charlie: a formidable justice to appear before. >> a good justice.mart questions, tough questions, but always delivered with a sense of humor. he enjoyed intellectual jousting. i think he liked to have somebody who disagreed with him, to argue with. he was engaged in the process. charlie: and in the combat of ideas. he believed strongly in ideas. how would you prepare a case before the supreme court, knowing he would be one of the interrogators? guest: you wanted to be prepared to answer his questions, like you do with all of the justices. at least for most of the court cases i had in front of him, the halliburton case defending securities class actions, the marriage equality cases, those were cases in which you knew your chances of winning him over were not great. and so what was most important is that you did not let him either side track you and get you off message or get you to concede something that might give trouble to justices or not persuade somebody in the middle. so you had to protect yourself so you did not go down too far of an intellect

justice scalia -- justice blackman chronicled everything but justice scalia isn't like that. >> i want to return to his relationship with justice ginsburg. some say it would be harder to fine two justice different. he is italian and robust. justice ginsburg is soft spoken and liberal. tell us about their friendship, though. >> very long-standing friendship. they first met in the '70s. she heard him give a speech but it was an area of administrative law close to scalia's heart and he gave a speech only a law professor could love. but she was a law professor at the time. she disagreed with everything he said but was taken by his style. he is so amusing and as she told the senators after her conformation hearing what is when you and justice scalia and she said he can always make me laugh. she sees him in the late '70s and i think she remembers hearing him give this speech, disagrees on the substance of the speech but was taken by him. and they both end up being appointees to the federal court of appeals in washington. they are both former law professors and exchange writings and are askin

sotomayor and justice kagan who was a fairly good friend to justice antonin scalia. i want to circle back to something peter alluded to. when you think back to the number of occasions that the president has gone his way alone on executive actions, it does beg the question, might he be willing to go it alone again in this circumstance? there is a name i want to throw your way quickly, john. it is a moderate, the white house will tell you. he even clerked for a republican. we'll see who makes its way to the senate. >> the is that the in recess until the 22nd of february. if the president were to get out in the next week or so, and name a replacement for justice scalia, it's a recess he has the power to do it without any confirmation from the senate. correct? >> that's absolutely right. therein lies the rub. if he decides to do this, he could really end around them. obviously being here in washington, we've talked about this on a number of occasions, that's precisely the sort of thing republicans don't want to see happen here. but given the resistance we're already seei

justice scalia. my guess is that you may see justice samuel alito move into that role. he's also very opinionated and also very strong from the bench during arguments. and maybe he takes up more of that manhattan until the meantime. >> you're right about that. there's very little we hear publicly about juls thomas. a little more about justice alito. but i suspect there's going to be a huge battle based on what the president said this evening about the appointments of the next supreme court justice. shannon bream, thank you for joining us tonight. and joining me now, former gop presidential candidate and best selling author and governor mike huckabee. good evening, governor. >> hello, judge. great to be with you. >> you spent time with justice scalia a few years ago hunting with him and hosting him at the governor's mansion. what was it like with him? >> well, i was a little intimidated when i first realized he accepted an invitation that i gave him to go duck hunting. and arkansas is a duck hunting m

justice scalia is the longest-serving justice on today's supreme court.ointed by reagan in 1986, he is called an originalist, meaning he believes the constitution ought to be interpreted more or less as the founding fathers meant for it to be interpreted. you want change, he says, change the legislature, change the law. his job is to interpret the law. justice ginsburg was appointed to the supreme court by president bill clinton in 1993. her view is that the constitution is what has been called a living document, meaning it changes as society changes, one linked together. to link to the other. tradition and precedent matter, but they do not determine her legal judgment. both justices, despite this difference between them, have devoted their lives to the law, teaching, democracy, and freedom. we are going to discuss freedom of the press, but let's start with what the concept of freedom means. its origin, its meaning, at the time of the american revolution, and its meaning in today's america. i have always been fascinated by the fact that the first commandm

