $0.65 we could have another $1 billion in the classroom if they change their formula. the part of the reasons we're so far behind is to have a billion dollars that should be given to the child. [applause]

>> moderator: use and what those issues it is important is done violence. >> the first thing that i would do that was pushing for to close those loopholes that allow them to get into the hands that we're not supposed to have guns. intimate yet perfectly clear right off the bat i am not anti-second amendment. i am pro constitution. belly are americans by any means necessary. and right now through the proliferation of guns threat of america that get into the

community with those of mine sales and i can buy a gun right now. for those that are flooding guns into the community. and the gun violence growing to chicago which is my home. and those said argues did chicago they're not made doors sold in those communities. but purchase from that gun dealers in those loopholes need to be changed immediately. i could all this because the estimate by mid-1994 that there is what million guns

kept at of the hands of those who should not have guns in their hands. that translates into two ilium lives saved. that if closing the background technical but with that congress is an arm sacked. if we do those things i stood with those who lost their loved ones to crime. those from of mother emanuel through the of depaul that he should not have gotten his liaison that guide because of the background check was 72 hours.

guess there is a problem with a background check system but common sense might not even have that option we have nine people in a church dead because of the people that now we do should not and they still don't have the -- have that closed. nothing prevents a person from that should not have a gun from killing people from those that do have guns. but the reality is with armed law-enforcement. said to kill five to keep

them that they. but my whole thing is when it comes to firearms to do everything that we can to stop the violence to let the american public down and we take care of our citizens. [applause] >> i was thinking about this question. from pastor emanuel and how active he was in the senate

and then invited me to his church. i remember coming up here and coming up to his funeral. remember being at the funeral but the truth of the charleston leopold he was prohibited he was already prohibited to get a gun but he got one. so that closing the loophole was already closed. he should not have had a gun . he should not have had a gun.

30,000 people who lose their life because of a gun. 65 percent take their own lives 65%. before i go back to that statistic but supposedly the researcher of gun violence the number that legally buy a gun at a show and then that person uses that gun and then use that to commit

violence. about 5% thousand of those 5,000 are homicides out f-35 thousand that is 25 percent of the gun death. with the ball toward the troy 10 washington d.c.. those in the country. how to make people safer chris murphy is the friend of mine when asked the question certainly was not fox news.

[laughter] but he said the laws he was pushing even those massacres in and connecticut it. but the challenge is that they are not the law enforcement officers. address them and put into jail. . .

we have heard on the news that no fly, no buy. well, we have had a bill on that. but it failed because of due process. we can make progress if we get both sides to say, yes, to due process. that the biggest delineation between the two sides in congress. >> yes, both sides definitely need to come together. okay? but as i listen to your conversation, -- i have been with judy scott, scott family, been the mother emanuel and the mother of a woman who came home and had her dead blown off.

and i have been with mother of a daughter who went to merit beach and -- myrtle beach and didn't kole home. but welcome i pray the numbers game but the thing is unless we do everything within our power in order to steptamika pairs from losing her tour or melody from losing heir sunnies 0, judy scott from losing her son -- jutey scott from lousy her son, we have let america don't. you kind of sort of made light of it, seems like to me. with all due respect to you and i have the utmost respect to you. and i would love to workive you somewhere in the future. but when it comes to gun legislation, common sense gun los legislation that's going to reduce the violence we see in

america, if we don't do everything that we can within our power, then we're letting americans down. and the thing is when witness -- will it touch you or anyone in this audience today? when -- because it doesn't -- it's not bound by color or race, creed, gender, orientation or anything. gun violence will invade anyone's house the proliferation of guns in a community are because of theft. that's standard law enforcement answer. that's a lie. i know because i come from a community. come from the projects of chicago and i know how guns came in, back then, when it was better, than it is now. and it still going on. and i can look for that guy to pull up in this trunk and open it up and as an aig eight-year-old with $20 i could buy a gun. new, common sense gun legislation. close the background check loopholes.

