scalia. justice ginsburg: yes. e: justice breyer was on with me at another forum in new york last week and he said i miss the spirit of justice scalia and the debates with justice scalia. i assume you feel the same way. justice sotomayor: he made us laugh. charlie: that is what it was. justice sotomayor: and he made us think. he challenged us to think. those are ingredients for interesting conversation and for lively discussion. charlie: you once said to me you both loved opera. but you said he could sing better than you. justice ginsburg: i can't sing at all. [laughter] charlie: but they are writing lines for you in the opera that you will perform in when? when's it coming up? justice ginsburg: november 12. it is a speaking part. [laughter] justice ginsburg: there is an opera. "scalia ginsburg." it is a comic opera, of course. [laughter] ginsburg: but the composer, librettist who wrote it, tried to say in a nutshell what is the difference between the two of us? it opens with scalia's rage aria. the musicians, you k

scalia ginsburg. it is a comic opera, of course.composer, he tried to say in and a nutshell what is the difference between the two of us? it opens with scalia's rage aria. the rage aria is this. the justices are blind. how can they possibly spout this? the constitution says absolutely nothing about this. he is searching for bright light solutions to problems that don't have easy answers. but the great thing about our constitution is that like our society, it can evolve. so that sets up -- [laughter] justice ginsberg: then we have a wonderful duet at the end. [laughter] justice ginsberg: we are different, we are one. different in the way we approach the interpretation of legal text, but one in our reverence for the constitution and the court. charlie: one thing justice scalia said, it probably wasn't the best idea that how many supreme court justices came from harvard or yale. that wasn't necessarily a good idea for the supreme court. do you agree with that? and most of them had judicial experience at court of appeals level. justice

scalia ginsburg t is a-- op ra, of course but the composer who wrote scaltia ginsburg tried to say in a nutshell what is the difference between the two of us. so it opens with scalia's rage aria, the music, a rage aria typical of handel and the rage aria is, the justices are blind. how can they possibly-- the constitution says absolutely nothing about this. and i say that he is searching for bright line solutions to problems that don't have easy answersment but the great thing about our constitution is that like our society, it can evolve. so that sets up the-- and then we have a wonderful duet at the end. it says we are different, we are one, different in the way we approach the interpretation of the-- but one in our reference for the constitution and the court. >> rose: one thing justice scalia i think said was that you know, it probably wasn't the best idea that how many supreme court justices came from either harvard or yale, that that was not necessarily a gooded where for the supreme court. do you agree with that? >> and most of them had judicial experience at the court of appea

justice scalia answered quickly and distinctly, ruth bader ginsburg. and within days, the president chose me. among justice scalia's many talents, he was a discerning shopper. together in 1994, our driver took us to friend's carpet shop, one rug after another was tossed on the floor, leaving me with no clue which to chose. he pointed to one he thought maureen would like for their beach house in north carolina. i picked the same design in a different color. it has worn very well. once asked how we could be friends given our disagreement on lots of things, justice scalia answered, i attack ideas, i don't attack people. some very good people have some very bad ideas. [laughter] and if you can't separate the two, you've got to get another day job. you don't want to be a judge, at least not a judge on a multimember panel. well-known illustration, justice scalia was very fond of justice brenen, as justice brennan was of justice scalia. i will miss the challenges and the laughter he provoked, his pungent, eminently quotable opinions so clearly stated that his

justice scalia answered quickly and distinctly, ruth bader ginsburg. [applause] and within days, the president chose me. [laughter] among justice scalia's many talents, he was a discerning shopper. together in 1994, our driver took us to a carpet shop, one rug after another was tossed on the floor, leaving me with no clue which to chose. he pointed to one he thought maureen would like for their beach house in north carolina. i picked the same design in a different color. it has worn very well. once asked how we could be friends given our disagreement on lots of things, justice scalia answered, i attack ideas, i don't attack people. some very good people have some very bad ideas. [laughter] and if you can't separate the two, you've got to get another day job. you don't want to be a judge, at least not a judge on a multimember panel. well-known illustration. justice scalia was very fond of justice brenen, as justice brennan was of justice scalia. i will miss the challenges and the laughter he provoked, his pungent, eminently quotable opinions so clearly s

