companies with their stock available on the stock exchange. so what we are saying is it is all right for the negro to own the company, but not all right for him to patronize it. that is unsustainable. o companies with their stock available on the stock exchange. so what we are on this occasion ith the people who believed in government to solve the problem. so oned for the civil rights this occasion, he sided with the people who believed in government to solve the problem. he voted for the civil rights act. for hisot a challenger next nomination. to vote in favor of an act of government as opposed to free markets. i got a challenger as i sought a

fourth term and i was not as successful as my father. so my career was ended. theather never regretted it civil rights vote. i don't regret my tarp vote, because it is the right thing to do. >> in memoriam 2016 continues with a former member of congress from illinois, federal appellate judge and advisor. in 1995 while serving as white house counsel come he spoke about the role of the federal government to an audience at georgetown university >> the plain fact is that government does not work or the common people without the people's trust. if government fails, we will all be poorer for it. that is not a partisan issue, not an issue of a new deal, liberal democrat, but a national issue.

so in the spirit of hopeful skepticism, i would like to defend this american national government. the most prevalent view is that even if you can agree, in theory, that government works, it fails to work in practice. it is all well and good to talk about it in political science on occasion law school classes, but when you get down to the real world, all government is pork, all government is a failure. i have to tell you, after 40 years of looking at it at the state and federal level, that cynical view is just awful. government works, and it works well, in uncountable number of cases, through the years and up to and including the present day. jefferson,d thomas how little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of than which no other people on earth enjoy.

it was true when he said it, it is still true today. it is easy to lose sight of the successes. human beings tend to notice the unusual and to ignore the normal , treating it as part of the rememberackground, you the sherlock holmes story about the dog that did not bark. so it is with government. if i do nothing else today i like to persuade you today of this paradox of hidden successes. government is least visible when it is succeeding and most visible when it is flunking. you will not read in tomorrow's newspaper that my social ,ecurity check arrived on time or that the interstate highways are well paved, well marked, and well-maintained, or that the men and women of the armed forces patrol our land and sea and air effectively and well. the regularity of those events overwhelms a number of instances of a delayed social security check, of the stretch of highway

that always seems to be under repair, or of the military person who behaves badly. and yet, it has not been fashionable lately to talk about the successes. government successes are hidden because of much of what government does by nature is not visible. for example, one of the most vital functions of government is the prevention of harm, acts that actually prevent harm can harme notice, because when is prevented, nothing seems to have happened. people remain healthy, safe, and intact. the number of federal buildings that were not blown up because of activities of the fbi or other security forces is not a .atter of great knowledge when the fda stops a harmful product from reaching the market , there is an absence of notice. when rules enforced by the securities and exchange commission determined financial fraud, no one notices that they

were not swindled that day. when the fbi infiltrates a terrorist ring, nobody notices they had not been terrorized. say the skeptics, even if we need government, do we need so much of it, do we need washington to keep telling us what to do? let the states run things for a while. , when wetried that successfully rested our destiny away from the british, we took the strong states route. the confederation that followed was very local, very loose, and very weak. we moved to a stronger federal union in philadelphia because of insider, our counterparts those people inside the beltway, the washingtons, madisons, franklins recognize that we needed to tie the former counties together in a strong commitment to nationbuilding. they produce their contract with america in philadelphia to build that nation. antonin scalia and died in

february after almost 30 years on the u.s. supreme court. up next, his memorial service with remarks from fellow justices clarence thomas and ruth gators pittsburgh -- gator ginsburg -- ruth bader ginsburg. school l calia was pointed to the high 1986.in [captions copyright national [captions copyright national cable satellite corp 2016] >> we didn't have a chance to do at the beautiful funeral mass. [capping performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content capticaption conten and accura. visit ncicap.org]t

>> this memorial is an opportunity to do two things we to do at e the chance mass eautiful funeral earlier this month. father's tribute to my life and career and time for families and friends to spend some time together in an afterward. i couldn't begin to convey my thoughts about my father in the of time that i've allotted myself for this introduction, so i thought i just one t myself to recollection which is a dinner party my parents had years ago. guests had just left and my standing in were the front hallway. i want to be clear very quickly that my point in telling ou this story is not to

underscore that he did not people in of the this room today. he was referring to many here today and other friends as well. his father was telling college age son why it was important to work hard and why it was important to succeed and wasn't talking about power. he was also not talking about material gain, although that's a surprise since, as my mother used to occasionally point out, this was a man what of seemed to spend so much his career looking for a job the oneld pay less than he had at the time. instead, my father was speaking o me of the awards of friendship, of collegiatety and camaraderie. keep pace ho could with him, educate him, entertain him, humor him, challenge him press him to be better.

people like my mother. speaking of people like his law clerks who were very important to my father and and are like family to us today. e was speaking of people like those who have agreed to speak afternoon. after a prayer by father scalia, he's fabro, ather-brother, after prayer, we'll hear from justice thomas. then from judge silverman of the ourt of appeals here in washington who unfortunately will have to leave immediately schoolrds to teach a law class. we'll hear from my sister katherine, from justice and from two of my father's former clerks, john anning, who now teaches at harvard law school and justice joan larson of the michigan also has been ho a professor and practitioner. so often the case

will have the last word. >> i should be careful. we'll have a reception immediately afterwards. thank you again for coming this afternoon. [applause] >> please stand as we begin with a prayer. >> almighty god as we gather here to remember and honor your servant antonin scalia we ask for your blessing. make us mindful that ever -- every good gift comes from you that we see coming from your goodness and your glory, in honoring him, we honor you his creator and

redeemer. may antonin's example unite closely in our pursuit of the common good for our nation. and conscious also of his imperfections, we ask you in your mercy that he may rejoice in your presence. we may rememer this as you live and reign forever and ever, amen. >> for this, i feel quite inadequate to the task and i find this very difficult. thank you for the prayer, father paul. maureen, our thoughts

and prayers remain with you and your family. we pray that god will bring comfort and peace to you, to each of you. i was truly blessed to have had nino at the court when i became a member in 1991. and i was blessed many times over the almost 25 years that we served together. there were countless chats, walking to chambers after a sitting or after our conferences those very brief visits usually involved more laughter than anything else, a joke, and there were many buck-each-other-up visits. too many to count. there

were many checking on one another after one of us had had an unpleasant experience daily. and there were calls to test an idea or work through a problem. i treasure the many times we had lunch with our law clerks at a.v.'s, where he invariably had an anchovy pizza. my clerk family and i will continue this tradition by always toasting nino as we gather, which is pretty regularly. but no anchovy pizza. i love the eagerness and satisfaction in his voice when he finished a writing with which he was particularly pleased. clarence, you have got to hear this. [laughter] this is really good. whereupon he would deliver a

dramatic reading. after fumbling with his computer for a while. he worked hard to get things right. the broad principles and the details of law. grammar. syntax and vocabulary. he was passionate about it all. and it was all important to him. none was beneath him and all deserved and received his full attention. in sports parlance, he gave everything, 110%. for the past few years, my place on the bench has been between nino and our friend, steve breyer. i loved the back and forth that took place. especially the passing of notes from steve to nino and nino to steve and the whispered or

muttered or more appropriately muttered commentary. when nino wanted to talk quietly with me about something he would lean far back in his chair and say in an almost endearing tone, brother clarence, what do you think? and of course he would offer his opinion on various matters. on one occasion he, commented that in typical nino fashion, that one of our opinions that had become an important precedent was, and i quote, just a horrible opinion. one of the worst ever. i thought briefly about what he had said and whispered, nino, you wrote it.

