her first oral argument in justice united before scalia. we're going to hear that story this morning. myt to justice kagan is friend, bill kelly. he's now a professor at node. started his career as a law clerk to justice scalia and in things, he's two done some mighty interesting things himself. he's served as an assistant to solicitor general of the united states arguing before the supreme court. spent time in private practice and was deputy council to the statesnt of the united in the bush administration. he's a wonderful friend and a you here.ure to have he's also written one of the, i insightful summaries of the justice's career, it's in the george washington law review, "justice scalia and the long game." next to bill is leonard leo. leonard is a close personal friend of the justice and his family so we get that today.tive with us you may have seen him on c-span the scriptures at the justice's funeral. he's the executive vice president of the federalist society. he's served on the united states commission on international religious free

as justice scalia would have said, a supreme justice. so that's a little intimidating but not nearly as intimidating as it was over 30 years ago to be a rising second-year student on the harvard law review facing the supervising editor elena , kagan. she was truly scary then. [laughter] bill i think she'd agree, too. ise first thing she does talk about this conference where no human being is allowed to go unless they have a commission to the supreme court. how do you follow that? i can't follow that but when i think about anecdotes and the justice, the idea of joie de vivre comes to mind. the laugh, the laugh. he would laugh a lot. things held say believed to be obviously true, and wait for you to react. if you disagreed he would express false outrage and if you agreed, he'd laugh, laugh, laugh. the one anecdote that comes to mind sitting here is when i was with him -- my wife and i were expecting our first child, 28 years ago, his 30 term. -- his third term. and i knew that the boss had nine children so i was looking for tips. justice,

in her first first oral arguments in citizens united before justice scalia. e will hear that story this morning. next to justice kagan is my friend bill kelly who is now a professor at notre dame. he started his career as a law clerk for justice scalia. in between those two things he has done some interesting things. he has served as an assistant to the general before the united states arguing before the supreme court. spent time in private practice, and was deputy counsel for the president of the united states in the bush administration. it is a real pleasure to have you here. he has also written one of the most insightful summaries of the justices career, i commend to you and the george washington law review, justice scalia and the long game. next to bill is leonard leo. leonard is a close, personal friend of the justice and his family. so we get that perspective with us today. you may have seen him on c-span routing from the scriptures at the justices funeral. he is executive vice president of the federalists society. he served on the united states commissi

and you captured justice scalia. well, you didn't need to capture him -- [laughter] >> you mean my advocacy didn't, wasn't necessary to win him over. [laughter] and it didn't do any more than that. >> i was just telling a lady a story about the aftermath of the vmi case. i had a letter from a vmi graduate saying that in his life he had met many women who were at least as tough as he was. he had a teenaged daughter, and he was glad that she would have the opportunity, if she wanted it, to attend vmi. and then i heard from him some six months later. i keep the letter where i can see it every time i want to be lifted up. in the letter was tissue paper. i opened the paper, and there was -- it looked like a toy soldier. of it was a pin. the letter said this is a cadet pins that is given to the -- pin that is given to the mother of every vmi graduate at the graduation ceremony. my mother died last month. i think she would want you to have her cadet pin because in some way you are a grandmother to the future generations of

this is a case where i think the loss of justice scalia could make a difference. if you were looking at voting patterns in cases like this you might thing this is the kind of case likely to split 4-4 with justice kennedy dwiing -- being the deciding votes. you have four members of the liberal wing who said in the establishment clause area they are not very comfortable even permitting government aid to religious organizations for secular items like running a playground if they think the establishment clause my prohibit that hard to see them saying the exercise clause and if they can't get to four the best they can hope for is affirmance by an equally divided court. this is one the court has declined to schedule and this may refer to changing the docket on cases they sri see likely be divided. the last case is mur versus wisconsin. the law is the government can regulate but they can't regulate too much. the conceptual question is what is the unit of property against which you assess the government regulation? there are a series of cases involving real property in whi

