jess: and they could filibuster to his two appointees to the supreme court justice kagan and justice sotomayor. them got significantly fewer votes from the opposition party then justices usually get. most supreme court appointments have been unanimous or near .nanimous there have been a few battles over very particular nominees such as judge bork or clarence thomas. in recent years there has been a very clear partisan intent to the votes. i don'tyor and kagan think either of them got 60

votes. similar to justice alito who got hardly any democratic votes. back in 2006. i think we will see a lot of republican opposition. there may be an interesting calculus in the republican about republican senators from democratic leaning states who are up for reelection. that is a wise vote for them or not. we'll have to see how it plays out. interest of all the republican members of the senate may not be in alignment why comes to this issue. where's the interests of all the democrats in the senate are in alignment. host: our topic is the death of justice scalia who died yesterday at the age of 79. jess covers the supreme court

for the wall street journal. we welcome listeners who are listening to us on sirius radio. big debate last night in greenville south carolina. jeb bush: if i am president i people who have a proven record in the judiciary. problem is we have appointed people thinking you can get through the senate because they didn't have a record. the problem is that sometimes we are surprised. the simple fact is the next president needs to appoint someone with a proven conservative record similar to justice scalia who is a lover of liberty and believes in limited government and for consistently apply that kind of philosophy and will not kind of try to legislate from the bench. and fight for that nomination.

of course the president has every right to nominate a supreme court justice. running for the presidency of the united states. we need a strong executive. there should be a consensus orientation on that nomination. there is no doubt in my mind that barack obama will not have a consensus pick when he submits that nominee. jess: the suggestion that the supreme court had the mystery people picked out of a phone book and no one had any idea what they were the white house that is not accurate and the justice department do extensive vetting of the candidates. republicans have an focusing on the chief justice john roberts and arguments by some of the candidates that he was not properly vetted or didn't have a track record.

i cannot imagine a more solid conservative track record than john roberts had when he was nominated for the supreme court. he has spent his entire life as a legal policy official in the reagan administration. in the first bush administration. his nomination to the d.c. circuit court was blocked by the democrats. he was immediately nominated to the d.c. circuit court where he had a very strong conservative record with nothing in it that would indicate that he was not a strong conservative. there is nothing or little on his supreme court record to suggest he is not a conservative. there is disagreement over to chief justice roberts wrote. regarding the aca. he was not the only justice or judge a had a point of view. judges considered very solid conservatives found that the law was constitutional so to suggest that john roberts was not vetted is not accurate.

no president can know in advance what the future will hold or how a really smart person is going to look at the issues and decide with the right answer is. jackson, tennessee, independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call today. i think all of our elected officials should do what they are sent there to do and i think it would be negligent of the president if he doesn't appoint someone. i think it would be negligent of the senate if they do not consider it. host: thank you for the call. guest: if they don't appoint someone or don't approve

someone, this is what we are looking at. we are looking at that seat being vacant for at least a year. the next president who comes in one not be in a position to instantly make a nomination because he will have the ability to do the various sorts of vetting and evaluation that the white house has. there will be time to pick out another candidate. the democrats, assuming it is a republican president, that is the gamble, assuming it is a republican president, democrats and the senate are going to be pretty steamed about having had their last choice blocked. they are not going to be in a mood to compromise at that point. we are looking at a very bit or -- bitter battle and months and months more vacancy. we have a supreme court with eight justices or viewers -- or fewer going on indefinitely or late into 2017. that is a significant issue for the supreme court of united states because unlike lower courts, unlike many state supreme court's, they can to bring in a substitute judge.

many state supreme court's will borrow a retired judge or a lower court judge if one member has to recuse himself or herself or there is a vacancy for some reason. same thing on the federal circuit courts. the intermediate appeal courts any federal system. the u.s. supreme court does not accept substitute judges when there is a vacancy in functioning as an eight-member court or less. it will dramatically change what that institution is able to do. >> donald trump issuing this tweet late yesterday, a totally unexpected loss of justice antonin scalia. a massive setback for the conservative movement and our country. saint augustine, florida, republican line, good morning. >> thank you for listening. while i was waiting, i formulated several questions that i didn't have before.

