two for two. ed: justice david souter required -- retired in 2009. he considered new hampshire his own for a long time. he was born in massachusetts. pretty close to where you grew up. can you name his birthplace? michael: no i cannot. ed: melrose. michael: you' re a melrose boy? ed: born in melrose. so was he, by the way. scalia was the longest service justice in the supreme court until' s recent death. which justice carries that distention now? the longest-serving justice on the supreme court was just a silly until he passed. michael: i don' t know. thomas. ed: anthony kennedy who was nominated by resident reagan. as you are no doubt aware, none of the justices on the court have a degree from boston college. there is one graduate from wooster -- holy credit -- holy cross. michael: from -- let me guess. let' s talk with the mbta. you play a key role in securing money for the green line extension. they say that plan now requires brutal cutbacks. what do you say? michael: i believe the green lake session will be built. it will be built. maybe in a dif

will miss david souter i will miss him a lot. he has sat next to me for the whole time on the court. bench, he out to the is to my left or my right. he has been a rather constant companion. we chat back-and-forth during an argument. he is an intelligent, interesting, good men. an.good m i miss a lot of my former colleagues on the court. that's the process. they go. new people come on. host: during your tenure, there have been seven new arrivals. i'm wondering, when you welcome new justices into the system, when they come to the appeals court, is that acclimation process here? justice scalia: not really. it's the same job as being an appellate job on a lower court. the argument, write the briefs. we have the added job of deciding what to decide. except for that additional part, maybe onesame, with other exception. on the lower courts, if there is a whole line of supreme court authority the fundamentally disagree with, it doesn't make it easy, you just say, i think .t's stupid you don't have to worry about whether it has to be chan

note that the men and women in new hampshire, one of the justices who was in the majority was david souterter that i enjoyed the most was the people of new hampshire began a movement to use eminent domain to condemn david souter's house. [applause] to open up instead the lost liberty hotel. they could ultimately get the city council to do it but it was an inspired me. i'll tell you what, i believe private property as a fundamental right of mankind. i believe the constitution protects it. if we have a president who put principle constitutionalists on the court, kelo will be overturned and we will protect the private property rights of american citizens. [applause] the third key to reignite in the promise of america is we need to restore american leadership around the world. for seven years we've seen america received from leadership. we have abandoned our friends and allies, and we've shown weakness and appeasement to our enemy. instead of a president who boycotts prime minister netanyahu, imagine america's standing unapologetically alongside the nation of israel. [applause] in january 2017

majority were chief william rehnquist, dissenting were the more liberal justices, john paul stevens, david souter, ruth bader ginsburg, and david breyer. in the end, with the measured he said was the recount process, as it was described by the majority and as it was going on in florida at the time come is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental rights of each voter in a state recount. and then it said, the implication was this is one ticket good for one right only. there was plenty of heat on the other side. i will give a snapshot of then junior justice john paul stevens. we will not know the certainty with -- the identity of the winner of this election. the loser is abundantly clear. judith, what do you remember from those 36 days. judith: thank you for having me here. it is great to be in this room with faces that i remember from 15 years ago. they may look a little different. but it is great. just thinking about bush v gore, in some ways, i get some hives thinking about that time. for me, when the decision was handed down, i was in florida. the thing i rem

81-year-old even admitted she's had some occasional help staying away from now retired justice david souterwhen i was about -- so he, he would give me a pinch. >> ginsberg nicknamed notorious rbg and scalia, known as nino have relationships with their familiar list. admiring his pint-sized partner's taste for adventure. >> ruth went up behind a motor boat in a -- >> parasail. >> yeah. >> i mean she's so light would you think she would never come down. >> their political differences and an elephant in the room they aren't afraid to confront or ride as they did in india. >> that was a rather bumpy ride. >> some of her feminist friends gave me a hard time or her a hard time, because she rode behind me on the elephant. big deal. >> i'm not kidding. >> it was the driver explained it was a matter of distribution of weight. >> pamela brown, cnn, washington. >> thanks. ♪ cut it out. >>see you tomorrow. ♪ we're going to take a moment to show you some animals are who are learning to love again. cnn digital caught up with a group called farm sanctuary which rescues thousands of animals from neglect an

