and justice scalia was known for that. he was very much able to separate ideas from people and he loved the law and he wanted to be right and he wanted to be a majority. but he had such strong friendships with folks like justice ginsburg and it was a very cleejal court and he made it a point to try to approve opinions from all justices on the court. justice g insberg told the story she was writing the majority decision in a case and justice scalia was writing the dissent. before going home one evening, he dropped off a draft of his dissent with justice ginsberg, perhaps she could use his dissent in writing her majority opinion. and it was still in the drafting process. she said that reading through his dissent greatly improved what she was writing as the majority because as can be anticipated, his dissent had worked to poke holes in the majority opinion. and that's another thing that stood out -- stands out in my mind from my clerkship, the number of times where wherever justice scalia was writing a dissent, the back and f

scalia wasn't on the bench. scalia would have probably asked that line of questioning. >> and the advocate was about to sit down early so he wasn't wasting anyone's time. >> right. i felt like that decision came down the last day and i feel like i haven't given enough time to his dissent in that case. but i thought it was very interesting. just because he doesn't ask questions in oral argument, there's this sort of notion that he is shy. you can never hear him speak. you can hear him speak. i thought that case was interesting of him sticking to his word. i'll ask a question when i think a question needs to be asked and nobody else is asking it. >> i always think of thomas like sonya sotamayor. but different justices view the job very differently. we've had a couple on the right justice thomas and justice scalia and on the left i would say sotamayor and to a lesser extent ruth ginsberg. justice sotamayor has written all these dissents basically she's speaking to danchte audience and trying to say look, there's a

scalia died four days later. had he lived, they would've had a 5 - for decision throwing out the agency fees and there would have been a five, probably in a fairly broad opinion that at least some of the language would have been rebuked to the president and then the two cases where it tilted the other way because of kennedy on affirmative action and abortion. affirmative action would've deadlocked. >> it would've been four - 4. >> so i just thought, it is true that a few cases could tip you very much of the term but last year, you you remember we had the gay marriage decision and another decision upholding the health care plan. this year the big decisions at the end on affirmative-action and abortion, those are fairly big victories because kennedy tilted to the left, you could talk about that at some length, those are cases that turned out to depend a lot on the evidence. i think in the end he was convinced that the texas abortion couldn't be defended as a health regulation and that the texas affirmative action p

>>. >> justice scalia did not have much use for reporters. i guess i got under his skin in 2000 how justice scalia in conversation with members of congress at receptions to have the ban for the justices that federal judges that they are not allowed to get $5,000 for a speech for an article but they can get 20,000 for a teaching law school in florence in the summer which a law of them do, but they cannot get honorarium for speeches so justice scalia was jawboning members of congress to get that day and lifted. so he wrote a letter to the editor that was extraordinary. so my first question first of all, is this for real? and second to does the justice want this printed? >> yes. so he said among the many other things the story was gossipy and moronic nt spelled it with my name. [laughter] so i became an adjective did washington and that was a badge of honor for a while. said "the washington post" picked up on that and i am sure he regretted that moniker. >> said he was known for his oral defense this term he only had to oral defense from justice

i remember when scalia started. the first couple weeks before scalia started.tony said he seemed to be nine old men and the scalia cavemen and he he was full of energy. there so many times over the years the you could go up and they are arguing in ferc case or whatever. 10 minutes into it, everybody is about asleep. scalia would say something like you think you want us -- counselor, you want us to rewrite the rules for handling energy nationwide. the attorney said no. he would say it sure seems like that is what you are arguing. he would start in on an attorney. everybody's eyes would light up because he would have a different view of the case. eventually the other justices would wake up and try to respond. he was a real force of nature. you could immediately see this spring how different things were when he was gone. the three women justices really went after the texas attorney. it was almost like wow i've never seen this side of the court before. the three women are working the sky over. in the old days, scully a -- scalia would've been there to fight back. i