charlie: you have said to me you miss justice scalia. stice breyer was here last week and he said i miss the debates with justice scalia. i'm sure you feel the same way. >> he made us laugh. >> and he made us think. he challenged us to think. the ingredients for interesting conversation and or lifle -- lively discussion. charlie: you said you both love opera and he could sing better than you. they are writing lines for you in the opera that you will perform in, when, when's it coming up? >> it's a speaking part. here is an opera "scalia-opera," a comic opera, of course, that the composer who wrote it, tried to say in a nutshell, the difference between the two of us. ar opens with scalia's rage inch a and it is this. the justices are blind. how can they possibly talk about this. the constitution says absolutely nothing about this. for e is searching solutions to problems that don't have answers. but the great thing about our constitution is like our society, it can evolve. so that sets up -- [laughter] >> and then we have a wonderful duet

this is where the bob -- the loss of justice scalia could make a difference. looking of voting patterns you may think this is the kind of case that will be likely to split with justice kennedy to be the deciding vote. with justice scalia gone you have four members of the liberal wing pretty consistently with the establishment clause area that they are not comfortable permitting government aid to religious organizations for secular items like running a playground if they think the establishment clause might prohibit that, it is hard to see the free exercise clause requires that and it is the best they could hope for. this is that the courts has declined to schedule on the cases they perceive to be closely divided. the last one is a takings case in wisconsin that involves that the government can regulate but not too much in the conceptual question is what is a unit of property against government regulation? there is a series of regulations to say we don't take a parcel of real property and divided vertically. of the government says you have building you cannot bu

justice scalia had a very good tenor voice. he was an undergraduate at , -- etown charlie rose: his death shocked you? justice ginsburg: yes. charlie rose: do you miss him on the court? justice ginsburg: of course i do. him. a paler place without .e was a wonderful storyteller he had an uncanny ability to make even the most dour judge smile. he told many jokes, yet very good humor -- he had very good humor. opera, andssion for --most genuinely cared about charlie rose: they brought you back to harvard law school to honor you. ,ou talked about the balance the importance of family, and the balance you had found between the law and family. you think it is important, the family? justice ginsburg: yes. to law school,g my daughter was 14 months old when i started. , go to take my classes the library, study hard. 4:00 was when the nanny went home, and that was my daughter's time. we would go to the park, we would play games, i would read to her. after she was based and fed and went to sleep, i went back to the law books. i discarded a

you talk about justice scalia. , one of the best discussions i had with him took place in front of 2000 students in lubbock, texas. they probably had not seen a supreme court justice. we went on for about an hour, and we tried to describe what we did. we tried to explain we do have different points of view to some degree, not as much as people think, but to some degree. i went away thinking -- and he did two at the end, it is not so important whether they agree more with him. he is afraid i would be too subjective, and i would tend to substitute what i think is good for what the law requires. i would think, i try not to do that, but more importantly i for what the law requires. would say, you have a method i think is too rigid. i think the way sometimes you approach -- i don't say it in a rude way, but he knows that's what i mean. the constitution will work as well for the people who have to live under it now. and we talked about that. whether they agreed with me more or more with him, i think the 2000 students left

mike: is it good for america -- i believe justice scalia passed away in february. the appointment or nomination came in march of this year. it is possible we could go another number of months. is that a good thing for america? mr. johnson: justice breyer, who is part of the liberal wing of the court, says the supreme court is fine. if they deadlock quach oh-four -four, that four shows the partisanship, which is a real problem. it's a shame. if people have fidelity to the law, they should be unanimous. but if you have a split decision, the appellate court ruling stands. justice breyer said the supreme court is operating just fine. this is not a constitutional crisis. i have been doing my job, protecting wisconsinites second amendment rights because justice garland would definitely flip the court to have a 5-4 liberal activist court. that is something that definitely does threaten your individual liberties, freedoms, and second amendment rights. mr. feingold: having some but he decided in advance what judge garland's views would be without even giving him the hearing,

