scalia, roughly base on the magic flute. scalia is lost in a darkroom. he is being punished for excessive dissenting. [laughter] i had to help him. then the man who was testing scalia, why would you want to help him? he's your enemy. he's not my enemy. he's my friend. there we sing a duet. we were different, we are one. different in our approach to legal, reading legal text, but one in our reverence for the u.s. constitution and for the institution we serve. >> your son has your love for classical music and opera. he started his own company. marty was the first claire of his -- chair of his board. patrice, your daughter-in-law, is quite an exquisite singer. classical music. your other hobby traveling music, working out, 1999. who got you on that path. it was marty again. >> at the end of my bout with colorectal cancer. marty said you look like a survivor of concentration camp. you got to build yourself up. i asked around and gladys said i have the right person for you. >> put that slide up again. >> he works in the d.c. district court clerks office. in h

it's a lot of fun. >> chris scalia, thank you so much. book is "scalia speaks."terpreted media mogul harry have i wiharvey weinstein out. gloria allred joins me next on "andrea mitchell reports." ♪ when food is good and clean and real, it's ok to crave. and with panera catering, there's more to go around. panera. food as it should be. he's a nascar champion who's she's a world-class swimmer who's stared down the best in her sport. but for both of them, the most challenging opponent was... pe blood clots in my lung. it was really scary. a dvt in my leg. i had to learn all i could to help protect myself. my doctor and i choose xarelto® xarelto®... to help keep me protected. xarelto® is a latest-generation blood thinner... ...that's proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt and pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical studies, almost 98% of patients on xarelto® did not experience another dvt or pe. here's how xarelto works. xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least six blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective... ...targeting just on

the same with chevron, as justice scalia explained 25 years ago, quote, how clear is clear? it is here if chevron is not abandoned, that the future battles over agency interpretations of law will be followed, and in fact, the court has skirmished and our court particularly has skirmished exactly over this terrain numerous times over the last 25 years in hugely significant cases. each of which turned on a significant extent whether the relevant statute was clear or ambiguous. all the cases came down to what turned out to be a personal question, is the language clear or is it ambiguous. no wonder people suspect that judge's personnel views are infecting these kinds of cases. we have set up a system where that suspicious is almost inevitable because the reality of the ambiguity versus clarity determination causing that is almost inevitable. of course, in characterizing some of these decisions as examples of the problem, i want to be clear, i'm not in any way suggesting that the judges themselves are acting in an improper political manner. to the contrary, most judges apply the

in the mold of gorsuch and scalia. >> right.use he has used the federalists society as a clearinghouse. that allowed expedited selections. >> federalist society being, kind of -- it's a group of conservative judges, lawyers, not just judges, lawyers and so, trump has put them in a very prominent position, dan, on vetting judicial nominees. >> yeah. i think it is had very positive effect. if there is any criticism we've heard that there could be more nominees that are from the law and economics school which is applies economic rationality to the law. in the way that say the very famous judge richard pozner, the 7th circuit just retired. pozner was one of the godfathers on law and economics. perhaps over time we'll see more of that introduced in the nominees. >> and i mean i think, bill, trump promised this in the campaign. >> right. >> and delivered. >> i think actually the dare, he promised it in response to a ted cruz attack on what kind of judges -- it helped trump because he is on the record saying these are the kind of judge

i liked justice scalia. i met him first when he was on the faculty of the university of chicago law school. he gave a speech to the american law association on some administrative law issue. i disagreed with most of what he said. [laughter] justice ginsburg: but i was captivated by the way he said it. he was so amusing. and then we were buddies on the d.c. circuit. and the one thing we had in common is we both really tried hard to write comprehensible opinions. my style is quite different. his is attention grabbing. mine is milder. worked very hard about getting it right and keeping it tight. judge williams: in one of the cases, you really differed with him on bush versus gore. i think he told you take a hot bath. justice ginsburg: that was the end of the day. this was a marathon. the court granted review on saturday. brief filed sunday, oral argument monday, decisions and there were multiple opinions out on tuesday. it has been a long and trying day. and justice scalia called me into chambers, it was 9:00 a