in a sense, it is providential and certainly not probable that we would serve together. i only knew of him, but had never met him. he was from the northeast while i was from the southeast. he came from a house of educators and i from a household of almost no formal education. but we shared our catholic faith and our jesuit education as well as our sense of vocation. for different reasons, and from different origins, we were heading in the same direction. so we walked together and worked together for a quarter century. and along the way, we developed an unbreakable bond of trust and deep affection. many will fittingly, deservedly,

and rightfully say much about his intellect and jurisprudence. but there is so much more to this good man. as one of our colleagues said the other day, he filled the room, his passion, his sense of humor, were always on full display. and so was his love for maureen, his family, his church, our country, and our constitution. yesterday, i finished erik metraxe's biography of dietrich bonhoeffer. one of the hitler's last acts before germany was

defeated was to have this man executed. i thought of this memorial here today as i read the eulogy of bonhoeffer. with apologies, i borrow from it literally and quote it liberally. with him, a piece of my own life is carried to the grave. yet our eyes are upon thee. we believe in the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. we give thanks to god for the life, the suffering, the witness of our brother whose friends we were privileged to be.

we pray god to lead us through his discipleship from this world into his heavenly kingdom, to fulfill in us that other word that bonhoeffer used, [speaking latin] -- while in god confiding, i cannot but rejoice. god bless you, brother nino, god bless you. [applause] >> thank you, clarence. maureen, >> thank you, clarence. maureen, scalia family, distinguished guests, a number of scholars and practicing lawyers have spoken at length about justice scalia's extraordinary impact on american jurisprudence.

though i've been an admirer of his for a number of years, except on the rare occasions when he voted to overturn one of my opinions, there is no need for me to add to this outpouring of praise. instead, i speak as one of his oldest friends. in 1974, after the notorious saturday night massacre, i came into the justice department as deputy attorney general under attorney general bill saxby, the former senator. the department was largely cut off from the white house. i have said we were obligated to carry out the president's policy, except insofar as we were bound to support the special prosecutor's investigation of the president. surely that was the most extraordinary task of any justice department in american history.

i found many of the senior appointees, presidential appointees in the justice department in shock and understandably rather jumpy. the most important assistant attorney general's position, certainly at that point, was the one in charge of the office of legal counsel. the indumb went was -- incumbent was played out, having to navigate through the watergate reeds. he needed to be replaced. we wanted a brilliant lawyer with steel nerves. i was charged with finding a successor. a list of candidates was compile. the first person i interviewed was antonin scalia. he occupied a quasi-academic role as chairman of the council. i have never been so impressed. i immediately offered him the post subject to the tonchinge's approval. white house approval in those days was perfunctory given the president's weakness. scalia was nominated by richard

nixon but appointed by new president gerald ford. almost immediately, nino was plunged into the most dell cant tasks. i had stopped the white house from allowing the moving truck from carting off the former president's papers until we formally opined as to whether he owned them. nino fashioned a brilliant opinion based on historical precedent, establishing nixon's ownership but the congress intervened. that led to extensive litigation before he was sustained. i was enormously impressed. then came a less serious legal issue, but admittedly an intensely personal one. bill simon, the deputy secretary of treasury, an enormously wealthy man, was designated the energy czar but president ford. and he issued an order depriving all department deputies of their car and driver.

i planned to resign because i was so financially strapped i couldn't afford to buy another car. to my astonishment, nino devised an exception for me. [laughter] the arranged for my car to have a police radio in the back and he obtained a gun permit for my chauffeur. that qualified my car as a law enforcement vehicle. [laughter] i could see he would be sound on the second amendment. i immediately began to think of him as a supreme court nominee. in any event, we became close friends. after we left government, we

both, along with bob bjork, went to a.e.i. where we enjoyed brown bag lunches with a group of distinguished, mostly conservative, intellectuals and plotted a legal counterrevolution. nino and i stayed in constant touch when he returned to academia at the university of chicago law school and i went into the private sector. in 1980, as chairman, i recruited him to join a committee of lawyers and law professors, supporting ronald reagan. as i recall our committee included everybody who ultimately became a judge. after the election, i recommended nino for various posts, including the one he accepted a seat on the d.c. circuit. ideally fitted for an administrative law expert. we often turned to each other for career advice. when he was subsequently offered

the solicitor general post, i advised him strongly to turn it down. i contended that his choice -- his chance of a supreme court nomination would be reduced if he took that post because of the hot button social issues. with which the solicitor general would have to contend he agreed. a year later he returned the favor by talking me into joining him on the d.c. circuit. in 1986, i was thrilled when he came to my office to tell me privately that he was to be the supreme court nominee. he asked me to represent him, which i immediately agreed to do. he asked me for two reasons. he thought the likeliest issues involved the proper limits that should bind a judge's answer to final question from senators. and secondly, of course, i was free. [laughter] for a brilliant judge, nino was hopelessly impractical.

i was going through his papers, i saw that at&t owed him a substantial amount of money. i was stunned. turned out he had done legal consulting work some years before he was a judge and had forgotten to send a bill. he asked me, so help me he, asked me if he should clean up his accounts by sending the bill now. i told him sadly that would be rather awkward if at&t sent him money after his nomination. [laughter] then before the hearings were even started he, came to me concerned about what he thought might be an ethical question. senator byrd, the powerful west virginia senator, had invited nino to join him on the columbus day parade in charleston, long after the hearings would be over. i laughed. i told him that he was going to be confirmed regard lofse the hearing as the first italian american on the court.

we teased each other constantly about our different ethnic backgrounds. he told me as a new yorker he understood jewish culture better than i did. which was true. but i could be defensive. we were both invited to a small dinner party of harvard graduates to meet the new president of harvard, neil rubinstein who happened to be half italian and half jewish. we were both concerned about the sweep of political correctness on the campuses. he spoke and answered questions for over an hour. afterwards, as we left, we agreed that he sounded good only about half the time. [laughter] then we got into a fierce argument with historical allusions as to whether the good half was italian or jewish. recently, i was drawn to new

techniques developed by various organizations to explore one's genetic background. my wife did a test for me and i turned out to be much more finnish than jewish. i told nino and he was anxious to take the same test. maureen was quite apprehensive. she was worried that her irish superiority over italians could be jeopardized. though i don't feel free to disclose the complete scalia report, sure enough, nino turned out to have a healthy dose of irish genes. though much of the advice we gave each other will remain private, one issue we discussed has only in the last few days become public. in 1996, as senator dole was winning the nomination battle, nino called me with momentous news he had been approached by congressman boehner, apparently

on senator dole's behalf, inquire whether he would be willing to be the vice-presidential candidate. i knew that he loved his time on the court but he could not help but be flattered. and if dole were elected, who knew what a vice presidency could lead to. and it was a shrewd notion. nino, as you all know, had enormous charm. indeed, it had been thought when he was nominated his charm would be employed to cobble together conservative majorities on the court. much like william brenham had forged different kinds of majorities. of course that was an illusion because nino cared more about judicial reasoning than judicial result. the latter would only follow the former. only those justices less concerned with reasoning can he or she bargain so effectively. i told him i thought he would be an enormously effective politician, i was brutally

honest. i asked him if he wanted to return to law practice or teaching? that took him back. i explained i was virtually certain dole would lose. he declined the offer. i should include a description of one of the most frightening days of my life. nino, with two tickets to a baltimore orioles-yankees game invited me to join him. most human beings have an inboard computer gene that prevents them driving at high speed too close to the car in front of them so there's sufficient room to stop. nino apparently lacked that gene. by the time we reached the stadium, i was sick to my stomach. i had gotten nowhere asking him to back down. then we sat on the orioles section of the stadium. in the midst of a group of rather large, fierce, beer-drinking oriole fans.

