and so justice scalia's father's name was salvatore eugene scalia. he was an italian immigrant, and one of the most interesting things about justice scalia's father was not that he put himself through college, earned an advanced degree, but what the subject was in. he was an expert in romance languages. he published several books and his idea was you want to develop a methodology or theory of interpretation. you look at the old great works of literature and he believed those words should be interpreted literally. so in other words, if you're going to translate -- sorry about that. so if you're going to translate one of the great works of literature, then justice scalia's father, salvatore eugene scalia of them would recommend that you look at the little words. to him, words mattered. so young justice scalia grew up with the idea that words matter. so if you look at his legacy on the bench to look at what he accomplished over his lifetime and in this that i think will discuss something that would probably alike agree on, on the justice league is the s

thank you. >> so do you think that justice scalia's [ inaudible ] will carry through at all? en if we have more liberal do you think justices? do you think any of that will carry through? >> i mean, i think if -- i think it will remain and -- but i think he's often in the dissent now and certainly kind of his original decision-making it will be in dissent on the supreme court and, you know, which will eventually like trickle down. i think it's hard to -- i mean, the supreme court is a slow changing institution and so it's unusual that we even find ourselves like talking about filling four -- you know, not one, but four seats. so once those four seats are filled, likely over the next four years, it will change more slowly again. >> but i think that is one of the big questions is what will happen to his legacy and that's why this election is important and who fills the seat is to important, whether it's -- there's someone still to carry that flag to make that intellectual contribution to juris prudence. >> any other questions? we'll take one in the middle and then we'll go to my

justice scalia self-described himself as -- was it a hesitant originalist. , but sort of someone who is originalist but maybe didn't always like the results. i think if you look at chief justice roberts and justice alito's opinions they are often very faithful to the text so they share the originalist tendencies but i don't know if they describe themselves as following the same legal framework. >> that gets into the question of textualist versus originalist, right? i think we may have time for one or two more questions. we will go to dominic for a question. >> how are you doing? my question is: what is the supreme court's job to do? i understand the executive branch basically when you are president you just propose things and when you're congress you just are making laws. so can you all tell me what is the job of supreme court basically to do? i know you've got to interpret it, but what the heck does that mean? and also my other question is what are the roles other than presidential appointment does the president play. >> so what is the supreme court, what is

but he mentioned justice scalia. aren't we grateful that god allowed antonin scalia to be on the supreme court? what a blessing he has been. [ applause ] and i can tell you, i counted him as a friend. i hope he felt that way. but where we are in the country right now, we didn't deserve him. he was a man of principle. but of course i loved both his principle, i loved his plainspokenness, and i loved his sense of humor. there's no better memories i've had than to sit down at a meal with justice scalia and swap stories and jokes, because he loved good jokes, good stories. and i told one, and it's tough sometimes when people like jokes to find one they haven't heard before. but anyway, he says, oh, well how about this one, this probably happened back down in texas, back when they used ha hangin'. he said, a defendant had been sentenced to hang, and on that saturday morning they brought him out, 2 or 3,000 people gathered to see it. the sheriff brings him up on the gallows. he says, we have a tradition in our town, before

and justice scalia do you think it's -- justice scalia: excuse me. can i can i hear what you were about to say? what are those numbers? i was really curious to hear those numbers. mr. rein: he assumed, at the outside, that any of the admits that were actually african-american or hispanic outside the top ten, he said let me take that assumption and see what it would add. and he said it would constitute less than 1% of the entire case. justice ginsburg: what are you reading from? mr. rein: can i finish? justice ginsburg: can you just tell where you're reading from? mr. rein: this is appendix to a. it is judge garza's original dissent. this is this is when and he repeated, essentially, the same point. but he calculated, and he made different assumptions, depending on how many of the admissions in the holistic program one would assume would be different because of race. because no one knows, and that and that's part of this. and clearly, one and i can read you these numbers, but you can read them yourselves. it's a very small number. and his most realist