but the core of your objection is justice scalia didn't engage.he doesn't seek to explain the original intent, this is focused on closely parsed text taking us on a claustrophobic and unpersuasive reading of the text that strolls through the historical background, to take out of the context. and -- >> the other 60 to take the words keep and bear arms out of order and out of context. text out of context doesn't work. he consulted dictionaries, really hard to prove that is the score. as we just heard, i would suggest, not heard the fact somebody in 1965 articulated a powerful constitutional argument for the consensus of 200 years before but i will try that sometime. justice scalia relies on the history, leaves out, and serious consideration that to bear arms is the term used in inevitably for the military and militia service. he articulated a doctrine. once you take away -- he articulates a doctrine that says there is an individual right like all individual rights listing the limitations. core of the second amendment, protection of hearth and home u

we have made enormous strides over the last 30 years thanks to justice scalia. as a like to say to the girls basketball team is now up to us. that much is clear. [applause] >> i am the director of the center here and before i call him back up to the stage for a presentation sticking with your theme i want to touch on one aspect you did not address the to have that objective way to those delegations of power. >> water under the bridge. >> the way that it works right now there is a doctrine related to the chevron doctrine so i mentioned the chevron canons if the agency is given authority that is ambiguous but for the last 20 years and has been very important exception that they don't apply chevron but presume a non delegation of cases involving major questions there was the tobacco case in the late nineties invoked by the -- justice scalia and this is a critical doctrine in my view in the current administrative law world. i have written about it and they think it is quite important. if this did say major issue or a major question a call at the major rules doctrine

i think often of chief justice ren quist and justice scalia two jurists who helped bring about legal drok trin. when we mention those two giants we also must celebrate general meese. if course was responsible for many landmark policies and important decisions in his role at the white house and as attorney general and as attorney general more than perhaps any attorney general in modern history, he took an interest in constitutional theory and doctrine. he delivered a famous speech on july 9th, 1985, to the american bar association. it's a great speech and if i can give you an initial homework assignment tonight, it is this, go read general meese's july 9, 1985, speech. but let me give you highlights for now. his first paragraph greeted the members of the house of delegates of the aba. and he said, i know the sessions here will be very productive. now when i read that last week, very productive meetings of the aba house of delegates, i wondered, was that a laugh line, general meese? but general meese then proceeded to talk about how utterly unpredictable in his terms the supreme court

along with chief justice rehnquist and justice scalia. judge bourque and judge ginsberg and many others in the 1970's and 1980's. general meeselaid the ground work for a rule of law and law of rules. the notion as he put it in 1985, the judges should not be roaming at flarge the constitutional forest. so a few months ago i told john malcolm that i would talk about the separation of powers. i suppose that was was not a limiting legislation is of a topic for me. if you were in my judicial chambers, you would hear me saying to my clerks, every case is a separation of powers case. i believe that. who decides is the basic separation of powers question at the core of so many legal disputes. and the bread and butter of our docket on the d.c. circuit is interpretationor statutes. usually when deciding whether an agency exceeded the 12567 tori authority or limbs. that question of policing the balance between the legislative and executive branches, our administrative law docket nstitutes one of the most in american law. if you sat in our courtroom

being deadlocked 4-4 the year that justice scalia died. and the masterpiece cake shop involving a bakery owner charged by the colorado civil rights commission for refusing to decorate a specialty cake for a same-sex couple in connection with their wedding. both of those should be interesting as well. and whitford, a wisconsin case dealing with restricting. brent: you clerked for a justice. what intercontinental action will justice alito have? senator lee: i think neil gorsuch will be a coalition builder by virtue of the fact he is very smart and not afraid to express his opinions and very much in the mold of justice scalia in the sense his focus is on the text, the text of a statute being construed or the constitutional provision at issue. brent: you raised the masterpiece case and i saw you filed a friend of the court brief supporting the colorado baker. i wonder if you could walk us through your thought process and how you think judges should be balancing public accommodation law versus, you know, the religious rights of citizens and wha

scalia used to say -- then he is not a good judge.

other court nominations coming through. >> dana: chris scalia is coed tore of the new book called scaliapeaks which recounts some of his father's finest speeches. many fine speeches that were, i understand you had over 200 speeches. >> about 200. it was very difficult to choose which ones not to include. >> dana: so when you started looking at this and understanding the depth of the importance to your father about the institution of the supreme court and the judiciary, the judicial branch, what did you take away what he thought was so important about making sure this tradition continues. that we confirm these judges so they can do their job? >> well, my father often addressed what was basically a crisis in judicial appointments. he saw that basically the very controversial confirmation hearings and things like that as a manifestation of the fact that judges in general and the supreme court in particular had assumed not just judicial power, but political power. they were kind of expanding beyond the reach granted to them by the constitution. he thought one of the reasons it was so importa