nino began to bellow, supporting encouragement for the yankees. combined with loud criticism of the umpires. after several innings, one of the largest and ugliest oriole fans tapped nino on the shoulder he said if you don't shut up, i'm going to punch you in the nose. nino turned to me. should i tell him who nino was? i said no. it was more likely to get us punched. [laughter] although over the years, we played poker together, took our shotguns together to a gun club, most notably every few months we lunch aid loan, invariably over pizza and red wine. i had lunch with nino a few weeks ago at our new pizza joint.

we discussed the present political chaotic situation. i wish i could relate our common views but of course it would be improper. so i'll leave it to my memoirs. i hate to contemplate the end of those lunches. i will miss nino terribly. thank you. [applause] >> welcome, family, friends, father paul. we are gathered here because of one man. ms. courtney: a man who was the only son, called father by many,

revered by many, a man who espoused justice and truth that man, of course, is antonin scalia. [applause] since dad died, my siblings and i have been compiling a list of dadisms via email, shooting them off to each other as they come to our heads. when i said to my brother matthew i didn't know why i said i could speak, he said, but you're not jus anybody, you're a scalia. then he said, so don't screw it up. i hope dad will forgive me if i do screw it up he might ask, is this of general interest? yes, it is.

as one of the minority in his 5-4 split of children, i want to share some of what my father was to me. i was at the top half of the batting order, another nine-member american institution, so for the first decades of my life, as far as i was concerned, dad was a justice department lawyer or a law professor who couldn't seem to hold down a job. during those know madic years, between genes in cleveland and dad's appointment in washington, we moved eight times. there were a few constants, besides the likelihood that there was a new baby on the way. one constant was mass on sunday. and yes, every holy day, even the one that fell right in the middle of our beach vacation. and another nonnegotiable was family dinner every night. as busy as he was and as committed as he was to his work,

dinner was a priority. if he could make the time we were expected to be there too. finally, we had each other. which was the greatest gift. no matter where we lived, we were the scalia family and we knew that was something important. that's not to say it was easy being the daughter of nino scalia. he could be demanding. and at times impatient even. he was a poor estimator of travel time. never allowing quite enough time to get to that latin mass which was actually 45 minutes away, not 30. he was a stickler about words, pronunciation and grammar, which wasn't always a fun time. i mean, it wasn't always fun. cherry, not chairy.

as the season of an italian presser, dad's gift with words and language was in his blood. he still newsom german and could bluff his way through italian and latin, of course, but few know he was fluent in another, obscure language, the op language. he had learned it as a kid in queens and he taught it to us as children. being able to carry on a conversation in op was a source of family pride. also a good party trick. i was proud to say my name was -- [indiscernible] [laughter] i cherish my mental snapshots of dad on all fours chasing us through the house as the tickle monster. a dollop of shaving cream on my nose when i went up to say good-bye before school.

belting out "my uncle roasted a kangaroo" or "mr. froggy went a-courting" at the piano. waving his arms at the grill, commanding the saturday hamburgers to be juicy! reading fairy tales, not disney's rapunzel or the little golden books version of snow white. he was an originalist, after all. so our bedtime story were the brothers grimm. an old box cloth hard cover edition with grotesque illustrations. i will let the legal world discuss his legacy but for me, one decision stands alone above all others. that was the landmark decision of 1960 to marry maureen mccarthy. she was the perfect foil. anyone who knows mom knows she's as smart as, dare i say smarter than, dad. i can tell you for sure if it

was help with math homework, you wouldn't go to him. as he used to say, he did the constitution, and she did everything else. the day-to-day running of the business that was a large family fell to mom. but he never made her work seem any less important than his own and he gave her credit for it. he used to jokingly say that she was a wonderful little woman and we all knew that deep down he, meant it. packing up a huge household for each of those moves, making sacrifices to stretch a public service salary to plead and -- feed and clothe a large family, fighting to raise us in the catholic faith in an increasingly secular world. she supported him and stood by him so he could focus on what they both saw as his vocation. i'm so grateful i was given the opportunity to travel with mom and dad a few years ago to galway.

for the first time and with a little unexpected help, i got to appreciate what i had never noticed before as a kid. his zest for life, going at full speed, trying to see it all and cram it all in. and his partnership with mom. he taught a class each morning for the new england school of law, met us back at the house for a quick lunch, then we'd hit the road. mom was tour guide. she had the books with the turned down pages and the post it notes and she read out our itinerary as he took the wheel. what old church are we going to see today, maureen, he'd ask. and he'd complain about the clouds we always seemed to be following, but this was a really out -- that this was a really out of the way place that bikes shouldn't be allowed on the roads in ireland, and it's best not to say what happened when he caught sight of the european union flag. now, nino, mom would say.

but here's the thing. he always ended up doing what she told him to. this was their shtick and it had taken me 40-something years to see it. he defered to mom, respected her opinions and was happy following her lead when he knew it was important to her. the scalia family is so grateful for all the prayers, memories and recollections from all of you and from stagers shared over the last few weeks. i know for all of us, especially for mom, they've been a source of great comfort and sonslation and they've been an affirmation that his was a life well lived and he will be missed. [applause]

>> in my treasure-trove of memories, an early june morning, 1996. ms. bader ginsburg: i was about to leave to attend a judicial conference at lake george. justice scalia entered, painers in his hand, toss manage pages

on my desk he, said, ruth this is the penultimate draft of my dissent in the v.m.i. case. it's not yet in shape to circulate to the court but i want to give you as much time as i can to answer it. on the plane to albany, i read the dissent. it was a zinger. this will come as -- can't miss this page, it's too good. this is very strange i have

every other page in here. you know, it must be -- it must be in the bag that i -- well, anyway. it was this wolf comes as a wolf variety and took me to task on things large and small. among the disdainful footnotes, the court refers to the university of virginia at charlottesville. there is no university of .irginia at charlottesville there is only the university of virginia. [laughter] i wonder, professor christopher, would your day say the same

thing today? thinking about fitting responses consumed my weekend but i was glad to have the extra days to adjust the court's opinion. my final draft was much improved, thanks to justice scalia's searing criticism. another indelible memory, the day the court decided bush v. gore. december 12, 2000. i was in chambers, exhausted after the marathon review, review granted saturday, brief filed sunday, oral argument on monday and opinions completed and released on tuesday. no surprise, justice scalia and i were on opposite sides. the court did the right thing he had no doubt.

i disagreed and explained why in a dissenting opinion. around 9:00 p.m., the telephone, my direct line, rang. it was justice scalia. he didn't say, get over it. instead, he asked, ruth, why are we still at the court? go home and take a hot bath. good advice i probably followed. among my favorite scalia stories, when president clinton was mulling over his first nomination to the supreme court, justice scalia was asked, if you were stranded on a desert island with your new court colleague, who would you prefer? mario cuomo or larry tribe?

justice scalia answered quickly and distinctly, ruth bader ginsburg. [applause] and within days, the president chose me. [laughter] among justice scalia's many talents, he was a discerning shopper. together in 1994, our driver took us to a carpet shop, one rug after another was tossed on the floor, leaving me with no clue which to chose. he pointed to one he thought maureen would like for their beach house in north carolina. i picked the same design in a different color. it has worn very well.