scalia was on the bench, scalia probably would have asked that line of questioning. >> he was about toit down early so he wasn't wasting anyone's time. >> right and then i felt like that decision came down last day and i feel like i haven't given enough time to his dissent in that case but i thought it was very interesting because just because he doesn't ask questions in oral arguments, there's this notion that he's shy or you never hear him speak, you can hear him speak and i thought that case was interesting and him speaking to his word,i'll ask a question when i think the question needs to be asked that no one else is asking . >> thomas and i always think of thomas like sonja sotomayor. different justices view the job very differently. and we've had a couple on the right, justice thomas and justice scalia and on the left, i'd say sotomayor and to a lesser extent ruth ginsburg. adams got a good piece in his paper today about justice sotomayor has written all these dissents on the criminal justice system, cheese into a different audience and trying to say look, there's a real problem

has the loss of scalia had a real impact on what he'll be able to do? joan: during his first tenure, john roberts had five conservatives. he was at the height of his power during his first decade because of scalia's vote. and now we have a conservative chief justice leading the court that seems to be getting more liberal by the day and we haven't seen anything like that in decades. pete: thank you all and a shoutout and congratulations to one of "washington week"'s own. greg king is retiring after nearly 44 years here at weta 6. greg has been with weta working with this broadcast and the pbs news hour. we thank him for his dedication, wish him a well-deserved set of friday nights to enjoy the future. long live the king. for all of you, a very happy and healthy fourth of july weekend. i'm pete williams. be sure to come back again next week on "washington week." good night. >> corporate funding for "washington week" is provided by -- >> we're committed to strong. we're committed to sure. we're committed to smart and light. secure and bold. in a world of e

we cannot sure why justice kennedy joined the liberals, but justice scalia made his reasons clear inparate opinion. under the necessary and proper clause he wrote, the court must defer to congress' judgment to enforce its ban on the interstate trade. in this way, justice scalia adhere to the democratic constitution, judges should defer to the majority of legislators. in short, six of nine justices exercised judicial restraint in deferring to the democratic will of congress when it came to enforcing the scope of congress' power under the commerce and necessary proper clauses but three justices were prepare today draw a line at federal power to prevent citizens from producing and consuming a good on their own property leaving the regulation of such activities to the states. so six justices to the democratic contusion while three were prepared to enforce the tax of the republican constitution. now, the same divide over the proper rule of judges enforcing our republican constitution arose ten years later in the obamacare case, but then the numbers had moved in a republican direction. the

. >> justice scalia, god rest his soul, he was very political and gave many speeches where he didn'tithhold his opinion and if justice scalia would have said something similar about hillary clinton i don't think there would be this kind of outrage. >> i disagree. >> come on you us to believe the people on the right would be upset. >> if you could point it me where justice scalia has actually gotten emmersed in one of the most contested presidential elections i will say you're right but you're wrong and i'm right. >> i'm not wrong. justice scalia is a smart man, he was original and a lot of what i know of him that i respect and admire and decisions i have read. he was a political person. >> what's that mean, did he ever say this candidate is nuts, is a faker, says whatever comes out of their mind. it's unheard of it. >> if clarence thomas. >> i don't care who says it. anyone who wears the robe let me tell you -- >> you really think someone you agree with politically -- >> i would be outraged. >> -- you say they should be impeached. nothing to do with the fact she's left wing. >> i cou

scalia was a very important mentor of this. justice scalia and i -- i knew him before he was on the supreme court. known him a long time. we had a robust disagreement that when presidents overstepped their bounds, it's not the judiciary's duty to jerk the leash of the executive branch. his answer was impeach the president. i told him i thought that was awkward. and unrealistic. anyw anyway, closest on the supreme court in my view to these things is clarence thomas who has a healthy disregard or at least refusal to genuflect. if it's wrong, get rid of it he would relitigate the slaughterhouse cases. my son is second-year lawsuit at the university of virginia and i told him his life's work is to get rid of rationale basis test and relitigate the slaughterhouse cases. justice willett of the texas supreme court, clint bolick appointed a few weeks ago from the goldwater institute to the arizona supreme court, they all understand this. we're gaining on the rascals. >> do you want to make your way to the mike? >> i can just speak loud

scalia was a very important mentor of this. justice scalia and i -- i knew him before he was on the supreme court. i've known him a long time. we had a robust disagreement that when presidents overstepped their bounds, it's not the judiciary's duty to jerk the leash of the executive branch. his answer was impeach the president. i told him i thought that was awkward. and unrealistic. anyway, closest on the supreme court in my view to these things is clarence thomas who has a healthy disregard or at least refusal to genuflect. if it's wrong, get rid of it. he would relitigate the slaughterhouse cases. my son is second-year lawsuit at the university of virginia and i told him his life's work is to get rid of rationale basis test and relitigate the slaughterhouse cases. justice willett of the texas supreme court, clint bolick appointed a few weeks ago from the goldwater institute to the arizona supreme court, they all understand this. we're gaining on the rascals. >> do you want to make your way to the mike? >> i can just speak lou