. >> you wrote about how the justices are functioning since the vacancy greeted by justice scalia's death. you show there are interesting alliances forming. it is not just the split. to -- has seem to camps, thedifferent justices working to deliver unified opinions. the remaining members seem less committed to that project. -- the of rulings wrote eight members concurrences. justices wrote just four. the remaining are making up the center of confesses -- of consensus. >> everybody conceived it this way. we have a situation where the center is much larger, where you almoste chief justice always voting together. the people who are resisting this trend are the two most conservative. that is a brand-new situation. advocates are getting used to it. we don't know how long it is going to last. that means a lot of cases will be decided i a kind of court that is exercising judicial minimalism. justice roberts would rather have more people vote on a narrow legal proposition than a 5-4 court making a broad pronouncement. he did not have luck with that until justice scalia died. your basis on the opi

justice scalia had been on this court it would have been 5-4, probably the same outcome. secondly, of all those justices, the only one who spoke up and said there was nothing wrong with the law was justice thomas. but it is a pretty strong smack-down of the texas law. basically the court says it raises obstacles to women's access to abortion without any medical benefit, so therefore it's an undue burden. this decision doesn't by itself undercut the other laws but can be used in other states to challenge them. >> does this reaffirm casey and webster and the cases subsequent to roe v wade, bottom line, a

yesterday, we got an update on how the court has been working since justice antonin scalia died. this is about 10 minutes. >> joining us now is adam, the supreme court correspondent for "the new york times" and he is here to talk about how the court has been operating since the vacancy created by the death created by the death of justice antonin scalia. tell us how the eight-member court is working so far. >> it seems like they've gone into hibernation. they, to their credit, are trying to decide cases. to do that, they have to find narrow grounds to decide on. when we went into this term in october, it looked like there were six pretty big cases involving abortion and immigration. it is not clear that these things that look like blockbusters will turn out to be blockbusters or will kind of fizzle out as a recent case of a contraception did. >> you wrote about how the justices are functioning since the vacancy created by justice scalia's death and you said there is some interesting alliances forming, not just the 4-4 split that folks like you and i were writing about before hand.

justice scalia was on campus a few years ago. i was asked to introduce him to a big group down in orange county at the airport hilton. about 700 people in the room. he was at an organization and if you contributed a certain amount of money you got invited to different things. it was sponsored by the society and there's a group known as the pace setters. the school was established in 1946 per the graduates of the first three graduating classes through 1950 are referred to as the pacesetters. i said pacemaker fellow. the audience roared in laughter. i was wondering what, and someone said pacemaker and i walked over from the podium and pulled myself together and got back up there and said there are a number of us who because of advances in modern medicine such as pacemakers wonder if we should reconsider granting time tenure. huge laughter. when they finally got up, he said thanks. lifetime appointments our problem. scalia was appointed in 86. he was five months short of completing 30 years on the bench there is something about allo

but now four conservative justices, including both scalia and kennedy, to stood forthrighy in favor of the republican constitution's limits on federal power. as we know, however, the fifth swing vote was by chief justice roberts. as i explain in the book -- and i tell the story of the obamacare case in which todd who's sitting in the second role plays a prominent role in the first chapter of the book -- chief justice roberts affirmed that republican limits on the scope of federal power by holding, this is chief justice roberts' holding, that the individual purchase mandates were, indeed, beyond congress' power under the commerce and necessary and proper clauses. on the other hand, he then invoked the democratic constitution's acceptance of judicial restraint, adopting what he called a saving construction that turned the individual insurance requirement into an option to buy insurance or pay a modest non-coercive tax. as he put it, quote, granting the act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read. and he then defended this move by insisting that, quote, i

but there is a view that had justice scalia been on court you may have had a 5-4 decision that would have been the same result stopping executive orders and binding precedent. again, that big distinction for people watching, what does this mean? it means yes, you have a ruling, a stop sign to the executive orders on immigration but don't have a precedent that is to say you don't have anything that binds future courts. there's a speculation, that had justice scalia been alive for this term, this would have been a worse outcome for the white house. >> who are we talking about here with regards to the people that the president is trying to prevent from being deported. you have to hold that for the next conversation. brian williams will pick up our coverage from here. >> craig, thanks, we have a complex menu of stories before us this morning if viewers have been with us the entire time. you know we're tracking a number of stories. we've had a verdict -- one of the defendants, police officer in the freddie gray try in baltimore, a bench trial and shooting in a movie theater in germany res