once asked how we could be friends given our disagreement on lots of things, justice scalia answered, i attack ideas, i don't attack people. some very good people have some very bad ideas. [laughter] and if you can't separate the two, you've got to get another day job. you don't want to be a judge, at least not a judge on a multimember panel. well-known illustration. justice scalia was very fond of justice brenen, as justice brennan was of justice scalia. i will miss the challenges and the laughter he provoked, his pungent, eminently quotable opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader's grasp. the roses he brought me on my

birthday. the chance to appear with him once more as supernumeraryies at the opera. justice scalia described that as the peak of his days in d.c., an evening in 2009 at the opera ball at the british ambassador's residence. when he joined two washington national opera tenors at the piano for a medley of songs he called it the famous three tenors performance. [laughter] he was indeed a magnificent performer. how blessed i was to have a working colleague and dear friend of such captivating brilliance, high spirits, and quick wit.

in the words of a duet for tenor scalia and soprano ginsburg, we were different, yes, in our interpretation of written texts, yet one in our reverence for the court and its place in the u.s. system of governance. [applause] >> scalia family, my fellow law clerks and other distinguished guests. i was one of justice scalia's

early law clerks and today i'll say a few words about what it was like to clerk for the great man and then a bit about his larger impact on the law. mr. manning: let me start with the clerkship. the scalia chambers were a tad raucous. believe it or not, some people think of conservatives as formal and hierarchical. justice scalia was anything but that. although he was, as he joked, a supreme justice, and we were but five youngsters fresh from law school, he made it clear that no argument was out of bounds. at the clerk conferences that preceded the conferences of the court, it was basically a free for all. all the clerks would argue with one another and with the justice, strongly, passionately. often embarrassingly loudly.

and completely without fear that we would offend the boss. and while three of us were conservative and two were liberal, our differences in those clerk conferences rarely split along political lines. that was not what the job was about. his job was to apply legal methodology that he thought appropriate to a life tenure judge in a constitutional democracy and our job was to help him do that. period. there was an openness to all of this that made us feel perfectly safe to disagree, even sharply at times, with the justice. now i'm not saying that we didn't have our moments of doubt. as anyone who clerked for him could tell you, sometimes you'd be making a point and he'd sort of make a face. tilt his head.

furrow his brow. and he'd stare into space for what seemed like an abnormally long time. it was disquieting. but we soon figured out that that was just his thinking face. and what it meant was that he was actually thinking hard about what we were saying. and about the only time that he overtly pulled rank was when one of us got a little bit over invested and he'd have to say, hey, remember, it's my name that has to go on the opinion. and especially with me, for some reason, it was often followed by the further observation, and i'm not a nut. [laughter] the whole thing was unforgettable. the experience changed my life.

his openness. his enthusiasm. his clarity. his playfulness. his common sense. his commitment to principle. all of this made even the blandest legal issue seem vivid and human. and consequential. it is simply not natural to feel as strongly as he made us feel about legislative history, about the harmless error doctrine, about the borrowing of statutes of limitation, about the level of generality of some ancient common law tradition. indeed, i confess that it may not be perfectly healthy to feel as strongly as i do about the chevron doctrine to this very day. [laughter] but i'm working on it. and that was justice scalia's gift. he took the boring, mundane,

technical, everyday work of the law and he showed us what was at stake for a constitutional democracy. maybe that's why he got so much done. just think about statutes. very easy to forget how different the world was before justice scalia. how much the court leaned on legislative history. how readily the court enforced the spirit rather than the letter of the law. these practices had gone on largely unquestioned for generations and in some cases for centuries. and in no time at all, justice scalia changed the terms of the debate. he showed that it was all about the allocation of power. his resistance to legislative history was not empty formalism, it was about checking the legislative power from congress and the president to unrepresentative committees, legislators, staff or lobbyists. his preference for letter over

spirit was not just a better way of finding legislative intent. it was about protecting the messiness of american democracy. against the self-aggrandizing me -- presumption that judges could and should gloss over the awkward compromises that are the staple of our legislative process and by extension of our democracy itself. all of this was really exhilarating. in fact, it's what inspired me to go into law teaching. and in the many times justice scalia visited harvard in the years since i've been there, he inspired my students as well. he inspired them with his plain spokenness, his openness, his willing to take seriously the criticisms of legal novices he did not know and would not see again. his acknowledgment to total strangers that he did not always get things right. his sense of humor.

his generosity of spirit. and the simple power of his ideas. he was a force of nature. and year after year, i have had the experience of one or more of my one-l's, coming up to me, looking stricken and saying to me, professor manning, i'm a liberal. is it ok that i agree with justice scalia's opinion? [laughter] and i do my very best to reassure them there's nothing wrong with you. it's hard to believe he's no longer here. but i cling confidently to the thought that justice scalia will continue to teach students long into the future. that because of his clarity, his commitment to principle, and his courage, his ideas will long outlive his days on earth.

i myself will try to honor his memory by always remembering his lesson that one's commitment to principle is tested only when it hurts. justice scalia was a great justice. he was a wonderful husband, father, and grandfather. he was also a wonderful friend. he was kind. and funny. and generous. i can never repay the debt i owe him. like so many of us here today, i would not have the life i have, a life i love, had it not been for justice scalia. thank you. [applause]

>> like professor manning, i, too, am a former scalia clerk and i'm sure i speak for all the former clerks when i thank mrs. scalia and the rest of the family for your incomparable generosity to us over the past few weeks. ms. larsen: in the midst of your own incalculable grief you recognized our mourning and graciously reached out and included us, despite our numbers. it has eased our aim -- pain to be with you and be part of the memorial for our beloved boss and we thank you. the clerks have been talking over the past few weeks and many have commented on just how hard it was to stand vigil over the justice as he lay in repose in the great hall.

alone with our thoughts as we stood on the cold marble floor, memories came flooding back. most of the clerks reported that the most challenging thing was not to keep from crying, for that might have been forgiven, but instead, to keep from grinning. that is because the justice was fundamentally a happy man and it is impossible to remember him without remembering the zeal with which he embraced life. even when things were not going even when things were not going well for him at the courts, he was generally upbeat. he sang in his chambers, he whistled in the corridors, his sonorous laugh reverberated throughout he courtroom. his wit was sharp and he delighted in testing it against anyone who was foolish enough to try.

sonorous laugh reverberated throughout the courtroom. his wit was sharp and he delighted in testing it against anyone who was foolish enough to try. he held us and himself to very high standards. and he was sometimes impatient when we fell short of the mark. but he was always quick to forgive, to teach, and to move on. i remember keenly the time i committed what in his chambers amounted to a mortal sin. i handed him a draft opinion which cited webster's third. and this just one term after his famous dictionary case, m.c.i. vs. at&t had made it clear for

all the world that in his estimation, the third edition of webster's was no dictionary at all. did you not read the opinions of this court before you came to join us here? he boomed. displeased, but not quite angry. the prudent response at that moment, of course, would have been to beg the opinion back, to return to my chambers, to expunge all references to webster's third, and to instead present him with a shining new draft in which the o.e.d. displayed prominently. but panic must have overtaken my brain's executive function. and instead i foolishly tried an excuse. um, yes, justice, i said. i remembered that you had strong

views about dictionaries, it's just that i couldn't remember which one it was that you didn't like. [laughter] and so i made sure to only work off the one you keep on display in your front office. [laughter] "and so i made sure to only work off the one you keep on display in your front office." [laughter] his eyebrows rose. what momentarily flashed as anger in his eyes immediately softened into disbelief. [laughter] it was no longer about me or the opinion. but about the prospect that that blasphemous book could be residing in his front office. [laughter] i could see it thinking, it could not be so. he rose and walked to the dictionary stand. taking the open pages of the book in his hands, he proceeded, in painstakingly slow fashion, to slip the cover. and then thunk, the front of the book met the back. he glanced down at the cover.

and then up at me. i dared for a nanosecond to feel redeemed, even victorious. [laughter] and then, without a moment lost, he quickly regained the advantage. "this, my dear," he said, "is but a trap laid for the unwary." [laughter] i had been careless, reckless, even impudent, and i had been schooled. but i had also been forgiven. i am often asked what it was like to be a clerk for justice scalia, and more particularly to be a woman clerking for justice scalia. much like being a man clerking for justice scalia, is my response.