roosevelt tried to stack the court and how that is representative of whatever president would like to do. i'm also wondering if the senate judiciary committee cross examines these candidates that the president would nominate, to the questions of the senate judiciary committee asked, do they influence the final decision? the issues that they asked the nominee? host: to her earlier point? guest: fdr was a very popular president and had a big economic problem when he came in in the depression and passed a lot of

aggressive laws seeking to address it. the supreme court in the 30's was very conservative, very hostile to the new deal and struck down many of those initiatives, making fdr very frustrated. in 1937, to get around the supreme court, he proposed a plan to add an additional justice for each one who turned 70 years old and dear rationale was they are old and tired and the work load is too heavy. this will help them. if you do the math, you would see that he would instantly be able to appoint a majority of the court, or at least he would have enough votes on the court to likely support his initiative. that was the famous court packing plan by coincidence or not. the supreme court shortly thereafter began affirming new deal programs and some of the justices who had been hostile to fdr's position retired. he was able to fill seats on the court. that episode, the court blocking -- packing plan is considered eight if he for fdr. there was a lot of opposition to altering the court for political

reasons. practical terms, even on a threat never came to fruition, he started getting what he wanted out of the u.s. supreme court. second question, do any of the questions asked of the confirmation hearing have any impact on what i justice does later? i think we can safely say no. he pointed out that justice scalia was a brilliant man, a great son of queens, and a genuine joy for life. john from all of branch, mississippi, democrat line. caller: how are you doing? thank you for c-span.

>> the interpretation of the lies the issue. >> at what they lie required in every century -- circumstance was crystal clear, we would need any judges. the reason they are there is because there are often ambiguities about what the law means in any circumstance. a law is written before certain events take place. often, you don't know how to apply different parts until you're confronted with specific facts. it is fair to say that a lot of it, at least for the supreme court is not that hard. 40%, 50% of the decisions by the supreme court are unanimous even now we see such term of this

disagreement and other decisions. furthermore, there are tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of legal cases followed in the united states every year. fewer than 100 make it to the supreme court. on the other hand, what the law exactly means can be a question. as chief justice john marshall said in 1803 and the marbury versus madison decision, it is part of the judiciary department to decide whether lies. as far back as the early days of the country, the courts were aware that sometimes, it is not crystal clear how they should apply to any particular situation. host: ohio senator with this tweet, i was honored to know justice scalia and appreciated

his constitutional expertise as well as his warmth and humor. that last part continues to come up. his humor. guest: he was a really funny guy. there is a professor at boston university who compiles statistics on how often the term laughter appears inch's -- supreme court transfers. justice scalia routinely if not always comes in first as the funniest justice as judged by the audience laughter. he was a great weight on his feet and certainly in writing. host: this is from richard, going to your earlier point, how would a caretaker arrangement work? who would set the caretaker term? guest: i would say that would be up to fate, but if you chose an older candidate, odds are they are not going to serve as long as a younger candidate. there was a very deliberate effort under reagan and the bush administration to get nominees in their 40's or not older than 50 or early 50's to serve on the supreme court. the expectation that they would be there for many decades into the future.

you look at elena, she was 50 years old when she was nominated. the democrats coming around to that effort. however, if they chose someone in his or her 60's or 70's, that is someone who is less likely to serve as long. host: democratic senator blumenthal saying a son of an immigrant, a gifted writer and/or tour, justice scalia

lived a uniquely american life. foley, alabama, good morning. >> good morning. caller: i wanted to share a couple of observations about the supreme court. it seems in the democratic society, the supreme court being equal branch, equally powerful as one of the three other branches is very disturbing. the way it is structured, the way it is staffed. the judges appointed, in a democratic society, it is supposed to be representative of the people. let's look at it. we have fully one third, three out of nine justices that are liberal jews. what is the population of