abdicated our role as judges by blindly following what the education folks in texas want to do. >> justice scalia's dissenting opinion -- >> justice alito -- >> justice scalia. >> it felt like scalia in the dissent. he was fired up and read part of his dissent from the bench as well. judge, thank you, great to see you. >>> an abrupt end to a democratic sit-in on capitol hill that lasted more than 24 hours, today house democrats say they will take their fourth of july break after all. even though they say the fight for gun control is not over. they're exit follows a raucous night on the house floor where some house members livestreamed their protest after the republican leadership ordered the chamber's cameras and microphones to be turned off. chief congressional correspondent mike emanuel reports on the about-face from capitol hill. >> for 26 hours, house democrats held a sit-in expressing frustration with not being able to pass stricter gun control. civil rights icon congressman john lewis was front and center, defending violating the house rules. >> we will continue to insist, to demand, action,

on the final day of a turn that saw the death of justice antonin scalia, the remaining justices overturned restriction that is were passed and never enacted. the court ruled unconstitutional a measure that would have required the abortion practitioners to have privileges at hospitals and abortion clinic who have hospital quality facilities. writing for the majority, justice steven briar said this. there was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure. we agree with the district court, that the surgical center requirement, like the admitting privileges requirement, provides few f any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seek aing abortions and constitutes an undue burden on their constitutional right to do so. strong words, strong action. cnn justice correspondent, pam brown, was among the first to get her hands on that decision, live on the steps of the supreme court. i want to bring in our senior legal analyst, jeffrey toobin, who happened to write a book about the supreme court and chief political correspondent, dana bash. stand by t

now, you can ask yourself what would have happened if justice scalia were still on the court and we hadine justices. hard to say. there were sort of two key questions for the supreme court, one was the one we've been talking about. does the president have the authority by himself to make such a big change in immigration policy or does the congress have to step? the second lurking decision, whether the states have the authority to sue in the first place. the obama administration had strenuously argued no, that immigration policy is by the constitution exclusively a province of the federal government not the states. but the states basically had no skin in this game. the states argument to some people seemed rather ten youous which was texas's claim that they would have to spend more money to give driver's license's to people to stay in the u.s. under the president's program, the administration had said, you know, that's your problem, texas, you're the state that decided to subsidize driver's licenses not us. but we don't know whether the -- in any event the supreme court wasn't able to ge

i thought i'd close by quoting one of the greatest supreme court justices, antonin scalia. he once asked, why do you think america is such a free country? what is it in our constitution that makes us what we are? well, most of us would probably say the bill of right the freedom of speech, freedom of press, right to bear arms, and true enough in those rights are very special. but justice scalia went on if you think a bill of rights is what sets us apart, you're crazy. every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights. even the soviet union had a bill of rights, he pointed out. and it promised a lot more than ours does. but there's a reason we don't remember the ussr as a bastion of liberty. because that bill of rights was just, quote, just words on paper. close quote. as justice scalia said. what truly makes america free, he argued, is the separation of powers. those amendments to the constitution may enumerate our rights, but it is the separation of powers that protects those rights, that secures those rights. our country makes sure that no one person exercises too mu

scalia wrote the majority opinion for seven justices. and just said, hey, the first amendment applies not simply to books and newspapers, but also to movies and the internet and a new medium like video games. and so he just employed traditional strict scrutiny and struck it down. thomas wrote this lengthy dissent saying when the first amendment was written, children didn't have any free speech rights. they were subject to whatever their parents said, and he went through early education law to show, you know, the whole argument that parental control is absolutely essential and prominent. and so he writes about a 40-page dissent that is focused almost exclusively on the original meaning of the first amendment and its application up until about 1840. and, again, focusing on this original general meaning approach, he wants the first amendment to mean what it meant then. another instance, he doesn't -- another interesting case dealing with the first amendment and children was a case called morris against frederick. you may have heard about th