christopher scalia joins me now. christopher, it's so nice to have you here.ge napolitano who has been a great admirer of your father's for some time. how wonderful to have this collection. those like judge napolitano and you and your family who knew your father best. i feel like we get the kinds of glimpse with this book like you had for so many years. >> i have to say also i learned a lot about my father reading through his speeches. there are experiences he had that were new to me and stories he shared that i hadn't heard before. kennedy: what stands out when you were editing and reading this for the first time. >> my coed tore, ed wit whalen i were surprised. he spoke to a lot of lawyers and legal organizations. but he spoke to a lot of other groups. he spoke at my high school graduation and the graduations my siblings. he spoke at college graduations, religious organizations. he spoke to an irish-american group, italian-american group, a couple of jewish events. he spoke at juilliard, the arts school in new york and at a turkey hunting convention in nashv

scalia used to say -- then he is not a good judge. wear red or blue. they wear black. those are the people the president is sending to be confirmed. many of them will be on the bench for a long time and have a deal to do with what kind of country we are going to have in the future. the top priority is tax reduction. contrary to what some have reported we are totally on this agenda to move america forward.

she's clerked for justice antonin scalia. impeccable credit he thinks dids. unfortunately some of my colleagues made usual not of professor barrett's of her qualifications, but instead of her catholic faith. i want to go with what senator mcconnell said, we do not have a religious test for an office in the united states of america period. it's frankly concerning that we're having this conversation. i applaud every who has spoken up in defense of religious freedom throughout this process, including notre dame's president reverend john jenkins who expressed deep concern with a line of questioning one of my colleagues pursued with professor barrett in her hearing before the judiciary committee. reverend jenkins put into words what i believe many of us were thinking when this colleague of ours said that dogma lives loudly within professor barrett and that's of concern. he wrote, quote, it is chilling to hear from a united states senator that this might now disqualify someone from service as a federal judge, unquote. dogma, he says, quote, lived loudly in the hear

justice scalia used to say if you're not uncomfortable occasionally with the outcome you reach, you're not a very good judge. justice gorsuch said, judges don't wear red they don't wear blue, they wear black. and so we are this week going to circuit subjects. chairman grassley has done an extraordinary job of processing these judges and getting them out on the senate calendar and therefore available for us to move forward. and that's what we intend to do beginning this week. we often hear our democratic friends talking about the war on women. three of the four judges that will be before the senate this week are women. we are going to lead off with professor amy barrett at notre dame who is a nominee for the seventh circuit. professor barrett says faith is important to her, her faith is important to her, she's spoken freely about it. she's allowed to do that in this country, by the way. but she also understands the role of a judge, which is to not let personal beliefs dictate how cases are decided. my colleagues on the judiciary committee are here today and will discuss professor barret

this came up before when justice scalia was alive. now it's back. >> this union dues case, everyone thought it would go against the unions. this is whether a union can require everybody in the union to pay their dues because they're negotiating for fair practices for everybody, even if a member doesn't want to pay the dues. they say they don't like the union, let's say. you're required to join the union in a lot of employers. if they can't collect dues from everyone, this could really hurt the unions. the california case two terms ago was dismissed because scalia died unexpectedly, and now they've granted another case from a different state on this same issue. and unless justice gorsuch votes in a way that surprises us, probably going to go against the unions. >> and lots of unions are watching this. the teachers union, for example. >> the teachers union in california is very concerned about this. >> another case real quickly, the travel ban, right? there were these challenges that were going to be heard. the court is now putting that

the janice case involves this issue that was before the supreme court before justice scalia's death and deals with the ability to collect union dues from state employees without their willingness to do so, against their will. and it should be an interesting issue, an issue that was left pen. deadlocked 4-4. and the masterpiece cake shop involving a bakery owner charged by the colorado civil rights commission for refusing to decorate a specialty cake for a same-sex couple in connection with their wedding. both of those should be interesting as well as will b. whitford a wisconsin case dealing with restricting. justice, rked for a what intercontinental action will justice sew lito -- justice elito have. ? >> i think neil core such will be a coalition builder by virtue of the fact he is very smart and not afraid to express his opinions and very much in the mold of justice scalia in the sense his focus is on the text, the text of a statute being construed or the constitutional provision in line. >> you raised the masterpiece case and i saw you filed a friend of the court brief supporting th