scalia was a very important mentor of this. justice scalia and i -- i knew him before he was on the supreme court. known him a long time. we had a robust disagreement that when presidents overstepped their bounds, it's not the judiciary's duty to jerk the leash of the executive branch. his answer was impeach the president. i told him i thought that was awkward. and unrealistic. anyway, closest on the supreme court in my view to these things is clarence thomas who has a healthy disregard or at least refusal to genuflect. if it's wrong, get rid of it he would relitigate the slaughterhouse cases. my son is second-year lawsuit at the university of virginia and i told him his life's work is to get rid of rationale basis test and relitigate the slaughterhouse cases. justice willett of the texas supreme court, clint bolick appointed a few weeks ago from the goldwater institute to the arizona supreme court, they all understand this. we're gaining on the rascals. >> do you want to make your way to the mike? >> i can just speak loudly. [

when had you cheney going hunting with scalia. when you had kagan who was already in the white house obama and came over to the supreme court. all of them had conflict. can't just hold ruth bader gipsburg to a different standard. >> you know, katie, i think ted raises a good point although i must say that justice ginsburg bias is a little more passionate although i have given her credit for transparency. >> you can give her credit for transparency but ultimately guys we know. this procedurally there is one vehicle by which she does not listen these cases that's a recusal. who decides to recuse? the justice him or herself? so even if they try to get her off these cases ultimate lid it's her decision whether or not she is going to be off these cases. i think she played her hand improperly. if you really don't like donald trump as much as ruth bader ginsburg claims she doesn't like him, why not be a little bit more insidious and subtle? why not keep your mouth shut and rule the way you want to rule. taken judicial activism too far. >

they will also talk about the death of antonin scalia a. posted by the d.c. bar event live at 12:30 p.m. eastern. posting a briefing on the title justice reform. we will hear from several experts and members of right on crime. that is that 1:30 p.m. eastern. c-span3. c-span's washington journal club every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up on tuesday morning, a congressional discretion -- discussion. they will talk about what is left on the legislative agenda. also former white house senior middle east advisor will examine u.s. efforts in the fight against isis. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal beginning like that; eastern on tuesday when. eastern on tuesday morning. the hard-fought 2016 primary season is over. historic inventions to follow. -- conventions to follow. at the delegates consider the nomination of the first woman ever to head a major political party and the first non-politician in several decades. watch live on c-span. seat to a front row every minute of both conventions on c-span. getting on monday, july 18. y

now, if we had scalia was living or scalia was replaced by me, you wouldn't have had that, okay? it would have been the opposite. but, you know, there's your first example right there -- >> again, donald trump right there on a conservative talk radio show getting it wrong there. he's asked about the abortion ruling this week. it was a 5-3 decision. it was five on the pro-a bortion rights side and three on the anti-abortion rights side. so let's do the math. had justice scalia been alive, or had president trump appointed a justice like scalia to fill that open seat, there really would not have been the opposite. it wouldn't have flipped the ruling. the ruling would have been 5-4, the same side would have won . math is hard, but not math that you can count on your fingers. mr. trump also failed a basic test of how candidates are supposed to interact with their constituents when those constituents prove to be confused or misinformed. >> why aren't we putting our retiree, our military retirees on that board or in tsa? get rid of all these heeby jobbies they wear at tsa. i've seen the

not the last one that was talking about judge shkreli -- scalia.have got to know what our independence came from. they have to go back and look in history. read the constitution of the united states of america. and that's all i have to say. shame on her. in jacksonville, florida. good morning. there was no republican outrage or media outrage when justice scalia and vice president cheney spent a weekend while theuckhunting supreme court was reviewing a case involving cheney. scalia and thomas have all attended private that involve ceos and billionaires. they may have cases before the supreme court. thank you so much. host: we have one more call before the house comes in. this is teresa in florida on the republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i feel the remarks about all the other justices. be if clarencet thomas were to come out and make any comment about hillary or anything about what hillary clinton has done? i wonder what kind of response we would have gotten from the media. does anybody have any comment on that? host: west virginia