[laughter] i have spoken to many of the justice's female clerks in the days since his passing, and the same story repeats. he demanded as much from us as from our brethren, and he gave us just as many opportunities to show our stuff. what better preparation for any of us, male or female, than to have matched wits with the justice. though we almost always came up short should not be dwelled upon, that was inevitable. what is remarkable is that he cared enough about us to ask our opinions and to debate with us when he disagreed. "what was in this for him," i often wondered? he could easily have done the job without us. but what was in it for us was invaluable. with each thrust and parry, we got sharper. what an incomparable gift to a young lawyer. as we have grown in our legal

careers, the lessons of the clerkship have stayed with us. we each have our favorite grammatical lesson. "never use impact as a verb." "the possessive case must precede a gerund." "a condition counter to fact requires the subjunctive." and his habits of careful thought, meticulous research, and economy of language are ones we all tried of the clerks have -- tried to emulate. the clerks have said that when so many ofthe clerks have said that when they write, they still write for him. that has been my own experience. as i struggle to write my own first opinions, i was nearly paralyzed by the thought that he might someday read them. [laughter] and this, the writing of an opinion, leads me in a roundabout fashion to a story i would like to end with. it's a story i meant to tell the justice. i called angela a few weeks back

to ask when he might be in chambers. "just wednesday next week," she replied. "then he'll be heading out of town." wednesday came, and i was deep into writing a bear of an opinion. the day slipped away. "i'll call him monday," i thought. and then monday never came. but i thought i would share with you now what i wish i had shared with him then. as a new justice on the michigan supreme court, i have been making the rounds, introducing myself to the people of my state. speaking to small groups in church basements and libraries and courthouses. twice in the weeks before his passing, the most extraordinary thing happened. when i got to the part of my bio where i say, "and then i clerked

for justice scalia," some members of the audience spontaneously burst into applause. these were not groups of lawyers or judges. just groups of ordinary michiganders. the first time this happened, i'll admit, i was startled. most people, after all, cannot name a supreme court justice. [laughter] fewer still have formed an opinion. i said as much and that i would be sure to pass their enthusiasm along to the justice. "he would like to hear that," i said. and then i went on with my remarks. at the end of my speech, a member of the audience stuck up his hand. "who did you say you clerked for again?" i thought to myself, did this guy walk in late? we just had this whole thing, but i answered, "justice scalia."

and this time, most of the crowd rose to their feet and gave him a standing ovation. the gentleman who had stuck up his hand then commented, "we just wanted to have the chance to do that for him again." me too. [applause] ms. murray: they put me last as some cruel sibling punishment. but only because i'm the middle of the nine, and that's what i have to deal with. they did, generously, give me

the opportunity to tell you that for the closing reception, we will return to the state and east rooms where we were for the welcome, right across the hall from the ballrooms. so i want to thank you for being here and for your kind words of sympathy for your wonderful affection for our father. for the stories of your friendships and most especially for your prayers. there have been many remarks about dad's faith and the central role it played in his life. and for many of us, the only way to comprehend the loss of our father, friend, or colleague is to place it in the framework of god's plan and god's mercy. particularly during this year, which pope francis has named the year of mercy. when we say his faith was important to him, some may understand that to mean, he was catholic, he went to church. what dad's, and really mom and dad's, practice of faith meant for us was that growing up, we never missed sunday mass unless

we were sick. in which case we better plan on staying in that bed for the whole day. [laughter] and that, as a family, we drove however far was necessary to find what dad considered an appropriate liturgy. [laughter] our sundays in chicago were especially adventurous. rather than walking 10 minutes to the neighborhood church, dad drove us 30 minutes to a city church led by italian priests, whose accents were so thick, i never knew when they were speaking english or latin. [laughter] we can tell stories about this as part of our strict upbringing, but what that approach to faith did for us was give us a framework of obedience to the church and instill in us an acceptance of the basic obligations we owe her. we also learned that though worship is a deeply personal experience, it is built on

centuries of tradition and history rich with meaning. faith in our home was also the intellectual exercise of explaining the teachings of the church through reason. there were frequent conversations about sermons, good and bad. and about why the church taught certain things and why the teachings made sense for mankind, why we could understand them as truth. in the many stories that have been published or shared since dad's death, i've continued to grow in my understanding of my father and in his daily exercise of god's love, which is what mercy is. his ability to form deep, lifelong friendships with people of varying views, his generosity and humility in reaching out to others, to strangers, to people from all walks of life. and now, the unbelievable outpouring of respect and affection from people throughout

the country because of what he symbolized to them. these are the fruits of my father's faith and of god's mercy through him. the events of the last two weeks have been physically and emotionally exhausting but also spiritually renewing. the procession of thousands of americans through the supreme court as dad lay in repose brought many of us great consolation. as for the funeral mass, we really did initially consider a small, private, latin mass. that's what dad would have wanted. but it fell to me to remind my mother, as it so often does, since when do we care what dad wants? [laughter] he wouldn't want us to change our way of doing things. [laughter] as a family, we recognize the final opportunity to pray as a church with with the large

numbers of friends and faithful that relied on him. the joy and peace in that mass were a gift to many, who continue to respond to it. since his death, i have learned so much about my father's faith and how he lived it. that our understanding of him continue to grow in to death. this is the great mercy we have been given through this loss. that our understanding of him continue to grow in to death. that we have a new understanding of god's love. through the words and memories of others. some of my friends have expressed this beautifully in the jewish tradition. "may his memory be a blessing." it is that and a source of grace and opportunity to grow in faith. i cannot think of any greater legacy. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you, everyone. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> in 2009, antonin scalia a set that with a conversation with c-span about his experiences on the u.s. supreme court. susan swain: associate justice antonin scalia, would you discuss what the role and responsibility of a supreme court justice is? justice scalia: to try to come out the right way on cases that

the court has agreed to hear. and also, secondly -- and this is the only respect in which the job differs from the job of a court of appeals judge, to decide on which cases the court should agree to hear. there are essentially two functions areas the latter is prior, decide what to put on our docket, and speculate what is on the docket, try to get it right. susan swain: what is the supreme court saying in society today, and has it changed over your tenure? justice scalia: i do not think it has changed. its proper role is in democracy to give a fair and honest interpretation to the meaning of dispositions that the people have adopted, it either congress in statute or the people when they ratify the constitution.

that thef dispositions people have have adopted, either statutes or the people when they ratified the constitution. no more, no t, less. i don't think we're a leader of social causes. pushing the simple as that, no more, no less. i don't think we are a leader of social causes. we are not pushing the society ahead the way, we are supposed to be interpreting the law for the people they have made. susan swain: what do you like best about the job? justice scalia: justice scalia: what do i like best? i like figuring out the right answer to legal questions, believe it or not. and not everybody does. i think some people who lust to become an appellate judge, they find it quite unsatisfying when they get there. you have to have a rather warped mind to want to spend your life figuring out the answer to legal questions. it is a very isolated job. the only time you see people from the outside is when you are

listening to arguments from counsel. other than that, it is very disembodied, intellectual work, probably most closely resembles the work of a law professor, which is what i was before i was here, so i am no more unhappy than i was before. susan swain: after two decades of doing it, is there any aspect of the job, if you had a choice to pass on to somebody else and avoid? justice scalia: i think undoubtedly, in my mind, the most -- what should i say? onerous and for the most part uninteresting part of the job is enrolling court cases. they have increased enormously. in the time i have been here. when i first arrived, if i am correct it was something about 5000 a year.