america? probably not 1%. on the other hand, protestants, white protestants make 50, 60, 70% of the population. not one single white protestant on this judiciary. guest: when the first jewish justice was appointed by president wilson, justice mcreynolds refused to sit in the same room with him. refused to sit for the court portrait with him. wouldn't acknowledge him at all. anti-semitism on the supreme court has a history, as well. the supreme court is not a representative body and it is not designed to be one. particularly because one of its principal function of dutch functions as affecting minority rights. majorities have to have limits under a constitutional democracy, the united states has established. justice scalia himself, although

he is a conservative icon and is not someone who was doctrinaire in always supporting the majority over the rights of a minority or a dislike party. if that were so, you wouldn't need courts at all. for example, justice scalia voted to uphold the right to burn the american flag. that is a very unpopular act. it struck down laws in texas and elsewhere that made that a crime. he said he personally dislike people who did it and if elected him personally, he would lock them up, but the constitution protected that form of speech. likewise, justice scalia also voted, often together with justice ginsburg, a more liberal justice, to protect the rights of criminal defendants to confront their accusers and to challenge evidence that was collected through illegal searches. again, criminal defendants, not a popular group. it is the court responsibility to protect them for that reason. justice scalia, while definitely

a conservative, like all of the justices, takes that function of the court quite seriously. host: john roberts did provide c-span with unprecedented access to the supreme court. it was a documentary that aired back in 2009. it is on our website. you can check it out at www.c-span.org and some of the interviews we haven't showing you this morning from antonin scalia are based from that documentary. it is also a book. naomi is joining us on a democrat line from louisiana. good morning to you. >> morning. caller: my question is, i would like for him to explain is it not that president obama is the president of the united states? and to explain, also, why are republicans all of in a who wrote over it? -- in a whoorah over it?

guest: it is no secret that the president and those on capitol hill don't see eye to eye on those issues. there's probably no bigger prize that a president can award that a supreme court appointment. republicans are gambling that they might have the white house next year. i think it is purely a political calculation. they say that they -- they are essentially saying whatever the voters said at the last election in choosing obama has basically expired past its sell by date. the senate has a role, as well. they have a role to approve

appointees who are chosen with the advice of consent. i would say the best way to look at it is as a political dispute rather than a constitutional one. host: john kasich was running for president issued a statement saying his death is a serious loss to our nation. he was an essential, principal force for conservative thought and is a model for others to follow. his dedication to the constitution and love for and service to our country will be deeply missed. tom is joining us, independent line from your he, pennsylvania. -- from eerie, pennsylvania. caller: i do like the way i am hearing this conversation this morning. i have no doubt that antonin scalia was a decent, brilliant man. the problem was, what you could never forget is that he was the main proponent behind installing george bush as the president what he did not win the vote. the other thing is the citizens united. he was the main proponent behind that. these people are destroying our

democracy. i don't care if he has -- if he a decent, moral man or not. if he can't stand back and look at the effect of his decisions, we have a problem in our democracy. i also have a problem with c-span having an ultraconservative newspaper on this morning talking about this. let's hear from the other side. let's hear somebody talk about all of the decisions that antonin scalia has been instrumental in implementing in our society and i will repeat again, the two biggest tragedies where the citizens united decision and installing george bush in the presidency. that is exactly what was done. host: thank you for your call and your point.

