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

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

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

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

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. he is no longer there. anthony kennedy, confirmed in 1987 when be next. then clarence thomas and then, you know, all of the rest of the justices, and it is really the physical manifestation of the changing of the guard. and that's what we'll see. >> ruth bader ginsburg, supposedly justice scalia's best bud, there, too? >> notwithstanding, profound disagreements about the law. she will be there. she is -- everybody moves up a step in seniority, and, you know, she is now right in the middle of the court in terms of seniority. and it's -- they were very close. they spent new year's eve together. their families. justice ginsburg's late husband marty ginsburg was a famous gourmet chef. antonin scalia a famous gourmet eater. so it was a very good combination. they spent new year evil together. both justice ginsburg and justice scalia were big opera fans. something that they had in common. and they served together for decades. not just on this court but on the d.c. circuit court of appeals.

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

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 ginsburg? justice ginsburg: i would not call it narrow, but there are no absolute rights, even though you -- if you read the first amendment it sounds that way. it says, shall pass no law. -- congress shall pass no law. of course, there are laws that congress can pass. so the idea of an absolute right , i do not know any right that does not have limitations. marvin kalb: even at that time in the minds of the founders? justice ginsburg: i think so. marvin kalb: explain why in the first amendment after listing the phrase, freedom of speech the founding fathers on the , necessary or wanted to add four crucially important words "or of the press." freedom of the press is what they were talking about. why did they add that phrase? why was it necessary, justice scalia? justice scalia: i think it is a , natural addition. it means the freedom to speak and to write. it was not referring to the institutional press, the guy that runs around with a fedora hat with a sticker that says "press," i am not sure

justice scalia had been texas. when he didn't come down to room was checked and his body was discovered. tonight, chief justice john roberts called scalia, "an extraordinary individual and jurist, admired and trshed by his colleagues." let's bring in our chief legal correspondent jan crawford. jan, no exanlerations to say the ground is shaking in washington. >> reporter: oh, no exaggeration in washington and throughout the country. this is a complete shock. i spoke with people who had lunch with justice scalia just a few days ago when he was up in new york, and they had he was absolutely fine. he was joking. he was jovial. no indication at all that anything was wrong. so this comes as a complete shock. obviously, he's 79 years old, was going to be turning 80. but, you know, he was so full of life. i mean, even on the bench, in his writings. he was just someone that seized life, and you could see it. so this, again, coming as a complete shock. and,sh, the landscape here in washington, the supreme court now in the ba

puts a new justice on that supreme court. so the entire balance of this supreme court now is at stake. justice scalia's passing could change the balance of the court. imagine the impact that could have on everyday american life. >> so what do we know, then, about the process of replacing him? how will that unfold? it is going to be remarkably complex and, of course, it unfolds during a presidential campaign. >> you hate to throw around the word "unprecedented" because it gets overuse bud this is literally unprecedented in modern history to have a justice whose vote is so crucial to the leaving the supreme court during an election year. it just hasn't happened in modern history. the president now is going to immediately, i would assume, get out his list and make a nomination. of course, there has to be background checks so that will take a matter of weeks. now the senate controlled by republicans and the judiciary committee is going to say we're not going to confirm your nominee because this is just too important. so you're go

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

for justice scalia. do you think that should happen or should this president be allowed to nominate and confirm his nominee? >> i think that's going to be one heck of a tug of war. you can have all the republicans saying to wait and the democrats to say to go forward. i don't know how that sorts out but i think it will be the tug of war of incredible importance. because you're going to talk about tipping the balance with regard to the courts. and it's going to be a momentous fight. >> what do you think the senators should do? >> caller: i happen to be on the conservative side, so i would say it makes since for the not outgoing president to make the call. >> reporter: now senator leahy says this could set up a huge battle between the white house and the senate. >> it's going to be a battle with obvious folks on both sides of the equation. my sense is it will be tough to come up with the works for next year. but i'm on the house side so we'll see. >> reporter: in terms of gumming up the works, would that p