justice kennedy and justice breyer will also enter their 80s and justice ginsberg is already there.verybody was speculating, could be three, four seats that could open up during the first term of the next president. that's enormously important to the future of the country, certainly to the future of the law, the direction of the law. and so the next -- it's a choice people make about in their election is very much involved not only the economy, not only jobs, not only american security, but who is going to choose the future direction of the highest court in the land. >> absolutely is. and this is already become political. obviously the breaking news is the very sad death of a 79 yaermd supreme court justice antonin scalia who served on the high court for 30 years after his nomination by then president reagan in 1986. of course, with his passing, everyone will mourn, they are mourning, i just read the statement from the chief justice. but it has become political, david gergen, as we look at live pictures of the supreme court as night falls on our nation's capital. the ud adviser for

justice scalia: come out in the right way that justices should appeal. to decide on what cases the court should agree to hear. essentially two functions. the latter is prior. first of all, decide what to put on her docket. and what is on her docket, try to get right. host: what role do you see the supreme court playing in society today? hasn't changed over your tenure? justice scalia: i think the same role it has always played. i don't think it has changed. its proper role is, in a democracy, to give a fair and honest interpretation to the aning of dispositions that people have adopted. either in congress are statutes, or people when they ratify the constitution. as simple as that. no more, no less. i don't think we are leader of social causes. we are not pushing this society ahead. we are supposed to be interpreting the laws that the people have made. host: what do you like best about the job? justice scalia: i like figuring out the answers to legal questions. believe it or not. not everybody does. you have to have a very warped mind to want to spend yo

justice ginsberg: -- justice scalia: yes absolutely she would have.tice ginsberg: this is a case we are going to hear next week. a state has passed a law that says -- thou shalt not make false statements in a political candidate,ainst any any ballot initiative, no false statements in elections. the question that the court will prohibiting statute false statements in political campaigns. is that constitutional? host: what will we expect on that? justice ginsberg: a decision i've -- justice scalia: a decision by the end of june. the man whoberg: lied about having the medal of honor and something valor. justice scalia: stolen valor act. that before we get into and the subject of digital democracy that i want to spend a few moments on. i want to take a minute now to remind our internet viewers and listeners that this is the kalb report and r.i.m marvin cal. am marvin calb. out bys a new report reporters without borders. if are found in roshan of press freedom in 2013 dropping 14 points to number 46 in global rankings. are a little nervous these days and t

when justice rehnquist died, chief justice, of course, president bush did attend that fub rely, but it's not always done. president eisenhower was in office when two justices died. he went to the funeral of one, not the other. this is an individual decision that the white house can make and the white house said they believe the way to pay their respects is to have the president attend the viewing. there is political pushback, some critical of the president's choice not dog to the funeral tomorrow. one is ted cruz, of course running for president. he has criticized the president for not going. he was planning to go himself but now changed his plans. he will leave the campaign trail to attended the funeral. he does clearly have a relationship with justice scalia and the supreme court. >> there has been commentary criticizing how quickly mitch mcconnell came out discussing who would replace justice scalia hours after he was found dead on a the accident ranch. today is the day for the supreme court family to honor him, but is your sense there in washington that the politics continue or that

case to the other justices. don't you think that's in part what is going on, paul? >> yeah, i would agree. pretty much everyone has followed suit. justice ginsburg has become equally adept at it. >> paul, before i let you go and thank you -- go ahead. >> no. go ahead. >> i was just saying, before i let you go, i was very interested in how he changed you as an attorney, how he changed your legal mind, how he shaped you. >> well, you know, first of all, i have to thank him every day for the opportunity he gave me to work for him and to work at the court, which certainly changed my career. but, you know, he also taught me -- two other things. one, he taught me how to care intensely about what the right answer was and to think logically through a problem. kind of unclouded by either the politics or the -- some of the context and really get to the nub of the issue. he also taught the -- a great deal about how to write. he once -- when he hired me he looked at me and said, do not try to imitate me. we gave him the raw