it, of course, has always been partisan because as the late justice scalia pointed out, justices canpartisan. what was interesting is, i mean, you go back to some of the great justices, oliver wendall holmes and holmes was appointed by theodore roosevelt , a republican. brand ayes was appointed by woodrow wilson, a democrat. yet they often joined together at first in dissent and later their views became the law and it was not polarized along partisan lines, along party lines, but, rather, based on heir shared view of the law. host: our viewers can join this conversation. democrats can call 202-748-8000. republicans 202-748-8001. ndependents, 202-748-8002. the gallup poll recently took a look at what americans think, how americans think the supreme court is doing, whether they approve or disapprove. currently 52% of americans disapprove of the job the supreme court is doing. compared to only 42% that approve. the approval rating has been down since about 2010. since then we know the court has issued some big, controversial rulings. how have those rulings affected the public's confiden

justice scalia had a very good tenor voice. t, when he was an undergraduate at georgetown, he was in the glee club at georgetown. monotone. charlie rose: his death shocked you? justice ginsburg: yes. charlie rose: do you miss him on the court? justice ginsburg: of course i do. it is a paler place without him. charlie rose: it doesn't have as much color and vibrancy? justice ginsburg: he was a wonderful storyteller. he had an uncanny ability to make even the most somber judge smile. he told many jokes, he had very good humor. we said a passion for opera, and genuinely cared about family. charlie rose: they brought you back to harvard law school to honor you. lots of people were there in terms of clerks and a lots of other people. you talked about the balance, the importance of family, and the balance you had found between the law and family. you think it is important, the family? justice ginsburg: a full life. yes. when i was going to law school, my daughter was 14 months old when i started. i would take my classes, go to the lib

charlie: but you also said about justice scalia, you said he suffered from a good writer's disease. justice breyer: i have said that. you have to be careful of that. the job of a judge in an appellate court is, in an opinion, to explain the reasons why he or she reached this opinion. now, i don't think that calls for or requires what you might be able to do in terms of great phrasing. if you can do that, it can be an advantage. what i meant -- when nino and i -- and i miss nino, i do -- we would appear together, and

view as it has been lately and of course it's always been partisan because of the way the late justice scalia pointed out. what was interesting was you go back to some of the great justices, they often join together and their views become the law and it was not polarized along partisan lines but rather based on their shared view of the law.n >> our viewers can join this conversation about partisanship and the supreme court with james byron. democrats can call (202)748-8000. p [inaudible] the gallup poll recently took a look look at what americans think the supreme court is doing, whether they approve or disapprove. currently 52% of americans disapprove of the job the supreme court is doing compared to only 42% that approve. the approval rating has been 2 down since about 2010 since then we know the court has issued some big controversial rulings. how have those rulings affected the public's confidence in the court? gay marriag >> i think it all depends on the action, you take the gay marriage case which i happen to believe that the court was not applying the constitution because neither marri

begin the process of selecting a replacement for justice scalia. we're going to end common core and bring education, supervision to local communities. and illegal immigration act. fully fund the construction of a wall on our southern border, don't worry about it. remember, i said mexico is paying for the wall. with the full understanding that the country of mexico will be reimbursing the united states for the full cost of such a wall. >> that was donald trump speaking in gettysburg earlier today and john roberts joins us with more details about what we could expect from donald trump throughout the day and between now and election. john. >> reporter: good afternoon. he'll be at the international ex-biggs. today donald trump laying out his closing arguments to the american electorate, why he should occupy the white house. gathering together at the same time all of the policy prescriptions that he's been laying out in speeches on the campaign trail over the last few months. but before getting into the idea of policy, airing out a list of grievances he