this is the ideal case to make the point because had justice scalia been on the bench for this case he would have been a sure goat vote with the other four conservatives. today the president lost with a punt meaning the lower court ruling will stand against him but it would have been a much more definitive ruling against him if justice scalia had not passed away in february and merritt garland would have never been confirmed to participate in this case. for practical purposes, the congress' refusal to act on his nominee doesn't really affect this case but he's making the bigger point the supreme court is deadlocked 4 to 4, will be unable to to reach a decision on some of the most important issues of the time. >> another major supreme court action, the president mentioned the justices upheld an affirmative action program at university of texas allowing the school to consider race in admissions. the ruling was 4 to 3. justice kagan recused herself because she worked on the case as solicitor general. there will be more about all of this on your local news on this cbs station, on our 24-ho

kennedy in the spotlight more than ever following the death of justice antonin scalia. shannon breen has that story. what kind of shift are we seeing by justice kennedy? >> reporter: conservatives long admired his stand on federalism and states rights but increasingly seeing him to the left on issues like those. in the last couple weeks a key vote with the court's liberal wing on issues like affirmative action, allowing the university of texas to use race in the process of selecting which students to admit, yesterday's decision to strike down abortion restrictions, regulations that would have required clinics and doctors to meet certain medical standards. on social issues like lgbt rights he has been a voice to the left, over a year ago, to essentially legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. the judicial crisis network. >> increasingly he is willing to abandon some of the core principles of the constitutional system when it comes to achieving liberal policy goals, that is discouraging to see. >> conservatives and liberals alike say that shift is a prime example why this f

>> i think, again, justice scalia says it doesn't go that far. i think nobody thinks you have a right to a rocket launcher in your backyard. i think that the interesting history, you can read the heller opinion for interesting history on both sides, there's certainly filaments of arguments on both sides. was it militia-based, was it individual-based? 1939 the u.s. supreme court said unequivocally, you don't have an individual right to bear arms that are not connected to service in a militia. this was understood. i think what he's upset about in that article is that i didn't mention that there are three prominent liberal law professors who argued for a robust second amendment right. so mea culpa, there were, but they weren't the nra. the nra moved the needle on this, not three liberal law professors. >> the nra lobby on behalf of an incenter that makes profit from selling these guns. such a great piece, "slate," everyone should read it. >>> still ahead what to expect from bernie sanders' first public address since losing the final primary of the e

guest: justice scalia used to say, i don't attack people, i attack ideas. they have to get along. it is an arranged marriage with mar divorce.y for that is true on the personal side, does not always carry over to decision-making. singing, justice scalia was also known for his singing. .p next, we have brian calling caller: my question is whether or not i would like to hear your thoughts on whether what the isublicans are doing constitutional. my reading of the constitution is that the constitution shall the supremees to court. it seems unequivocal. to follow that the advice of the senate cannot be to not nominate someone. the defense therefore cannot be never. i would like to hear your thoughts. guest: that is one reading, but one.he generally accepted if you need the sentenc senate's consent, they can withhold the consent or withhold it wholesale. it not be pretty, but probably what the constitution envisions is political accountability. if people are not happy, they office. them out of host: what are the chances that there be a hearing or any other action on judge garland's nomi

. >> it wouldn't have mattered if there's a president trump nominee or if justice scalia was still onyou would have had justice kennedy joining the former liberal justices to provide a majority supporting abortion rights in this case. >> reporter: in a bitter dissent, justice clarence thomas suggested the case should have never been heard, writing quote, the court has allowed abortion clinics and physicians to invoke a constitutional right that does not belong to them, a woman's right to abortion. tonight, the texas governor said the ruling quote, a -- but the white house shared it. president obama posting on twitter that quote, every woman has a constitutional right to make her own reproductive choices. >> pamela brown joins us now. long-term implications of the ruling are what? >> this will certainly have a ripple effect long term because there are already similar laws on the books and this will only make it easier for people to bring challenges to those laws. just in the last several years, several states have enacted restrictions that really test the limits of the constitutional r