as a tack 81-year-old admitted she's had occasional help staying away from now retired justice david souter an acute sense of whn i was about -- so he would give me a pinch. >> reporter: ginsburg nicknamed notorious rbg and scalia, known as nino, had vacations together with their families. scalia known for his taste for adventure. >> and ruth, honest-to-goodness, went up behind a motorboat, in a, one of those -- >> parasail. >> i mean, she's so light, you would think she would never come down. >> reporter: their political differences, an elephant in the reasonable they aren't afraid to confront or right, de, as they n india. >> that was a rather bumpy ride. >> some of her feminist friends gave me a hard time or her a hard time, because she rode behind me on the elephant. [ laughter ] big deal. i'm not kidding. >> it was, the driver explained, it was a matter of distribution of weight. >> reporter: pamela brown, cnn, washington. >> so here's sort of a post-valentine's political story, you could look at it like that. as american voters try to find a candidate to love, we're looking at the pol

were easily confirmed, including would occur, stewart, harry blackmun, john paul stevens, and david souter. wasyone of these justices nominated by a republican president. the simple fact is that the senate always differs to the president, as long as the president puts forward nominees who are qualified and reasonably moderate. and this reduces the risk of politicizing the judiciary and averages out over time. and has servedic the nation well. the desire to obstruct is understandable and the obstruction would set a disastrous precedent for the future. senate republicans should do their job and confirm the nominee. thought,a closing republicans announced they will not consider a nominee put forward by a duly elected president, no matter how qualified and moderate. this is unconscionable. if they carry on with this, it be -- mpatible and would if senate republicans follow courth, the supreme process will be lawless and the law of the jungle. it is a legacy they will surely come to regret. forhank you very much joining us. >> thank you for the opportunity to be here. it is a privilege to be ab

some of these people don't have a big paper trail, but these presidents are -- you can say, well, david souter a surprise. if you look at the last 20, since the eisenhower administration, basically everyone has turned out exactly as advertised. >> i'd have to disagree. i know what jeff is saying. one name that hasn't been mentioned i would have put at the top of the list would be loretta lynch, the attorney general. she is very good. >> she barely got confirmed as attorney general. >> but she's someone who can -- look. if i was -- i would go fake my death in a boating accident rather than take this nomination. the person who goes -- >> it's a buzzsaw they are entering. >> usually you get this nomination and get beat up for several months but then become a supreme court justice. that's not going to happen here. >> professor turley, great to have you on. mr. toobin, jeffrey toobin as well. >>> just ahead, hillary clinton's new line of attack. she's taking aim at bernie sanders for being a one-issue candidate. >>> plus, the story behind this memorable moment. >> we need to get that dog and follow

>> it offends me that people point to the fact -- and they didn't used to be able to when david souter john paul stevens were still on the court. they often voted with the appointees who were democratic appointees so that the 5-4 decisions was not always five republican appointees versus four democratic. now that they're off, it often does turn that way, but that is not because they are voting their politics. not because they're voting for the republicans or voting for the democrats. it's because they have been selected by the republicans or selected by the democrats precisely because of their judicial philosophy. so it should be no surprise that the five appointed by the republicans tend to have a certain judicial philosophy and the four appointed by the democrats tend to have a different one. i mean, that's what elections have been about for a long time. >> when you lose a -- or a case goes against what you would like it to go, what do you do? do you go have a few drinks? chill out? how do you deal with failure like that? because these are big deals. you're a supreme court judge. >>

so the fact that john paul stevens and david souter left at the beginning of barack obama's presidencyy in line with them, and they were, with sonia sotomayor and elena kagan. these justices don't live in an ivory tower when it comes to politics, they know what the score is. >> and you would often go listen to the oral arguments made. unlike clarence thomas, who never asked questions, he was always very deeply involved in all of these issues, questioning people who were coming before him. >> normally right off the bat, wolf. it's almost as though he wanted to pounce, especially if a lawyer was unprepared, and i think jeffrey will agree with that. he changed oral arguments, before that it wasn't as energized and fiery. justice scalia changed that. he would ask questions, fiery questions. i think his absence will certainly be deeply felt on monday, wolf, when oral arguments resume and his chair is draped in black wool. i think he's going to be missed. i talked to carter phillips, who has argued in front of justice scalia more than any other private lawyer. he said when he was prepare bef