. >> justice scalia did exactly that in johnson and said the ordinary case and the force or injury is something that you're leaving to the judge's intuition. >> with respect to justice scalia's opinion and johnson or james or whatever case you may be speaking of was not about 16b and the decision of this court identified burglary as the classic example of what is covered. >> first getting back to the -- this court seeps to have drawn that line based on the severity of the consequences that followed the individual. that seems to me a tough line to draw. because i can easily imagine a demeanor who may have been convicted of a crime, for which the sentence is six months in jail or a $100 fine. you wouldn't trade places in the world for someone who was deported for this country or perhaps the civil forfeitture requirement. and lose his home. how sound is that line that we've drawn in the past. especially when the civil criminal divide is now a seven-part balancing test. not exclusive, so there may be more than seven factors as i ins it. i look at the text of constitution, always a good pl

fuera baleado en el verano. >> serÍa una locura liberar la venta de silenciadas dice scalias. >> sie mÉxico, enrique peÑa nieto. mientras que a las vÍctimas y s familiares y que ya habÍa tiempo para hablar de polÍticas, regresÓ contigo. >> lori montenegro gracias al regresar en noticiero telemundo sabrÁn del tipo de armas letales que utilizÓ para hacer su matanza, la masacre hacer cuestionar la seguridad en los hoteles y otros lugares pÚblico, regresamos. cindy no viene con nosotras, vámonos? no tiene vestido. ♪ así no vas a ningún lado. ♪ cindy? ♪ presentamos un nuevo crossover. el toyota c-hr. toyota. vayamos juntos. del entretenimiento queremos que todosantes los cuartos sean cuartos de tele. porque esos son los mejores cuartos... ...porque tienen tele. ¿y cuando no estamos en esos cuartos? no importa. tenemos nuestros shows aquí... cámbiate de cable a directv. obtén 4 habitaciones. con hd, dvr y todo el equipo incluido. por 25 dólares al mes. llama al 1.877.278.1288. >> los expertos no dudan que el agresor utilizÓ un rifle automÁtico la largo alcance capaz de disparar toda una d

supreme court antonin scalia is of the highest order. so, too, is her scholarship in the areas of federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation. amy barrett is going to make an outstanding federal circuit court judge. so, too, will ms. larsen, ms. eids and mr. bibas. i look forward to the senate confirming autumconfirming -- cf them next week. now, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: madam president, i have nine requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. mcconnell: i yield the floor.

and the problem in johnson with aca's residual claws according to justice scalia and the court was that there was no way to tell what that ordinary case was. >> again, with respect this court unanimously held that burglary is a classic example and it gave the reason why, which i think is helpful for answering this question more generally. and the court said that burglary by its nature in the course of committing the offense gives rise to risk that physical force will be used against the offense because the person will encounter someone else. so inherent in the nature of burglary is the risk that the burglar will encounter someone -- >> mr. need her. >> while the crime is being committed. >> if i might interrupt. i'm sorry. but this raises a question for me about the nature of our task here. it seems to me that one function of our word for vagueness doctrine is not just to ebb sure fair notice, i think you'd agree with that. >> yes. >> yeah. >> about immigration -- >> of course not. of course not in this case. right. but generally, the doctrine serves that function. >> yes. >> and it als

and looked like the court would rule against the unions after the oral argument and then justice scalia died and the a court couldn't decide the case so came out as 4-4, which means there's no actual ruling and no precedence. so this case gets. the the chance to decide that question, question they don'tt need to beside to because asking to overturn a precedent from 40 years ago. if they do overturn the precedent that it will be massive blow to the unions because it will prevent them from being able to take these fees from nonmembers for collective bargaining activities. this is not about political spending which nonmembers can opt out but the ability to take the money for the collective bargaining activities which the unions say if they can't take the money, the worker who aren't union member get a free right because the union is still representing them in negotiations, but they're not having to pay towards it. >> host: i should ask, we spent the first hour of the program talking quite a bit about guns and the tragedy in las vegas where more than 50 people were killed and 200 injured by

and the problem in johnson with acca's residual clause, according to justice scalia and the court, was that there was no way to tell what that ordinary case was. mr. kneedler: again, with respect, this court, in leocal, unanimously held that burglary is a classic example, and it gave the reason why, which i think is helpful for answering this question more generally. and the court said that -- that burglary, by its nature, in the course of commission -- committing the offense, gives rise to a risk that physical force would be used during the offense because the person will encounter someone else. so built in inherent in the nature of burglary is the risk that the burglar will encounter someone while the crime is being committed. justice gorsuch: well, mr. kneedler, if i might interrupt, i'm sorry, but this raises a question for me about the nature of our task here. it seems to me that one function of -- of our void-for-vagueness doctrine is not just to ensure fair notice, procedural due process -- i think you'd agree with that. mr. kneedler: yes, but the notice -- justice gorsuch: yes.

