it. and in the middle of this campaign, next week we'll have the south carolina results the night before we compton air. wo remembering a legal icon. welcome to this special look back at the long and distinguished career of supreme court justice antonin scalia who passed away yesterday while on vacation in texas. i'm shannon bream in washington. he had been an anchor for conservative wing for nearly three decades. his sudden death raises questions in the midst of the supreme court term packed with hot button issues -- abortion, affirmative action, and the president's use of executive power. through every decision scalia remained true to his judicial fill philosophy. >> originalism says that when you consult the text, you give

it the meaning it had when adopted not some later modern meaning. >> he was known for his unexpected friendships with his ideological counterparts on the court. scalia and justice ruth bader ginsberg and their spouses enjoyed meals and traveling together n. recent years he formed oochs a bomb with the newest justice, elena kagan taking her to the shooting range and on an actual hunting trip. scalia was unapologetic about his faith and beliefs m. 2013 he chided a reporter who expressed shock scalia actually believed in heaven and hell and god and the devil. here is what he said at the 2009 catholic prayer breakfast. >> one can be sophisticated and believe in god. hec heck. >> first mover is easy to believe in as a big bang triggered by nothing. one can even believe in a personal god, a benevolent being who loves mankind. >> and, of course, there were

those fiery dissents filled with flowery language and pointed jabs. that was true of his dissent from last year's opinion legalizing gay marriage. scalia found zero constitutional grounds to do so and wrote this. quote, the world is not expect logic in poetry or inspirational pop philosophy. it demands them in the law. the stuff contained in today's opinion has to diminish this represeutation for clear thinki and sober analysis. in recent years justice scalia wrote a landmark decision and maintained a busy lecture and travel schedule. he is survived by his wife, maureen, as well as their nine children and more than 20 grandchildren. the passing of the legal giant leaves not only a big hole in the court, it's setting off a political battle over who gets to name his successor. hi, doug. >> reporter: hi, shannon. the sudden death of justice scalia ensures that the already deep divide between this white house and the gop controlled congress will further deepen so

vast is the situation with his staff, so consequential is the vacancy. president obama last night indicated he will nominate a successor to scalia in due time. here he is. >> 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. >> reporter: senate majority leader mitch mcconnell threw a very big wrench into the president's plan and the condolence statement issued right after scalia's death. he added this, and i quote, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president. many gop senators including the two who are running for president are onboard with mcconnell's plan. here's marco rubio. >> i think we should wait until after november before we move forward on confirming any justice to the supreme court. the president can nominate whoever he wants. the senate is not going to act. we can be debating it but we're not moving forward on it period. >> reporwent even further, if a

nomination were to be taken up by the senate it would most certainly be filibustered probably by him. >> does that mean you're going to filibuster anyone -- anyone president obama nominates? >> absolutely. this should be a decision for the people, george. we have an election -- >> reporter: senate democrats are responding with derision. a series of tweets issued today in which it was noted the constitution requires the president to send these nominees up to the senate for their advice and consent. and then she sarcastically added this, quote, i can't find a clause in the constitution that says except when there's a year left in the term of a democrat president. and senate minority leader harry reid called the tactic a shame fp abdication of one of the most important constitution obligations. shannon, back to you. >> doug mckelway, thank you, doug.

the last president to put up a nominee was lyndon johnson in 1968, but both of his nominees were rejected. joining us now gop member lindsey graham sits on the judiciary committee which is a key in this nominating process. senator, thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> how do you respond to your colleague elizabeth warner, the democrat in the senate, to her statement that basically if you think this is about letting the american people have a voice, she says, in fact, they did that when president obama won in 2012 and it's up to him to pick the next justice. >> i can't think anybody i respect less on an issue like this than elizabeth warren. she's the one that led the change of the rules. i voted for sotomayor and kagan not because i would have chosen them but because i thought they were qualified. elections have consequences and they do. let me just say this as having been somebody open-minded for voting for people on the other side because i think advice and