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

he was the same age as justice kennedy. and younger than ruth bader ginsburg who he had a famous friendship with of kinship and almost, despite their well known differences on certain high profile cases. we begin appropriately in our 8:00 p.m. our with pete williams who has been covering this seismic event, given that justice scalia was seen in all public measures as healthy of and of sharp and keen mind. i go right to you with the latest. >> the latest is that the court is now in the process of arranging for the memorial service in consultation with his family. we may hear statements from the other justices. we won't hear much from the supreme court probably for another couple of days. this comes at a time when the supreme court is in this period of dead in the winter where the court is not in session very much. they adjourned until late january. this is the normal period when they are off doing teaching and things like justice scalia was doing down in texas on their own time, getting ready for the big push to get to the e

justice stephen briar will be 78. justice anthony kennedy will be 83. because so many of the justices are of advanced age and because the older justices are a mixed ideological make up, we have known the next election would be huge. nobody knew they would come into such stark relief this fast and in this sad way. in terms of what happens next, there has never been a situation exactly like this. if you look at the history of the court, on average, once a president nominated somebody to be a justice, on avenuage, it takes 25 days to confirm the nominee, to reject that nominee or for that person to with draw his or her nomination. on average, it's 25 days. the longest it's ever taken is 125 days. president obama has 342 days left in office. even if the senate decided to take as long as it ever has taken to confirm or reject his nominee, president obama would still have time to put forward not one but two nominees with the remaining time he's got in office plus some change. if the senate acted on president obama's nominee as quickly as it has done so on ave

justice sotamayor and justice kagen. but it is fair to say that -- i wouldn't say it was a squeaker but both of them got significantly fewer votes, particularly from the opposition party than justices usually get. most supreme court appointments have been unanimous or near unanimous in confirmation over the years. there have been a few battles over very particular nominees such as judge bork or clarence thomas. but in recent years there's been a very clear partisan intent to the votes. sotamayor and kagen, i don't think either got more than 60 votes and only a handful of republican votes, similar to justice alito who got barely any democratic votes when he was confirmed. i think in 2006. so i think we'll see a lot of republican opposition. there may be an interesting calculus particularly for republican senators, from democratic leaning states up for reelection whether that was a wise vote for them or not. so we will have to say how it plays out. of all the republican members of the senate may not be in alignment when it

justice ginsberg, justice kennedy and breyer, could be there for years, for months. but that is really true for all of us. but of course it does bring attention to the age of the court, the advanced age of some of the justices. i think back to the late 1960s, early 1970s when there was sort of a big burst of vacancies on the court. first the resignations of chief justice warren and fordice and shortly into president nixon's turn followed by the death of justice black and harden. that's certainly not something we will or won't know what happened. but it is a court that will be undergoing some changes in the years if not months ahead. host: did it surprise you in the statement by the president in the statements by congressional leaders and presidential candidates, of course paying tribute to justice scalia but then almost immediately talking about the battle to replace him? guest: i was surprised at that. normally there is at least a 24-hour period where the focus is on a great figure who has passed. it seems a bit crass to immediately begin discussing his successor. a

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, t

he was arguing before the justices day in and day out. your thoughts on this news today. >> that's a horribly sad loss for the country. justice scalia was a changer in the supreme court in our lifetimes. nobody had a more profound impacted on everything, the way the court does its business. before he got on there he would listen to oral arguments and advocates could get the whole paragraphs and have very few questions asked of them and now it's a whole different affair. he was just one of the most brilliant thinkers to have been on the court. i certainly disagreed with him a number of times, but his opinions were beautifully written, brilliant,en and i jus can't under score enough how much the court has lost a first-class intellect and gentleman in every sense of the word today. >> when you were arguing before the court what's the hardest question he asked you? >> he's asked me so many hard questions i can't honestly remember one, but basically as you're preparing for an argument you think of the five questions that you really don't want