now it is approaching 10,000. every one of them we have to consider, if not by reading the actual petitions, we rarely do that, by reading the summaries of the petitions law clerks have prepared. 10,000 of those a year, that is not a lot of fun. susan swain: with the increasing number of petitions, why always 80 to 100 cases a year? -- why only 80-100 cases a year. justice scalia: we have been averaging actually 75. that number is not out of line with other supreme courts in other jurisdictions do. i think we could do more than 75. i don't think we could do 150. why? your guess is as good as mine.

i certainly have not changed my standards for deciding what cases we should take, and i don't think my colleagues have. if i had to guess, i would say that what has happened is that in my early years on the court, 20 some odd years ago, it was a lot of major new legislation that had recently been enacted, new bankruptcy code, there is not that much major legislation in recent years. and new legislation is the principal generator of successful petitions, because it takes 10 years or so to get all of the ambiguities in the statute resolved. that is our main job. we don't take cases because they were decided wrong. very rarely would we take a case for that reason.

a death case, we would. we usually take cases because the analysis of the courts below reflect disagreement on the meaning of federal law. and you can't have two different federal laws in different parts of the country, so we will take one or both of those cases. as i say, those have been on significant questions, which have been rare in recent years. we do not always sit down at the end of the term and say, how many cases do you want to take? 120? that is not what happens. they trickle in, we vote on those we think are worthy of our consideration. the last few years, at the end of the term they have been adding up to about 75 or so. susan swain: when you make those decisions, are you aware at the time which ones will be the blockbuster cases? justice scalia: usually. you can usually tell which ones pertain to a major piece of

legislation, a legislation that is a major impact on society, sure. susan swain: does it affect your decision process? justice scalia: not mine. you may have to talk to other people, but i don't think it does. i put in as much blood, sweat, and tears on the big ones as the little ones. people ask which site you have been on the bench, you would not want to know. it is a relatively insignificant case. it was relatively hard to figure out. there is no relationship whatever between how important it is and how hard it is. susan swain: can you tell me now that you have discussed it? justice scalia: you don't want to know. susan swain: i would like to ask you about the clerks role in what you do. you have had many of them over the years. do you stand with them?

-- do you stay in touch with them? justice scalia: we have an annual clerk class reunion. it is great to see them. it is one of the most enjoyable parts of the job. you work closely with four young people every year. there are new ones every year, full of them and vigor, they are not jaded. it is all new to them. it rubs off on you. and you work closely with them over the year and you become very close. and they go off. it is like acquiring four new nieces and nephews every year, none of whom will be a failure. they all go off to do significant things. it is fun to follow their careers. susan swain: what jobs -- how do you use them? and you do? how do you use them? justice scalia: i can say how i do it, but that isn't

necessarily how the others do. i let them take the cases they want to work on. something like an nfl draft, first pick, second pick areas i figure they are less likely to do cases they are not interested in. so i let them take the cases. i usually discuss the case very briefly with a law clerk who has chosen it before oral argument. and after oral argument, i sit down with that clerk and the other three, who know something about the case but not as much as the clerk who really is responsible for it. and we take it around for as long as it takes. it could take an hour or two. and then, if i am assigned to the opinion or the dissent, that clerk will normally do a first draft of it all. what is supposed to be in it, he will write it out and i will put

it up on my screen and take it apart and put it back together. so, i kid you not, i tell them at the reunions, i am indebted to my law clerks for a lot of the quality of the work that comes out of my chambers. i could not do as well without the assistance of brilliant young people. susan swain: in a week when the court is in session, how many hours you spend in the court? justice scalia: i have no idea. susan swain: 40 hours, 60 hours? justice scalia: one of the nice things or the non-nice things, you do not have to be here to be working. i could, and some judges on the court of appeals do only come into court when there is oral arguments. i could do this job from home. the main thing it would deprive me of is consultation with my law clerks.

it would deprive them of my company too. so i like to come in. it has no relationship with how many hours i am putting in. i never counted the hours in the week, but i almost always worked weekends. not all weekend, every weekend, but some of the weekend every week. susan swain: is there ever really a break in the summertime? justice scalia: yeah, the summertime is great. we clean our plate before we leave at the end of june, so it is really a summer without guilt. the only work we have to do over the summer is it stay on top of certain petitions because there is a monster conference at the end of the summer to vote on all of the circuit petitions that have accumulated during the summer. you've got to stay on top of them. that is a manageable job. for the rest of them, we have continued to function the way

all three branches of the federal government used to function. this town used to be deserted in july and august. there would be nobody here. now we all come back in september to get ready for the arguments in october. during the summer, you have time to do some of the reading you did not have time to do during the court term, and to sort of regenerate your batteries. susan swain: you mentioned that the court has retained what the other branches used to have. the court is also quite well-known for other traditions. a few came to mind, including the courtroom itself, the selected formal address. , the quill pens. i wonder why they matter to the i wonder why they matter to the process and why they are retained in 2009?

justice scalia: oh, i think traditions in a way define an institution. an institution is respected when it is venerable tradition, and certainly one of the remarkable things about the court it has been here doing this job for 220 years. i think traditions remind, remind people of that fact. you know, i guess we could sit in a bus station and not wear robes but just business suits or even tank tops, but i don't think that creates the kind of image you want for the supreme court of your country. susan swain: on the road, looking at a little bit of history, your earliest successes here, you did not wear them? justice scalia: did not wear robes?

susan swain: that's right. according to the documents. it began around the 1800. justice scalia: john jay, over your shoulder, was the first chief justice, and that was before 1800. he is wearing a glorious robe, not just black but black and red, but what you told me is news to me. susan swain: i will go with john jay, but let's say it is 2009 and tank tops aside, what is the symbolism behind the robe? why do people continue to wear them in our society? justice scalia: i'm sure we could do our work without the robes, without this glorious building that you are designing to have this conversation in. the roads are like the building, -- the robes are like the building in part to the people who come here, is the significance, the importance of what goes on here.

that is nothing new. public goings don't look like bus stations. -- public buildings don't look like bus stations and they shouldn't. susan swain: this building itself, justice breyer called this a symbol of the american initial process internationally. when you come to work here, are you conscious of that when you drive up here after doing it for such a long time? being part of the american judicial process? justice scalia: i can't say it is in the middle of my mind. i usually thinking about what case i am working on that day. you get used to it. you take stuff for granted that maybe you should not, but i take for granted working in his glorious building, i take for granted wearing a robe when i go out on the bench. susan swain: when you have the opportunity and it is quiet around here, are the special places in this building where you might reflect on the history? justice scalia: not really. i hang out in my chambers most

of the time. the center of the building, what is really the reason the building is here is the audience chamber, where we all argue. as the august nature of that chamber suggests, it has a c -- ceiling so high you can barely see it from the ground. that is the center of the court, of course. susan swain: let's talk about what goes on in that court and the process of oral argument can you talk about how you use oral argument and white, in fact when -- and why in fact when there is so much paper before hand on making all of these cases, oral argument is even needed? justice scalia: a lot of people have the impression it is just a pony show. i read a 60 page brief by a petitioner, a 60 page brief by the respondent, a reply brief, some very often by the solicitor

general. -- an amicus brief, some very often by the solictor general. a dozen other because briefs, -- amicus briefs not all of which which i will read, and i have seen passages where there is nonsense in the margin -- what someone can tell me in half an hour will make a difference. the answer is it is probably quite rare, although not unheard of, but it is quite common that -- that the oral argument will change my mind but it is quite common that i go in with my mind not made up. a lot of these cases are very close. you go in on a knife's edge. persuasive counsel can make the difference. there are things you can do with oral argument that can't be done in a brief. you can convey the relative importance of your various points. sometimes, so you have four points and one of them is very complicated.