consent is not set aside for election, but to vote for somebody who is qualified. i thought sotomayor and kagan were qualified. i told the democrats when you change the rules to require a majority rule to get appellate judges and appointments through the senate, you're avoiding consensus, which is the tradition of the senate. elizabeth warren led that charge. they changed the rules to help president obama stack the court and put people in the executive branch that could not have gotten a consensus vote. i will not vote for anyone unless there's an overwhelming consensus. i think there is a consequence to abusing power. i think president obama's abuse of executive power, i think elizabeth warren is an ideological hack as far as i'm concerned when it comes to this process. >> those are tough words for a fellow senate colleague. >> it is. i have no respect for her. >> okay. >> none at all when it comes to

something like this. none at all. she's turned the senate upside-down. she his the ends justify the means. >> all right -- >> she is a complete hack. >> i will not look for the two of you to be taking a road trip or getting together anytime soon. but on to the next step in the process, the president said last night he is going to nominate someone and expects the senate to move ahead and kconfirm them. some of your gop colleagues have said, one of them used the "f" word, filibuster, whoever it is doesn't care if it's somebody he likes or not. he's state that go up front. others will say they'll do what they can to block any progress on this. where do we go from here? >> i have little respect for senator cruz. i don't think he has much understanding of the senate. i don't think he cares about the traditions of the place. he filibusters everything. it's all about senator cruz. in my view elizabeth warren and

senator cruz do not represent the finest traditions of the senate. so senator cruz has been an i o ideolog ideologue, he hurt the republican party which made absolutely no sense. so i'm not going to listen to cruz when it comes to doing business in the senate. here is where we go. the democrats set in motion rules changes that have consequences. i told the president to his face and my colleagues i do respect that if you do this there will be consequences. he can nominate anyone he would like, and the only person that could get confirmed in my view is a consensus choice, someone like an orrin hatch, not a young liberal who may otherwise be qualified. we're not going to do that. there's a consequence to what the democrats did and what president obama did. >> all right. senator lindsey graham, republican and member of the judiciary committee in the

senate, thanks for checking in with us today. >> thank you. all right. up next a clerk for justice scalia, has argued dozens of cases before the court and also as an attorney he joins us now to discuss the legacy that justice scalia leaves behind. thank you for coming in today. >> my pleasure. i wish it was under different circumstances. justice scalia deserves to have his legacy talked about. i'm happy to be here to do that. >> it is a unique one. he was a strong personality both on and off the bench. what kind of difference do you see -- what kind of impact on the legal profession and on the courts in this country over the last quarter century? >> his impact has been so substantial and i think there's at least three ways he's had a huge impact, one is interpretation. we hear a lot about the constitutional cases. 75% of the supreme court's cases, as you know, are statutory cases. when he came to the court in 1986, often the text of the

statute was put in the footnotes and the justices were debating the policies that under lay what congress was trying to do. and he really single-handedly can change that focus and got every member of the court to really start with the sex text the statute, to never look at the legislative history but the text has primacy in statutory because of him. he's had a similar transformative effect on constitutional interpretation where it's the text of the constitution informed by its original public meaning that drives the debate, and you really see this in a case like heller, the second amendment case, where all nine justices debated that kiss on hcase on h. the original meaning of the case was, but the whole debate took place essentially on justice scalia's terms. and then the third thing he did,

and this is something that's impacted me over the last ten years, is fundamentally change the way the supreme court approaches oral argument. when he came to the supreme court it was not uncommon for an entire oral argument in the supreme court to go by without a single question. now you're up there watching oral argument -- >> that's so hard to imagine. >> you see the court today and the court is asking literally dozens and dozens of questions. it's now not uncommon for the advocates to collectively get more than 100 questions. and that really started with justice scalia. it started on day one, too. he got there from the d.c. circuit and he started asking questions. he didn't stop. some of his colleagues who had been will already a number of years and hadn't asked a lot of questions said we're not going to let the new guy have all the fun, and they started coming along and doing the same thing and now i think every justice that's gotten to the court has essentially asked more questions than the justice they replaced