if you watched a conversation for the last 45 minutes, you would agree that he has in providing a balanced look at the court and the decisions by the associate justice and what is next road we invited him here to talk about his expertise. i want to get that on the table. we respect your opinion. let's talk about those two decisions. they remain controversial. he was a leading voice by those decisions. guest: there was no name attached to the majority opinion. scalia was in the majority in both of those decisions. they have the effect that he said. the opinion halted the counting of votes in florida with george w. bush ahead in 2000. that was a decision that was -- we certainly wrote about it a lot. everyone knows that it had a huge impact over the course of the court's own legitimacy and

on the nation's history, whether al gore would have ultimately prevailed or not, we don't know for sure. some projections say he wouldn't have. nonetheless, scalia in the conservative majority along with four other justices in bush legal or in 2000, citizens united, again, yes, he was in the majority joined justice kennedy's opinion. a consequential decision. one of the liberal justices signaled they were -- they are -- they don't consider to be a legitimate choice and are perhaps likely to overturn if they get the chance in the future. scalia was a stalwart conservative in his approach to the law. you did not see any constitutional right to abortion. he was was a firstly opposed to gay rights as a constitutional

matter all the way through his term on the court from the 90's through the year before when same-sex marriage was found constitutional and another opinion by justice kennedy. he rarely voted to strike down the death penalty. he frequently ridiculed certain doctrines that liberals propounded, for example, he often said the phrase that he found most offensive, or one of the most offensive phrases was one chief justice one point in 1958 when he said the eighth amendment, the ban on cruel and unusual punishments must take its meaning from the evolving standards of decency, mark the progress of a maturing society. justice scalia said how do we know that society progresses? how do we know that it doesn't rot? he opposed the idea of a living constitution, that the constitution should take meaning from the present day. he often said it was a dead document, frozen in time and the

job of the court was to apply it as its authors understood its words to mean. he insisted he was not rigid about that but had a reasonable approach to it, to the fourth amendment, written for there were cell phones, written before there were automobiles. had to be applied to new advances in technology and society. some people accused him of being hypocritical from time to time, being selective in his use of history, cloaking his own personal preferences and high sounding legal rhetoric. those are debates that take place all the time. the best thing you can say about someone who has his position is there is no hide the ball. it is all out there in his writing. writing that he puts forward in the often telling criticisms of justices on the other side, as well.

when you want to assess his legacy, i think the president on -- obama on down, obama specifically wrote in his book audacity of hope, that he thought a lot about justice scalia's approach to the constitution, respected it, didn't agree with it, that the constitution has to look at more modern events in its application today. no one is pretending scalia was not someone on the right end of the court, that is not -- he was not always in lockstep with other conservative justices. that is certainly where he ends up. i am not here to praise or criticize the conclusions he reached, but rather to try to give you a sense of what they were. host: the one the several gavel award, wrote for the san francisco chronicle and the l.a. times. now to the wall street journal, let me ask you about a more immediate issue. the oral arguments that have taken place in this term, it is a four-forecourt based on democrats and appointees.

what happens with the oral arguments are really heard of the pending decisions if there is no replacement before the end of this term? guest: this is an important question. there are a number of high-profile issues before the court that we expected would break down, likely a long 5-4 lines. we often look at justice kennedy as the potential swing vote in those cases. the supreme court rules do not say what happens if a justice dies or resigns or leaves the court before an opinion is issued. the likelihood is that a vote cast before an opinion is published is a tentative vote or justices can always change their vote at the last minute. it doesn't happen often, but it is happen historically. the votes of a have cast at this point are, in a sense, tentative votes even if justices really change them later. for this reason, scholars and other court expert to i have spoken to say that unless the opinion is actually at the printer right now, his votes one

count. we have to look a certain cases where that is likely to matter. for example, a case involving whether public employees can be required to pay fees to unions. this is a case that many of us expected would go against the unions on a 5-4 vote. in that case is not already being printed, it may be a for-four vote. when the courts with 4-4, the lower court opinion is left intact. in the case, the unions won the lower court. there are several other cases of significance that fall into the same line. several are coming up that may be significant for the same reason. for example, there is an immigration case coming up later this term. a case involving contraceptive coverage under the affordable care act which looked to be a potential 5-4 case that has not been argued yet.