sotomayor and justice kagan. and i was on the hill and watching that process that we may be going through again, where a name is offered. we begin a very vigorous process of watching the senate go through a very, very detailed background check and questionnaire. even for those who might have been confirmed by the senate for some other position, even on the federal bench, to go through the supreme court nominating process is much more rigorous, much more time consuming. and it is something that even at a best case typically takes a few months because of all of the process of the behind the scenes details that are involved in that. and then, of course, typically the nominee would spend time on the hill talking to senators personally. first those members of the judiciary committee who have the initial responsibility to decide if the nominations should go forward. then all 100 senators. so president obama, through justice sotomayor and justice kagan, has been able to shape the court already. and i think there was muc

lynch: there are many striking parallels between justice brandeis and justice ginsburg. justice ginsburg has dedicated her career as a litigator, judge, and justice of the supreme court to advancing equality under the law. like brandeis, ginsburg has used fact-based jurisprudence, really late, to advance social change. and both of use their opinions and dissents to educate the public about the social conditions that affect people's lives. but there are also key differences. when she enrolled at harvard law school, ruth bader ginsburg was asked to justify taking a seat that could have been held by a man. she was one of only nine women in a class of over 500. after transferring to columbia law school, she graduated the top of her class. but yet, she was turned down for every job for which she applied. but as justice ginsburg is shown countless times, from becoming the first tenured woman on the faculty at columbia law school, to being recognized as a powerful voice on the court for equality, she is a force of nature. underestimate her at your peril. as attorney and justice

he said, justice scalia was one of his favorite justices. he said, because he took the constitution, the responsibility of judges to interpret it correctly with the utmost seriousness, now it's up to all of to us fight for the principles justice scalias spoused and carry forth his legacy. brr ben carson also had an interesting statement about this, ari, because he added to what we've heard from some of the candidates so far which is a call to essentially push the replacement for justice scalia on the supreme court until after the election. carson saying it is imperative that the senate not allow president obama to diminish his legacy by allowing an individual to subvert the will of the people. from ben carson. >> that's where it is sometimes a big open question in politics and news. who runs this party? does senator mcconnell run this party? does the judiciary chairman grassley run this party on these issues? and the answer clearly, not to give any spoilers away on what's going on in the news, on the politics side, the less perhaps sad side

but justice ginsberg, justice briar and justice thomas.e council's office and also from harvard law with many colleagues and classmates. >> those cars that are lined up to the left will be the justices. the family, it appears, because he had such a large and fantastic family, came in largely by bus. but the supreme court has these set of cars, not with flashing lights on it, but black desseda and suburbans, can carry them to their hometowns. they will be carrying the justices on to the memorial that you described at the hotel. after the hearse, i think it will go the hearse, the family and then the court will follow. >> andrea mitchell, in terms of the district of columbia, this is one of the highest points in all of washington. certainly at the top of the beautiful dome. but if you travel into and out of washington by air, the shrine presents itself very clearly. >> it's one of the most beautiful architectural monuments. one of the things you see on the approach. and a very special on a very special campus. >> one of the largest catholic

thank you, justice scalia. ms. comstock: i thank the gentleman for his remarks and i now yield to my friend the gentlelady from missouri, ms. agner. ms. wagner: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my dear friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from virginia, barbara comestock, for organizing this special order and yielding me this time. mr. speaker, father paul scalia said in his beautiful eulogy of his father, justice antonin scalia, on saturday, we give thanks that jesus brought him to new life and baptism, nourished him with the eucharist and healed him in the confessional. god bless dad -- god blessed dad with a deep catholic faith, the conviction that christ's presence and power continue in the world today through his body, the church. mr. speaker, last week, our country lost one of its most outspoken and dedicated defenders of faith and liberty. for nearly 30 years, supreme court justice antonin scalia stood as a monument to a faith-based viewpoint on the constitution that will be sorely missed. there is n