and has adopted kind of the scalia model to oral argument. obviously justice thomas is the one exception but the other justices all asked lots and lots of questions in the scalia model. >> it's been roughly a decade since justice thomas has asked a question. he is the exception to the rule. it is an animated or hot bench where they are pushing back and forth, some arguing with each other through their questions to be advocates, but it is rare that somebody gets through, as you said, i have three points and here are my arguments. you might get through one but to get through two or three, they're very animated. that is his legacy. how much of a hole do you think this leaves in what people call the conservative block on the court? >> there are still justices on the court that share his philosophy and you start with justice thomas but obviously there are other members of the court that share justice scalia's fill philosophy. i think what we'll be missing is that kind of indomitable personal presence that m

manifested itself most obviously during the arguments with its questioning and he asked more questions than any of the other, i think any other justice but certainly any other justice you think of as a conservative justice. and then you're also going to see that missing in the opinion writing because there's nobody who writes an opinion like justice scalia. >> and learn new words from his opinions and dissents all the time. have to look them up. is that a real word? >> once in a while he makes them up, but only when he's characterizing the majority opinion, particularly in an acute way. i really think that's another key to understanding his approach to the job. people will criticize and say he wasn't quite as effective as some other justices in building coalitions. i don't think that's what he was there for. he took the long view on the law and he was really writing -- if he was writing a dissent, if he couldn't cobble together four other justices to agree with him, he was writing for justices 20 years later, 30 years later.

and i'm quite confident that law students will be reading scalia opinions a decade from now. >> and he clearly loved what he was doing and his certificaserve country. paul clement, thousand for coming in to share. >> my pleasure, my pleasure. as we've been telling you the path to a new supreme court justice goes, of course, through the senate. we'll talk to another one of its members, senator orrin hatch next.

my father, the most patriotic man i ever knew, used to say that in the old country if your father was a schumakhoe, you would be a shoe maker and in america you could be whoever you worked hard enough to be and had

the talent to be. his son ended up on the supreme court. my grandmother expected me to be president. >> often sometimes justices are even more powerful and they stick around a whole lot longer. those are moving words from justice scalia from just over two years ago talking about his family which included his sicilian born father. joining me now senator orrin hatch. senator, thank you so much for joining us. i want to first get your reaction and thoughts on the man justice scalia was. >> he was a great man. i have to say still is in my eyes. i just wish his wife and his family the very best. i know it's a tough time for them especially the way -- he died the way he wanted to. he was out hunting, relaxed, and the next thing you know he was gone. he was one of the greatest justices on the supreme court, a man of wit, good character, decent person, the first

italian-american person on the supreme court which set standards. i just personally loved the guy. >> glowing words from his colleagues. we'll talk more about that in this hour. justice ruth bader ginsberg who couldn't have been more different from him ideologically called him her best buddy today. he was a gregarious guy who reached across the issues to form very interesting friendships. >> he really did. virtually everybody respected him. he was one of the great lawyers and teachers of the law at the university of chicago, i believe it was. he was on the court for an awful long time. everything he did was very, very professional. and humorous, very, very intelligently written opinions. just a fellow who basically stood up for the constitutional systems of this country and really one of the founders of originalism and i have to say a

person who stood for the constitution, believed in the constitution, and basically wrote about the constitution continuously. >> so i talked earlier with your colleague, senator lindsey graham, about where we're going now because the president has said he is going to nominate someone. some of your colleagues have said no way that's going to happen on their watch. a number of democrats stepped forward to say of course it is. this president has almost a year left. he should be able to nominate someone he sees fit. what is your plan? >> well, it's been more than 80 years, i think about that time, since somebody was nominated in the president's last year. it just isn't something that's done and the reason it isn't, we were right in the middle of a presidential campaign and somebody is going to win that and the person who wins that is going to have the right to replace justice scalia whether a democrat or republican. and i think it's pushing it to

try to believe that they should be doing that this year. >> what about the possibility, quickly, we're almost out of time, of a recess appointment by president obama? >> well, that would be very hard to do. we're talking about, first of all, i don't think the senate will go in recess just for that reason. after the 4th of january, time where he could do that. that would be one of the most offensive things anybody could do and i don't think even president obama would do that. but if that's the way it is, i think that the senate will find a way of being in recess and will probably just go right to work after the first of the year. it isn't something that would be done, should be done, it would be absolutely offensive to any good thinking person. but, you know, look, democrats would like to be able to take control of the court and have justices that would uphold all of these abortion rights right up to the time of birth and all kinds of other very liberal

approaches. i mean, that's what they believe. you can hardly blame them. >> senator hatch, we have to leave it there. we're up against a hard break. thank you so much for joining us. more after this.