think this is just indicative of how the court is a different place now without justice scalia.liberals, a, are a concerted, collective, unified bloc of four justices. today they only had three because justice kagan was recused, but these four justices can now stop any decision that they want. they can make an equally divided court and mean that the lower court decisions will be affirmed, but this is a very different court than it was before february 13th. >> it underscores how significant justice kennedy d when you say he's the swing vote on so many of these critically important issues, it's certainly true. >> and it underscores the importance of the presidential election because there is a vacancy on this court, maerrick garland has been nominated. this court is divided on a knife's edge between the democrats and the republicans and the presidential election will determine who controls the court. >> jeff zeleny is with us as well. the political fallout from this in the election and in general could be significant. >> it will be significant. jeffrey is absolutely correct. had s

you know what happened several months ago when justice scalia was on a hunting trip and sadly passed away to the shock of everyone, and there was a vacancy on the supreme court. the president of the united states did what he was supposed to do. you see, in article 2 of the constitution, there is a requirement that the president fill the vacancies on the supreme court. why would the founding fathers put a requirement on the president? they understood that some president could play games with vacancies on the court. said no, you have to send your nominee's name to the united states senate where we will have the opportunity to advise and consent as to that nominee. the president met his responsibility. judge merrick garland works for the d.c. circuit court of appeals. in fact, he's the chief justice of the d.c. circuit. the president sent his name to fill the scalia vacancy. is merrick garland qualified? the american bar association just this week said what we already knew. merrick garland is unanimously well qualified for the position. so the president's nominee at that point would com

he mentioned justice scalia.onin scalia to be on the supreme court. what a blessing he has been. and i can tell you, i counted him as a friend. i hope he felt that way. but where we are in the country right now, we didn't deserve him. he was a man of principle. but, of course, i love both his principl principle, plain spokenness and sense of humor. there was no better memories i've had, some unpleasant ones in washington, than to sit down at a meal with justice scalia and swap stories and jokes. he loved good jokes, good stories. i told one -- it's tough when people like jokes to find one they hadn't heard before. anyway, he said how about this one, this probably happened back down in texas when they used hanging. he said a defendant just the worst of the worst, he murdered, he had done the worst, most despicable things, been sentenced to hang. on that saturday morning they brought him out, two or three thousand people gathered to see it. the sheriff brings him up on the gallows and says we have a tradition in ou

i go back to that remarkable dissent written almost one year ago today by the late great justice scalia, and before i continue my remarks, i would like to have us give a standing ovation to the remarkable life and legacy of justice antonin scalia. [ applause ] god rest the soul of that great man. he wrote in his dissent to the oberg affeldt decision, where five supreme court justices airigated to themselves a new creation of marriage, a new definition of family, and marriage, and therefore parenting. he wrote in that dissent overwhelmingly not about marriage. and he wrote overwhelmingly in that dissent not about human sexuality. in justice scalia's dissent in the case, one of the most important dissents ever written in the history of the supreme court, justice scalia said that when five unelected supreme court justices find in the constitution and redefine for a whole nation a new definition of marriage, he said what you eventually end up with is the taking away of the ability of the decision of the american people of self-government. what justice scalia in that dissent calls our first

he mentioned justice scalia. we grateful that allowed antonin scalia to be on the supreme court? what a blessing he has been. i can tell you -- i counted him as a friend. where we are in the country right now, we did not deserve him. he was a man of principle. principal, his plainspoken is, and his sense of humor. there was no better memories i among the unpleasant ones in washington, then to sit down at a meal with justice scalia and swap stories and jokes. he loved good jokes and good stories. when peopleometimes like jokes to find one they have not heard before. anyway, he said how about this one? it was back when they used hanging. the worst defendant who had murdered and done the most despicable rings and was sentenced to hang and the draw him out in front of 3000 people in the shower brings him up on aloes and he says, we have a tradition in our town before we somebody. we give them a chance to a dress the crowd, would you like to do that? he said not really. you are about to meet the andeme judge, your make

today in this decision, justice kagan wasn't there and justice scalia passed away.s is 5-2 or excuse me, 4-3 decisions. essentially aing way university of texas system used race within that bigger framework of holiestic approach is admissible. it is fine to use it for college ad mission. it's a very specific nuanced detailed opinion which i will have to read through the whole thing here but the bottom line is the way that race was used in this case is permitted. it can be used in some cases involving admissions to higher education college and universities. bill. bill: she argued she was white and she was omitted because of her race, was omitted i should say. reporter: right. bill: the defendants would argue there was already a clause in place at the school that allowed admission for minorities. did the school issue an opinion as to whether or not this white student had the grades to qualify, shannon? >> well that is where she fell outside of that 10%. they basically said, listen, their estimation was she probably wouldn't have made it without the issue of race. but