there in the foreground is saying goodbye to, now we're starting to see -- there is former justice david souter. but so many of the people in the beginning there were people we don't recognize or were just members of the extended scalia family. and that's what you have to remember. even in these big affairs of state. this is a personal event. this is a death in the family. and the real family of antonin scalia. and to see his beautiful wife, maureen, who followed the casket down the steps, and the sons and the daughters and the grandchildren and the extended family. you say about five dozen strong. this isn't a matter of state or confirmation for them. this is the loss of a man they loved deeply. >> you know, when you think about it, there was nothing that could have tele graphed what happened a week ago today. so they're still in grief and yet they have a role to play, if you think about it, chris, with the nation to keep it together. to hold it together. but i think as you also touched on at the outset, and maybe father paul illustrated this. his dad was a human being. like anyone else. and i

a kind of democratic david souter. to get -- slip somebody by the republicans and hope that maybe it would work. the republicans would know it was doomed. they're going to run out the clock. but the president might not know that. now look at the incentives facing the president. knowing that he does not have to worry about what kind of justice this person will be. that he can treat this nomination as a pure gimme, a chance to rally his base. he should from his point of view nominate loretta lynch because what an image of the republicans refusing to have a vote on a black woman with all of her qualifications. that would be very powerful for a democratic party that is worried about voter turnout and voter mobilization. and the result is we're going to have a much more ugly and contentious fight than we would have if the republicans had been a little more discreet about what they were planning to do. >> tom goldstein, any indicators about who the president might choose if the president is really going for confirmation here

supreme court under justice david souter.

many conservatives still haven't gotten over the fact that your father chose david souter for the supreme court. a lot of them are still smarting over the fact that your brother's choice for chief justice, john roberts, ended up with somebody who helped save obamacare. isn't this a problem for you, that this whole question of a supreme court nominee is front and center right now given conservative skepticism? >> well, the souter choice was unfortunate. he wandered off into the liberal camp for sure. john roberts, i think, can be a defended choice for sure just, you know, the obamacare decision, i was disappointed in, but he's made some really good rulings beyond that. here's the deal. i think the lesson learned is you pick someone with a proven longstanding record, a history that you can point to. when he wasn't considered or she wasn't being considered for a nomination to the supreme court, when he or she was doing their work, and the consistency of their rulings was what mattered. that's the scalia approach. he was very consistent on his interpretation and his rulings. and that's what w

supreme court under justice david souter. he has written both novels and books on law. tonight, there will be at least some discussion about his latest novel, entitled "allegiance." it is about the incarceration of the japanese during the second world war. that is enough for me. let me introduce professor kermit roosevelt to you. [applause] prof. roosevelt iii: thank you for that introduction. thank you all for coming, it is a will pleasure to be here. i'm going to talk about the significance of theodore roosevelt's vision of the constitution and it will connect to some larger ideas about who we are, and we want to be. the constitution is our central organizing document. we had no official religion, the constitution, in fact, says that we can't. but we give the constitution the same kind of veneration that some societies get their sacred texts. it is our loyalty to the constitution, are legions, that makes us american. we are not a nation held together by race, or religion. we really are constituted as a people by those 4400 words. and so, when we talk about the constit

john paul stevens and david souter. justice scalia's spot on the supreme court bench will be draped in black for another month. as for a successor ... ... the white house made a point friday of showing president obama walking with an armful of background materials on potential nominees assembled by his staff. but this was a day for remembering a man who was devoted to the law, to his faith, and to his family. williams, nbc news, washington. scalia's son, a catholic priest, funeral mass. a shooting spree in kalamazoo, michigan killed six and wounded another two. this morning, authorities said -- 45-year-old jason dalton. the first shooting took place around 6 last night at an apartment complex.. where a woman was left with serious injuries. police say dalton killed two people at a car dealership four hours people were fired on at a restaurant not far from the dealership. a 14-year-old girl survived, but her injuries were described as "grave." police have not identified a motive in the shootings. officials in fiji are scr