these cases, if there is a 4-4 split, the lower court will be affirmed. in some cases, that may lead to an conservative outcome. the immigration policy obama put forward was blocked by a lower court in texas. if the supreme court splits for-four on that, that injunction will stay in place. most of the opinions, most of the cases before the supreme court are more liberal opinions that are being appealed it justice scalia's likely vote on the conservative side isn't there. that lower court decision would remain in place. host: one other moment i want you to react to before we let you go. a 2012 interview, c-span's q&a program and scalia's book. >> what i want to ask you about, one of them as you mentioned,

one of the justices often in the book, joseph story. joseph story, as you know, was the youngest justice ever. you had 28 grandchildren and i asked if you could name them all. justice scalia: i continue to be offended. that is unfair. 34 is an unreasonable number. brian: did you bring the list with you? just a moment with antonin scalia. guest: he liked to be a regular by as well as liking the finer things from time to time. legacy,sidering his there was his written legacy, some of his opinions he was very the centsicularly in his longtime friend on the court

was justice ginsburg, a burial -- a very liberal judge and they did not agree on much but at the end of the day, they hung up their differences. they often spoke of each other with great affection. the other close friend he had was justice kagan. who he has taken on anting trips and perhaps unlikely friendship but a reminder that at the supreme court, even though they are like he did in their intellectual disagreements is perhaps different from other institutions in that there was a baseline of respect. even though they were people with tremendously different views. jeff has joined us to talk about the passing of justin scalia. thank you for your time and perspective on history. hisresident obama offered

condolences to the family of antonin scalia in a statement following the announcement of the death of the supreme court justice on saturday. this morning on "washington took yourall -- we calls about this. host: the president spoke to reporters at 545 p.m. in california time. here is his statement in its entirety. president obama: that evening everyone. for almost 30 years, justice antonin scalia was a larger-than-life presence on the bench. a brilliant legal mind within , incisive wit, and colorful opinions. he influenced a generation of judges, lawyers, and students and profoundly shaped the legal landscape. be rememberedbt as one of the most consequential judges and thinkers to serve on

the supreme court. justice scalia dedicated his life to the cornerstone of our democracy, the role of law. tonight, we honor his extraordinary service to our nation and remember one of the towering legal figures of our time. born inscalia was trenton, new jersey to an italian immigrant family. after graduating from georgetown university and harvard law school, it looked -- he worked at a law firm and taught before entering the life of public service. he rose from the office of legal counsel, to a judge on the d.c. circuit court to associate justice of the supreme court. a devout catholic, he was a proud father of nine children and grandfather too many loving grandchildren. justice scalia was both an avid hunter and an opera lover. with a passion for music that he

shared with his dear colleague -- friend justice ruth bader justice ginsburg. shell and i were proud to welcome justice scalia to the white house for a state dinner for prime minister cameron. we join his fellow justices in mourning this remarkable man. obviously today, is a time to remember justice scalia's legacy. fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate his successor in due time. there will be plenty of time for me to do so and for the senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote. these are responsibilities that i take seriously as should everyone. they are bigger than any one party, they are about our democracy. they are about the institution to which justice scalia dedicated his professional life

in making sure it continues to function as a beacon of justice that our founders envisioned. at this moment, we most of all what to think about his family. michelle and i join the nation in sending our deepest sympathies to justice scalia's wife maureen and their loving of ay, a beautiful symbol life well lived. we thank them for sharing justice scalia with our country. all, and godm bless the united states of america. host: the president last night in rancho mirage, california. you are the headlines from the washington post and the new york justice scalia passed away yesterday at the age of 79. hill.com, his death opening up a partisan -- joining us on the phone is the editor in chief of that publication and

website. thanks for being with us. tributeslk about the to justice scalia. what imprint did he have on the high court? guest: he was nominated by president reagan. unanimously confirmed. something that you don't see. he was a colorful figure. he was someone you see on capitol hill. some justices are recluses but he would go out. q&aow you were playing the with brian lamb, he would do interviews and write books and talk to students. he was very much a social person on the washington scene. even though liberals disagreed with him, a lot of them respected him, especially justice ginsburg. they had a very close relationship even though they