and, scott, if justice scalia were still on the court, the decision probably would have been 5-4 against president, with the sweeping ruling scaling back his use of executive power. >> pelley: and this doesn't mean there will be mass deportations. it's just a return to the status quo. jan crawford reporting from the court. jan, thank you. in another major case today, the court ruled that universities may consider race in student admissions. the case involved a suit against the university of texas, and mark strassmann is in austin. >> reporter: at the university of texas in austin, an applicant's race is considered for one of every three undergraduates. that approach was endorsed by today's 4-3 supreme court decision. justice anthony kennedy writing for the majority argued for american education's need to "reconcile the pursuit of diversity with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity." >> this was a serious challenge to the use of race in university admissions. >> reporter: ilya shapiro studies constitutional issues for the cato institute, a public policy think tank. >>

he did not have much luck with that until justice scalia died. host: this is sort of the prime season of when the cases are expected to come. guest: everything you just said may be proven wrong in the next few weeks. guest: there is a position to block any major move to the right. chiefyou talk about consensus.erts [video clip] >> i try to achieve as much consensus as i can. that is not something i can do on my own. we have to have a commitment as a group to do that. i don't want to speak to the others, but we spend a fair amount of time, maybe as much as others, talking them out. it has been subject to criticism and maybe in five years -- people think it is bad, but it has to do with judicial philosophy. i think it is part of how i do the job in the system. host:host: that was chief justie roberts talking at the conference last month. what you think of what he said? guest: i think that is exactly what he is trying to do, and he is happy to do it, to sit down and private conferences where no one else is allowed in. where the conferences could eat

justice scalia: the facts are not an academic judgment. if the fact that only thinks we are doing great, we must be doing great. the facts are the facts. we do not give the faculty a leg up on what the facts are. mr. garre: in 2002, you had 272 african-american enrollees at of a class of 8000. the university of texas had not achieved its critical mass or ducational benefits in 2004. that is not seriously debatable. we should have an opportunity to put in more evidences that is not obvious. justice roberts: bruder said -- grutter said we would not expect this to be in place for 25 years. mr. garre: there are systematic problems that these policies are attempting to adjust -- address including the test score gap. the record overwhelmingly shows that without the addition of race, student body diversity suffered ridiculously among african-americans. ustice roberts: it was important in the grutter court that this was temporary because we are talking about giving you the extraordinary power to consider race in making important decisions. it was

i think if justice scalia were here, it wouldn't have just gone back to the old court. listen, he's going to stay the course. he also said he's not going to deport these people under his watch, so this will be decided by the next american president. harris: we're going to go to our reporter to break it down, and we'll come back to this issue. u.s. supreme court correspondent shannon bream is live now from the supreme court. boy, it has been an interesting day, shannon. >> reporter: it has. there was another case on the use of affirmative action in higher education that was essentially a win for them, but this one a big loss for them. yes, it's essentially a nondecision. and what we have right now in the toughth circuit -- fifth circuit is, basically, an injunction, a nationwide injunction against all of these deferral programs the president had put into place and extension of some of those programs is on hold. so we still could see a decision on the merits, but for now it's on hold. that's not going to change. it will very much probably fall to the next president. we im

one of the elements of uncertainty was justice scalia passing.verybody knows based on his record how he likely would have ruled on a case like this. even without justice scalia there, a strong ruling and only been 5-4 had he been there. i wonder if you think it took too long for these cases to get the court and access could have been protected. >> i thought about that today. i thought at one point, this is the end of wendy's filibuster, it took us three years and running it that long. my heartbreaks for all the women turned away the last three years and couldn't get the healthcare they needed and either had to travel hundreds of miles or take matters into their own hands. women deserve the respect and compassion and dignity of having access to safe healthcare in their communities locally. i feel very proud we were not only able to illustrate that burden and tell those stories of real people and real people's lives but able to restore justice. >> in terms of texas and such a huge population in texas, such a physically large state. as you describe