during his decades on the court scalia was known for his intellect, zeal and outside personality. the executive editor of "the weekly standard" profiled justice scalia and has his personal insights. you were telling me during the break you were around during the confirmation process as well. >> i came to washington in 1983 to work in the justice department. i was a speechwriter for reagan's first attorney general. i stayed on under ed mees. and ed had a group of us organized, about 20 in all, and

we looked at prospects for people who would be candidates for the supreme court in case a vacancy arose. and our group of 20 read a lot of things, a lot of articles, judicial decisions and came up with two people at the end of the day bourque and antonin scalia. in no particular order. ed took those to the president, and he selected scalia that year and bork the next year. >> you can only know how someone will be as a justice and how some come untethered from their moorings. how did you know or did you know and feel you were assured antonin scalia was going to stay the way that you expected he would be as justice? >> the review process we had in place, i thought, did a good job of that. we were centrally focused on judicial philosophy and wanted to know how it might work out in practice.

those two are exemplars that reagan was seeking. >> i know we talked about the fact that justice rehnquist's elevation to chief justice was going on at the same time. that was more controversial. do you think someone like antonin scalia could get a unanimous confirmation in 2016? >> maybe not. it's been said being the first italian-american on the court put him there but i think he was praised at the time, recognized at the time as a legal scholar of great intellect and dimension. i think he would stand a good chance. >> having been in washington now and watched these fights play out, how do you sort of game out the one we're looking at? >> this is entirely different. this being an election year where the court is now central to how our government is

day-to-day, i think this changes the political dynamic. whether it will actually lead to someone being on the court, being confirmed for the court this year, i have my doubts, but i do think that it will get into the campaign, it will be a major issue, it perhaps might help certain republican candidates more than others on the democratic side. i don't think there's any doubt democrats will be unified on this issue. >> and it makes a big difference if this is pushed past the election about which type of person would be nominated based on who becomes the next president. this president seems determined in his backer of supporters says he has every constitutional right to make this nomination. the senate doesn't have to go along with it. do you think this gets ugly before it's resolved? >> it might. if you're the president of the united states, how could you not take this opportunity to nominate someone? he has that possibility, and he should do it. it's a right. that's true. whereas the senate, i don't think, has any obligation to vote even or to hold hearings.

it can do as it wishes to do. we may not like that but it's not a constitutional issue of saying there's some duty the senate is obligated by. >> we will watch in the coming days. in the meantime we thank you for sharing your memories of the man that the nation is now mourning. good to see you. >> thank you, shannon. as the nation mourns the passing of justice scalia, our special continues a. look at some of his more colorful opinions and dissents. plus, those who knew him talk about the man behind the robe.

whether you agreed with justice scalia's rulings or not, his opinions were always a good, entertaining read. he was a reliable conservative, but every once in a while he did break rank. we are joined now with a look at what you might call his greatest hits. hi, brian. >> reporter: hi, shannon. justice antonin scalia's writing is described by critics as, quote, highly readable, entertaining with, quote, equal parts anger, confidence and pageantry. in last year's obamacare case scalia wrote the majority opinion was, quote, pure apple sauce, writing the court's next bit of interpretive jiggery involved other parts of the act that presupposed the availability of tax credits on both federal and state exchanges. he went on to say we should start calling this scotus care. in his dissent against gay marriage he wrote the nature of