you look at two of my colleagues, justice scalia and justice ginsburg. think they were confirmed with maybe two or three dissenting votes. now, you look at more recent colleagues, all extremely well-qualified for the court, and the votes were strictly on three.ines for the last that does not make any sense. that's just to me that the process is being used for something other than ensuring qualifications. it is a process now where the members of the committee frequently asked questions they know would be inappropriate for us to answer. thankfully, we don't answer those questions. this is a forum where, i think they have a different agenda. when they participate in the hearings, it is not something that is easy for us to change. it doesn't seem to me to be very productive these days, and there is a problem with the way it comes out. the sort of relates to my first answer, when you have a sharply political, divisive hearing process, it increases the danger that whoever comes out of it will be viewed in those terms. it is natural for some member of the publi

chief justice roberts: it might come as a surprise to many people, but the chief justice, by virtue of his office, is also , "chancellor of the smithsonian." that's an even better title than chief justice. [laughter] there areice roberts: some historical reasons why that is so. we have ae reason is and the federal appropriations, and they serve, for a limited time, and they wanted somebody there who had continuity and could tell the .ew regents we're certainly not having any the smithsonian is the largest complex in the and that they are turning it over to me as kind of a surprise. [laughter] chief justice roberts: i do preside at the meetings, but i try to stay out of the purely policy areas and that the people who know what they are talking about discuss it. it takes more work than i had expected, but it is a nice distraction from the legal work. .> about collegiality. -- i wanted to ask you about collegiality. you would think that the members of the court are constantly at one another's throat. yet, we have been fortunate enough to have six justices from , in recent years here, and

justices scalia, welcome.the book is very much a template for the way that you conducted your legal life. you are a man that believes, fundamentally, that the law in america should be based rigidly on the letter of the constitution. that's what you believe, isn't it? fundamentally. >> yes, give or take a little. rigidly i would not say, but it should be based on the text of the constitution reasonably interpreted. >> people that criticize you for this say, a lot of the constitution was phrased in a deliberately vague way. they realize, when they framed it, that in generations to come things may change, which may put a different impression on a particular piece of text. >> sure. >> why are you not prepared to accept that that means you can move with the times, to evolve it? >> but i do accept that, with respect to those vague terms in the constitution such as "equal protection of the laws," "due process of law," "cruel and unusual punishments." i fully accept that those things have to apply to new phenomena tha

shannon, what kind of justice was antonin scalia? >> reporter: no one had to wonder where they stood with him, whether from the bench or in person. he spoke his mine and never more so than when he was on the losing end of an important case. he was known for fiery dissent filled with flowery language and unmistakable jabs. regarding same sex marriage, he wrote, quote, the world does not logic or inspiration in poetry or in pop philosophy. it demands them in the law. the stuff contained in today's opinion has to diminish this court's reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis. in 2013, he said he believed in heaven, hell, god and the devil. when the reporter pushed back he said this, quote, you travel in circles that are so/so removed from mainstream america that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the devil. mankind has believed in the devil for all of history. many more intelligent people than you or me believed in the deal of. in 2009, he said you can be very sophisticated and believe inned go. arthel. >> shannon, n

to replace justice scalia.don't know when that nomination may come. but again president obama does intend to make that nomination. what are your thoughts? >> i had not heard that, but i think it's too late to nominate someone now. few nominees that are already out there for the circuit are benches will probably get through now. the situation is so intense with the divided court, i think the proper thing to do is allow the presidential election to go forward and the next president nominate the next member of the court, which could tilt the court one way or the other. >> senator, let me ask you this, there's also the issue of the constitutional duty of a p president and a senate to vote on a nominee. you've got 11 months before the next president takes over, then you've got however many months it would take to put whoever they confirm up for a vote. hillary clinton said just in her statement tonight, the republicans and the snenate and our campaign trail who are calling for justice scalia's ska seat to remain vac

justices. "i am saddened to report that he was an extraordinary strij, admired and treasured. his passing is a great loss to the court and the country he so loyally served. we extend our deepest condolences to his family." i want to bring in terry moran, who covers the supreme court here at abc news. terry, talk to me about the legacy tonight on justice scalia. >> reporter: tom, it's a towering legacy. not just on the supreme court, but right through all of american law, really, for three decades and more. antonin scalia led the charge for conservatives in american law. led the effort to roll back what you might call the heroic era of liberal activism on the court. the era of civil rights jurisprudence that broke down jim crow and did so much else. scalia thought justices and judges had gone out of control in that era, and he was the intellectual leader, and the leader by sheer force of a very way way. the constitution, scalia says, means what it meant to the people who wrote it and ratified it