conservative control for decades to come so the change in personnel could happen fast beyond the late justice scalia's seat. three other justices are 78 and 83 years old. the ideological shift may take years to play out, particularfully areas of law that have been relatively stable for decaded. supreme court experts predict repep curses from the 2016 election will grow in significance over time.ce do you agree this is a monumenttive election for the supreme court? >> guest: absolutely. think the supreme court is ideologically at the crossroads. we have one vacancy. it's been philadelphia with a moderate -- filled with a moderate, a juris,mermer rick and has been blockedded on partisan political grounds and further christianities to thewhe politicizeation and i agree with mining spence whoever elected president with influence the court for three days. >> darren on the independent line.. >> caller: good morning, everybody. good more than, mr. zirin? >> guest: good morning. >> caller: always say i'm a -- probably 45 days or so because i love the forum issue love being age to express my views and hear reg

you made reference to justice scalia's -- how do you approach them differently? justice thomas: i do my job. to be honest with you, i think if a cases worthy you take it. i don't get into we may not win this or that's not my job. our job is to decide cases. cases and controversies are the administrative law area is obviously complicated. it is our job. it is complicated by things like chevron, by our willingness to say, let the expert agency decide and then give them all this running room, so i think -- i did not haven't asked to grind your it i do think that when we don't review things we advocate are responsibility -- abrogate our responsibility. a part of it is a check and review the cases. you don't review cases when you say we defer to virtually anything the agency does your it that is not a review. we don't do that through a district judge. district judge is our article three judges. they have the same status we have. but we do that through the agencies. i have written again on this. as of a constitutional matter, we are obligated to be more exacting in our

what justice scalia was saying is that you have to have rules, you have to do some work. reason why i dissent into the commercial speech case and in the hudson. it's a multi factor, four factor test that takes you where you want to go. that is not much of a test. i think justice scalia understood whether it was a lemon test or another test that we have got to have something with more teeth to it, more grip to it than that sort of a test. that's a problem with due process. these lever room for you to come out as a policy preference. so i don't know whether people are totally political in the sense of the politics of the city, but the jurisprudence allows for. it allows for the criticism. we took criticism in bush versus gore or something like that. people could easily throw out and casted dispersions about a particular opinion here there. i think what what you try to do is to your job in a way where you know that you have applied the law in a fair way. some years ago a court that i really enjoyed being on was a composition that was together for over 11 years with justice -

that is loss of a close personal friend and colleague of yours, justice scalia. i guess i would like to know if you are sure this your thoughts on what his passing has meant to you and the court. >> baron white once told me that anytime justice leaves the court avenue justice comes it is a completely different court. we have experienced experience that. as a senior next senior judge we've seen judges coming in our old colleagues leaving and it was important. we have never never experienced the loss of a colleague during session while he was an active judge. we sit, and never set next to nino on the bench because i was next to junior of him so we are on either side of the bench. but at the conference table reset together. i sat next to him for 28 years in the same room. there were were certain things that i knew that he would research out very well and i more or less relied on him for that. it wasn't clear to me that we would agree. he had a magnificent mind and spoken wrote with great clarity. he came by to see me just before he left for singapore and and hong kon

he said i miss the spirit of justice scalia and the debates with justice scalia. i assume you feel the same way. >> he made us laugh. >> rose: that's what it was. >> and he made us think. he challenged us to think. and those are ingredients for interesting conversations and for lively discussion. >> rose: you once said to me, you both loved opera. but you said he could sing better than you. >> i can't sing at all. >> rose: but they are writing lines for you in the opera that you will perform in when? when is it coming up. >> november 129. >> rose: november 129. >> it's a speaking part. >> rose: oh, a speaking part. (laughter) >> there is an opera, scalia ginsburg that is-- it's a comic opera, of course. (laughter) but the composer who wrote scalia ginsburg tried to say in a nutshell what's the difference between the two of us. so it opens with scalia's rage aria, the musicians know a rage aria typical of handel and the rage aria is this, the justices are blind. how can they possibly-- it, the constitution says absolutely nothing about this. and i-- said that he is