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

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

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

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

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

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

associate justice. and that's the way they sit on the supreme court, sort of going back and forth in seniority. that is going to remain there for a month. the justices will come back to the bench on monday. that's when their midwinter break ends and they're now in head-long rush to finish this term by the end of june. so it's symbolically shows what a gap there will be on the court. but it also reflects the deeper fact that now this court has to get along with eight justices. this has happened throughout history. the last time this went on for a long time was back during the reagan administration when there's a gap of something like 237 days when without a full court. so this is not unprecedented. but it is disorienting. and we're going to have to see what it will do for the cases that would have been closely decided by 5-4 votes with him in the majority. now the court has a choice. will they just issue tie decisions? will they postpone those cases for the next term? those are the sort of questions now

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

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

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

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

>> it is a loss of a great, great justice, a great justice in american history.ne who will be remembered for years as long as lawyers read the supreme court decisions. he was a wonderful man. a brilliant jurist. he did so much to revive principal constitutional interpretation. that's a huge hole to fill. >> it is a legacy, whether you agreed are him ideologicalcally or not. you can't deny the impact he has had on the legal world. you work for him in the early '90s. what was that like. >> we see him on the bench, bomb bass particular. you see him off. he seemed the same way. a fun loving guy who liked to live life. what was it like to work for him? >> wonderful to work for him. he struggled to make sure he got every case right. every case, big and small, it was important. he loved vigorous argument. he of course is a brilliant writer. always a wonder to give him what one thought was a really good traft and see him make it even better. make it pointed. we clerks think we had the toughest job on the court because we had to get things right and not just reach whateve

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

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

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

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

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

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

the most liberal justice. they were very close friends for many years, and even justice el late that y ena elena kagan, was charmed by him. he introduced her to quail hunting and she went with him every year. so, he was a remarkable man. controversial ideas. heas the boogie man for many, many liberals in and out o& the courts. but no question, while there may not be a scalia era on the court, you can't point to that many rulings he won, there's scalia influence on the court and in the law. >> and terry, you pointed out with me on the air earlier, he wasn't always on the winning de, as you just said. most recently with same-sex marriage and stipulations for obama care, but one critical role he did play was gore v bush in 2000. talk to me about that case. >> reporter: well, that was the case that tossed the 2000 election into the supreme court. and in that case, hee found with the majority, with chief justice rehnquist and othe, that the presidency should go to george w. bush because, they said, the way that flo

yes, a supreme court justice as president obama did with justice rehnquist, he waskl is this& a smallmatter? >> gives you a sense of how polarized washington is. critics of the president try to make it atpb1ñ big matter sayins is a snub or sign of disrespect, that he should have gone to scalia's funeral tomorrow. on the other hand, i will say there's no great tradition as people point out that george w. bush went to the funeral of chief justice rehnquist, but he was the last sitting justice to die, so the president honoring a sitting justice who died while in oafice. prior to that, the last one was in 1954 when supreme court justice robert jackson died while he was serving on the court. dwight eisenhower was the president then and he didn't go. as for people that retired and died, sometimes presidents go, sometimes they don't. there are some people that are saying -- who favored the administration saying this would be a moment that would have shown going across partisan lines, unity, but there's no great historic tradition that presidents attend funerals of sitting or retired supreme

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

justice scalia was the longest-serving justice on the high court. appointed by president ronald scalia passed away on a visit to texas, and abc's chief justice correspondent pierre thomas joins us with what we know at pierre? >> reporter: tom, law enforcement sources tell me that justice scalia died earlier today in texas, apparent of natural causes. u.s. marshals are at the scene, play. scalia was a giant figure in washington and news of his death has spread quickly. we're told president obama has been informed, as has senior justice department officials. fair to say that official washington tonight is stunned. tom? >> that is right. pierre, thank you so much. the sudden death of justice scalia, a huge loss for the court and the conservative moment. chief justice john roberts calling him, kwoement, an extraordinary individual and admired and treasured by his colleagues. abc's martha raddatz on the justice who helped shape the bench. >> reporter: justice scalia, the longest-serving justice on the court, apparently died from the 79-year-old justice w