this is a time to on or justice -- to remember justice scalia's legacy. i plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor. fore will be plenty of time me to fulfill that responsibility and to give that person a timely vote and a fair hearing. i take this seriously. they are bigger than anyone -- anyone party. they are about our democracy. they are about the institution which justice scalia dedicated his professional life in making sure it continues to function as the beacon of justice that our founders envisioned. but it this moment, we most of all want to think about his family. michelle and i join the nation in sending our deepest gratitude to justice scalia's family, a beautiful symbol of a life well lived. we thank you for sharing justice scalia with our country. god bless them all, and god bless the united states of america. >> here on c-span this morning, "washington journal" is next. of10:00, johnny isakson georgia. and later the fbi director, and his cia director john brennan and admiral michael rogers testified at a sen

alito replaced justice o'connor, all nine n justices were former court of appeals justice. of the ni justices had been a judge before. it used to be a more professionally diverse group. now there is not much diversity on the supreme court when it comes to professional background, law school, and whatnot. >> some of them may have gone to harvard but others went to yale. that's about the diversity of the u.s. supreme court. >>> coming up, a closer look at justice scalia's decades of service, the friendships he's made. much more of our special coverage after this. t...to help sense danger before7 was engiyou do. . because when you live to innovate, you innovate to live. the all-new audi q7. a higher form of intelligence has arrived. because you can't beat zero heartburn! i take prilosec otc each morning for my frequent heartburn ahhh the sweet taste of victory! prilosec otc. one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn. theand the kids always eat sky their vegetables.e. because the salad there is always served with the original hidden valley ranch. take care of whatealthy m

>> justice breyer. he and breyer went back and forth so much in arguments occasionally they'd say jump in anytime you like. >> rose: that's good. how many times would he ask questions when you were arguing? would he have a few questions and then come back. >> he'd jump in repeatedly. other justices were being very active too. you often -- it is often the case the questions are not so much directed at eliciting answers as much as making a point. >> people keep statistics on this stuff and justice scalia asked more questions than anyone else and got more laughs than anyone else and the temperature of the courtroom is going to be a less fun place without him. >> rose: i want you to see some things he said to me in the conversations we did. he said if he thought the language he'd used was a bit too much he would tone it down in terms of a criticism or go into the heart of a fellow jurist. >> man, i'd hate to see the original. that would be interesting to read. particularly i think his rhetoric got more and

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, t

these justices, justice kagan, justice ginsburg, they were good friends with justice scalia, and it'sbute not to the lawyers but to the people. >> maybe the rest of the folks in the city of washington would take a lesson from those folks inside. thank you for joining us. and for you reflections on the justice. >> my pleasure. all the best. >> that should be applied all across the country. >>> and we're going to continue on this topic, the dooet of supreme court justice antonin scalia. it has people questioning the court's next move. lots of controversial topics on the docket this term. what could happen now that the court is down a conservative vote. >>> see the fireworks. man oh man, the heated words in the debate in south carolina. they were pummelling each other. talk about world wrestling? >> that was mma. >> that's what was going on last night. we will look into the debate, describe what it will mean and what will the impact be on that man one week basically minus one day from today. >> but the iraq war was a disaster. it was a mistake. we spent $2 trillion dollars, thousands of