heck: justice scalia of health original. , which is my primary doctrine -- justice scalia upheld original theory. you to the audience for applauding my next question, which is about the a portable care act. according to the health and human services department, more than 73,000 people in nevada are butlled in obamacare, premiums here and across the country are skyrocketing. in some states, it is going up by more than 50%. the issue has republicans and democrats calling for changes, in looting former president clinton. president clinton: you had this crazy system were suddenly, 25,000 people help health care and suddenly, people wind up with their premiums doubled their coverage cut in half. it is the craziest thing in the world. steve: just this week, one of the more liberal governors in the country said -- americans say they want to keep three provisions -- three key provisions in the act -- so, ms. cortez masto, to you, where would you start to fixed skyrocketing cost premiums? ag masto: it is a great question. we know governor sandoval created the exchange in nevada, expanded medicaid

heck: justice scalia >> cortez masto: justice scalia that is a concern >> rep. heck: he interpreting the constitution as written and not rewriting it from the bench. >> thank you both. steve, you have the next question. >> steve: thank you for the audience to of applauding my next question. which is about the affordable care act. according where the 73,000 people in nevada are enrolled in obamacare. however premiums here and across the country are skyrocketing. in some states it is going up by four to 50 percent. this issue has both republicans changes including former president clinton. >> you have this crazy system for 25 million more people have healthcare and that the people have 60 hours a week lined up with their premiums doubled and their mortgage cut in half. it is the craziest thing in the world. >> steve: just this week one of the more liberal governors said quote, the reality is the affordable air act is no longer affordable. newly mostve three surveys no lifetime limits on coverage, allowing kids to say on insurance until they reach age 26, and no de

heck: justice scalia of health original. , which is my primary doctrine -- justice scalia upheld original theory. you to the audience for applauding my next question, which is about the a portable care act. according to the health and human services department, more than 73,000 people in nevada are butlled in obamacare, premiums here and across the country are skyrocketing. in some states, it is going up by more than 50%. the issue has republicans and democrats calling for changes, in looting former president clinton. president clinton: you had this crazy system were suddenly, 25,000 people help health care and suddenly, people wind up with their premiums doubled their coverage cut in half. it is the craziest thing in the world. steve: just this week, one of the more liberal governors in the country said -- americans say they want to keep three provisions -- three key provisions in the act -- so, ms. cortez masto, to you, where would you start to fixed skyrocketing cost premiums? ag masto: it is a great question. we know governor sandoval created the exchange in nevada, expanded medicaid

. >> surprising to people who watched, they would have known to justice scalia was exceedingly fond of justice brennan who was also on the opposite side in many cases and justice brennan usually enjoyed justice scalia's company as i do -- did. he has an extraordinary ability to make laugh even when we were on the dc circuit together, a three-judge panel, justice scalia would whisper something to me, it it would just break me up and i had everything all i could do to avoid laughing out loud. sometimes i would punch myself. people sometimes ask me, what was your favorite scalia joke. i said i know what it is but i can't tell you. [laughter] >> it was such fun at the washington national opera with him twice and to be part of this scalia ginsburg. some of my feminist friends why isn't ginsburg-scalia. senior say is important in my workplace. scalia although he was three years younger, he was appointed to the court many years before i was. that's why it is scalia-ginsburg. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> here is a look at upcoming book fairs and festivals i

chief roberts voted on the right to bear arms decision, which i happen to agree with, with justice scalia. patrick: after 90 minutes, the candidates had more to sacred i want to bring in kent wainscott to with in the last 10 minutes so, they just wrapped up answering questions from reporters. >> that's right. people are familiar with the concept of a spin room where candidates and surrogates talk about why they believe they're the best choice for the state of wisconsin and its voters. i asked them what was the one point tonight that they think resonated the most with voters: here's century -- voters, and here's what they had to say. >> whether it is internet or whether it is making sure they don't get their jobs shipped overseas, senator johnson votes