marriage is that through its enduring bond two persons together can find other freedoms which hasek preg expression, in and spirituality. really? one would think freedom of intimacy is a bridge rather than expanded by marriage. ask the nearest hippy. in 1992 the supreme court ruled that prayer led by a clergy member at a public school was unconstitutional. scalia had something to say about that writing, i find it a sufficient embarrassment that our establishment cause jurisprudence has come to require scrutiny more commonly associated with interior decorators than with the judiciary. interior decorate something a rock hard science. scalia held nothing back in a 1989 abortion case. he wrote his colleague justice sandra day o'connor's decision was, quote, irrational and, quote, could not be taken

seriously. >> cantankerous, i expressed myself vividly. both criticisms are criticisms of opinions, not of my colleague. i'm a good friend of steve breyer. i like him a lot and of sandra day o'connor and of anyone else whose opinions i criticize. >> if they call one of your opinions pure apple sauce? >> that's fine so long as they can demonstrate that it's true. >> reporter: unafraid, a bombastic character who wrote with a vivid, vivid imagine shup, shannon. >> we will remember him that way. brian, thank you so much. >> reporter: no problem. >> our responsibility to shape up the executive and make sure they're doing what they're supposed to or shaping up the congress, that's not our job. our job is to prevent people from being harmed. if nobody is being harmed, we don't get into the matter. and even if somebody is harmed, unless he comes to us, we don't have any self-starting powers. we're at the mercy of whoever

wants to bring a case or whoever doesn't want to bring a case. >> that was justice scalia on the role of the supreme court. joining us now a former clerk to justice clarence thomas. she is now judicial crisis network's chief counsel and policy director and president of the accountability center and plenty of supreme court experience on her watch as well. thank you both for coming in. i want to start with you since you cleshgd over there was justice scalia behind the scenes the same person we saw in public? >> a wonderful, genuine man and his intellect, you heard the things his colleagues said about him. a warm, friendly person, powering intellect and his influence on american law even as kagan said, transformational. he's changed the way americans look at law, focusing on the text and what the constitutional laws really say and not trying to delve into mind reading sometimes. >> he's very much a character

and the right adored him. the left not so much at least when it came to content. it seems he was able to bridge and have friendships with people he disagreed with. >> absolutely. i certainly disagreed with justice scalia on the outcomes of most -- probably most, certainly many cases. but i certainly agree with him on his focus on the text and history of the constitution and now i think that leaves progressive outcomes, not the conservative ones he pointed to. there were cases he agreed and wrote influential opinions on criminal procedures saying juries, not judges, should adjudicate anything that adds to a crippminal sentence. and he was strong on fourth amendment rights of search and seizure. certainly i think there were areas there was some agreement on the constitution's text in history but some of the tributes coming out show he had very heated rhetoric but certainly with his colleagues and members

of the d.c. and external community he could disagree with people while still maintaining those friendships. that's a nice lesson for people to take away with, this heated rhetoric that can get very personal. he said in that clip right before we came on, i was critiquing their opinions not them as people. >> and we are at a juncture in the court this term where it was already shaping up to be a very newsworthy term. we've got upcoming cases on abortion, executive power, the little sisters of the court, contraceptive mandate from obamacare. there are cases they've already heard as well that we don't have an opinion yet for so how does that work? we know they voted and are drafting and crafting these opinions. what now? >> unless they have an opinion really in its final form that justice scalia had signed on to, the court in cases where he might have been the deciding vote, surely that's not the majority of them. in those cases the court will have to decide do we just

reschedule those cases and rehear them again when we have more members of the court, or do we simply affirm? the court often has a case where someone perhaps is recused from a case and so they may have a 4-4 split which happens with regularity and then they affirm the decision below and kind of wait until another day when the issue comes up and they can have a decisive opinion. we'll have to hear from the court to see what happens with that. >> elizabeth, a lot of big decisions for the chief justice roberts to make now. we talked about how he very much wants the court to operate business as usual. we know when there's three feet on the snow and nothing else is open in d.c., the court's open. the chief is very much about getting business done. i would imagine he's going to try to move things forward. >> yeah, absolutely. this term was already a blockbuster term. we have immigration, contraception, abortion, voting rights, affirmative action and i think if you only have eight justices, the court can continue, can try to do business as usual but it really creates a problem when you can't -- you