and on that sad day when we lost justice scalia, i made another pledge that obama would not fill that seat. that honor will go to donald trump this year. [applause] so with donald trump in the white house, senate republicans will build on the work we have done and passmore bills than any senate in years. we have already passed the first major education reform in more than a decade and ended common core. we have made the first significant reforms in social security in three decades. we passed a crucial cyber security bill and opposed sanctions on north korea. we has to first major highway bill in more than a decade. pastor bill to combat the scourge of human trafficking. just last week we passed the first major law aimed at confronting the heartbreaking explosion of her when an opioid abuse. -- of heroin and will be would abuse. keep the senate in republican hands and we will continue this work and the service i am proud to lead in the senate will not let you down. put hillary clinton and i promise you this, she will double down on the cynical approach that senate democrats seem to rev

but the chief justice and justice alito and scalia were unwilling to join the opinion. they knew his view would be controlling, but it would not be their view. i did think that was striking, that there was no response to the points made. last, in terms of the future, we always did see this as a unique case, the the top 10 plan in texas filled 70% of the seats. we thought that were operated in ourade it a unique case in favor. it created more racial diversity at the university of texas than it had when it previously used racial preference. we entered the case thinking this was an interesting case study. what happens when a school is forced to abandon racial preferences by its own circuit, moves to a race neutral alternative, gets more minority enrollment, and then is forced by the court to alter course. we thought that would lead to a unique case. while the results are disappointing, i don't think it tells us all together what will happen going forward. my clients have sued harvard college over the use of racial preferences. my clients have sued university of north carol

but scalia added, the right is not unlimited. also leaving room for gun regulation. >> is that a continuing grey area? >> it is absolutely a continuing grey area absolutely. >> another grey area is how the court might rule on future second amendment issues after the sudden death of judge scalia in february. >> so, you know, a lot depends on who replaces justice scalia. >> this is tracy smith. you might call it, girl power. women are the fastest growing group of gun owners in the u.s. and this is typically their weapon of choice. a semi automatic handgun. light weight, accurate, and so simple that practically anyone can learn to use it. in states that allow it, a handgun has, for some, become the must-have accessory. why do you carry a gun? >> personal protection. i have two kids. >> i just feel safer having it with me. >> can you show us where you carry it? >> i have a purse. >> on my hip. right here. >> i carry it on my person. >> it's pink. >> it is pink. >> i'm a girl. turns out most prefer basic black. and since more women th

but the nomination of garland to replace scalia is still on ice. >> so this vacancy will not be filled this year. >> most senate republics still refuse to meet the d.c. circuit judge must less confirm him saying they are waiting for a new president in january. reporting in washington, i'm chance seals. >> well, more to come on kron 4 news at 8:00 ever thought of zip lining through a major metropolitan area? it's happening in one city and we'll show you where later in the show. >> listen up, parents in the east bay, there is a non-profit program helping to teach teenagers how to cope. their workshops are low-cost and in some cases, free, that is coming up on kron 4 news. and fog and low clouds starting to rogg roll back into the bay area and we have the 4th of july forecast coming up in a few minutes well a violent storm has torn through parts of new york, leaving behind a big mess. residents of the schenectady area now have no choice, but to spend part of their 4th of july weekend cleaning up. eyewitnesses say one after another that is trees that is, ripped from the ground, some fallin

i know justice scalia was experimenting with some of the new gadgets. in dealing with research and drafting and all that. who do we go to? you know, that is a good question and i think there is some controversy around it. it is so easy to say what it is and go online and see. but should that be part of the record on how you are viewing it? i think that is what the case is about. our law clerks are so much more adept at the technology than we are. we can ask them. but it's a great challenge and it is a very just in question. i think we do need to be very careful. conducting our own research on law is what we are supposed to do. but to the extent that technology is a factual issue in a case come on a panted, whether this works or doesn't work, i think we have to be very careful -- is a factual issue in a case, in a patent, whether this works or doesn't work, i think we have to be very careful. there are two sides to the story. i know we mentioned it, but maybe it is a little exaggerated. it's like in sports. if you say, ok, who are the 50 best baseball pl