are on opposite ends of the spectrum. it was interesting to see the different reactions from democrats. i know you were reading from nancy pelosi's remarks, a gracious response to his passing. devout catholic frequently seen at st. joseph's on capitol hill, about a block from the u.s. supreme court. how important was his catholic faith to his life and also to his court rulings? guest: it was very important. he cited it regularly. his italian heritage as well as his catholicism. it was something near and dear to him. he had nine children. basically, when talking to andate people and friends also in his decisions, he would

always talk about the family. his faith was very important to him and it was something that he talked about regularly. host: this is a photograph of in theily taken back 1980's when he was first appointed by president reagan. a unanimous vote, something not likely to happen in our lifetime. let us talk about what is next. by all considerations, it looks like president obama has plans to replace justice scalia. republicans have said -- not so fast. what can we expect in the senate and in the white house? guest: the president has to move quickly with a nomination because you are going to happen, and you are already having both ,ides cite precedents republicans saying it has been 80 years since an election year that a supreme court justice was nominated and confirmed. basically, they are saying, we need to have the american people

decide. about 120 days. we have about 280 or so until the election. we will see a nomination very quickly and that -- and then there will be a question -- will republicans, mitch mcconnell, say we should wait for the next president as well as white house hopefuls -- will republicans did the nominee a hearing? i would imagine they would but they have not said. waiting for the president to send up a name. the president usually takes his time to vet potential nominees. this time, there is less of that. the president has already gone through this process. he has considered a number of people before he nominated justice sotomayor and justice kagan. there have a lot of people that have been vetted and i think

that is why you will see a very quick nomination. whoever it ends up being. host: we are talking to bob q said on the latest in the passing of justice scalia and the political battle ahead. let me throw out a couple of scenarios, names and of already been mentioned including the senator from minnesota. if he does choose someone in the senate, the body that has to confirm the next justice, how does that impact? that is don't think going to change much. i could be wrong. made hisonnell has opinion quite clear that he is not going to be acting on this nomination. if it is a colleague in the senate, it changes the dynamic to some degree but i think that based upon the statements that have come out from republican leaders, i don't see them

changing their mind anytime soon. i do think that it is likely that the president is probably going to pick someone who has gone through the process in the lower courts, one of the names that has come back is the deputy solicitor general in the obama administration and also has republican ties, working for gop appointed judges and that judge was unanimously approved by the senate. i think he is got to pick someone certainly who is left of center but someone who also has been approved by the senate had a lower level just so the president can say -- this is not a controversial pick. nominationo pick my -- my nominee and the senate should approve. the senate, can come back and say -- thank you very much but we are not going to move on this and as the majority party, we have the right not to bring this out. this will be a massive pr battle

in an election year that will be talked about on the campaign trail. there will be a of polling done on this. we will see which way it goes. the big question is how far will the president go to get his way. what will he threatened to do because he is going to have to apply the pressure, the power just -- does rest in the senate so he will have to use the bully pulpit to push the republicans back. host: all of the adjectives being used on the passing of justin -- justice scalia and the impact of that. through what the scenario could be if that were to happen? guest: the president can appoint a justice, any judge during a recess appointment. this week is a recess for both the house and the senate. ors has, before the court

the president a couple of years ago, nominated recess appointments when the senate said it was not in recess. the president ended up losing that case. there is precedent here that i believe that unless the president acts very quickly, meaning over the next week on a recess appointment, i think the senate is not going to be in recess. they will take breaks that there are procedural ways where they can keep the senate not in recess technically so the president cannot offer a recess appointment. that recess appointment certainly would be extremely controversial based upon the president's remarks last night, i think he will be doing this in the traditional way it least in the near term. in nominating someone and probably not going to put out any type of recess appointment but down the road, we will see

how that plays. i also think republican leaders in the senate will make sure that they are technically not in recess and citing that high historyling from recent saying, we won, you cannot just nominate someone. i think that is probably an unlikely scenario you never know in this town. host: bob q said, thank you very thankeck -- bob cusack you for putting the last 24 hours in perspective. back to your phone calls on the passing of justice antonin scalia. greg is next joining us from south carolina. you are a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. about the supreme court