have evenly divided justices that can't set a nationwide precedent and issues that are of profound importance to the nation. i think that has to be taken into account when we're talking about the president's constitutional duty to nominate a justice to fill the shoes of justice scalia and the senate duty to advise and consent under article ii of the constitution. >> we're gearing up for how that plays out. now, in the i will see you both over at the court for some of those cases in coming days. thanks for coming in. >> thanks, shannon. canndles outside the suprem court and flowers there i saw as well placed in memory of justice scalia. coming up, we'll hear from susan estrich, a form er clerk, and justices who served alongside justice scalia, this from justice samuel alito. nino was a re, maable person and i feel very honored to have known him and to have had him as a colleague.

to fulfill a 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. >> with just 11 months in office, president obama says he will appoint a new justice, at least nominee to the highest court. that nominee would have to be confirmed by the senate. republicans in power there, is it possible and how could a new justice impact the legacy that justice scalia built? you san estrich was a justice for john paul stevens and a fox news contributor. susan, always good to see you. >> great to see you. i in between worked for the

senate judiciary committee. i'm very familiar with the confirmation process. >> yeah, and let's talk about that. both sides are sort of digging in their heels saying they're not moving. >> right. >> so who wins this battle? >> well, here's what's going to happen. the president will nominate an individual, and this is going to be a very sensitive choice because he has to nominate someone who republicans will find it difficult to vote against. in other words much as i love my ideologue friend on the left, it can't really be one of them. they're too easy to vote against. you need to nominate somebody who moderate republicans, of whom there are still a few, and conservatives of whom there are some, who are very thoughtful, will look at this nominee and say, this is someone who deserves to be on the supreme

court, and we shouldn't leave the court for a year with these potentially forfeits but which, shannon, have no precedential value. >> the senate majority leader, of course republican mitch mcconnell, some argue there may have been some wiggle room in what he said, that the next president should be the one to nominate the successor to justice scalia but he didn't say at absolutely all cost we will block any person. we are hearing that from some gop senators, but it begs the question of just how serious republicans, will they be in lock step or, as you said, will there be some who will peel off and go for someone who isn't a radical left pick? >> right. and one thought always in this situation, i was with some friends last night and the first thing we said is who in the senate could he pick?

because you always -- the easiest way to pick off senators is by picking a senator who they know and one name that is bandied about is cory booker, the african-american senator from new jersey. he was a rhodes scholar, a graduate of yale law school, obviously holds views very different from justice scalia. he's only in his 40s so he's young, and it would force republicans to vote against a qualified african-american. another name i'm hearing, and i'm promoting, frankly, is the chief judge of the d.c. circuit, the epitome, i think, of what an old-fashioned judge should be. that is objective, careful, scholarly. he's pulled that circuit together. the republicans could say he's a democrat, but if you look at his body of writings, you find that he's down the middle, fair and objective. and i have to tell you one last

story, many years ago back in 1980 jimmy carter as a lame duck president had nominated council of the judiciary committee, now a member of the supreme court to the 1st circuit. and then november came and the democrats not only lost the white house, they also lost the senate. and i will never forget this, strom thurmond, the conservative republican in a gesture of conciliation to senator kennedy and out of respect to steve breyer's fairness said let's put the nomination through anyway. so you had a lame duck president getting a lame duck nomination through who, of course, ended up on the supreme court. very sadly that couldn't happen today. we don't play by those rules, and i think it's too bad for all of us. >> well, we will see. both sides have their arguments about the role they are to play. so we'll see. susan, thank you for sharing

your experience and your insight with us on this. good to see you. >> good to see you, too. coming up on this special edition of "america's news headquarters" a personal friend of justice scalia. his body now at a funeral home in el paso, texas. that funeral home saying there are tentative plans to bring him home to northern virginia on tuesday. more as we know it. ♪ you're not gonna watch it! ♪