it was by justice scalia. e a court carve out and make it a hollow shell of a right of raising a restriction, and a restriction. and then, it's what justice would appoint that contract. and in his speech at gettysburg, announced that justice scalia's widow has this weekend planted a elect trump sign in her yard. at this point in time, we may assume that donald trump will appoint another justice scalia. and meantime, hillary clinton will appoint justices to the left. this idea -- >> to the left of s? there's not a lot of room. you have written a book about the democratic attempts of restricting free speech. she wants to a point justices to overturn citizens united that allowed corporations and unions to contribute to political groups. what do you make of her promise to appoint justices that overturn that? >> yeah, she is not only said she'd appoint justices and been actively encouraging someone to bring a test case up so that citizens can be overturned she is running on a constitutional amendment to the u.s. con

i've got to tell you, i think justice scalia who the dean of this law school once clerked for would be horrified to see the united states senate doing this terrible damage to one of the most important institutions in our country. >> moderator: and constitutionally -- [inaudible] full disclosure here, they're not required, are they, to hold hearings? or to take a vote? johnson: no. feingold: they shall advise and concept. so if they do not -- consent. be they do not, this is the most extreme politicization that has ever occurred. the longest was the 5 days -- 125 days. they are required, of course, to take action of some kind, and all they've done is deny the president his ability to have his nominee considered. they could vote no. johnson: i would say judge bork was the most artisan. yeah, president obama has the responsibility to nominate. the senate's role is advise and concept. now, our advice was when we're so close to election, let the american people have a voice in what the constitutional court should be. and then consent, you know, if i would have voted, i would have withheld m

scalia was the only dissenter. justice thomas was recused, he couldn't sit on the case because his son, at the time, was a student at v.m.i. so it was a 7-1 decision, and justice scalia's dissent aimed more at the chief than it did at me. i guess he expected what i would do, but he was surprised by the chief. >> rose: many consider that the most opinion you've ever written. do you? >> it remains to be seen. ( laughter ) >> rose: there may be one around the corner. first monday in october, not far off. >> i'm very fond of some of my dissenting opinions. >> rose: you are, as much as some of the majority opinions as in the lilly ledbetter case. >> one in which congress -- yes, congress could still do something about it but it was the so-called shelby county case where the court held, invalidated the key provision of the civil rights act of 19 -- the voting rights act of 1965, even though that legislation had been renewed time and again by congress, every time with overwhelming majorities on both sides of the aisles, republica

. >>> th supreme court starts t new term with the absence of justice scalia being felt. they have crafted a docket which steers clear of the controversiales. >> the annual red mass is held every sunday before the start of as ty get to work this year's dock set impacted byhe death of justice scalia. they have taken up lessrsial cat button issues until the confirmation of a ninth justice, as we wait some say that the split on the supreme court is being overstated. and not knowing ahead of time they there would be a huge personnel shift. there are four cases down. >> others say presence of a nine the justice is credible on the contentious issues. with cases involving race, free speech and government regulation all looming this term. they argue that the replacement should be confirmed sooner rather than later >> and the cloud that looms large is continuing with the supreme cou as they start yet aagain, the justices issued turg and ncaa. and it is continuing the normal orde of business despite the vacancy, they are trying to shy away from the controversy issues which i think

we may assume donald trump will appoint jeer justice scalia.ices to the left of sonia sotomayor. this idea of standing up -- >> to the left of sonia sotomayor? >> absolutely. >> there's not a lot of space there. >> she'll find it. she'll find it. >> what about the first amendment? kim, let me go back to you on the first amendment, citizens united. you have written a book about the democratic attempts to restrict free speech. she said she wants to appoint justices as a litmus test basically to overturn citizens united which allowed corporations and unions to contribute to political groups. what do you make of her promise to appoint justices that would overturn that? >> she's not only said she would appoint justices and she's already been actively encouraging someone to bring a test case back up so that citizens can be overturned, she's running on a constitutional amendment to the u.s. constitution to get rid of citizens united, which is another way of putting the government back in charge of who can spend money and, therefore, speak in elections