. >> with respect, justice scalia is opinion in johnson were james or whatever case you may be speaking of, it was not about a unanimous decision of this court written by chief justice rehnquist identified it as a classic example of what is covered by -- >> mr. kneedler, may ask you couple of questions? first back to the standard of review and distinction between criminal and civil. this court seems to have drawn that line based on the severity of the consequences that follow to the individual but that seems to me to be a tough line to draw because i can easily imagine it may be convicted of a crime for which the sentence is six months in jail or a $100 fine and you would not trade places in the world with someone who is deported from this country or the subject of a civil forfeiture requirement and who loses his home. so how sound is that line that we have drawn the need past, especially when me civil pool with itself is balancing tasks. not exclusively, there may be more than seven factors as i understand it. i look at the text as a good place to start. the due process speaks of loss

. >> they took this up a couple years ago justice -- right before justice scalia died. but then he died and suddenly the court could not decide the case it was four / four which means there was no actual ruling or a precedent set this is the chance to decide this question which actually they need to but if they do decide to overturn the of president to prevent them from to take the fees from nonmembers.t >> the nonmembers can do that already for the collective bargaining m activity to say then the workers who were not unionhe members get a free ride because they're still representing them in the negotiations. >> host: we spend the first hour talking about guns and the tragedy of las vegas where more than 50 killed and 500 injured so many gun cases?. >> guest: not yet but it is possible they could. in general they don't have much to say in the gun rights debate, if they choose to there are a couplee of cases and also another case from maryland and has been reluctant to weigh in on the gun rights in 2008 that was the big decision for the individual rights to bear arms and

circuit court of appeals and for judge scalia on the supreme court. she has experience in private practice and many years as a law professor teaching constitutional law, federal courts, and statutory interpretation among others. and she was appointed by chief justice john roberts to sit on the advisory committee on federal rules of appellate procedure where she served for six years. her nomination has also received wide support. for example, in a letter to the judiciary committee, a bipartisan group of law professors encouraged the committee to confirm her nomination saying that professor barrett, quote, enjoys wide respect for her careful work, fair minded disposition and personal integrity. end of quote. and her colleagues at notre dame described her with this quote. as a model of the fair, impartial and sympathetic judge. despite this, all the democratic members of the judiciary committee voted against her nomination in committee, and i suspect most of the minority will vote against her confirmation later today. this, of course, is ashame and it do

circuit and then justice scalia. these prestigious clerkships gave her the opportunity to work closely with two giants of the legal field. today she is a respected professor at the university of notre dame whereby the way she was honored as a distinguished professor of the year, twice. or this or barrett will bring a wealth of knowledge to the bench. professor barrett happens to be a catholic. her faith is important to her. she has spoken freely about it and the impact on her life but she also understands the role of the judge which is not to let personal beliefs dictate how cases are decided. unbelievably some on the political left including some of our democratic colleagues are criticizing her because in a lawsuit she wrote a law journal article that argued just that. her co-author of the article john garvey is now president of catholic university. he recently wrote the following. amy amy barrett allow professor of notre dame was grilled on wednesday by democrats on the senate judiciary committee about an article s

i appointed and confirmed a supreme court justice of the late great justice antonin scalia. the newest member of the supreme court, justice neil gorsuch should. [applause] [applause] to protect the unborn i have reinstated a policy first put in place by president ronald reagan. the mexico city policy. [applause] to protect religious liberty including protecting groups like this one i signed a new executive action and a beautiful ceremony at the white house on our national day of prayer. [applause] we today we made it official. [applause] among many historic steps, the executive order followed through on one of my most important campaign promises to so many of you. to prevent the for brenda's johnson amendment from interfering with your first amendment rights. [applause] we will not allow government to censor sermons or target our pastors, our ministers, our rabbis. these are the people we want to hear from. they're not going to be silenced any longer. [applause] just last week based on executive action, the department of justice issued a new guidance to federal agencies to e