judge, he was a very good man. scalia. he served for 30 years and he was honorable and dedicated in , a lot like lindsey graham from our state of south carolina. he would've made a good president. earlier you were talking about rubio quite a bit. he is a young man. he has not been around in this country long enough to know what has been going on in this country in years past. that a personally should be at least 50 years of age before they are considered to be allowed to run to be president. host: that would have precluded a lot of presidents from clinton , to kennedy, to teddy roosevelt. caller: that is clinton.

look at him, another one. running around. and his wife is up there trying to be nominated for president. come on. we need to get real. we have serious problems in this country and we need serious people to take charge of the situation. is also joining us on the republican line from indianapolis. caller: i am very saddened i the loss of the conservative giant, antonin scalia. i thought he was great. i loved reading his opinions. the constitution anticipates these types of problems. only a third of the senators will be up for reelection. it will be difficult if not impossible for the democrats to gain control of the senate. -- last night, we were thinking what happens to

all of the opinions where he has voted but has yet to write the opinion. what happens to those? host: that is one of the thetions for our guest from wall street journal because there are a lot of implications argumentsr -- oral that a party taken place without rulings. what happens if there is no replacement for the next year. it is essentially a 4-4 court. what is the role of the courts in our lives? tookour interview that place a few years ago, here is a portion of what he had to say area -- to say. justice scalia: the same role. the proper role in a democracy is for it 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 ratify the constitution. simple as that. no more, no less. think we are a leader of social causes. we are not pushing the society ahead of where it is supposed to be. interpreting the laws of the people. int: justice antonin scalia 2009 four c-span's supreme court series. can watch the full series on our website. he was appointed by president reagan in 1986 and sworn in by retired chief justice warren. here is a photograph of him along with his wife maureen. justice rehnquist went on to serve as chief justice. most people are interested in his replacement rather than his legacy. this is from a tweet. larry is joining us from chula

vista, california on the democrat line. caller: i have three comments. the lord works in mysterious ways. the republicans have been blocking obama for seven years. if they block him again it will rally us. and three, i have been calling c-span for 3-4 years to get my point across and my point is that we let 9/11 happened. donald trump almost said it last night but he could not bring himself to say it. they don't talk about the airport that we built in iraq. huge amounts of money. we built the embassy and the airport and we did not even secure the country. the country was a mess and yet we built them. i think people are starting to realize, and donald trump, the truth talker is saying what i have been saying for years. i served 20 years in the united states marine corps. i never talked about the until donald trump

dissed our president. the american people have to know. they tried to say it was weapons of mass destruction. we went there for oil. that momentntioned and we will be talking later in the program. we would like to get your comments on last night's debate that took place on the cbs television network. here is a moment when donald trump spoke about george w. bush and 9/11. i weretrump: if president now i would certainly want to try to nominate a justice and i am sure, frankly i am sure that president obama will try to do it. i hope that our senate will be able, and mitch and the group will be able to do something about that in time. we could have a diane sykes or a bill pryor. we have some fantastic people. tremendous blow to

conservatism and to our country. >> you are ok with the president nominating someone. donald trump: i think he will do it whether i liked it or not, it is up to mitch mcconnell to stop it. host: that was donald trump last night on what the president should do with the senate regarding the nomination to replace justice scalia. there were a lot of fireworks as well to 9/11 and george -- and president george bush. gop rivals turning fierce in the run-up to the south carolina vote. we will have more on that at our 9:00 hour. russell, republican line, from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. caller: justice scalia was a good man. i think our government, we have to have someone in their in the they6-8 months because