it is not the most important, it takes a third of your brief. if i read your brief a week ago, i have a misconception of your case. you can set that right to in oral argument. so with the oral argument, very often the third point, the difficult point may be the first point you address in your brief because that is the logical order. you don't put jurisdiction last, you put it first. even if it is the most complicated, in oral argument you can say, "your honors, we have five points that are worth your attention, but what it comes down to, that point here." it can make a difference. the brief cannot answer back when i write nonsense in the margin. you can ask counsel, is there

some reason why this point is not nonsense? sometimes, they can tell you. so i am a big proponent of oral argument. it is very important. you would be surprised how much probing can be done within half an hour, an awful lot. susan swain: what is the quality of the council who come before you? justice scalia: you know, to chiefs ago, chief justice burger used to talk about low quality of counsel. i used to have just the opposite reaction. i used to be disappointed that there were so many of the best minds in the country who were being devoted to this enterprise. i'm being, there would be a public defender, and this woman is really billion. -- is really brilliant. why is she not out inventing the automobile or doing something

productive for the society? lawyers after all don't produce anything. they enable other people to produce and go on with their lives efficiently in an atmosphere of freedom. that is important, but it does not put food on the table. there have to be other people that are doing that. i worry that we are devoting too many of our very best minds to this enterprise. and, they appear here in the court. even the ones who only argue once and will never come again, i'm usually impressed with how good they are. sometimes you get one that is not so good. by and large, i don't have any complaints about the quality of counsel except maybe we are wasting some of our best minds. you should not -- how can i put it in another way? law clerks of law firms spent

enormous amounts of money to get the very, very brightest. there is a small amount of difference between that guy and the next, but it is worth it because the law is complicated and complex. the legal system probably should not put such a premium on brains, but it does. and our lawyers are really good. lawyers generally are smart people. susan swain: moving on to the next stage, conference. did you talk about conference and how it works? justice scalia: i can't talk too much, but if we sit down together and there is nobody else in the room -- i am not giving away anything because chief justice rehnquist wrote a book in which he acknowledged the conference is probably a misnomer. it is really

not an occasion on which we try to persuade one another, very few minds are changed in conference. each justice states his or her view of the case and how he or she votes right around the table. and if in the middle of somebody's presentation you disagree with something that that person says, if when john stevens is speaking he says, wait john, why do you say that? or if it did happen, you do have your turn, john. let him finish. when we get all around, at the end you can speak a second time and raise some of these questions. but it is not really an exercise in persuading each other. it is an exercise in stating your views and the rest of us take notes. and that is its function.

you take notes so that if you get assigned to the opinion, you know how to write it in a way that will get at least four other votes beside your own. that is the principal function. susan swain: when it comes to writing opinions, the chief told us in our conversation that he worked fair to be fair with the -- he worked very hard to be fair with the distribution of assignments. are you able to lobby if you are particularly interested in a case? justice scalia: i wanted to if i could. i haven't done that. on very rare occasion, i like that case. i bet more than three times i have been on the court -- i pretty much take what i am given. both of the chiefs that i have served under tried to be fair in giving you good ones and bad ones. sometimes, what they think is a good opinion you don't think is a good opinion.

chief justice rehnquist used to love fourth amendment cases involving searches and seizures. i just hated those. fourth amendment cases. it is almost a jury question, whether this variation is among -- in a unreasonable search and seizure, reason number 542. yeah, i will write the opinion, but i don't consider it a plus. -- consider it a plum. bill rehnquist thought he was entitled to give you a dog. and i did not much like that. susan swain: you are a writer. you have written three books now, is that correct? justice scalia: two. susan swain: two? writing is something it seems you enjoy. justice scalia: you don't want to be an appellate judge if you are not good at writing. susan swain: do you enjoy the writing of opinions and to the exchange of precise words --

justice scalia: as i have put it, i don't enjoy writing, i enjoy having written. i find to writing a very much difficult process. i rewrite, i write again. i sweat over it. before the opinion goes out, clerks say it is going out this afternoon, do you want to read it one last time? yeah, i will read it one last time. and i guarantee you, every time i read it, i will change it something else. it has to be wrestled from my grasp and sent down to the printer. now, i am not a fast writer, but -- now, i am not a facile writer, but i think writing is a job that is worth the time you spent on it. susan swain: has technology in this time here made the process easier? justice scalia: we have word processors when i arrived, so i cannot say it has made it easier. i had wordprocessors when i was a law professor.

it makes the job of writing, especially when you are editing someone else's first draft, enormously more simple. you don't have to write balloons. you just highlight the part you want taken out, bang, it is gone. then you put in the new parts, bang, it is in. it makes it a lot easier. susan swain: when you strongly disagree with someone's opinion, how do you keep it from being personal? justice scalia: you just criticize the argument and not the person. and an ad hominem argument is addressed at the person, rather than the argument. i feel justified in whacking the argument as hard as it deserves. that is not impuning the individual that made the argument.

susan swain: do you prefer opinion rather than dissent? justice scalia: of course. i always want to write a majority. why do you want to write a dissent? hey, dissent is more fun to write, because when you have dissent, it is yours. you say what you want. if nobody was to join, it is my dissent, i will say what i want to say. when you are writing a majority, you do not have that luxury. you got to craft it in a way that at least four other people can jump on and actually -- you try to craft it in a way with as many people as possible want to jump on. which means accepting some suggestions, stylistic and otherwise that you do not think is the best, but nonetheless in order to get everybody on board, you take them. susan swain: we have a few minutes left. we are talking at a time when the court will leave a a member

and accept a new one. how does this change during the process? justice scalia: the institution does not change at all. i think the relationships change, you lose a friend, and hopefully acquire another one on this famous stage. i will miss david. i will miss him a lot. he sat next to me on his whole time in the court. when we go out on the bench, depending on which side i was sitting on, left or right. he has been a rather constant companion, and we chatted back and forth sometimes during argument or pass notes back and forth sometimes during an argument. i will miss him. he is an intelligent, interesting good man. so that changes. i miss a lot of my former colleagues on the court from byron white to bill brennan.

but that is the process. they go, people come in. susan swain: during your tenure, there have been seven new arrivals. i was wondering, when you welcome new justices into the system, is there an acclimation process that you go through here? justice scalia: not really. it is the same job as being an appellate judge on a lower court. you hear the argument, by the -- -- you read the briefs, right the opinion. ----you hear the -- you hear the argument, write the briefs, write the opinion. we have the job of deciding what we decide, which a district court of appeals judge does not have that burden or that luxury. you take whatever they bring you and you have to. but except for that additional part of the job, it is the same. with one other exception, on lower courts, if there is a whole line of supreme court authority that you fundamentally a disagree with, it doesn't make

it easy. you just say, i think it is stupid, but you follow it. you don't have to worry about whether it ought to be changed. whereas on the highest court, if it is indeed a stupid line of cases, it is your stupid line of cases, and you have to decide if you leave it alone, decently refused to extend it any further, or do you try to get rid of the whole thing? you don't have to worry about that on the court of appeals. you do everything. susan swain: we are out of time. let's get some closing for the picture. for people that were from the -- for whom the supreme court, it is just an item in the newspaper, i wonder what you would like to say about this place, how it functions, what they really ought to know about the court. justice scalia: it is not