and the nature of the court really shifted february 13 when justice scalia died.became a duller, grayer place, and i think they're probably ready for reinforcements. they wouldn't mind having nine justices instead of trying to find consensus with an evenly-- ideologically evenly-balanced court. >> rose: zero days is a documentary about the newest frontier in watch warfare, cyber war. unfortunately, it escaped to attack other computers around the world. alex gib me is the filmmaker, david sangar of the "new york times" was interviewed for the film. >> i had done a film, the story of wikileaks, and the producer reminded me about the the stuxnet story. i had seen about it priferly, pie reading about it in the "new york times." it seemed to me a story that need aid deeper dive. there had been no film about it so i got interested in it and started on. >> rose: and you place a phone call to david and say, "we should talk?" >> we should talk. >> he showed up one day. we the met at a coffee shop who ploks from the white house. he had read "confront and conceal "a book i h

but the term term as we all know was overtaken by the passing of justice scalia and the resulting vacancy on the court. some consequential decisions were made and some were not. cases were remanded to lower courts for further consideration. some ended in ties leaving critical questions unanswered and in some cases differing understandings of the line different parts of the country. and giving the senate's continuing refusal to consider the nomination circuit chief judge to fill the vacancy on the supreme court much uncertainty lies ahead. but we do have an amazing guide to lead us through this discussion with a very distinguished panel. a true expert on the supreme court and i would like to say a friend of acs, tom goldstein. tom is one of our nation's utmost experience supreme court practitioners. he has served as counsel to a petitioner responded and roughly 10% of all the court merit cases for the past 15 years. personally arguing 38. in addition to practicing law tom has taught supreme court litigation at harvard law school since 2004. he previously taught the same schedule at stanfor

she was close friends with scalia. when she was asked about it, she would talk about how this shows we can disagree without being disagreeable. she's out there calling trump a faker. she's not treating him like a polite adversary because she doesn't think he merits it, and she thinks the risk is very great. >> and if he wins, it's all gone, like basically the eventuality of him winning is so cataclysmic it's like some inverse pascal's wager. like i might as well say what i believe, because lord all-mighty if he wins, the house is on fire. >> yeah. >> i just want to remind me, when we talk about the norms of the court, 120 days into a nominee who has not even gotten a hearing, which is a pretty egregious violation of afe really important norm, which is advise and consent. this has never happened before, at least not in recent times. >> justice ginsburg talks all the time about how the senate vote to confirm her was 97-3, that obviously included many republicans. yes, it was a democratic-controlled senate and a democrati

antonin scalia was a very outspoken justice of the supreme court and by and large circumspect.tspoken justice but never went over the line and talked about particular candidates. having said, that paul, i'm not sure this is much of an issue in the election. >> should me? >> i think because what ruth bader ginsburg represents, finger on the scale, they want outcomes instead of nonjudgmental judging. >> is this going to be over, james? >> the supreme court is also going to be an issue. >> depends if a case comes before the court before re-election. remember when they decided bush versus gore in 2000. >> a little bit. >> there were four accidents. they ended with respectfully dissent. justice ginsburg said i dissent, leaving out respectfully. she should have known better than saying these things about trump. >> she weighed in on citizens free speech and heller case, second amendment washington gun case. >> landmark gun case. >> which calls into question whether she can ever rule again on first and second. >> when you say weighed in, she basically invited cases to come before justi

death,ustice scalia's that vote is gone.n case you're are wondering where hillary clinton stands, she said "the supreme court is wrong on the second amendment." think about that. on the supreme court said was that you have the right to protect your life and your own home, but hillary says they are wrong. it is that simple. a hillary clinton supreme court means your right to own a firearm is gone. make no mistake, this election is not about the next four years . it's about the next 40 years. voting for hillary clinton or not voting is simply not an option. outrageous is that for the rest of her life, hillary clinton will never even think about dialing 911. years, she has not taken a walk, a nap, for a bathroom break without a good guy with a gun to protect her. [applause] it is easy for her to dismiss a right that you will never have to use. for the rest of us, the choice to own a firearm is ours to make . there cannot be one set of rules for the clintons and another set for us. here is hillary's problem, american women are t