♪ no, you're not gonna watch it! ♪ ♪ we can't let you download on the goooooo! ♪

♪ you'll just have to miss it! ♪ yeah, you'll just have to miss it! ♪ ♪ we can't let you download... uh, no thanks. i have x1 from xfinity so... don't fall for directv. xfinity lets you download your shows from anywhere. i used to like that song. garland. it is that that has more that anything else preserved our liberties. >> justice scalia talking about the freedoms we enjoy in the country. his death is the biggest blow of

course to his family and friends. dr. robert george profes store is one of those friends, a professor at harvard law school and a fell row at the supreme court. dr. george thank you so much for joining us today. can you share a little bit abyour friendship with justice scalia and the man that he was? >> thank you, sharon. i really am glad for the opportunity the come on and pay tribute to justice scalia. he was a great american for some of the reasons you have been able to articulate already, he was a great believer in american exceptionalism and american principles and freedom. he also had a greet r great heart. he doesn't hold the world record for patience in dealing with people he thought were rent seeker or slouchers or slackers or free riders, but for people

who were physically handicapped, mentally cognitively disabled, people who were down on their luck, experiencing hard times. he had a great heart. you didn't see that in his public life. this was personal. he was a person who was informed by a very deep christian faith, a deep catholic faith and that shaped his attitude. you see it more clearly in his friendships. he had a wonderful gift of friendship. his closest friend on the court was justice ginsburg. and yet they were closest friends, closest friend that he had on the court. his young colleague is someone that justice scalia formed a friendship with straightaway as soon as she came on the court and he would drag her off to hunting trips. he died on a hunting trip as you and you viewers know. it was something he enjoyed.

and he would drag oher off. >> i want to ask you what you think his lasting impact is on the legal profession, especially on conservative legal thoughts. >> yes. that's pretty clear. he's a believer, was a believer in the need to preserve the principles of republican government. and those principles required originalism and constitution interpretation. closely to the original understanding of the contusions provisions and not using i as a political agenda. another important part of his legacy was reviving the doctrine of the separation of powers, the constitutional doctrine of the separation of power. the powers of the president are separate from the powers of the congress and the powers of congress are separate anddy tink from the powers of the court. he was a believer in the power

of the court. he will have a great legacy in the field of constitutional interpretation and on american politics more generally. he'll be remembered really in the company with lincoln as a great defender of the idea of government not only of the people, not only for the people, as all good government is but by the people. not by the judges or the elites, by the people. >> dr. robert george, we thank you so much for you time today. >> my pleasure. thank you, shannon. >> she mentioned justice scalia and ginsburg's friendship. we disagreed every now and then . justice scalia nailed all of the spots and gave me what i needed to spreng then the majority opinion. justice kagan said he'll go down

as one of the most transformational justice of our nation. he was saddened by this loss and it will impact our country for decades to some cash back cards are, shall we say, unnecessarily complex. limiting where you can earn bonus cash back... then those places change every few months... please. it's time you got the quicksilver card from capital one. quicksilver earns you unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase, everywhere. doesn't get much simpler than that. what's in your wallet?

you won't see these folks they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again. >> it is monday february 15th. the battle over justice scalia's seat again. the republicans vowing to block the president's supreme justice

nominee. >> i plan to fulfill my super xreerment justice. >> we are not filling it until after the election. >> this should be the decision for the people. >> we are live from washington. >> eliot spitzer what he is accused of doing inside new york's ritzy plaza hotel to have cops investigating. >> stuck high in the sky in sub zero temps a frantic rescue in a busy ski resort. "fox & friends first" starts right now.

♪ >> good morning. you are watching "fox and friend first. i am lea gabrielle in for ainsley earhardt. >> i am heather childers. thank you for starting your day with us as always. the battle for the late justice anthony scalia's seat is on. >> gop candidates blocking any one president obama nominates. scalia's official cause of death is released. >> we are joined live from washington. >> justice scalia's body was being thereon overnight from a private plane from texas to fairfax, virginia. long before that plane ever took off the politics over his replacement was already in full swing in washington. on saturday night hours after his death was made public he denies mitch mcconnell's request to wait to nominate a replacement until after the election. >> i plan to