in 2014, the court reinforced that ruling and a decision written by an toin scalia, the godfather of conservative awyers all across this contry, which we iterated the fact that greenhouse gases emit interested power plants are -- emitted from power plants are subject to the clean air act. unfortunately, we see yesterday and today, the e.p.a. administrator is just that tely striking down important advance in terms of protecting the public health of this country and putting nothing in place. there is no alternative that mr. pruitt is out there in terms of trying to get this on ry to move forward clean power. it's unfortunate as the international energy agency announced this morning, the solar energy production for the irst time ever now surpasses any other form of power production in the world. and the same thing is happening here in the u.s. because of the renewable energy tax credits. in my state of connecticut, renewable energy solar panel jobs far exceed any other power production jobs in the state. we're seeing an incredible proliferation of people who are installing panels in the

as i looked down, running out of the court, i could see it was authored by justice antonin scalia.r case. back in 2008, it took a very important step same basically there is an individual right for you to own guns. d.c. is where the case came from. they had some really restrictive stuff that basically -- you can have a gun but had to have locks and you couldn't handle it this way or that way. the court found it basically amounted to a band and that was not cool. this court, the highest court in the country, there is a second amendment right for you to own a gun. >> brian: true. but a lot of people want to restrict that right and do things like what we have done before and say an assault weapon ban. how does that work and where did it go? >> it's not without restrictions. even justice scalia who was a big hunter and second amendment proponent himself, even he said yes, there can be reasonable restrictions on this. it would be interesting to see what he would think of this current day. there've been some follow-up cases that have dealt with some of these other issues. a lot of people

after scalia's death in 2016 it seemed the elk was destined to become homeless so gorsuch kept it as in baltimore had to be evacuated because of the smell of pumpkin spice. the officials say the aroma began on the third floor of the crystal ray jesuit high school and engulfed the students and the air and teachers and so they had to be evacuated. the fire department was called source of the smell was located and turned out to be a pumpkin spice air freshener. >>> and finally a radar in colorado made an incredible detection on tuesday. a 70-mile wide butterfly migration wow. at first the meteorologist thought it was a flock of birds. turns out it was a swarm of beautiful butterflies. isn't that incredible, al? >> wow. but anything that's a swarm, i don't know how i feel about that. >> it's butterflies. it's just beauty. >> i wish that the elk -- what's his name jerome. >> leroy. [laughter] >> i wish that he would be buried with the rest of his body wherever it is. that's just my two cents. >> okay. >> those creep me out. >> leroy has a forever home now in neil gorsuch's office. >> okay

justice scalia said it's the word of the statute rather than the concerns of the legislators that tried interpretation of the statute. >> there have been legislative acts in response to circuit court decisions, but they've been explicit and indicating their disagreement with those decisions, and changing the law in response to those decisions. i take it in this case your argument is that there's a mention of any of the relevant circuit court decisions, and to the extent that the court of appeals decisions are mentioned, there are about different issues and that the purpose of the 1991 amendments was to expand the scope of protection protectionn to contracting. that's the language, isn't? >> is exactly right. >> could you address the change of position you have seen over the course of the years? >> certainly, your honor. we took a a fresh look at the issue much as the court did, much as chief judge concurrence in the christiansen case did we took a new look at that in light in part of the supreme court's guidance over the past 17 years, and in part based on our conversation with stakehol

remembering the late supreme court justice anthony scalia.g store shelves nationwide. dozens of the best speeches most of which have never been published. who wrote the introduction for this book and were also co- editor. i got to read a lot of speeches. some of which i have read but there was just a great experience in getting to hear his voice again. a very moving experience. in the book includes a forward. how do they describe that professional relationship. they did not share many opinions politically or legally but they were very good friends outside of the courtroom and they worked well together in the court itself. they would help each other out with drafts of their opinions. even if they disagreed with the arguments they were there as colleagues and friends to make each other better at what they did. socially they like to spending time with each other. your father was known as a real conservative who loved to argue but he was also famously funny on the bench. do you have a favorite memory of your father. he was very funny. i can't thi

here's nothing in the language that will get threw and that was justice scalia's point. congress may not have been thinking about that fact pattern but it's covered by the text. but in this context on the other hand, sex discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination have always been understood not just in terms of the subject of the intent of congress but in terms of ordinary english asthe fact that every court for 50 confirmed by years tells held it, the eeoc held it for 50 years. and the eeoc, by the way -- >> the landscape changes in terms of the law, right? marriage is different now. >> 20 years, your honor. after price waterhouse -- >> why can't the same be said about sexual orientation? the landscape has changed. >> even after price waterhouse and even after oncale in 1996, every court in the country for another 20 years said that including the eeoc. the eeoc had cases explaining that oncale didn't change their position. i would urge you to read hat. those eeoc opinions are not any differently reasoned than the court opinions from 179 that we cited that we s