>> yes, that is a tradition and david souter, who was president bush's appointee was very vague. ted kennedy would ask him, what do you think about roe v. wade? he said i don't recall having a thought on that decision. he was vague. and turned out very disappointing to president bush, unlike clarence thomas. neil: play this out for me. i've been a big believer should hold hearings. president will be around for 11 months. looks childish if you don't. >> yes. neil: i guess republicans are afraid if they hold hearings, moderate is presented to them, they look really, really childish if they reject such a moderate. >> yes. neil: but i think they look more childish if they don't hold hearings. what do you think? >> that is a point. one other thing to consider, that would put some republicans on record opposing nominee. republican senators running in blue states like senator johnson in wisconsin might have difficult time in re-election if they were put on record. neil: really? supreme court justice vote? >> possible. at least other side would use that against them in the campaign. neil

this includes charles whitaker, harriet vlad, john paul stevens, anthony kennedy and david souter. you might notify the way that every one of these eight justices was nominated by the republican president and confirmed by the senate controlled by the democrats. despite all the fuss and fury over the supreme court confirmation process the plain and simple fact is the senate always puts forth nominees for the qualified and more reasonably moderate in their views. this approach has major benefits to the nation. it reduces potential risk of confirmation stalemate and reduces the risk of politicizing the judiciary and more or less averages out over time. in short this is a sensible pragmatic approach that has served the nation well. republicans desire to obstruct the understandable as a matter of partisan self-interest such obstruction would set a disastrous precedent for the future. if the president president nominates a highly qualified moderate nominee for senate republicans should do their jobs as have done throughout history and should confirm that nominee. let me offer a closing t

justice david souter was that way. president george wh bush. president eisenhower. sometimes people get this power. this lifetime position. this immunity from accountability. they change. who knows what could happen. could you name a leftist that was reported to the court. causing fdr to turn in his grave. even over the center for his very liberal position. that is where he was when fdr put them on. >> it took about 10 years to begin that migration. to the point where it was noticeable. >> bottom line to me is this appointment will possibly change the nation. bigger influence on the nation as we know it. >> it appears that way right now. it may not be the case. it may not be successfully named by barack obama. mrs. clinton really wants barack obama to make this choice. would she rather make this choice? there may be elements in his own party that do not want them to succeed. how do you like those apples? stuart: we did not buy the legal business. never thought of it. the left clearly getting worried about bernie sanders. my take on that next. ♪ pet moments are beaut

and having someone with a consistent judicial record is important so as to avoid the case like david souter picked him. i'm sure he had the first two. he probably had persuasive skills. he had high intellectual acumen. but he wandered away from what people thought he was going to be, how he viewed the law, pretty quickly. he did not have a federal court record from which to operate. so i would pick someone that was in all likelihood to be in the judiciary already with a proven record. and i would fight. this is hugely important. and i think, frankly, this is an important subject for this election. would i nominate someone? i probably would. as i said in the debate, i'm an article ii guy. i think the presidency -- we should be respectful of the constitution but whatever powers are afforded the presidency, the president ought to use them. they are there for a purpose. [ applause ] but in this current environment where you have such a divisive kind of environment in washington, it is unlikely that the senate would provide the necessary consent for that nomination. and i think it probably is be

and having someone with a consistent judicial record is important so as to avoid the case like david souterim. i'm sure he had the first two. he probably had persuasive skills. he had high intellectual acumen. but he wandered away from what people thought he was going to be, how he viewed the law, pretty quickly. he did not have a federal court record from which to operate. so i would pick someone that was in all likelihood to be in the judiciary already with a proven record. and i would fight. this is hugely important. and i think, frankly, this is an important subject for this election. would i nominate someone? i probably would. as i said in the debate, i'm an article ii guy. i think the presidency -- we should be respectful of the constitution but whatever powers are afforded the presidency, the president ought to use them. they are there for a purpose. [ applause ] but in this current environment where you have such a divisive kind of environment in washington, it is unlikely that the senate would provide the necessary consent for that nomination. and i think it probably is better to h