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 have left, become an appellate judge, they find it quite unsatisfying when they get there. you have to have a rather work mind to wantrped to spend your life they bring 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 ,isembodied, 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 on interesting part of the job -- on interesting part of the job is an rolling court cases. when i

anyone within the sound of my voice has heard this, justice delayed is justice denied. that is a fact. it is used throughout the country when we talk about the importance of making these decisions when our constituents go to jury duty, what are they told? tenney make this decision? any come to this decision? because everyone deserves to have an answer. so in conclusion, take a look at this, this is an abomination. this is the days we have seen in the last 35 years that it took to confirm 14 of our justices were confirmed in election years since the beginning of this country and this takes us back to the civil war days. imagine when we really had a country divided and this is not what we need to do right now. with all of these decisions that are coming up, regardless of your stand on them. people deserve justice and so i will conclude with the do your job chart. i have to tell you that is what it comes down to. i urge the people of this great country to call the republicans, every one of them with three words, do your job if the person answers say i don't know what you m

democrat, hi, elaine. >> caller: hi, i feel justice scalia was the republican justice. and he interpreted the law based on his opinion of he interpreted the constitution based on his opinion. and, you know, he wasn't a justice for everybody. and, you know, i wish all justices could be independent thinking, but, you know, the justices interpret the law based on their way of thinking. and he was a very prejudice right-wing justice. and it's, you know, president obama's right to appoint a justice, you know, that's going to be fair to the constitution and to all people. and justice scalia was not that type of justice. host: alexis in wilmington, north carolina. caller: good morning. i called in before, actually. when i heard, i was in rehab place where i couldn't get c-span. so thank you, c-span. i'm out in the light, again. it's nice to know. i probably was 24 hours late in hearing that associate justice scalia has passed. and first thing that came to my mind was, happy birthday to ya. okay. sorry. i don't want to get off the pace. it's really, really an important time tha

and jeb bush and cruz pushed justice john roberts and now we have justice john roberts. what happened is, he -- twice, could have ended obamacare and he didn't do it. so cruz shouldn't be talking. because that was among the worst appointments i have ever seen. we have obamacare because of jeb bush, ted cruz, george bush. >> let me ask you a final question. the same question i asked ted cruz. they really seemed to be piling on you last night. you heard the boos from the crowd as well. you think this is all happening because the other republicans have figured out if you win south carolina you may not be stopped? >> the reason it happens is because i'm self-funding. putting up my own money. i built a tremendous business. i don't need anybody's money. i'm going to do what is right for the people of the country. in that room were many people that i know very well. they're all lobbyists and special interests. they gave a lot of money to jeb bush. this guy's wasted $140 million. running failed campaign. he spent $43 million in new hampshire and came in fourth or fifth. i spent

lamb: one of prior justices justice scalia.a writer did what i just described thed case consisted of this section and it had to be reconciled with this other section he would lose his readership in no time. surprisedt at all that the newspapers tend to evaluate a case simply on the basis of whether the results seems like a good result. that is all the readers interested in. lamb: we prepared for this interview. your people at the publishing house told us they're all kinds of rules of things we couldn't ask you. justice scalia: you can ask anything you want. i just want answered and wanted. brian lamb: i know you don't want to talk about bush versus gore again. let me show you a clip from an interview with piers morgan. you answered everything were not supposed to ask you. piers morgan: what has been the most contentious case? justice scalia: the one that created the most waves of disagreement was bush versus gore. up all the time. my usual response is get over it. lamb: u.n. on to explain further. justice scalia: past cases, yo

i spent more time with justice scalia than all of the other justices combined. and the statement has said that the justice gave himself to the public be and to members of congress the access that it we give us regularly was amazing. he couldn't answer our questions sometimes the way we would like. he often told us that our views of what we would like to it have were inconsistent with the constitution, that was part of his greatness. without him on the court 4- 4 decisions will be no decision and with someone on the court different and stand point of the respect for the constitution, decisions of course, will go the opposite. and so whether this happens or not during the last year of president the president, the court has been changed. >> congressman issa, we'll talk about the process and what is happening going forward and a lot about the vacancy. again it is about the life and legacy of the man and you had had a lot of interactions with him. he had the most scathing dins cents. but he was an a fabable character on and off of the court. your reflections on deali