we shut down bad apple gun dealers. identify them and repeal the protection of congresses in arms contract so hair not protected anymore. we start online gun sales. i'm not going to say when it comes to military assault style weapons but die need -- there does need to be more training involved and more licensing involved in this. i don't say licensing but any way, we are charged -- and i'm not into the senator spot, which i'm going to occupy but we are charged with the task of taking care of americans because that's what we do. when we send our volunteers off to fight for their country, they make a pledge to die for this country. there's no reason why anybody on

any day in america should not get up and in a situation of safety and country of safety where you don't have to worry about going to the movie or worry about going to a church, don't have to worry about going to school. and you don't -- definitely don't have to worry about a group of six six-year-olds, worry about somebody coming up in their elementary school, gunning them down. just not right. >> i don't disagree with you. i would suggest you look at the chicago statistics specifically where the guns legally purchased. this stats are clear, black and white, and i suggest that the reality of it is that in each case you just mentioned, doesn't it not -- 40 laws broken in connecticut, each incident you mentioned, at least a dozen laws are broken.

if the laws we have on the books aren't working, what law do you suggest? because i'll tell you, charleston, the charleston loophole, was actually a law that said that he ooh not have had the gun. so breaking that law, how about the loss of love that says a. my brother's keeper. how about that law? >> i am not a big fan -- >> the entire clap at the -- >> i didn't overtalk you. let show some love in here. >> well, show love. i want to go with facts. >> we can -- >> i didn't -- i'm not disputing your facts. what i'm saying is that anytime that we fail to do anything that we can in order to stop someone from dying, the way you broke it done, the suicides, the this,

the that, you got down to this little number issue don't know what you're saying about the -- about chicago because the fact is that chicago, these are not legal guns that are killing people. >> that's right, agree. >> they're not legal gun size don't know the comment you're made. they're illegal guns and now because of that -- in chicago, where the massive amount of illegal guns are -- those folks don't make no guns. the are no gun stores in their communities, and this gun are gunners are coming from somewhere if and if they're coming from somewhere they muss be come thought backare of somebody's gun shops, online purchases-straw purchases, getting in there from somewhere. yes, it's matter of enforcing laws but until we do that we cannot overlook any, anything that is going to make america safer for americans. nothing whatsoever. >> i actually agree with you, sir. >> we have agreement.

we have to go on to another question. one of the unique responsibilities of senators is to provide advice and consent on the presidenties nominees to the court. judge garland was nominated and has not received a hearing or court there are dozens of vacancies on the lower federal courts and some nominees heave been waiting for more a year for senate action. am not a asking you what you would do recording a specific nominee currently nominated. it that confusing enough? i want to know what you think the senate's responsibility is regarding nominations? should they be given a hearing and/or a vote? and what cite criteria would you use to determine whether you would confirm a president's nominee to the court. start with pastor dixon.

>> -- i think i'll defer. >> okay. >> i cede to the senator. >> these is how conversations occur. >> on the lower courts, bruce hendrix was just on the bench a -- within the last 24 months. mr. cogins from the other state, another person that we held a hearing on. on the supreme court. in the last 100 years, the party who occupies occupies the whitet the same time has a different party controlling the senate, the last 100 years, one time, has there been a supreme court justice allowed in that last year. to use the words of vice president biden, chuck schumer and dick durbin, when asked if they would allow for president bush to have a nominee his last year, the answer was, no. we will not --

>> to clarify, though, the question was asked in june of the presidential election year, and it was a hype the:question. there was no vacancy at the time. >> so, to continue my point here because i think you helicopter me build that----helped me build that -- >> so-so we're clear on that. >> which is is a very important point. even the moderator, who is moderating this has strong opinion on where we should go speak reality is this -- jive didn't say they were right. just said that was time offering when they've did it. i strongly disagree with what they did. good ahead. >> are you sure? >> go ahead. >> i know you're fired up. >> the reality is that both sides have consistently opposed a nominee in the last year. and there's a reason why. because as president obama said elections are costly, and therefore, we're waiting until this election is over before