it is complicated by the fact that the court is operating with only eight justices since justice scalia died in january. >>> bernie sanders still is not endorsed hillary clinton work week the campaign. senator sanders is promising to help to defeat donald trump. at the same time, donald trump is fighting back against his party amid the possible coup at the gop convention. >> at this center of racism, sexism and discrimination are old forms in our country. we do not need a major party candidate that makes bigotry the cornerstone of his campaign. >> it is the republican party, and i hope they all come together because i want them to come together. but if for any reason they look like they will not help out is much, then i will find my own campaign. >> democrats planning an all- out attack against donald trump, getting ready to drop $40 million worth of commercials. >>> the solar plane attempting to fly around the world has left north america, solar impulse 2 took off from new york and will land in spain, i 90 hour flight for a single pilot that will take 50 minute naps while in flight. th

he said justice scalia was the hardest to back and forth parry with. >>> bernie sanders moving on.but shifting his focus to donald trump now, telling his supporters he vows to work with hillary clinton to defeat the gop's presumptive nominee come november. be the you who doesn't cover your moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. be the you who shows up in that dress. who hugs a friend. who is done with treatments that don't give you clearer skin. be the you who controls your psoriasis with stelara® just 4 doses a year after 2 starter doses. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of inctions and cancer. some seriousnfections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberlosis. some seriousnfections before starting stelara® tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or he symptomsuch as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle ach or cough. ways tell your doctor if you have any signs of infection, have had cancer, if you develop any new skin growths or if anyone in your house needs or has recently received a vaccine. alert your doc

i don't think it could be said louder the significance of the death of justice scalia with regards to this decision and all other we may end up seeing coming down the pike, as well. this particular one the president alluded to is up to you in november. >> there is no question about this. when you think about the last big three decisions that are before the court, affirmative action which came out the president's way, immigration that went against the president and monday we will hear the answer in the abortion rights case out of texas. these are issues that are at the center of the presidential campaign. and all of them could be affected by the next justice appointed to the supreme court whether by hillary clinton or donald trump. when people vote for presidential candidates, they are voting for the future of the supreme court. today's decision really emphasizes why the effective elections on the court is so big. >> i want to bring in our cnn political director, mark preston, as well. so clearly this is a knockout. well, i'm not going to say knockout, a big blow but perhaps not a knoc

he cares about the issues a lot, the fieryt with eloquence of justice scalia, that would be hard to matchustice ginsburg always said, but i think alito will step up in that role in many ways. justice thomas will continue to be perhaps the intellectual original list on the court, which shkreli a at times was, but i think justice thomas is more consistent originalist. justice thomas generally does not ask questions in oral argument. i do not think the public will view him in the same way but he will continue to carry on that intellectual, originalist view. he has written, i think we crunched the numbers and in almost half the cases, may be more, he has written an opinion. inhas been very active putting forth his vision in these cases for the court, which is really interesting. what is the likelihood of president obama''s choice becoming the head of the supreme court? how do you see that playing out? byst: i have been dismayed the senate republicans absolute refusal to do their job and give up on governance in this case. the constitution gives the president the authority when i face -- vacan

would say about that is that we managed to persuade a court, a majority of whose members before justice scaliaassed away, you would say are conservative, that we have the right answer on the law on the big cases. >> woodruff: just last week the justices handed down a decision on the president's immigration plan. which you argued is being seen as dealing a pretty significant blow to this president's legacy. how do you see what happens going forward on immigration after that decision? >> so about the decision itself, you know, whether one grease with -- agrees with the position of the administration or disagrees with the position, i think probably everybody would agree that it isn't ideal to have that question left in limbo with a 4-4 tie, affirming a divided vote of a lower court. i don't think anybody thinks that's an ideal outcome here. what that i means i think is that the legal question remains open for the future about the president's authority, and the question as a president si matter about what we're going to do about the significant problem that this policy was trying to address, what

on the final day of a turn that saw the death of justice antonin scalia, the remaining justices overturnedestriction that is were passed and never enacted. the court ruled unconstitutional a measure t