court in the flip was justice thomas who often agrees with justice scalia but scalia was in dissent along with his justice ginsburg in that case but they held that the swap was okay for identification purposes although in that particular case the police didn't know who their suspect was that their assertion was they were doing it for that reason. it did raise the question we can find out not just the person's identity but his whole genetic history teacher and so on. the police had we are not looking out at that in the court accepted that but perhaps it'll be the case in the future where the police go further in the question is whether they can or not. that may come up as well and the courts have upheld aerial surveillance in people's backyards. that's pre-drone and now everyone can get a remote-control device and fly over someone's backyard to see what's going on. maybe that will be a question that arises at some point. let me ask you, believe it or not we have 30 more minutes. we have 10 amendments and we will talk about some. the 2nd amendment is one of the amendments that until very recently did not have an aut

scalia. should justice kennedy or either of the court's oldest liberals, ruth bader ginsburg or stephen breyer, retire, trump could change the court for a generation by creating a 6-3 conservative majority for the first time since the 1930s. to be sure, it's not clear sailing for trump's agenda. a dozen returning republican senators, roughly one in four, rejected or never endorsed trump's presidential bid, and they may push back on some of his nominees and proposals. still, it's a striking measure of what has changed that a republican who won the two biggest landslides in his party's history could change far to office by so narrow aedsed margin has the potential to change so much more. >> this is pbs newshour weekend, saturday. >> stewart: the 114th session of congress wrapped up early this morning with the government averting a shutdown when the senate sent a stop-gap spending bill to president obama. the bill passed after senate democrats ended their showdown with republicans over expiring healthcare benefits for coal miners just before midnight. democrats had wanted those benefits to last t

but scalia was in the dissent along with justice ginsburg in that case. they held that the swab is okay for identification purposes, although in that particular case the police really did know who their suspect was, but their assertion was they were doing it for that reason. but it did raise this question of we can find out not just the person's identity, but his whole genetic history, future and so on. police said we're not looking at that, and the court accepted that. perhaps there'll be a case in the future where authorities go further and the question of whether they can or not. i guess that may come up as well, the courts have upheld warrantless aerial surveillance of looking in people's backyards. that's pre-drone. now that everyone can get a remote-controlled device and fly it over someone's backyard to see what's going on, maybe that will be a question that arises at some point. let me ask -- believe it or not we've got, we've got 30 more minutes, but i want to keep moving along on these ten amendments. you know, the second amendment one amendment

scalia, will not necessarily change the balance on abortion. but the real question looking forward is will he get more appointments? ruth bader ginsburg old. stephen breyer, 78 years old. all three are supporters of abortion rights and they may not serve for the full four years of donald trump's tenure. if he has the chance to replace them, then abortion rights -- the calculus will very likely change in the united states. >> we did see the successful blocking of president obama's pick, garland, is there a possibility here that democrats could use the same type of measures despite the fact that they're not in power to try to block some of these possible appointments? >> it's much, much harder without a majority. it's easy with a majority. one of the things that comes with controlling the majority of the senate is control of the agenda. so when mitch mcconnell said i will not bring merit garland up for a vote, that was the end of the story. now the problem for the democrats is they don't have a majority. now they have 48 seats, which is a lot of seats. certainly they can use a lot of delaying tactics. the filibuster still exists for sup

someone like anthony scalia, excuse me, someone like kennedy on the court, who has really been pro abortion, or at least a swing vote. he'll be 80. i would look at ruth bader ginsburging on the mix of the court, it could change. the law is what the supreme court says it is as the end of the day. we could point to precedent. ultimately, if the course reverses that long term, we could see a major shift. i think that's what emboldening states like ohio opinion. >> there is one of the most restrictive. banning it at the moment a heart beat is detected is at about six weeks. do you see other states falling suit? >> we have seen this before. in arkansas, they tried to pass such a measure. it was rejected as unconstitutional. as we saw in the piece, north dakota attempted the same thing. gn that was rejected, too. conservative justices were there, but it didn't make to it the supreme court level. justices said, you know what, the law is what it the. we're bound to follow precedent, regardless of our personal views. but again, i think, ultimately, this ohio bill, i do believe, as it goes through the channels will be declard unconstitutional, if the governor science it and