the replacement of our beloved, justice scalia, will be a person of similar views, principles, and judicial philosophies. very important. this will be one of the most important issues decided by this election. my opponent wants to essentially a pbolish the second i, on the other hand, received the early and strong endorsement of the national rifle association. and will protect the right of all americans to keep their families safe. at this moment, i would like to thank the evangelical and religious community because i will tell you what. the support that they have given me, and i'm not sure i totally deserve it. it has been so amazing and had such a big reason for me being here so true. they have much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits. an amendment pushed by lyndon johnson many years ago threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. their voice has been taken away. i am going to work very hard to repeal that language and to protect free speech for all

i don't know. >> antoni scalia. >> he got criticism for this as well. he took criticism as well.dent obama has used them as a political pawn. remember in the state of the union speeches, where he points to them. he had alito shaking his head. he doesn't go to the states of the union address any more. >> who is she to judge. >> she should probably -- >> she says she is going to move to new zealand. >>> another critics, actor, matt damon, the star says he is frient frightened by the candidate. you're going to hear why, next. jack be nimble, jack be quick, jack knocked over a candlestick onto the shag carpeting... ...and his pants ignited into flames, causing him to stop, drop and roll. luckily jack recently had geico help him with renters insurance. because all his bengings went up in flames. jack got full replacement and now has new pants he ordered from banana republic. visit geico.com and see how affordable renters insurance can be. time for the fastest seven minutes on television. three stories, seven lively minutes. >> doesn't that mean your lazy? >> no, sigh lengths. >> first

[aplausos] el reemplazo de nuestro bien amado magistrado scalia serÁ una persona de principios similares, abolir la segunda enmienda. [abucheos] yo, por otra parte, recibido el apoyo fuerte y temprano de la sensaciÓn -- asociacion nacional de rifles. voy a proteger el derecho de todo estadounidense de mantener segura a su familia. [aplausos] en este momento nos gustarÍa agradecer a la comunidad evangÉlica y religiosa por el apoyo que me han dado y, no sÉ si me lo merezco realmente, ha sido tan increÍble y ha sido un gran motivo de que estÉ aquÍ hoy, eso es muy cierto. [aplausos] [aplausos] ellos tienen mucho que contribuir a nuestra polÍtica, pero nuestras leyes le impiden a ustedes expresar sus ideas desde sus propios pÚlpitos. una enmienda propulsada hace muchos aÑos amenaza a las instituciones religiosas. les han quitado la voz, yo voy a trabajar muy arduamente para devolverles la libre expresiÓn a todos los estadounidenses. [aplausos] [aplausos] podemos lograr estas grandes cosas y mucho mÁs. todo lo que necesitamos hacer, es empezar a creer en nosotros mismos y en nuestro paÍs una v

the replacement of our beloved justice scalia will be a person of similar views, principles and judicial philosophies. very important. this will be one of the most important issues decided by this election. my opponent wants to essentially abolish the second amendment. i, on the other hand, received the early and strong endorsement of the national rifle association. and will protect the right of all americans to keep their families safe. at this moment i would like to thank the evangelical and religious community because i'll tell you what, the support that they have given me, and i'm not sure i totally deserve it, has been so amazing and has had such a big reason for me being here tonight. true, so true. they have much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits. an amendment pushed by lyndon johnson many years ago threatens religious institutions with the loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. their voice has been taken away. i am going to work very hard to repeal that language and to pro

. >> the replacement of our beloved justice scalia will be a person of similar views, principals and judicial philosophies. very important. (cheers and applause). >> this will be one of the most important issues decided by this election. my opponent wants to essentially abolish the second amendment. >> no! >> boo! >> i, on the other hand, received the early and strong endorsement of the national rival association. (cheers and applause). >> and will protect the rights of all americans to keep their families safe. (cheers and applause). >> at this moment, i would like to thank the evangelical and religious community because i'll tell you what, the support that they've given me, and i'm not sure i totally deserve it, has been so amazing, and has had such a big reason for me being here tonight. (cheers and applause). >> so true. they have much to contribute to our politics. yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits. an amendment pushed by lyndon johnson many years ago threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax exempt status if they openly advo