there is an appointment. and i'm sure there will be. the fact of the matter is that for us who believe that more conservative justice would be helpful, the president's not going to provide us with a considerative nominee. and so our advise and consent we advised him we're not going to consent and if we wants to come back with a more conservative nominee we would consider it. >> is that your criteria for approving a supreme court nominee? >> i want the most -- yes itch want the most conservative candidate i think i can get. >> okay. >> i think it's dangerous to sit in stone our actions today based on how things went in the past. if just because things were done

a particular way in past that we say, oh, it's been done that way, even though it's not law, that we have to continue doing things and we justifies our behaviors based on the way things were done. i think that dangerous. and we have every opportunity this year to confirm a supreme court justice that was not only extremely moderate in his opinions but someone that both i'ds of the aisle seemed to, seemed to, gravitate to. but but but we have a republican controlled congress that basely says, no, because the president obama has nominated this supreme court justice. the same way they've done consistently for the last eight years. now, don't want to make this about president obama because he is not running for this office. but the reality is, congress is

charged with the task of doing it job, not based on the way things have been but the way things are right now. so let get the job done. that is the whole thing. and -- [applause] >> -- the nominee, the nominee is someone that could be acceptable to both parties across the aisle if it was just the simple thing of saying, let get the job done. let's get it done. the good candidates, the qualified candidates, a man morse be whose more thans are impeckable and accepteddable by both side odd the aisle -- this is a personal opinion -- has to be with the same on distributionics' just vie over eight years that saying anything that this president puts out we're going to say, no, and then we'll wait to gain an advantage so that we get someone that

leans more towards the right than toward the left. when the people of america deserve somebody who understands both sites of the aisle and will vote in the best interests of americans at large. [applause] >> other than our proven from the left to eight i actually aggrieve with your overall disposition, think many of us will look backward find precedent in history and across those precedents because we like them. i certainly did. but that fact we would advise and consent if we thought he was conservative enough. we think when repliesing school gentleman way want someone who starts with a constructive, positive, equilibrium that would maintain the current balance of

the court. those of us on the right, who have not been willing to hear the case of mr. garland, it's because we don't think is conservative enough. so i don't disagree with you. that just where we are. >> the american public, the same american public that elects congress, from my reading and from my limited knowledge and my scope, the american public wants congress to do their job right now. they didn't want to you to wait or -- this delay until after the election. the majority of the people that i've read on, do the job now. and let's get a confirmation. now. and as elect officials, as people who are elected of the people, by the people, and to work for the people, the people

are the ones who call the shots. when it comes time to elected officials, not our partieds or what a person should look like, talk like, act like, or even represent. the people of are the ones who have the say sew. that's why even when it comes to the issue of, say -- i just want to give a brief example -- when it comes to the gun legislation situation, 80% -- over 80% of americans want common sense gun legislation passed. over 80%. imjust going to say conservatively speaking, 80%. that leaves 20% that don't want gun legislation -- common sense gun legislation passed. but you and your republican congress consistently want to serve the 20% instead of the 80%. that has got too stop in mrs., the people in america deserve to be represented completely, and

if the majority of americans speak in favor of a particular position, then our government officials and our elected officials who are elected of the people, by the people and for the people, need to represent the people, not the party. [applause] >> amen to that. >> i'd like too respond. >> we'll be talking more about that question of representation in the final time. >> i certainly think that the people, particularly, if you throw out republican and democrat labels, and look at who president obama presented to the u.s. senate, it was someone who was consistent with his philosophical disposition. the american people -- throw away the republican label now.

the majority of us have a philosophical disposition that is more conservative than the president. therefore the constitution requires to us advice and convent. we're telling the president we do not like the candidate you have sent. he is not sent another one. therefore, if you look at that philosophical position of the president, and the senate, we are locked. >> great explanation. and that's why we need to change. >> hold off on that until the next part. all right. thank you, gentlemen. turn your microphones off and have a five-minute break. not more than five minutes. >> 15 minutes -- you, five minutes. you heard me say that. i'll send search aparts out for you. >> senator, don't get lost. >> this week on newsmakers, their 2016 vote and the integrity of the voting process