have to make a lot of decisions and the country is so divided already. whoever they vet, will be someone in the middle. that is the only way we can do this. the word is compromised which things to be a bad word in the last seven years. i would hope we could get through this process. and make it work like it did in p andld days when old ti the boys did their work. not evenublicans will take up obama's budget, how much less will they work to confirm a jurist? that is from chris in alabama on twitter. let us go to wisconsin on the independent line. graduate from a big ten law school and i have read a lot of legal cases. people have got mentioned that justice scalia, even though his public service record was

terrific, he was the one who worked to stop counting the votes which has always bothered me. the: you are talking about december ruling. kind of a rigging of the election led by the leah. scalia. i think the democrats would be better to leave it vacant rather than a compromise, middle of the best middle-of-the-road candidate. it would probably come out better for them. there will be a lot of unanticipated consequences from having a deadlocked supreme court. host: from john in north carolina. replacing justice scalia who wouldd the constitution be catastrophic.

here is more from our interview with justice scalia that took place regarding his book. part of our q&a program. brian: are there personal feelings? justice scalia: i don't want to talk about it. has there ever been in your past, when you make strong statements, personal fallout from that? justice scalia: i have criticized the opinions of some of my colleagues and we have remained friends. just as they have criticized my opinions and we have remained friends. this is the kind of job that if you cannot disagree, even disagree vehemently on the law without taking it personally and the person on the

other side, you ought to find another job. that is it. brian: done. justice scalia: done. sometimes -- you anyone that knows you knows you are a jolly fellow. why do you take such an intense -- when you are dealing with a subject you look like you are mad. should i look jolly? when i talk about a very serious, heartfelt issue? the stuff we set forth in this book is orthodoxy. it was the traditional approach to judging until about the middle of the 20th century. we are trying to bring that back. issuea very significant of how judges go about giving

democratically elected legislation and the democratically ratified constitution. it is a terribly important manner. you want me to look jolly when i am talking about that? i don't know. i think i should look impassioned when i talk about that because i do care passionately about it. i am not angry. just passionate. brian: what makes you mad? law, lawyersth the that come before you, the press? if you read it, the press gets under your's been -- your skin. i don't much read it. you get used to it. to the fact that you cannot respond so they can see anything at all. host: karen from the washington post is writing -- the republicans will pledge to support strict constructionists.

and they will also be under pressure to pledge the choices would roll back the court decisions that upheld the affordable care act and legalized same as marriage. democrats will press for nominees that will over gore court decisions such as the one that opened the floodgates were unregulated money in elections and would hold the line -- and access to abortion. good morning on the republican line. caller: politically, this could not come from a worse -- at a worse time. from the university of virginia had a book a few years ago about how to improve the constitution. the constitution does not dictate how many justice. and he said we should increase the number to about 13 and do that over several presidential terms.

people would talk about that more because i do think we need 13. when you lose a justice like this it would not be such a traumatic blow to the system. you would have a better mix, more people. people used to complain that there were nine men in robes, now you have nine persons in robes and it may be time to add more to get the diversity on the court of opinion and then when you lose a justice you would not have this blow to the system we are having. host: -- >> on the next "washington journal close vote a look at the role of latino voters in south carolina and other states. brent wilkes will join us. his new book about the republican party and how it has changed over the years from

the election of ronald reagan in the 1980's to today. and ian swanson about a new e-book that gives an inside look at key moments of the obama presidency. we also take your calls and look for your comment on facebook and on twitter. washington journal live every day at 7:00 a.m. he spam. -- c-span. every election cycle will remind us how went or in it is for citizens to be informed. >> c-span is a home for political junkies. >> it is a great way for us to stay informed. have a lot of c-span fans on the hill. >> there is so much more that c-span does to make sure that people outside the beltway know what is going on inside it. q&a, with former defense

secretary robert gates. and then british prime minister david cameron takes questions from the house of commons. then, jeh ♪ >> this week on "q&a" former secretary of defense robert gates. he discusses his book "a passion for leadership, lessons on change and reform." gates and thebert council on foreign relations recently had a column which said the next president of the united states ought to read five books on the presidency. yours was a talk on leadership. what would you want to express that to take away from your b