a point distinctive to this court, but more general but applies to this court and all others. you really can't judge judges unless you know the materials that they are working with. you can't say, oh, this is a good decision. it was a good court simply because you liked the result. it seems to you, that the person who deserved to win, one. that is not the business judges are in. we do not sit here to make the law and decide who to win. we decide under the law the people have adopted. and very often, if you are a good judge, you don't really like the result you are reaching. you would rather that the other side one. it seems to you a foolish law. in this job, it is garbage in, garbage out. if it is a foolish law, you are bound by law to give a foolish result, because it is not your job to decide what is foolish and not. it is the job of the people across the street. so, don't judge judges unless you take the trouble to see

which provisions were issued and what they were trying to reconcile and whether they did an honest job of reconciling them. in the words of the law in a fair fashion. that is what counts. unless that is what you want your judges to do, you have a judiciary that is not worth much. you have a judiciary that is just making the law instead of what people have decided. that is my advice. be slow to judge unless you know what they are working with. susan swain: thank you for spending time with us. justice scalia: my pleasure, thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> with donald trump putting his you will seeher,

live cabinet confirmation hearings each night in prime time. the president-elect nominee to be attorney general's alabama senator jeff sessions and his confirmation hearing is scheduled for january 10 and 11. he goes before the senate judiciary committee. that hearing will be live on the c-span television networks, c-span radio app, and online at www.c-span.org. >> c-span, where history unfold daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's table -- cable television companies and brought you today by your cable or satellite providers. >> next week, president obama goes to capitol hill for a meeting with congressional democrats to strategize about how to keep donald trump and republican majorities in congress from dismantling the afford of care act.

the meeting is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on wednesday in the congressional visitors center. democrats in the house and senate were invited to the meeting this morning. >> join us on tuesday for live coverage of the open day of the new congress. watch the official swearing in of the new and reelected members of the house and senate and the election of the speaker of the house. our all-day live coverage of the days events from capital begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org or you can listen to it on the free c-span radio app. host: we are back and at our table this morning is claire mcandrew with families usa private insurance programs director. to talk about the future of health care and the affordable care act. republicans and donald have said that they would repeal and replace right away. as an advocate for the act, where do you see compromise with

the republicans? guest: compromises a tough question because as we have heard during the election and as we were before the election, they have put on the table that they are looking to repeal the law as fast as possible whereas millions across the country are still in rolling faster than even last year. we're hoping to see -- we are very concerned that is not what we're going to see. this is why we are organizing to stand up for the coverage than millions have. host: tell us some policy errors where you think republicans may agree with democrats and vice versa. guest: although we have heard certain areas of the law where they say "we will keep this bit" that is not what we are hearing for as early as january. we are hearing they're going to move ahead with a bill to repeal essential parts of the law. what we are standing up for is saying that we do not want to see any repeal on the table

unless we have a simultaneous plan to replace the law with as much coverage or -- for as many people at the same quality. we want to see that plan on the table but there is not a unified plan among republicans in congress or with the president-elect. host: let's talk about what you are hearing. what action a republican saying they are going to take? and how quickly? guest: we have heard various things over time. at first we heard january 20 there will be a bill and now we are hearing it might be delayed, in terms of how long that coverage will stay for people. will it stay for a year? our concern is guaranteeing to the american people their coverage will month away at all. guaranteeing to the american people their coverage will month away at all. we want to see a replacement plan stapled to the bill that goes forward.

we want to see a replacement plan stapled to the bill that goes forward. we know the people are in rolling a faster rate than they ever did before and we think that shows the value of coverage ge and the value of people health care and the safety of their pocketbooks to guarantee that they are not going to face enormous bills every time they go to the doctor or certainly an emergency. >> what essential part of the affordable care act do you believe they want to get rid of right away that would impact peoples health care? >> while we don't have a bill on the table yet, we have something that is going to give us a hint of what might be in store and that is actually a budget reconciliation bill that congress passed in 2015, a bill the president vetoed but included repeal elements that could be instructed for now and that includes a repeal of the medicaid expansion, a repeal of the tax credit that made coverage of affordable in the marketplace, a repeal of the individual mandate and the

employer mandate and a repeal of the financing mechanism for coverage. if your appeal would pay for coverage it makes it hard to imagine how americans will get the insurance they need. host: let's listen to what if your appeal would pay for coverage it makes it hard to imagine how americans will get the insurance they need. host: let's listen to what republicans have said about what they might replace it with, the better way forward plan. back in october, here is congressman tom price who has been tasked to head up hhs for president donald trump. he uses address in october to talk about their plans for health care. >> our first priority is to put you, the patient, in charge, not washington bureaucrats so we repeal the individual mandate and we say that you should be free to take whatever insurance plan meets your needs, not one washington forces you to buy. we give you real protection so you never have to worry about

being turned away because of your age or your income or your health status. we also clear up the bureaucracy so our researchers can develop more lifesaving treatments. we save, strengthen and secure medicare so it is there for today's seniors and future generations and we reform medicaid so that states have the flexibility to offer the kind of coverage that best serves the community. before going into public service, i practiced orthopedic surgery for 20 years. that first-hand experience taught me there is nothing more sacred in health care than the doctor-patient relationship. our better way plan respects and protects the doctor-patient relationship. it is the plan that america needs and it is how we can turn things around. a bold vision to bring america's health care system into the 21st century. house republicans are offering a clean break with the past, a plan to repeal obamacare and start over with real patient centered solutions that puts patients and families and doctors in charge, not washington, d.c. host:

your response? guest: i would say that representative tom price speaks to a plan that he is mentioning -- there is not a united plan across the republican party. you have republicans who would got the affordable care act and move forward with pretty much nothing. you have others that would recommend something like the better way, and you have folks looking forward to redesigning medicare and medicaid. there is not one plan they can put on the table and say open this is what we would bring forward." you heard elements, you mentioned medicare. tom price has been a long proponent of policies that would cause shifts to beneficiaries, he has put forward plans to cut medicaid and he has been an outspoken proponent of revealing the act. -- repealing the affordable care act.

these policies are of grave concerns to our families usa who want to afford coverage to everyone regardless of income or employment status or if you are in between jobs. we don't want people also worrying about health care so we are very concerned about these policies but we would also remind folks that there is not a plan on the table. the plan right now is not this down and later decide what to do -- is let's knock this down and later decide what to do about it -- we will decide what to do about it and we find that incredibly risky and we are very concerned about it. host: more details about the better way by the republicans. for those without access to employer coverage, a refundable tax credit to help buy insurance on the individual market. it also promotes the expansion of health savings accounts. tax breaks on employer-based premiums, allowing insurance sales across state lines, coverage for every american regard as of health status, allowing dependence to stay on their parents plan, allows states to provide medicaid programs, and this is

prohibiting federal dollars for abortion services and strengthening and repealing most damaging medicare provisions in the aca. let's get a call. gina is up first in georgia, democrat. caller: good morning. i was going to comment about my son having to get the insurance, which i appreciate him getting it, but he tried to use it yesterday and had a problem even finding a provider that would see him. what he has to pay is decent but if the republicans were going to have some type of insurance, why didn't they do it before? i'm afraid they're going to cut it out totally and that he is going to be without insurance again. that worries me.

and because of the problems that he has -- i just don't know if he is going to even have it after trump gets into office. guest: thank you so much for calling in. i think your concerns are right along where my concerns are. we know there are improvements guest: thank you so much for calling in. i think your concerns are right along where my concerns are. we know there are improvements to be made to the affordable care act and the health care system overall so while we want to work on where we are now, we want to make sure that provider networks are improved, we want to make sure out-of-pocket costs are improved so they are more affordable. we want to build on what we have now but we don't want to knock down that we have so that we are right back where he started where people can't even get insurance in the first place. e't insurance in the first place. if you are at a house and your windows weren't in the right conditions so instead of f