with our guest, denice merrill of the national association of secretaries of state and thomas hix of the election assistance commission. newsmaker this sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> every weekend booktv brings you 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors here's what is coming up this weekem. into tv is live saturday at 11:00 a.m. syrup and sunday at 3:00 p.m. eastern from the 21st annual texas book festival in downtown out citizen if the texas book festival is one of the largest and most prestigious literary festivals? the country. saturday's authors chris alberto gonzalez in his book, truth faith and allegiance, and pulitzer rise win author, lawrence write, with hi book, the terror years. from al qaeda to the islam isstate. sunday's authors feature january at lex at the, while things,

wild places. adventureous tales of wild life oning her, and jeff chang with his book, we gonna be all right. note on race and resegregation. every firsts of the month "in depth" is live. this sunday aid pre-election discussion on presidential history, white house history and first ladies. joining our penal discussion, kate anderson brouwer, author of the residence, william field, author of the white house and the president's house. also alvin, author of the keys to success separate and leader wes deserved and a few went do are takingphone calls and e-mail questions from noon to 3:00 p.m. eastern, and then at 9:00 p.m. eastern, edward conner weighs in on expanding the middle glass his book "the upside of inequality: how good intentions undermine the middle class." interviewed by harvard university economics professor.

>> do i think there's a difference in the tax rate in california of two points different that kansas? that's small in comparison to all the other things which are amplifying the play pai you've for risk, taking. >> good to book of.org the complete weekend schedule. >> republican congressmen robert doled represents the illinois tenth district which covers chicago's northern sub be bushes. he is running for reeat lex against democratic former congressman brad some schneider. >> abc 7 eye witness news presents vote 2016. the tenth congressional district debate in collaboration with the league of women voters of illinois and univision chicago. here's ore moderator. kathy block. >> hello and welcome to the

debate between the candidates 0 images tenth congressal extremity. bob dold and brad schneider, and unioning me to ask questions today, univision sidewalk news an core enrique rodriguez. the candidates will each have one minute to answer each of our questions. the candidate who answers first will get a chance for rebuttal, and in addition to all questions each candidate will get a chance to ask a question of their opponent. they then will have the opportunity to rebut and things rap up with a closing statement from each candidate. we beginning with opening statements a coin film earlier to figure out who goes first. congressman doled, we begin with you. >> thank you. as a smell business opener and father of three my top priority is make sure that our community is safe, healthy and strong in order to do this we need break threw the gridlock which is why i broke with my party time and again when i think they're wrong and work with the side when i think they're right. it's why every nonpartisan ocean that looked a my robert its

anxioused the at one of the moe nest independent bipartisan and effective members of the united states congress. why every up in endorsing in this race the "chicago tribune," the daily herald, the chicago sun times have also endorsest me over hi oopinion and why 20 local mayors have endorse out cow candidate so i president. the human rights campaign to the u.s. chamber of commerce. the endorsement aisle liking for is yours. november 8th we ask are for you vote. >> mr. schneider. >> thank you, and thank you. i'm asking for your vote on november 8th so i can go back to congress and continue the work we started four years ago. and protect the legacy of president obama. by make sure we have an economy that it is growing for everybody, not just a fortunate few. by building 0 the success of the affordable health care act, nixing the problems and making sure that every american in this country has access to quality, affordable health care. want to make sure that every child has the opportunity for quality education, whether she

lives in lake forest or north chicago. want to bork to then all those working a lifetime to be confident they'll have a secure and dig anyway identified retirement. work to address our challenges in the environment, tagle climate change and try to do something about the scourge of gun violence in our nation. these are the issues that are the priorities and valued of of district why i'm asking for your vote to go back to congress, thank you. >> thank you. we're going to turn now to our first question. it deals with the current tone of politicness this country. been characterized by partisanship and gridlock, verse hostile presidential campaign season. the final debate that it didn't shane hand. ing this lack of civility hurting our country, can be fixes and who are you sporting for president. >> it. >> it can be fixed and i've been averaged was unwitch those bipartisan members of congress.