justice scalia would have turned 80. justice kennedy will turn 80. the next president, democrat or republican, is going to have an opportunity to make several appointments to the supreme court, according appointments across the conventional party line. this is going to transform the election. the interesting question is what happens until then. is president obama going to be able to find some kind of moderate nominee who the senate reps may accept or are we going to see an eight justice court for the rest of his term which is going to have an enormous impact on the high-profile cases, some already argued and some that will be argued next month and then in april. >> i'd like your take on a name that our jeffrey toobin, our supreme court expert threw out there, and that is judge sha reena vosen. this is a justice on the d.c. circuit court that was appointed by president obama. he was approved unanimously. and jeffrey toobin said look out for that name as a possible nominee. your take? >> well i think there's no questioning that he is qualified, would b

or fewer justices. this was the result of democratic opposition to judge bork and the eventual confirmation of anthony kennedy coupled with dozens of recuses by justice kennedy and other judges in that term. in 1945 the court functioned as an eight member body while justice robert jackson was serving as a prosecutor in nuremberg acting on a full-term caseload without him. tellingly, when justice jackson expressed concern about missing some cases and actually considered returning early for that reason, justice felix frankfurter wrote to encourage justice jackson to stay on as a prosecutor stating that his absence was not -- quote -- "sacrificing a single interest of importance." close quote. now compared to today, the court had a larger workload and issued many more opinions during that term in which justice jackson was absent. this suggests that a vacancy of similar duration as jackson's full-term sabbatical would be even less damaging to the court's functioning than the absence of justice jackson, an a

john roberts chief justice, likes to bring the justices together. he doesn't like a divide court. he has helped to craft decisions to allow the court to come to a ruling. whether he is able to do that remains to be seen. there is a rule in the senate, an irn formal rule, the thurman rule, who didn't want to vote on a nominee in the last month of his presidency. no president in the last six months should be able to appoint a judge that has a lifetime appointment. it is a very informal rule. both sides ignore it when they want to. otherwise we're fatherer out than the six-month point. but there will be talk as to he should move forward >>> this could possibly be one of the first times in many, many years where we have had a president that could choose someone of the opposite ideology on where he or she stands. what do you think? >> it would mean that he would lose a lot of the democrats that would support him. he plans to have aaron aggressive last year in office. if he goes to someone who is - let's say he takes the senator, one of the people that republicans to be palatable. if th

justice scalia: justice scalia: what do i like best?ike 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 they bring 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. when i first arrived, if i am correct it was somet

justices. walk us through, how will that work and the remainder of this term? >> and, right, it's happened before. justices get sick. they miss arguments. so -- or they take themselves off a case, because they have a conflict, a term you're familiar, they recuse themselves. we're certainly not unfamiliar with what it's like to hear a case with just eight justices. but it's unusual and there have been times in the court's history where a death leads to this, where you have only eight justices and the court's work goes on, but if a case is really close, and a lot of these cases are decided by 5-4 votes, and the conservative side might have the prevailing number, if justice scalia were there, and then he's gone, that leaves the possibility of a 4-4 tie. in the event of a 4-4 tie, it's as though the case never happened. >> right. >> the lower court decision remains standing. there's no value of precedent to what the supreme court does. what they say is the lower court's ruling is affirmed by an equ

ahead, justice scalia opens up to piers about his relationship with those eight other justices. at ally bank, no branches equals great rates. it's a fact. kind of like bill splitting equals nitpicking. but i only had a salad. it was a buffalo chicken salad. salad. i thione second it's there.day. then, woosh, it's gone. i swear i saw it swallow seven people. seven. i just wish one of those people could have been mrs. johnson. [dog bark] trust me, we're dealing with a higher intelligence here. ♪ the all-new audi q7 is here. ♪ but i've managed.e crohn's disease is tough, except that managing my symptoms was all i was doing. and when i finally told my doctor, he said humira is for adults like me who have tried other medications but still experience the symptoms of moderate to severe crohn's disease. and that in clinical studies, the majority of patients on humira saw significant symptom relief. and many achieved remission. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as