we have worked really hard over the course since justice scalia's passing. we have worked really hard to reach agreement and so we have not gone 4-4 in many cases and i give an enormous amount of credit to the chief justice and a lot of credit to my colleagues as well. but still, there are times where you can't reach agreement and if you can't reach agreement on a case you have taken, it's a serious thing. it is a serious matter. and then sometimes even though we have reached agreement, we have only done it by essentially re-characterizing the issue in a way that, it is not really the issue that people need decided. we have massaged the thing to make it, to decide a different question which, honestly, nobody really cares about, when the issue that people do care about and need decided is still left unresolved. so that, too, is a problem. so we have -- i think the court has done a great job, honestly in these last months, really trying to make it work. and as i say, the chief gets an incredible amount of credit for that. there is a reason why courts membersd n

justices. antonin scalia died in february. senate republicans have refused

i have to tell you, i think justice scalia who the dean of the law school once clerked for would be horrify today see the united states senate doing this terrible damage to one of the most important institutions in our country. >> constitutionally -- full disclosure here. they're not required, are they, to hold hearings or to take a vote? >> it says they shall advise and consent and so if they do not as you can see the historical record here this is the most extreme that's ever occurred. the longest 125 days. they are, of course, required to take action of some kind and all they have done here is deny president his ability to have a nominee considered. they can vote no but he refuses to do that. >> i would say he's probably the most partisan. there are two political branches, yeah. president obama has the responsibility to nominate. the senate's role is to consent. advice is when we are close to election, let the american people have a voice and what the constitution should be and then consent. i would not have voted to merrick garland. justice sky that would definitely flipped the court an

. >> the replacement of our beloved justice scalia will be a person of similar views, principles, and judicial >> i would hope that the senate would do its job and confirm the nominee that president obama has sent to them. that is the way the constitution, fundamentally, should operate. >> i think the next president should make the ckpi. i would not be in favor of going forward. >> i strongly support roe v wade. the government has no business in the decisions that women make with their families in accordance with their faith with medical advice and i will stand overturn row v wade? >> if we put another two or three justices on, that will happen. and that will happen automatically, in my opinion, because i am putting pro life justices on the court. >> i support the second amendment. i think we need comprehensive background checks, we need to close the online loophole, close the gun show loophole. >> we need a supreme court that, in my opinion, is going to uphold the second amendment and all amendments, but the second ament absolute siege. >> the supreme court should represent all of us

i am looking to appoint judges very much in the mold of justice scalia. i'm looking for judges -- and i've actually picked 20 of them so that people would see, highly respected, highly thought of, and actually very that will respect the constitution of the united stat. states.whoever is nominated would have to go in front of the senate judiciary committee -- which right now -- is chaired by senator grassley. voters in johnson county next president would have to go in front of the judiciary committee which is chaired by senator russ. >> you can hear from both candidates in another race. the jackson coun t on aging and the league of women voters are cohosting a forum for the district. that is held by dean who was looking for six term in washington. is being challenged by christopher peters. it will be held today from 2:00 until 3:40. >>> raises -- recent businesses are looking forward to the weekend. these were left out of barriers group are hosting an event saturday to help raise money. it starts at 11 am and it features food and family activities. admissi

justices are over the age of 78. there is a current vacancy on the court. including thessaly a vacancy, one might think -- the scaliaancy, one might think that justice ginsburg might think about stepping aside. it is more difficult to guess perhaps about justice kennedy, who is 80, and obviously a republican appointee. he may be more keen to be replaced by a republican president. justice breyer is the other one. he is 78. he is probably quite keen to probablyhe court, because he was the courts junior justice for almost a decade. he might feel that he is just starting to become more of a court andyer on the might wish to continue doing that come as would justice ginsburg. you about johnk roberts, appointed by president george w. bush as chief justice of the united states. the question on cameras in the courtroom does not appear to change in the short-term, but has he become more transparent on it comes to oral arguments? ar, no.in particular know the camera issue has not gotten anywhere despite c-span's best efforts. they make little changes here and there, but there is no major groundbreaking changes coming our way.