court justice who the conservative movement will miss most, justice scalia was an originalist. and the word "intended" reflects what the -- those folks thought when should it be the original words and what those words meant. that would be what justice scalia would want us, i believe, to have in our platform and not the word "intended." >> we have a second? okay. we have open discussion. gentleman from indiana. >> thank you. jim bob from indiana. i support this amendment. the idea of originalism is to -- is that the constitution is written in words. those words were understood to mean something at the time the constitution was adopted. that is what the people consented to is what those words meant at the time. not necessarily what was intended. the intention may actually diverge from the actual words. but it's the words, not the intent that is adopted. so i think this is a much more accurate and i support the amendment. >> thank you very much. any further debate? delegate from new jersey. >> andrea moore from new mexico. >> new mexico, sorry. >> i call the question. >> okay. we

talking about the replacement to justice scalia.ill retire after the next president is chosen. we are very happy about that. [applause] and two other justices will turn 80 in the very first term of the next president. so we will be determining the future of the country for the next generation when it comes to the supreme court, and they affect every aspect of our lives. we are picking to branches of government. if you've seen a list of donald trump's nominees for supreme court, they are actually outstanding in every one of those would support any of those individuals for the supreme court. i might augment that list was just about to put john cornyn on it as well. our candidate for president donald trump i think also stands out because he more than a lot of people is emphasizing the fact that he is for the working and women of america. donald trump spoke to the republicans in d.c. about three weeks ago, and actually i thought the most important sentence that he spoke was in response to a question he was asked, and it was almost a thr

justice scalia's words ring true. we quote those words and point out how absurd that opinion is, as well as the other opinion in united states versus windsor concerning the federal government definition of marriage. when roe versus wade came down, the gop did not retreat and say i guess we lost that battle. gop fought on and we are in a better position today. in past instances where the supreme court has erred, it's important for us to say an error has been made. i would yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from virginia. >> the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> thank you. i thank the gentleman from kansas for that very eloquent statement. and for his work on this amendment. i think he said it all. if any republican wants to argue with justice physical yashgs be my guest. >> the delegate from d.c. is recognized. >> thank you. i certainly would not have won in an argument against justice scalia. i wanted to address the reference that was made to the roe-v-wade decision. we kept a strong pro-life platf

but alito and scalia were unwilling to join the opinion. his view would be controlling, but it would not be their view. i did think that was striking, that there was no response to the points made. last, in terms of the future, we always did see this as a unique top 10 plan in texas filled 70% of the seats. we thought that were operated in its favor. it created more racial diversity at the university of texas than it had when it previously used racial preference. we entered the case thinking this was an interesting case study. what happens when a school is forced to abandon racial preferences by its own circuit, moves to a race neutral alternatives, gets more minority enrollment, and then is forced by the court to alter course. results are disappointing, i don't think it what willll together happen going forward. i have colleagues that sued harvard college over the use of racial preferences, university of north carolina chapel hill over the use of racial preferences. i think fisher invites a fundamental challenge. notere criticized for buil

[crowd cheering] the replacement of our beloved justice scalia will be a person of similar views, principles and judicial flos philosophies. very important. this will be one of the most important issues decided by this election. my opponent wants to essentially abolish the second amendment. i, on the other hand, received the early and strong endorsement of the nationa national rifle association and will protect the rights of all americans to keep their families safe. [crowd cheering] at this moment, i would like to thank the evangelical and religious community because, i'll tell you what, the support that they've given me, and i'm not sure i totally deserve it, has been so amazing and has had such a big reason for me being here tonight. [crowd cheering] so true. they have much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds for your own purpose. an amendment pushed by lyndon johnson many years ago threatens religious institutions with the loss of their tax exempt status if their openly advocate their political views. there voice has been taken away. i am goin

the replacement of our beloved justice scalia will be a person of similar views, principles and judicial philosophies. very important. this will be one of the most important issues decided by this election. my opponent wants to essentially abolish the second amendment. i, on the other hand, received the early and strong endorsement of the national rifle association. and will protect the right of all americans to keep their families safe. at this moment i would like to thank the evangelical and religious community because i'll tell you what, the support that they have given me, and i'm not sure i totally deserve it, has been so amazing and has had such a big reason for me being here tonight. true, so true. they have much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits. an amendment pushed by lyndon johnson many years ago threatens religious institutions with the loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. their voice has been taken away. i am going to work very hard to repeal that language and to pro