every piece of legislation we have moved forward with is a partisanship. that's the way we move forward and get deals done. and so i do believe in what i've told my team is if we can't get democrats on board with these are legs we want to move toward we're knowing got to do a good enough job health been able to move forward on key pieces of legislation that's year that are going to have a huge impact on people's lives right back here at home. let me just give you one example. working at live for -- lost her brother to heroin overdose. we worked with her, crafted legs, government it across the finish line using bipartisan support and it's now the law of the land. >> wow going to support for president. >> i'm going to write someone else n. way this first candidate running for offers on the republican site of the aisle that said we're not going to support donald trump nor vote for him. >> thank you very much. in schneider the question to you. >> to, this is an important issue and a deooh lex where we

have seen a decline in civility. it appears there is no floor and is a look to the young people and talk to them about getting involved in the political process, i'm very concerned about what we're hearing this election. i am proud, both of us have been ranked in the top 15% for darn darn independence and that's the reflex of our district. we're, together across the aisle to tackle problems i helped production legislation to train our work force with republican congressman front pennsylvania. i introduced legislation to protect our relationship with israel, the israel squall tailtive enhancement act with the congressman from jô, this houghs things get done, wog together. i will work with anyone who has an open mind good, idea and a willingness to work together. >> you're supporting for president? >> as far as president i supported hillary clinton since are since she announced and think she would be an excellent president. it's been disappointing to seed my opponent cam pinning against hillary clinton because the only thing stand between donald trump and the white house is hillary clinton. >> mr. schneider, thank you,

congressman dold, reef buttal. >> i thick it's mom cal and frank live the same lies he has been putting forth were put out before the chicago sun times, and the tribune, the daily herald, all of them basically called that laughable. my position has been very clear, since december of 2015. i came out against mr. trump. his comment about womens latinos and muslims and the disabled are not defensible when when he says john mccain is not here roy because he is shot down, my done el was the second one shot down in vietnam himself service to our country is absolutely heroic. >> headline ann event bet -- >> i'm are so we have to move on to our second question. enrique. >> thank you. mr. schneider, starting with you in 2015, 42 people loss their life because ofs her over overdose. over 526 in cook county, part of your district as well. how are you going to convince your colleagues in washington if you're elected that there's more funding needed for a prevention

and rehab programs for people suffering addiction, ithat's absolutely you hit a critical point. we're seeing an enendim mick oopioid addiction across the country. propping wag taking place bet when republican signed the bill he high lighted the fact that there was a refusal to support his call for $920 million to treat prevention -- provide treatment for people who have the sickness who they don't fall into addiction again or run the risk of death. >> how can you convince your colleagued to get my in. >> we have to sit down and have conversations, explaining what is at stake. the fact that there are so many people across the spectrum of economics, across the spectrum of age who are falling prey to opioid addiction, becoming addicted to heroin and other drugs, and when they are alone, dying, because there's no one to provide them the anecdote or the treatment. explaining to people that investing in prevention and

investing in treatment is the best way to take on this challenge, and in the long run, is the most economic -- >> thank you. thank you. congressman dold, more people visit the emergency room because of heroin overdose in chicago than any other metropolitan area in the nation. how will -- >> the heroin epidemic sweeping the country is something i took action on and frankly working with local stakeholder's rerall realize that addiction is a disease and need to treat is as such and we working with local stakeholders...

>> >> i am still waiting to sheer about funding. >> president thomas said the need to have congress stepup to from break through the gridlock is those republicans who took a cut the funding that the president now store from i will work as macaulay's to explain the fact the money spent on treatment for rather than prevention is far better to invest in prevention than dealing with people the trouble lifetime of addiction. we need treatment and prevention. >> moderator: the cbo

estimated the to dream act would create 1.4 million jobs and reduce the federal deficit. who like this that make sense with the horatian reform? >> we have to attest to go further than the dream act i look at martinez who lives up been around lake with the "state of the union" address embodies everything about the nation so i do believe we have to move forward with comprehensive immigration it cannot just be the dream act that is one part but it is a communitarian issue national security issue also and economic issues were do believe we have to work to make sure those 12.5 million people can come out of the shadows without fear they will be ripped apart. >> moderator: how do you convince people. >> we are working right now to convince my colleagues to